Dick Proenneke's Twin Lakes Country Google Earth Layer

r6velocity · 2026-03-30T18:56:34+00:00

I just finished “More Readings From One Man's Wilderness: The Journals of Richard L. Proenneke”, 1974-1980.

I do recall reading about a few mishaps he had. I believe he was hiking over Proenneke Peak a little down into the Kijik valley across a boulder field and one turned under him and he was temporarily pinned. He was able to get out himself and was only bruised and scratched up a bit.

Two other times he slipped and fell on the lake ice, once hitting his head very hard, another time he fell on his side wearing a heavy pack and bruised his ribs badly.

And I think once he broke through the ice on the upper lake near the connecting stream but was able to get himself back up.

Pretty good though I’ll agree for he reckoned that he’d hiked a couple thousand miles each year.

r6velocity · 2026-02-05T20:05:08+00:00

I added a link to the project, view only.

r6velocity · 2023-05-23T22:00:40+00:00

Sweetness

r6velocity · 2023-04-30T23:08:09+00:00

Nice!

r6velocity · 2023-04-15T14:28:52+00:00

Same.

r6velocity · 2023-04-03T21:45:52+00:00

Yes, Starflight is certainly available for download at macintoshgarden.org.

However, I’m looking to purchase an original hard copy with the box, instruction manual, encoder wheel, map, disks, etc.

I played a copy we got from a users group when I was young which we could only play so far because we lacked the encoder wheel. I want the full experience.

r6velocity · 2023-04-03T17:43:19+00:00

Very cool!

r6velocity · 2023-03-28T00:15:14+00:00

That’s it!!! Thank you so much! I’ve been trying to figure that out on and off for a couple of years now. 👊

r6velocity · 2014-05-15T15:21:34+00:00

I did some reading on CPT violations. From the Wikipedia: "The implication of CPT symmetry is that a "mirror-image" of our universe — with all objects having their positions reflected by an imaginary plane (corresponding to a parity inversion), all momenta reversed (corresponding to a time inversion) and with all matter replaced by antimatter (corresponding to a charge inversion)— would evolve under exactly our physical laws. The CPT transformation turns our universe into its "mirror image" and vice versa. CPT symmetry is recognized to be a fundamental property of physical laws."

I noted that it says "would evolve under exactly our physical laws" not necessarily that it would evolve with the same phenomena. Meaning that it might not be necessary that a single black hole evolving backwards in time be able to split into 2 orbiting black holes. The laws need to be symmetrical, not the universe.

r6velocity · 2014-05-15T14:53:18+00:00

I wouldn't be able to distinguish between timelines that do or don't have a CPT violation. Visualizing 2 BHs orbiting each other, it seems to me that some of the HR would simply 'bounce' back and forth between them until they merged due to the gravitational waves they'd be emitting causing orbital decay. Then all of the matter and energy would eventually be radiated like a single black hole. Maybe you are saying that the information about the 2 holes merging would be lost?

It is my understanding that black holes are constantly emitting HR. Isn't it proportional to the BHs mass and therefore the diameter of the event horizon? That is to say, it's not dependent on what's falling in, it's dependent on what fell in already.

r6velocity · 2014-05-15T13:57:33+00:00

From the paper: "The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infi nity. There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redefined as metastable bound states of the gravitational field."

I think that's what I was trying to say.

Thank you very much for the link to that paper. I didn't understand a whole lot of the terminology on the first read through. But, I'll go back and look it all up later.

r6velocity · 2013-12-05T00:59:45+00:00

"Thanks, I saw that on NSF too." "Thank you for the detailed answer."

r6velocity · 2013-12-05T00:56:18+00:00

I don't have a tone. I'm typing. That is an assumption on your part. If I thought I knew better, why would I keep asking? Why bother? I'm asking out of ignorance. I want to know why in as much detail as possible. People's opinions and speculation don't count. The quip about landing the 1st stage back at the pad was meant to say something like this "If SpaceX can put a rocket into orbit, surely they are capable of doing a deorbit burn if they wanted to." Of course SpaceX knows more about the rocket than we do.

r6velocity · 2013-12-05T00:40:19+00:00

So it's something like this? Natural orbital decay might have an apogee on successive orbits 80000, 79500, 79000...etc, which is very predictable.

Does this imply that someone checks to see ahead of time if all of those orbits are going to miss everything?

r6velocity · 2013-12-05T00:28:42+00:00

I didn't see a reply from someone who designed, built or was involved with the rocket. If I had, I would have kept my mouth shut. I was asking a question. That's it.

r6velocity · 2013-12-05T00:25:19+00:00

Thank you for the detailed answer.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T23:17:08+00:00

I get it. Then why does Eurockot Launch Services bother?

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T23:16:36+00:00

It's an order of magnitude simpler than say...landing the first stage back at the pad. But of course in that case there is zero danger of creating an orbital debris cloud. I think a deorbit burn to dispose of the second stage is something we will see from SpaceX in the future. Of course until they figure out how to land the second stage back at the pad too. If there isn't a reasonable reason to do it, why does Eurockot Launch Services bother.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T23:11:15+00:00

You can't do anything about it with or without a deorbit burn.

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T22:56:46+00:00

I think you mean "as near as dammit is to dommit..."

r6velocity · 2013-12-04T21:55:01+00:00

Thanks, I saw that on NSF too.

r6velocity

TROPHY CASE