Do you tell others about your philosophy or 'let sleeping dogs lie'?

[Doktor Howl]

Sleeping Dogs don't Lie, (Sort o like territorial pissings) going back to the original post just thought i'd leave my mark!

Well done.  Maybe you could get together with my dog and mark the back yard.

[POFP]

My philosophies are too dynamic. Sometimes situations contradict what I think, changing what I think from then on. Some situations are just impossible to comprehend for me, and I don't know how to change what I think for them.

Am I open about my ever-changing philosophies? Yeah. I'll preach my perspective if that's how the audience is influenced. And the extent to which I explain my philosophies depends on the moral compass of my audience.

Am I open about my skewed moral compass? Not really. I tend to pretend like criminality is above me unless I'm talking to a criminal who can't judge. However I've found I love talking to people with mutable moral compasses (Easily influenced people) who don't originally agree with me. Watching gears turn in their heads as they become more and more accepting of my views, and maybe change some of their own, is one of the things that makes me want to start teaching, eventually. I think it'd be best to teach a major subject that can connect to my philosophies so I can slip them in, piecemeal.

I don't just preach it, though. I certainly live my philosophies. Sleeping dogs are too boring.

[minuspace]

I wonder if accelerating by sling-shot with gravity is essentially like trying to travel by car without turning the direction opposite, or distal, to the driver's side.  Like trying to get home only making left turns in right-hand traffic: good times.

[POFP]

I wonder if accelerating by sling-shot with gravity is essentially like trying to travel by car without turning the direction opposite, or distal, to the driver's side.  Like trying to get home only making left turns in right-hand traffic: good times.

I think using only left turns in right-hand traffic could be used to get home as long as the roads are built in a way that allows you to spiral out from your current destination to the exact distance out that your home is (I feel like this wasn't very clear, or that there was some sort of flaw in the way I described this. I can't put my finger on it though). A grid-like road system could be viable for that.

As I reach the half-way mark in this response, your statement is starting to seem more and more rhetorical. In-fact, it's starting to seem like a form of mockery and disparagement. So, before I continue, can you explain its relevance?

[minuspace]

I wonder if accelerating by sling-shot with gravity is essentially like trying to travel by car without turning the direction opposite, or distal, to the driver's side.  Like trying to get home only making left turns in right-hand traffic: good times.

I think using only left turns in right-hand traffic could be used to get home as long as the roads are built in a way that allows you to spiral out from your current destination to the exact distance out that your home is (I feel like this wasn't very clear, or that there was some sort of flaw in the way I described this. I can't put my finger on it though). A grid-like road system could be viable for that.

As I reach the half-way mark in this response, your statement is starting to seem more and more rhetorical. In-fact, it's starting to seem like a form of mockery and disparagement. So, before I continue, can you explain its relevance?

I was just driving some distance, noticing how the spiral was common for changing elevation/velocity, say highways to street, with the latter instead favoring slower traffic and more turns.  This, extrapolates to space travel and it occurred to me that we might be doing it wrong.  The question then is in what direction do we turn to better travel through space/time?  Funny or rhetorical as the question may be, this does not make it invalid IMHO.

[POFP]

I wonder if accelerating by sling-shot with gravity is essentially like trying to travel by car without turning the direction opposite, or distal, to the driver's side.  Like trying to get home only making left turns in right-hand traffic: good times.

I think using only left turns in right-hand traffic could be used to get home as long as the roads are built in a way that allows you to spiral out from your current destination to the exact distance out that your home is (I feel like this wasn't very clear, or that there was some sort of flaw in the way I described this. I can't put my finger on it though). A grid-like road system could be viable for that.

As I reach the half-way mark in this response, your statement is starting to seem more and more rhetorical. In-fact, it's starting to seem like a form of mockery and disparagement. So, before I continue, can you explain its relevance?

I was just driving some distance, noticing how the spiral was common for changing elevation/velocity, say highways to street, with the latter instead favoring slower traffic and more turns.  This, extrapolates to space travel and it occurred to me that we might be doing it wrong.  The question then is in what direction do we turn to better travel through space/time?  Funny or rhetorical as the question may be, this does not make it invalid IMHO.

If I understand you correctly, you're referring to the fact that we loop our equipment around cosmic bodies/planets to get places far away. That said, considering that modern space travel techniques and astrophysics aren't my specialty, I must also assume that you are implying that we use the "slow traffic - more turns" approach, in which we loop around each body several times, and we do so around more bodies than you think is necessary.

I think you might be on to something, but I can see a possible explanation as to why we still use the method that I assume we do: If we use smaller loops around more bodies, we are a bit more certain on the affects on our equipment from the gravitational pull. If we get out further away from the bodies and loop less, we might be able to be more direct with our travel, but we also run the risk of running into less predictable gravitational fields. I assume, if you're speaking on this level, that you're familiar with the Lagrangian Points for cosmic bodies. I'm not sure on the complexity of the trips our equipment is taking, but I'd guess that based on your conclusion, our equipment's trips are tending to avoid specific Lagrangian points (I actually forget how all of them work. I only remember the basics of a few). But, my idea is, if we skip bodies to loop around, and get further away from the larger bodies, we get into zones that have smaller cosmic bodies that have more intense Lagrangian Points. As I understand it, the smaller the body, or the smaller the gravitational pull, the more contrasting the Lagrangian points and gravitational zones can be. Moving across two small bodies' Lagrangian points can be more dangerous to our momentum than if we moved across two large bodies' gravitational zones or Lagrangian Points. But then you have to factor in distance between the bodies as well if you want to determine the strength of the points. I think this way due to the fact that a Black Hole the size of the Earth would rip you apart as you were sucked in. But a Black Hole the size of the one in the middle of our galaxy would keep you fully in-tact. This happens because the difference in gravitational acceleration as you get closer to a smaller body is a steeper ramp up than with a larger body's gravitational acceleration. As I type this, I wonder if that may be what they use to get the faster momentum increases when launching our equipment around a body. Send it by the right Lagrangian points of smaller cosmic bodies and you can get a massive momentum increase. But it would be sporadic. Send it by a set of larger cosmic bodies' Lagrangian points and you would get less of an increase in momentum, but the direction would be more stable and predictable. Also, let's not forget that direction around these points and fields is a MASSIVE factor.

Ideally, I think, if we got better at directing our equipment and predicting gravitational acceleration changes in the gravitational zones of far-away bodies, I think we could get faster at looping and space travel. Also, it might be wise to bring up the effects of Time Dilation on the amount of time it takes for our equipment to travel. Keeping it by large gravitational fields affects the passing of time for the equipment more strongly than do the small gravitational fields. But, I'm getting to the edge of my knowledge now, considering I don't know how to factor in the gravitational acceleration curve with Time Dilation.

If this was not your direction, then please specify. I haven't talked about this stuff in years, and when it interests me like this, I get into long, drawn out rants that become hard to understand due to the amount of tangents I make. I'm pretty sure I've got ADHD or something.

[POFP]

It's been quite awhile since I've tried to take into account that many factors. I hate labor jobs. They make me forget all the fun I had doing things with my brain.

And I'd say I feel like an asshole for hijacking this thread, but LuciferX started it.   

[minuspace]

I wonder if accelerating by sling-shot with gravity is essentially like trying to travel by car without turning the direction opposite, or distal, to the driver's side.  Like trying to get home only making left turns in right-hand traffic: good times.

I think using only left turns in right-hand traffic could be used to get home as long as the roads are built in a way that allows you to spiral out from your current destination to the exact distance out that your home is (I feel like this wasn't very clear, or that there was some sort of flaw in the way I described this. I can't put my finger on it though). A grid-like road system could be viable for that.

As I reach the half-way mark in this response, your statement is starting to seem more and more rhetorical. In-fact, it's starting to seem like a form of mockery and disparagement. So, before I continue, can you explain its relevance?

I was just driving some distance, noticing how the spiral was common for changing elevation/velocity, say highways to street, with the latter instead favoring slower traffic and more turns.  This, extrapolates to space travel and it occurred to me that we might be doing it wrong.  The question then is in what direction do we turn to better travel through space/time?  Funny or rhetorical as the question may be, this does not make it invalid IMHO.

If I understand you correctly, you're referring to the fact that we loop our equipment around cosmic bodies/planets to get places far away. That said, considering that modern space travel techniques and astrophysics aren't my specialty, I must also assume that you are implying that we use the "slow traffic - more turns" approach, in which we loop around each body several times, and we do so around more bodies than you think is necessary.

I think you might be on to something, but I can see a possible explanation as to why we still use the method that I assume we do: If we use smaller loops around more bodies, we are a bit more certain on the affects on our equipment from the gravitational pull. If we get out further away from the bodies and loop less, we might be able to be more direct with our travel, but we also run the risk of running into less predictable gravitational fields. I assume, if you're speaking on this level, that you're familiar with the Lagrangian Points for cosmic bodies. I'm not sure on the complexity of the trips our equipment is taking, but I'd guess that based on your conclusion, our equipment's trips are tending to avoid specific Lagrangian points (I actually forget how all of them work. I only remember the basics of a few). But, my idea is, if we skip bodies to loop around, and get further away from the larger bodies, we get into zones that have smaller cosmic bodies that have more intense Lagrangian Points. As I understand it, the smaller the body, or the smaller the gravitational pull, the more contrasting the Lagrangian points and gravitational zones can be. Moving across two small bodies' Lagrangian points can be more dangerous to our momentum than if we moved across two large bodies' gravitational zones or Lagrangian Points. But then you have to factor in distance between the bodies as well if you want to determine the strength of the points. I think this way due to the fact that a Black Hole the size of the Earth would rip you apart as you were sucked in. But a Black Hole the size of the one in the middle of our galaxy would keep you fully in-tact. This happens because the difference in gravitational acceleration as you get closer to a smaller body is a steeper ramp up than with a larger body's gravitational acceleration. As I type this, I wonder if that may be what they use to get the faster momentum increases when launching our equipment around a body. Send it by the right Lagrangian points of smaller cosmic bodies and you can get a massive momentum increase. But it would be sporadic. Send it by a set of larger cosmic bodies' Lagrangian points and you would get less of an increase in momentum, but the direction would be more stable and predictable. Also, let's not forget that direction around these points and fields is a MASSIVE factor.

Ideally, I think, if we got better at directing our equipment and predicting gravitational acceleration changes in the gravitational zones of far-away bodies, I think we could get faster at looping and space travel. Also, it might be wise to bring up the effects of Time Dilation on the amount of time it takes for our equipment to travel. Keeping it by large gravitational fields affects the passing of time for the equipment more strongly than do the small gravitational fields. But, I'm getting to the edge of my knowledge now, considering I don't know how to factor in the gravitational acceleration curve with Time Dilation.

If this was not your direction, then please specify. I haven't talked about this stuff in years, and when it interests me like this, I get into long, drawn out rants that become hard to understand due to the amount of tangents I make. I'm pretty sure I've got ADHD or something.

It's been quite awhile since I've tried to take into account that many factors. I hate labor jobs. They make me forget all the fun I had doing things with my brain.

And I'd say I feel like an asshole for hijacking this thread, but LuciferX started it.   

I'll read this after you watch Tomorrowland, how bout that?

[POFP]

I planned on watching it. I might get a chance to today, actually. I'll tell you how it goes.


EDIT: I got to watch Tomorrowland on my break just now. It was more inspirational than it was entertaining.

Also, after some thought over the past few weeks, I'd like to clarify that I think the LaGrangian points are significantly less relevant to the point I was making than I made it seem. More or less, the concept I wanted to bring up was the effects of gravitational fields on other gravitational fields, and how they would affect our equipment. But, being points, they would require precision and intention to enter. For some reason, it seemed like an adequate example at the time.

[Chaos_Zebra]

Two options, 1 To Armageddon ( see http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/ ) or 2 To Bring Forth (see www.bring4th.org )