Endy0816

The space we and everything else is occupying today is where that 'source' was. Everything was at a single point(roughly speaking) before that became less dense.

@IDoNotCare Sorry if you're feeling attacked but you need to be able to summarize(and no I'm not a sock puppet). Nobody can read minds here. I might hazard a guess that you're talking about a post scarcity society and more specifically 'fully automated luxury communism', but you need to spell that out. Without a good reason to, nobody wants to sit through a bunch of YouTube videos or go offsite to a random link. In some cases there is just an initial investment hump that automation has to be pushed over. Admittedly communist countries also tend to nationalize simultaneously, which is a great way to kill outside investment. I think we'll at least see automated trucks. For long-hauls along a highway it would be simple enough. Even if legally they end up needing a truck tender, you could find someone cheaper than a full time driver. At it's heart most R&D boils down to an optimization problem, so algorithms can work for some things. We might still need either a person or possibly a well trained AI, to define problem constraints. I don't think work will be truly eliminated but it might be more of what people actually like or want to dedicate themselves to.

Can you describe what the Venus Project is for us?

Banning gloves might improve things. Recently saw a video discussing how gloves made attacks to the head more common, as fighters no longer ran the risk of damaging their own hands as a result.

Not true Antigravity but there is acoustic levitation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_levitation

@sethoflagos You can read about an experiment showing this here: https://www.nature.com/news/2002/020722/full/news020722-2.html Second Law is true on average though, so you won't ever see a cup spontaneously unbreak or all the air move to one side of a room.

Should really consult a doctor or nurse about this(over the phone if necessary). Just as an example, there is DPD deficiency. Where a lack of the enzyme can impact how quickly your body is able to break down some chemotherapy drugs. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-in-general/treatment/chemotherapy/side-effects/dpd-deficiency Good luck and I hope your sister recovers.

Quite a bit is pretty fanciful from a scientific perspective, but is an extremely well done production. The setting is a fair sized city set inside of a large martian dome. Heavily modified assets and ridiculous level of detail really make the city come to life. The actual build aspects may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I've found it easy enough to skip past when things become too dry.

Here's a good demonstration of a fire piston. A very cool bit of ancient technology.

It'd almost be worth bringing it back for the entertainment factor. "I know you just lost to that guy, but guess who your new boss is?" Always wonder what the Founding Fathers' thought process was on that one.

Very true. This does make you think. We have the Antarctic as an example where we have exercised restraint, but whether this will remain so is of course unknown. Yeah, main thing is that they simply wouldn't be accustomed to the rigors involved or would consider the risks to be extreme compared with their controlled environments. Reasonable to assume by then that they could build habitats to suit any particular preference both in space and on lifeless bodies. Possible though that some might not find that as enough of a challenge.

I earnestly hope not. I've had dreams that would be bad for our whole species. Practically speaking you never actually gain any outside knowledge as you dream beyond what your standard senses provide. If it is something possible/probable you might however imagine it occurring only to see it actually happen later. Should note that false memories can also play a role here.

The ones around our own Gas Giants do tend to have some decent resources or novelties so similar exomoons would definitely be of interest. Realistically travelers would have to be living in space already to reach that far. One that shared a similar atmospheric composition might even be forbidden from inhabitation as that could harm future research into native life.

Wouldn't the radius shrink and mass increase proportionally?

Yeah, might have been the IAEA. Considered a generally authorized destination for distributions(assuming I've parsed the legalese correctly). https://rsicc.ornl.gov/default.aspx https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/appendix-A_to_part_810

-snip

No. We know something has to occur due to the finite speed of light when density crosses the critical threshold. Other thing is nothing else can match a BH for compactness. Accretion disk of an equally massive star still can't orbit as closely. Whatever goes in is lost. Outside we never learn what has happened, if anything, past the Event horizon.

The last is potentially inaccurate. Only fairly large ones take long periods of time.

I think average KE would stay the same as they only have each other to run into. For the center of black holes the formulas fail to give meaningful values. Trying to find density, results in a division by zero situation, a mathematical singularity.

Yeah, often incorrectly thought of as the be all end all, when in some cases you can have even smaller measurements.

Ironic

Does the math say anything about causality issues if your travel was to somewhere in the Unobservable Universe?

Buoyancy would be correct to use for both. Air and water are both formally considered fluids. Buoyancy is ultimately due to Earth's gravity pulling on whatever fluid you are displacing. A simpler way to say it is: FB = mfl * g or Buoyant Force = Weight of the displaced Fluid A wet-suit could help you to displace more fluid and increase your buoyancy that way. Net force would be the Buoyant force minus the object's own weight. Hopefully this helps, interesting question.

One theory I've read is that it allows us to pick up on and mimic the various bird and animal calls. This would have given our ancestors a sizable advantage both in their own hunting and knowing when a predator was about.

For the second did you try multiplying by 1 = (c+v)/(c+v) and 1 = (c-v)/(c-v) respectively to simplify(Difference of two squares)? Keep in mind: 1 - (v2/c2) = (c2 - v2)/ c2