there is a caravan of people coming, which amounts to an army threatening invasion
Huh? A bunch of hungry migrants looking for a better life is akin to a professional armed military force trying to overthrow the government? How do you figure?
What exactly is the difference in the landing vehicle? We've plopped a 900kg machine on the surface is gently as we could, why does it matter if that 900kg is full of metal or people?
That's why almost every property in the history of cities is separated by fences and walls, because it's a stupid idea and doesn't work.
That's such a dumb analogy. The reason you put security stuff on or around your house is to "encourage" a burglar to pick a different house. If someone is specifically targeting your house and only your house that privacy fence you've got isn't going to do shit.
So, where exactly do you think people on the southern border are going to go if they see there's a wall there? What, are they going to try the next country over?
Try a different analogy. You own a big piece of property, a ranch or something. You're a turf farmer, so you've got miles and miles of turf that is great for sleeping on. Every homeless person in a 100-mile radius wants to sleep on your turf, and only your turf, and nowhere else. These people are determined to sleep on your property. Is a wall going to stop them if they're determined to get in? How about 24-hour security with infrared cameras, drones, etc? Wouldn't that be a better investment if your goal is to keep everyone out than simply building a wall and calling it done?
That's the discussion the country is having. For some reason though, people in Trump's camp have decided to suggest that anyone opposed to Trump's ideas wants no border security at all, in any way, and people can just freely frolic across the border at will. No one is arguing in favor of that, people are just saying that a wall is not the end-all-be-all solution. A wall in specific locations would probably help. Increased funding for patrols, cameras, drones, etc would also help, maybe even more so.
That's the discussion, so take your "but houses have walls" analogy and shove it up your ass. Thanks.
No it doesn't. Trump will, in theory, be president for all of 2020. His term doesn't end in 2020, it ends in 2021. The election is in 2020. He was asking if it was possible to accomplish this during his first term, which is (again, in theory) through all of 2020 and into the next January.
Obviously that kind of thing differs by channel. Fox shows a lot of ads targeted at old people, for example, for obvious reasons. Although I had Fox headline news on my radio the other day and was surprised to hear one of their normal "invest all your money here" ads, except it was promoting marijuana.
Obviously, he likes to stalk me. He's very upset that I ruined the list of accomplishments he used to tell people he's done over the past 20 years (did you know that once he submitted a patch to a project, of a couple lines of code, and they decided not to use it? That was on his resume. Did you know that he once got paid $50 for a forum post in 1997? That was on his resume.).
It's kind of like if you drink unfiltered water out of a stream, you might just end up with something a little extra you carry around for the rest of your life. That's kind of like APK, he's a lot like giardia or another parasite. Always there in the background, feeding off everyone else, occasionally popping up just to let you know he's still there.
I can imagine that statisticians can't stand people like that. It reminds me of the XKCD where he concludes that within a year or something he's going to have about 50 wives based on a graph.
It's obvious that within the past 150 or so years, as a society we've leaped forward (you can see this in our population graph also, as medicine and science have progressed, people live a lot longer and have lower mortality rates). But that doesn't mean we're all of a sudden going to unlock secrets of the universe left and right, it's still going to take a certain person to realize something no one else ever has and build on that. That might happen in the next decade, or it might take 200 years for that person to show up.
It's also pretty clear, especially regarding computers, that we can only do so much before we need something completely different. The silicon-based processors and memory technology might be about as good as it's going to get (within a couple orders of magnitude, at least), we can certainly see max CPU speeds and memory density kind of plateauing out after the explosive growth from the 50s to the 00s. I'm not sure if Moore's law applies today like it once did, we've hit a point where the gains are harder to come by with this technology. Maybe there's a better computing technology in our future but, again, it's going to take certain people to show up and go into that field and discover things no one ever has.
Haha. You're fucking funny as hell, old man. Too bad you're still not linking to the post where I tore down everything you kept trying to claim, though. Speaking of a pussy...
There's no way I'm going to spend money for the "privilege" of being near you. If you want to send me some BTC I'll be happy to supply an address though.
I understand that you're very confused about this object, as are many people who actually study it rather than just troll online. But let me respond to that last sentence:
Initially, Oumuamua was announced as comet C/2017 U1 (PANSTARRS) based on a strongly hyperbolic trajectory. In an attempt to confirm any cometary activity, very deep stacked images were taken at the Very Large Telescope later the same day, but the object showed no presence of a coma. Accordingly, the object was renamed A/2017 U1, becoming the first comet ever to be re-designated as an asteroid. Once it was identified as an interstellar object, it was designated 1I/2017 U1, the first member of a new class of objects.
It was classified as a comet. Then it was re-classified as an asteroid, because it didn't look like a comet. That's never happened. Then it was re-classified as the first member of a new class. Obviously that's never happened either.
No, that's not why you're an extremist. You're an extremist because your views regarding technology are extreme.
How many times do I need to ask you to produce your evidence to support your conclusion that this is a comet before you admit that no such evidence exists? You seem to keep dodging that point. Show your evidence for your conclusion and make sure you rationalize that with the facts that we are not seeing comet traits associated with this object.
Everyone is on the same page with this object being unusual. It may be a comet, it may be an asteroid. If it is either of those, it is unlike any one that we've seen so far. That doesn't mean it's not those, those are just the facts. But you want to use statements like that to jump to some extreme conclusion (people say it's unlike any other comet we've seen SO THEY MUST BELIEVE IT'S 100% ALIEN ORIGIN OH MY GOD I NEED TO TROLL PEOPLE). That's why you're an extremist.
So why "alien probe" and not "Jesus" and not "Snoopy"?
Did I claim it wasn't Jesus? Did I claim it wasn't Snoopy? Did I claim it was an alien probe?
People are listing possibilities. If YOU want to introduce Jesus or Snoopy as a legitimate possibility that people should consider, that's on you. No one else is doing that. Just show your evidence and submit your paper for peer review, easy peasy.
If you don't understand why some people think that there is a non-zero chance that it could come from another civilization, while also considering the chance that it is the Snoopy character from Charles Shulz's comics to be zero, then I'm not willing to entertain your bullshit train of thought.
Except for the fact that the guy who actually discovered it said it was a comet.
Well don't stop there sport, bring out the fucking evidence. I'm not interested in what you think. Show facts, or shut up and go on with your day.
Did you even read TFA? How about the goddamn summary? Here, I'll let the astronomer tell you to GTFO himself:
The reason we were driven to put in that sentence was because of the evidence, because of the facts. If someone else has a better explanation, they should write a paper about it rather than just saying what you said.
In other words, put up or shut up. You're the only person jumping to conclusions here, so where's your evidence? Where's your paper?
You are. Obviously. You have repeatedly asserted that it is a comet, and that it is not artificial. I've asked you for your evidence that it's a comet considering the inconsistencies we think we should see with a comet. Maybe that evidence is in another reply, but I won't hold my breath.
Oh by the way: the guy who discovered it said it wasn't a probe, and it was a small comet. But keep on believing!
I don't have any conclusions about this. I'm not fantasizing about some alien world it came from. I'm reading through the article where the guy lists his facts, and trying to understand what he's talking about, and why it matters with regard to what else we think we know about the galaxy. It's that simple.
But you don't give a shit about any of that, you're just here to troll. No other reason. If you're not interested in this kind of stuff, I have no clue why you decide to spend your time just trolling people here. It doesn't make you look intelligent if you think it was having that effect.
You are an extremist. You're not interested in an intelligent discussion. You've made up your mind, incorrectly, about what other people believe, and you're too busy setting up and knocking down strawmen to have anything meaningful to say.
Well, the funny thing about facts is that they don't require people to believe them.
But no, we have to take 3 years of foaming at the mouth, outlandish accusations that don't have ANY basis in law or fact
What's with all the extremes? We have plenty of evidence. You've said yourself we knew who he was before the election. There's plenty of evidence of him lying. One great piece of evidence is how he'll say one thing one day, and then the opposite another day. They can't both be true.
I mean, some things are factual, others less so, some have a lot of evidence, others less so, it's not all about extremes. It's not all or nothing. There is plenty of basis in fact.
Like firing James Comey is somehow obstruction of justice
Why is that ludicrous? Comey was in charge of the FBI and its investigations. Trump LITERALLY SAID ON TV that he fired him in part because of the Russia investigations. If Trump is one of the subjects of those investigations, how exactly is that not obstruction? And you're saying it's "ludicrous?"
I'm getting a huge sense that people in this country are living in different realities, I'm sure you feel it too.
repeating the unfounded charges as if they where facts
He fucking said it in an interview with Lester Holt! What the fuck? This is crazy shit man, now you're trying to gaslight me too. "No, that never happened, he never said that. What you remember isn't what happened, let me tell you what happened instead." How about "no"? Does "no" work for you?
and pointing your crooked fingers
Hold on, why are my fingers crooked? It makes you feel better if you believe I'm some sort of monster, or somehow corrupt or sub-human, doesn't it?
The truth is that you and your leaders just don't like him, want to get rid of him
While I do feel those things about him, who exactly are my leaders? Do they have crooked fingers too? They probably don't love the country also, right? We're probably not even human, are we?
being reasonable or even factual about it doesn't matter
It matters a great deal, actually, more than most other things. Which is why it's so tiring to fight against this revisionist gaslighting with people trying to convince us that things that we saw and heard didn't actually happen.
How this whole campaign is really an appeal to anger that has to keep advancing the level of outrage because the voters are growing tired of being angry?
Oh come on, it's none of that. It's the news selling news, that's all it is. They need something to talk about, and Trump gives them shit to talk about all goddamn day, every day. That's all it is. The bigger picture, Trump actually getting removed, is up to Mueller's report and whatever Congress decides to do. In the absence of Mueller's report, people whose job it is to go on TV and talk will talk about whatever they want, but ultimately what matters is the result of that investigation.
Eventually this won't work anymore, the shrill voices will have deafened all the ears that matter.
Yeah, that's happening now, look at your shrill voice trying to convince me that things which happened did not happen. It's all over the place, I can't listen to some of the damn shows on CNN because all it is is a bunch of assholes trying to talk over each other. That doesn't change the facts though. It doesn't change what actually happened, and Trump or you or anyone else trying to convince us that things which happened did not actually happen aren't going to change the facts. It's not going to change Mueller's report.
After all, it could be anything... everything is equally likely
Uh oh, can you spot your logical fallacy? It's pretty obvious, let me know if you need help.
It could be a comet, or it could be Jesus, or an alien probe.
And the argument that scientists are making is that all of those outcomes have the exact same probability, correct? That's what you've taken away from this discussion?
Could you link me to the papers where people discuss probability? I haven't seen those. Obviously you have.
Progressing from 0.0002% the speed of light to 0.10% is definitely possible.
Hold on, are you actually asserting that it's not possible to do that? Are you seriously trying to make that claim? I mean. 0.1% would be extremely impressive, but I don't know why you're settling on that number. We can go much slower and still catch up with and study this object, even briefly. I have it on good word that sometime within the next 100,000 years that humanity will discover the concept of a "gravity boost" for a spacecraft near a very massive object. I mean, it's only speculation, we've never achieved anything remotely similar to using a large object as a way to increase a spacecraft's speed, but maybe you can pull up a document on your Commodore 64 there and read about the crazy theory.
What I DO find remarkable is that, in the span of this discussion, our top speed in your calculations has increased by 2 orders of magnitude. It's almost like you have no idea what we've accomplished so far and are just talking out of your ass without any facts. It's almost like that.
I mean, that's amazing! In just the span of an hour or two, our top speed in space has increased 100x! Imagine what we can do over the coming years, right?
Or maybe you just need to get your facts straight before spouting off on something.
but have latched on to the idea that it is an "alien probe"
Oh, did I? And where did I do that? Go ahead and give me a link and quote where I said "it's an alien probe."
instead of thinking "gee, it could be a comet"
Literally everyone studying it has considered this. Asteroid also. All of these remain possibilities, too. I don't think anything has been ruled out. I don't know why you're ruling things out.
Yeah, I'm trolling because I am not saying that a COMET is an ALIEN PROBE.
There's not a single scientist asserting that this is an alien probe, or even that they know what it is at all. This is a story about the list of facts that we know about this, and what these facts imply about the galaxy as a whole or this object in particular, and how that fits in with what we already know. But, because 100% of scientists are not stating categorically that this is definitely not an unnatural object, when no one knows what its origin is, you feel the need to go on a rant for some reason.
We don't know what it is. Why would people say it is definitely 100% not artificial? What evidence supports that claim? We first saw the thing 40 days after it passed closest to the sun, we have no photographs of it even. How can anyone say what it definitely is or is not?
You seem to be asserting it's a comet. So, where is the outgassing? Where is the tail? Where is the coma? You're making the claim it's a comet, so use the facts to prove it. Because I'm seeing scientists, including astronomers, who I'm told know a thing or two about comets, saying that, if this was a comet, we would be seeing certain things that we're not seeing. I'm not as smart as you though, so please spell out the evidence which conclusively proves that this object is a comet.
The only people saying that are religious. If that's you, more power to you, but no one else is making that claim other than you.
Eventually the land speed record will be 10002393392kph.
No, the land speed record won't be 10x the speed of light. We're probably already near the upper limit without materials for the chassis and wheels that can withstand that kind of stress, but what's the point for doing that with a ground vehicle? The only thing the land speed record is good for is setting the land speed record. If you're going to be an argumentative dick, at least have a point.
Nothing you just said relates to space travel in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoosh, he's saying that's what Trump would say. Obviously it isnt true.
Yeah, right. So, then is the Supreme Court going to back him up like he asserts? I don't think so. Therefore, I don't think it's an option for Trump.
Whoosh.
The Apollo LEM had a mass of 34,000 Kg, plus two astronauts, and that only supported the astronauts for 75 hours.
Ooohhhhhh.
I mean, just scale up the Curiosity retro-rockets, right? The retro-rockets just need to be, what, 6 times bigger? Plus fuel? And a giant sky crane?
there is a caravan of people coming, which amounts to an army threatening invasion
Huh? A bunch of hungry migrants looking for a better life is akin to a professional armed military force trying to overthrow the government? How do you figure?
What exactly is the difference in the landing vehicle? We've plopped a 900kg machine on the surface is gently as we could, why does it matter if that 900kg is full of metal or people?
That's why almost every property in the history of cities is separated by fences and walls, because it's a stupid idea and doesn't work.
That's such a dumb analogy. The reason you put security stuff on or around your house is to "encourage" a burglar to pick a different house. If someone is specifically targeting your house and only your house that privacy fence you've got isn't going to do shit.
So, where exactly do you think people on the southern border are going to go if they see there's a wall there? What, are they going to try the next country over?
Try a different analogy. You own a big piece of property, a ranch or something. You're a turf farmer, so you've got miles and miles of turf that is great for sleeping on. Every homeless person in a 100-mile radius wants to sleep on your turf, and only your turf, and nowhere else. These people are determined to sleep on your property. Is a wall going to stop them if they're determined to get in? How about 24-hour security with infrared cameras, drones, etc? Wouldn't that be a better investment if your goal is to keep everyone out than simply building a wall and calling it done?
That's the discussion the country is having. For some reason though, people in Trump's camp have decided to suggest that anyone opposed to Trump's ideas wants no border security at all, in any way, and people can just freely frolic across the border at will. No one is arguing in favor of that, people are just saying that a wall is not the end-all-be-all solution. A wall in specific locations would probably help. Increased funding for patrols, cameras, drones, etc would also help, maybe even more so.
That's the discussion, so take your "but houses have walls" analogy and shove it up your ass. Thanks.
First of all by 2020 implies by January 1, 2020.
No it doesn't. Trump will, in theory, be president for all of 2020. His term doesn't end in 2020, it ends in 2021. The election is in 2020. He was asking if it was possible to accomplish this during his first term, which is (again, in theory) through all of 2020 and into the next January.
Obviously that kind of thing differs by channel. Fox shows a lot of ads targeted at old people, for example, for obvious reasons. Although I had Fox headline news on my radio the other day and was surprised to hear one of their normal "invest all your money here" ads, except it was promoting marijuana.
How come it's only $10 in the US, but in the UK it's $15.64?!
It's just the difference in metric dollars.
Obviously, he likes to stalk me. He's very upset that I ruined the list of accomplishments he used to tell people he's done over the past 20 years (did you know that once he submitted a patch to a project, of a couple lines of code, and they decided not to use it? That was on his resume. Did you know that he once got paid $50 for a forum post in 1997? That was on his resume.).
It's kind of like if you drink unfiltered water out of a stream, you might just end up with something a little extra you carry around for the rest of your life. That's kind of like APK, he's a lot like giardia or another parasite. Always there in the background, feeding off everyone else, occasionally popping up just to let you know he's still there.
I can imagine that statisticians can't stand people like that. It reminds me of the XKCD where he concludes that within a year or something he's going to have about 50 wives based on a graph.
It's obvious that within the past 150 or so years, as a society we've leaped forward (you can see this in our population graph also, as medicine and science have progressed, people live a lot longer and have lower mortality rates). But that doesn't mean we're all of a sudden going to unlock secrets of the universe left and right, it's still going to take a certain person to realize something no one else ever has and build on that. That might happen in the next decade, or it might take 200 years for that person to show up.
It's also pretty clear, especially regarding computers, that we can only do so much before we need something completely different. The silicon-based processors and memory technology might be about as good as it's going to get (within a couple orders of magnitude, at least), we can certainly see max CPU speeds and memory density kind of plateauing out after the explosive growth from the 50s to the 00s. I'm not sure if Moore's law applies today like it once did, we've hit a point where the gains are harder to come by with this technology. Maybe there's a better computing technology in our future but, again, it's going to take certain people to show up and go into that field and discover things no one ever has.
Awww, we're not friends any more? Was it something I said? Was it because I called out your bullshit? Frowny face.
Haha. You're fucking funny as hell, old man. Too bad you're still not linking to the post where I tore down everything you kept trying to claim, though. Speaking of a pussy...
There's no way I'm going to spend money for the "privilege" of being near you. If you want to send me some BTC I'll be happy to supply an address though.
I understand that you're very confused about this object, as are many people who actually study it rather than just troll online. But let me respond to that last sentence:
Initially, Oumuamua was announced as comet C/2017 U1 (PANSTARRS) based on a strongly hyperbolic trajectory. In an attempt to confirm any cometary activity, very deep stacked images were taken at the Very Large Telescope later the same day, but the object showed no presence of a coma. Accordingly, the object was renamed A/2017 U1, becoming the first comet ever to be re-designated as an asteroid. Once it was identified as an interstellar object, it was designated 1I/2017 U1, the first member of a new class of objects.
It was classified as a comet. Then it was re-classified as an asteroid, because it didn't look like a comet. That's never happened. Then it was re-classified as the first member of a new class. Obviously that's never happened either.
No, that's not why you're an extremist. You're an extremist because your views regarding technology are extreme.
How many times do I need to ask you to produce your evidence to support your conclusion that this is a comet before you admit that no such evidence exists? You seem to keep dodging that point. Show your evidence for your conclusion and make sure you rationalize that with the facts that we are not seeing comet traits associated with this object.
Everyone is on the same page with this object being unusual. It may be a comet, it may be an asteroid. If it is either of those, it is unlike any one that we've seen so far. That doesn't mean it's not those, those are just the facts. But you want to use statements like that to jump to some extreme conclusion (people say it's unlike any other comet we've seen SO THEY MUST BELIEVE IT'S 100% ALIEN ORIGIN OH MY GOD I NEED TO TROLL PEOPLE). That's why you're an extremist.
So why "alien probe" and not "Jesus" and not "Snoopy"?
Did I claim it wasn't Jesus? Did I claim it wasn't Snoopy? Did I claim it was an alien probe?
People are listing possibilities. If YOU want to introduce Jesus or Snoopy as a legitimate possibility that people should consider, that's on you. No one else is doing that. Just show your evidence and submit your paper for peer review, easy peasy.
If you don't understand why some people think that there is a non-zero chance that it could come from another civilization, while also considering the chance that it is the Snoopy character from Charles Shulz's comics to be zero, then I'm not willing to entertain your bullshit train of thought.
Except for the fact that the guy who actually discovered it said it was a comet.
Well don't stop there sport, bring out the fucking evidence. I'm not interested in what you think. Show facts, or shut up and go on with your day.
Did you even read TFA? How about the goddamn summary? Here, I'll let the astronomer tell you to GTFO himself:
The reason we were driven to put in that sentence was because of the evidence, because of the facts. If someone else has a better explanation, they should write a paper about it rather than just saying what you said.
In other words, put up or shut up. You're the only person jumping to conclusions here, so where's your evidence? Where's your paper?
I am not ruling anything out.
You are. Obviously. You have repeatedly asserted that it is a comet, and that it is not artificial. I've asked you for your evidence that it's a comet considering the inconsistencies we think we should see with a comet. Maybe that evidence is in another reply, but I won't hold my breath.
Oh by the way: the guy who discovered it said it wasn't a probe, and it was a small comet. But keep on believing!
I don't have any conclusions about this. I'm not fantasizing about some alien world it came from. I'm reading through the article where the guy lists his facts, and trying to understand what he's talking about, and why it matters with regard to what else we think we know about the galaxy. It's that simple.
But you don't give a shit about any of that, you're just here to troll. No other reason. If you're not interested in this kind of stuff, I have no clue why you decide to spend your time just trolling people here. It doesn't make you look intelligent if you think it was having that effect.
You've got a lot of growing up to do, man.
Suck my balls.
You are an extremist. You're not interested in an intelligent discussion. You've made up your mind, incorrectly, about what other people believe, and you're too busy setting up and knocking down strawmen to have anything meaningful to say.
From my view, you are just making stuff up here.
Well, the funny thing about facts is that they don't require people to believe them.
But no, we have to take 3 years of foaming at the mouth, outlandish accusations that don't have ANY basis in law or fact
What's with all the extremes? We have plenty of evidence. You've said yourself we knew who he was before the election. There's plenty of evidence of him lying. One great piece of evidence is how he'll say one thing one day, and then the opposite another day. They can't both be true.
I mean, some things are factual, others less so, some have a lot of evidence, others less so, it's not all about extremes. It's not all or nothing. There is plenty of basis in fact.
Like firing James Comey is somehow obstruction of justice
Why is that ludicrous? Comey was in charge of the FBI and its investigations. Trump LITERALLY SAID ON TV that he fired him in part because of the Russia investigations. If Trump is one of the subjects of those investigations, how exactly is that not obstruction? And you're saying it's "ludicrous?"
I'm getting a huge sense that people in this country are living in different realities, I'm sure you feel it too.
repeating the unfounded charges as if they where facts
He fucking said it in an interview with Lester Holt! What the fuck? This is crazy shit man, now you're trying to gaslight me too. "No, that never happened, he never said that. What you remember isn't what happened, let me tell you what happened instead." How about "no"? Does "no" work for you?
and pointing your crooked fingers
Hold on, why are my fingers crooked? It makes you feel better if you believe I'm some sort of monster, or somehow corrupt or sub-human, doesn't it?
The truth is that you and your leaders just don't like him, want to get rid of him
While I do feel those things about him, who exactly are my leaders? Do they have crooked fingers too? They probably don't love the country also, right? We're probably not even human, are we?
being reasonable or even factual about it doesn't matter
It matters a great deal, actually, more than most other things. Which is why it's so tiring to fight against this revisionist gaslighting with people trying to convince us that things that we saw and heard didn't actually happen.
How this whole campaign is really an appeal to anger that has to keep advancing the level of outrage because the voters are growing tired of being angry?
Oh come on, it's none of that. It's the news selling news, that's all it is. They need something to talk about, and Trump gives them shit to talk about all goddamn day, every day. That's all it is. The bigger picture, Trump actually getting removed, is up to Mueller's report and whatever Congress decides to do. In the absence of Mueller's report, people whose job it is to go on TV and talk will talk about whatever they want, but ultimately what matters is the result of that investigation.
Eventually this won't work anymore, the shrill voices will have deafened all the ears that matter.
Yeah, that's happening now, look at your shrill voice trying to convince me that things which happened did not happen. It's all over the place, I can't listen to some of the damn shows on CNN because all it is is a bunch of assholes trying to talk over each other. That doesn't change the facts though. It doesn't change what actually happened, and Trump or you or anyone else trying to convince us that things which happened did not actually happen aren't going to change the facts. It's not going to change Mueller's report.
After all, it could be anything ... everything is equally likely
Uh oh, can you spot your logical fallacy? It's pretty obvious, let me know if you need help.
It could be a comet, or it could be Jesus, or an alien probe.
And the argument that scientists are making is that all of those outcomes have the exact same probability, correct? That's what you've taken away from this discussion?
Could you link me to the papers where people discuss probability? I haven't seen those. Obviously you have.
Progressing from 0.0002% the speed of light to 0.10% is definitely possible.
Hold on, are you actually asserting that it's not possible to do that? Are you seriously trying to make that claim? I mean. 0.1% would be extremely impressive, but I don't know why you're settling on that number. We can go much slower and still catch up with and study this object, even briefly. I have it on good word that sometime within the next 100,000 years that humanity will discover the concept of a "gravity boost" for a spacecraft near a very massive object. I mean, it's only speculation, we've never achieved anything remotely similar to using a large object as a way to increase a spacecraft's speed, but maybe you can pull up a document on your Commodore 64 there and read about the crazy theory.
What I DO find remarkable is that, in the span of this discussion, our top speed in your calculations has increased by 2 orders of magnitude. It's almost like you have no idea what we've accomplished so far and are just talking out of your ass without any facts. It's almost like that.
I mean, that's amazing! In just the span of an hour or two, our top speed in space has increased 100x! Imagine what we can do over the coming years, right?
Or maybe you just need to get your facts straight before spouting off on something.
but have latched on to the idea that it is an "alien probe"
Oh, did I? And where did I do that? Go ahead and give me a link and quote where I said "it's an alien probe."
instead of thinking "gee, it could be a comet"
Literally everyone studying it has considered this. Asteroid also. All of these remain possibilities, too. I don't think anything has been ruled out. I don't know why you're ruling things out.
Yeah, I'm trolling because I am not saying that a COMET is an ALIEN PROBE.
There's not a single scientist asserting that this is an alien probe, or even that they know what it is at all. This is a story about the list of facts that we know about this, and what these facts imply about the galaxy as a whole or this object in particular, and how that fits in with what we already know. But, because 100% of scientists are not stating categorically that this is definitely not an unnatural object, when no one knows what its origin is, you feel the need to go on a rant for some reason.
We don't know what it is. Why would people say it is definitely 100% not artificial? What evidence supports that claim? We first saw the thing 40 days after it passed closest to the sun, we have no photographs of it even. How can anyone say what it definitely is or is not?
You seem to be asserting it's a comet. So, where is the outgassing? Where is the tail? Where is the coma? You're making the claim it's a comet, so use the facts to prove it. Because I'm seeing scientists, including astronomers, who I'm told know a thing or two about comets, saying that, if this was a comet, we would be seeing certain things that we're not seeing. I'm not as smart as you though, so please spell out the evidence which conclusively proves that this object is a comet.
technology always improves
Pretty much.
All things are possible
The only people saying that are religious. If that's you, more power to you, but no one else is making that claim other than you.
Eventually the land speed record will be 10002393392kph.
No, the land speed record won't be 10x the speed of light. We're probably already near the upper limit without materials for the chassis and wheels that can withstand that kind of stress, but what's the point for doing that with a ground vehicle? The only thing the land speed record is good for is setting the land speed record. If you're going to be an argumentative dick, at least have a point.
Nothing you just said relates to space travel in any way.
You're stating facts. Yes, both of those are possibilities until we have more facts.