Jump to content


The Universe

And Other Stuff

  • Please log in to reply
866 replies to this topic

mattwong #41 Posted Jul 31 2015 - 20:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 30234 battles
  • 16,923
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostKrentel, on Jul 31 2015 - 13:55, said:

July 2008: Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, shocked just about all law-abiding scientists (abiding by laws of physics, that is) with his warning last week to his faculty and staff that cell phones might pose a cancer risk.

 

November 2008: A top official at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) told a congressional panel that published scientific data indicates cell phones are safe.

 

November 2012: There's no convincing evidence that cellphone use increases the risk of cancer. - Mayo Clinic

 

August 2014: CDC Retracts its Precautionary Health Warning about Cell Phone Radiation – Replaces it with wireless industry spin.

 

December 2014: Many scientists believe that cell phones aren’t able to cause cancer. - American Cancer Society

 

July 29, 2015: New Study - Cellphone radiation can cause cancer

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/cellphone-radiation-cancer-study-article-1.2308509

 

People always love to use health sciences as proof that science is flawed, because the health sciences will always lag behind other sciences for one simple reason: there are ethical reasons we can't just experiment on human beings willy-nilly.  But frankly, it's a cheap tactic and you know it.  Science remains the only truly effective method of finding the truth, even in this area.  Need we compare this to the track record of religion in curing and diagnosing disease?

Kenshin2kx #42 Posted Jul 31 2015 - 20:43

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14606 battles
  • 3,850
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postmattwong, on Jul 31 2015 - 06:50, said:

 

Theoretically, we could colonize the universe without faster-than-light travel.  We just need to be able to build spaceships that can function for hundreds of years.

 

It might be that the universe simply does not allow faster-than-light travel.  Sci-fi fans always think it's not a matter of "if", but of "when", and they cite the fact that mankind once thought we couldn't fly.  But we could see birds fly all the time, so it was obviously possible.  We just didn't know if WE could do it.  In this case, we're talking about something that we've never observed anywhere in the universe.  It might be that it just can't be done.

... in such a case, there are other potential alternatives ... if 'seeding' (relative) near space, in the form of generation ships, life extension, some form of stasis or suspended animation.  The ships themselves could, in theory become automated to a great degree with advanced expert/A.I. systems for the bulk of the journey.  IIRC Ion Drive tech seems to be the most promising for projected journeys of this nature.

 

NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster — has operated continually for over 43,000 hours (five years). This is an important development, as ion thrusters are pegged as one of the best ways to power long-term deep-space missions to other planets and solar systems. With a proven life time of at least five years, NEXT engines just made a very big step towards powering NASA’s next-gen spacecraft.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/144296-nasas-next-ion-drive-breaks-world-record-will-eventually-power-interplanetary-missions

 

Now I am wondering if some kind of Bussard ram mass capturing arrangement and an initial 'chemical' or Nuclear booster would reduce actual travel times to something practical ... add to this though, the logistical complication of the mass required for sustaining humans for a trip of this duration.  IMO, the key would be to employ, if possible some form of hybernation or metabolic stasis to minimize the need to carry sustaining mass in the form of atmosphere, food and the various material requirements needed for 'conscious' habitation.

 

... Now even if these problems were solved, there would still be the issue of time passage ... the passengers would (if put into some kind of hybernation) experience a form of subjective time displacement, much like the proverbial time traveler.


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Jul 31 2015 - 20:46.


Kenshin2kx #43 Posted Jul 31 2015 - 20:53

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14606 battles
  • 3,850
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postmattwong, on Jul 31 2015 - 09:36, said:

 

People always love to use health sciences as proof that science is flawed, because the health sciences will always lag behind other sciences for one simple reason: there are ethical reasons we can't just experiment on human beings willy-nilly.  But frankly, it's a cheap tactic and you know it.  Science remains the only truly effective method of finding the truth, even in this area.  Need we compare this to the track record of religion in curing and diagnosing disease?

 

Good point ... I do recall, some of the historically documented impediments in this vein ... for example, the 'defilement' of the human body has often put up moral barriers in the use of cadavers in the exploration of human body for purposes of understanding and the advancement of medical knowledge.   One can say that the greatest virtue of true science, is in its methodology and underlying tenet of the perpetual "best guess".  Unlike religion, Science has few if any TRUE absolutes (that are immune to reassessment by unchallenged default).

 


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Jul 31 2015 - 20:55.


Nukelavee45 #44 Posted Jul 31 2015 - 22:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 17689 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View Postmattwong, on Jul 31 2015 - 20:34, said:

 

Sure, if you have actual knowledge of the subject, then I would defer to your knowledge of it.  Why does this strike you as a strange thing to ask for?

The fact is that I happen to have an actual university education in engineering, including thermodynamics, so when I speak of that particular subject, I'm actually using something I'm particularly qualified in.  I don't pretend to know everything, but when I tell someone that he obviously has no idea what he's talking about in that particular arena, I actually happen to know what I'm talking about.

 

Honestly, you aren't one of the posters I'm thinking of, even tho we clash at times. 

 

Quite a few depictions of generation ships in scifi do end up quickly becoming either a totalitarian regime, a class split between crew and "cargo", or just a general failure.

Vernor Vinge's "A Deepness in the Sky" does a variant.  Two seperate human groups send a mission to the same anomalous star, and backstab each other to the point neither fleet can singly return home.  It turns into a completely totalitarian settlement.   What makes it interesting is the use of electronic surveillance methods, as well as Vinge being an amazing writer.

 

Also - the planet is home to a species of sentient "spiders" on the verge of space flight.



MrDoomed #45 Posted Jul 31 2015 - 22:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 19184 battles
  • 2,718
  • Member since:
    05-09-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Jul 31 2015 - 22:38, said:

 

Honestly, you aren't one of the posters I'm thinking of, even tho we clash at times.

 

Quite a few depictions of generation ships in scifi do end up quickly becoming either a totalitarian regime, a class split between crew and "cargo", or just a general failure.

Vernor Vinge's "A Deepness in the Sky" does a variant.  Two seperate human groups send a mission to the same anomalous star, and backstab each other to the point neither fleet can singly return home.  It turns into a completely totalitarian settlement.   What makes it interesting is the use of electronic surveillance methods, as well as Vinge being an amazing writer.

 

Also - the planet is home to a species of sentient "spiders" on the verge of space flight.

 

That was why I said we would have to either  figure out light speed OR a alternate way of living because people being people will quickly turn into fat blobs, clicks of the cool vs  the uncool etc and without forcing people to exercise (because of zero grav) keep a healthy diet and do forcibly get along it would fall into chaos . Im thinking lord of the flies in space meet WALLY... Plus how many generations would be born and died on the ships before it got to the next solar system and without forcing people to fix the ship and grow and make food and supplies again it would fall apart and since after the first or second generation they would not even see the goal of reaching another earth. We could honestly make a new thread called our fictional travel to the next earth and post by post give our OP following the person above and see a mini replica of all the issues just with us.

 

I think the red dwarf will just end us all lol.



Nukelavee45 #46 Posted Aug 01 2015 - 02:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 17689 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

MrDoomed

Well, one possibility is this:  if you can build a ship that can cross lightyears, and keep people alive for 150 years, why not just build habitats closer to home?  It could be the outer system here, brown dwarfs close to our system, planets closer to Mars than Earth.  Do we need an Earth-like world for a colony if we can build robust power and life support systems?

 

Question -  one proposal for terraforming is using bacteria to convert atmospheric gases to ones we can breath, reduce temp , etc.  We also have extremophile bacteria that wouldn't do much we'd want, but might thrive on their own, and maybe manage to evolve to, well, slime moulds or something.  Or not.  Anyway, if we can consider human and related species colonizing other worlds, should we seed extreme worlds with our bacteria, just for teh sake of helping them spread?

 

Do we not owe it to our single-celled brethren to help them to be fruitful and multiply, and to find a promised land?   



Klaatu_Nicto #47 Posted Aug 01 2015 - 06:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 43874 battles
  • 6,085
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Wow! Severe worldwide meteor bombardment sets world on fire except for Under The Dome. :great::great:

 



MrDoomed #48 Posted Aug 01 2015 - 16:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 19184 battles
  • 2,718
  • Member since:
    05-09-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Aug 01 2015 - 02:02, said:

MrDoomed

Well, one possibility is this:  if you can build a ship that can cross lightyears, and keep people alive for 150 years, why not just build habitats closer to home?  It could be the outer system here, brown dwarfs close to our system, planets closer to Mars than Earth.  Do we need an Earth-like world for a colony if we can build robust power and life support systems?

 

Question -  one proposal for terraforming is using bacteria to convert atmospheric gases to ones we can breath, reduce temp , etc.  We also have extremophile bacteria that wouldn't do much we'd want, but might thrive on their own, and maybe manage to evolve to, well, slime moulds or something.  Or not.  Anyway, if we can consider human and related species colonizing other worlds, should we seed extreme worlds with our bacteria, just for teh sake of helping them spread?

 

Do we not owe it to our single-celled brethren to help them to be fruitful and multiply, and to find a promised land?   

Im with you on the terraforming of other planets ot moons if we find a new solar system but as far as just living in space stations forever i cant see that working. If it was in our solar system we would have no fuel at all after what was aboard runs out since there is no star for solar power and if we go to different system what would we do for recorses after ours ran out ? Without petroleum everything we use that has it including most medicine will be gone and we cant fix ir maintain things or expand to accommodate more population without a supply of steel or plasitc rubber etc. An entire different way of existence will be needed if we terraform a planet yes but at least that is doable once we can self sustain.

Just my op anyways



Klaatu_Nicto #49 Posted Aug 01 2015 - 17:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 43874 battles
  • 6,085
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View Postmattwong, on Jul 31 2015 - 11:32, said:

 

Not to get philosophical, but do ANY of really have true self-determination?

 

For the most part we can determine what we want to do with our lives and the career we want. On a generation ship it does not matter what you want to do with your life, that is determined for you. When you reach the age on the ship when they assign you a job it will not matter what you want so  you might find yourself spending the rest of your life on the ship shoveling manure in the livestock pens.



Klaatu_Nicto #50 Posted Aug 01 2015 - 17:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 43874 battles
  • 6,085
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View Postmattwong, on Jul 31 2015 - 11:36, said:

 

People always love to use health sciences as proof that science is flawed, because the health sciences will always lag behind other sciences for one simple reason: there are ethical reasons we can't just experiment on human beings willy-nilly.  But frankly, it's a cheap tactic and you know it.  Science remains the only truly effective method of finding the truth, even in this area.  Need we compare this to the track record of religion in curing and diagnosing disease?

 

There was something flawed in my note but it was not meant to be science.


Edited by Krentel, Aug 01 2015 - 17:54.


Klaatu_Nicto #51 Posted Aug 01 2015 - 18:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 43874 battles
  • 6,085
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMrDoomed, on Aug 01 2015 - 07:04, said:

Im with you on the terraforming of other planets ot moons if we find a new solar system but as far as just living in space stations forever i cant see that working. If it was in our solar system we would have no fuel at all after what was aboard runs out since there is no star for solar power and if we go to different system what would we do for recorses after ours ran out ? Without petroleum everything we use that has it including most medicine will be gone and we cant fix ir maintain things or expand to accommodate more population without a supply of steel or plasitc rubber etc. An entire different way of existence will be needed if we terraform a planet yes but at least that is doable once we can self sustain.

Just my op anyways

 

I find myself more and more thinking that humanity may never be able to travel to other worlds outside our solar system unless we can bend space-time which may not be possible. 



Klaatu_Nicto #52 Posted Aug 01 2015 - 18:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 43874 battles
  • 6,085
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012


Nukelavee45 #53 Posted Aug 01 2015 - 22:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 17689 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostMrDoomed, on Aug 01 2015 - 16:04, said:

Im with you on the terraforming of other planets ot moons if we find a new solar system but as far as just living in space stations forever i cant see that working. If it was in our solar system we would have no fuel at all after what was aboard runs out since there is no star for solar power and if we go to different system what would we do for recorses after ours ran out ? Without petroleum everything we use that has it including most medicine will be gone and we cant fix ir maintain things or expand to accommodate more population without a supply of steel or plasitc rubber etc. An entire different way of existence will be needed if we terraform a planet yes but at least that is doable once we can self sustain.

Just my op anyways

 

I agree you'd need more than just a space station, that you'd also need resources.  I'm just pointing out that if you could create a closed system life support for a generation ship, that same system would serve a long-term station, too.  At which point,the need for outside resources to maintain the human population of that station becomes less of an issue.  Plus, that type of technology allows you to choose systems that may not have ideal planets (like Earth), but are far closer.  You could, say, use a planet like Mars for resources, but not need to terraform it, because you build habitats instead.

 

The main point I'm making is that the difference between an orbital habitat, and a generation ship, is simply the engines.  If you can build the ship, you have the knowledge you need to build a station.



MrDoomed #54 Posted Aug 02 2015 - 02:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 19184 battles
  • 2,718
  • Member since:
    05-09-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Aug 01 2015 - 22:16, said:

 

I agree you'd need more than just a space station, that you'd also need resources.  I'm just pointing out that if you could create a closed system life support for a generation ship, that same system would serve a long-term station, too.  At which point,the need for outside resources to maintain the human population of that station becomes less of an issue.  Plus, that type of technology allows you to choose systems that may not have ideal planets (like Earth), but are far closer.  You could, say, use a planet like Mars for resources, but not need to terraform it, because you build habitats instead.

 

The main point I'm making is that the difference between an orbital habitat, and a generation ship, is simply the engines.  If you can build the ship, you have the knowledge you need to build a station.

What about a star trek dysons sphere? 



Nukelavee45 #55 Posted Aug 02 2015 - 17:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 17689 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

As cool as the Dyson Sphere concepts are (and the Ringworld variants) -  by the time a race is advanced enough to build em, they don't need them, lol.

 

Ringworld, and it's sequels, are basically what inspired HALO (well, the setting of the game, not the universe) - a ribbon that orbits the star as a ring, flat side to the "sun", add 1000 mile high walls to keep the air in, and go.  It gives you an ungodly amount of room to live in, but you need materials strong enough to hold it all together.  Niven just uses an unobtainium material made by "aliens"  (by aliens, I mean he uses a species that, in-universe, was the precursor to Humans, the Pak.)

 

The Pak, btw,are incredibly cool, and deadly.  You should give the books a try.



Klaatu_Nicto #56 Posted Aug 03 2015 - 07:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 43874 battles
  • 6,085
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Ancient Aliens ?

 

Spoiler

 



smith_wessoned #57 Posted Aug 03 2015 - 09:58

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 6175 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    06-07-2014

View Postmattwong, on Jul 27 2015 - 19:28, said:

 

Science is constantly improving and learning new things.  Why do you perceive this as a failing or weakness?

 

The problem with science is, that today, it's used as the new religion, just like religion used to rule people's mind back in the day. That new gospel that explains everything in the universe. Why is science the new gospel? Because it has improved our lives and has been proven to work, so people automatically think that scientists know everything. And the so called people with scientific knowledge, who arent really scientists but just people who have memorized stuff written by other people, like people you find here and other forums, claim that they know more than people who do not use science to explain certain events and facts. 

For example, in an argument between theistic creationists and scientists, both parties barely have an idea of how the universe came to be and what is the purpose behind the universal existence, including humanity. Both parties rely on stuff written by supposedly prominent people, God, Jesus, Steven Hawkings, Neil DeGrasse etc... when in fact, one theory is based on old traditions and superstitions, and the  other theory is just that a theory, based on discoveries of modern science, which has a flaw because it excludes supernatural, meanwhile universe is full of supernatural and paradoxes, which can not be explain by laws of physics and random events.

You are ignorant if you believe science as we know it is here to stay. Throughout history, search for truth has led us to new methods and they never stuck in their original form. Modern science with classical physics, will soon become a relic of the past when new methods of observation and calculation become available, and im not talking about the flawed Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics.

 

Science is good to calculate already known things, but it shouldn't shove its nose in things that it's unable to calculate. And people like Neil DeGrasse, need to get off that high horse which he and rest of sheep had put him on.

 

If any so called scientists want to talk to me about evolution and creation, i will destroy almost any of your arguments.


Edited by smith_wessoned, Aug 03 2015 - 10:12.


Holo_The_Wise_Wolf #58 Posted Aug 03 2015 - 10:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 4506 battles
  • 5,574
  • Member since:
    09-06-2011

How's that company that wanted to start a Mars colony doing?

I'd heard their shuttle exploded a few minutes after takeoff a few months back but I've been largely without a computer so I haven't been able to keep up with it much.



Nukelavee45 #59 Posted Aug 03 2015 - 16:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 17689 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View Postsmith_wessoned, on Aug 03 2015 - 09:58, said:

 

The problem with science is, that today, it's used as the new religion, just like religion used to rule people's mind back in the day. That new gospel that explains everything in the universe. Why is science the new gospel? Because it has improved our lives and has been proven to work, so people automatically think that scientists know everything. And the so called people with scientific knowledge, who arent really scientists but just people who have memorized stuff written by other people, like people you find here and other forums, claim that they know more than people who do not use science to explain certain events and facts. 

For example, in an argument between theistic creationists and scientists, both parties barely have an idea of how the universe came to be and what is the purpose behind the universal existence, including humanity. Both parties rely on stuff written by supposedly prominent people, God, Jesus, Steven Hawkings, Neil DeGrasse etc... when in fact, one theory is based on old traditions and superstitions, and the  other theory is just that a theory, based on discoveries of modern science, which has a flaw because it excludes supernatural, meanwhile universe is full of supernatural and paradoxes, which can not be explain by laws of physics and random events.

You are ignorant if you believe science as we know it is here to stay. Throughout history, search for truth has led us to new methods and they never stuck in their original form. Modern science with classical physics, will soon become a relic of the past when new methods of observation and calculation become available, and im not talking about the flawed Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics.

 

Science is good to calculate already known things, but it shouldn't shove its nose in things that it's unable to calculate. And people like Neil DeGrasse, need to get off that high horse which he and rest of sheep had put him on.

 

If any so called scientists want to talk to me about evolution and creation, i will destroy almost any of your arguments.

 

I agree with you, to a point.

 

I absolutely agree that a large fraction of the "science!" shouters are not much different than the god-shouters, in that both are really faith based in their beliefs.  Basically, if you can't do the math Hawkings can - you have faith that he did the math right, because you can't prove or disprove his ideas.   At his level, there are few who can understand him, and so very few that could find errors in his thinking.  A truly minor example is my Grade 13 calculus class/teacher.  I managed to discover a mistake in his solution to a problem - a problem he had used on exams for 15 years, where he had the wrong answer.  15 years of students all taught the wrong answer, until one marginal math student got hung up on it, and realized he'd dropped an integer.   Like I said, minor.  Not much effect on the world.  But the students took it on faith he was right  - what if it was Hawkings that was wrong, tho, and other scientists never caught an error, and that error blocked us ever creating an FTL drive?

 

Heck, in any debate here, I have to take it on faith my sources are right, because I am not an expert.

 

I can accept the idea of intelligent design, in part because my paradigms allow for the possibility of beings that could count as gods from our point of view (in terms of, say, the concept that our universe is a vastly detailed sim running on a vastly powerful system, making the beings running the sim "gods").  I accept that there is a point in time (or, before time) where our models are useless, and whatever was before the big bang was a god. 

 

on the other hand, YEC strikes me as absurd, as does the idea of a god that fits any religions image of a god.



Klaatu_Nicto #60 Posted Aug 03 2015 - 19:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 43874 battles
  • 6,085
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

I've been watching the Suspicious Observers daily videos for a year now.  I like their space weather reports and approach to climate change but have never fully accepted their alleged link between our sun and earthquakes.  Maybe I should consider it.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Krentel, Aug 03 2015 - 19:23.






Also tagged with And Other Stuff

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users