You must log in or # to comment.
Easier to reach the stars with meth, not math.
This requires lots of Physics. The math required is relatively minimal.
Tell that to the aerospace engineers working on spaceships
reading that as “stairs” was hella confusing for a solid minute.
Municipal development guy here.
You’d be amazed how many contractors and architects have issues with stair math.
I thought they meant movie stars and meant you could only get near them by becoming an engineer. I’m… not that smart at certain hours of the day.
In my experience being an engineer keeps them further away
this is the third time I’m seeing this meme and it took me until now to properly understand as well
The math isn’t really the main limiting factor to getting close to stars.
Yeah - sunscreen is like, way more important.
but you need to have significant math skills to even understand physics in general.
No. physics is generalized to algebra, you don’t need to know a lot of math to learn physics. Having more math will allow you to do more complicated problems and understand concepts the way it was discovered, but it isn’t limited to those who know calculus.
Nah, the math used in physics is just a tiny tiny part of wider math.
Do not cite to me the deep maths, witch. I was there when it was written.
Learning math is what makes you realize that
Yeah but a little bit of meth and you’ll surely figure it out.
And then Kerbal Space Program too had to go be a cash grab.
At least we have kitty space program
KSP 2 was a cash grab, but KSP 1 is still a very good experience.
I love KSP 1,but it has gotten a bit stale with the years and playtime. I was 3 days from buying KSP2 when they shut down, lucky me.
Eh, I remember just googling space stuff and absorbing info and that alone had enough dopamine. My world was so small before I got access to the internet, when I was a kid, I had a children’s book about science stuff, stars, but they barely had much info. Internet access was so magical. Unlimited information.
That or the right job application and a lot of propellant and oxidizer - but seriously, don’t do that. It didn’t end well for Icarus. Gravitationally-driven open-core fusion reactors are best admired from a safe minimum distance.
lot of propellant and oxidizer
You can only realistically get close to one of them that way.
You are better off studying plasma containment fusion. And that’s a fuckton of math.
Oh no. You can get close to any star of your choosing with only minuscule amounts of reaction mass if you start out in vacuum away from significant gravity wells - eventually. Granted, the star in question may or may not have gone supernova or collapsed into a black hole by the time you arrive, but I doubt that’ll make a lot of difference to the person doing it at that point.
With that said, I’m not about to discourage anybody from taking an interest in fusion of the up-close-and-personal-kind. And if people aren’t into the math of Magnetohydrodynamics? Well, first off, sucks to be them, but second: Then donate to the cause to pay those who are. Fusion is fucking awesome, and we desperately need it.
Even fusion constrains you to the limits of the rocket equation. Laser sails on the other hand, could let you put the bulk of your propulsion system in orbit of the sun or something where you don’t have to carry it with you.
…safe maximum distance.
FTFY.
Fair.
yes, astronomy, astrophysics, if yuo dont have knack in that field you wont get into it. physics, if you cant pass simple CComunity level physics classes(for scientists, not for life sciences), you wont pass upper division physics.
I kept reading stairs but yeah both I guess
If you learn just a little bit of math you can realize that no one else is getting anywhere near them either.
Next year, Voyager I will have traveled 1 light day. It will also be over 49 years old at that time. Think about that for a moment. Almost 50 years to travel the time it takes light to travel in a single day. Our closest star is Proxima Centauri at 4.25 light years away. To reach Proxima Centauri, Voyager I would need to travel ~77,500 years. Voyager 1 is one of the fastest man-made objects in existence and it would take far longer than the entire history of civilization to arrive.
Space is big.
Nah, just take a positional average and you’re pretty much in the middle of one!
Only if you weight by mass. Or orbit. Or volume.
Welp I guess on average we’re all deep fried.
Same thing with video games
I interpreted this to mean that you need to learn a lot of math in order to have a career in astronomy. I don’t think OP thought it was possible to actually go to the star and math was the limiting factor.
That’s because math is fundamentally flawed.
Shhhhh. Don’t tell anyone, they get all upset about it.
Interesting! Could you elaborate on this? I’m intrigued to know the intrinsic flaws.
Kurt Gödel wrote a whole paper on it.
He used math to show that all statements, in any language, can be expressed as math statements. He then proved that it’s impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything.
That’s not a flaw. It’s one of the greatest mathematical revelations of the 20th century.
It’s only a “flaw” for people who want to believe in some imaginary positivism. This is a popular grift under capitalism. See also the entire field of economics.
like most commentary on Gödelian incompleteness, you got the right “vibe” but you’re not exactly correct.
for example, geometry is not an incomplete system, euclidean geometry is famously complete and thus not subject to incompleteness properties unless viewed strictly from the perspective of reality. in that case, all systems and models we build are necessarily presumed incomplete because of what people like Kant and Descartes said - all you know is known filtered through your perception, it isn’t what is actually real.
that is where people get the “it’s impossible to completely describe anything” argument from. it isn’t true flat out like that, though. you need some qualifiers, like, it’s impossible to completely describe reality solely through the human experience. this makes sense if you think about it. how much data lives just in a grain of sand? how many atoms are there in it? molecules? where might it fall in 2.76463 seconds? what does cathy juniper, born 1973, think this grain of sand would be named if it worked at the dollar store?
just because information that is incomprehensible or unreal to us lives in the world doesn’t mean it isn’t there. one iota of the universal computer has more computational power than all humanity combined over all history, many times over. our minds are so much smaller compared to the amount of information that actually lives in the world that we necessarily can only ever shine our spotlight of focus on tiny pieces of it at a given time, and not for very long. that is what the incompleteness theorem is describing…
this doesn’t mean that “it’s impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything,” if you’re willing to be a bit clever about it… after all, as humans, our big schtick is recording information in the world for later use, in reality… and there is proper suspicious to believe that reality itself could be a complete system, understandable from both the outside and inside if only viewed at the right angle…
hilbert’s dream is not dead yet, the early neoplatonist were just doing the dirty work of finding bounds.
euclidean geometry is famously complete
Nah, euclidean geometry was not complete. Tarski didn’t come up with a complete version until the 20th century. I’m not sure how famous Tarski geometry is, but it doesn’t seem very famous in USA outside of math depts.
this doesn’t mean that “it’s impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything,”
It says far less than that: “It’s impossible for a mathematical system containing the natural numbers to be both complete and consistent.”
In itself it has very little to do with physical reality. I think it’s more about how we think about math and then its applications.
reality itself could be a complete system, understandable from both the outside and inside if only viewed at the right angle…
This has been largely debunked.
hilbert’s dream is not dead yet,
I dunno what his dream was, but Hilbert’s program is very much dead.
That doesn’t make it fundamentally flawed. I also can’t completely describe all muscle movement involved and yet I can walk.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has to be the most overhyped thing since a certain cat. For logicians, it mainly means that “is it probable” is a valid question for prepositions that are otherwise vastly esoteric in nature.
It has to do with creating measuring devices out of what we can empirically derive, and building successive generations off of those. It’s fine for our local system but by the time you get intergalactic (or quantum) with it, flaws start to propagate themselves bigly.
I can’t reveal more at this time or Big Math will get suspicious.
Big Math comes knocking: “you mean Big Physics?”
quoi? Oh désolé, je ne sais pas. Vous devez avoir le mauvais numéro.
*sounds of fleeing*
