Head_Weakness8028

Head_Weakness8028 t1_jdxzaqc wrote

Reply to Why don’t we use Venus as a dumpster? by Postnificent

I remember when I was a kid, I asked my dad, something similar of why don’t we just shoot our garbage toward the sun. And his reply has stuck with me to this day. He said that by the time our species is advanced enough that shooting our garbage out of Earth’s orbit and into the sun is feasible, we should already be properly breaking down 100% of our waste into something usable. And he used life itself as an example we eat we drink we breathe, and we expel other usable components into the environment. Technically, we should produce no “waste“.

22

Head_Weakness8028 t1_jdxx36y wrote

Reply to comment by Trinull in Hello everyone . I am very interested in space megastructure. such as mckendree cylinder or bishop rings. But suppose we built it. How can a spacecraft dock with it ? Knowing that these huge structures rotate at huge speeds to generate a gravitaty similar to Earth's by Dizzy_Ad3353

Yessir, same as you would approach any moving body in space. By matching the bodies, velocity and vector, you would be stationary relative to the structure/object.

2

Head_Weakness8028 t1_jdxohht wrote

Reply to Hypothetical question by jd-sutton

I definitely see where you’re going with this. Assuming we could fold space-time and position a telescope as you mentioned. Also assuming that this hypothetical telescope is far more powerful, and could extract actual details from the surface of the planet; Then yes, the telescope would “out-pace” the photons reflecting from the earth, and you could hypothetically see anything during earths history. Interesting thought experiment for sure. With our current understandings of the universe it seems the only time traveling we can do is into the future. By either traveling at velocities near the speed of light or parking close to an extreme gravity source you can slow your local resonant frequencies as compared to those on the Earth.

2

Head_Weakness8028 t1_jdxkr2h wrote

Reply to comment by Nerull in Are galaxies just giant accretion disks around super massive black holes? by darthvadercock

Excellent summation and examples. Technically, to summarize even farther for OP, I would say that the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies are the accretions of the matter that coalesced into a galaxy. Edit: I suppose you could say that the galaxy is an “accretion disk” in the making. Edit: Which begs the question; Do stars inevitably spiral into the supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy or does the gravity from all of the stars, orbiting the center of the galaxy, balance everything out? I’m assuming the latter, however, off to research!

2

Head_Weakness8028 t1_j25vhea wrote

Reply to comment by The-Temple-Of-Iron in If the Big Bang was the end of a previous universe, then could a strong enough telescope see into the previous universe? by [deleted]

The entirety of the concept/thought experiment is absolutely flabbergasting. I’ve read tons of material available on this subject and it just keeps getting more incredible. The three dimensional portion of our universe expanded faster than light travels through it, so we can never see past a certain point. I’ve come to picture matter in our universe as three dimensional energy protrusions from what I call “The multidimensional pure energy substrate”. There isn’t truly anything “physical/solid” in our universe. Imagine protons, neutrons, and the electron clouds as energy fields protruding from an “infinitely” small point we can also call an event horizon. I picture every atom and force in our universe as a bubble/foam on the surface of boiling water (The multidimensional pure energy substrate). To me, black holes, are an example of how energy protrusions into this 3 dimensional “blister” naturally try reabsorb into the multidimensional substrate.

3