"it will just take a long time to get there"
How long have you got ?
Even if you can manage 10000 km/sec it will take ~120 years and you'll need >5E18 joules to accelerate to that speed in even a 100 tonne ship
2677 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Mar 2010
chlorine derived from CFCs.
The actual reaction is atomic chlorine + O3 -> chlorine monoxide and oxygen.
Unfortunately chlorine monoxide can react with oxygen atoms of which there are some in the upper atmosphere to regenerate chlorine atoms to perpetuate the cycle.
ClO + O -> O2 + Cl
A Non-fluorine containing material such as carbon tetrachloride is also an ozone destroyer.
/^v.+b$/i
Fuel cells (although AFAIK not chocolate powered ones)
Seriously it's just a device to show how poor the energy density of batteries is compared with (say) the equivalent weight of hydrocarbon. It's only the same as electric car range 50 miles/ diesel car 600 miles
From LibreOffice help
"If you decide to enter a number directly as a text string, enter an apostrophe (') first. For example, for years in column headings, you can enter '1999, '2000 and '2001. The apostrophe is not visible in the cell, it only indicates that the entry is to be recognised as text and not as a number."
and it works for me !
the greenhouse effect increases HEAT retention but heat != temperature. For example the same amount of energy might raise a cubic meter of air by x degrees or a cubic meter of water by y degrees depending on the Specific Heat of the materials involved. The more telling example is that ice at 0C will not change in temperature until sufficient heat has been added to melt the ice.
It just shows how complicated a picture it all is. It looks like it is difficult to calculate the balance of heat in v. heat out. Approximating the resultant temperature change must be a nightmare.
From General Relativity mass/energy bends spacetime - anything moving in spacetime follows the bend.
It was the first test of General Relativity.
The more mundane one happens everyday as GPS clocks are set to correct for various time mangling effects due to velocity/gravity
Quite a lot of people would have thought it was flat, or more like not thought about it at all. They were more concerned with witches, demons and such.
Any sailor who had left the sight of land and returned and anyone who had observed them would have a fairly good idea that it wasn't flat, as would many well-read people.
Any decent scientist will tell you that every theory is provisional and any hard negative evidence is likely to be its death-knell.
However Relativity isn't at that point - all tests show agreement. No rival theory matches it for the depth or quality of its experimental verification
Low level are necessary but high levels are lethal - the argument is about the middle ground.and it's possible consequences.
It's rather like saying iron is a good thing full stop but not mentioning that swords, guns and tanks are built from it
you will know that although many areas of science have unknowns and therefore contain possibilities other areas are more constrained by extensive experimental evidence.
So Special Relativity gives the kinetic energy of an object moving at high speed which for the sort of velocity necessary for even a forty year trip to the nearest star is absolutely colossal and that's per tonne. Plasma drive or not that energy is needed and the mass of fuel/engine also needs colossal energy to accelerate it.
Any conjecture about FTL/warp rightly is in the realms of SF as there isn't a jot of evidence and only highly dubious theories.
SF is great, the moon landings were great (I was 18 at the time ) but too many people seem to think ANYTHING is possible. It isn't !
just release it to the atmosphere.
It's not that CO2 doesn't get converted to carbohydrates in plants it's the RATE of CO2 production that's the problem with the current use of fossil fuels. Not enough growing area to absorb it all. Putting it into a greenhouse only helps a little if at all and you need to make the glass.
At 0.99C the relativistic kinetic energy is ~5E20 J PER TONNE - that's a staggering amount of energy. So you need (at least) that to accelerate to 0.99C and then again to decelerate.
All this assumes a propulsion system that is efficient and isn't totally burdened by it's own mass