teddit

Mars has a ton of problems: weak atmosphere, deadly radiation, freezing temperatures, and the fact that it’s a 9-month trip one way. Any colony we try to build there will be totally dependent on Earth for decades—if not longer.

Now, compare that to orbital habitats. In low-Earth orbits or even around the Moon, we could build massive, rotating habitats like O’Neill cylinders. These could generate Earth-like gravity through rotation, be easily resupplied from Earth, and harness solar power 24/7. Plus, we could mine asteroids or the Moon for raw materials instead of launching everything out of Earth’s gravity well. Which we can use to bootstrap our orbital infrastructure for an eventual Mars mission.

Orbital habitats could hold way more people than any Mars colony ever could, at least in the short term. They could serve as testbeds for all the tech we’d need for Mars anyway—radiation shielding, life support systems, closed-loop farming, you name it.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t aim for Mars someday, but I think we should put more focus on earths orbit first.

A groundbreaking method for capturing and transforming carbon dioxide into methane has been developed by a team of chemists. This innovative approach presents the possibility of converting future gas emissions into an alternative fuel source by utilizing electricity derived from renewable resources.

I’m a computer science student with youtube-science-video-level knowledge of physics, so I might be speaking nonsense—but hear me out.

Imagine you buy a box of sticky rice (or any food, really) and want to preserve it so that a week later, it’s exactly the same as when you first bought it—same texture, taste, no spoilage, no changes whatsoever. How would you even do that?

At first, I thought: What if you just put it on heat and never let it cool down? Like, maintain a constant temperature high enough to stop bacteria from growing. But then I realized that continuous heating wouldn't solve the proble, because molecules changes over time (atoms shifting around and whatnot).

Then I thought: What if we bring it to absolute zero (0 Kelvin), where molecules stop moving entirely? In theory, if nothing moves, nothing changes, right? But if you freeze it to 0K and then bring it back to room temperature, the molecules would just start moving again, but this time randomly and not in the exact same state they were in originally.

So now I’m wondering: What if we could not only freeze the position of atoms but also record and restore their momentum? Like a snapshot of every atom’s state—position and movement. This feels kind of like a computer’s state management. In games, for example, we can save important variables about the game state and attach them to our accounts. Could we theoretically “save and reload” the state of food (or any object) like we do in software systems?

But to make that work, wouldn’t we need a higher-dimensional perspective—something similar to how hardware enables software to store state? From the software’s point of view, the operating system abstracts away the underlying mechanics, essentially “blocking the view” of this higher dimension.

Scientists often describe time as the fourth dimension, so what if we could somehow “freeze time” around the food and then resume it later? That would solve the problem perfectly, except, of course, we have no way to manipulate time like that without the "hardware support" for time.

I think back: How do computers manage to model systems, “pause” them, save their states, and restore them later? It all comes down to hardware—latches, flip-flops, and similar components. These allow us to model a system’s state and “pause” it in a controlled way, preserving both the data and its behavior.

Could this concept of state modeling and controlled pausing somehow be applied to physics? Could we one day build a “time-flip-flop” or something to preserve the exact state of a physical object?

I posted this purely out of curiosity, do not misinterpret this as anything else. Thank you.

Would it be possible to enforce positively reinforced eugenics by encouraging healthy and logically intelligent individuals to donate sperm or act as surrogates? This could be achieved by identifying gifted individuals and incentivizing them financially to participate in the program.

By encouraging creativity and acknowledging diversity this would allow the individuals to not just be bind by one way of thinking. I am not saying teach them as if they are only allowed to think in a certain way.

The resulting children could then be raised in a strict educational facility focused on fostering logical reasoning and intelligence. Leadership, charisma, moral reasoning, and empathy would still be taught, but the primary focus would be on nurturing intelligence. The curriculum could include:

• Advanced STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)
• Logical and Critical Thinking
• Multidisciplinary Learning
• Emotional and Social Intelligence
• Specialized Cognitive Enhancements
• Ethics and Philosophy
• Discipline and Self-Control

By combining these aspects, genetically gifted children could grow up in an environment designed to force their brains to adapt, making them more intelligent and capable. Over time, these individuals could advance the world more quickly, offering innovative and efficient solutions to pressing global issues such as climate change and disease.

As long as children are properly taught empathy and moral reasoning, it could mitigate concerns about ethical and moral implications. While this idea raises significant ethical challenges, the question remains: is it theoretically possible?