I love gaming. Uncharted and Assassin's Creed are my two favorite game series. I like 3rd person shooters. 1st person shooters tend to give me PTSD nightmares, but, I like Battlefield Bad Company 1 and 2.
Lately I've been playing Tom Clancy's The Division by Ubisoft, the publishers of Assassin's Creed. Awesome potential and incredibly bad implementation.
The game is a semi-massive multi-player. Players start out playing a campaign game while interacting with other players at various social sites called "safe areas". There is no pause because various missions can be played by teams. Playing campaign solo there is no reason for the game to stay connected to the Ubisucks servers, but, the game can't be played solo campaign unless it is connected to the Internet.
The first thing that is most obvious to me is a lack of overall management direction. Every game is going to have multiple development teams working in different areas. Division is so complex there are a crap load of different development areas with inconsistent goals.
The biggest problem is the elitist, "survival of the fittest", concept which is designed to eliminate less "fit" players from the game.
As expected, this works and reduces the number of people playing the "massive multi-layer". We could call this a "minuscule multi-player" instead.
Of course, since their "survival of the fittest" concept worked players have been leaving the game in droves. The other early morning I was running around the dark zone and didn't see any other players for about a half hour. Of course, the first time I did it was a higher level rogue and it killed me.
The game actually rewards players who kill lower level players in the Dark Zone, which is all multi-player. In the campaign game Non Player Characters, NPC, are generally the same level as the player.
If the game wanted to encourage player to player competition, players would be penalized for attacking lower level players and rewarded for attacking players of the same level or higher. Instead, consistent with the "survival of the fittest" ideology killing off "weaker" players is encouraged. How dumb is that?
There are tons of really bad and very inconsistent development ideology decisions being made are driving players away in droves.
Naturally, some of the players are really angry because they have essentially wasted money on a game that is self destructive. Someone gave me the game so, I'm not out any cash money. Think about that, trying to have a game that depends on lots of players where players are deliberately eliminated because they aren't as "strong" as other players.
Anyone interested has read about all the player complaints surrounding Division so I won't beat that horse.
Today, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of developing a "survival of the fittest" game" and expecting to attract and keep players. The entire concept of "survival of the fittest" is to eliminate players until the last player, or few players, are left. Everyone else "dies". The game becomes a minuscule multi-player and Ubisucks loses their investment.
Anyone who invested in a game designed to eliminate the majority of players from playing is an idiot.
Of course, I doubt if even Ubisoft actually realized what "survival of the fittest" really meant. Ubisoft management probably threw the term around like a football never even thinking that eliminating players meant eliminating profits.
That is the kind of ignorance that really amazes me.
Thursday, September 08, 2016
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
The Give Wall Street a Payday Act, also called "affordable care act"
Back on January 2nd, 2009 I decided to create a portfolio on Google Finance using publicly traded "health insurance" stocks.
For those of you who don't know, there are essentially four kinds of health insurance companies and none of them insure health. They all insure that health care workers are paid, not necessarily that people who by "health care" insurance will be healthy or even have access to affordable health care. I'm on Social Security Disability for a heart condition and I can't afford health care. My prescription prices have gone up to where I can't afford them, even with the insurance I am forced to pay for. That's not really off subject.
The affordable care act did not make health care more affordable, it made health care less affordable and I am a practical example of that. Digoxin, a really old medicine made from the Foxglove plant (when I say really old, I mean people were using this a thousand years ago) went from $10 for a 90 day supply to $90 for a 90 day supply. Once I pay a $250 deductible I have to pay a co-pay that is more than $10, so, pretty fucked. Where I once paid $40 for Digoxin I now pay about $130 a year.
So what happened on Wall Street?
In case you are wondering, this represents a %17 annualized return.
Yeah, that beats the street.
I wish I had had the $32K to invest back in 2009. If you are wondering if I am cheating, feel free to check the January 2nd 2009 stock prices and create your own fake portfolio. Here is a screen grab to show the historical price for Aetna, AET
I used this website for the annualized return formula.
http://www.asecurelife.com/annualized-return-formula/
I used this website to calculate the days between today and January 2nd
http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=01&d1=02&y1=2009&m2=7&d2=20&y2=2016
I used this website to calculate the return on the DJIA, %13.5
https://dqydj.com/dow-jones-return-calculator/
The "Affordable Care Act" was just a way for Obama and other politicians to screw the American Public and pay off Wall Street.
Health Care insurance doesn't insure health care. It insures that health care providers are paid for services, regardless whether they perform them or not and regardless of whether those services improve the health of those the services are provided to.
Obama care should be called the "make sure Wall Street and corporate Health Care providers are paid off act".
Back to the four types of Health Care providers.
The first is non-profit.
The second is private for profit.
The third is privately owned by a private or public for profit conglomerate.(public means stock shares are publicly traded, not that the government owns the conglomerate)
The fourth is a for profit publicly owned, meaning stock shares are publicly traded.
As far as I'm concerned all Health Care services should be non-profit and this includes insurance.
Society has become dependent on water, communication, electricity, heating energy, groceries and health care. All of these should be exclusively non-profit organizations.
Corporations should not be able to profit from those things which people depend on to survive.
Aside from my personal views, which some people would say are "left wing" because their intellects are so small they only see in binary dichotomies, I suggest investing in health care.
I should have predicted the pharmaceutical issues, but, I missed that. I focused on insurance providers.
For those of you who don't know, there are essentially four kinds of health insurance companies and none of them insure health. They all insure that health care workers are paid, not necessarily that people who by "health care" insurance will be healthy or even have access to affordable health care. I'm on Social Security Disability for a heart condition and I can't afford health care. My prescription prices have gone up to where I can't afford them, even with the insurance I am forced to pay for. That's not really off subject.
The affordable care act did not make health care more affordable, it made health care less affordable and I am a practical example of that. Digoxin, a really old medicine made from the Foxglove plant (when I say really old, I mean people were using this a thousand years ago) went from $10 for a 90 day supply to $90 for a 90 day supply. Once I pay a $250 deductible I have to pay a co-pay that is more than $10, so, pretty fucked. Where I once paid $40 for Digoxin I now pay about $130 a year.
So what happened on Wall Street?
Yeah, that beats the street.
I wish I had had the $32K to invest back in 2009. If you are wondering if I am cheating, feel free to check the January 2nd 2009 stock prices and create your own fake portfolio. Here is a screen grab to show the historical price for Aetna, AET
I used this website for the annualized return formula.
http://www.asecurelife.com/annualized-return-formula/
I used this website to calculate the days between today and January 2nd
http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=01&d1=02&y1=2009&m2=7&d2=20&y2=2016
I used this website to calculate the return on the DJIA, %13.5
https://dqydj.com/dow-jones-return-calculator/
The "Affordable Care Act" was just a way for Obama and other politicians to screw the American Public and pay off Wall Street.
Health Care insurance doesn't insure health care. It insures that health care providers are paid for services, regardless whether they perform them or not and regardless of whether those services improve the health of those the services are provided to.
Obama care should be called the "make sure Wall Street and corporate Health Care providers are paid off act".
Back to the four types of Health Care providers.
The first is non-profit.
The second is private for profit.
The third is privately owned by a private or public for profit conglomerate.(public means stock shares are publicly traded, not that the government owns the conglomerate)
The fourth is a for profit publicly owned, meaning stock shares are publicly traded.
As far as I'm concerned all Health Care services should be non-profit and this includes insurance.
Society has become dependent on water, communication, electricity, heating energy, groceries and health care. All of these should be exclusively non-profit organizations.
Corporations should not be able to profit from those things which people depend on to survive.
Aside from my personal views, which some people would say are "left wing" because their intellects are so small they only see in binary dichotomies, I suggest investing in health care.
I should have predicted the pharmaceutical issues, but, I missed that. I focused on insurance providers.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Black Lives Matter
I don't get why people think saying "Black Lives Matter" is racist. Truthfully, I don't believe there is any such thing as "Black" as far as people are concerned. Yeah, I know I live in a world that makes a distinction between skin colors, but, really?
What is "Black"? I read a definition the other day, "Black: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa." In logic this is called a circular definition, a logic fallacy. That's what racial division is, a logical fallacy. In fact, scientifically, race does not and has never existed.
"Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past."
"Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past."
So what makes "Black Lives matter" racist? No one is saying "Black Lives Matter More Than Other Lives", which would be racist.
If I said, "Oranges taste great", would that mean "Apples taste like crap"? Would anyone infer that apples taste like crap if I say "Oranges taste great"?
In the same context, the people saying "All Lives Matter" aren't saying anything exactly wrong, but, there is the issue of invisible privilege.
What is privilege? Privilege is when a Black friend tells me that a company isn't hiring and I put in an application and I'm hired when my Black friend isn't. White privilege exists and I was fortunate enough to have benefited from it, and know that I benefited from it.
Saying "All Lives Matter" is a lot like saying "Let them eat cake", it is a comment that identifies a lack of understanding of privilege. The legend is that Marie Antoinette believed that everyone had access to bread or cake and if there wasn't any bread they could eat cake. Similarly, the statement "all lives matter" echos the belief that all people are treated equally. In reality people are not treated equally.
Peter Dinklage said something while playing Tyrion Lanister on Game of Thrones, "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar. You're only telling the world that you fear what he might say".
I've had a lot of internet bullies stylizing themselves as "hackers" censor my words over the years because they hate what I have to say, they hate free speech and they hate everyone who doesn't think exactly like them. Fascists who are incapable of accepting the concept of freedom. They censor people because they can, like the hall way bully locking kids in lockers or knocking books out of a kids hands, they do whatever they can get away with because the rules don't apply to them.
Peter Dinklage said something while playing Tyrion Lanister on Game of Thrones, "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar. You're only telling the world that you fear what he might say".
I've had a lot of internet bullies stylizing themselves as "hackers" censor my words over the years because they hate what I have to say, they hate free speech and they hate everyone who doesn't think exactly like them. Fascists who are incapable of accepting the concept of freedom. They censor people because they can, like the hall way bully locking kids in lockers or knocking books out of a kids hands, they do whatever they can get away with because the rules don't apply to them.
When we stylize terms like "Black Lives Matter" as racist because they don't include "White people", when the truth is the term does not exclude white people, we are demanding a privilege that is not ours to own. We are claiming that our lives are more important than theirs. We are bullies knocking the books out of people's hands.
Most of the people I know honestly believe that All Lives Matter, but, they don't understand how the invisible privilege of their skin color, their socioeconomic status, their education, have influenced their thinking. They actually believe that Black people have the same opportunities that White people have.
"All Lives Matter" comes across a lot like "Let them eat cake" to those of us who understand the damage invisible "White" privilege has done to the "Black" community over the last 400 years.
I think race is a psychotic delusion that results in destructive behavior. Like anyone dealing with a bunch of psychotics I have to deal with them, I need to challenge their psychosis, I need to listen to them, sure, but, I don't need to sympathize with them or humor their delusion that people are different because of their skin color.
We do tend to segregate people into different groups based on ethnicity and appearance. In fact, people adopt specific appearances when they want to be accepted as a member of a particular social group.
We don't need to do that though. We don't need to force people into particular social roles based on their appearance, it is just something we do.
And we need to stop doing that.
"All Lives Matter" comes across a lot like "Let them eat cake" to those of us who understand the damage invisible "White" privilege has done to the "Black" community over the last 400 years.
I think race is a psychotic delusion that results in destructive behavior. Like anyone dealing with a bunch of psychotics I have to deal with them, I need to challenge their psychosis, I need to listen to them, sure, but, I don't need to sympathize with them or humor their delusion that people are different because of their skin color.
We do tend to segregate people into different groups based on ethnicity and appearance. In fact, people adopt specific appearances when they want to be accepted as a member of a particular social group.
We don't need to do that though. We don't need to force people into particular social roles based on their appearance, it is just something we do.
And we need to stop doing that.
Saturday, July 09, 2016
Delusion and Race and psychosis
I looked up the definition of delusion on Google today and this is what came up:
de·lu·sion
dəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
noun: delusion; plural noun: delusions
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
Then I went and looked up the Biological Aspects of Race. This is what I found at: http://faculty.wwu.edu/rcm/Power/Power%20first/Race%20Science_files/Biological%20Aspects%20of%20Race.html
There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.
Okay, so a delusion is believing in something that isn't real and race isn't real.
Interesting.
So I decided to look at what psychosis is. I looked at http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Early-Psychosis-and-Psychosis
Psychosis is characterized as disruptions to a person’s thoughts and perceptions that make it difficult for them to recognize what is real and what isn’t. These disruptions are often experienced as seeing, hearing and believing things that aren’t real or having strange, persistent thoughts, behaviors and emotions.
Psychosis is characterized as difficulty in determining what is real and what is not real. Race isn't real. Race is a delusion. Someone who believes race is real is psychotic.
This is really straightforward and satisfies Occam's Razor.
However, people like to complicate things and since they want to believe in Race and don't want to think of themselves as delusional psychotics at the same time we make shit up.
Race is a social construction. Race is a reality of society. Race is real because we make it real by thinking and talking about it.
That's the biggest bunch of bullshit.
Race isn't real. Race is a psychotic delusion and the actions predicated on that delusion, Racist acts, Racism, are the actions of psychotics.
period.
Psychotics will self justify anything and everything. They will invent the most convoluted and ridiculous explanations why they are the sane ones and everyone else is psychotic.
Ain't buying it. Race ain't real. Believing race is real because we believe race is real is a circular fallacy. It's bullshit.
de·lu·sion
dəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
noun: delusion; plural noun: delusions
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
Then I went and looked up the Biological Aspects of Race. This is what I found at: http://faculty.wwu.edu/rcm/Power/Power%20first/Race%20Science_files/Biological%20Aspects%20of%20Race.html
There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.
Okay, so a delusion is believing in something that isn't real and race isn't real.
Interesting.
So I decided to look at what psychosis is. I looked at http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Early-Psychosis-and-Psychosis
Psychosis is characterized as disruptions to a person’s thoughts and perceptions that make it difficult for them to recognize what is real and what isn’t. These disruptions are often experienced as seeing, hearing and believing things that aren’t real or having strange, persistent thoughts, behaviors and emotions.
Psychosis is characterized as difficulty in determining what is real and what is not real. Race isn't real. Race is a delusion. Someone who believes race is real is psychotic.
This is really straightforward and satisfies Occam's Razor.
However, people like to complicate things and since they want to believe in Race and don't want to think of themselves as delusional psychotics at the same time we make shit up.
Race is a social construction. Race is a reality of society. Race is real because we make it real by thinking and talking about it.
That's the biggest bunch of bullshit.
Race isn't real. Race is a psychotic delusion and the actions predicated on that delusion, Racist acts, Racism, are the actions of psychotics.
period.
Psychotics will self justify anything and everything. They will invent the most convoluted and ridiculous explanations why they are the sane ones and everyone else is psychotic.
Ain't buying it. Race ain't real. Believing race is real because we believe race is real is a circular fallacy. It's bullshit.
Psychosis
is characterized as disruptions to a person’s thoughts and perceptions
that make it difficult for them to recognize what is real and what
isn’t. These disruptions are often experienced as seeing, hearing and
believing things that aren’t real or having strange, persistent
thoughts, behaviors and emotions. - See more at:
http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Early-Psychosis-and-Psychosis#sthash.18Sj5QNv.dpuf
Psychosis
is characterized as disruptions to a person’s thoughts and perceptions
that make it difficult for them to recognize what is real and what
isn’t. These disruptions are often experienced as seeing, hearing and
believing things that aren’t real or having strange, persistent
thoughts, behaviors and emotions. - See more at:
http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Early-Psychosis-and-Psychosis#sthash.18Sj5QNv.dpuf
Psychosis
is characterized as disruptions to a person’s thoughts and perceptions
that make it difficult for them to recognize what is real and what
isn’t. These disruptions are often experienced as seeing, hearing and
believing things that aren’t real or having strange, persistent
thoughts, behaviors and emotions. - See more at:
http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Early-Psychosis-and-Psychosis#sthash.18Sj5QNv.dpuf
Monday, July 04, 2016
life on other planets
What are the odds of life developing on a planet?
That actually isn't the big question, but, people imagine it is. The big question is, what is the probability of two intelligent, technologically astute, civilizations interacting?
Let's suppose the timeline of life on Earth is typical with a standard deviation of a million years. Earth is 6 billion years old. Life, 3.8 billion. Humans 6 million. Modern, technologically, nuclear, humans, 70 years, so far.
Let's suppose our species lives 5,000 years in a state of technological advancement during which we can recognize extra terrestrial, intelligent, life.
Anyone familiar with statistics can see where I am going.
There isn't any guarantee human advanced civilization will last 5,000 years. It could last 100,000 or 1,000.
A standard deviation of a million, 0.1%, sounds reasonable when discussing the development of life.
Unless humans and at least one other species exist as a technologically advanced species for one standard deviation on the "life timeline" the odds of humans and another species being able to interact socially are minimal.
Then there is the distance issue, which I addressed in my blog entry discussing the infinite monkey theory. Let's assume 1/10 solar systems have a planet capable of supporting intelligent life. Let's assume an average distance between planets of ten light years. A range those ten solar systems in a spherical distribution around Earth. Let's assume a fifty/fifty chance of intelligent life. We need to travel 20 light years to find a planet with intelligent life, and there is a 1/200 chance, based on our stdev of 1M and 5k civilization span, that we find a concurrent intelligent species so we need to travel 4,000 light years.
Let's suppose parallel universes are governed with the same assumptions, 1M stdev, we will assume 20K of civilization, 5K intelligent civilization, 50/50 life develops at all.
1M/20K = 1 in 50 universes with concurrent civilization. 1 in 200 with advanced technology. Double that cause of the 50/50. We would explore 400 universes to find one similar to ours.
There are "infinite" universes so there could be one where things are almost identical to this one, but, then we run into the same scale of odds that we had with infinite monkeys banging on an infinite number of 101 key keyboards producing all of Shakespeare's plays, which are an average of about 80,000 characters. 1/keys*1/characters.
Astronomical.
Sliders, alternate universes, etc. All crap.
In addition, if you tried to travel to an alternate universe you would have to travel to where the planet in the alternate universe would be, not where it is.
Let's suppose the solar system is moving just 100,000 miles an hour. It moves faster, Google how fast you are moving when you are standing still.
Okay, suppose it takes 1 second to travel to a different universe. You are now 30 miles (more like over 150 miles, but we agreed only 100Kmph ) from where you started. Not thirty miles on the ground. Thirty miles along a tangential line drawn from where you started before the Earth turned under you, spun along the axis of the solar system and the galaxy and the universe, which is expanding. You are falling like a rock towards the planet, exactly like a skydiver without a chute.
Toward a planet where you have about a 1 in 400 chance of finding technologically developed civilization.
Okay, so you do your work. You invent a craft capable of traveling at the speed of the Earth moving through the universe, which is wicked faster than you probably believe and way faster than people have traveled so far. You plug this supper engine on a shuttle capable of landing and taking off from a planet and figure out a way to jump between universes.
Our space ship, which unlike the ship in Interstellar does not need a rocket to escape Earth's gravity, and like the space ship in Interstellar can land and take off other planets without a rocket. The Interstellar ship only needs a rocket to escape Earth gravity because it's fictional. We have a "real" fictional ship that doesn't need a rocket to leave any planet.
We have to play catch up with the alternate planet which was traveling past us, if we are smart enough to avoid getting t-boned by another planet or the sun. We wave to travel several million miles "up", away from the plane of the Earth's orbit just to avoid the sun, which is coming at us like a bullet train, and it's gravitational pull.
Yes, our velocity and direction of motion remains the same
Imagine even microscopic variations in velocity or direction of motion between alternate universes that have had billions of years to magnify.
So, travel to alternative universes is out until we can predict planetary motion in alternative universes and we have craft capable of velocities that allow us to correct for the travel time differentials between universes. Once we do that...We have to deal with our odds, as explained earlier.
This is wicked complex and most people have no clue how complex this really is because fiction makes it seem as if it is nothing.
Just dealing with travel to other planets is, literally, dealing with astronomical odds, even if we try alternative universes.
That actually isn't the big question, but, people imagine it is. The big question is, what is the probability of two intelligent, technologically astute, civilizations interacting?
Let's suppose the timeline of life on Earth is typical with a standard deviation of a million years. Earth is 6 billion years old. Life, 3.8 billion. Humans 6 million. Modern, technologically, nuclear, humans, 70 years, so far.
Let's suppose our species lives 5,000 years in a state of technological advancement during which we can recognize extra terrestrial, intelligent, life.
Anyone familiar with statistics can see where I am going.
There isn't any guarantee human advanced civilization will last 5,000 years. It could last 100,000 or 1,000.
A standard deviation of a million, 0.1%, sounds reasonable when discussing the development of life.
Unless humans and at least one other species exist as a technologically advanced species for one standard deviation on the "life timeline" the odds of humans and another species being able to interact socially are minimal.
Then there is the distance issue, which I addressed in my blog entry discussing the infinite monkey theory. Let's assume 1/10 solar systems have a planet capable of supporting intelligent life. Let's assume an average distance between planets of ten light years. A range those ten solar systems in a spherical distribution around Earth. Let's assume a fifty/fifty chance of intelligent life. We need to travel 20 light years to find a planet with intelligent life, and there is a 1/200 chance, based on our stdev of 1M and 5k civilization span, that we find a concurrent intelligent species so we need to travel 4,000 light years.
Let's suppose parallel universes are governed with the same assumptions, 1M stdev, we will assume 20K of civilization, 5K intelligent civilization, 50/50 life develops at all.
1M/20K = 1 in 50 universes with concurrent civilization. 1 in 200 with advanced technology. Double that cause of the 50/50. We would explore 400 universes to find one similar to ours.
There are "infinite" universes so there could be one where things are almost identical to this one, but, then we run into the same scale of odds that we had with infinite monkeys banging on an infinite number of 101 key keyboards producing all of Shakespeare's plays, which are an average of about 80,000 characters. 1/keys*1/characters.
Astronomical.
Sliders, alternate universes, etc. All crap.
In addition, if you tried to travel to an alternate universe you would have to travel to where the planet in the alternate universe would be, not where it is.
Let's suppose the solar system is moving just 100,000 miles an hour. It moves faster, Google how fast you are moving when you are standing still.
Okay, suppose it takes 1 second to travel to a different universe. You are now 30 miles (more like over 150 miles, but we agreed only 100Kmph ) from where you started. Not thirty miles on the ground. Thirty miles along a tangential line drawn from where you started before the Earth turned under you, spun along the axis of the solar system and the galaxy and the universe, which is expanding. You are falling like a rock towards the planet, exactly like a skydiver without a chute.
Toward a planet where you have about a 1 in 400 chance of finding technologically developed civilization.
Okay, so you do your work. You invent a craft capable of traveling at the speed of the Earth moving through the universe, which is wicked faster than you probably believe and way faster than people have traveled so far. You plug this supper engine on a shuttle capable of landing and taking off from a planet and figure out a way to jump between universes.
Our space ship, which unlike the ship in Interstellar does not need a rocket to escape Earth's gravity, and like the space ship in Interstellar can land and take off other planets without a rocket. The Interstellar ship only needs a rocket to escape Earth gravity because it's fictional. We have a "real" fictional ship that doesn't need a rocket to leave any planet.
We have to play catch up with the alternate planet which was traveling past us, if we are smart enough to avoid getting t-boned by another planet or the sun. We wave to travel several million miles "up", away from the plane of the Earth's orbit just to avoid the sun, which is coming at us like a bullet train, and it's gravitational pull.
Yes, our velocity and direction of motion remains the same
Imagine even microscopic variations in velocity or direction of motion between alternate universes that have had billions of years to magnify.
So, travel to alternative universes is out until we can predict planetary motion in alternative universes and we have craft capable of velocities that allow us to correct for the travel time differentials between universes. Once we do that...We have to deal with our odds, as explained earlier.
This is wicked complex and most people have no clue how complex this really is because fiction makes it seem as if it is nothing.
Just dealing with travel to other planets is, literally, dealing with astronomical odds, even if we try alternative universes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
