/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11764585
>>11764588
Fuck's sake you guys. You don't even know what "terrain" means. Terrain is THE STATE OF THE BODY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

IS IT THE GERM
OR
IS IT
THE TERRAIN!!!!?!?

Hm.

>>11764593
Believe what you want man, whatever. Take it or leave it.

>>10524188
I'm assuming you're thinking of a ring habitat with large walls on either side, which would need to be at least 100 km high to minimize atmospheric loss. At the bare minimum, you'll be needing at least a 400 km diameter ring - this will probably look like a doughnut from the side. To maintain 1 g of gravity, however, it would need to rotate once every 15 minutes. If you're using a local star as the main source of light for the ring, you'd need a complicated set of mirrors and sunshades to give an artificial 24 hour night/day cycle.

If you wanted it to appear as an elegant ring like the ones in Halo, you'll be looking at about 5,000 kms diameter or more, but even a 10,000 km ring will have a rotational period of 1h15m.

Going further, if we wanted to make a ring with roughly the same surface area as the entirety of the Earth, you could make a 103,000 km ring with a width of 1600 km, and that would give you a 4 hour "day" cycle. Finally, to make an artificial ring with a 24 hour day, you'd be looking at a diameter of 3,708,670 km. For reference, this is about ten times the distance from the earth to the moon. If one were to make this ring with, say, a width of 20,000 km, you would have the equivalent living space of 450 Earths. Building a structure of this size would require a bit less than the mass of Mercury, not counting the atmosphere, oceans, and other geography you want to fill it with.

Now, by my reckoning, using the mass of Mercury to build a habitat that could support upwards of 6 trillion people is actually quite an efficient use of matter, provided you could ever build such a megastructure.

>>10447088
>O'Neil cylinder mass production in a world with minimal automation
Here's how I would do it:
>massive inflatable tube that matches the dimensions of the cylinder
>spray-on polymer coating, white for 'land' sections, transparent for the window sections
>affix structural trusses to the coating using bolts, rivets, whatever
>spin it up and start constructing the interior however you please

>>10197986
>twin peaks music playing in the background
Who knew indians were so kino

Doing it DIY is something I won't be able to achieve for a while as I have nowhere to actually carry out the work, unfortunately. There's a few options I've been looking at to get started, any thoughts on these?
>Saxon F767AZ, AU$130
>Saxon F1149EQ, AU$230
>SvBONY SV20, AU$169
>Celestron PowerSeeker, AU$209

>>9771907
A) Determinism is true
A.1) I claim determinism is false -> I am incorrect, but I couldn't have typed anything else, so it doesn't matter
A.2) I claim determinism is true -> I am only coincidentally correct, because I couldn't have typed anything else, so it doesn't matter

B) Determinism is false
B.1) I claim determinism is false -> I am correct, and the topic of determinism doesn't matter anymore
B.2) I claim determinism is true -> I am incorrect, but I am willingly placing myself in the reference frame A of meaning, in which case even if determinism were true and my choice of reference frame A was relevant and correct, I would still only be coincidentally correct because, by my own chosen reference frame A, I couldn't have typed anything else, so it still doesn't matter

As such there is no significant meaning which can be extracted from thinking about the question of whether determinism is true. It is a worthless philosophical question arising only from human language itself as opposed to any real analysis of reality. So despite being regarded as one of the deeper questions in some philosophical modes of thinking, it actually isn't. This proof seems too simple and too good to be true but I've yet to see a reasonable refutation.

There will never be a train of thought resulting in catharsis regarding the question of determinism. There cannot be one.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
-Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Or would it be a little like this?