Friday, April 29, 2022

The True Dialectic v the False Dialectic



The American Heritage defintion of dialectic

It is "the art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments"

So I decided to write a post about this. The reason is that I see the same thing over and over again. People on the "conservative" side keep using the term "right" in reference to themselves. It so happens that the dictionary's third definition listed also states that... "the Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces". Therefore, the common usage of the term "right wing" as opposed to "left wing" is of a dialectic process of the Marxian kind. My argument has always been that this is a mistake, and those on the conservative side should never use it in reference to themselves. It's a mistake because it accepts the Marxian model. Why accept it all, if truth is your goal?

Note that the original defintion was a means at arriving at truth. But the Marxists are not committed to truth, but to POWER. Therefore, it is a hijacking of the original meaning of the word, and it NOT used to get at the truth, but for some other reason not intended for it originally.

Ronald Reagan understood this, but it seems that almost nobody else on the "conservative" side seems to. Hence, we had a Renaissance of sorts while Reagan was President. Once he was gone, we have gone back to the Dark Ages of unreason and untruth.

Take anything under the sun, and the political left is for what is false and against what is true. Just name it. The latest shiny thing? Ukraine? It seems that NATO is in violation of its treaty on many counts, but we are to believe that they are somehow in the right for interfering in Ukraine. The link shows that we are not in the spirit of the treaty, and that if we get a major war, the NATO side may be more at fault than the Russians. Why? The NATO arrangement was originally defensive in nature. NATO isn't in defensive mode. Ukraine is not in NATO, is not a member state. To aid them in any way is in violation of the treaty.

Other examples abound. The COVID lockdowns were supposedly meant for only two weeks, but lasted for two years. The tyrants would like them to stay forever. The point is that it was the latest shiny thing meant to DIVERT the public FROM the truth--- as opposed to leading the public TO the truth. In a sense, it is a perversion of the true meaning of the word to say that it was "science". There was nothing scientific about it at all. It was a political act. Therefore, it was falsity masquerading as truth, for ulterior motives. The same structure as the perversion of the word "dialectic", which was originally meant as a means to TRUTH, but in practice, is being used to do something entirely different. It is the continual promotion of false things.

Perhaps the greatest of the deceits is to call men "women", and vice versa. In the "good old days", that was the basic test of sanity. If you couldn't tell the difference, you were crazy. But the opposite is supposedly true today. But why? For the same reason that the word "dialectic" was hijacked in the first place. It is to promoted a political outcome. It is the Marxist perversion of the dialectic---which was to get at the truth.

The bright and shiny things are the primary tactics. We now have a Ministry of Truth. Never mind that it is totally illegal. The First Amendment to the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law." There is no legal basis for the move. These people are not devoted to truth nor to the law, but the exact opposite. A "Ministry of Truth" is the exact opposite. Whatever they say should be questioned as to its veracity on a continual basis, since the truth is not on their side. Nor are they on the side of truth, because it does not favor them.

So many on the "conservative" side seem to practice the dialectic, but they use the word incorrectly when they refer to themselves as being on the "right". It is self-defeating to try to argue a point with people who aren't the least bit interested in the truth, but are after something else quite different. You have to wonder why "conservatives", who should be in favor of the original meanings of words, such as dialectic, would join up with those who so often are trying to lead us away to some other strange place where nothing makes sense anymore. How can anything make sense when everything is a lie?

The True Dialectic is what it originally meant--a way to arrive at truth. The way the Marxists use it is for something false. When you use their tactics, you are part of the problem. The False Dialectic is being used as a weapon against our country. It would be nice if we would stop helping our adversaries in our quest for truth. The truth would be the True Dialectic, which is what we inherited. It is a matter of freedom versus tyranny, just as Reagan said. It is not a matter of right v. left. That is what the deceivers want you to say. Then why the hell would anybody on the side of truth go along with those who deceive? It is a perplexing thing. Or they just stupid, or are they lying to us too?

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Buttkicker of propulsion system if you can make it work

4.27.28


Revisitation of the muon-catalyzed fusion as a space=propulsion idea

An idea came to mind, and given the fact that I know very little of the field, it is only an idea. Maybe it is an idea worth pursuing, or maybe not.

The question is this: how many muons would you need to make sufficient number of reactions that could provide the necessary thrust that could make this useful? It seems that the Earth receives 10k muons per meter of muons. Would 10k's worth of muons produce much in the way of energy?

A muon can catalyze maybe 200 reactions before they get "stuck", and can't help any further. That's a couple million reactions per minute ( 10k per minute of muons/meter). To increase the muons, just increase the area that they are "collected". But how? Well, muons are electrically charged, so they can be diverted with a magnetic charge.

The muons travel at relativistic speed. Which means maybe you can't move them far.

Muons can be created on Earth using big devices. What I propose is that somehow, you can get the muons in quantity by either making them using cosmic rays, or guiding them to where you want them. Cosmic rays are moving at relativistic speed as well. That means you don't need to use a machine to accelerate them. If you can guide those cosmic rays where you want them in order to make muons... that's the question. Cosmic rays are made of charged particles, which means they can be guided. But how much and how far, and to what effect?

I suppose someone has already thought of all this. But if you can make the charged particles go where you want, and do it in sufficient quantity, you can make muons with little energy expenditure. Perhaps you could focus a beam from 10's of meters to something the size of a pin. Then use it to blast away at something that produces bunches of muons which are used to catalyze a fusion reaction. The reaction creates alpha particles, which could be ejected as thrust.

The math seems imposing. You need a LOT of muons. Because to catalyze just 1 mole of hydrogen would take 10 to the 23rd power of reactions. Therefore, it doesn't seem feasible just on this intital calculation. Even 1 square kilometer may not be enough to do the necessary quantity of reactions to catalyze just one gram of hydrogen in a reasonable amount of time.

What would 1 gram of hydrogen produce in terms of thrust? That seems like a pretty large number. But my math could be wrong, so I won't hazard a guess here. I'd guess that you'd need more than a gram of mass to get a spacecraft's velocity up to the speeds that would shorten the length of a journey by an appreciable amount.

It would be a big apparatus, so I think the idea isn't feasible. Oh, well. It was a thought.




Update

Originally posted in 2014:

2.2.18:

An idea occurred to me last night that the fusion concept that almost works could be used for this propulsion system.  The fusion concept is called muon-catalyzed fusion.

The thermal system Waddington discusses would not be necessary.  Instead, you want to use the alpha particles directly for thrust.  Unfortunately, most of the energy release is from the neutrons, which are not handy, unless you want to breed fission fuel.  The neutrons could be put to good use, though.

Since an energy source would be necessary, and that could be achieved with the SAFE nuclear fission reactor design, which NASA is dusting off the shelf.

However, there is a respectable amount of energy in the alpha particles, and this should be usable for thrust.  Doubtful that this could be used for a SSTO rocket, though.

The main benefit could be larger payload fractions due to the much higher ISP, which reduces the amount of fuel required to run the propulsion system.

If the amount of thrust is sufficient, you could also transit the distance between planets in a much shorter time frame.  If these two benefits are realized, human colonization would be much simplified.


The original 2014 post follows:

Fusion propulsion that is.

An idea occurred to me as I was reading about breakeven in fusion research.  This topic came up maybe a couple years ago when Trent Waddington at QuantumG blog speculated a bit about using fusion propulsion even without breakeven.  He noted that you can get kinetic energy out of it even without breakeven.  The alpha particles would supply the reaction mass and at great velocity since they are traveling at a fraction of the speed of light.

Now at merely 10% of the breakeven point, you'd have enough alpha particles emitted that could give some decent thrust, or so I speculate.

Another thought arose as to the Bremsstrahlung radiation which is such a problem with nuclear fusion as a power source.  The thought is this:  could you use that for propulsion in space?  Like directing the X-rays in the opposite direction of movement like from light pressure from the sun or from lasers.

If you could get enough light pressure and alpha particles from your fusion device, it may be enough to power a spacecraft through the solar system.  Just 1% of the electrical energy input into the system may be enough.  ( honking big speculation alert ).


Tuesday, April 26, 2022

Not Sure Leads Joe Biden in polls for 2024 race



Not sure leads Biden. In race for president of Uhmerica

We may need a "Time Masheen" to fix this problem. Since "Not Sure" leads Biden, we cannot let the guy "who talks like a fag" become the President of America.

Not Sure

"Not Sure" has to be defeated so that Biden can remain in office, and save "Our Democracy".

Biden and his Chief of Staff

Such presence of mind should reassure us all. By the way, which one of those is the President? The Easter Bunny or that other fella?

Monday, April 25, 2022

Off-grid post, 4-25-22



There's a slight problem that I've attended to the last couple days. For some reason, the inverter cuts out, and it stops producing ac current. It came back on by itself after awhile, but the next time it did that, it stayed off.

Fiddling around with it didn't bring it back, so I had to dig into it again and figure out what went wrong.

A retrace of all potential causes revealed no problems. One anomaly was found, but it didn't affect its performance any.

It could be an indication of a problem, but aside from it cutting out, there are no other clues. One thing I did was to put a switch on the battery side of the controller. That's because the reset function doesn't bring back the original factory settings. There may be a function that would do that, but I couldn't find anything. Shutting it down does clear everything. It is a programmable controller. It doesn't save settings once it is cut off from the battery.

Aside from clearing it, I see no help for what's happening. So if it does it again, I'll just note the conditions, and clear the thing out. I'll have to wait and see what develops because there's just not enough here to tell me what's wrong.

The anomaly was the fuse. There seems no reason for it, and it may be defective. However, if the replacement fails, then that's a clue. Or if the replacement does the same thing, that's a clue. The anomaly seems to be that it has some sort of metal deposit on the glass case. If it is getting hot, maybe it is melting, but why wouldn't it fail instead?

All in all, this is turning out to be an expensive and time-consuming lesson in how to set up and run one of these things. The 100 watt system I had may have spoiled me a bit. The current system isn't all that much bigger. But it seems a big headache sometimes. All of this time and effort for something that doesn't do all that much.