|
I think the word I am looking for is pedant. Trap sprung. Owlofcreamcheese posted:People have been using sentient to mean "human like" when talking about aliens for like 60+ years. At some point you gotta give up on prescriptive language and just accept words mean what people think they mean. If you are writing a science paper then do it right but as a common language thing it literally never causes any sort of harmful confusion and virtually everyone that would be talking about it understands perfectly what is being said. Also, they do react to outside stimuli, but they do not think. They are chinese rooms. Sophisticated if this then that statements. D-Pad fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jul 20, 2019 |
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
I dont understand why we need to drag asteroids everywhere? I mean lets go down a simple path of space construction expansion Build a bigger ISS with a compliment of 10,000 1m drones to help clean up debris and misc other functions Build a shipyard piecemeal Pump ships out and trust me i think by this point there will be more than enough capital investment Create stations inside asteroids for processing and such Send the materials to earth or NEO Once we have 1 shipyard the next yard should come way faster Economies to scale takes care of the rest WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jul 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:I dont understand why we need to drag asteroids everywhere? I mean lets go down a simple path of space construction expansion You have to mine asteriods in order to build anything of appreciable size in space. Getting the amount of metal you are talking about into space would be prohibitively expensive
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Dimensional sentience. We already do, so yes? After all, modulated air waves aren't visible / not discernible in the third dimension, and you have to spend time listening someone talk.  Edit: I'm looking at your post in the 4th dimension, like right now
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:You have to mine asteriods in order to build anything of appreciable size in space. Getting the amount of metal you are talking about into space would be prohibitively expensive Mining yes, but Moving? Why do we need to land or move or position asteroids we mine asteroids in the belt without moving them out of the belt in anything other than shiny ingots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:That's true, but still. It's something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
What does an interstellar drone that would manipulate loving asteroids in the quite lengthy distances associated with the asteroid belt look like? Shut the gently caress up about asteroids. Start drilling the goddamn Moon and solar panels generate the furnace and pump that loving MOON OIL
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Sadly all I can find for delta v sources are all based on Wikipedia, or based on Atomic Rockets which is based on wikipedia, but as far as I can tell, you need over half again as much delta V to go from LEO to Mars surface as you would just getting into LEO in the first place. It's not an insignificant amount of fuel. What you are missing is that you need to expend a lot of chemical fuel to slow down once you intercept mars. Sure, you spend most of that 180 days in a small capsule, coasting along, but you are still talking about a serious amount of fuel. Oh, and if anything goes wrong you die. There are no rescue missions, because it would take months to get to you. You're operating on some incorrect assumptions and results in a post that confuses a couple of things together and gets it quite a bit wrong. There are two kinds of transfers to get to Mars, an oppositional transfer, and a conjunction transfer. Oppositional is seen as "faster", a 90 day trip but also requires not only considerable energy and deltaV to make the trip, but also generally means going so fast you need to expend fuel to slow down. However the 180 trip is the conjunction transfer which involves going slower, slow enough that you don't have to use fuel to slow down at all. You can either dip slightly into the Martian atmosphere to slowdown and pull up to enter a stable orbit to assess the situation in case the weather is bad and then land, or just do aerocapture and plunge straight in, using the atmosphere to slow you down, burn off your excess speed and then land. You probably mostly read a source focused on oppositional transfers because its the transfer that is advocated by lobbyists who want nuclear thermal rockets (NTRs) developed as they are "faster" and carry more payload. So in terms of spent fuel, we are discussing "heavy lift vehicals", they generate up to around 500,000 lbs of thrust and various designs deliver between 100 to 250 tonnes into LEO; the Saturn V could do 140, Ares V was around 130, and so on. This is proven and existing technology for the most part. It's 4.3 km/s dV to send the spacecraft into a Trans Mars Injection, 3.7 km/s dV for a 250 minimum energy trip. The book states that there should be at least 0.7 km/s dV spare in the former scenario for any mid course corrections when there is at most 0.4 km/s dV that could occur. The lander provides 700 m/s dV for aiding in the accuracy of the aerobrake, the total dV for the trip is about 6 km/s while an oppositional mission needs around 7.8 km/s dV. The oppositional mission also has the issue of needing to swing by the inner solar system which presents issues. Using chemical rockets its about 25-30 tonnes delivered total to the Mars surface, a NTR could do 35-40 tonnes. So all of this is more than enough. In fact it's entirely possible that if the mission is a bust and you must return to Earth the conjunctional transfer actually can give you a free return trip back to Earth; so depending on "what goes wrong" you just go back and doesn't cost extra fuel, as per what happened with Apollo 13, and it's available for 175 out of 180 days of the trip. If something goes wrong on Mars uh, like, did you read the fact it was a 600 day mission for a total 980 days? In such a long term mission, "something goes wrong" would be baked into the mission parameters; you're supposed to stay there for a very long time, almost two years. The mission better be equipped for you to be able to eat your veggies and tough it out with medical supplies, redundant systems, and enough spare supplies and so on that since you're already expected to stay there for so long, waiting 6 months worst case between resupply missions shouldn't be an issue. Its 180 days to 250 days to get there, for a 600 day duration on the surface; you can easily have enough rockets making trips for autotonomous resupply runs or new staff every X many months, just like those arctic remote bases in the far north or south that only get resupplied once every several months either way; it's comparable. As for the rest: quote:Compare that to establishing a space station somewhere in cislunar space. You'd be within days of a rescue mission if anything went wrong. Why would you be in cislunar space for asteroid mining? For building an orbital shipyard and some initial test habitat maybe, but anything that would actually be exploiting asteroids for resources would be further away than Mars would be. Additionally space stations have to deal with one thing underground complexes on Mars don't. Space debris. A problem that is much worse in LEO than it would be out in the asteroid boonies. quote:A cislunar fuel station turning ice into fuel would be able to provide fuel to every space probe and mars rocket that wants to leave LEO... I don't get the point of this sentence or honestly the rest of your post. Because long term moving up the Kardaschev scale obviously "everything" should be on the table; like what precisely are you disagreeing with? I don't disagree with the idea of eventually going for superstructures, but I don't think there exists any amount of math to support the idea that it would be more cost effective to build space superstructures in lieu of getting the ball rolling on Mars. Why can't or shouldn't we, do both? Additionally, suppose we started off with an effort for Mars first, wouldn't there eventually be a compelling need to build superstructures eventually? Looking at your original post at the topic: quote:Terraforming mars is a waste of time. You could use the resources needed to build perfectly engineered space colonies that'd house more people and not leave them on a rock with low gravity that's constantly blasted by solar radiation. The ISS, which is just a few cans tied together, is 150 billion dollars, and houses like 6 people. For half the cost we can just straight up have the same number of people on Mars. The idea that colonizing Mars presents some sort of opportunity cost, or inefficiency, that only space superstructures can resolve, is science-fantasy, not science fiction. Basically, there is already, at least a wholly thought out plan that details the processes as to what a Mars plan looks like, and there are tonnes of white papers and plans out there about what terraforming Mars could look like over what most estimates I've seen made it sound like a 100 year period. I don't think anything in an analogous level of thought out detail or planning exists for space superstructures, beyond whats in scifi books because the task is several order of magnitudes more difficult. What are the economics, how much does it cost, what is the mission profile, what technologies yet need to exist; you haven't answered any of the questions while I could at least point to a commonly well received book on the subject that and paraphrase bits of it. And Project Rho doesn't count. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Jul 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
The possibility of ~infinite resources~ presented by proponents of space exploration is a pipedream that allows nerds to cling onto fantasies of maintaining current standards of living while the planet boils alive. We'd be better off by cutting funding for overpriced garbage like the ISS, manned spaceflight, and Martian RC cars, and focus the resources on poo poo that can actually help people like more advanced earth/climate observation satellites.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
Missionary Positron posted:The possibility of ~infinite resources~ presented by proponents of space exploration is a pipedream that allows nerds to cling onto fantasies of maintaining current standards of living while the planet boils alive. Yeah. Missionary Positron posted:We'd be better off by cutting funding for overpriced garbage like the ISS, manned spaceflight, and Martian RC cars, and focus the resources on poo poo that can actually help people like more advanced earth/climate observation satellites. Meh. "We" don't really get to choose, no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
my dad posted:
Unfortunately, we don't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Missionary Positron posted:The possibility of ~infinite resources~ presented by proponents of space exploration is a pipedream that allows nerds to cling onto fantasies of maintaining current standards of living while the planet boils alive. We'd be better off by cutting funding for overpriced garbage like the ISS, manned spaceflight, and Martian RC cars, and focus the resources on poo poo that can actually help people like more advanced earth/climate observation satellites. Another post with zero basis in objective reality. How do you propose maintaining even a second world standard of living when we have another 6 billion people within 100 years? We can't mine the Earth forever. It'd be LESS emissions not more to get resources off world. Go sit there with Kerning Chameleon in the corner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Another post with zero basis in objective reality. How do you propose maintaining even a second world standard of living when we have another 6 billion people within 100 years? We can't mine the Earth forever. It'd be LESS emissions not more to get resources off world. I love how wonderfully low-key racist this post is. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Missionary Positron posted:The possibility of ~infinite resources~ presented by proponents of space exploration is a pipedream that allows nerds to cling onto fantasies of maintaining current standards of living while the planet boils alive. We'd be better off by cutting funding for overpriced garbage like the ISS, manned spaceflight, and Martian RC cars, and focus the resources on poo poo that can actually help people like more advanced earth/climate observation satellites. drat dude you're right I forgot we can only ever do one thing at a time as a species Also re: Blindsight my favorite implication from that arc (Echopraxia inclusive) is that there is a level of computational abstraction at which war, communication and trade are all interchangable actions. The Rorschach biosphere thing looks at communication as war, because tryna talk wastes its energy on listening to what we regard as an attempt to exchange ideas, and what it regards as a malformed resource control flow. But that's not the end of it because thru Aumann's Agreement Theorem, they would view war as communication, and trade as war, and communication as trade, in perfect symmetry. We don't, but only because we lack perfect isomorphisms between information, matter, and energy. Once they recognize a fitness-optimizing process (post-humans towards the end of the first book and the beginning of the second), they attempt to come to the resolution which optimizes the mutual fitness function for both agents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
my dad posted:I love how wonderfully low-key racist this post is. I'm pretty sure merely saying "second world standard of living" isn't racist, they're standard polisci terminology; is there some other word that you would prefer I use or was there some way in which I presented it that came off as offencive? Because I mean presumably the post I responded to claimed the issue was about standard of living among first world nations and their desire to maintain that standard via off-world resource extraction, and their inferred solution is some sort of ecofascist totalitarian state to enforce a more equitable standard of living (which would be lower for first world nations, but presumably higher for others). I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to, could you please elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
"You cant expect us to live like those people." ecofascist, lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
Who hasn't done a few ecofascism's here and there
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:"You cant expect us to live like those people." I never said that though? Where did I say this? I only figured it would be difficult, that's the only thing I said, I gave no opinion as to desirability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Yeah, there's nothing "low-key racist" in his post, you guys are just suffering from internet poisoning. You should read less poo poo from racists, if you're already mentally adding in racism in every post you read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
this is a thread about spacism not racism
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Another post with zero basis in objective reality. How do you propose maintaining even a second world standard of living when we have another 6 billion people within 100 years? We can't mine the Earth forever. It'd be LESS emissions not more to get resources off world. What do you base that on? If we can mine and refine stuff in a vacuum then clearly we have perfected electrical mining equipment and can refine without burning coal. At that point there would be no emissions at all apart from launching rockets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:this is a thread about spacism not racism I thought America won the space racism 50 years ago?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:What do you base that on? If we can mine and refine stuff in a vacuum then clearly we have perfected electrical mining equipment and can refine without burning coal. At that point there would be no emissions at all apart from launching rockets. Right? I responding to the person claiming space exploration would make climate change worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Right? I responding to the person claiming space exploration would make climate change worse. Your colonization plan is founded on the idea that we've solved the question of compact, emission-free, electricity generation. With cheap, off-the-shelf, technology. Seems realistic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Your colonization plan is founded on the idea that we've solved the question of compact, emission-free, electricity generation. With cheap, off-the-shelf, technology. NASA already completed a compact, modular nuclear reactor for electricity generation, so I guess yes, this question is already solved. Since it's NASA, it's not exactly cheap, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Your colonization plan is founded on the idea that we've solved the question of compact, emission-free, electricity generation. With cheap, off-the-shelf, technology. Where did I claim this? Sorry to be rude, but it seems like you haven't been following the conversation and you confused two entirely separate arguments/conversations together. 1. Mars Direct is a plan written years ago by a NASA engineer/consultant; it relies on off of the shelf and "relatively" cheap technology to do a particular mission that maximizes certain results. I.e it means to be cheaper than alternative plans (60 billion$ vs 650 billion$ for the von Braun plan), over a shorter timeframe (10 years); for a longer "manned" duration on Mars (600 days vs 30 days) for less radiation exposure (52 rems over 980 days). This is just about setting up a permanent research outpost and to "get the ball rolling". "Phase 1" so to speak. 2. I made no claims that this was "emission free" or relied on "compact, emission-free, energy generation" that was "cheap and off the shelf" where did you read this? 3. I did however claim that space exploration in general should result in the long term, in less emissions for an industrialized society, then mountaintop or open pit mining, fracking, and so on for resources. This is a separate mission from Mars Direct, and isn't a direct goal of Mars Direct. Because I responding to this post: Missionary Positron posted:The possibility of ~infinite resources~ presented by proponents of space exploration is a pipedream that allows nerds to cling onto fantasies of maintaining current standards of living while the planet boils alive. We'd be better off by cutting funding for overpriced garbage like the ISS, manned spaceflight, and Martian RC cars, and focus the resources on poo poo that can actually help people like more advanced earth/climate observation satellites. Which seemed to be claiming that space exploration doesn't help with climate change, or perhaps even makes it worse. Both are incorrect claims, which I was responding to by itself, but not in conjunction to the previous conversation, you are aware that a single poster can be engaged in two or more entirely separate conversations in the same thread yes? 4. It's especially strange as nothing about colonizing Mars in general past the initial goals of Mars Direct after landing humans on Mars necessarily requires miniaturized power generation or emissions free miniaturized power generation but I guess it would be nice to have? I surely never mentioned it. Though we can make nuclear reactors decently compact these days, I'm sure it's doable; but it certainly isn't required for getting to Mars; maybe for the terraforming steps? I haven't read that section in the book in years so maybe you read ahead? Can you confirm? Quite strange indeed that you appear to be arguing to someone else, strange indeed, quite perplexing since I don't see anyone in the thread making that argument either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Libluini posted:NASA already completed a compact, modular nuclear reactor for electricity generation, so I guess yes, this question is already solved. Since it's NASA, it's not exactly cheap, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:But has NASA figured out how to get it into space? Within the risk that is generally allowed for modern space missions, that is. A block of highly enriched uranium, and a bunch of liquid sodium is a problem for range safety unless that reactor core can survive the self-destruct process and uncontrolled reentry without a breach. Maybe it's a negligible risk, and maybe we would say the risk is worth it, but that's not how policymakers see it. Policymakers think its fine to have nuclear reactors in submarines or in planes*, this isn't substantially riskier because uranium burning up in the atmosphere isn't the worst result compared to others. There's no risk of a meltdown in space so the risk comes from the material burning up and well its probably less than atmospheric nuclear tests. Edit: Also we have nuclear reactors in space already, satellites have already been shot into space with them on. *The Russians literally had a nuclear powered turboprop jet. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jul 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:But has NASA figured out how to get it into space? Within the risk that is generally allowed for modern space missions, that is. A block of highly enriched uranium, and a bunch of liquid sodium is a problem for range safety unless that reactor core can survive the self-destruct process and uncontrolled reentry without a breach. Maybe it's a negligible risk, and maybe we would say the risk is worth it, but that's not how policymakers see it. NASA was planning to use their new miniature reactors for a possible moon base in the future, so maybe? To tell you the truth, if what I remember from that Scientific American article is right, they've been overly cautious and incredibly slow in developing that thing, with more funding and less nuclear scariness they could have been finished years earlier. But yeah, putting that thing into space is the entire purpose, that's why they made it small, light and compact (for a nuclear reactor). Don't just trust my memories however, here's what Wikipedia has to say The prototype was completed 2017, has a weight of approx. 134 kg and creates up to 1 kW power. But since it's modular, you can just chain multiple together if you need more power, and NASA is already planning to build larger ones anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:But has NASA figured out how to get it into space? Within the risk that is generally allowed for modern space missions, that is. A block of highly enriched uranium, and a bunch of liquid sodium is a problem for range safety unless that reactor core can survive the self-destruct process and uncontrolled reentry without a breach. Maybe it's a negligible risk, and maybe we would say the risk is worth it, but that's not how policymakers see it. Nuclear fuel is not particularly hazardous until it actually starts getting burned. As long as the thing gets switched on after reaching orbit it literally doesn't pose more risk than just hauling up some heavy metals in a component.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 01:00
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Additionally the ship regarding nuclear power in space has sailed. There's been like 50 nuclear powered systems launched into space.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:Depends. Relativity is time symmetrical in general. Here's a stupid question / cool story plot: what if the answer to "Why is there matter and no anti-matter?" is that the anti-matter went and made it's own universe that's moving away from the big bang in time in the opposite direction? Also, thanks to all of you for the interesting discussion and goo sci-fi recommendations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
Lumpy posted:Here's a stupid question / cool story plot: what if the answer to "Why is there matter and no anti-matter?" is that the anti-matter went and made it's own universe that's moving away from the big bang in time in the opposite direction? It's not at all a stupid question. It's one of the central problems with our current understanding of physics. The technical name for it is the "Baryon Asymmetry" problem. Our theories say that antimatter and matter should have been produced in equal amounts. We have seen some small CP violations in current physics that indicate that 'matter' is more preferred than 'anti-matter' - but we don't know the reason why that is true, and more importantly, the CP violations we can experimentally investigate isn't enough to explain the current state of the universe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
The current main theory says that both matter and anti-matter were created in almost the same amount, but due to physics, anti-matter got created slightly less. So after aggressively annihilating each other, some matter was left over. This also neatly explains why most of the universe is just empty space with nothing in it, so it sounds deceptively plausible. We just don't know for sure! Though some recent articles I've read talk about the quarks forming anti-matter having some weird stuff going on (makes me wish I could remember details, but heh, never thought I would be talking about this), which means that maybe, when a Big Bang happens, normal matter has a slightly higher chance of forming, which could be the basis for this cosmic asymmetry. A neat thing I though off by myself is that maybe the cosmos is so uneven and lumpy 'cause the matter-anti-matter-annihilation phase was uneven, and what nowadays are voids were zones where most of the anti-matter was, while the zones where matter bunches up are the ones which had more matter in them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
Libluini posted:A neat thing I though off by myself is that maybe the cosmos is so uneven and lumpy 'cause the matter-anti-matter-annihilation phase was uneven, and what nowadays are voids were zones where most of the anti-matter was, while the zones where matter bunches up are the ones which had more matter in them. Well at worst you're half right
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 08:52
|
|
cowboy
|
Lumpy posted:Here's a stupid question / cool story plot: what if the answer to "Why is there matter and no anti-matter?" is that the anti-matter went and made it's own universe that's moving away from the big bang in time in the opposite direction? There are metaphysics theories about it legit enough that you could do that. Basically, in our universe, empty space is actually full of what are called virtual particles - which are random fluctuations of the underlying fields that make a matter/antimatter pair pop into existence. Since our universe is one without a free lunch, without external energy input those things are doomed to annihilate each other very shortly. Sometimes, like near an event horizon of a black hole, the particles can become real, and this is one way of describing how Hawking radiation evaporates black holes - the extreme gravitational energy potential makes one of the virtual particles real, and the energy needed to do that is taken from the mass of the black hole. So, maybe our universe is just one of a pair of those quantum fluctuations in an underlying multiverse. Maybe all this is actually half of a literal blip of nothing. Of course, this is purely metaphysical and this is the primary hypothesis we have for the baryonic asymmetry: Libluini posted:The current main theory says that both matter and anti-matter were created in almost the same amount, but due to physics, anti-matter got created slightly less. So after aggressively annihilating each other, some matter was left over. This also neatly explains why most of the universe is just empty space with nothing in it, so it sounds deceptively plausible. We just don't know for sure!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 10:56
|
|
|
Adar posted:A little but not quite. Sci fi tends to focus on one race being conquered by another or an automated threat like von Neumanns. But even in those cases the conquerer or probe is not going to be the Biggest Bad, because across the entire universe the probability of that is effectively 0. In fact no sane race would ever deploy a von Neumann voluntarily because a Bigger Bad, which the probes will eventually always encounter, will trace them back to their source. The law of large numbers is a real bitch when you think in those terms. Id say long term survival of a species to reach top technological capabilties guarantees theyre benevolent. Big baddies would fight themselves once theyd colonized enough planets. But If your capable of galactic warfare. And you encounter a big bad. And your relatively at the top of the tech curve. You make it your mission to scatter in every direction and warn every other race. While dropping your best tech on them. Youll encounter more benevolent races who dont want to be destroyed. Band together
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:We know everything about the moon: it sucks and is boring and I can't believe we got the worst moon in the whole solar system. We got the best moon it stablizies the planet makes life possible
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
And while occlusion would happen in any planet/moon system, our eclipses might be unique for being a pair of visually identically sized bodies occluding/being occluded. The aliens are here (for Space Tourism)
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:You don't need FTL to have an interstellar civilization, just STL and bodies capable of surviving the trip (and probably also immortal, if you want people to care to make the trip). We have the former, and while the latter is beyond our ability right now, it's not the sort of "not allowed by physics as we currently understand it" sort of problem that that FTL is. God is out origin species sending seeding dna pods to planets to colonize the galaxy with the power of evolution. Our dna has coding that holds the information of our origins(hence religion). Our dna also holds the blueprint for how were meant to develop. Once weve reached a certain level of technology well link up with the rest of the galactic society at which point well be brought up to speed on tech Heaven
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 18:01
|
|