bipedyes. the universe existed for a long time before life started to form, it's silly to think it's now become dependent on life's existence. it always surprises me how many bright people don't see how obvious that is. probably tied in with the human ego and its divide by zero error when we try to contemplate our own non-existence
bipedwhat's the point of a chemical reaction? or friction? or 93 degrees?
FinnNYCi could have any perspective i want on the next closest star and it's still gonna be about 4 light years away, which is far as shit. any chemical propulsion system we have now or that science can currently envision will not do it for us. full bore the space shuttle would get us there in about 40,000 years give or take rest stops. even if we ever did invent some sort of super propellant that would get us up to a decent % of the speed of light, it would take us lifetimes to accelerate up to it. if we accelerated right to it, the human passengers' bodies would be oh so much chunky salsa. the Star Trek universe got around this problem by inventing the little-explained gravitational deflector. we don't have anything like that
i think the real hope for interstellar space exploration is warping spacetime. if an ant has to travel across a piece of paper, it might take a minute or so. if you fold that paper for him so that the point he wants to get to is touching the point he's currently at, it takes him no time at all. if we ever discovered this type of technology, going to alpha centauri wouln't take any longer than going to cleveland. and it would smell better too. discovering it might very well be wrapped up in our cracking quantum gravity. anyone interested in the idea should check out NASA'S breakthrough propulsion program
---
what if nigger meant kite