Comments by "Jim Mcneal" (@jimmcneal5292) on "Kyle Hill" channel.

Tbf human squishyness is overestimated.
50
Another important factor is EROI -- energy return on energy investment, i.e. how much energy you get per amount of energy you spent on mining required minerals, manufacturing, and refining fuel. Theoretically, EROI equal to 1 is enough to consider something an energy source, but in practice it should be higher, somewhere from 3 to 7. The thing is, solar power effectively has it below this threshold, unless you're pretty far down south, which makes it more of a battery rather than source of electricity. The wind power has EROI that is enough to make it a source of energy, but it's problem is that it dries the land behind it(which is not the problem if the wind turbine is installed in the sea) However if we factor in requirement to store energy, then both solar and wind power would fall below or close to the threshold, all while hydroelectric and gen III/III+ nuclear would have it 5-7 and 11 times higher than even the maximum estimate for threshold.
7
@R_SENAL not really, as ship needs to accelerate. Investing in anti-missile defence is probably cheaper and more effective
5
@slicershanks1919 that's because the idea of a dogfights as aerobatic carousels actually comes not from ww2, but ww1. Back then energy did not matter due to low speeds and weapons were relatively weak(usually 1 or 2 7.7 machineguns)
4
 @aluisious real gun fights don't really end with everyone full of holes
4
@Goro_Maj1ma it definitely does, as you need to accelerate the ship, and the heavier it is, the more fuel you need
4
 @mirshia5248 it is speculative technology(which means, unlike for example FTL we can't even predict how it will work)
3
 @kdrapertrucker please provide examples. I would argue that modern combat between more or less equal powers would be both BVR and close one
2
Or they could have made it spin sqrt(2) times faster
2
1) 7:37 Nope. Hiroshima was 20kt. None of real modern nukes have 20mt yield. Most are hundred kts at max, only 10-20 times more powerful. Also should be remembered that in dense urban landscape damage decreases with range as cubic function. 2)Nuclear weapons in general are overrated. Yes, they are powerful, but they won't lead to fall of civilization. And tactical nukes are much more dangerous to civilian population than strategic ones. 3)11:20 Getting rid of nuclear weapons is an idiotic idea. Firstly, it diminishes your capabilities to inflict damage on enemy military forces and industrial objects. Secondly, it encourages smaller countries like Iran, North Korea and Venesuela to ramp up the production of their nukes to as high as possible level to give them an edge over more powerful countries, same as it happenned with limiting the amount of dreadnoughts. Thirdly, nuclear weapons work as the deterrent from world war, at least currently.
2
Probably vice versa. Whichever species appear first, it becomes a multigalactical civilization, consumes all of the Universe's energy and leaves to settle the multiverse. So all sentient aliens that could appear in the next billions or trillions of years won't do it, because posthumanity will settle their planets.
1
 @andreabindolini7452 As far as I remember, ships accelerate at max at around 8-9Gs, which is not much and perfectly fits the "juice" part
1
I hoped you would at least mention Timeless decision theory which would make Roko's Basilisk not seem as meaningless fuss. If this comment will get enough responses I would do it(explain Roko's Basilisk properly) myself in update, but only in such case.
1
Should be noted that warp is technology that is a bit far from being inplemented(my take is that it will be done in 600 years or so, I even did some calculations) and hyperspace, along with for example shields or time travelling are speculative technologies(we don't know how to implement them even theoretically)
1
A lot of people think Saitama sneezed away Jupiters' atmosphere. But the thing is that Jupiter doesn't have a solid surface, but it has a solid core. So he sneezed away not only the top, gaseous layers, but also the liquid ones, which is most of Jupiter's mass. And since he can do that, he can punch away a star too(same as Garou and Boros' Collapsing star roaring cannon). However both for Saitama and DBZ characters(late versions, earlier versions might struggle greatly) lifting 15 earth masses is quite easy, as DBZ characters can be considered confirmed planet busters(ok, in DBZ planets are small, but characters slowly get stronger). So something like ultra instinct Goku can punch away a planet for sure, which requires around 10^32 joules instead of 8*10^26 joules. For Saitama, who is star buster, which requires around 10^44 – 10^45 joules those black holes are almost unnoticeable weight. Makes sense that he's bored with fighting normal opponents.
1
Both of your statements are false.
1
@EugeneParallax I'm not actually sure
1
 @R_SENAL the problem with such surface is that it will probably be extremely heavy
1
As a physicist I will definitely read those chapters before anime comes out
1
It should be noted that we barely know how those battles will look like, but few things are obvious: big ships probably would not be useful, as they can be easily oneshotted. Same goes for lasers, as it is too easy to defend from them both for a ship and for missiles(ablative armor). Ironically, space fleets maybe will resemble modern ones, with carriers used for delivering strike crafts(probably unmanned), cruisers/destroyers doing AA job with interceptor missiles and frigates/corvettes being used as missile carriers to defend planets bases. But to be fair, I doubt there will be a lot of cosmic battles before we invent FTL and shields(and I think FTL will be invented reasonably earlier, in less than 600 years), as there are a lot of planets in the galaxy and it would be cheaper to just colonize them
1