/sci/ - Science & Math

So how do we get there? If you say warp drive or EM drive, please remove yourself from the gene pool

>>8111851
You know, we just need a ship that's capable of near lightspeed travel, and also large enough to carry enough living space to sustain a colony for 1200 years

Yeah, space travel is fucking impossible

>>8111865
Let's not go then.

>>8111865
/thread

>>8111865
>You know, we just need a ship that's capable of near lightspeed travel, and also large enough to carry enough living space to sustain a colony for 1200 years
>Yeah, space travel is fucking impossible

That's because space doesn't exist and the Earth is flat. That's why they came up with the convenient lie that all these planets and stars are so far away, so that we'd have an excuse to never visit them.

Stars are just luminaries. The model of the universe, as we know it, is a lie.

>>8111869
There's a containment board for /x/. It's called /x/.
There's also a containment thread for /x/ on /sci/. It's called >>8111765.

>>8111865
Or just send the ark with genetic material and robots

>>8111844
>only 1200 light years away

i said

hop

in

>""""""""""""""""""""could""""""""""""""""""""

>>8111921
People usually don't invest money in things that have no possible revenue ever.

Also
>build a ship that works independently for several thousand years

>>8111844
With nuclear pulse propulsion we can only reach 30% the speed of C.

So, we'd need several generations to reach it.

>>8112006
Several is an understatement.
at .3c, not factoring in acceleration and deceleration that's 4000 fucking years.

>>8112010
I'm assuming by the time we decide to go people can live to like 115 pretty easily.

So like 2050.

Hopefully we have something beyond nuclear pulse propulsion then. But we probably won't.

>>8112010
Only from earths point of view. Much shorter for the people on the ship

>>8112006
>>8112010
>>8112012
>30% the speed of light
We can't go that fast with current technology

What the fucks nuclear pulse propulsion

>>8112034

0.3c isn't really going to bring on much relativistic time dilation

>>8112056
Blowing up nuclear bombs behind a ship.

It's so powerful and produces so much force it doesn't matter what your mass is, you're accelerating.

>>8112058
That would give a good purpose to a lot of our nukes, actually.

How do you slow down?

>>8112060
Turn around and fire, same way you slow down a regular rocket

>>8112060
Same way you speed up. Timed bombs the opposite direction. Only issue is how to propel them in front of the ship at that speed.

>>8112071
You can't really do that at 30% the speed of C.

>>8112081
Why not?

>>8111844

>This planet could support life

Who gives a shit. We're on the brink of AIs and even human uploading, and thanks to pop-sci, space opera bullshit, people still think shit like "water" and "air" are necessities for the spread of our intelligence and civilization.

The future will be a lot weirder than anything you're seeing on a movie screen...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain

>>8111865
>>8111867
>>8111938
>>8111949
>>8112006
>>8112010
>>8112012
>>8112057
It only takes constant 1 g for 1 year to reach relativistic speeds which would allow a tour of the visible universe in a single lifetime for the traveler.

>>8112096
Please describe your vehicle with enough fuel and powerful enough engines to constantly accelerate at 1g for a year

>>8112096
>1200 light years
>life time

What you guys need to take into consideration is the principal of relativity--you know that little thing Einstein wrote about in his book, e=mc to the power of 2. All you need to do is throw a jump rope like device on a rocket ship that spins around the ship at the speed of light--this will be easier to do because you don't have to worry about maintaining life, though the technology is still a bit out of reach--and because the "rope" is spinning around at the speed of light, but the ship is still traveling with it, you are effectively traveling at the speed of light, but not.

>>8112141
>All you need to do is throw a jump rope like device on a rocket ship that spins around the ship at the speed of light

>>8112132
Nigger do you even time dilation?

>>8111844
do other planets hate him?

>>8111844
Lets go.
If we gather resources.
Build something that travels speed of light (kek).
Send me.
Ill make it there before my 15th funeral.

>>8111921
Who repairs the robot's repair-bots?

>>8112271
the robot-repair repair-bots
duh

>>8112101
Fusion engine with EM ram scoop.

>>8111851
Generational ship, Basically a flying city that will be fully crewed for 2000+ years until it gets there and they set up a colony.

The funny thing is only the first generation will have volunteered, it's pretty much destined to fail, but aside from breaking the laws of physics there is no other way.

>>8112132
>What is time dilation
It's like you're still living in the preeinsteinien dark ages.

>>8112096
But each consecutive g needs more energy than the previous one.

>>8112093
>We're on the brink of AIs
We HAVE AI's if you're loose enough with the definition.
>and even human uploading,
No.
Just no.
We're so far from this, we can't even tell if it's possible.
It's like asking a cave-man about QM.
Solve the hard problem of consciousness, then let's talk about it.

>>8112096
>It only takes constant 1 g for 1 year to reach relativistic speeds which would allow a tour of the visible universe in a single lifetime for the traveler.
Hardly.
One g for one year (ship time) gets you to 0.475c.
Tau would be 0.88.
Even OP's 1200 ly journey would still take over a thousand years.

>>8112318
>>8112151

>time dilation exists

>>>/x/

>>8112010
With suspended animation today's billionaires might make it. Never know.

So they found another roughly earth sized planet and immediatly insinuate that it "could" support life even though we know nothing else about it like does it have water? A breathable atmosphere? Tolerable temperature? Just the right amount of surface gravity?

>>8112096
>It only takes constant 1 g for 1 year to reach relativistic speeds which would allow a tour of the visible universe in a single lifetime for the traveler.
Not even close.
One g for one year (ship time) gets a top speed of 0.775c, and tau would be 0.632.
OP's journey of 1200 ly would take 1550 years to an outside observer, and 980 years to those on board.

>>8111921
>Or just send the ark with genetic material and robots
Frozen ova and sperm are good for decades, not centuries,
And we don't have artificial wombs.

>>8112012
>Hopefully we have something beyond nuclear pulse propulsion then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship
Best case scenario, we can accelerate at one g (maybe better) for about 3.5 years.
You'd reach a top speed of 0.9985 c, tau would be 0.05475.
It would take about 68 years to get there, but then you'd have no way to slow down.

The black hole from the drive only lasts 3.5 years, so you can't save half for deceleration.

>>8112012
>Hopefully we have something beyond nuclear pulse propulsion then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship
Best case scenario, we can accelerate at one g (maybe better) for about 3.5 years.
You'd reach a top speed of 0.9985 c, tau would be 0.05475.
It would take about 68 years (ship time) to get there, but then you'd have no way to slow down.

The black hole from the drive only lasts 3.5 years, so you can't save half for deceleration.

>>8112010
>at .3c, not factoring in acceleration and deceleration that's 4000 fucking years.

>>8112034
>Only from earths point of view. Much shorter for the people on the ship

>>8112057
>0.3c isn't really going to bring on much relativistic time dilation

Tau would be 0.954, so instead of 4000 years, those on board would "only" experience 3816 years, plus a little to account for acceleration and deceleration.

>>8112469
>With suspended animation today's billionaires might make it. Never know.
Well, not "today's billionaires" since there's no such thing as suspended animation.
You might as well wish for warp drive.

it's about time someone invented a wormhole machine

i want that capacity to exist within my life time
like 40 years

then i want all of us to go over there and start anew, with everyone given everything and the only rule of law being you have to love everyone

bro

First of all 1200 light-years is not happening, second of all I'm pretty sure there's decently habitable planets around Tau Ceti which is like 11 light years away. We could get there in 30 years with nuclear rockets. Second of all this is jumping the gun for Mars is the most achievable target of all.

>>8112661
>pretty sure there's decently habitable planets around Tau Ceti which is like 11 light years away
Tau Ceti e has a gravity of about 2g.
So even if there's life there, it's not a new home for humanity.

>>8112557
We need two blackholes then. Easy space travel, man, eaaasy.

>>8112681
I dont see problem with two g. Cant we just somehow genetically modify humans to reabuild them so they can live with constant 2g?

I think in the future all space guys will be modified accordigly with their mission so we dont need to worry about bad envaironments like ones with two g.

>>8112681
Wouldn't that just mean that people have way more problems with bones for x generations and get huge calves and quads from lifting twice their body weight?

We could probably find a workaround with near future medicine around the problem with bones. Maybe just some implants to support the spine etc.

>>8112701
>Cant we just somehow genetically modify humans to reabuild them so they can live with constant 2g?
Presently? No. We just don't have the technology.
Someday? Probably not.without dramatically shortening the human lifespan.
There are some serious engineering issues here.

>all space guys will be modified accordigly with their mission so we dont need to worry about bad envaironments
"Missions" can/will be carried out by machines.
Permanent habitation only serves the human race in the sense we'd stop keeping all our eggs in one basket, and space habitats can do that.
It seems much more plausible to alter our environment than ourselves.

>>8111851
we can drive teslas

>>8112707
>Wouldn't that just mean that people have way more problems with bones for x generations
If "x"=infinity, then yes.
You know how people say "if an ant was as big as a human, they could lift a car"?
That's bullshit.
An ant scaled up to human size would collapse under it's own weight.
You need a design that works with the scale and gravity.

>and get huge calves and quads from lifting twice their body weight?
You'd spend most of your life in an acceleration couch, so no huge quads.

And most importantly, the human heart wasn't built for that kind of load.
You'd need to be really short with a low BMI, and a heart that's a much bigger percentage of your body mass.
So forget big muscles (except the heart and diaphragm).

>>8111851
there is no other practical way of traveling through the universe than a warp drive(or other similar methods) so yeah we aren't going anywhere until someone figures out how to build it.

>>8111844
I don't understand why people are so perplexed by the idea of space travel, if we build a big enough elastic band we can probably slingshot spacecraft this distance

>>8111851
Generation ships, but that will never happen.

>>8111865
Near light-speed doesn't mean light-speed. That means the 1,200 light-years distance takes far far longer to cross. The best humanity will ever achieve will be about 10% the speed of light for any space faring vessel carrying humans. Keep in mind the fastest man made object is Helios 2, which traveled 157,078 miles per hour (0.0234% the speed of C which would only reach 0.2808 light years distance in 1,200 years).

Light speed is about 669,600,000 miles per hour.
10% of that speed is 66,960,000 miles per hour.

If the 10%C space ship could instantly start and stop traveling 66,960,000mph then the 1,200 light year trip would take 12,000 years to travel (math is probably wrong here somewhere but you get the idea). However, perfect acceleration and deceleration isn't going to happen. Instead you accelerate half the distance and decelerate the other half, resulting in variable speeds and longer flight times.

>Yeah, space travel is fucking impossible

You god damn right it is, in any human context. Humanity won't even be the same species by the time anything we launched 1000 years ago, using modern technology, reached Kepler-62f.

>>8112096
But you need infinite fuel to do that.

>>8112151
>>8112318
That's >>>/x/ shit.

>>8112737
>there is no other practical way of traveling through the universe
Generation ships with anti-matter reaction drives?
Let's say you build a self-sufficient space habitat large enough for a stable breeding population.
Accelerate to 0.01 c, and get *somewhere* eventually.
Repeat until find new home for humanity.

>>8112782
>That's >>>/x/ shit.
Well, /sci/ is officially dead.
Brainlets are seriously discussing astrophysics and dismissing a well studied phenomenon as superstition.

>>8112782
Anon, play with this:
http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html

>>8112791

>>8112467
>>8112782
>time dilation belongs on >>>/x/
holy shit this is either an amazing troll or /sci/ is truly trash now

>>8112782
>That's >>>/x/ shit.

>>8112793
So, 10% C will take 23,910 years to travel 1200 light years.. Plus the additional acceleration-deceleration times. Even that seems wrong. Regardless, it will never happen.

>>8112796
>>8112791
There are people out there who dismiss Einstein purely because he was Jewish.

>>8112802
yes, and we tell those people to go where they belong, which is >>>/pol/

>>8112796
>>8112798
>>8112791
http://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html

>>8112802
More like theory of relativity is completely incorrect. Time itself doesn't even exist.

>>8112795
Fixed.
Now you'll just have to fill the empty ones with actual /x/ shit.

>>8112812
Found the /x/tard.

>>8112802
>listening to /pol/, ever

>>8112814
/pol/ is always right.

>>8112813
Ironically, you're the most /x/ of posters in this thread. Assuming you're behind some or all of the brainlet posts.

>>8112815
>>>/pol/
/sci/ has already dipped below 100 IQ, let's not sink it down to 50 by introducing /pol/ cancer.

>>8112818
>thread about traveling to other planets 1200 light years distant

This is an /x/ thread, wonderlord.

>>8112821
Yeah it is, however;
Time dilation is not. Nor is any of the other emptied slots in that meme bingo.

>>8112821
This. UFOs, the concept of aliens traveling 1200 light-years to us is /x/ but this thread, the concept of humans traveling 1200 light-years to them is not /x/?

>>8112711
But it is possible technology, add some inmplants, which we will probably get at some point in the future. I still think it is more possible task to modify say 200 humans, then invent some shit like antigravitation (which is probably not possible at all) or true FTl or terraforming. And terraforming wont even be able to alter gravirational force of a planet, so we still cant alter environment to become fully capable to support human lifes.

>>8112590
this
i just want to feel humanity and hug some friendly people

>>8112829
>Anti-gravity
>FTL
>Terraforming
>>>/x/

>>8112840
I have a bad wording, sorry. I meant that this shit is probably impossible at all.
Its much easier to somehow modify humans, couse we cant invent magical shit.

>>8111865
>and also large enough to carry enough living space to sustain a colony for 1200

From the point of view of the colonists, the journey would be shorter than 1200 light years because of relativity. It gets shorter the closer you get to light speed.

>>8112782
>That's >>>/x/

Wow, this guy just disproved relativity.

You should publish your paper and become famed throughout the world as the guy who btfo Albert Einstein.

>>8111865
>fly 1200 years
>meanwhile earth discovers faster method
>arrive to see it's already colonized by humans

FUCK

>>8112878
I wouldn't even be mad

>only

>>8112828
What is /x/ about UFOs is not that aliens travelled to our system, but rather it is saying that they are flying around in saucers acting like retards and we haven't actually detected any of it.

Aliens aren't necessarily /x/, but the popular misconceptions about aliens and space are /x/.

>>8112811
>The phenomenon of time dilation is a strange yet experimentally confirmed effect of relativity theory.

It's like you didn't even read the article.

>>8112800
That's a top speed of 0.1c, and an average speed of half that (0.05 c).
Since time dilatation is negligible, it should take about 20 times as long as light does to cover the same distance.
1200 ly * 20 = 24,000

But look at your acceleration figures.
You just input a ridiculously low acceleration figure (8 micro-g's??) so you'd get 0.1c for your top speed.

Plus, this tool assumes constant, uniform acceleration/deceleration, which isn't plausible for 1200 ly.
But it should give you an idea about what's possible.
Try Epsilon Eridani, 10.5 light years out.
Say we could pull 0.5 g for a few years, maybe with a black hole drive, bussard ramjet, whatever.
It would take almost 14 years to an outside observer, but less than 8 for those on board.
One g cuts travel time down to 5 years.

That sounds far more plausible than reaching Kepler 62f.

>>8112893
Every UFO debate on /sci/ gets shot down with the one argument that FTL is impossible. Therefore this thread should be shot down as well on that basis.

>>8112800
(cont)

And if we ignore the engineering, and just assume we could somehow accelerate at 0.5g for decades, the 1200 ly trip would take 25 years for those on board.
One g lowers travel time to just under 14 years.

We'd need some serious engineering/hardware to do that, but physics itself doesn't stop us from reaching Kepler 62f in a single lifetime.

>>8112913
This thread doesn't assume FTL is possible.

The problem with saying that aliens have in fact arrived in our system is that we would be able to easily detect their presence because the everyday running of their space craft would give off so many emissions.

>>8112916
>▶
>just assume we could somehow accelerate at 0.5g for decades

The ability to change momentum (i.e. Force) decreases proportionately to 1/(gamma) so constant acceleration for decades is a crack dream.

>>8112920
They arrived once in the 50s, maybe returned in the 90s. They don't fly around every day.

>>8112782
That font is absolute garbage

>>8112944
space craft are quite literally bright lights against a dim background. We would detect any space ships in our solar system.

Because FTL is not possible, you can't just come and go as you please.

>>8112971
Obviously. Why do you think we call NASA "Never A Straight Answer?"

>>8112976
>NASA are the only people with radar systems and telescopes

>>8112971
Even if FTL is possible it is really unlikely to acidently stumble across habitable planet.

>>8112981
>NASA, ESA, Rocosmos, SpaceX, JAXA, The Chinese aren't all controlled by reptilians from the Andromeda Galaxy

>itt: /sci/ence fiction

Humanity will never visit the stars. Humanity is on course to kill it's host like a virus, science actually being the primary driving force of this devastation (household electronics driving consumption of electric power by burning of fossil fuels, consumable plastic choking the oceans, agricultural pollution to grow food, uncontrolled sewage in densely populated areas, chemical & pharmaceutical waste, etc etc. Once our host is dead our existence will cease as well.

Even if we could visit another "inhabitable" (lol) planet there'd certainly be viruses and bacteria that would be hostile to our physical bodies. Earth is your home, where the human form evolved. Your body is designed for this place and this place only. Earth is where you all are forever imprisoned.

>>8112998
> complains about science fiction.
> rants about how the sci-fi movie he just watched is coming true

>>8113011
No, by all means keep dreaming of impossible space travel adventures while the only place in the universe where humanity actually survives disintegrates around you like a piece of rotting fruit.

>>8112997
>Space agencies and companies are the only people with radar systems and telescopes

>>8112998
>there'd certainly be viruses and bacteria that would be hostile to our physical bodies

How do you know they would even be compatible with our physiology? We probably won't be a suitable host for them.

>Humanity is on a course to kill it's host like a virus

How is anything you listed an existential threat rather than just a big nuisance?

>>8113034
No no no, you just keep preoccupying yourself with space travel fantasies, I'm sure no one needs to bother thinking about any of the pressing problems your species is facing here on Earth.

>>8113031
>CIA doesn't confiscate amateur UFO data

>>8112920
>The problem with saying that aliens have in fact arrived in our system is that we would be able to easily detect their presence because the everyday running of their space craft would give off so many emissions.
>anonymous man in black online has intimate knowledge of how alien technology works and operates
Ah ha! Caught ya! This is all the proof I need that we have in fact been visited. Check and mate!

>>8113101
good find

>>8112998
>implying we cannot copy viruses and spread cell to cell
>implying *pic related* Is not just a repeated harmonic of the next pic.
>yfw physics and biology had a brainchild and its name was the lunar module.

>>8112998
>tfw no lunar gf

>>8113034
>We probably won't be a suitable host for them.
Maybe not viruses, but bacteria? Protozoa? Tapeworms?
What about something like mad cow disease?
It's caused by a malformed protein.
What if their incompatibility with us could be very dangerous.
What if a common protein in their biome affected us the same way as mad cow?

>>8111869
>they
>they
>they

sure faggot, go back to /x/

Why don't we just get the flash to move us there.

>>8111851
>So how do we get there?
We digitize our minds and slowboat over with some nuclear powered ion engine.

>b-but they're not you, they're just copies!

Your children are even less than copies on a generation ship

ITT: a bunch of people with no concept of how migration works.

If (and it's a big "if") the human race ever decided to pool its resources and do something like this, assuming we have the tech, materials, etc., it would take a lot longer than 1,200 years to get there -- even at 1.0c travel. It would have to be an incredibly long-term plan of migration, with fleets of ships leaving Earth in series, setting up colonies on bodies along the way.

To suggest that Earth could support and produce one giant ship to travel there over a millennium is retarded. The only way we could ever reach a planet that far is with staggering the travel populations and setting up shop anywhere and everywhere possible along the way. And even that is extremely unlikely, near impossible.

FUCKING NORMALFAGS

>>8113203
You don't see why anything you are saying is actually the case. Could you elaborate?

>>8113203
This guy....

>>8112813
No, most of the things he removed are all valid parts of science supported by evidence.
The only things without experimental support are strong AI and aliens, but believing they are impossible or don't exist would require some pretty /x/-tier bliefs, such as:
>living beings have souls and an artificial intelligence doesn't. Souls are required for the complexity of human thought
>life on Earth was created by a god and he doesn't want to make life anywhere else, and actively prevents abiogenesis

In fact he should probably have removed more, such as multiple dimensions, as long as you mean dimensions in the mathematical sense; Schrödinger's cat, which is just a thought experiment, not something you can believe or disbelieve; quantum teleportation, which is a real physical phenomenon, albeit one less useful than the name suggests; computer science jobs (how is that /x/ at all?); and finally string theory and holography are both well defined mathematical theories of physics (well holography is more conjectural, but AdS/CFT is precise and holography just posits that this extends to all spaces, not just those that are AdS at infinity) that might lack the experimental support of the other things I've mentioned, but are still in no way paranormal or conspiratorial, or related to /x/ at all.

>>8111844
>lets go.
None of us will be going ANYWHERE in our lifetime. Doesn't mean we can't help future generations get there though.

>>8113168
That's what I always think. It's enough for most microscopic living organism some water and little nutrients. Our mouths would be infested with whatever resided in the planet, for one.

>>8111865
Please do not talk about traveling at near light speed if you have no clue about relativity (e.g. time dilation).

>>8113286
Please do not pretend you have a clue about relativity, pseudo intellectual.

>>8113203

>>8112462
>We're so far from this, we can't even tell if it's possible.

You're on a thread where numbskulls are talking casually about colonizing a rock 7.2x10^15 miles away, and you're intimidated by "the hard problem of consciousness".

Brain is hardware, DNA is BIOS, your "soul" is the software. The difficulty lies in extracting that information accurately, incrementally and gradually, so you never even notice that you "died".

>>8114185
No, YOU will notice that you not longer exists. but for everyone else.. you will still be you. So that doesnt matter on a large scale, one more soul will disappear, noone will ever notice that something happened.

>>8112907
>>8112916
Totally, >>>/x/

>>8112876
The thing about theoretical physics is that it is 100% made up. It is pure religion.

>>8111851
shit into an aquarium and leave it in the sunlight for a few weeks. Bottle it up and send the high impact sexual violence on a collision course.

>>8114196

By becoming an adult, the child version of you gradually "died".

Same principle.

>>8114185
>numbskulls are talking casually about colonizing a rock 7.2x10^15 miles away, and you're intimidated by "the hard problem of consciousness".
But we can (and do) send probes into space.
Consciousness is subject to stoners-around-the-bong speculation, and nothing more.
We'll have humans living on a thousand planets long before we can even understand if mind uploading is possible.
Even if you made a computer program that thought of itself as you, it would still only be a program that served as a rough approximation of you.
Even your "bit at a time" process would involve advancing neuroscience FAR beyond our current understanding.
And even that still faces the "Ship of Theseus" paradox, which is purely philosophical, and has no concrete, scientific answers.

>>8114216
>By becoming an adult, the child version of you gradually "died".
>Same principle.
Except you can't point to he corpse of "child me", because he never actually died.

>>8112998
>Humanity will never visit the stars.


>> Heavier than air flying machines are impossible

>>8112878
kek

>>8113301
I'm Cum Laude

>>8113221
top quark

>>8111949
>no possible revenue ever
>bcoz I know what's possible
gtfo fgt pls

>>8114202
>It is pure religion.
says the boy ignorant of religion

> 1,200 light years away.

Every time...

>>8112714
underrated

>>8112800
"A flying machine will never work"
...said every old retard 500 years ago.
Welcome to the new retard.

All we need are really good AI to handle the mathematics and come up with an idea faster than us for ripping the fabric of spacetime and allowing us to jump anywhere instantaneously through a portal of some kind. Some kind of core of technology. We could call them...the TechnoCore.

>>8113142
tfw a Bacteriophage will never grapple onto you and inject its sweet DNA love potion into you because your not a Bactria.

I don't understand how an astrophysicist can actually declare a planet so distant as "habitable". While he might correctly interpret the star constituents and size, thus the "goldilock zone", and I'd even say it's possible in modern filters to calibrate some percentage of the gases in a distant atmosphere, how can they tell things like the atmospheric pressure, the strength of the planet's electromagnetic field, the capability of the field to repel specific cosmic energy which would turn us to bacon, the rotation on what axis and the stability of said axis, the tectonic activity?

It would really fucking suck to land on a planet where just walking takes five times the effort, where the seasons change in days, which has earthquakes every 2 hours, that has breathable oxygen, but the second we take off our helmets, our heads turn to matchsticks from unmitigated gamma rays.

I think it's a bunch of bullshit to say they can really tell.

>>8111844
>>>>>>>>"""""""""only """""""""""" """""""1200""""""" light years """away""""""""""

>>8111869
>space travel
Not mass sacrifice

>>8112462
>Hard problem of consciousness
You need to go back to /his/ and never come back

Space travel is just impossible without some means of going faster than the speed of light

The white race will be too busy dealing with hoardes of sand niggers, nigger niggers, bean niggers, flat faced niggers, and street shitting niggers, to advance technology that far

If warp drives were possible we would've been wiped out by some mean xenos by now.

We got smart too late, the universe has expanded too much we're stuck here.

>>8118106

That's actually a good argument against aliens existing

If faster than light travel does exist, then why have no other life forms visited Earth?

It means that either humans are the most advanced form of life in the universe or that "warp drives" are in fact not possible at in point in technological advancement and that any more evolved life forms haven't been able to create it either.

Alternatively, they did create it and just said "fuck it" when they found us and left.

>>8116839
God fags are all the same.

>>8111844
Cloning is the key to deep space travel. So just need to have the crew continuously train clones of themselves for generations. You know they can do their jobs.

>>8118117
>then why have no other life forms visited Earth?
Because space is big.

>>8118096
>You need to go back to /his/ and never come back
Then that's where the "mind upload" posts belong too.

>>8118106
>We got smart too late,
According to recent studies, we're ahead of 92% of the habitable planets in the galaxy.

I wanna go Mars

>>8118117
>Alternatively, they did create it and just said "fuck it" when they found us and left.
Or here's about 20 more possible explanations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Hypothetical_explanations_for_the_paradox

>>8118373
If you want to go, you probably don't fit the psych profile to go, just yet.