Easy Questions?

[Griffin NoName]

I can see many uses for Swato's idea. I bet if he put a page up on the internet for donations he would get some !

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

After the Byzantine paper, I'm sure he would be able to write a very compelling case for donations.

[beagle]

Just market it as a bottomless pit in which to throw money. In advertising honesty always carries the element of surprise.

[Griffin NoName]

But it wouldn't be bottomless. Someone would have to stand above/below with a bucket?

[beagle]

Lucky them. Catching pound coins at 17,000MPH. I think a plastic bucket might be out of the question...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

If you leave it open there is no vacuum and the air's density will raise to very high levels preventing any coin to move faster than it would sink on water. The bucket would have to withstand the pressure, though.

[beagle]

Swato originally said no air, but that was before the financial implications sunk in. Perhaps he'll let us tweak the spec now.  Assuming he's not already busy digging.

[Griffin NoName]

1) Why was it only mammals that evolved brains that do the sorts of things ours do and which we believe mark us out as the highest beings?

2) If other earth beings have evolved brains that do the sorts of things ours do then what are they and where are they? 

[Aggie]

I think birds have evolved rather convergently with mammals, despite coming from a rather different branch of the base stock, and probably for the same original reason - eating bugs.

Other animal phyla / classes tend to either not overly developed the 'intelligence' bit (i.e. brains that do the sorts of things ours do) or do not typically exhibit the same degree of sociality / gregariousness that makes them people-ish.

I've had a pet beta with enough of a personality to wonder whether we couldn't breed intelligence / peopleness into animals that do not typically show it.

[Swatopluk]

We cannot be sure about some species of dinosaur (although they are now considered to be mammal like reptiles).
Cephalopods show huge potential but they are currently too shortlived (surprisingly the huge calmars seem to have a life span of significantly less than a decade).
One things seems to be clear: brains consume lots of energy, so only creatures with a strong and constant metabolism have a chance. Also only rapacious creatures seem to have the incentive.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

To my knowledge dinosaurs = birds.
---
The development of intelligence if definitively convergent and seems to relate to a combination of physical (size & physiology) and environmental factors, under those conditions from cephalopods to birds (corvids and parrots) to mammals (elephants, cetaceans, primates) we see some common themes involving language, gregariousness and abstract reasoning, with that last one apparently more evolved in us.

In our specific case there seems to be a double jump, primates required stereo vision and some level of intelligence to deal with their movement over the branches, great apes due to size have to spend more time on the ground where they are more vulnerable, and apparently we had to deal with a significant change in habitat in Africa from jungle to savanna which left us even more exposed to predators. It is suggested that the pressure selected the smartest individuals making an already intelligent animal smarter.

It is perfectly plausible that if any of the species from the groups named above is forced through an equivalent kind of selection in their environment they will make the second jump to a higher abstract and numeric reasoning.

Still physiology plays a role, cetaceans seem to have a very high intelligence but their physiology prevent them from "building things" which not only is one of our poor ways to measure intelligence, but also creates a pressure on the abstract reasoning side. In the case of cephalopods as Swato pointed out their lifespan is particularly short making difficult a second jump. For elephants is hard to determine if their size is hindrance on the process or not.

My perspective is that depending on changes on the environment the birds in the group and the primates have better chances of making the jump, but it is a complete conjecture on my part. 

[Griffin NoName]

Hmmm. The Octopus seems to have become a tool user.

[youtube=425,350]1DoWdHOtlrk[/youtube]

[Swatopluk]

If there will ever be human (bodily) exploration beyond the solar system there is a need for effective propulsion systems (i.e. better than chemical rocket drives).
One standard idea is to use particle accelerators. Usually depicted are long linear accelerators for heavy ions. But however long they can be built the actual acceleration time will be short because the particle can only run along once. Current large particle accelerators on Earth are usually circular in order to give the particles extra speed with every cycle. If now such a circular device would be attached to a linear one, would this increase the thrust of the spaceship drive because the particles leave the ship at higher speed (=momentum) or would only the acceleration in the linear part count because the circular part does not add lateral momentum but only angular momentum?
If the circular part does not add momentum by itself in the Newtonian sense, would it have an effect because it 'adds mass' through relativistic effects, i.e. making the particles heavier before the enter they linear accelerator (while on the other hand decreasing the acceleration time because a faster particle would spend less time in the linear part)?

[beagle]

My immediate guess reaction (with some provisos) is that it counts.

I think you would have to have to have two independent contra-rotating cyclotrons with parallel, or at least in the same general direction, exit accelerators to avoid:

1   Creating a giant Catherine wheel.

or

2   Needing to waste fuel in side thrusters to inhibit rotation caused by N3.

Without attempting to do the maths the reason I think it must count is that from a  long distance what you see is two beams of high speed particles heading one way, so Conservation of Momentum says that (whatever the internal detail of the system) something with equal momentum must be going the other.

The second proviso is to do with the accelerating fields. Fields also carry energy and momentum, and if you are chucking out charged particles of sufficient bulk to move a space ship then you might not be able to assume the accelerating fields are symmetric, carrying small momentum compared to the particles, and unperturbed by the particles passing.

They might be radiating energy and momentum asymmetrically  into space, and it is the combined momentums of particles, field and spaceship that have to add up.

P.S.  You also have to lose the other charge pairs of the particles.
I'm assuming you're dumping them over the side at low velocity, or
using the +ves in one cyclotron and the -ves in the other
(might be tricky finding exact same mass charge pairs; Could put
an unbearable strain on the Dilithium crystals).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Sounds like two synchronized particle accelerating 'coils' doing the dirty work. I wonder how light and powerful something like that could be made to make sense as propulsion. Considering the staggering energy requirements of such a drive I wonder if more conventional means (like a water drive) won't be more energy efficient at least. Current ion drives have barely the lift of a piece of paper without relativistic speeds (290.000 m/s on VASIMR), precisely because the faster you push a particle the increment in energy input follows relativistic equations. I doubt the sweet spot will move towards relativistic speeds any time soon, but I have to admit that the idea is quite interesting.