My idea of death

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Whats wrong with the energy density in liquid hydrogen? Thats some powerful stuff!

~PEACE~
It's good if you don't care about volume, but care about weight, such as if you are trying to go into space. It takes an incredible amount of energy to break free from earth's gravity, and every gram of fuel you have you also have to lift off the ground.

It's terrible if you are concerned about volume, like if you have to fill a terrestrial vehicle.

Hydrogen has other problems that prevent it from being used seriously as a fuel that canibineer pointed out.

If you really want to make hydrogen useful so that it is stable for transport, has high energy density, and will be safe for use by the common man you should bond it to a long chain of carbons. But then why not just skip all that and use gasoline directly?
 

high|hgih

Well-Known Member
Have any of you ever met a person who uses a lot of psychedelic drugs or other drugs that goes to church every Sunday, and firmly believes in its literal concepts?
Because I've only met people who are routinely religious who either haven't done drugs, use drugs so moderately that they are not thought about, or has quit using drugs completely.

It seems to me that we just trade off emotions of certain things that spark our pleasure or self-composed versions of happiness.

Personally with religion, I am on the fence. I don't want to stick with either side because there is no point in arguing about it. Rotting in the ground is of course more plausible, but who knows? Sometimes I feel as if I have proved to myself that myself actually exists, and it's usually because of drugs. Drugs are just chemical reactions in the brain. When you die, the chemicals in your brain do not function, and do not allow you to have any senses. Even realizing that you exist sober would not be substantial. You exist now. Not before and not later.
The only thing is the soul. Who's to say that we each do or don't have some sort of an essence? Or vise/versa. The soul could be incomprehensible seeming as we are just becoming aware enough to question.
There is the known, the known unknown, and the unknown unknown. The unknown unknown majorly overlapping the known and the known unknown. I don't think we could even come close to a conclusion. And the difference between the conclusion and the reality would be that of an atom and a galaxy, and infinitely smaller or larger than that.
Like I said though, I can't say I side with either argument. I'll either find out on the other side, or.. No other side. I don't really let that affect me because it's not relevant, and I'd rather not know than think that I do.
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
It's good if you don't care about volume, but care about weight, such as if you are trying to go into space. It takes an incredible amount of energy to break free from earth's gravity, and every gram of fuel you have you also have to lift off the ground.

It's terrible if you are concerned about volume, like if you have to fill a terrestrial vehicle.

Hydrogen has other problems that prevent it from being used seriously as a fuel that canibineer pointed out.

If you really want to make hydrogen useful so that it is stable for transport, has high energy density, and will be safe for use by the common man you should bond it to a long chain of carbons. But then why not just skip all that and use gasoline directly?

We'll switch over to electric before anything else, IMO. Easy to produce electricity, and we're developing new and exciting ways to do fast charging!
 
Top