/sci/ - Science & Math

> 80 F
>mfw

What is this, some new vore fetish?

Mankind will never make it there, so what're you talking about?

>Build big hot air (err, hydrogen) balloon
>Descend into "stellar" atmosphere and inflate balloon
>Live my life on the surface of a star

>>3968447

actually, with current technology, we could easily do a single manned one way mission there.

>>3968458
Not if you want to stop when you get there...

>>3968458
>easily

>>3968458

I blame the education system letting people like this slip through the cracks.

>>3968453

Technically floating in the atmosphere of any such body is not on it's "surface".

>>3968476
There is no real surface, seeing how the fluids go supercritical before they reach sufficient pressure to condense.

Anyways, you get what I mean...

>>3968458
> actually, with current technology, we could easily do a single manned one way mission there.

Sure, as long as you don't mind your astronauts dying along the way:

"The photometric distance estimate of this object is <9.4 pc (<30.7 ly)."

The fastest object we've ever sent (Voyager 1), goes about 1 lightyear in 18000 years. Even if we made a craft that went 100 times faster, it would still take 5400 years for the craft to arrive at the Brown Dwarf in question.

>>3968500

no, because science is powerful and we can just tech things to go faster than the speed of light they already made neutrons do it people can too

>>3968458
we havent even made a manned mission to mars, chief tim. dont think so.

>>3968525

Nor will we ever.

>>3968511

Isn't it past the beddy-bye time of little boys like you?

Wow, no tantrums about how we are going to space and no meanie physics can tell them otherwise?

Maybe /sci/ is growing.

>>3968600

Is that the Angry Simian guy again samefagging to support his fantasy world where we can't do anything. Fuck off why aren't you banned.

>>3968525

We could 20 years ago. We can do it even better now, USA just doesn't have enough resources, maybe if they weren't in debt.

>>3968607
>Being conservative
>Fantasy world
Oh boy, I didn't know it was backwards day!

>>3968607

Oh right, I live in the fantasy world where america no longer has a space program but everyone thinks that everything is going according to plan and not having any way of getting a man into orbit means we'll be going warp speed in no time.

You're just deluded by the grandeur promised in science fiction, and like a child, you're mad that santa hasn't made good.

We were supposed to be in the space age now. With over 100k people living and working in space. We aren't. What concrete objective reason do you have to believe that any other predictions of the future will hold water?

>>3968620

>We were supposed to be in the space age now.

Wait what? [citation needed] where in your fantasy crazy place are you pulling those bold statements?


>What concrete objective reason do you have to believe that any other predictions of the future will hold water?

You have to be really stupid to not realize we're not going to expand and eventually leave earth, we're steadily becoming more advanced, and learning new things about the cosmos, 90 years after our first plane we send a mission to the moon and land there, after that we send probes into interstellar space sending back readings, we examine all of our planets in this system and carefully observe and note all stars in our area of the galaxy, we begin to make powerful telescopes that image faint galaxies megaparsecs away, then we develop radio telescopes and others that can observe the background radiation from the big bang,

I don't think the human race is dying out any time soon.

10/10

>>3968637

Okay. So why have we gone from having a space program, to having a moon program, back to having a space program, and then back to having no space program.

How do you rationalize that with your vision of the future.

Yeah, the potential for that future is there. But people don't want to live in space. I know science people and nerds do, but real working men and women don't want to risk their lives just to shit in a spacesuit and make probably not good enough money.

>>3968637

Dying out? No.

Comfortable with mediocrity? Damn right.

Even if we do go into space, The solar system is as far as we'll go. Again, because a whole colony of people isn't suicidal, and nobody wants to spend 50 years on a cramped starship that smells of body odor.

>>3968649

So you're saying that if the human race is still around by the time that the sun is about to become a red giant they're just going to go meh, we're going to die oh well, who cares about living.

Really?

>>3968676

I think we'd have already achieved enough by being the only complex species to survive for more than a few million years.

But yeah, they'll have playstation 3*10^28. They might not even notice it happen.

>>3968649
It extends beyond the average man. The general population is expanding more than we anticipated. If we DID have the technology, then people wouldn't have a choice, and we would colonize planets because its the smartest thing to do. Plus the average Joe really never had a say in scientific progression, and there are people pushing this.

>>3968685

>then people wouldn't have a choice, and we would colonize planets because its the smartest thing to do.

Get on the ship or die.

There is no good future, is there?

All the future's /sci/ people come up with seem to be totalitarian futures where they became gods and simply imposed their wills on everyone.

>>3968676
Four billion years from now? I think we'll figure something out by then if we're not dead already.

But for now, let's not get ahead of ourselves, or we won't get anywhere at all.

>>3968649
Science people and nerds are usually the ones to make it happen. I can assure you the main reasons for opposing something like NASA are:
1) Ignorance oh cost of NASA compared to other programs, doesn't know the extent about what NASA has done that influences the world
2) They perceive NASA/space exploration is going nowhere, usually due to technological constraints when it's really just no President that wants to prove America's e-peen
3) NASA DOESN'T HAVE GOOD PR. For example, if http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXkuo1yihjs&feature=channel_video_title was an actual advertisement of NASA, and NASA was able to change its image while given directives for major projects, space exploration as well as America would suddenly start appearing really awesome and thinking about the future, like it appeared with Apollo 11.

"...And the first humans have landed on another world, making Americans the only nation to have countrymen on an alien planet."

>>3968685

>Plus the average Joe really never had a say in scientific progression

That's some mighty fine stem cell research america did for the last ten years. Guess i was wrong.

>>3968694
Maybe not so forcefully, but it would probably become propaganda and if we did have the tech, open peoples eyes to where a lot of them would decide, given the choice, to go on these voyages to other planets. This is implying of course that the ships aren't cramped rockets and fully sized armadas with enough supplies and are self-sufficient. I'd love to go on one of those, but a claustrophobic space with scarce rations? Fuck that.

>>3968699

That's why in 1971 congress slashed nasa's budget, cancelling apollo 18, 19, and 20. Nobody cared because the public had already moved on to other things in just the two short years after the first moon landing.

People don't want space, they want jobs.
People don't want space, they want a good education for their kids.
People don't want space, they want a good home.
People don't want space, they just want a warm meal.
People don't want space, they just want to live happily.

Sagan lied to you.

>>3968712

What story did i read where earth had all kinds of propaganda about how the offworld colonies were better (they were actually deathtraps) but they had to lie to the people?

I think it was blade runner.

>>3968701
>Implying those filthy scum christians should be considered average working people who mean shit

>>3968712

>but a claustrophobic space with scarce rations? Fuck that.

Too bad. Remember what country is actually putting effort into space?

>>3968717
>People don't want space, they want jobs.
>People don't want space, they want a good education for their kids.
>People don't want space, they want a good home.
>People don't want space, they just want a warm meal.
>People don't want space, they just want to live happily.

Perhaps if people listened to the spacemen and not the politicians, they would get it as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0O2YZwSkgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bIQLiKi3g

>>3968729

Oh god, chinese space colonies and stations will be a fresh hell for mankind.

It'll be like Kowloon in space.

But at the very least, if the chinese were in charge, those na'vi fucks would be strung up, skinned, and orange.

>>3968736

But they don't. Because there is an incredibly popular anti-science trend in society.

It wouldn't take much to make people too afraid of space to go. How could you prove to a commited solipsist that the space colonies are actually there? It could just be the scientists way of population control. They'd buy it in a second.

Laymen are the 99%.

>>3968750
>laymen are the 99%
Hahahahaha, because scientists totally make up all the 1%, right?

>
It wouldn't take much to make people too afraid of space to go. How could you prove to a commited solipsist that the space colonies are actually there? It could just be the scientists way of population control. They'd buy it in a second.
Now that just sounds like paranoid horsecrap.

>>3968756

Simmer down, sport. i may be using OWS rhetoric, but do realize that scientists only comprise about 1% of the population. It's not a money thing, scientists are all poor, everyone knows that.

>>3968756

>Now that just sounds like paranoid horsecrap.

>Vaccines cause autism!
>thousands of babies die from pertussis.

Sad, isn't it?

Angry simian guy yet again derails a thread.

>>3968795

>i ran out of silly arguments!

>>3968607
> Is that the Angry Simian guy again samefagging to support his fantasy world where we can't do anything. Fuck off why aren't you banned.

I didn't ever say you can't do anything. You're perfectly free to get on board a Voyager I type of craft so that you'll spend 540 thousand years to get to a Brown Dwarf that's 30 lightyears away.

But you won't.

That V-I craft is the fastest spacecraft we've ever made. Let's say we could make another craft you get on that was 100 times faster, for some reason. So it would take you over five thousand years to get to that Brown Dwarf.

You won't be getting on that spacecraft either (not that it exists).

About the only spacecraft that you could get on that would reach the stars within your lifetime (hence making use of extreme time dilation) would need to be boosted up to such a large fraction of lightspeed that:

1. There isn't enough energy that Humanity has ever harnessed to make that possible.

2. You couldn't slow down anyway, so what's the point?

And finally, I'm not being banned since I KEEP MAKING GOOD POINTS AND KEEP ACTUALLY USING THIS WEBSITE FOR DISCUSSION LIKE IT'S BEEN INTENDED.

Fuck YOU and your propagandistic tendencies, assfag. Fuck YOU and your stupid fantasies about starflight. All YOU do is dream stupidity while your society collapses around you due to the inevitable intersection of Peak Oil and Violent Simians.

>>3968878
>1. There isn't enough energy that Humanity has ever harnessed to make that possible.
First gaping hole in the argument. HAS harnessed. Not 'incapable of harnessing.'

>2. You couldn't slow down anyway, so what's the point?
You use a massive solar sail that's pushed by thousands of powerful lasers from within the solar system to accelerate to the speed you want, and use onboard antimatter fuel or similar propulsion to slow down enough to begin aerobreaking in an atmosphere. Don't start with 'OOH LALA, SCI-FI' yes, so was sending man to the moon. If the technology, blueprints, resources and willpower to do it exist, it will be done.

>I KEEP MAKING GOOD POINTS
If you keep making good points, then why does everyone think they're fucking stupid? Checkmate, Malthusian.

>>3968795
> Angry simian guy yet again derails a thread.

No, YOU derail it by making absurd statements that you can't subsequently defend when a real knowledgeable person (i.e. me) shows up to challenge those absurdities.

You come to /sci/ to hear echoes, not arguments.

>>3968892
big*

>>3968889
>when a real knowledgeable person (i.e. me) shows up
You seem to have a pretty bug superiority complex going on there.

>>3968884
> First gaping hole in the argument. HAS harnessed. Not 'incapable of harnessing.'

The way Humanity is trending, we ARE incapable of harnessing that much power. We've wasted out Petroleum Blessing and now face a downslide into reliance on coal and natural gas. Our access to space resources has done little else but dwindle.

To pull out of his downward trend would require a more and more radical cultural maneuver as time passes. In other words, like most Americans, you think that an ever-more-unlikely event will save you. You play the lottery, right? You seem the type.

> You use a massive solar sail that's pushed by thousands of powerful lasers from within the solar system to accelerate to the speed you want, and use onboard antimatter fuel or similar propulsion to slow down enough to begin aerobreaking in an atmosphere.

All of that is not even vaporware, since there are no serious proposals to construct any of that. Sure, pasty-white basement Miltons like you are proposing it, but the rest of us live in that thing called "REALITY" where such things are never proposed and never will be proposed, much less built.

You read far too much scifi. Why do you actually believe the crap that comes out of your mouth? Humanity never believed in spaceflight, since they were largely concerned with sex and money and making /\/iggers and Muzzies and Spics feel bad.

When Humanity gets to a certain point on the technology scale, it becomes incapable of taking risks. PERIOD. So what you're depending on, automatically become undependable.

>>3968899
testify!

all hail the dread god malthus

>You read far too much scifi.
This is true of most of /sci/. They've got their necks out too far to do humanity any REAL good (i.e. a tangible "next step" instead of distant hypothetical technologies). But telling them progress WILL NOT HAPPEN AT ALL isn't going to help things.

>>3968905
> But telling them progress WILL NOT HAPPEN AT ALL isn't going to help things.

Why? Telling the truth is always supposed to help things. We've already WASTED our Petroleum Inheritance. Sure, stopping the bleeding at any time is better than never stopping the bleeding, but we've bled out far too much. Peak Oil production was reached years ago. So the future must always trend DOWN.

That won't make it literally impossible to do things, just more and more difficult. But that means it will be practically impossible, since Humans don't react well when such a large problem is identified. What Humans largely do when faced with adversity is indulge in a great many avoidance behaviors. This tends to waste a lot more time, in which the identified problem just becomes worse and worse.

We're addicted to catastrophes, since that's all we keep designing for our cultures anymore.

>>3968899
>The way Humanity is trending, we ARE incapable of harnessing that much power. We've wasted out Petroleum Blessing and now face a downslide into reliance on coal and natural gas.
Again, with your warrant-less pessimism. Will there come a time when stuff sucks because of expensive oil giving us a lot of problems? Yes. Will it destroy civilization? No, something cheaper than oil will be transitioned to. Same with coal and natural gas. If the Chinese race for LFTRs succeeds, what will you preach then?

>Our access to space resources has done little else but dwindle.
You lost one child yesterday. If my hypothesis is correct, the human race will die out of existence in eight months at this rate.

>To pull out of his downward trend would require a more and more radical cultural maneuver as time passes.
Ching chong, nip nong.

>>3968899
>You play the lottery, right? You seem the type.
My grandmother plays it and I detest her playing it.

>All of that is not even vaporware, since there are no serious proposals to construct any of that. Sure, pasty-white basement Miltons like you are proposing it, but the rest of us live in that thing called "REALITY" where such things are never proposed and never will be proposed, much less built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Valkyrie
This particular spacecraft was shown in the movie Avatar as well. You'll have to ask Colonel Coffee on the details of it, but I believe Pellegrino actually has blueprints to construct such a ship.

>Humanity never believed in spaceflight,
The Apollo program would like to have a word with you. Also Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Richard Garriot, John Carmack, and all the other millionaires/billionaires who actually have sound proposals for making spaceflight profitable. Baby steps, got to learn how to walk well before you run.

>When Humanity gets to a certain point on the technology scale, it becomes incapable of taking risks. PERIOD. So what you're depending on, automatically become undependable.
I'd love to see the source where you got this absolute rule of civilization.

>>3968878
What sort of pathetic life do you lead that you can sit here and do this, day in, day out?

>>3968925
>Starts a counterargument with violent simian
>Adds an antimatter-propelled spacecraft to his argument as a counterargument to the "vaporware" argument
You're not helping. Go away.

The laws of physics do not prohibit interstellar travel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Economics and politics might. I hope humanity can last long enough to get out of the solar system, but I'm not optimistic unless we get some combination of nanotech, fusion power, or something else. Ideally, we get a nice AI god that'll make everything awesome.

>>3968942
He never helps. He's just as big a faggot as VSG, he just happens to be on the right side with his faggotry.

>>3968942
I was merely stating that proper blueprints for interstellar ships exist even in our current rather primitive state.
>>3968947

>>3968942
How does the concept of an antimatter rocket offend you?

We know where to get relatively large amounts of antimatter more cheaply than producing it ourselves, and using it as a catalyst in a fusion or fission drive is actually a good idea.

>>3968964
> How does the concept of an antimatter rocket offend you?

Because supplies of antimatter isn't even vaporware. It's NO-where.

> We know where to get relatively large amounts of antimatter more cheaply than producing it ourselves, and using it as a catalyst in a fusion or fission drive is actually a good idea.

Sure you do. Oh, please expand on this. I can't wait to rip it apart.

>>3968988
>Because supplies of antimatter isn't even vaporware. It's NO-where.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128245.500-antiproton-ring-found-around-earth.html

>>3968946
> The laws of physics do not prohibit interstellar travel.

Since the human lifespan is an extremely limiting factor, and lifespans are the result of physics, then the laws of physics sure as SHIT do prohibit interstellar travel.

You keep treating interstellar travel as a mere problem that some pasty-white engineers and scientists can solve. Pasty-white engineers and scientists can't even solve the simplest of Humanity's resource-allocation problems. They are astronomically far away from solving the resource and time constraints of interstellar travel.

And if we're not even bothering to travel to our own fucking MOON, there's not rational reason to propose interstellar flight. But rationality is ever in short supply when dealing with the usual biases of an ingrown population like /sci/. All groups like /sci/ are unwilling to deal with their own biases.

>>3968988
It's literally almost all around us.
We could collect it from the radiation belts around the Earth and other planets with really simple electromagnetic traps.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1569
http://sciencefocus.com/feature/space/mining-space-whats-there
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14405122
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/1071Bickford.pdf
While I agree that producing real-tonne quantities might be prohibitive, we could still collect enough antimatter from the belt around earth to power a few antimatter-catalyzed fusion rockets.

Okay, start ripping.

>>3968998
>Pasty-white engineers and scientists can't even solve the simplest of Humanity's resource-allocation problems
Except there's hundreds of different proposals from engineers and scientists on how to fix the world. The difference is that they're just not being implemented.

>>3968994

Ha! I knew you'd bring THAT particular stupidity up.

[[ "We are talking about of billions of particles," says team member Francesco Cafagna from the University of Bari in Italy. ]]

Oooh, billions of particles! Spread over huge volumes of near-Earth space!

If you somehow think that that sort of thing is in any way practical to harvest, you're an even more past-white basement-dwelling virgin-nerd than the average /sci/ poster is.

>>3969005
> Except there's hundreds of different proposals from engineers and scientists on how to fix the world. The difference is that they're just not being implemented.

That's the problem with you pasty-whiters. You have no concept of what's PRACTICAL. You make plans all the time, and that's the same as DOING SOMETHING. That's even WORSE than paralysis by analysis.

Make a plan that people will actually IMPLEMENT, and get back to me.

But of course, you won't. You won't make such a plan to begin with. You're as disconnected from REALITY as is any Imam sitting in a robe in Tehran.

>>3969014
Jupiter would likely have even more. Remember that antimatter is probably the most energy-dense shit you can find, so collecting enough to slow down doesn't necessarily have to be some gargantuan task. Are we up to it to collect antimatter today? Not out of laboratory conditions. 30 years from now? Still doubtful. 60 years? Maybe.

>>3968998
>Since the human lifespan is an extremely limiting factor, and lifespans are the result of physics, then the laws of physics sure as SHIT do prohibit interstellar travel.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Indefinite lifespans are only a engineering problem, not physically impossible(mention the heat death of the universe and I'll slap you).

>>3969016
Perhaps you should STOP capitalizing letters in every sixth or seventh WORD because it gets really annoying, not to mention when you constantly REPEAT stuff like PASTY-WHITE or MEGA-DEATHS you seem closer to a raving conspiracy theorist from /POL/.
You also seem to THINK that I am the one that has suggested all those implementations for ways on IMPROVING society, when really other dirty VIOLENT SIMIANS have done research and years at university or their LAB actually INVESTIGATING and coming up with solutions, while you SIT at your COMPUTER crying that the sky is falling because of OIL eventually becoming SCARCE.

I'm genuinely interested. Were you always like this? Were you actually an optimist until some event in your life just turned you into a pessimistic repetitive misanthrope?

>>3969017
> Jupiter would likely have even more.

So? And you propose HOW to collect those? We don't have a space program worth mentioning, and the Human high jump record holder is a "few" orders of magnitude short of clearing the atmosphere, much less reaching Jupiter's orbital track.

And how would you try to collect subatomic particles out of a far vaster region of space around Jupiter? While enduring what's literally a lethal rain of other particles?

OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT: You'll use your usual means of action, called WISHING IT INTO EXISTENCE WHILE YOU GRAB ANOTHER BAG OF CHEETOS IN YOUR MOMMA'S BASEMENT.

You're dismissed, you pasty-white FUCK.

>>3969016
>make a plan that people will implement

We can, and have, led the horse to the trough. Literally thousands of times. But we can't get you stupid animals to fucking drink.

This is why scientific tyranny is gaining popularity. We are starting to think that the only way we can get the stupid fucking horse to drink is to tranq it, lobotomize it and shoving a tube down it's throat and opening the fucking valve.

And don't fucking cry that it's the fault of the plans. So many of the plans are really fucking attractive, but get ignored by people like you because you're too busy crying your lungs out about your pet peeves instead.

Again in this thread, all you've been doing is trying to find faults in what anyone else says. I've yet to see you produce one sentence of helpful advice.

>>3969045
>So? And you propose HOW to collect those?
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=related:LXt-foJX6bMJ:scholar.google.com/&am
p;um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=ldCrTritPMyaiQfR2by5Dw&sa=X&oi=science_links&ct=sl-related&am
p;resnum=5&ved=0CEoQzwIwBA
First PDF.

>We don't have a space program worth mentioning, and the Human high jump record holder is a "few" orders of magnitude short of clearing the atmosphere, much less reaching Jupiter's orbital track.
The first part is true, but is rather pointless in this argument 'cause you're stating it as if this is a damning factor which will stop us every progressing. You act as if launching collection mechanisms in orbit around Jupiter like cosmic fish traps is completely impossible. It's physics + engineering, deal with it.

>While enduring what's literally a lethal rain of other particles?
Galileo called, it says fuck you. Lethal to LIFE, not machinery.

>
OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT: You'll use your usual means of action, called WISHING IT INTO EXISTENCE WHILE YOU GRAB ANOTHER BAG OF CHEETOS IN YOUR MOMMA'S BASEMENT.
>You're dismissed, you pasty-white FUCK.
There's that unwarranted superiority complex coming into play again, if you're gonna post, don't make half of your post filled with ad hominems. It makes you look supremely unprofessional.

>>3969024
> Indefinite lifespans are only a engineering problem

It's an engineering problem that isn't being addressed.

Your billionaires are still dying right on schedule, and they have the utmost motivation and capability to address the senescence issue. That means that anti-aging is impossible for Humanity to solve. Sure, people like US want to solve it, but we have no resources to do so. Those who do, are violent simians to the core and are trying to merely die with the highest score or something like that.

Lots of things are "only an engineering problem". But they still don't get solved, since our social problems and economic problems are FAR LARGER and crowd them out.

>>3969068
>It's an engineering problem that isn't being addressed.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/drugs-may-let-us-live-to-150-20111016-1lrm5.html

http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029

http://www.ted.com/themes/might_you_live_a_great_deal_longer.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/sierra-sciences-working-towards.html

http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3329065877451441972#

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-biologists-yeast-cells-reverse-aging.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-dna-reverse-premature-aging.html

>>3969054
> But we can't get you stupid animals to fucking drink.

It's good to see that you're finally admitting that Humanity is overwhelmingly formed by VIOLENT SIMIANS.

When faced with so many stupid animals, then, what's your plan? And it has to be more than a stupid plan concocted between rounds of Cheetos-narfing. You have to be WORKING THE PLAN.

>>3969063
> It's physics + engineering, deal with it.

No, you're not dealing with anything, and neither do I need to. Since IT'S FUCKING ECONOMICS, which I keep telling you Cheetos-grabbers. You keep ignoring social and economics angles to your science and engineering approaches, which is why you're always disappointed by how things turn out.

Human spaceflight has been petering out for decades. It's trend is DOWN. Private efforts are only chasing distaff NASA money, so once those funds shut off, so will these private efforts. (More of that ECONOMICS that you keep ignoring.)

I hear another bag of Cheetos calling you. Are you going to answer it?

>>3969076
>FAT PASTY FAT PASTY CHEETOS PASTY CHEETOS NERD BASEMENT NERD CHEETOS BASEMENT MOM MILTON PASTY BASEMENT CHEETOS

>>3969076
Why do you insist on continuously repeat CHEETOS CHEETOS CHEETOS? Do you know it's making you look bad? Also I hate cheese-flavored snacks, sorry.

>>3969073
>You have to be WORKING THE PLAN.
Why?

Did GWB go to Iraq and Afghanistan to shoot people himself after declaring wars?

Do you write, direct and shoot the comedy shows you watch on tv?

And you still haven't come up with anything constructive.

And no, building a survivalist hang-out in the mountains with a million cans of food and a million rounds of ammo isn't constructive in this context.

>>3969090
> And you still haven't come up with anything constructive.

I find it VERY constructive to point out that your Emperor is not only stark naked, but that he has a tiny dick.

I've got to hit the sack, but please do keep jizzing in each other's mouths about how you're gonna solve the world's problems by being technokings or something. Most of you will end up on the bread lines before all of this is over, and your haunted looks of "WTF JUST HAPPENED TO EVERYTHING" will be a great comfort as I stand in the same line with you. After all, I expended great effort to TELL YOU SO, long before the times of social upheaval.

>>3969105
Okay, your posts are ignored from now.

>>3969105
>Most of you will end up on the bread lines before all of this is over
What about the cheeto lines? What about them?

>>3969105

God, everyone in this thread is a bit of a faggot, but this guy is on another order of magnitude, perhaps TWO orders of magnitude! I'd sage this terrible thread with ponies, but ban evasion is something I have yet to master.

I'd also explain to this strange man why everything he's doing is for his own self satisfaction, but he's just gone and left. Well, we're all thinking the same thing, and he's gone now, so let's continue the discussion!

What were we talking about?

>>3969354
We were talking about how cool brown dwarves are.

I wonder what kind of an inner structure they have. Do they have metallic hydrogen? If they don't have metallic hydrogen, how strong can their magnetic fields be? How much can the convection that's powered by low-order fusion actually contribute to the magnetic field?

>>3969385

I'm rather fascinated at how astronomers can detect such low energy objects so far away. I suppose spectrography is helpful.

when in doubt, use nuclear bombs.

come on, how much money was spent the last 3 years for basically blackjack andhookers for bankers? how many orions could have been built for that money?

>>3969393
I'm a lot behind the news, but when I last checked, they deduced the presence of brown dwarves from the wobble their gravity caused in the stars they orbited, sometimes combined with the degree to which the brown dwarf occluded the star.

>Come back to the thread
>Angry Simian guy initiated a swirling shit storm and realizes no one else shares his views and had to leave.

Finally.

Now we can discuss OP's topic.