Comments by "Patchwurk" (@patchwurk6652) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell" channel.

Lol, Kurzgesagt understands the true way to do science: MORE ZEROES!!!!!
35
@ML-sc3pt Basically when you combine gravity with the vacuum of space, things start spinning. Things retain their energy and momentum in null-G because other forces that require an atmosphere to really be in full effect (like air friction) don't generally occur. Imagine gravity like a length of chain attached to a ball. You tugging on the other end is gravity. You'll notice every time you tug on it, it turns to "face" you. It stops turning eventually because you're on a planet with air friction and stuff, but imagine if you yanked on that chain in space: It turns to face you.... And then just keep turning and turning and turning. Ergo, spinning.
16
@feosty5526 And we'd lose immediately and brutally. You Do Not fight in space unless you want to learn real fast what a tiny bit of speed can do. You don't even need to have Smart weapons, just speed by Earth going ANY percentage of lightspeed, huck a standard brick out of the airlock, and watch it slam into North America with the force of the meteor that whupped the dinosaurs asses. You don't Need anything as sophisticated as a high-concept nuke when "A brick going really really fast" can exterminatus a planet.
4
@qdaniele97 It might also be a factor that all of this would be happening in the vacuum of space. Like I feel like we're forgetting that most of our experiments with massively-heat resistant materials are built to the specs of withstanding heat under Earth factors. Since we're mostly using this stuff on Earth. I'd imagine the rules change a bit in null-G outside of atmospheric conditions.
2
And the "Quotes that Aged like Milk" award goes to....
2
@RoseDragoness "I think on scishow psych or something it was explained that if our brain don't have that oversight that many things we do daily are more dangerous... we would stress out, not doing anything, and perish as a species." Maybe I'm just cynical, but my knee-jerk response is more along the lines of "One of those problems is more expensive to fix, a bunch of people don't want to pay up, so it's easier to focus on the 'Big Dramatic' story that's wayyyy cheaper to deal with and can be more easily exploited for attention/distraction." Again, maybe it's cynicism, I dunno.
1
@Cortesevasive Not true. Think about it: In America, admitting you have a problem with drugs is admitting you're guilty of a crime. In a nation desperate to throw more people into for-profit prisons to leech government money off the taxpayers for each incarcerated inmate. We also strap someone with a criminal record that follows them around for the rest of their lives, choking off any chance of ever climbing beyond minimum wage ever again unless they get extremely lucky. Being arrested for Drugs in the USA is tantamount to saying "My life stops Here forever." We will Never let you forget what you did, we will Never let you move on from it. Even if you get clean, sober up, get your education, and become a "model" citizen, we'll throw you back to flipping patties at Burgerking if your potential employers ever find out "Dr. Stevens" has a criminal record. Admitting to having a drug problem in the USA is nothing but a massive life-ruiner. Why trade the downward spiral that makes you happy for the downward spiral expressly designed to Force you to be desperate enough to resort to crime again?
1
@phantomaviator1318 "yeah but climate change is natural" So is cancer. Doesn't mean we should make more of it.
1
@halbeliebe Oh no, the future will have challenges they'll have to deal with too! Also, we've already got methods of recycling nuclear waste, and if our descendants aren't advanced enough a few hundred years down the line to just toss it on some remote asteroid or something, that's on them. Centuries to resolve a problem we've already got workable solutions to Today isn't demanding much of "The Future!"
1
@adbogo Sure. Because as we all know human beings can't "Dig something back up" to use for resources in-between now and 102022. A unit of time longer than the sum total of all recorded human history by like 50x over, I'm pretty sure Someone is gonna think "Hey this stuff's still useful, let's re-use it" at Some point. Especially considering how we Already Are trying to do exactly that.
1
@halbeliebe "The time being is only a couple of tens of thousands of years." So... We have the sum total of all of recorded human history combined, multiplied by a few, to do something with all that material that we already know methods of recycling or repurposing for other processes. You say "We'll be stuck with it for tens of thousands of years", I say if humanity hasn't figured out a way to do this in the next... Oh I dunno, century or so, I'd be surprised. Like if we're still dealing with the exact same nuclear waste 10k years from now, then we've apparently advanced exactly Nothing in 10k years. Us, the species that can't go a month without some newfangled gadgets or research bearing fruit. That's a lot of time to work.
1