Killstream Post-Mortem w. The Boys

submitted by EthnocratArcheofuturist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (39 children)

If National Socialism was tried out by America instead of Germany we would be having this discussion on a terraformed Mars.

No. Mars can't be terraformed and even it could be, it would be pointless. Newton's laws of motion and human biology preclude space travel and colonization. Space exploration is Reddit shit. The final frontier is earth and money shouldn't be wasted on such foolish ventures.

The most that could ever come out of space is mining asteroids for metals, ammonia, or natural gas.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

How do Newton's laws of motion preclude space travel and colonization?

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

Inertia. If you were going at 10% of the speed of light you would need 600 years to reach a star system 40 light-years away. 200 years of acceleration, 200 years of cruise speed, and 200 years of deceleration.

Contrary to what you see in movies, in real life, you can't accelerate from rest to near light speed in a matter of minutes. Even if the propulsion system was capable of that, no pilot would do it because the G force would crush him to paste.

Whenever you accelerate, decelerate or seek to turn the trajectory of a moving object, you need to apply force. And there's a sharp limit to how much force a human body can take. You can go to the wiki pages of any modern fighter aircraft and you'll find that the maximum g-limit is 9g.

Because over 9g the pilot tends to blackout. The maximum g a human body can take is 30g. A US Lt. Colonel in the air force volunteered for the experiment and he could take 30g at max. Even then it caused his eardrums to burst and he suffered internal bleeding and organ damage.

And even a sustained force of 8g would kill the crew overtime. Many pilots get stiff necks and other muscle problems despite rarely ever hitting 9g and only flying for 150 hours a year.

And the real problem in space comes from debris. At .1c, even a small pebble-sized object would hit you with the force of a mini nuclear bomb. Imagine it this way: If you were walking slowly and bumped into a wall, you wouldn't get hurt. If you were running and hit the wall, you will be bleeding. If you crashed into the wall at 1000 km/hr, you'd be reduced to paste.

And space is littered with such debris and there are asteroid fields always lying about. A spaceship would need to maneuver around these things. It can't ram into them at .1c speed. The problem is that due to the law of inertia, it would take enormous amounts of force to decelerate or change trajectory.

Even if your radars picked up the asteroid belt 100,000 km away, at .1C, you'd only have 3.33 seconds of warning. At half the speed, it would only be 6.66 seconds. In 6.66 seconds, if you were to decelerate from .1c to a ''mere'' match 1 at 352 m/s, you'd need to apply a 459,637 g force.

Forget your body, your ship would be torn to bits. And due to the law of angular momentum, the faster your speed, the longer your turn radius is. You'd notice this with your car. The faster it is, the longer it takes to turn around.

So for these reasons, it's completely impractical to try to build a space empire or for humans to try to reach potentially habitable worlds outside the solar system. If humans ever set foot on a habitable world outside the Sol system, it will most likely be due to a fleet of generation ships run by an AI that travels over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Upon reaching the planet, the ships would then terraform the planet and once it was suitable, then culture live humans from embryos.

But all that is pointless from the perspective of Earth humans. Why would you spend tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars on a project that has a minuscule chance of success and brings you zero benefits? European countries for example colonized the new world because it allowed them to jettison excess population, extract resources for trade, and trade with new outposts of their nations.

No such benefit awaits space colonization. And as far as settling mars, I've written an extensive article here before.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

The final frontier is earth and money shouldn't be wasted on such foolish ventures.

And if Earth gets hit by an Asteroid, or the environment becomes too toxic, nearly all life will be extinguished.

Preserving the human species requires spreading itself on more planets, instead of betting on just one.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Without constant supplies from the earth, no other colony can even survive. You can't settle a world with life because its microbes would be deadly to you. You'd need to terraform a planet and there are no suitable candidates nearby. A colony on mars would never be self-sufficient and would die out soon without supplies from the earth.

If an asteroid hits and kills us all, then that is it. Nothing we can do about it. At most, we could build a space station above the earth that's somewhat self-sufficient. All life would certainly not go extinct. Earth has been hit by giant asteroids, blanketed under ice, and bathed in volcanic waste in the past.

Life has always returned. It's just that the old life forms died out. New ones took their place. That is the law of nature. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for tens of millions of years. Only bones remain of them now. Their last descendants are the birds and the Rhino. The same will happen to man and all the other species on earth one day.

To accept this truth is to be truly traditionalist. To argue otherwise and think that you can rise above natural laws is the essence of modernity and Judaism.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Without constant supplies from the earth, no other colony can even survive. You can't settle a world with life because its microbes would be deadly to you. You'd need to terraform a planet and there are no suitable candidates nearby. A colony on mars would never be self-sufficient and would die out soon without supplies from the earth.

Technology is specifically invented to reduce these problems or make them negligible over time.

Go back 10,000 years ago and ask European Cavemen if they've heard of America or can they build boats to cross it? They would have shrugged at the idea even though today, we have airplanes that make crossing continents look like a walk in the park.

If Humans settle another planet, our expectations would naturally evolve with them. And it would certainly turn into a competition if the idea of planetary real estate blows up. You don't think Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk salivate at the idea of becoming mini-monarchs on foreign planets that are outside of Earth's government? That's literally the story of how Brazil was founded after Portugal was invaded by France in the 1800s.

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

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You don't think Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk salivate at the idea of becoming mini-monarchs on foreign planets that are outside of Earth's government? That's literally the story of how Brazil was founded after Portugal was invaded by France in the 1800s.

You are applying earth analogs to interstellar scales. Just because they would like to do those things doesn't mean they will. Again, there's no law saying that you must be able to do x because you did y despite people doubting it. This is very star trek like thinking. Where is the unified field theory after 70 years?

And all this is fantastical thinking. No government could possibly spend tens of trillions on such out-there projects. A government that did spend such copius amounts on space exploration would be overtaken and defeated by a government that spends those trillions on industry, infrastructure, education, and the military.

The US and China are a rough approximation. The US had the most prosperous and advanced economy in the history of the earth from 1950-1990. Yet, they squandered that unimaginable wealth on wars for Israel, bringing democracy and gay rights to Afghanistan, and dumping trillions on blacks, single moms, and other loafers. It pursued a fantasy that brought no return even on the time frame of 50 years.

China invested its energy into infrastructure, education, industry and it is on the brink of surpassing the US.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are applying earth analogs to interstellar scales.

But Earth is part of the interstellar universe. We literally don't exist in a vacuum and it only makes sense our definition of scale will evolve when Man continues to explore the universe. Just like how Europeans use to sail around Africa, Asia or the Americas before having the right tech to venture inwards.

And all this is fantastical thinking. No government could possibly spend tens of trillions on such out-there projects. A government that did spend such copius amounts on space exploration would be overtaken and defeated by a government that spends those trillions on industry, infrastructure, education, and the military.

The Cold War pitted two superpowers against each other in the race for Space, but only one of them fell. You can guess who (the USSR).

The US and China are a rough approximation. The US had the most prosperous and advanced economy in the history of the earth from 1950-1990. Yet, they squandered that unimaginable wealth on wars for Israel, bringing democracy and gay rights to Afghanistan, and dumping trillions on blacks, single moms, and other loafers. It pursued a fantasy that brought no return even on the time frame of 50 years. China invested its energy into infrastructure, education, industry and it is on the brink of surpassing the US.

You're making my argument for me. The U.S could have been even more powerful had it spent more money on Space research instead of donating it to Israel, black welfare and countless Middle Eastern wars.

And part of China investing in education/infrastructure/industry is obviously just a side step away for going into Space. Follow the news, and they've been sending rovers to the Moon for example, and they have plans to land a man on Mars by 2033.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/24/china-plans-for-first-manned-mission-to-mars-in-2033

All these are what White nations should be doing.

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again, there's no law saying that you must be able to do x because you did y, despite people doubting it. This is very star trek like thinking. Where is the unified field theory after 70 years?

Star Trek could get away with that kindof thinking because it is science fiction. You CAN go faster than the speed of life, IF you are smart enough, IF you are daring enough. The most explicit example of this was in Star Trek 5.

''What you fear is the unknown. The people of your planet once believed their world was flat. ...Columbus proved it was round. They said the sound barrier could never be broken. ...It was broken. They said warp speed could not be achieved. The Great Barrier is the ultimate expression of this universal fear. It is an extension of personal fear.''

In real life, however, it doesn't work that way. When Columbus discovered the new world in the 15th century, no educated person actually believed the Earth was flat. Likewise, no scientist ever said that the sound barrier couldn't be broken: After all, bullets routinely broke the sound barrier, and so did all kinds of other things. And as far as we can tell, the speed of light is as fundamental as the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass. It is extremely unlikely that any future scientific advances will ever enable this law to be broken.

 

As far as the unified field theory, you bring up an important point. I am by no means an expert in this subject, but I believe that the field of physics (particularly the standard model) may be caught in a scientific dead end. Not unlike the field of medicine was in a dead end before germ theory. Modern physics is unable to verify its own foundational assumptions, and practitioners are required to take them on faith.

As for the claim that the large hadron collider actually proved the existence of the higgs boson? They spent billions of dollars on the most extensive scientific project ever, and the entire framework of the standard model was dependent on it. They were going to find it whether it was there or not.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I think it's no good to compare sailing to the new world to traveling thru space, the distances are way different. Going to mars would be like if the ocean was 1 inch long.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It's all relative.

Cavemen had no understanding of Space, so telling them there's a big unexplored continent on the other side of the world would have sounded just as alien or crazy. And it still took them thousands of years to finally build ships and navigate the oceans before successfully touching down in America or the coasts of South Africa.

Based on today's science, going to Mars is obviously a bigger challenge. But in 500+ years, I expect the gap to shrink and it would be no more harder than riding the Bus to a different part of town.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

it's simplistic and naive tho to expect one thing is possible because another thing was.The other guy was mentioning how space travel would realistically need to be done with AI who then clone humans once it gets to whatever planet after thousands of years. Yeah that is realistic, and yeah it's in 500+ years. We'll all be dead tho.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We'll all be dead tho.

Speak for yourself. I'm of golden age blood, my people live for a thousand years.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I would bypass the cloning part, and just upload the human consciousness into a robot body.

Yeah, it sounds sci-fi as fuck, but this is what you need to understand when I say our expectations always evolve.

The Human body was made for Earth, so why wouldn't Humans design new bodies that can take us anywhere else in the universe? It's evolution, but done artificially.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't think rhinos are descended from dinosaurs

I do think they inspired people to make up the dinosaur hoax.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

dinosaur hoax.

come on man.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wonder what he means by that.

[–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So this is where you draw the line on conspiratorial thought? Lmao.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is all bullshit. You're not more informed on this topic than the late Stephen Hawking: https://youtu.be/YzMrNFd4oOk

I see this often with you. You think you're some kind of brilliant expert on virtually every topic. You're not. You're full of shit. And if we disagree with your bullshit you call us "midwits". It's just laughable at this point.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.universetoday.com/15403/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/

People not running an entertainment business beg to differ. I don't care what you think. I never claimed to be a brilliant expert on every topic. You can look at the data and decide for yourself. You have no arguments or data points ever, just one-liners and emotional outbursts like a little girl.

[–]AidsVictim69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In general you can't trust anything on TV regarding physics outside some basic stuff, doubly true for space travel stuff. Even men who know better will give dumbed down bullshit answers when the producer says they need to make it sufficiently "exciting" or understandable to the general audience.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

All of this stuff can be overcome with technology. Your comment is like some person at the turn of the 20th century talking about how impossible it is with the current technology for man to ever cross the ocean in a jet. The G thing is bizarre. You accelerate slowly enough and you avoid the problem. You're not still experiencing high G loads when you reach high speeds in space.

Not saying that we'll be living in Star Trek tomorrow but to analyze these issues merely from through the prism of our present technological situation is short sighted.

I've also posted here about the Alcubierre warp drive which renders many of the problems you cite redundant. Who knows how many amazing inventions people can come up with to get around these problems. Also the cost benefits of space travel are limitless. The idea that there's no profit motive for space travel though an ugly and misguided take I expect from lolberts mainly is ridiculous.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You accelerate slowly enough

You can't decelerate fast enough or turn fast enough to avoid obstacles. The best radar on a moving object ever made is probably the AGP-81 radar on the F-35. It can only see 550 km ahead. Even if you built a miracle radar that could see 100,000 km ahead, at .1c you could not slow down or evade it in time.

You'd only have 3.33 seconds. If you go at lower speeds, if you go "only" at 1% of the speed of light, you'd still only have just 33 seconds. And at that speed, it would probably take you 6000 years to reach a planet that's 40 light-years away. And even then you have complications. Planets and even solar systems are not stationary objects. They are constantly orbiting and thus mobile. You essentially have to achieve pinpoint accuracy in your calculations from 40 light-years away where information is 40 years out of date.

Based on that data, you'd have to set up an interception point. Maneuvering could set you off course and then you'd have to waste even more fuel and time trying to catch up.

At a "slow'' speed of 1% of c, you'd probably require 6000 years to reach the planet. That's not feasible in the slightest economically and it's debatable if the crew of a ship could keep their shit together that long. Or even if a ship could possibly maintain supplies that long.

Your comment is like some person at the turn of the 20th century talking about how impossible it is with the current technology for man to ever cross the ocean in a jet

This mentality assumes that technology can be advanced infinitely. There are natural limits that might not be surpassed. There's no law in the sky that says that because you did air travel, you can also do space travel or break the law of momentum or inertia.

For example, Einstein(or Poincare perhaps) invented the theory of relativity in 1905. Quantum mechanics came into being by the 30s and 40s. There are four fundamental forces of nature: Gravitation, Electromagnetism, Nuclear strong force, and Nuclear weak force.

The latter three can be explained by quantum mechanics, the first can be explained by relativity. One of the greatest goals of physics is to develop a unified field theory that can explain all four and reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. Einstein tried for the last 30 years of his life and failed.

Richard Feinman, John von Neuman, Edward Teller, Stephen Hawking, and countless other physicists and mathematicians of near superhuman intelligence have tried for over 70 years and failed. 160+ IQ geniuses from all over the globe have tried and failed to break this nut. Same with questions like why does time run forward or what form does matter take inside a black hole.

There are laws in the universe that simply can't be broken. Such is the sentence of God.

You can't break the speed of light while having rest mass. You can't travel back in time(in a sense you can travel forward) and you can't know if there's life after death.

The 19th and 20th centuries saw rapid technological advances because the low-hanging fruit had not been picked. It was not that difficult to discover the laws of magnetism or relativity. It's vastly harder in comparison to finding the secret of eternal youth or creating life from inanimate objects.

Science is not like the tech tree on a video game where if you invest money, train scholars and give them raw materials, it will continuously keep advancing.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

relativity is obviously fake, you can't have speed of light being the same in all reference frames. Quantum mechanics also makes no sense. You can't figurte out a particles position and momentum? Yes you can just get back to the drawing board and figure it out. They basically said something is hard so it can't be figured out as an excuse for they couldn't figure it out. Imagine if I put that on my math test in school, I'd get an F for sure.

[–]AidsVictim69 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

relativity is obviously fake, you can't have speed of light being the same in all reference frames.

Why not?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

thats just retarded, makes no sense

[–]AidsVictim69 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Makes perfect sense to me. The speed of light just tells you the maximum/nearest coordinate you can reach from whatever given point. That coordinate system is not frame dependent.

Relativity has plenty of direct experimental/observational evidence it's not simply abstract untested theory.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it's not a cosmic speed limit either just need more force to go faster and faster

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

.1c

Meaning?

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

c is Speed of light.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

10% of the speed of light. C denoting 3x10*8 meters/second.

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Inertia. If you were going at 10% of the speed of light you would need 600 years to reach a star system 40 light-years away. 200 years of acceleration, 200 years of cruise speed, and 200 years of deceleration.

Contrary to what you see in movies, in real life, you can't accelerate from rest to near light speed in a matter of minutes. Even if the propulsion system was capable of that, no pilot would do it because the G force would crush him to paste.

The effect of acceleration does impose some constraints on the design of a starship and what kindof missions it can handle, but not to the extent to which you imply. If a starship accelerated at a constant rate of 1 G (or 9.82 mt/s), then it would reach a velocity of 1 km/s in 102 seconds. If it maintained this rate of acceleration, it would reach a velocity of 30,000 km/s in 3,055,000 seconds (or 35.3 days). So clearly, it does not represent an insurmountable problem for a starship.

A more serious problem is the aspect of waste heat. An engine that is able to accelerate a (presumably) huge spacecraft at 1 G for over a month will release enormous amounts of waste heat. Once a vessel exceeds a certain tonnage, the amount of energy released from the engines will exceed what is released from a nuclear bomb. Safely radiating this heat away from the starship is not a trivial problem. It would grow more serious if the vessel is using its engines continuously for a long burn.

And the real problem in space comes from debris. At .1c, even a small pebble-sized object would hit you with the force of a mini nuclear bomb.

This is true. Space debris is a problem even for spacecraft in an Earth orbit. At the much higher speeds required for interstellar travel, it would become a very serious problem. The only real way to deal with it is by pre-planning a voyage through parts of space where they will not go through any asteroid belts or meteor fields, and by equipping the starship with a very heavy shield. (Depending on the size of the vessel and the speed it will travel at, these shields can weigh in at hundreds of tons)

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

voyage through parts of space where they will not go through any asteroid belts or meteor fields, and by equipping the starship with a very heavy shield. (Depending on the size of the vessel and the speed it will travel at, these shields can weigh in at hundreds of tons)

Yes, but you can only plan so far ahead. You can't scan for pebbles or smaller debris and there is no radar that can accurately map out asteroid belts millions of kilometers away. Even if it could, the turn radius would be too high and it would require to great a force to decelerate or turn in the first place.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is just a demonstration of your pathetic lack of vision. Our future lies in space. Period. We're hardly spending money on it as it is. It's not a waste. Giving endless trillions to POCs and banks is a waste.

[–]AidsVictim69 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Space fetishization by the right is not much different from pseudo religious scientism by Reddit nerds. The future of white ethnic groups and nations depends entirely on what happens on the social-communal and national levels, not small populations of probably mixed people (the way things are going) living on Mars generations from now.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why are you so hostile and triggered? I never insulted you.