Religion needs love.
Love doesn't need religion.

God needs love.
Love doesn't need God.

----------------------

Create.

cre·ate
/krēˈāt/

verb

bring (something) into existence.
"he created a thirty-acre lake"

synonyms: generate, produce, design, make, fabricate, fashion, manufacture, build, construct, erect, do, turn out;

----------------------
Job Description of an Artist. Fine artists use different techniques to create art, such as weaving, painting, glass blowing, or sculpting. They strive to develop new methods or ideas for making art. ... Only the most successful fine artist is able to support themselves from their art work.

"The bleeding hearts and artists
Make their stand" -Pink Floyd

What do real scientists say?
...the one's he worked with all said Lindzen is totally wrong, and his views are not held by the vast, VAST majority of other scientists that actually work in climatology. He's a political shill now, working for 'conservative think tanks' to deny climate change.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Note, his graph at the beginning that appears to show no significant rise because as usual they start in late 97-98, a super hot El Nino year (the hottest on record) typically used as a starting point to pretend that temperatures aren't rising as fast as they are. Start at any other time to see how different the results are. This graph contains the hottest 15 years in recorded history over a period of the last 19 years. That's pretty telling by itself.

1)the climate is always changing-but according to natural cycles, we should be in a cooling period, not a warming period.
2)so at least in his mind, everyone agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming...that's better than most deniers.
3)"little ice age"-During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550 (it was not caused by low CO2 levels), and CO2 is produced more in warmer temperatures than cold, so starting shortly after then you can claim the CO2 levels have been rising since well before the industrial revolution...which cherry picked like that may be technically true but is again misleading by starting at an unusually low level following a low level solar period, but the level of that rise has consistently risen since the industrial revolution, and is incredibly higher than any natural mass releases besides rare massive super volcano eruptions that caused mass extinction events.
4) just plain not true, and not agreed on by scientists.
5)What they actually said-
Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

Confident prediction of future weather is not possible, weather predictions are based on statistical probabilities too. Because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they're wrong, useless, or should be ignored until they're 100% right every time. More funding for more study will improve the predictions consistently, but we are intentionally defunding them instead.

Religion channel? As in the religion of climate change denial? That's not what that channel is.
Philosophy channel? What?
Learn channel, only if the viewer looks into his BS elsewhere to learn the truth.
Lies, yep...controversy, yep....politics, yep....conspiracy,OK. His ilk are steeped in those, but you left out money, the driving force for all the deniers controversial, political lies and crazy conspiracy theories. ;-)

Congratulations! Your video, A New Method for training a cat to walk on a leash, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 15 Badge!

Your video, A New Method for training a cat to walk on a leash: Introduc, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

New method? Isn't this the only method?

I'm confused. They imply a 3 day trip to mars is possible, but is that at the maximum speed photonic propulsion can deliver, or do they include the acceleration and deceleration times? As I understood it, photonic propulsion can deliver extreme speeds, but only at a minimal acceleration. That means that maximum speed is much faster, but accelerating to that speed takes immensely longer, and the same goes for deceleration. Maybe they've invented a new method I've not heard of with much higher acceleration, but that's not really mentioned in the video.
They actually seem to imply they plan to use the same tech as cyclotrons, which means essentially a huge rail gun (and that's not photonic propulsion BTW, it's magnetic). Again, the amount of propulsion is miniscule, but the top speed is high with that method. Yes, you can expel matter at near speed of light, but only in tiny amounts and using huge amounts of energy.
Yes, it may take 10 minutes to achieve 30% the speed of light....with single molecules or atoms.
There are MANY reasons why we can't do this at macro sizes. Just look at the size of a cyclotron needed to accelerate an atom to those relativistic speeds. Now think about sizing that up to accelerate enough matter to move a spaceship instead of a single atom and it's likely near the size of the entire planet. We won't be building a cyclotron that size ever, nor will we likely ever shrink the accelerators to a size where they can fit inside a spaceship to shoot trillions of atoms out like a light speed gun. They are just too big and use too much power. Maybe once fusion is perfected and miniaturization also perfected it could work for interstellar travel, but never for local space travel, the acceleration levels are just too small.
Also, it seems solar sails give the same or better acceleration to the same top speeds without the impossible technology....but they don't work too well for stopping except at other stars.

Congratulations! Your video, New Method For Making Wood Corners For Drawers Or Boxes, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 24 Badge!

Your video, New Method For Making Wood Corners For Drawers Or Boxes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

And you're pretty much shoving your hand in there along with that phone book? I bet he accidentally discovers a new method for hair removal while he's shredding phone books.

Guillotine: (per wiki) "...as the French Revolution progressed, the National Assembly researched a new method to be used on all condemned people regardless of class. Their concerns contributed to the idea that the purpose of capital punishment was simply to end life rather than to inflict pain."

"The machine was successful as it was considered a humane form of execution,"

...and all these years later and all the current methods (chair,shots, etc) are still no better than the Guillotine. Zero progress

Mann was the original author of the hockey stick graph. Go use google scholar and follow the actual published scientific journals related to his work. His most recent re-publication of his own even includes a new method that he states within his paper as being the method that HE holds as the most confident. It shows past global temperatures exceeding current levels twice over the last 2k years.

More over, statisticians, with zero agenda in anything, have absolutely murdered his earlier work, most punishingly observing a complete absence of any manner of measure for margins of error. The recommend numerous improvements and provide examples.

Expect more work on this to change the picture and anyone smugly calling it all over to be utterly ignorant of what science in fact is. Meanwhile, even the original authors like Mann are actively working on improved methods that ARE painting a less terrifying picture than the original hockey stick.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. Though I guess by the way you've framed your questions you think I'm insane. The success rate of the balloon method is not bad. And getting two rovers down from a single launch is also something that's been successful. I don't think it's that unreasonable to consider that two rovers like Spirit and Opportunity could carry complementary gear, meet up and connect.

You're right that we don't send landers to Mars very often - that's why it's important to build on successful technologies with a proven track record of success to maximise our chances.

Thanks for the link - I've reviewed a lot of this stuff too though I appreciate more information even if it is delivered with a heavy dose of condescension.

Egos and personalities involved in science? Why would I ever think that - everything we do or say or write comes from a completely rational base right?

>> ^Fletch:

@dag

Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.

Are humans supposed to bounce across the surface in a balloon when/if we ever send a manned mission? Do you think that success or failure of this landing precludes learning anything from it? We don't get to send landers to Mars very often, so the opportunity for testing new procedures and techniques has to be taken when it can. Every little thing is done for a reason. If you think it's the result of "personalities and nerd egos", there are hundreds of books, TV specials, and documentaries out there that detail just about everything NASA has ever done, from inception to success or failure, as well as the people and personalities involved, that I think will change your mind. Here's a good place to start. Great book.

I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?

Assuming you are serious...
The success rate of Mars missions is not good. On top of that are budget and launch window considerations. Are you really suggesting that TWO separate pieces be launched, have them both fly 150 million miles to Mars, enter orbit, BOTH successfully land (and land close enough they can find each other), find each other, and then connect somehow to make one rover just so they can use ballons? Really? Talk about complicated... It would take an incredibly huge nerd ego to even ATTEMPT to sell that idea. Even a single launch with two pieces on board would rely on the success of two completely separate and complicated landings and a meet-up before the rover mission could even begin. This also means the weight of each half of the rover would have to be reduced so two separate landing systems can be included. Less room for instruments. Less science. Anyhoo, this system is not so different from the previous rovers. They weren't just dropped from a parachute. The atmosphere is too thin for a parachute alone. RAD (rocket assisted descent) motors brought the rovers to a near dead stop about 50 feet above the surface and they were released. This landing also calls for more precision, as the landing zone is much more specific.

@dag

Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.

Are humans supposed to bounce across the surface in a balloon when/if we ever send a manned mission? Do you think that success or failure of this landing precludes learning anything from it? We don't get to send landers to Mars very often, so the opportunity for testing new procedures and techniques has to be taken when it can. Every little thing is done for a reason. If you think it's the result of "personalities and nerd egos", there are hundreds of books, TV specials, and documentaries out there that detail just about everything NASA has ever done, from inception to success or failure, as well as the people and personalities involved, that I think will change your mind. Here's a good place to start. Great book.

I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?

Assuming you are serious...

The success rate of Mars missions is not good. On top of that are budget and launch window considerations. Are you really suggesting that TWO separate pieces be launched, have them both fly 150 million miles to Mars, enter orbit, BOTH successfully land (and land close enough they can find each other), find each other, and then connect somehow to make one rover just so they can use ballons? Really? Talk about complicated... It would take an incredibly huge nerd ego to even ATTEMPT to sell that idea. Even a single launch with two pieces on board would rely on the success of two completely separate and complicated landings and a meet-up before the rover mission could even begin. This also means the weight of each half of the rover would have to be reduced so two separate landing systems can be included. Less room for instruments. Less science. Anyhoo, this system is not so different from the previous rovers. They weren't just dropped from a parachute. The atmosphere is too thin for a parachute alone. RAD (rocket assisted descent) motors brought the rovers to a near dead stop about 50 feet above the surface and they were released. This landing also calls for more precision, as the landing zone is much more specific.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I've been following this for a while - and I'm seriously rooting for this mission, but count me as one of the people who thinks this is crazy, hubristic and over-engineered with too many points of failure.

Mars is a graveyard of failed missions. The most successful method of getting a rover on Mars to date has been the bouncing cushion balls method. Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.

I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?

If this mission succeeds, I promise to post a Sift Talk post saying sorry for being a dick about this mission and lacking faith in our scientists. *promote.

Thank you for the promote Dag!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

If the mission is a success, I will submit willingly. >> ^deathcow:

>> ^dag:
I've been following this for a while - and I'm seriously rooting for this mission, but count me as one of the people who thinks this is crazy, hubristic and over-engineered with too many points of failure.
Mars is a graveyard of failed missions. The most successful method of getting a rover on Mars to date has been the bouncing cushion balls method. Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.
I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?
If this mission succeeds, I promise to post a Sift Talk post saying sorry for being a dick about this mission and lacking faith in our scientists. promote.


I hope they send two JPL scientists over to kick your ass for this little morale building exercise. They do it too.. I've heard Sagan was actually killed while kicking ass. For planetary science.