SamBridge

Well the first colonists on Mars would likely be somewhat educated and intelligent, they would be able to figure out when resources would be consumed too quickly.

In what circumstances does an orbit become a hyperbolic trajectory and vice-versa? How do you actually change x^2+y^2=1 to x^2-y^2=1?

If you can build some kind of bubble that will trap all energy in a small enough radius you will theoretically never run out of the energy you need to operate the initial conditions. As energy becomes dissipated it will build up more heat which in turn will fuel chemical reactions and re-emit that heat only to be used again. Otherwise, what you're saying doesn't make sense. The amount of energy that appears spontaneously produced from space is next to nothing, you can't get any usable amount energy from it even in a cubic mile, considering that nuclei take massive amounts of energy to hold together, elements won't be spontaneously created any time soon.

No reputable scientist said they were a literal hole. They are not "super-solid", we don't know what the singularity is made out of. No one proved m-theory right, but it doesn't matter if you think 11 dimensions are counter-intuitive, if the math is right there's nothing you can do about it. In current atomic theories there's 6 dimensions. Argueably Anything more than 3 or 4 is counter intuitive because out brains are adapted utilized to use those specific dimensions. String theory can assume as many dimensions as it says is logical to. Singularites have no super-symmetric partner, they are not recognized as their own particle class and black holes do not produce any measurable amount of mass. Furthermore, LHC has failed to provide evidence for super-symmetry. Nothing is actually "flat", things only appear flat because you cannot see their complexity. Even the fabric of space has many many small fluxes. Super-Solids are not a particle class, they cannot have a super-symmetric partner. If you have a device that can mine stars and withstand the heat of a thousand nuclear bombs per second by all means build it. As for synthesizing elements that would take massive amounts of energy, in fact it would take the core of a star to do it with any sort of efficiency. Parallel universes have no proof, but time is not simultaneous. If I take two clocks, place one on Earth and one on Jupiter, and count one second on Earth, the clock on Jupiter will be slow when we go back to measure it. This is called gravitational time dilation. The fabric of space-time is not comprised of either matter or energy, it is an inherent topology of existence. We have recorded every naturally occurring element that can last for more than a few seconds. Atomic numbers above 96 break down too rapidly to exist in any conditions we know of. A vacuum solidifying time makes no logical sense as well. If that were true then physics would not be constant from all frames of reference. It has nothing to do with velocity, it is in fact always instantaneous because it is a correlation and not a causation.

Because forces like pushing or pulling can overcome friction.

Consider that you get pushed back and killed by a piece of metal with less than 1/1000th of your mass. This scenario is only a problem if the rock is loose and the impact will either fragment clearly such that the components keep their original momentum or not transfer enough force to the whole rock. No I'm pretty 200% sure we've cataloged many asteroids more than a few kilometers large, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/298_Baptistina, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/951_Gaspra to name a couple. How many ways are there to interpret "at least some kind of chance"?. We can use many smaller devices which individually do not require as much fuel but together may vaporize enough material of the comet, other than that the main problem isn't in space, we can use an ion drive to give the probe a high specific impulse when it is close enough to the comet, and use chemical fuel to accelerate out of the atmosphere as well as being applied to the probe in space, which will accelerate at an increasing rate due to the fact that the mass is decreasing from the chemical fuel being used up. If we have less than a couple months, we've hit asteroids before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(spacecraft) but the only thing we'd be able to do is launch explosives. Because of the shorter distance we'd need the explosives to travel in this scenario they would perhaps not need as much fuel or energy, but within a few moon-orbits of Earth, detonating a thousand warheads nearly at once could damage life or the atmosphere, but we certainly do have the actual material to release enough energy to vaporize the entire comet completely, the way thermal nuclear devices act in space may be different enough without an atmospheric shockwave that it isn't much different than a very small gamma-ray burst which is the only reason why we'd need so many.

Time is continuous because it can be indefinitely broken down into indefinitely smaller increments, which implies that the limit of spacing between the smallest unit of time is zero. There is no single unit or discrete interval which you can settle on to say that all larger units of time occur from or are compounded from, so it must be continuous, or smooth. This property of smoothness is also invariant of objects specified to be smooth or continuous, you cannot have a mathematically "less continuous" or "more continuous" line, either it is continuous at every point or it isn't. If time were however discrete, we would find that we can only measure events passing at a rate up to a specific interval of time, which we have not, you can get indefinitely closer to the speed of light and therefore measure an indefinably smaller rate at which time passes for other objects.

Supposedly if black holes rotate, they will deform. However, this implies that each point on the even horizon is subject to inertia in the vector form, but if a black hole we see is merely the residing space within the event horizon, how is it that space itself would "bulge out"? How exactly do you transfer centripetal force to the fabric of space that would cause the event horizon to stretch out?

I'll let it go when a mod steps in, someone changes the topic, or you actually provide any evidence or proof of what you're saying.

I wouldn't necessarily say it would be impossible to observe god at all, but being super-natural almost literally means above or immeasurable to science, not physical.

Any terrestrial object that created a black hole would be no problem, even if the entire Earth became a black hole it's radius would only be what I calculate to be around .008 meters. It's also important to point out that you never "feel" gravity, so for any micro black hole, you'd essentially have to come into direct contact with it to notice anything. The only time you would actually "feel" anything is with very large black holes at least a solar mass where your body would get stretched out and ripped apart which I don't know exactly when that would happen, but for a 1 solar mass black hole I'd guess the orbit of Mercury is safe enough to not be ripped to shreds.

We've cataloged literally over 4000 comets and many of them take years and years to make a complete orbit. The icy trail makes them more visible compared to distant stars so I'm not sure what your point is. I must have missed your delta v problem because we can literally produce enough energy to destroy the world a few times over, if we put all of our energy and resources into it, which the world definitely would if there was a confirmed collision heading our way, we could accelerate something fast enough the possibly intercept most rocky objects in the solar system. We can definitely "reach" it even at 100km/s, but if it's oubound there's a good chance we won't be able to intercept it at a great distance due to its increased speed, but your fly analogy also makes little sense because as you probably know, people get shoved back and die from bullets, which typically have less than 1/1000th of the mass of an average person. Asteroids in this system typically have the same size range as comet nuclei which are usually a maximum of 40km, I don't see what your problem is with this comparison. The composition of ice and snow would make the harder to handle with a single explosion, but it takes less energy to vaporize the water-ammonia-CO2 ice holding the comet together as a trade off. Weights wouldn't necessarily work, they may just get absorbed or somewhat pass through, but we can simply put a time counter on an explosives we launch that explodes at the time we think it will be near the comet's surface if the impact would not be hard enough. I agree it would be harder to deal with comets as opposed to a solid piece of rock, but as I said before people have known about the threats of extraterrestrial bodies for a while now, and as someone who's talked to actual astronomers about meteors and comet impacts, unless they were for some reason lying about having a chance, we have more than a 0 percent chance of dealing with inbound comets, and even outbound comets, though I would agree is less likely to deal outbound comets without some kind of damage happening. Outbound comets, if they're already on there way here and we can't intercept them fast enough, our only chance would be to vaporize it with many explosives with the risk of damaging life on Earth, no guarantee we would be unharmed but if we're going to die anyway, we might as well see if we can get rid of it almost completely which we can definitely for sure attempt.

Because an idea that simple has already been thought of, and I'm pretty sure I've seen it, but complicated 3-D mathematics isn't exactly simple math and I don't know what those properties are actually called, that's like calculus BC and beyond depending on your field. I'd imagine it would be used most for astronomy and engineering which are very math oriented.

And you should talk to actual astronomers like those I met at the University of Illinois Observatory and Washburn Observatory in Madison or engineers I talked to at the Fermilab in Illinois. I'm not saying it would be easy or guaranteed with today's technology, but we have more than a 0% chance for sure, given that we have a month or two in advanced or more.

Here's how it should be re-written: "In order to explain something we Humans need reference points just like how we need very rarely desire 6 Points to locate a Hidden Star under the conditions I have described." Intersecting lines still don't give you the exact location, it's coincidence wherever they intersect.

That's fine, just don't use 6 star points to explain anything.

Which is what I was saying before, the developed countries of the world are looking into the best technology for this. I'm not sure why you think magic is involved, we have complex computers. If we know the angle it's at and the speed it's going, in other words a single vector, since we already have the capability of tracking the location of other planets and therefore their interference, we merely project where it will go in that direction based on the increasing gravitation strength it experiences from the sun or any planets it may go near, which Isaac Newton could do without a computer even. We've also sent 20 ton rockets into space already during the cold war, the mass of single explosive devices isn't a problem, we can send a group of many small explosives if the mass is too much for any particular one to reach a particular speed. But for a simple deflection we would send a weight, a single 2 ton weight or a 20 ton weight. Have you ever heard of railguns too? A single individual helium nuclei traveling near the speed of light has the force of a baseball bat traveling 90mph, and a few militaries have been working on that technology for a while and making them better. People knew about meteor threats for a while now, for hundreds of years even if you consider ancient prophecies. We've been researching with various technologies and it seems we're less than a century away from being able to deal with any asteroids 20km or less. With our current technology, we at least have some kind of chance, though hopefully the countries of the world will continue working together to develop better technology.

Perhaps it's a misinterpretation, but when you comment on a spelling mistake besides the point it of the post it makes you appear as though you are strawmanning. Well if he has physical limitations then he cannot be omnipotent. This paradox would seem to prove that. No matter what, there is at least one thing god cannot do. So then we should agree that unless there's something that can overturn the paradox, true omnipotence cannot exist.

Ok so you're talking about triangulation, which you do not need 6 points for, it requires no intersection of 3 pairs of lines. You should be concerned that a math expert had never heard of such a "simple" solution The fact that you repeated the same arguments and continued to use caps lock over and over says otherwise.

I think there's a youtube video of Morgan Freeman dancing here

Using 6 points surrounding a star itself only gives you the info about the hidden star relative to those 6 stars and probably some info about that star's position from Earth.

Well we can launch probes that carry explosives in them which are designed to detonate when the probe experiences an amount of force greater than a preset value. Actually what we can do is launch a probe which then launches another thing like a weight or explosive which is then what hits an asteroid, or in most recent cases, planets.

I was trying to think if there is some rule for various 3-D shapes, like the interior angles of a triangle always total 180 degrees and it goes up by 180 for every side you add of a regular polygon, but I was wondering recently if there's some kind of property for 3-D shapes. Obviously 3-D shapes have more than one angle occurring at a single point, but if we have say, a triangular pyramid, is there something about the total radian measure of interior sphere arcs that totals up to like, 2pi radians something like that? From forming spheres. Like if you have a cube, and you draw spheres with centers at each vertices of each vertex of the cube, all of those spheres will always represent a 1/8 of the total sphere that can be generated from using any of the 3 lines created at the vertices of a cube to create that sphere and thus the total "sphere measure" is a whole sphere since there are 8 vertices in a cube.

I have a feeling you can always draw a triangle between any three points. If you already have the data of thousands of stars and you know their angles and distances relative to the hidden star, you don't need any intersecting lines, you just use law of sines and cosines.

Any asteroid traveling at speeds less than a 100th the speed of light we can definitely "reach", the questions is "will we do it in time?". Explosives only require a landing if the rock is loose like with many comets and would otherwise not transfer much of a shockwave throughout the whole comet. If it is one solid piece of rock you can just launch a dozen missiles at it and hopefully vaporize enough of it or steer it off course. Which is more or less what I was saying before, if it is too close or will be too close in too short of an amount of time there's not much we can do, but even with that, it is "possible" to still use explosives on it, it's just that using 1000 or even 100 nukes less than a million miles from Earth will probably damage the atmosphere or sterilize a lot of life or just in general cause a lot of radiation sickness. But if we know the trajectory enough in advanced, it's a pretty simple principle that we can just shift the angle of it's direction by even half a degree and it will barely avoid Earth.