Could antimatter in Saturn's magnetosphere be used as a power source for future spacecraft?

Estimates are that perhaps 1/4 milligram of antimatter is injected into Saturn's magnetosphere per year. Antimatter is the most efficient energy source known to physics, hundreds of times more efficient per unit mass than nuclear fusion. So, is it conceivable in the future, that this antimatter could somehow be harvested from Saturn's magnetosphere, and utilized as a power/energy source by future interplanetary spacecraft? I've no doubt there would be significant technical obstacles to this, of course. What would these obstacles be, exactly, and, how could they possibly be overcome?

SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade is the greatest setback for women's rights in American history

The decision of SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade has implications far beyond those of any other Supreme Court decision in recent history. Roe v. Wade represented something far more than simply an additional level of protection for abortion rights. Roe v. Wade represented the basic legal principle that it was the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect and empower women. And, this is precisely the basic principle, that women have the right to protection, that SCOTUS has rejected, quite explicitly. Effectively, the entire modern feminist movement dates from, and is based on Roe v. Wade, and the notion that empowerment of women is constitutionally based, and, hence, the responsibility of the Courts and the Government to protect and ensure. All subsequent gains by women in human rights have been based on this principle. Enforcement of laws against domestic assault and marital rape, civil and criminal punishment for sexual harassment and workplace harassment, court ordered child support etc., all date, effectively from the original Roe v. Wade decision. SCOTUS has effectively, at one blow, overturned half a century of progress in women's rights. Suddenly, unless women can enforce their rights themselves, women have no rights whatsoever. That is precisely the message that SCOTUS has given women. Now, some will suggest that this is an overreaction to the Supreme Court decision. After all, laws still remain on the books protecting women. But, of what value are they, if the Courts make clear to prosecutors and police, that women have no right to protection? Decades ago, it was natural for police simply to ignore domestic confrontations. Such confrontations were considered inevitable, and, hence, not a police matter. A classic joke from a 1940 joke book on marriage -- "When they first got married he brought her to their first home, and he said 'Honey, here's a little world of our own.' And they've been fighting for the world championship, ever since." If women have no control over their own reproductive rights, they are made totally dependent on men. First, to avoid being raped and impregnated by men. Second, to find men to support their children, wanted or unwanted, once they are born. Effectively, women are made slaves to men, by this simple fact. Hence, women will be forced to tolerate harassment and assault on a regular basis, in order to avoid rape, and in order to support children born as the result of being raped -- at home, or in the workplace. This may not exactly be the intention of the Court -- to make women slaves to men. The Court may simply not wish to be bothered protecting women. But, in effect, this is the result of the Court's decision. Unless women are willing and able to fight for their rights, they simply won't have any, in future, in the U.S. Women might be better off in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, than in the U.S.

Russia is more stable and unified than NATO is

In Ted Bell's thriller series of novels featuring updated "James Bond", Lord Alex Hawke, Russia's President Vladimir Putin is a major, regularly occurring character. Putin's portrayed as a talented and courageous, but emotionally disturbed man. Putin has drinking bouts with Hawke, in which he tearfully begs for advice from the British Lord half his age, about how to avoid being overthrown and butchered in Russia by his "oligarchs". Hawke advises Putin always to submit to the superior wisdom of the Western leaders, because, otherwise Russia will be "destroyed economically". Now, I don't know to what extent the leaders of NATO are being influenced by Mr. Bell's books, but, sometimes it looks like they're taking their playbook from him. Maybe NATO intelligence specialists are reading Mr. Bell's novels, because, they sure don't seem to be basing their views on historical reality, at all. Historically, centralized powers like Russia and China have tended to be more stable, not less stable than more decentralized nations. Sure we "won the Cold War". The Soviet Union broke up, after three quarters of a century. But, you know, that may have just been an historical blip. Russia seems to be reconstituting itself. Books claiming that "dictators will never threaten the world again", written in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union, seem to have been very premature in their conclusions. NATO is probably overextended. It's very unclear whether France, Germany and Italy would fight to the death to defend Lithuania or Finland. The economic sanctions against Russia are leaky, much of the world is perfectly happy to trade with Russia, and these sanctions may be hurting the West more than Russia. In any case, large nations like Russia are largely self-sufficient economically. The real issue is centralization versus decentralization of power. Which really works better? And, that varies quite a bit, from one generation to the next, historically speaking. Tom Clancy's been writing thrillers for decades wistfully predicting the collapse of China, because of its "impractical" economic policies. Yet, China continues to grow explosively, largely because of, not despite, its centralized planning and development. And, we're seeing in the continuing successes of Russia in Ukraine, that centralized planning simply works better than vague economic theorizing and laissez-faire Capitalism in warfare. As for "James Bonds", we can see what happens to them when they're captured by Russia: 007 -- licensed to be liquidated!

What if Joseph Stalin fails to assassinate Leon Trotsky?

From the standpoint of the West, Stalin was mentally ill, probably paranoid schizophrenic. All of those purges, executions, the arranged Ukrainian famine, the Gulag. There was no need for any of this, it simply was a disturbed aberration of his sick personality. From the standpoint of Russia, the perspective is somewhat different. The Russians, rather like the Chinese, believe in centralized government control as a means of stabilizing and controlling society. Almost no price is too high to pay for a stable, centrally controlled government that can direct and control the people, for purposes of military defense and for providing their basic needs. Take the example of Stalin assassinating Trotsky, in 1940, in Mexico. Many in the West would consider this to be a clear example of Stalin's paranoia. An old, isolated, exiled man, 10,000 miles from Moscow, what harm could he possibly do? Well, that's an interesting question. Trotsky's positions on Communism and Fascism in the 1930's are rather difficult to pin down, and his influence, as Lenin's designated successor, was still considerable. On the whole, Trotsky detested both Hitler and Stalin, but, for personal reasons, his attacks on Stalin were probably more systematically intense. He could hardly be described as a stabilizing influence on the Soviet Union, at the time. And, from Stalin's point of view, that was a problem. Let's consider the situation at the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union, at the end of June, 1941. Let's suppose that Stalin has failed to assassinate Trotsky by this time. Trotsky has been a little more careful, he didn't let the assassin with the icepick in to see him in private in Mexico, as he did in OTL, and he remains in good health. What effects might this have? Well, first of all, it's rather unclear how Trotsky would have responded to the Nazi attack. Responded publicly he would certainly have done, but, how exactly? Would he have applauded it, as a an opportunity for the Stalinists and the Nazis to destroy each other, rather like American conservatives in the U.S.? This is quite possible, actually. And, this would hardly have helped the Soviet Union survive, I suspect. It might have undermined the will of the Russian people to resist their invaders. Another possibility relates to Stalin's desertion of Moscow just after the start of the invasion. Stalin actually fled in fear -- probably of his own people -- to his dacha. He had to be retrieved from there, by his associates in the Politburo. His first question to them, when they arrived at his dacha, was "Have you come to shoot me?" Now, suppose that Trotsky was still alive and active and making public pronouncements at this time. Bear in mind, Trotsky led the Red Army to victory in the Russian Civil War, and was a brilliant military commander. Is it at all possible the Politburo might have wanted Trotsky back, at this time, in the hopes that he might work his military magic once more? Could Trotsky actually have deposed Stalin in July or August, 1941, if he'd been alive to do it? Could Trotsky have effectively led a defense of the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany, at this time? And, would Leon Trotsky have gone on to lead the Soviet Union, after WWII? And, where would that lead us, exactly?

Why is it so extremely difficult for Russia to locate American mercenary spies in Ukraine, even after they've been captured?

Unmarked graves.

What are some practical applications of natural magnetic fields, other than the directional compass?

All moving electrically charged matter creates natural magnetic fields. Hence, natural magnetic fields of all types, and intensities, are all around us. We know about the directional compass. What are some other practical applications of the many natural magnetic fields around us?

Russia should charge Elon Musk with War Crimes

I mean, why not? What's the down side of this? And, Elon Musk is just begging for it! Musk is bragging non-stop about how his "inventions" are going to win the Russo-Ukrainian War, how indispensable he is, how brilliant his contributions to NATO military technology have been, how he's beating the pants off the Russian scientists and engineers. And the Pentagon and the U.S. government are constantly backing him up on it. They say Elon Musk is the major reason that Ukraine is defeating Russia. Now of course, this is complete nonsense. Russia continues to take whatever territory it wants to take, despite tens of billions of dollars in, obviously, very overpriced NATO military technology provided to Ukraine, including and especially, that provided by Mr. Musk. But, even if all Elon's doing is encouraging Ukraine to self-destruct, surely, that's sufficient reason to classify him as a war criminal. At least, form Russia's point of view. Bear in mind, from Russia's point of view, this is an internal civil war, in which rebel Ukrainians are trying to steal Russian territory. So, effectively, any U.S. "veterans" caught in Ukraine are simply spies, from Russia's point of view. And, you know what Russians do to spies, don't you? They throw them in the furnace. And, here's our old buddy Elon, saying he's the greatest spymaster of them all! So, one really could hardly see it as much of stretch for Russia to charge and convict Elon Musk as a war criminal. And, how could this possibly hurt the Russians? Because of his extreme corruption, Elon Musk is probably the most detested man in the world since Osama Bin Laden. Russia wouldn't even have to execute him, to cut Elon down to size. A mere couple of hours in a Russian prison would undoubtedly be sufficient to cut Elon "richie rich" Musk down to size. So, a twenty year prison sentence would certainly be the end of our Elon Musk problem. The Russians would be doing the world an enormous favor. Who knows, the Ukrainians might recognize this, stop this silly civil war, and acknowledge the ultimate wisdom of the Russian leadership. Charging Elon Musk with war crimes might be the only true route the world has to peace and stability, at this time!

Elon Musk's Starlink internet satellite communication system has failed miserably in the Russo-Ukrainian War

Like most of Elon Musk's "inventions", Starlink doesn't really work. How do we know this? We know this because American generals are praising Elon Musk to the skies for how incredibly effective Starlink has been in helping Ukraine to win its war against Russia. But, as we know, Russia is winning this war, hands down. Russia is liquidating all remaining opposition in the Donbas region, quite systematically, despite tens of billions of dollars in free NATO weapons, and tens of thousands of NATO mercenaries attempting to prop up the Ukrainian regime. In order to disguise and understate this fact, we have an entire "spin" public relations industry currently operating in the western media. So, when rocket attacks are made, they are described completely differently, depending on whether it was the Ukrainians or the Russians who perpetrated them. A rocket attack by the Ukrainians is inevitably a "precision military strike". A rocket attack by the Russians is always a "genocidal war crime". Russians fighting for the Russian army in Ukraine are described as "mercenaries", by the Western media. NATO soldiers from other nations fighting in Ukraine on the side of the Ukrainians are "volunteers", never "mercenaries". Unable to win the actual war, the Western media is trying to win, Josef Goebbel's style, the war of words. A couple of days ago, I saw a particularly interesting and extreme example of this war of words. Several American mercenaries were captured by the Russians. The term "captured" was put in quotations, in the news header. I couldn't really understand why they put the word in quotes. After all, these soldiers were overwhelmed and taken alive as prisoners by the enemy during a war. What other term would normally be used? Then I thought about it a bit: 1. Saying the Americans were captured by the Russians would imply that the Russians were engaged in a legitimate military activity. The Western media do not wish to acknowledge this. 2. To capture enemy soldiers is much more difficult than simply killing them. Capturing enemy soldiers implies an overwhelming superiority, and the Western media definitely does not want to acknowledge overwhelming Russian military superiority. 3. The Western media would really much rather describe the Americans as having simply been "abducted" or "kidnapped" by "Russian bandits", but, this would sound ridiculous. So, the use of quotes for "captured", is simply a crude attempt to create some ambiguity here. It's the pathetic best they can do! So, we can understand the deep affection American generals would have for Elon Musk. Elon Musk is perhaps the world's greatest genius at pure, unadulterated disinformation. American generals need Elon at times like this. Pure disinformation is the only effective weapon America has against the Russians, and the American military knows it!

What is the nature of the technology being developed to store and contain "antimatter neutrons"?

Antimatter is extremely difficult to store and contain, because it is annihilated by any contact with normal matter. Hence, special electromagnetic containment devices have been developed over the past few decades to confine and store "antimatter protons" together in a confined vacuum space by means of the interaction between a strong electromagnetic field, and their electric charge. However, "antimatter neutrons" have no electric charge at all, hence a conventional electromagnetic field would have no effect on them. Nevertheless, I have read that technologies are being developed currently that could effectively confine and store "antimatter neutrons". Does anyone have any idea of the nature of such a technology, because, it isn't clear to me exactly what it might be, at all. Any ideas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment

What if Stalin had stayed healthy till 1956?

Stalin's health wasn't terrific, but, he certainly could have had his fatal stroke a few years later. So, let's suppose he does. The most obvious consequence is that President Eisenhower will be facing off directly against his old "friend" from WWII, Josef Stalin. Stalin wants the Korean War to continue, to keep the West off balance, the Chinese and the Americans have had enough. Also, Eisenhower is possibly more willing to consider the use of nuclear weapons, than Truman was, by this time. So, how does the confrontation between Eisenhower and Stalin play out, assuming Stalin is still in charge through Eisenhower's entire first term of office, instead of conveniently dying just two months into Ike's presidency?

Are there any practical approaches to storing antimatter from natural radioactive decay?

Apparently, beta rays regularly produce antimatter, naturally. Could antimatter from such natural radioactive decay processes be stored, and used, in any way? Is anyone looking at, or working at this possibility, at the moment?

What if antimatter falls up?

Apparently, CERN has been working on this experiment for some time, and results should be available within about a year or so. How massive would be the theoretical implications of antimatter falling up, not down? Any practical implications?

What is the practical significance of the discovery of gravity waves?

Is there any practical significance to the discovery of gravity waves, that has been reported recently? Do gravity waves imply the ability to control or predict gravity in any new ways, at all? Or, is it purely an abstract and theoretical conception?

Are there any current, plausible approaches to the development of antigravity technologies?

We hear of gravitons -- hypothetical subatomic particles responsible for the mechanisms of gravity. We hear of gravity waves. We even hear of clear evidence for the existence and detection of gravity waves. So, currently, most physicists believe in the existence of gravitons, and virtually all physicists believe in the existence of gravity waves. So, in principle, it would seem that it should be possible to manipulate gravity in ways similar to the way elements of the electromagnetic spectrum are manipulated. It should be possible to turn gravity on and off, to increase and decrease its intensity, to reverse its force. Are there any current approaches to these problems that seem practical and likely to yield meaningful technologies in the not too distant future? If not, why not?

Why Elon Musk doesn't invest in controlled nuclear fusion

Sure, Elon Musk's a con artist -- but, aren't most scientists and engineers con artists, much of the time, anyway? Let's consider the case of controlled nuclear fusion research. Elon Musk says "What do we need controlled nuclear fusion research for, anyway? We've got a perfectly good nuclear fusion reactor up in the sky. It's called the sun! Let's just build solar panels to use that already existing controlled nuclear fusion reactor, why bother trying to build our own?" Now, as usual with Elon, with have to differentiate what he says, from what he really means by this. Bear in mind, Elon has some training in Physics. He has a Physics degree from the University of Pennsylvania, and very briefly did graduate work at prestigious Stanford University in Physics. How briefly? He spent two days in graduate school. Now, what could 24 year old Elon have seen in just two days to convince him to get the hell out of there. I can tell you quite exactly. He saw that every single damn science professor was a Lord unto himself in his own laboratory, and that no matter how ridiculous what they were doing was, any graduate student had to profess absolute fidelity to their Lord and Master, and absolute faith in their ideas and research. So, Elon knows very well that researchers are just making it up as they go along, and have to lie their heads off to survive in their system. And, you see, there's a very basic problem with all controlled nuclear fusion research. You see, as far as we can determine, there's only one place nuclear fusion occurs naturally in the entire twenty billion year history of the universe -- in the interior of stars. And, this requires enormous pressures -- thousands or tens of thousands of times earth's atmospheric pressure -- and extremely high temperatures, on the order of tens of millions or hundreds of millions of degrees. So, in a sense, we've really had "controlled nuclear fusion" for seventy years now -- H-bombs, that is. These approximate the conditions in the interior of stars, and achieve comparable energy potential. But, this isn't quite an optimal arrangement. Too much energy, too much radiation, too dangerous. What we want is a "no tears" approach to nuclear fusion. We want limitless energy in a form that can be safely used in our baby's bath water. And, nuclear fusion researchers, being professional researchers trained to lie like rugs, are perfectly willing to promise just that. Now, actually, there isn't the slightest reason to think controlled nuclear fusion researchers can do what they're so enthusiastically promising to do. None whatsoever. It doesn't make any sense at all, and is completely inconsistent with anything we've ever designed or experienced. And, Elon Musk is trained and experienced enough to see this fact. But, what of the scientific method, you ask? Surely, the "scientific method" guarantees progress, systematically, to achieve any technical goal? I'm afraid, this isn't true. All the scientific method is, is trial and error, somewhat refined by public criticism from other scientists, since the advent of printed books in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The scientific method doesn't guarantee progress from point A to point B. In general, scientists can't be sure of anything much more than being able to get from A to one millimeter from A. So, Elon Musk is shrewd enough to avoid this particular lemon.

How can we absolutely guarantee that no nation will commit War Crimes, ever again?

NATO and Russia should get together and mount a simultaneous cruise missile attack on The Hague.

The significance of Russia's overwhelming victory over NATO forces in Ukraine

Russia has achieved total victory over NATO forces in Ukraine. They control or have encircled all areas of Donbas. They control completely Ukraine's Black Sea coast, with the exception of far west Odessa, which is totally blockaded by Russian forces, and poses no further threat. Russia is in the process of annexing the 20% of Ukraine's territory and population that they have conquered, which is virtually all that they can absorb and process in the next ten or twenty years, and all that they want. Russia has achieved all of their military objectives in Ukraine, with the exception of removing the government of President Zelensky, due to the massive infusion and airlift of tens of billions of dollars of NATO weapons to Ukraine. Nevertheless, the Western media insists that we have a situation of "stalemate", in Ukraine, that the "battle goes on", in "bloody trench warfare". This is nonsense. Russia has won, and Russia has won overwhelmingly, despite using a mere fraction of their military forces in a nation as big and populous as France, Germany or Britain. Which is likely why the Western media doesn't wish to admit to the truth of the situation. The truth is that Russia is obviously in a position to overwhelm NATO's military forces in the rest of Europe anytime they wish to. The NATO weapons are OK, but nothing to brag about. They won't stop the Russians, obviously. The fact is, the Pax Americana is over. Nuclear weapons are unusable, and the technological edge in conventional weaponry America had held from the time of the first Gulf War in 1991 is gone. Russian weapons are as good, or better, than NATO weapons. So, we have President Biden assuring Taiwan that America will send American troops to defend them if the Mainland attacks. In Beijing, Xi Jinping is on the floor laughing his guts out over this. How many troops will America send -- 10,000, 20,000, 100,000? They'd be lost in the downtown traffic in Beijing or Shanghai, no one would even notice them. And American weapons are no better than Chinese weapons anymore. The only thing that would deter China from invading Taiwan would be massive nuclear retaliation, nothing less. And how likely is it that America is going to end human civilization, over Taiwan? China hasn't invaded Taiwan, because they already control Taiwan, without having bothered to invade them. So, we have the Hague threatening the Russian leadership with "War Crimes Trials" for their "War Crimes". And we have President Zelensky of Ukraine prosecuting the one or two Russian soldiers he's beem able to get his hands on as "war criminals". The Russians are guilty of the "war crime" of winning a war, after all. So, I suppose, all war is a crime, after all. But, it isn't going away, is it now? And all the war crimes trials in the world won't change the fact that all's fair in love and war, and the winners can never be prosecuted for their "war crimes". Not until they start to lose again, anyway.

Putin has won the Ukrainian War

In case you hadn't noticed, the War in Ukraine is now over. Russia has effective control of the Black Sea coast, and the last city holding out in the Lysychansk region, Sieverodonetsk, has fallen under effective Russian control. The remaining portions of the Donbas region are being slowly but surely absorbed and encircled by Russian forces as well. Naturally, of course, most of the Western media is desribing this as a "stalemate". It isn't. Russia won, as they were inevitably going to do, of course. It's their territory, was for centuries, they're just taking it back, after the enforced breakup of Russia back in the 1990's. It's perfectly understandable that NATO wants a weak Russia, of course. However, what NATO wants isn't necessarily what NATO is going to get. So, what happens now? Probably, Ukraine will continue to fight on for a bit, bankrolled by NATO, particularly the U.S. Apparently, there won't be any formal cession of territory by Ukraine. They're going to keep insisting that Russia has illegally occupied their territory, and, up to a point, NATO will probably continue to arm them. For a while. Up to a point. But, clearly, over the next few months, support for Ukraine continuing to fight a lost battle is going to dry up. Hypocrisy has its limits, you know, even in NATO.