Ho boy, well. It's not going to change anything for me. What I see here is a real boatload of superstitious based nonsense.
For one thing--- You're basing some points in your religion from science fiction movies. It is impossible for aliens from another planet to be here. The distances are to great to travel those distances in any reasonable life time to have made the trip to here. If we can't get there, they can't get here. UNLESS one uses the common denominator application of "Super Smart Aliens, (to solve problems) but being the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe extraterrestrials have no better chance of they getting here then we have of getting there. There's nothing in the universe that is super, as nature cannot out-do itself.
Science fiction being around for about 100 years gets floks over time used to those ideas and at some point it all comes true, not so. The periodic table here is the same as there, and from what can be known there os no material that can last the trip because of the great cosmic sanding belt would wear the space craft away long before arrival here.
Sorry about that, but if God wanted aliens here he would have made the universe smaller.
Moderation edit:
This post and the ensuing thread have been split from "THIS WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER!(Atheists Proven To Be Satanic)Hell-Low/Hello" (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=16265.msg390431#msg390431). The OP here is a response to the OP of that thread.
- R
There is something else, Old Seer, our little planet looks like a blue dot from Pluto. Finding us from another star system would be astronomical. I don't know that they'd do much better than we can finding exoplanets that have life.
Quote from: Randy on June 21, 2020, 06:38:50 PM
There is something else, Old Seer, our little planet looks like a blue dot from Pluto. Finding us from another star system would be astronomical. I don't know that they'd do much better than we can finding exoplanets that have life.
We are close to being able to do spectroscopy of the atmospheres of exoplanets. If aliens are looking at us with more advanced capabilities they'd be very likely to determine there is life here and probably technological industrialisation.
Quote from: Old Seer on June 21, 2020, 05:13:16 PM
Ho boySorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
No sources cited for a passel of assertions. Anybody can play that game. :lol:
I don't agree that it's "impossible" for extraterrestrial travellers to have visited this planet as some point in the past, nor that they may be here now. Such things are possible, spurious assertions about the laws of physics aside. However, I'd say the chance that either actually took place is infinitesimally small, by any realistic evaluation of the evidence.
I'd prefer that the chance that humanity or some successor will one day successfully travel beyond this solar system would be greater than the chance that this planet has been visited by extraterrestrial travellers, but at this point that doesn't appear to be significantly more likely.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/70/75/7a/70757a80c4ffa8cc039e36d37862c11a.png)
Quote from: Recusant on June 21, 2020, 07:32:39 PM
Quote from: Old Seer on June 21, 2020, 05:13:16 PM
Ho boySorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
No sources cited for a passel of assertions. Anybody can play that game. :lol:
I don't agree that it's "impossible" for extraterrestrial travellers to have visited this planet as some point in the past, nor that they may be here now. Such things are possible, spurious assertions about the laws of physics aside. However, I'd say the chance that either actually took place is infinitesimally small, by any realistic evaluation of the evidence.
I'd prefer that the chance that humanity or some successor will one day successfully travel beyond this solar system would be greater than the chance that this planet has been visited by extraterrestrial travellers, but at this point that doesn't appear to be significantly more likely.
Einstein established one cannot travel the speed of light, which would be needed to get anywhere in the universe , and yet it would take to long and one's craft would be disintegrated by interstellar matte, dust etc. Ueing conventional fuel would take 1000s of years to get to the nearest star. Convention fuel is capable of reaching about 100,000 mph. Chemical fuels need to be to much to be practical. I'll look it up. Why do you think I'm playing games. Being a physicist don't you suppose I'd know.
Here we go.
https://youtu.be/s78uxglD-W4
https://youtu.be/jfPZWiTOugg
Old Seer is it possible to fold space in front of a ship so that it isn't moving faster than the speed of light but just seams like it? I know it sounds kind of Trekkish, but a few years ago I read that it might be. Granted, the amount of gravity it would take would be prohibitive with gravity being the weakest force.
So far those ideas are still theories, and probables. Gravity relative to matter may forbid the process. IOW. the device needed would have to remove it's own gravity to cause a warp in time and space. With every object in the universe attracting all other objects it doesn't seem likely that a device that can cancel time can also cancel space. Trying to get to the speed of light is (for an explanation) like a boat moving through water but the water doesn't go around the boat. The boat pushes the water ahead of it but at some point the water gets to much to push and then an equilibrium comes into play were counter force is equal to power applied. Or. the same as --the faster the speed the heavier the object gets until finally it cannot go faster. (Infinite mass)
Then there's the problem of space matter in the way at any high velocity. If a 3 ft circumference pipe were set up in space all the matter in the pipe over distance would block the view to the other end. The space craft would hit everything in the pipe on it's way to a destination. Striking anything at the speed of light would cause an explosion similar to what happens in a particle collider. The higher the velocity the less able to steer. It would become impossible to avoid objects in space. The aliens would have no different material choices then we. There is no magic material in the universe. :)
I wasn't quite sure how such a device could work. In order to achieve interstellar travel, it would need a gravity well like that of a giant star or perhaps even a black hole. It would have to fold space in front of it, jump across the fold, and expand it in back thereby cheating. The amount of distance is now small so that normal speed would be sufficient. This is something well beyond our ability.
I would surmise that any alien craft capable of doing such a thing wouldn't be interested in our back water world. I doubt we'd have anything important to offer.
They'll have to wait until space travel gets to be more of a norm. The actual test would have to be in space, but experiments can be made for the time being. There are magnet so powerful that they can float anything whether metal or not. I sen an experiment that had a frog floating in a magnetic bowl, and no apparent harm to the frog. I would think that level of magnetism would cause the brain to short out. But nope, little hoppy seemed normal. So, we have one insight on a possibility.
Quote from: Tank on June 21, 2020, 07:00:11 PM
Quote from: Randy on June 21, 2020, 06:38:50 PM
There is something else, Old Seer, our little planet looks like a blue dot from Pluto. Finding us from another star system would be astronomical. I don't know that they'd do much better than we can finding exoplanets that have life.
We are close to being able to do spectroscopy of the atmospheres of exoplanets. If aliens are looking at us with more advanced capabilities they'd be very likely to determine there is life here and probably technological industrialisation.
Yes. A spectrographic analysis can show many aspects of materials at great distances. Different materials , as you very likely know, show different patterns for different gasses and liquids especially. IE- A spectro analysis can tell what gold came from what mine if there is a previous available sample. So is the same for reflected light from any source.
Quote from: Old Seer on June 21, 2020, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 21, 2020, 07:32:39 PMNo sources cited for a passel of assertions. Anybody can play that game. :lol:
I don't agree that it's "impossible" for extraterrestrial travellers to have visited this planet as some point in the past, nor that they may be here now. Such things are possible, spurious assertions about the laws of physics aside. However, I'd say the chance that either actually took place is infinitesimally small, by any realistic evaluation of the evidence.
I'd prefer that the chance that humanity or some successor will one day successfully travel beyond this solar system would be greater than the chance that this planet has been visited by extraterrestrial travellers, but at this point that doesn't appear to be significantly more likely.
Einstein established one cannot travel the speed of light, which would be needed to get anywhere in the universe , and yet it would take to long and one's craft would be disintegrated by interstellar matte, dust etc. Ueing conventional fuel would take 1000s of years to get to the nearest star. Convention fuel is capable of reaching about 100,000 mph. Chemical fuels need to be to much to be practical. I'll look it up. Why do you think I'm playing games. Being a physicist don't you suppose I'd know.
You've probably heard of the concept and either forgot about it or have dismissed it for some reason of your own. No need for hypothetical exotic physics, or even anything much beyond our present capability, if we devoted the resources to it.
"Generation ship" |
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_ship)
QuoteA generation ship, or generation starship, is a hypothetical type of interstellar ark starship that travels at sub-light speed.
Since such a ship might take centuries to thousands of years to reach even nearby stars, the original occupants of a generation ship would grow old and die, leaving their descendants to continue traveling.
[usw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_ship)]
One main problem for generational starships is inbreeding. Eventually there can end up a crew incapable of operating ships components. Or, the inbreeding causes genetic changes that no longer allows for survival of the crew.
It still remains- hitting an asteroid the size of a basketball ends the whole project.
Another- ships components wearing out.
Legitimate concerns. Nothing in the laws of physics prevents them from being addressed.
Quote from: Old Seer on June 22, 2020, 06:33:55 PM
One main problem for generational starships is inbreeding. Eventually there can end up a crew incapable of operating ships components. Or, the inbreeding causes genetic changes that no longer allows for survival of the crew.
Advanced genetic engineering could solve that.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 22, 2020, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: Old Seer on June 22, 2020, 06:33:55 PM
One main problem for generational starships is inbreeding. Eventually there can end up a crew incapable of operating ships components. Or, the inbreeding causes genetic changes that no longer allows for survival of the crew.
Advanced genetic engineering could solve that.
Not for a 100,000 year trip it would seem. There's to many problems for long distant travel. No space craft can last that long. It would corrode because of many reasons. How would water be kept on board. Water devolves everything over time, and your water tanks would begin to leak. Aluminum anything would corrode very easily. There's no material that could be used as effective shielding against even small small collisions. I don't present these thing to be combative, but all the problems of what can happen are fairly well known. At 50,000 MPH it's not a minor hit if the craft hits an object. The object plus the craft's bulkhead material instantly heats beyond melting entering the ship splattering molten material catching everything in the entrance path on fire. A genetic flaw may multiply many times over the generations. If genetic engineering can over-come that would be a good thing. There's to many variables for high velocity long distance travel.
My life hasn't been changed in the slightest! Who do I sue?
Quote from: No one on June 23, 2020, 12:27:59 AM
My life hasn't been changed in the slightest! Who do I sue?
Sue the OP! He started it!
Quote from: Randy on June 23, 2020, 12:49:08 AM
Quote from: No one on June 23, 2020, 12:27:59 AM
My life hasn't been changed in the slightest! Who do I sue?
Sue the OP! He started it!
Probably the same person in charge of Raptures that never happen . . . whoever that is.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 22, 2020, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: Old Seer on June 22, 2020, 06:33:55 PM
One main problem for generational starships is inbreeding. Eventually there can end up a crew incapable of operating ships components. Or, the inbreeding causes genetic changes that no longer allows for survival of the crew.
Advanced genetic engineering could solve that.
You wouldn't even need that. The initial crew compliment would be chosen for maximum genetic diversity as one criteria and a reproduction plan instigated and regulated during the voyage. Note, reproduction not relationship plan. The nature of the voyage would be known to be generational before it left Earth so the people that go have to buy in to the process as part of accepting their place on the ship.
one aspect of this question that is not addressed clearly is th epossibility that far-away aliens haven't visited us because they don't see any need to.
we oftn assume that we havce something to offer that somehow makes us interesting or useful. that's the underlying theme of most fictional accounts of contact. but what would they come here for that could be worth the staggering cost in energy, materials, and time that it would take to get here?
fiction has them coming for minerals, slaves, food, or colonies. do any of thiose needs appear reasonable in light of th difficulties of obtaining them>
Quote from: Tank on June 23, 2020, 09:35:49 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 22, 2020, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: Old Seer on June 22, 2020, 06:33:55 PM
One main problem for generational starships is inbreeding. Eventually there can end up a crew incapable of operating ships components. Or, the inbreeding causes genetic changes that no longer allows for survival of the crew.
Advanced genetic engineering could solve that.
You wouldn't even need that. The initial crew compliment would be chosen for maximum genetic diversity as one criteria and a reproduction plan instigated and regulated during the voyage. Note, reproduction not relationship plan. The nature of the voyage would be known to be generational before it left Earth so the people that go have to buy in to the process as part of accepting their place on the ship.
I was thinking about this and turns out, humankind as a whole is not all that genetically diverse compared to other primates and animals. We went through a bottleneck in our evolution when just a few thousand people existed and
Homo sapiens as a species was struggling to survive. With all that inbreeding we turned out ok. ::) Well, most of us. :o
So yeah, I think your solution could possibly work. ;D It's worked before.
fernanda, when was that bottleneck?
punctated eqilibria is really interesting to me
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 23, 2020, 07:45:17 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 23, 2020, 09:35:49 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 22, 2020, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: Old Seer on June 22, 2020, 06:33:55 PM
One main problem for generational starships is inbreeding. Eventually there can end up a crew incapable of operating ships components. Or, the inbreeding causes genetic changes that no longer allows for survival of the crew.
Advanced genetic engineering could solve that.
You wouldn't even need that. The initial crew compliment would be chosen for maximum genetic diversity as one criteria and a reproduction plan instigated and regulated during the voyage. Note, reproduction not relationship plan. The nature of the voyage would be known to be generational before it left Earth so the people that go have to buy in to the process as part of accepting their place on the ship.
I was thinking about this and turns out, humankind as a whole is not all that genetically diverse compared to other primates and animals. We went through a bottleneck in our evolution when just a few thousand people existed and Homo sapiens as a species was struggling to survive. With all that inbreeding we turned out ok. ::) Well, most of us. :o
So yeah, I think your solution could possibly work. ;D It's worked before.
My understanding is that there needs to be some minimum to avoid inbreeding. In the link, it looks like 160 peops, but there is a proviso that the spacefarers return to the rest of the population at some point. I'm liking the 500 number, for a truly viable colony, but that's just based on what I'm seeing there, not as a biologist.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1936-magic-number-for-space-pioneers-calculated/
Genetics is one thing. But there's to many things that are stoppers that cannot be solved. On millennial year trips whatever can go wrong will go wrong at some time. Living on a planet is quite stable and we get used to what it takes to live on that planet. Chance is usually considered in percentages. IE- what's the chances of something happening is calculated by happenstance over time. OK, An airplane crashes. What was the chances of that plane crashing. We go by X divided by all the other crashes that took place in the past according to various factors that caused the plane to crash, IE - a bolt came loose.
What we do know for a fact without a doubt that the plane has crashed, so logic dictates that there was a 100% chance that the plane would crash---because it did. At some point the plane has reached the 100% crash time/mark. What is being done is--- trying to determine "when" the 100% crash mark will be reached and take the plane out of service before that mark/time arrives. But, there's to many variables in between time that cannot be known, in this case, a bolt came loose. When it comes to millennial space travel the 100% mark has been reached before you start. If the space station is to remain in orbit indefinitely there will come a time an orbiting object collision or other catastrophic failure will occur.
Plenty of opinion, no data. There are people who have spent a fair amount of time and effort examining the possibilities (https://www.universetoday.com/139215/pros-and-cons-of-various-methods-of-interstellar-travel/), and I think they're more credible than a Smurf, even one who's smarter than Einstein.
Another thing to consider about millennial travel. As the kids grow up, will they want to follow in their parent's footsteps (mine didn't) and take over the controls, the repairs that have to be made as things wear out, and so-on? Will they have the aptitude? Will they need to be forced to do these things?
Quote from: Recusant on June 24, 2020, 04:40:22 PM
Plenty of opinion, no data. There are people who have spent a fair amount of time and effort examining the possibilities (https://www.universetoday.com/139215/pros-and-cons-of-various-methods-of-interstellar-travel/), and I think they're more credible than a Smurf, even one who's smarter than Einstein.
I looked at your article. That's high theory, not fact. I didn't claim to be smarter then Einstein, there's a difference of IQ and smartness. Smartness is what you may be up to, not I. You are a competitor, I am not. Einstein had trouble tieing his shoes, I don't. When it comes to physics he is highly more knowledgeable then I. I do not compete against Einstein because I am with him not against him.
I brought up my IQ because there are floks that need to be advised of a disease people like me have that we must advise others of so they should know to make allowances for. In my circle it's called Einsteins disease/syndrome. It's caused by- we don't understand people, and people don't understand us. It always turns out that one must consider that one side or the other is stupid. If I had epilepsy causing a mental disparity I would have to inform you of that too-so you would know. I'm assuming that anyone caring to analyze my input has enough interest to look things up for themselves, and as you can see there are those here wise enough to do so, and strike out on conversions of their own making additions to the subject at hand. If you are deliberately trying to cause decensions and troubles on the forum---well, you did it.
The article you posted cites Theory, and theory and then theory, because that's all that will work for the time being when it come to millennial space transport. Theory is Speculation and necessary for the beginnings of proving things later. Another Smurf is a physicist as I and a university professor of physics retired. We haven't had any quarrels on these subjects. He's the one that came up with the "great Cosmic Sanding Belt" analogy, not I. Would you please try to be a bit more respectful of others on the forum. I'm into conversations not verbal shootouts and condemnation of others.
Quote from: Randy on June 24, 2020, 04:58:12 PM
Another thing to consider about millennial travel. As the kids grow up, will they want to follow in their parent's footsteps (mine didn't) and take over the controls, the repairs that have to be made as things wear out, and so-on? Will they have the aptitude? Will they need to be forced to do these things?
Excellent insight.
Quote from: Recusant on June 24, 2020, 04:40:22 PM
Plenty of opinion, no data. There are people who have spent a fair amount of time and effort examining the possibilities (https://www.universetoday.com/139215/pros-and-cons-of-various-methods-of-interstellar-travel/), and I think they're more credible than a Smurf, even one who's smarter than Einstein.
https://youtu.be/Ez609kf49y8
Not to drift away from the topic much I was wondering. This thread is under Dump Pile of Crazy Troll Posts which is under Operations Desk. I do not have visibility there. The only way to get to this thread is by clicking on "Recent Unread Topics" and hope that someone else has posted.
I've answered a couple of times I think on here about something that has nothing to do with the original topic but somehow branched into an interesting discussion that I enjoy talking about.
Is there anything that can be done like maybe break up the thread into two separate threads and put one under "Science"?
Quote from: Old Seer on June 24, 2020, 06:25:16 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 24, 2020, 04:40:22 PM
Plenty of opinion, no data. There are people who have spent a fair amount of time and effort examining the possibilities (https://www.universetoday.com/139215/pros-and-cons-of-various-methods-of-interstellar-travel/), and I think they're more credible than a Smurf, even one who's smarter than Einstein.
https://youtu.be/Ez609kf49y8
OK then, your source is a YouTube video. I admire your confidence. Some might choose a more credible means of supporting their position, but you're apparently not bothered by such considerations. Normally I'm averse to people wasting my time by posting YouTube videos rather than proper responses, but I'll admit I see something of myself in you. I appreciate you posting here because it reminds me to try to avoid becoming too much like you. So I watched the video.
While it's not a bad video, nothing in it demonstrates that interstellar travel is impossible due to impacts of interstellar debris on interstellar ships. It certainly doesn't do anything to advance your position that the laws of physics prevent interstellar travel, either.
Quote from: Randy on June 24, 2020, 04:58:12 PM
Another thing to consider about millennial travel. As the kids grow up, will they want to follow in their parent's footsteps (mine didn't) and take over the controls, the repairs that have to be made as things wear out, and so-on? Will they have the aptitude? Will they need to be forced to do these things?
Well if they don't follow on they'll die so I suspect that would be an incentive :)
Quote from: Randy on June 24, 2020, 06:49:40 PM
Not to drift away from the topic much I was wondering. This thread is under Dump Pile of Crazy Troll Posts which is under Operations Desk. I do not have visibility there. The only way to get to this thread is by clicking on "Recent Unread Topics" and hope that someone else has posted.
I've answered a couple of times I think on here about something that has nothing to do with the original topic but somehow branched into an interesting discussion that I enjoy talking about.
Is there anything that can be done like maybe break up the thread into two separate threads and put one under "Science"?
I agree. My original intent was to point out the a relation of Aliens to religious beliefs or claims, Not to prove foibles of space travel in general. I had no intention of getting into scientific discussions to this degree.
Quote from: Randy on June 24, 2020, 04:58:12 PM
Another thing to consider about millennial travel. As the kids grow up, will they want to follow in their parent's footsteps (mine didn't) and take over the controls, the repairs that have to be made as things wear out, and so-on? Will they have the aptitude? Will they need to be forced to do these things?
Too right. My wife and I both have degrees in physics, but the most technical of our three sons only has an AS in engineering. But then he found a job at a hardware store mixing paint. I guess he'll be doing that for a few more years, as he shows no ambition to pursue engineering as a career. He got the degree a few years ago, and that's going to make getting a position all the harder. I know other people with technical degrees and their children tend not to go that direction, as well. If one were to use a millennium vessel, it would have to be
immense in order to have enough people to provide the infrastructure for the technical training needed. That, or it has to be massively redundant and fail-safe (and completely automated), which we can't manage yet, and may never manage.
Smart money would be to send robotic ships first.
Quote from: Dark Lightning on June 24, 2020, 11:37:04 PM
Smart money would be to send robotic ships first.
I expect the smart money will be to always send robotics ships, as nothing else is really practical. Which is a great disappointment to my fantasies.
Randy brought up a point I haven't taken into account before. There will be children on board. I remember something I read way back that came to mind.
The crew of a spacecraft must be considered a component of the ship just as any other part or system. The most fragile of all the parts and systems will be the crew.
For me, it's the objects/debris in space. The longer a spacecraft exists the closer it moves toward the 100% destruction mark.
why would we be doing this?
not meaning to be contrary, but i m curious as to the purpose
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 24, 2020, 11:53:48 PM
Quote from: Dark Lightning on June 24, 2020, 11:37:04 PM
Smart money would be to send robotic ships first.
I expect the smart money will be to always send robotics ships, as nothing else is really practical. Which is a great disappointment to my fantasies.
Take a sex robot with you! There's some fantasy for you! :lol: You'll die happy during an orgasm when that bit of cosmic flotsam/jetsam/debris hits you! ;D
Has anyone tried magic?
Quote from: Randy on June 24, 2020, 06:49:40 PM
Not to drift away from the topic much I was wondering. This thread is under Dump Pile of Crazy Troll Posts which is under Operations Desk. I do not have visibility there. The only way to get to this thread is by clicking on "Recent Unread Topics" and hope that someone else has posted.
I've answered a couple of times I think on here about something that has nothing to do with the original topic but somehow branched into an interesting discussion that I enjoy talking about.
Is there anything that can be done like maybe break up the thread into two separate threads and put one under "Science"?
Thank you for pointing out this issue. I just checked on a couple of test accounts. Neither have any posts, so they're one step above guests. On the one I didn't see the Dump Pile. On the other, it was in its normal place. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two. I'll have to investigate further. Meanwhile I'll review the thread and look for a reasonable spot to do a thread split.
Quote from: billy rubin on June 25, 2020, 01:09:46 AM
why would we be doing this?
not meaning to be contrary, but i m curious as to the purpose
Fascination, Science interests, And the best answer---physicist just are like that. At 16 I planned on going to the moon, and at that time knowing the concept and dangers, I still wanted to go. A spacecraft is an air tank with a motor on it. The rest is the problem. Do I want to go still, no, I became to sensible for that. I think the idea is stupid, a waste of time, and I'm still fascinated by the idea, engineering, gadgets and gizmos, and today we have more flashing and blinking lights. There are those of our society who have progressed but remaining in their childhood fascinations and interests. I say hooray for them. I have the time in my retirement to resume my childhood on other things. It's teaching the great grand kids how to goof off and get into mischief. :) -------------------and avoid getting caught.
Quote from: Old Seer on June 25, 2020, 02:52:07 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on June 25, 2020, 01:09:46 AM
why would we be doing this?
not meaning to be contrary, but i m curious as to the purpose
Fascination, Science interests, And the best answer---physicist just are like that. At 16 I planned on going to the moon, and at that time knowing the concept and dangers, I still wanted to go. A spacecraft is an air tank with a motor on it. The rest is the problem. Do I want to go still, no, I became to sensible for that. I think the idea is stupid, a waste of time, and I'm still fascinated by the idea, engineering, gadgets and gizmos, and today we have more flashing and blinking lights. There are those of our society who have progressed but remaining in their childhood fascinations and interests. I say hooray for them. I have the time in my retirement to resume my childhood on other things. It's teaching the great grand kids how to goof off and get into mischief. :) -------------------and avoid getting caught.
Given the amount of shenanigans I pulled as a kid that didn't end up leaving me maimed, deaf or blind (mostly just by happenstance), I watched my sons like a hawk. They still pulled all kinds of potentially life-threatening shenanigans! It's in the genes, I guess. Now, if my sons would see fit to spawn, I'd have a great time with the grandkids! Crazy grandpa FTW! :lol:
Quote from: billy rubin on June 25, 2020, 01:09:46 AM
why would we be doing this?
not meaning to be contrary, but i m curious as to the purpose
Right now it doesn't make any sense and is very cost prohibitive. Somewhere down the road, Earth may start to become inhabitable. Perhaps we want to continue the human race.
We'd need to find a planet that can support our kind of life. And then we need to find ways to inoculate ourselves against possible plagues. We'd need to figure out which fruit and animal life (should there be either) that we can eat. We'd also need a way to build weapons and ammunition as the ones we carry with us will eventually wear out and run out of ammo.
I think getting to wherever is half the problem. It's surviving once arrived.
Quote from: billy rubin on June 24, 2020, 12:39:22 AM
fernanda, when was that bottleneck?
punctated eqilibria is really interesting to me
During the Pleistocene period, apparently.
Human Ancestors Were an Endangered Species |
Science (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/01/human-ancestors-were-endangered-species)
Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution |
Molecular Biology and Evolution (https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/17/1/2/975516)
A diverging study:
Resequencing Data Provide No Evidence for a Human Bottleneck in Africa During the Penultimate Glacial Period |
Molecular Biology and Evolution (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22319141/)
Quote from: billy rubin on June 25, 2020, 01:09:46 AM
why would we be doing this?
not meaning to be contrary, but i m curious as to the purpose
Because why the Hel not? Why would people bother to explore at all, if they've got what they want where they are? In my opinion, the Universe is our real home--this planet happens to be where we were born.
I'd agree that from a particular point of view, we're a cancer on this planet. What else would an intelligent cancer want to do but take over as much territory as possible? It doesn't worry too much about killing its host, but if it sees that its host is only part of a much more expansive whole: "I'll tell you what, I think I see some possible territory out there."
Maybe I've let the game of Go influence my thinking too deeply, but that's how I see it. No further justification is needed.
Quote from: Recusant on July 27, 2020, 02:00:35 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on June 25, 2020, 01:09:46 AM
why would we be doing this?
not meaning to be contrary, but i m curious as to the purpose
Because why the Hel not? Why would people bother to explore at all, if they've got what they want where they are? In my opinion, the Universe is our real home--this planet happens to be where we were born.
I'd agree that from a particular point of view, we're a cancer on this planet. What else would an intelligent cancer want to do but take over as much territory as possible? It doesn't worry too much about killing its host, but if it sees that its host is only part of a much more expansive whole: "I'll tell you what, I think I see some possible territory out there."
Maybe I've let the game of Go influence my thinking too deeply, but that's how I see it. No further justification is needed.
The way I see it, humans are a curious species. Just like lab rats, who tend to fully explore their environments, if not too anxious to do so. Rats are curious as hell and I'd bet if they had the mental chops to build a working spaceship they would have gone to the moon too. ;D
We know they can drive:
(Apparently they love it too)
Next step, man a spaceship! Err...rat a spaceship? :notsure:
The rat is kind of cute. I wish they had a video of it driving. :)
I had always hoped to see mankind landing on Mars. I know it's expensive and I know it is much more dangerous than landing on the moon given that quite a few probes failed to land for one reason or another. I haven't forgotten Apollo 13 as I watched the news updates about it sometimes when I wasn't out playing.
until we come up with a more or less free source of space-travel level energy, space travel will be reztricted to occazional political parades or shortlived national vanity projects.
the main engines on the saturn rockets that drove the apollo program burned two tons of fuel per second to achieve escape velocity. at the time, the cost to put one pound of payload into orbit was US $10,000, in 1970 dollars.
i dont know what it will cost to go to mars, and i dont doubt that we will put a human being there someday. but i think our money could be better spent on national goals that actually help people.
look at the moon. we went there, patted ourselves on the back, never returned. no reason to have gone at all, it seems, except for politics.
i think therecare more serious things to attend to closer to home, myself.
Large science projects are good for the economy. Complain about the immense military budget of the US before dismissing science as something to be dispensed with because there's some "better" way to spend the money.
QuoteBritish astronomer Brian Cox has pointed out for every dollar spent on space exploration, there has been at least a $7 to $40 return.
[source (https://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/blogs/2019/celebrating-the-benefits-of-apollo-missions)]
You can believe Brian Cox or not, but I've heard similar assertions from other reputable sources.
I really don't understand how somebody can make a claim (implicit or otherwise) that the Apollo program was a waste of money. The benefits returned were easily worth the expenditure. Going to the Moon was an epoch-making event, but I agree it was at its heart a political action. Nonetheless, looking over items in the list found in the above source--items that have saved people's lives--I don't think the "better ways to spend the taxpayers' money" argument holds up.
That list is focused on Apollo, but NASA developments in the years since have been of considerable benefit as well. "NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives" |
NASA Spinoff (https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html)
Quote from: Recusant on July 28, 2020, 05:10:39 AM
Large science projects are good for the economy. Complain about the immense military budget of the US before dismissing science as something to be dispensed with because there's some "better" way to spend the money.
well, think about what's really going on. you've brought up a useful point. if the goal is economic returns, the military is vastly better at stimulating the economy than science. it was the second world war that ended the 1930s depression, not any successful scientific projects.
nasa's entire 2019 budget is some US$22.6 billion dollars. an american aircraft carrier costs about US$14 billion dollars to build, and the strike group costs US$6.5 million per day to run. just in terms of money and jobs, there's lots more running through the economy to keep the military going than NASA, and its that money in flow that provides jobs and stimulates industry.
NASA employees 17,000 people. the US military employs as 1,359,000. if the goal is the economy, then science loses again, or at least NASA certainly does. every dollar spent in building bombs and killing children in third world countries does much more for american jobs than going to mars ever will.
there's valid arguments for promoting scientific research into space travel. but i don't think stimulating the economy is one of them.
Nicely missing the point there, which can happen when most of a post is ignored. Apparently you agree that both NASA and the military help stimulate the US economy. Apparently you don't dispute that NASA research has improved people's lives, and in fact has saved many people's lives. You could in turn argue that there have been positive benefits from military research as well. So, hooray military.
What are the relative goals of the two endeavors? One is to learn about and explore the environment beyond this planet, the other is to "defend the country" which is a euphemism for "develop and employ more effective and useful ways to kill people." Both are irrelevant to the issue I was raising, as are the relative economic benefits of funding space exploration and associated research versus funding the military.
I'm questioning the assertion that there are "better" ways to spend money than funding space exploration, absent a consideration of its economic contribution to the country, absent weighing the many benefits and improvements to people's lives brought by space exploration research, really absent any tangible justification other than waving a hand at "more serious things to attend to closer to home."
so is the issue here a comparison of the relative economic contributions of a space program versus th emilitary, or just how much disdain you hold for the military in general, recusant?
i didn't address your link because there was nothing in the american space programs contributions to society that couldn't have been developed cheaper if we'd left the space part out, including the "portable cordless vacuums" and "infrared ear thermometers." maybe it wouldn't have happened without the public space frenzy, or maybe it would have. no way to know now, th emoney's been spent, and there have been benefits, no question.
but do you know about the dhalits who scavenge for things to sell on the rubbish heaps of india? here's a picture:
(https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000_rOBd_BU14U/s/750/600/india10jeffrey-chennaidump41.jpg)
and here's a picture of india's first successful space shuttle launch:
(https://i.insider.com/57439124dd089557258b4780?width=750)
just how much immediate benefit are the dhalits receiving from india's space program? how many "infrared ear thermometers" will address what's missing in their lives?
Your attempt at button pushing is all very well, but you haven't actually addressed the critique of your position. Nor have you justified your assertions, including the claim that beneficial developments made by the space program could have been "done cheaper" if they hadn't been part of the program. That appears to be a WAG to me, but maybe you can back it up. If we're going blue sky here, let me know.
recusant, you have an attitude on this subject, and it doesn't allow you to support your position very well.
my belief is that space travel is a waste of time and resources that could be utilized to improve the human condition. it's indifferent to me whether it compares favorably with military spending or not. you brought up the military, not me.
first, i think its inarguable that billions of people on this planet are hungry, diseased, and impoverished. i can think of no direct or indirect benefits from a national space program that will address these issues as efficiently as spending that same money directly on the problems on the ground.
second, space exploration is a pipe dream until we solve the cost/energy problem. it simply takes too much energy to do anything more than launch a few probes or landers every few years. that is fundamental problem of physics-- putting something in orbit is vastly expensive in resources and money.
you assert that i am not addressing your critique of my position. is this your critique?
QuoteI'm questioning the assertion that there are "better" ways to spend money than funding space exploration, absent a consideration of its economic contribution to the country, absent weighing the many benefits and improvements to people's lives brought by space exploration research, really absent any tangible justification other than waving a hand at "more serious things to attend to closer to home."
in the end, there isn't any better way to do anything at all. in the end, we're all dead, food for the worms, sooner or later. but given that, i deny that space travel research has provided any extensive benefits that justify expanding its spending in any hard analysis. i deny that its economic contribution versus its cost to this country is efficient, except for the money spent at movie theatres watching star wars sequels.
in my opinion, space programs are just national entertainment, catering to a different group of people than the football crowds, but serving the same purposes. for that, they're excellent.
Quote from: billy rubin on July 29, 2020, 02:14:47 AM
recusant, you have an attitude on this subject, and it doesn't allow you to support your position very well.
my belief is that space travel is a waste of time and resources that could be utilized to improve the human condition. it's indifferent to me whether it compares favorably with military spending or not. you brought up the military, not me.
first, i think its inarguable that billions of people on this planet are hungry, diseased, and impoverished. i can think of no direct or indirect benefits from a national space program that will address these issues as efficiently as spending that same money directly on the problems on the ground.
second, space exploration is a pipe dream until we solve the cost/energy problem. it simply takes too much energy to do anything more than launch a few probes or landers every few years. that is fundamental problem of physics-- putting something in orbit is vastly expensive in resources and money.
you assert that i am not addressing your critique of my position. is this your critique?
QuoteI'm questioning the assertion that there are "better" ways to spend money than funding space exploration, absent a consideration of its economic contribution to the country, absent weighing the many benefits and improvements to people's lives brought by space exploration research, really absent any tangible justification other than waving a hand at "more serious things to attend to closer to home."
in the end, there isn't any better way to do anything at all. in the end, we're all dead, food for the worms, sooner or later. but given that, i deny that space travel research has provided any extensive benefits that justify expanding its spending in any hard analysis. i deny that its economic contribution versus its cost to this country is efficient, except for the money spent at movie theatres watching star wars sequels.
in my opinion, space programs are just national entertainment, catering to a different group of people than the football crowds, but serving the same purposes. for that, they're excellent.
Thank you for stating clearly that it's your opinion, and nothing more, that space exploration is a waste of resources.
You've been unable to justify that opinion other than pointing to the fact that people on this planet are suffering. As if eliminating space programs would have any appreciable effect on that situation.
I'm not going to stoop to the same sort of goading that you seem to enjoy, so I'll leave it at that.
you have a problem on this subject, recusant.
i suggest you consider why. i dont have any idea.
Quote from: billy rubin on July 29, 2020, 04:00:59 AM
you have a problem on this subject, recusant.
i suggest you consider why. i dont have any idea.
:snicker: You already tried that one once. Were you incapable of concocting another, or did you think that repeating it would produce the desired result?
An extract from
Once Upon a Time I Lived on Mars (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48672800-once-upon-a-time-i-lived-on-mars), a memoir about living in a Mars mission isolation simulation. It reminded me of the excellent novel
The Wanderers (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29966530-the-wanderers) by Meg Howrey.
"I Lived in a Dome in Hawaii to Simulate Life on Mars" |
The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-lived-in-a-shipping-container-to-simulate-life-on-mars)
Quote. . . We were warned about the effects of isolation in small and large ways. The small ways: brief mentions during our pre-mission conference calls about tensions that arise between crew members and their friends, family, and mission support back home. Stories about small annoyances on previous analog missions—others' chewing sounds, hurt feelings when movie night selections weren't respected or worse, mocked, and the overall lack of privacy—thin walls and the fact that most space is shared space. We heard how these irritants had led to emotional outbursts on other simulated missions or how they'd been stuffed into sacks of silent grudges, to spill out upon return to Earth.
The large ways in which we were warned: the multiple hours-long discussions to discover what our breaking points would be. Would we abandon the mission if we got a sudden job offer? If someone back home got sick? If someone died? If we got sick? How sick? Mentally? Physically? If we lost faith in our crewmates, or in the project entirely?
[Link to full excerpt. (https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-lived-in-a-shipping-container-to-simulate-life-on-mars)]
Quote from: Randy on July 27, 2020, 03:35:24 PM
The rat is kind of cute. I wish they had a video of it driving. :)
Yeah :grin: That's a video link I posted, and there are many more on YouTube. ;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 29, 2020, 01:38:17 PM
Quote from: Randy on July 27, 2020, 03:35:24 PM
The rat is kind of cute. I wish they had a video of it driving. :)
Yeah :grin: That's a video link I posted, and there are many more on YouTube. ;D
So it is. I wonder why I didn't notice it before? My bad. :blush:
how do they control it?
levers? paddlez?
Do they have to take driver's ed before they do it?
Quote from: Recusant on July 29, 2020, 04:07:55 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on July 29, 2020, 04:00:59 AM
you have a problem on this subject, recusant.
i suggest you consider why. i dont have any idea.
:snicker: You already tried that one once. Were you incapable of concocting another, or did you think that repeating it would produce the desired result?
I exchanged PMs with
billy rubin about this, and he offered the opinion that it would be better addressed publicly rather than through PMs. I think he made a good point. It seems like he's moved on, but I'm going to post my thoughts anyway, because I think it deserves more than the flippant response I posted.
To personalize a discussion in this way is, firstly, a failure in regard to a constructing or defending a valid or sound argument in favour of a position, or in opposition to a position. The opinions of your interlocutor are irrelevant to the facts at hand.
Claiming that there's something amiss in your interlocutor is, even with the best of intentions, an invitation for them to take offence. Your argument is only effective as an argument if it speaks for itself. The personal defects you perceive in the person you're speaking with are irrelevant to whether your argument is valid and sound or not. Nor do their personal deficiencies have any bearing on the soundness of their arguments. A couple of examples:
If the person you're talking with fails to understand your argument even after you've explained it in a couple of different ways, it's legitimate to compare their faulty understanding with the actual argument. Note that you are not addressing any faults that you may believe the person has. Rather you're addressing the distinction between your actual position and your position as they present it.
If you've presented a logical argument, it is a relatively simple matter to go over the points in order, and ask for a response to this. If the person you're talking to is unwilling to accept the logic of your argument, it's legitimate to ask for a sound counter-argument, or at least a clear delineation by them of the faults in your argument. Again, you're addressing the substance of the discussion, not whatever faults or personal defects you may believe have clouded the judgment of your interlocutor.
I've never known judgmental personal remarks to get a positive response. I don't think they have a place in open discussions here and though I dismissed the remarks above, after considering
billy rubin's admonition I decided they shouldn't go without further comment.
There are indeed questionable aspects to the endeavor--humans exploring outside of the gravity well of our planet. I don't believe that the effort in entire is folly, and definitely support it. Neither have I denied that there is a destructive component to the project. As if our species has ever let that stop it. We'd still be living on a planet covered with forests if not for our damned projects.
Here is an edition of
Some More News about Elon Musk. A look at the evidence showing the essentially egoistic and contemptuous qualities we can observe in Musk's interpretation of Interplanetary Space Genius. The tail-landing rockets are cool, but somewhat less cool when they might come down on your house. And Musk paid for them, but he didn't have anything to do with getting them to work. It's much deeper than that though.
Subtitle:
Hi. Elon Musk will not save us. Sorry.
I like that news program.
I don't remember if it was in that episode or on a podcast, but they were talking about how Elon Musk is a nerd like most nerds who wants to get to a Star Trek future, but skip the huge step where we get rid of money because he still wants to be stupid rich.