Posted on 02/03/2015 6:27:08 AM PST by MasterMason
I just re-joined FR and I would like to post to my local NC state board but I am not able to. How do I get the ability to do that?
Your description of "broken clouds" set me to thinking about what may go about breaking clouds.
Then that made me remember this: The Cloud Sculptors of Coral D
It's an interesting and laid-back story. Good to read over a warm drink.
Aww, little kitty saying “live long and prospurr”
I had ice and freezing rain too. It snowed in the afternoon.
I lost power for a bit last night. Those power lines were so cold and icy I guess they failed.
I’m so glad you got two beautiful kitties!
Hello Midnight and Tootsie.
Very nice cats. Congratulations!
I don’t think a nuclear bomb can be used for good. It can be used for evil that is less than the evil it prevents. Only in the “divert the asteroid” scenario is the proximate effect of the nuclear detonation either neutral or good.
They’re both very gentle and sweet.
I am hoping that they get used to our two cats, who are territorial and even hiss at each other. The new cats do not hiss or growl as
Bobbie and Shadow do.
I swear I didn’t break any clouds.
You’ll have to make sure the “old” cats don’t gang up on either of the new cats.
So, you don’t consider putting a stop to evil a good?
I can think of a vew other good uses. Kicking an interplanetary craft out of the Moon’s orbit on its way to Mars might be good. Sealing off a volcano might be good. Kicking LA into the ocean would definitely be good.
Oops, did I say that last one out loud?
Breaking clouds isn’t the issue. They break apart themselves if nobody futzes with them.
It’s holding them together long enough for the glue to dry that’s the trick.
"Putting a stop to evil" is not the specific, guaranteed outcome of a nuclear detonation in a war situation. Killing people and destroying stuff is the specific outcome - just as it is for a conventional detonation - and those are objectively bad outcomes. That's why I said "Evil that deters greater evil."
A nuclear detonation as a propellant in space wouldn't really be a "nuclear bomb," but a thruster. Using one on a volcano would be stupid, imo.
There are some nice people in Los Angeles.
They hiss and growl, but it has not come to scratches and blows.
They’re mellowing out already. Oddly, our itty bitty kitty, Shadow,
is the growler. Bobbie is adjusting more quickly. Midnight and
Tootsie are pretty laid back. We adopted them from a room full of
cats, so they’re probably pretty good at making friends.
Using one to stop evil, even if that’s not the outcome, might still be a good thing.
Using one in a volcano might not be noticed given the force of volcanos, but I would leave it up to the scientists making the proposal whether to seal the volcano and how. There was a movie about a volcano in LA.
I’ll give you the semantics on propellant vs. bomb but it would probably be the same mechanics.
I’m not saying any more about LA.
So, if live long and prosper is _\\//, do the other combinations have meaning?
i.e. _\/// live long and poor
_\\\/ die early and poor
_\||/ die early and prosper
Just curious.
In certain inner cities in the U.S. it is not wise to sing “Crack That Whip” in Spoonerism.
You’ve been warned.
LOL!
—\
\
Only the good die young?
( I know. Bad)
Since the explosion of the nuclear bomb occurs in three dimensions, it is difficult to make it properly serve as a thrusting device. It is workable to do so, however, by the immensity of its energy release. For its weight, a warhead packs a lot of punch, and even though much of the explosion is lost to a non-intended direction, what is transferred to the pusher plate is very powerful.
The momentum transfer, therefore, can actually not only work as a solar-system transportation scheme, but also as a potential interstellar mechanism.
Perhaps the better way to look at it is that it is a way to get rid of a whole bunch of nuclear warheads, for which little better purpose could be imagined.
"Using one on a volcano would be stupid, imo."
It's hard to see how using an explosion to deal with an explosion can be a good idea.
It's not impossible, of course. But this isn't a Red Adair operation in which the oil-well fire has to have its flame and the oxygen which feeds it interrupted for a moment.
The only way I can envision using a nuke on a volcano is to direct its subsequent outflow in a less-harmful direction. Even that seems monumentally trepidatious.
Since the nuke explosion could not quench the volcano in any way, it could only serve to allow the volcano to vent and belch even more, perhaps settling down into a continuous rather than intermittent eruption. To the scientist who wants to use this procedure, I would suggest allowing the rest of us to observe from a safe distance away from it, like on another planet.
So when the little dragon spit his fire into the mouth of the behemoth dragon just as he was getting ready and it knocked the behemoth dragon out of comission that WASN’T POSSIBLE?
I’m shocked. OOOO. AAAAA. I will have to write someone a very strongly worded letter about this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.