ZetaX

The three dimensions are not a problem, see my post above for a way to do it. The actual laws of physics obviously are a problem, but that may as well hold for "normal" wormholes as you describe them (we don't know yet as far as I know).

The centrifugal force of what¿ The planet¿ The ship¿ An astronaut¿

To avoid problems of the kind "what is at the back of a portal, e.g. if I dig through the wall", we should probably assume that every portal is actually a portal on both sides. In other words, the backsides are linked, too; we simply can't see it in normal use. Then we can define what they do: they change spacetime. So what does this mean exactly¿ For the following ignore everything in round brackets unless you want the formal mathematical definition; and even for that I will now ignore the time component because this makes it really ugly, but will come back to it at the end: If we create portals, we actually choose two two-dimensional shapes of the same size and form (formaly: they are two 2-dim. smooth submanifolds which are closed subsets, come with a fixed smooth isometry and a fixed orientation). Then we glue the points on the boundary together, so for each pair of points that "are the same" we now have a single point in spacetime. After that, we "fill in the insides" which is essentially how you would imagine it: a point close to portal A is now very close to the corresponding point at the other side of portal B, while the points that were once close to portal A's other side are now far away. ( Formaly, we change the topology as follows. Let f be the isometry from portal A to B. Let the orientation give us a notion of "above" and "below", at least close to the portal. And let "eps-n" be a shortcut for epsilon-neighbourhood, i.e. balls of radius epsilon around a point. A basis of open sets, i.e. a system that tells us what is close and what is not, is now given as follows: - For a point disjoint from the portals, just take all eps-n small enough to not intersect any portal. - For a point x on the inside of portal A we let an eps-n of x be the union of {y| y in eps-n of x and on the positive side of A} and {z| z in eps-n of f(x) and on the negative side of B}. Note that this is only well-defined if epsilon is small enough. - Similiar for points f(x) on portal B, with positive and negative interchanged. - Points on the boundary of portal A get identified with the point f(x) on B's boundary, and we let an eps-n of x=f(x) be the union of the original eps-n of x and the original eps-n of f(x). ) As you see, this is quite a mouthful. I don't think there is a much easier formal way, but the above should at least be what one usually means. Now I want to briefly get back to the -time in spacetime: We actually could have portals between different times. Actually, we necessarily get them as soon as we allow moving portals relative to each other or consider sources of gravity. By time dilation, one of them will then age slower than the other and the only way to consistently fix this will be to allow them to not go to the same time period. So just stop thinking of portals purely as between the same place, but let them be between two points in spacetime instead. We should probably assume some resolution of all the time-traveling paradoxes that could come with this, e.g. by having a deterministic paradox-free universe. (Formaly, we would need to change the above construction to consider the portals' movement through spacetime and then would need to add some more cases on what happens with the topology at the moment the portal is formed or closed.) tl;dr: Formalizing portals is lengthy, but gives you time-travel and therefore neat tricks: e.g. doing the infinite falling trick, but traveling backwards in time on portal-crossing; it ends when a portal "vanishes", i.e. when we travelled back far enough to reach a point where the next portal to go through doesn't exist yet. Not exactly. This is not a continuous operation and will make some points further apart. We will this need to tweak the accepted laws of physics a bit, otherwise this won't be allowed at all.

Also, whatever you actually want to do: mathematics is a rigid and exact science. You will need to define precisely and accurately how portals supposedly work.

Well, as the second line was supposed to show, that was a rhethorical question to begin with^^

It would at least give Pallas a nice bright glow to watch while we wait for the impact^^

If that asteroid impacts the east coast, there will be no west coast left; it will be burried under hundreds of meters of stone, flooded with lava or wiped away by flood- and shockwaves. Such a large impact also ejects lots of material which will then fall down on the whole world. And all that is before we even consider climatic or political effects. At that size, there is no effective difference between small rocks or a big rock. If it hits, it's the end. You have a weird idea of lasers. They defocus long before reaching the asteroid (unless you are planning on waiting untill it looks a hundred times the size of the moon in the sky) and their energy output is ridiculous in comparision to even a smaller asteroid, and definitely a much worse choice if the alternative is nukes.

Maybe someone wants to explain why making water from solar hydrogen is a good idea and why we presumably can just assume to have enough oxygen¿ Because making water would need oxygen (about 8 times as much, in regard to mass). Additionally, recycling water is pretty trivial if you have some energy to spare for destillation (and being close enough to the sun to collect hydrogen definitely means enough energy).

You are not describing how you plan to reach that speed. Just detonating and somehow magically containing a Tsar bomba won't do.

Actually it is more a good way to resolve problems with numerics, i.e. rounding errors and such coming from an imperfect version of real numbers. Coincidentally (or not), the same reasoning would explain aspects of quantum mechanics. Some other aspects of QM could be meta-explained by what is called lazy evaluation.

Better being there and dying instantly than painfully dying over the next few minutes/hours/days (depending on where exactly you are).

Then throw your 1000Mt at it, heck, let it be even 10Gt. Pallas is still laughing. You seem to have no idea about the size of that thing.

You are now the x-th person suggesting something that is rididulously underpowered in regard to something like Pallas.

In a lot of areas, especially research, you cannot just throw ten times as many people at it to get it done in a tenth of the time. It may even take longer with more people (evaluation of the results, diffculty of communication, such things). It gets worse if you account for the obviously limited number of researchers and engineers of a specific specialisation. You can't turn all those guys that did car manufacturing for 20 years into space ship builders in a couple of weeks.

That's just nonsensical. If matter attracts antimatter, then antimatter attracts matter; that's just Newton's law. Same for "repells". There is no "matter repells antimatter, but antimatter attracts matter". It may be (but very unlikely) that they neither attract nor repell each other, but then that's not because of what you say.

That's, say, 100Mt of TNT. Even at 1Gt, Pallas will laugh meniacly and carry on. We are talking about changes of maybe picometers or single-digits of nanometers/s here, and the latter sounds already very optimistic.

The program is probably simply not intended for that size. It's not like it would do an actual simulation, it is just plugging this into some given formulas. It's called a supernova.

Well, no, because you don't know the initial charge of the universe. We can with very high confidence assume it to be almost neutral, but perfect neutrality is essentially uncheckable.

It is up to a amount so miniscule we cannot make out the difference so far in the obsrevable universe. That's enough for all things concerned. You could say it is scientifically proven.

For your own sake, please don't even try overclocking. Without even such basic knowledge like that you are doomed to break something. Yes, 100MHz will almost surely not hurt, but you also won't really see a difference. The amount you probably want should only be done with some understanding of the inner workings and how to and what to monitor (for example, not only temperature but also power is a must-watch).

Apart from the mentioned temperature concerns, your PSU might be failing. Try also measuring its power output and see if it is stable.

Please do not call such people "scientists".

It's as "controversial" as the claim that "the moon is blue and everyone who says otherwise is just trying to hide the truth or even lying to themselves".

That's because "2" is something different than "2 litres of water". You can't neglect units.