• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Jestblaze's Thoughts

jestblaze said:
Land is in short supply and life expectancy rates are climbing dramatically and will continue to do so with upcoming advances in biotechnologies and pharmaceuticals. Its time to discuss how we can expand and the moon is the closest. My first idea is simple, a biodome like structure planted permanently on the moon. We could even crash the iss into it for it if we really wanted but that was built so fast with international support i'm sure a moon base could be developed in ten or so years. Now a wacky idea I had for colonizing the moon involved melting both ice caps completely and turning the water vapor into breathable atmosphere. The goal of this is to extend the atmosphere of the Earth so far it wraps around the moon, what I believe is the only way to get the moon to hold a full atmosphere. I'm unsure of the distance to atmospheric expansion ratio but just thought we could also lower the sea level using some of the oceans to supplement this project and extend it enough. What are your ideas for the moon?
Click to expand...
I could spend hours explaining every piece of nonsense in this post, but frankly do not have the inclination.
 
jestblaze said:
Not sure where this thread belongs but lets say it was possible to melt both polar icecaps and all of antarctica and change the waper vapor into breathable atmosphere would the exteremly less denseness of it extend the atmosphere of earth around the moon and assuming we could take whatever ozone was needed fro the atmosphere from cities could we still keep a stable environment? wierd huh
Click to expand...

I and others already explained to you, in detail on the very first page,

(a) why this is impossible
(b) why you would kill everybody if it was possible
(c) except it's impossible

sorry i didn't realize this was already brought up.

Baloney. You brought it up yourself a few weeks ago. You started this thread with it.

The only reason i thought of it was i thought of a spiked slotted outer shell ball with a gyroscopically balanced inner shell containing a gyroscope a hydrogen furnace leaded to a directed output for thrust with a turbine on it to get back some of the energy, solar panels for supplemental energy, a battery, a reservoir for electrolisys for the melted water.

That made no sense whatsoever. None. And it was completely irrelevant to anything else you said in this thread.

everyone is physicist here

No, not at all. You don't have to be a physicist to understand what you've said here makes no sense; you only have to have a grade-school science education, and to spend a few minutes thinking about it. What's your excuse?

so you all know the idea is flawed in what it produces and as much as people laugh at this idea its not meant to be humor

No, at this point I would classify it as trolling. Especially when you claim not to know something was mentioned in the thread that you started by mentioning it.

*Plonk*
 
You know, a lot of people mention deserts, frozen areas, and the bottom of the ocean on Earth.

What about the top of the ocean? Why no love for floating cities and/or artifical islands? You don't have to worry about a small pressure leak sawing peope in half, for example; breathable air is greatly simplified; transportation is easier (ship, helicopter, plane, and blimp instead of submersibles); engines allowing limited mobility (doesn't need to be a lot) can allow for moving out of the way of storms, wars, or similar problems...or "migrating" north to south to help maintain a nice temperature. Aquaculture can be more easily done on the surface, with fish farms and such around the edges (netted- or walled-in fish pastures).

Come on, love the eternal cruise ship, people!

:D
 
jestblaze said:
melt both polar icecaps and all of antarctica
Click to expand...

Having already melted the ice caps, there seems little reason to melt the rest of Antarctica. Unless you just happen to like melting continents I guess. Actually, maybe that could work. "Everyone get to the Moon now, or I start melting Europe."

Hellbound said:
What about the top of the ocean? Why no love for floating cities and/or artifical islands? You don't have to worry about a small pressure leak sawing peope in half, for example;
Click to expand...

But you do have to worry about floating. Plus a total lack of resources that aren't salt water. Probably more realistic than living at the bottom of the sea, but I think deserts and other sparsely populated areas will be much easier to make habitable.
 
Hellbound said:
What about the top of the ocean? Why no love for floating cities ...

engines allowing limited mobility (doesn't need to be a lot) can allow for moving out of the way of storms, wars, or similar problems.
Click to expand...

Is simples. No engines are needed. We string a very, very, very long cable between Brazil and Africa. When we want to move the city, everyone comes out on deck and pulls on the cable.

This plan is obviously superior to the plan in the OP, because while both that plan and my plan are impossible, my plan doesn't kill everyone on the planet if it were possible.
 
Ladewig said:
Is simples. No engines are needed. We string a very, very, very long cable between Brazil and Africa. When we want to move the city, everyone comes out on deck and pulls on the cable.

This plan is obviously superior to the plan in the OP, because while both that plan and my plan are impossible, my plan doesn't kill everyone on the planet if it were possible.
Click to expand...

Actually, maybe not. Use floats along your cable, and you solve a lot of the problem of it having to support it's own weight. But with that much length, the problem would be are you actually pulling the city or are you just tensioning/detensioning the cable?

I'd suggest oars :)
 
Cuddles said:
But you do have to worry about floating. Plus a total lack of resources that aren't salt water. Probably more realistic than living at the bottom of the sea, but I think deserts and other sparsely populated areas will be much easier to make habitable.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on scale. If you are small enough, you could feed the inhabitants on fish and whale sandwiches. Plus if you could figure out how to use sunlight to desalinate water (or collect rainwater), you'd be far better off than a few people in the middle of a desert. On the other hand, putting 1.1 million people in the middle of a desert makes laying water and gas pipes much more economical.
 
jestblaze said:
Ok I have been told I'm spreading my threads out too much and I don't want to upset any of the children so I'll post this non telepathic idea here. It may be also in another one of my threads, I'm sorry I'm not checking. The human brain consists of chemicals used to create electrical signals between cells. The patterns of these electrical signals is the basis for human thoughts. One estimate i found theorized there are about 100 billion neurons in the human mind.
Plant cells communicate with each other through electric signals. Think now how many plant cells there are versus neurons in humans as well as how long the various plant cells have had to form, maybe coincidentally, the proper patterns formed in the human mind for thought and draw any conclusions you want.
Click to expand...

Still wrong, brain use biochemical signal, not electrical signals.
 
Ladewig said:
I guess it depends on scale. If you are small enough, you could feed the inhabitants on fish and whale sandwiches. Plus if you could figure out how to use sunlight to desalinate water (or collect rainwater), you'd be far better off than a few people in the middle of a desert. On the other hand, putting 1.1 million people in the middle of a desert makes laying water and gas pipes much more economical.
Click to expand...

Solar desalination. Every Boy Scout knows this. :D
 
jestblaze said:
To start this forum you must have a clear knowledge of what quantum entanglement is and how it works.

Quantum entanglement is forcing one atom's photons to form the same pattern as another. Then it gains suggestive powers over the others internal movement and can change the path of it to match the new path of the first set of photons. Feel free to wikipedia quantum entanglement now if you are confused.

Mass quantum entanglement has not been successfully tested yet but I believe patterns lie a key part in it.

Thoughts are made up of energy patterns in the mind, multiple patterns.

First when I use telepathy I scan out sending a unique specific energy signal to lock me on to the person I'm looking for to the best of my abilities. I wait for a disruption matching what i perceive the energy wave would only cause the one person and generate a distance and direction from that.

Then I listen to a few of their thought waves as best as my ability <advanced see lightspeed and time it takes to travel vs instantaneous thought> and i create in my mind one exact thoughtform energy pattern they are created at just the right time and synchronize or entangle mine with theirs.

By altering mine slightly using the suggestive qualities of quantum entanglement I can change it then suggest more entanglements for a channel. Size of channel varys. Have fun.

Mind reading works similarly except after the original pattern entanglement you use that small quantum channel to see other patterns and instead of suggesting change to the patterns sit back and watch.
Click to expand...

And yet first we'd have to establish that said powers actually exist.
 
Funny way to make someone telepathic if you are

Totally Fictional Story: A conscious telepath may in some cases be able to make someone they are by blood related to and of the same generation simply with the combination of the thought of love combined with conversation bombarded directedly to the targets subconscious and possibly any male conscious telepath made this way could make unrelated people telepathic by sex culumination synchronized with the same principles. Remember focus on their subconscious
 
Cuddles said:
But you do have to worry about floating. Plus a total lack of resources that aren't salt water. Probably more realistic than living at the bottom of the sea, but I think deserts and other sparsely populated areas will be much easier to make habitable.
Click to expand...

Well, in theory, you could have various production areas around the city for aquatic plants and fish species, shellfish, whatever, and wasters from the city can be used for fertilizer and other purposes along those lines.

And as I udnerstand it a large floating object is fairly stable, and can be made pretty robust. Of course, with this we're talking about a much larger scale than anythign we've built, so I'm pretty sure it's a lot more difficult to do than I'm imagining.

You are correct, though, that deserts would probably be easier. I just brought it up because in these discussions everyone seems to jump to the sea floor. No one has any love for Royal Carribean City, New Princess Town, or the Carnival Metroplex ;)
 
Hellbound said:
Well, in theory, you could have various production areas around the city for aquatic plants and fish species, shellfish, whatever, and wasters from the city can be used for fertilizer and other purposes along those lines.
Click to expand...

So long as you don't use one of these:



And as I udnerstand it a large floating object is fairly stable, and can be made pretty robust. Of course, with this we're talking about a much larger scale than anythign we've built, so I'm pretty sure it's a lot more difficult to do than I'm imagining.
Click to expand...

There is some hard science wrapped around the concept. CNN had a report on how a floating city could be just years away (although that was years ago), but it was informed by an actual group, the Seasteding Institute.
 
No, seriously, why do you think that adding all that water vapor would expand the atmosphere to the point that it encompasses the moon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom