They didn't ignore the different orbital periods. That's why they used a uniform random distribution of all the planets on their orbits. The idea being that if you sample the planets all being randomly placed on their orbits enough times, then you approach looking at the planets over all time.
Yes, this assumption and randomized analysis doesn't work if two or more planets are on the same orbit or have "locked" periodic orbits with one another.
Mars is a dustball that looks to have little to no natural resources making it attractive. It's only advantage is that it has an appreciable gravity, which is actually a double edged sword. I'd think colonies on Moon, in the belt, and other moons would make more sense. Also, the shaded zone of Mercury could be quite nice. You'd have a huge amount of solar power easily available.
The vast, vast, vast majority of humanity will remain on Earth until if/when we can leave the solar system and seed the galaxy.
I think the point the OP was trying to make is that Venus "lingers" at its closest distance to Earth longer than it does at its furthest distance due to their relative motion around the Sun. That is, from the perspective of Earth, Venus moves relatively fastest when it is at its furthest distance, while it moves relatively slowest at its closest distance.
Thank you for that insight! I was wondering if the average distance between, say, Neptune and all the inner planets would all be the same / similar (i.e. - if an inner planet's orbit effectively cancelled out it's varying distance and could be modeled as sitting at center of Sun). Your point is, no -- it wouldn't, even without bringing time varying orbit distortions into the picture.
Right. You might be able to argue that the inner planet's orbit cancels itself out and can be modeled as sitting at center of Sun. I'm not sure that's true, but the OP's argument that all planets are on average right on top of each other is obviously wrong.
Think about two planets on the same solar orbit but opposite one another. They will always be the diameter of their orbit apart from one another. Not whatever distance you are referencing here (zero?).
I think there is something to the idea that the orbit of the inner planet's varying distance might "cancel itself out" and could be modeled as sitting at the center of Sun. Even then though, the distance between Jupiter and Earth will be smaller than the distance between Neptune and Earth.
But I'm not even sure if the orbit of the inner planet will nearly cancel itself out or do something else strange as all the planets orbit at different rates.
Are you trying to say that the average distance between two planets should be whatever the distance is of the further planet to the center of Sun? That the circular orbit of the inner planet effectively cancels itself out in terms of varying distance and can be modeled as sitting at the center of Sun with no passage of time?
That might be true, but then the average distance between Jupiter and Earth versus Saturn and Earth would still be quite different, with Saturn being further.
Beyond that, the planets orbit Sun at different rates and I'm not sure the inner planets varying distance will perfectly cancel itself out. They actually simulated this and did a time average.
...I can imagine a *single* large plant doing 15 million times the work of this one.
A scale-up of something like that would be necessary to make this a useful approach.
Given that they are using a 1.2MW catalyzer to generate hydrogen, if that needed to scale up linearly too, then you are talking about need something like 18TW for one such plant.
You'll need WAY more than 15M of these plants to make a dent. The average first worlder is responsible for 10 - 20 tons of emissions per year. So, we'd need something like 1 plant per 15 people to reach carbon neutrality through this method.
This system would have to scale up *MASSIVELY*, maybe 4 - 6 orders of magnitude, to make it even a possibly worthwhile endeavor.
Define "plenty." I explicitly said that it is still possible to get a decent job without a degree. It just isn't anywhere nearly so likely as it was 50 years ago. The number of those kinds of jobs that are available certainly can't sustain the entire population.
Even if that is true, I see no reason why it requires simulating the physics of neurons to achieve a similar effect. You are basically arguing that there is something magical about animal neurons that can't be achieved through other (more easily computed) means.
Why do you think it is the USA's responsibility to fund UBI for the entire Earth's population? Your denominator is roughly 25x too big.
The right way to think about it is that US GDP is ~$20T/yr and the US population is ~325M. If you wanted to fund a $10K/yr/person UBI, then, on a first order calculation, that would require a taxation level of $3.25T/yr or about 16.25% of the economy. That isn't an "end of the world" level of taxation, particularly if it replaces (e.g. - food stamps, etc.) and/or crowds out other spending (e.g. - military).
He might think he can predict the rate of improvement in information technology (e.g. - exponential), but that doesn't translate directly to politics and society almost at all.
Not so long ago, about 1/3rd of the population attended university. That number is now closer to 70% of graduating seniors. That massive increase in demand is what is driving prices.
Yes, the availability of loans is what is making it somewhat possible for that large of a % of the population to attend. And, yes, many universities are now operating essentially as for-profit businesses. What actually changed though is that it is basically a requirement to have a 4 year degree for a decent shot at a good job any more. That isn't to say you can't get a good job without a college degree -- it is possible -- it's just not very likely any longer.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't ignore the different orbital periods. That's why they used a uniform random distribution of all the planets on their orbits. The idea being that if you sample the planets all being randomly placed on their orbits enough times, then you approach looking at the planets over all time.
Yes, this assumption and randomized analysis doesn't work if two or more planets are on the same orbit or have "locked" periodic orbits with one another.
Mars is a dustball that looks to have little to no natural resources making it attractive. It's only advantage is that it has an appreciable gravity, which is actually a double edged sword. I'd think colonies on Moon, in the belt, and other moons would make more sense. Also, the shaded zone of Mercury could be quite nice. You'd have a huge amount of solar power easily available.
The vast, vast, vast majority of humanity will remain on Earth until if/when we can leave the solar system and seed the galaxy.
I think the point the OP was trying to make is that Venus "lingers" at its closest distance to Earth longer than it does at its furthest distance due to their relative motion around the Sun. That is, from the perspective of Earth, Venus moves relatively fastest when it is at its furthest distance, while it moves relatively slowest at its closest distance.
Say one mission takes 5 years while the other takes 1000 years.
That might matter to the astronauts on board, the people funding the trip, etc.
You've minimized the energy involved, but that's not the only consideration.
If we are really going to get picky and bring gravity into this, then there is no known closed form solution for any of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Thank you for that insight! I was wondering if the average distance between, say, Neptune and all the inner planets would all be the same / similar (i.e. - if an inner planet's orbit effectively cancelled out it's varying distance and could be modeled as sitting at center of Sun). Your point is, no -- it wouldn't, even without bringing time varying orbit distortions into the picture.
Right. You might be able to argue that the inner planet's orbit cancels itself out and can be modeled as sitting at center of Sun. I'm not sure that's true, but the OP's argument that all planets are on average right on top of each other is obviously wrong.
Think about two planets on the same solar orbit but opposite one another. They will always be the diameter of their orbit apart from one another. Not whatever distance you are referencing here (zero?).
I think there is something to the idea that the orbit of the inner planet's varying distance might "cancel itself out" and could be modeled as sitting at the center of Sun. Even then though, the distance between Jupiter and Earth will be smaller than the distance between Neptune and Earth.
But I'm not even sure if the orbit of the inner planet will nearly cancel itself out or do something else strange as all the planets orbit at different rates.
Time doesn't matter?
Are you trying to say that the average distance between two planets should be whatever the distance is of the further planet to the center of Sun? That the circular orbit of the inner planet effectively cancels itself out in terms of varying distance and can be modeled as sitting at the center of Sun with no passage of time?
That might be true, but then the average distance between Jupiter and Earth versus Saturn and Earth would still be quite different, with Saturn being further.
Beyond that, the planets orbit Sun at different rates and I'm not sure the inner planets varying distance will perfectly cancel itself out. They actually simulated this and did a time average.
I'd bet that all of the solar system's planets are closer to Sun than they are to any other planet.
...I can imagine a *single* large plant doing 15 million times the work of this one.
A scale-up of something like that would be necessary to make this a useful approach.
Given that they are using a 1.2MW catalyzer to generate hydrogen, if that needed to scale up linearly too, then you are talking about need something like 18TW for one such plant.
That's not going to cut it.
You'll need WAY more than 15M of these plants to make a dent. The average first worlder is responsible for 10 - 20 tons of emissions per year. So, we'd need something like 1 plant per 15 people to reach carbon neutrality through this method.
This system would have to scale up *MASSIVELY*, maybe 4 - 6 orders of magnitude, to make it even a possibly worthwhile endeavor.
Considering that the average 1st world person is responsible for 10 - 20 tons of emissions per year.
They would need to *MASSIVELY* scale that system up, by many orders of magnitude, to make it a useful endeavor.
So, if they put it in the left hand, does that get around this prophecy?
My thought exactly. It's like BD is rushing as fast as possible to implement all of the horror sci-fi stories of the last forty years.
In any accident that hurts the integrity of the batteries, then they should be drained as standard operating procedure.
If a gas tank was leaking, then would they just let that go too?
Define "plenty." I explicitly said that it is still possible to get a decent job without a degree. It just isn't anywhere nearly so likely as it was 50 years ago. The number of those kinds of jobs that are available certainly can't sustain the entire population.
Even if that is true, I see no reason why it requires simulating the physics of neurons to achieve a similar effect. You are basically arguing that there is something magical about animal neurons that can't be achieved through other (more easily computed) means.
Why do you think it is the USA's responsibility to fund UBI for the entire Earth's population? Your denominator is roughly 25x too big.
The right way to think about it is that US GDP is ~$20T/yr and the US population is ~325M. If you wanted to fund a $10K/yr/person UBI, then, on a first order calculation, that would require a taxation level of $3.25T/yr or about 16.25% of the economy. That isn't an "end of the world" level of taxation, particularly if it replaces (e.g. - food stamps, etc.) and/or crowds out other spending (e.g. - military).
Correct. UBI is a form of Social Democracy, not Socialism nor Communism.
Yes, exactly.
He might think he can predict the rate of improvement in information technology (e.g. - exponential), but that doesn't translate directly to politics and society almost at all.
"... but who is going to wipe their butts when they are in a Nursing Home?"
The butt wiping robots, of course.
Not so long ago, about 1/3rd of the population attended university. That number is now closer to 70% of graduating seniors. That massive increase in demand is what is driving prices.
Yes, the availability of loans is what is making it somewhat possible for that large of a % of the population to attend. And, yes, many universities are now operating essentially as for-profit businesses. What actually changed though is that it is basically a requirement to have a 4 year degree for a decent shot at a good job any more. That isn't to say you can't get a good job without a college degree -- it is possible -- it's just not very likely any longer.
Why do you assume that to have "human level AI" you need to physically simulate a human brain down to the level of neurons?