WestAir

Why wouldn't a civilization advanced enough to build such a thing just use thrusters at precise locations to counteract the natural stress of the habitat?

They do if they run fast enough.

Wow. I always thought the effects of Earths rotation made a much bigger difference on gravity experienced at the equators. I was so wrong.

How much artificial gravity would residents of a ring-shaped Space Station (Stanford Torus) experience if it had a diameter of 12,756 km (circumference of 40,075 km) and it rotated at a speed of 460 m/s (Once every 23.9 hours)?

Beautifully written, K^2. I haven't visited these forums in some time but I always remember that one Particle Theorist who tirelessly tries to instill decades of intense research into the minds of casual Kerbonauts. I didn't realize that in intervals of the 3 billion Planck lengths I'd get a randomized outcome which will always be less than (instead of equal to) the same interval of lightspeed. Correct me if I'm wrong but surely there is a macro scale where things break apart? Because of the metric expansion of space, isn't there a point where interaction also breaks down?

Hey guys. Quick question I didn't know where else to ask: While on paper it's impossible for an object to keep pace with the propagation of causality, is it possible for an electron to do just that if said propagation can be quantized? I'll try to explain my question as clearly as I can. Imagine we have a photon and an electron. The electron is traveling at a speed of 0.999[...]99C. In simpler terms, let's say this electron will move 2,999,999,999 Planck lengths in 3,000,000,000 Planck times. If we slow time and observe a race between the electron and the propagation of information, wouldn't it appear like the electron is keeping pace with propagation up until it doesn't? If the electron will only lose ground on the 3 billionth Planck length - and not a single Planck length sooner - won't it appear that the electron is in fact moving at the speed of light? I imagine the answer lies in whether or not space can be meaningfully quantized, but correct me if I'm wrong that stuff like electromagnetism and gravity shouldn't work below the Planck scale because Bosons collapse as soon as they interact with anything (which means they can't be force carriers?) on this scale because they're too energetic, so if we're comparing the Electron to a nearby Photon, then quantization is a thing? Assuming the prior points stand (and that's a big assumption),If there is no way to tell the difference between our energetic electron and the speed of light, prior to the passage of time showing us who the winner is, then how does the Universe know which is faster? Can an electron even have that much energy? Thanks for bothering to read. I have an Elementary School understanding of Physics so don't feel too badly if you have to talk slow or be a little condescending in your response.

Would a human that is biologically cured of aging (I.E., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality ) be able to fullfill the OPs initial request without the need for cryogenics? What's the upper limit here to an immortal organisms lifespan?

Sort of. I doubt you'll be controllable if you were sitting still then went for take of power on just one engine.

There are more places in the Universe with life than we could count, but we'll never meet them. Depending on how long we last, we also may never prove it.

"Don't worry, the runway is inclined to prevent excessive G forces!" Great. As if kicking the rudder at the last second wasn't enough, now I have to roll the plane! I'm calling the union. Every landing on a circular runway should earn me an additional 3 flight hours pay above my monthly guarantee.

Buy an IBM supercomputer, because you're gonna have to build a 120,000,000 part ship that has a CoM at geostationary but still reaches 2km above Kerbin. It would probably be easiest to build the whole thing in the hangar, then launch it the 2km needed to get it into orbit. Not sure how many struts you'll need to make it happen, but I'd imagine it would be somewhere between 1 and 20 hundred thousand.

I've got a feeling that the science behind this might drag this concept to the ground.

In appearance? I guess not much. The A380 certainly wasn't the newest of designs. Even Boeing had a similar design for the Boeing NLA, apprantely. As far as performance, it was planned to have 33 fewer passengers, fly 1,030 fewer nautical miles, cruise slower by 0.04 mach, and it would've weighed 145 fewer tons. As an aside, that's just their high performance design. McDonnell was planning four different variants of the aircraft. Sources:

Wait so the furthest Galaxies could be made of anti-matter? So the NASA rocket to EGS8p7 is going to be cancelled?

So what you're saying is that forever (I.E, till the end of the Universe) really does feel like forever?

Unless it's more like a retirement or reward thing. You work hard and contribute to keeping the real world spinning, and once you've paid your dues, you get access to the holodeck to live out the rest of your life (assuming biological immortality hasn't been invented) in your own virtual sandbox. Edit: In any case. A society infected with such a technology may cease to view real world space exploration as meaningful.

There's also the chance, however slight, that civilizations end up becoming completely virtual. Imagine you can hook your brain up to a computer and live in a virtual reality with no limits. Think the holodeck from Star Trek. You can play god, you can relive history, create your own universe whatever have you. Moreover, it may even be possible to manipulate a persons subjective passing of time so that a society in a virtual world can live centuries in real life days. Why would anyone live in reality with all of the problems we encounter day in and day out in our pursuit of maximum happiness when we can just enter a holodeck and have every gratification fulfilled forever. I can't imagine society avoiding the temptation. Who cares about reality when we can make a better one? This could be a problem all civilizations face.

Eventually. It is my understanding that the background will cool to nothing, eventually, and then so will smbh's. I could be wrong, and in which case one of our smarter members will correct me.

Can't we just launch it into space on a return trajectory back to new New York?

Half expected one of the physicists here to jump in and say "any singularity with a mass greater than x, if created on Earth's surface, will overcome hawking radiation and snowball until it consumes us." I've been left disappointed.

It would certainly have been fun.

I've never had the "luxury" of the AP turning off while I daydreamed about what I was going to do when I got home, but I like to imagine I'd be able to take full control in less than 5 seconds. That said, what I'd like to think and the reality of the situation (as the article implies) are two different things. Thanks for the read.

Wow. So would you end up vomiting into your mask and suffocating?

When you are training for a private pilots certificate the instructor will often have you close your eyes and put the aircraft into an unusual attitude, then have you open your eyes and try to return the aircraft to straight and level flight. This is often completed in less than 5 seconds. Do you remember where you read this study, I want to read it.

What does it do when an insect crashes into my flying car midair and blocks the static port, making my aerodata computer freeze? EDIT: Fyi, my point is that there must be a qualified occupant capable of manual control when the system fails, or else a system failure will be synonymous with fatalities in all cases.