When will we become Galactic?

[psikeyhackr]

.You are mistaken, Milankovitch cycles do not include changes in perihelion. Milankovitch cycles pertain to Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession only.

The reindeer on St. Michael's Island died of starvation because they out grew their environment. That happens in nature. Wolves do the exact same thing. They mark out a territory and as their population grows they begin depleting all of their prey in their territory. Once that happens, then just like the reindeer, they starve to death until their numbers once again reach sustainable levels. It is not a pretty sight, and we do try to mitigate their numbers when possible.

You think eccentricity changes without changing perihelion?

The Earth's orbit slightly changes its eccentricity over the course of 100,000 years from nearly 0 to 0.07 and back again, according to NASA's Earth Observatory. When the Earth's orbit has a higher eccentricity, the planet's surface receives 20 to 30 percent more solar radiation when it's at perihelion (the shortest distance between the Earth and sun each orbit) than when it is at aphelion (the largest distance between the Earth and sun each orbit). When the Earth's orbit has a low eccentricity, there is very little difference in the amount of solar radiation that is received between perihelion and aphelion.

What Are the Milankovitch Cycles?

The Milankovitch Cycles describe how the tilt of the Earth, the shape of its orbit and where its axis is pointing collectively influence climate.

www.livescience.com

And climate change won't cause human starvation? Yeah right! It is just an open question of how bad it will get. Since I almost certainly will not be here in 50 years it is somewhat academic, unless those clowns on the reincarnation bandwagon are right.

 

[Glitch]

I'm serious... I think an artificial Kerr-Newman rotating black hole is probably the best way to power interstellar flight.

And if the containment fails... no messy clean-up.

Just a reminder: Black holes have a minimum mass of three Suns, not to mention a gravitational field so strong at the event horizon that light cannot escape it.

 

[Cordelier]

Ouch!

If you were talking about micro-singularities like they create at CERN, they aren't a problem because they evaporate almost instantly. But if you are talking about a singularity big enough to power a star ship, then you opening a whole new can of worms.

In nature it requires approximately three solar masses to form a singularity. Obviously we can make much smaller ones, but size is also important. The size of the singularity will determine how long it will last. Presumably the star ship will want a singularity to last a bit longer than the billionth of a second ones they create at CERN. How big would it need to be, and how much mass would it require? Let's not forget that the star ship has to also move that amount of mass.

Obviously, I don't have all the specifics.... but if it's possible to engineer a stable rotating Kerr-Newman black hole, you can derive a significant amount of energy from it via the Penrose Process.

It may well be that we don't even have to manufacture one. I've got a theory that all solar systems are formed by the accumulation of baryonic matter around primordial black holes, in a similar way that raindrops form around condensation nucleii in the atmosphere. After a while, enough baryonic matter accumulates to initiate stellar ignition and the primordial black hole is expelled to the outer reaches of the system. This may well account for the "Planet X" gravitational phenomena that has been observed. It may well be that there's a black hole the size of your fist in a highly eccentric heliocentric orbit out there.

 

[Glitch]

You think eccentricity changes without changing perihelion?

The Earth's orbit slightly changes its eccentricity over the course of 100,000 years from nearly 0 to 0.07 and back again, according to NASA's Earth Observatory. When the Earth's orbit has a higher eccentricity, the planet's surface receives 20 to 30 percent more solar radiation when it's at perihelion (the shortest distance between the Earth and sun each orbit) than when it is at aphelion (the largest distance between the Earth and sun each orbit). When the Earth's orbit has a low eccentricity, there is very little difference in the amount of solar radiation that is received between perihelion and aphelion.

What Are the Milankovitch Cycles?

The Milankovitch Cycles describe how the tilt of the Earth, the shape of its orbit and where its axis is pointing collectively influence climate.

www.livescience.com

And climate change won't cause human starvation? Yeah right! It is just an open question of how bad it will get. Since I almost certainly will not be here in 50 years it is somewhat academic, unless those clowns on the reincarnation bandwagon are right.

Yes, the eccentricity has nothing to do with the the changing perihelion, except that there is a perihelion at all. If the Earth had a perfectly circular orbit there would be no perihelion or aphelion. So they exist only because Earth has a slightly eccentric orbit. The Milankovitch cycles includes eccentricity, as I previously mentioned, but it does not factor in the changes to the perihelion. Not only does it switch between January and July every 9,000 years, it also flips poles. Currently the northern hemisphere is closest to the Sun in January, in 9,000 years the southern hemisphere will be closest to the Sun during July.

 

[Cordelier]

Just a reminder: Black holes have a minimum mass of three Suns, not to mention a gravitational field so strong at the event horizon that light cannot escape it.

You're talking about Stellar black holes. There's more than one way to skin Schödinger's cat.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You're talking about Stellar black holes. There's more than one way to skin Schödinger's cat.

But can you skin it without killing it?

 

[Cordelier]

But can you skin it without killing it?

Yes and no.

 

[Glitch]

You're talking about Stellar black holes. There's more than one way to skin Schödinger's cat.

True, but you still have that pesky event horizon no matter how small you make it, and then there is moving that mass. Even a very small black hole would require a great deal of energy to alter its angular momentum.

Stellar black holes take trillions of years to evaporate. Presumably you will not need to fuel a spacecraft for that length of time.

 

[Cordelier]

True, but you still have that pesky event horizon no matter how small you make it, and then there is moving that mass. Even a very small black hole would require a great deal of energy to alter its angular momentum.

Stellar black holes take trillions of years to evaporate. Presumably you will not need to fuel a spacecraft for that length of time.

You're still thinking in terms of rocket ships. You don't move the mass... the mass moves you, or, more precisely, the space around you.

And you don't interact with the event horizon to produce the energy field - you interact with the ergosphere. (see the link to the Penrose Process)

The Gravitomagnetic Field and Penrose Processes

Results from general relativistic theoretical Monte Carlo computer simulations of Compton scattering and e-e+ pair production processes in the ergosphere of a supermassive (10^8 solar mass) rotating black hole are presented. Particles from an accretion disk fall into the ergosphere and scatter...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

 

[gboisjo]

IMHO humans will never leave our solar system, never mind leaving our Galaxy.

So, to leave our Galaxy, we would have to travel about 500 light-years vertically, or about 25,000 light-years away from the galactic center. We’d need to go much further to escape the halo of diffuse gas, old stars and globular clusters that surrounds the Milky Way’s stellar disk.

It’ll be a long time before we have the technology to do this, IMO Humanities extinction is something way more likely than Star Trekian notions of grandeur in deep space.

 

[psikeyhackr]

IMHO humans will never leave our solar system, never mind leaving our Galaxy.

So, to leave our Galaxy, we would have to travel about 500 light-years vertically, or about 25,000 light-years away from the galactic center. We’d need to go much further to escape the halo of diffuse gas, old stars and globular clusters that surrounds the Milky Way’s stellar disk.

It’ll be a long time before we have the technology to do this, IMO Humanities extinction is something way more likely than Star Trekian notions of grandeur in deep space.

Pessimistic realists are such downers.

 

[eohrnberger]

Then again . . . .

New technology could enable humans to travel at 7 million MPH

Light is fast. In fact, it is the fastest thing that exists, and a law of the universe is that nothing can move faster than light.

www.inverse.com

7M MPH is a pretty big number, but I haven't calculated that against light speed. Anyone?

 

[Deuce]

The problem with taking inspiration from science fiction for this process is that science fiction technologies are just magic. That's it. Warp drive, transporter beams, inverting the tachyon flux polarity to destabilize the singularity, it's all just magic that they put a different label on. They use space magic because actual physics makes the show not work any more, it's the same reason they write in "universal translators" to explain why all the blue-skinned aliens speak English.

As far as we understand the laws of physics, none of this stuff works. You can't go faster than light and you can't undo the entire concept of inertia with a "dampener." Alien languages can't be arbitrarily and instantly translated with zero reference points.

Our future is going to look more like The Expanse than Star Trek.

 

[Deuce]

Then again . . . .

New technology could enable humans to travel at 7 million MPH

Light is fast. In fact, it is the fastest thing that exists, and a law of the universe is that nothing can move faster than light.

www.inverse.com

7M MPH is a pretty big number, but I haven't calculated that against light speed. Anyone?

1% of the speed of light, which was sort of the point of the article...you'd have known that if you read the article instead of just reading the headline.

which doesn't actually point at any particular piece of technology that could get us to travel that fast. There's no substance to this article. "Maybe solar sails?" There's no engineering here, there's not even science here. It's just speculation.

 

[Bum]

Question: How long until Homo Sapiens develop the technology to launch us out of our solar system and into the Milky Way?

Providing we don't become victims of some worldwide apocalypse or we just wipe ourselves out with our own brazen stupidity.

Or go to bed on Earth and awake on Planet Dystopia to a government more concerned with advancing itself than technology.

Authoritarians have no use for technology that has no application to government growth, power and control over the masses.

We have not even made it to a Type I level on the Kardashev scale as yet.....and at our current rate, we still have a ways to go.
Barring some unforeseen technological leapfrog event as it pertains to a functional ( and practical ) Alcubierre drive, I don't see us leaving our solar system anytime soon.

 

[Cordelier]

Then again . . . .

New technology could enable humans to travel at 7 million MPH

Light is fast. In fact, it is the fastest thing that exists, and a law of the universe is that nothing can move faster than light.

www.inverse.com

7M MPH is a pretty big number, but I haven't calculated that against light speed. Anyone?

0.01c

 

[Glitch]

Then again . . . .

New technology could enable humans to travel at 7 million MPH

Light is fast. In fact, it is the fastest thing that exists, and a law of the universe is that nothing can move faster than light.

www.inverse.com

7M MPH is a pretty big number, but I haven't calculated that against light speed. Anyone?

Traveling at 7,000,000 mph it will take 95.8 years to travel a distance of 1 light year (5,878,625,000,000 miles). Assuming you traveled for one year at 7 million mph, you will have covered a distance of 61,362,000,000 miles, or a distance of 0.0104 light year.

 

[eohrnberger]

Traveling at 7,000,000 mph it will take 95.8 years to travel a distance of 1 light year (5,878,625,000,000 miles). Assuming you traveled for one year at 7 million mph, you will have covered a distance of 61,362,000,000 miles, or a distance of 0.0104 light year.

So not really a solution to the distance problem then. OK. Thanks.

 

[eohrnberger]

1% of the speed of light, which was sort of the point of the article...you'd have known that if you read the article instead of just reading the headline.

It was late. I was tired. Will try to do better.

which doesn't actually point at any particular piece of technology that could get us to travel that fast. There's no substance to this article. "Maybe solar sails?" There's no engineering here, there's not even science here. It's just speculation.

 

[gboisjo]

A bit of perspective, Voyager 1 launched in 1977 is presently moving at 37,952 mph is still within our solar system as of today. Voyager 1 will remain within the confines of our solar system until it emerges from the Oort cloud in another 14,000 to 28,000 years.

In about 40,000 years, Voyager 1 will be within 1.6 light years of Gliese 445, a red dwarf star. The spacecraft is not expected to collide with a star for 1 sextillion years. Sextillion is
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. Point is this, we sometimes don't grasp the vastness of deep space and our limitations.

 

[eohrnberger]

And then there this:

DARPA researchers accidentally discovered Space-Time warp bubble for the very first time - SpaceNews

Dr. Harold

spacexmania.com

 

[psikeyhackr]

Point is this, we sometimes don't grasp the vastness of deep space and our limitations.

What were our limitations 1,000 years ago?
10,000 years ago?
But what will they be 100, 1000 & 10,000 years from now?

We have to survive the next 200 though. Too many people are doing ****ed up things with technology.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Carl Sagan managed to come up with something fairly "possible" that didnt break basic physics.

Yes, it just needed some machine that does not exist.

Might as well claim Star Trek did it with "Warp Drive".

 

[Oozlefinch]

But can you skin it without killing it?

Does not matter. It is both skinned, and not skinned.

 

[iguanaman]

We are already manipulating the Earth's atmosphere. I didn't say how fast we had to remove it. The next 200 years are a serious problem.

Our nitwit climate scientists talk about CO2 but they haven't said squat about how much had come from unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence for the last 50. They are a match for our brilliant economists who do not compute and report the demand side depreciation of durable consumer junk.

Rah, rah, GDP! What is NDP?

The Milankovitch cycles combine the orbital and processional variations. But they are slow. It should be possible to manage them if we survive the next 200 years. The reindeer on St. Michael's Island did not have machine guns and nukes.

You are wrong about "planned obsolescence". It doesn't need to planned. Technology is advancing so fast because of microcomputers that recycling is the only answer. Ford is partnering in a lithium battery recycle plant that claims it can reuse 95% of the rare earths and metals. That is the future we need a "closed loop" world that no longer throws away 90% of what it uses. No more "the Earth has unlimited resources" we will just dig up more toxic metals and minerals to release on the earth.

• Ford Motor Company and Redwood Materials, a leading battery materials company, are collaborating to make electric vehicles more sustainable and affordable for Americans by localizing the complex supply chain network, creating recycling options for end-of-life vehicles, ramping lithium-ion recycling and increasing U.S. battery production
• Closing the loop ensures valuable materials that are used in battery production are recycled to be used again to drive down costs and reduce reliance on imports and mining of raw materials
• Creating a U.S. circular supply chain is a major step toward making battery electric vehicles sustainable, accessible and affordable for more Americans
• As part of Ford’s plan to invest more than $30 billion in electrification through 2025 and to further advance their joint business opportunities, Ford has invested $50 million in Redwood to help expand Redwood’s manufacturing footprint.

https://media.ford.com/content/ford...ford-redwood-materials-battery-recycling.html