/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11304560
>Nope. We’re going to walk on alien worlds.
Mars, sure.
And that's about it for the "sure" list.
Since you're poo-pooing my claims of our great-grandkids, I assume you mean people alive today will walk on alien worlds, and that's super-unlikely.
Even in this solar system, with a vac suit, Mercury and Venus are both very inhospitable.
Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus are gas giants, and don't really have a surface.
Neptune has an ice mantle, so -maybe- that, and Pluto and the other dwarf planet count, I guess.
But exoplanets? Probably not.
The closest exoplanet (no surprise) orbits Proxima Centauri, 4.2 light years away.
Our fastest plausible starship design would have to be Project Orion.
Dyson's numbers (from 1968) give a best time of 133 years to Proxima Centauri, but even that speed doesn't allow for saving fuel to slow down at the other end. So you'd just flay past a world you can't actually stop to walk on at 3.3% of c.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#Theoretical_applications
The article goes on to mention much higher speeds for anti-matter versions of the spacecraft, but that's not currently a realistic option.
And don't miss this:
>In each case saving fuel for slowing down halves the maximum speed.
So, realistically, we're taking 266 years to reach the nearest exoplanet, which (based on what little we know) seems about as interesting as Mars was to begin with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b
>Proxima Centauri b orbits the star at a distance of roughly 0.05 AU ... with an orbital period of approximately 11.2 Earth days, and has an estimated mass of at least 1.3 times that of the Earth.
>Its habitability has not been established, though it is unlikely to be habitable since the planet is subject to stellar wind pressures of more than 2,000 times those experienced by Earth from the solar wind.[8][9][10]


Sorry, but this adventure is for some future generation, not us.

>>11155658
>This but unironically.
I think you mean "not facetiously".


>Increased patriarchy
Not him, but... almost by definition incels are not "muh patriarchy".

>>9486474
>Evidence for the possibility of virtual worlds existing is already everywhere.
>>>9486455
Sure! Every X-Box and PS4 running a copy of Call of Duty, GTA or even FIFA 2018 is creating a "virtual universe".
Unfortunately, the total population of these hundreds of millions of simulated universes is ZERO.
At least, none of the "people" involved can wax philosophic about the nature if their existence,
We're still waiting for ANY evidence of artificial people (sentient, sapient possessing a "soul", choose your criteria).
Come back when you've solved the hard problem of consciousness, loser.