or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › What Did Curiousity Find On Mars?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What Did Curiousity Find On Mars?

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 

Well I was reading the news online and ran across this :

 

 

Quote:

Curiosity's Mars discovery called 'one for history books'

But what it is we won't know for a few weeks yet, according to an NPR report

 

They said they are waiting a couple of weeks to confirm and recheck their results before announcing what it is. I think it's probable that they found an a strong indicator of life. I don't know what else would cause this kind of secrecy and retesting. So what do you guys think?

 

Here's the article :

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49904984/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I was reading the news online and ran across this :

 

 

Quote:

Curiosity's Mars discovery called 'one for history books'

But what it is we won't know for a few weeks yet, according to an NPR report

 

They said they are waiting a couple of weeks to confirm and recheck their results before announcing what it is. I think it's probable that they found an a strong indicator of life. I don't know what else would cause this kind of secrecy and retesting. So what do you guys think?

 

Here's the article :

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49904984/ns/technology_and_science-space/

 

Elvis?

post #3 of 40

Pizza?

 

- - - - -

 

In all seriousness, this sounds kind of exciting.

 

 

Money is on: LIFE ON MARS.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57553096-1/nasas-not-sharing-a-historic-find-on-mars..-yet/

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #4 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Elvis?

 

 ^^^^  It is a sad indictment of society that this kind of news - is so widely greeted with the above, puerile, infantile type of response. 

 

1confused.gif

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #5 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Elvis?

 

 ^^^^  It is a sad indictment of society that this kind of news - is so widely greeted with the above, puerile, infantile type of response. 

 

1confused.gif

 

You deduced the sad state of society from that one post? Outstanding. Or has my hypothesis been confirmed?

post #6 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

 ^^^^  It is a sad indictment of society that this kind of news - is so widely greeted with the above, puerile, infantile type of response. 

 

1confused.gif

 

 

 

I hope you can have a Happy Thanksgiving! 

 

- - - - -

 

To prevent the derailment of this thread so early:

 

It could be something as weird as a bubblegum wrapper that accidentally hitched a ride on one of NASA's craft.  However, I doubt scientists would be excited over that.

 

Or it could be an organic compound.  Curiosity isn't designed to search for life, so unless the camera caught an image of, say, Elvis playing his guitar on an outcrop, the best result would be a compound that could indicate the possibility that life could exist on Mars.  But it can't tell whether the compound is biological or not, so the results could be tempered.


Edited by Bergermeister - 11/23/12 at 12:07am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #7 of 40

Wonder who pissed in sammi jo's cornflakes?

 

Until the news has been made public who cares about the tease.  The science geeks can get excited about the smallest things that disappointment may be looming.

 

+2 for Elvis

The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
post #8 of 40
Elon Musk. Humans. Mars. 15 Years. 'Nuff said.

For now, Space X is going to use good ol' regular rockets, they just have to make it reusable and speed things up a little.

...

C'mon people, aliens are out there and other lifeforms have advanced technology to travel to other galaxies etc.

The planets are deisgned so that idiot humans can't spread their vile hatred to other civilisations. It requires a social evolution of humanity to use technology that can only be enabled without destroying ourselves.

Nowadays when I look at a photo of Ahmeninejad I say to myself, gawd, because of this bum we're going to have to find a new planet.
post #9 of 40
I was going to say the remains of Schrodinger's Cat (which Curiosity killed) but it seems they already figured out what it was:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412567,00.asp

Just a miscommunication.

It is a sad state of society that we can't take these things more seriously. It's not as if the space exploration community has left us underwhelmed in the past. Think of all organic life we've discovered with the billions of dollars spent and countless years gazing up at the stars. Think of all the air miles we have. Even if, after 20,000 years they finally tell us 'nope, it's just us out here', it'll be worth it because we will have closure.
post #10 of 40
Latest news is nothing of real significance yet, other than water.

http://mobile.al.com/advhunts/pm_29185/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=c1NzoGYb&rwthr=0
post #11 of 40
Thread Starter 

Well now unfortunately they seem to be back peddeling a bit and saying the info is interesting rather than earthshaking. The official announcement will be on Monday at the American Geophysical Union. I was hoping for something a little bit more out of the ordinary when they said " One for the history books ".

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #12 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega View Post

The science geeks can get excited about the smallest things that disappointment may be looming.

 

Boffins in disappointment shocker?

The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
post #13 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega View Post

Boffins in disappointment shocker?

The thing is that humans are too unevolved to have meaningful contact with higher intelligences. We'll find bacteria and stuff in space, which is good, but first contact will have to wait until we can develop massive new technology without Iran blowing us all up.
post #14 of 40

I think the problem is we are devolving.  We hit out peak years ago and the downward slide is here.  

 

I am pretty sure it is not Elvis.  Hendrix I could believe as that man was an alien.

 

/props to Hicks

The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
post #15 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post


The thing is that humans are too unevolved to have meaningful contact with higher intelligences. We'll find bacteria and stuff in space, which is good, but first contact will have to wait until we can develop massive new technology without Iran blowing us all up.

In Earth’s history, most times a technologically (mostly in the war department) advanced group encountered another one less well endowed, the results were catastrophic for the latter. I gather that any intelligent species we could encounter wouldn’t be morally better than us, therefore I hope that when first contact occurs, both sides will be of similar technological level and of roughly equal firepower.

 

I feel fortunate to have been alive to witness Sputnik, Gagarin, the Moon landing, and the first shuttle launch, I’m aware there’s little likelihood I’ll witness contact with a civilisation from Outer Space. I hope some of you will be there when it happens.

« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #16 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immanuel Goldstein View Post

In Earth’s history, most times a technologically (mostly in the war department) advanced group encountered another one less well endowed, the results were catastrophic for the latter. I gather that any intelligent species we could encounter wouldn’t be morally better than us, therefore I hope that when first contact occurs, both sides will be of similar technological level and of roughly equal firepower.

I feel fortunate to have been alive to witness Sputnik, Gagarin, the Moon landing, and the first shuttle launch, I’m aware there’s little likelihood I’ll witness contact with a civilisation from Outer Space. I hope some of you will be there when it happens.

That are some interesting thoughts. But one insight I had was that the nature of the galaxy as we understand it is that to physically travel, say, within 1000 light years in the span of say, a decade, even if only through probes/robots, would require a level of technology that is beyond anything humankind has developed in the past, say, 100,000 years.

But this might work out well for the galactic community. Because only civilisations that can have this technology and ~NOT~ totally annihilate themselves will be able to make meaningful contact with higher intelligences ~ intelligences in the sense of you know, in the ballpark of our mind, not talking pure energy beings etc.

So you see in this way the galactic community is "protected" by species that would be highly destructive. I'm sure there's disagreements and perhaps wars, but it will be operating on a plane far beyond our current understanding... For example kids nowadays instead of knifing other tribes physically as a coming-of-age, they play Black Ops 2 and what not on the computer.

...But we might be able to understand this next plane of consciousness within the next 100 years. Not sure about the origins of our consciousness but humanity shows insanely good adaptability. Eg. indigenous tribes isolated for 50,000 years, they can integrate in some way with modern society (though not always for the better, for sure, but some do adapt okay).

So given the right guidance (and hopefully not genocide) we might be able to integrate with the galactic community in some way by 2100, definitely 2200 I think.

Yeah, I might be alive for first contact, but it will start slow, perhaps, like artifacts and stuff, early lifeforms etc, maybe when we can send probes within say 10 light years of Earth. We gotta hit up the nearest stars, Gilese Super-Earth and so on.

The key to astronomy now is detecting and studying planets, because at the rate we are going, we're going to need a new one rather soon.

In general it's a tricky one though, because 2015 will be the peak of oil-based-energy civilisation which we have right now. Things could be rough say until 2050+ when we get antimatter/etc. I see two paths ahead of us... Well, three:

1.
Nuclear destruction/ Socio-economic decay... Meaning some parts of the world are fine post-peak-oil, others are somewhat 2nd world on average. Africa, Middle East still a mess.

2.
Singularity... IT is advancing so rapidly that by 2060 it should be very easy to merge consciousness, etc. Already we have a global, universal library like in sci-fi, in fact, more than one ~ Google, Wikipedia, etc.

3.
New Energy... The only way we can take the next step is this. Travel to within 100 light years, journey of the mind without much physical movement, all the sexy sci-fi stuff but of course our sci-fi compared to reality in 2060 is like when people wrote 100 years ago that you'd have to be on a train shot out a huge cannon to get to the moon. That's what Star Trek will look like to those of the 22nd Century.

1 is possible, 3 is also possible... Depends on global consciousness and how many of us are more in tune with the Age of Aquarius ~ not about left- or right-wing but pre-2012 and post-2012 in thinking.

2 is very likely, and will probably be the major game changer. That in the palm of your hand in 2012 you have something that only 10 years ago they could dream about stuffing into a large desktop... By 2060...

Personally I'm hoping for 2. and 3. but some people will be left behind, maybe it is their karma.

Interesting. I'm 34 now and have recently improved my health from some concerning state so I could make it to 54 if there are no accidents etc.

I would like my Dad to be alive and cogniscent enough to see a human Mars landing with him. We'll see. SpaceX has successfully gone to the ISS a few times now so if they can do humans to ISS in 5 years than Mars maybe 10 years ~ 20 years max in any case. Nonetheless my Dad has lived a good life and he's enjoying his retirement now... And in his lifetime alone the things that have happened... unbelievable.

Maglev trains... Finally a reality, for example.
Edited by sr2012 - 12/3/12 at 7:07am
post #17 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 
one insight I had was that the nature of the galaxy as we understand it is that to physically travel, say, within 1000 light years in the span of say, a decade, even if only through probes/robots, would require a level of technology that is beyond anything humankind has developed in the past, say, 100,000 years.

But this might work out well for the galactic community. Because only civilisations that can have this technology and ~NOT~ totally annihilate themselves will be able to make meaningful contact with higher intelligences ~ intelligences in the sense of you know, in the ballpark of our mind, not talking pure energy beings etc.

Isn't that enough reason to wait for them to find us? Then we can steal their tech. If we are the ones looking for intelligent life, chances are they aren't advanced enough to do the same so why bother? They'll be primitive barbarians who beat up the space crew and fly back here then take over. We'll all be made slaves. We have to stop NASA before it's too late!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 
So you see in this way the galactic community is "protected" by species that would be highly destructive.

We can be a pretty destructive species.

For example, some teenagers in the Ukraine knocking 21 people chosen at random unconscious with a hammer, gouging out their eyes, breaking their bones, flattening heir faces and then turning up to their funerals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs

A teenage runaway being picked up, abused and then having her forearms cut off with an axe and left for dead:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/may/01/crime-survivor-speaks/

A countess murdering hundreds of young girls because she felt like it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Báthory

If I was sitting on some far away planet and I was aware of this world, I'd be thinking 'sure Megan Fox is really hot but I seriously hope these people don't find a way to reach me'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 
The key to astronomy now is detecting and studying planets, because at the rate we are going, we're going to need a new one rather soon.

I don't think we'll run out of resources soon. Nuclear energy is fine. Even if the climate becomes unbearable, it's not as if we're ever going to feasibly reach a planet more conducive to supporting human life.

If we did find such a planet, it would be really far away so we should spend all our effort trying to figure out how to create a bridge through space rather than how to propel people fast enough across long distances. But more importantly trying to maintain this planet so we don't have to look elsewhere - Elon Musk should focus more on Tesla and less on SpaceX.
post #18 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
But this might work out well for the galactic community. Because only civilisations that can have this technology and ~NOT~ totally annihilate themselves will be able to make meaningful contact with higher intelligences ~ intelligences in the sense of you know, in the ballpark of our mind, not talking pure energy beings etc.

So you see in this way the galactic community is "protected" by species that would be highly destructive. I'm sure there's disagreements and perhaps wars, but it will be operating on a plane far beyond our current understanding... For example kids nowadays instead of knifing other tribes physically as a coming-of-age, they play Black Ops 2 and what not on the computer.

While technologically we have developed tremendously, when it comes to mentalities we’re not that far removed from the hunters-gatherers, still preoccupied by power, violence, love, hate, greed, generosity, cruelty… I guess that when we cross the space between stellar system we’ll still be grappling with those.

 

If we could survey comparatively several planets with intelligent life we could measure the likelihood of a civilisation to self-destruct before reaching interstellar capability, alas we only have this one. My uninformed opinion is that human ingenuity will keep ahead of humanity’s propensity to annihilate itself.

 

I’d certainly be beyond happy if humanity reaches a whole new level of consciousness, becoming mature so to speak: with peace between the various groups (while keeping a reasonable level of fighting skills, just in case…) and justice within them.

 

 

Quote:
The key to astronomy now is detecting and studying planets, because at the rate we are going, we're going to need a new one rather soon.

I have been thinking about this in recent years. We not only need other worlds to keep up with our expansion, our survival as a species depends on us spreading to as many worlds as possible so if humans are extinct on Earth there’ll always be humans on other worlds.

 

 

Quote:
SpaceX has successfully gone to the ISS a few times now so if they can do humans to ISS in 5 years than Mars maybe 10 years ~ 20 years max in any case.

Great, I’ll be glad to watch that. The success of SpaceX could spur other such ventures.

 

 

Quote:
Maglev trains... Finally a reality, for example.

Indeed.

« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #19 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Immanuel Goldstein View Post

In Earth’s history, most times a technologically (mostly in the war department) advanced group encountered another one less well endowed, the results were catastrophic for the latter. I gather that any intelligent species we could encounter wouldn’t be morally better than us, therefore I hope that when first contact occurs, both sides will be of similar technological level and of roughly equal firepower.

I feel fortunate to have been alive to witness Sputnik, Gagarin, the Moon landing, and the first shuttle launch, I’m aware there’s little likelihood I’ll witness contact with a civilisation from Outer Space. I hope some of you will be there when it happens.

That are some interesting thoughts. But one insight I had was that the nature of the galaxy as we understand it is that to physically travel, say, within 1000 light years in the span of say, a decade, even if only through probes/robots, would require a level of technology that is beyond anything humankind has developed in the past, say, 100,000 years.

But this might work out well for the galactic community. Because only civilisations that can have this technology and ~NOT~ totally annihilate themselves will be able to make meaningful contact with higher intelligences ~ intelligences in the sense of you know, in the ballpark of our mind, not talking pure energy beings etc.

So you see in this way the galactic community is "protected" by species that would be highly destructive. I'm sure there's disagreements and perhaps wars, but it will be operating on a plane far beyond our current understanding... For example kids nowadays instead of knifing other tribes physically as a coming-of-age, they play Black Ops 2 and what not on the computer.

...But we might be able to understand this next plane of consciousness within the next 100 years. Not sure about the origins of our consciousness but humanity shows insanely good adaptability. Eg. indigenous tribes isolated for 50,000 years, they can integrate in some way with modern society (though not always for the better, for sure, but some do adapt okay).

So given the right guidance (and hopefully not genocide) we might be able to integrate with the galactic community in some way by 2100, definitely 2200 I think.

Yeah, I might be alive for first contact, but it will start slow, perhaps, like artifacts and stuff, early lifeforms etc, maybe when we can send probes within say 10 light years of Earth. We gotta hit up the nearest stars, Gilese Super-Earth and so on.

The key to astronomy now is detecting and studying planets, because at the rate we are going, we're going to need a new one rather soon.

In general it's a tricky one though, because 2015 will be the peak of oil-based-energy civilisation which we have right now. Things could be rough say until 2050+ when we get antimatter/etc. I see two paths ahead of us... Well, three:

1.
Nuclear destruction/ Socio-economic decay... Meaning some parts of the world are fine post-peak-oil, others are somewhat 2nd world on average. Africa, Middle East still a mess.

2.
Singularity... IT is advancing so rapidly that by 2060 it should be very easy to merge consciousness, etc. Already we have a global, universal library like in sci-fi, in fact, more than one ~ Google, Wikipedia, etc.

3.
New Energy... The only way we can take the next step is this. Travel to within 100 light years, journey of the mind without much physical movement, all the sexy sci-fi stuff but of course our sci-fi compared to reality in 2060 is like when people wrote 100 years ago that you'd have to be on a train shot out a huge cannon to get to the moon. That's what Star Trek will look like to those of the 22nd Century.

1 is possible, 3 is also possible... Depends on global consciousness and how many of us are more in tune with the Age of Aquarius ~ not about left- or right-wing but pre-2012 and post-2012 in thinking.

2 is very likely, and will probably be the major game changer. That in the palm of your hand in 2012 you have something that only 10 years ago they could dream about stuffing into a large desktop... By 2060...

Personally I'm hoping for 2. and 3. but some people will be left behind, maybe it is their karma.

Interesting. I'm 34 now and have recently improved my health from some concerning state so I could make it to 54 if there are no accidents etc.

I would like my Dad to be alive and cogniscent enough to see a human Mars landing with him. We'll see. SpaceX has successfully gone to the ISS a few times now so if they can do humans to ISS in 5 years than Mars maybe 10 years ~ 20 years max in any case. Nonetheless my Dad has lived a good life and he's enjoying his retirement now... And in his lifetime alone the things that have happened... unbelievable.

Maglev trains... Finally a reality, for example.

 

Quote:

That are some interesting thoughts. But one insight I had was that the nature of the galaxy as we understand it is that to physically travel, say, within 1000 light years in the span of say, a decade, even if only through probes/robots, would require a level of technology that is beyond anything humankind has developed in the past, say, 100,000 years.
 

I've got something for you and this is for real.

 

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive?utm_source=io9+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0993d0ea41-UA-142218-29&utm_medium=email

 

 

Quote:

How NASA might build its very first warp drive

 

 

 

Quote:
 few months ago, physicist Harold White stunned the aeronautics world when he announced that he and his team at NASA had begun work on the development of a faster-than-light warp drive. His proposed design, an ingenious re-imagining of an Alcubierre Drive, may eventually result in an engine that can transport a spacecraft to the nearest star in a matter of weeks — and all without violating Einstein's law of relativity. We contacted White at NASA and asked him to explain how this real life warp drive could actually work.

 

Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!

 

Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.

 

About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..


Edited by jimmac - 12/3/12 at 1:47pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #20 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!

Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.

Yeah, all they need is:

a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble

Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..

Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.
post #21 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!

Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.

Yeah, all they need is:

a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble

Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..

Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.

 

White's paper is certainly entertaining and thought provoking, but doesn't appear even to begin to address the problem of finding or making matter with a negative energy density.

post #22 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!

Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.

Yeah, all they need is:

a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble

Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..

Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.

 

White's paper is certainly entertaining and thought provoking, but doesn't appear even to begin to address the problem of finding or making matter with a negative energy density.

Well I was watching the science channel ( not to be confused with the SYFY channel ) and they were talking about this very issue. There are people looking into this also. Like I've said though even if they put all of the pieces together for Warp Drive there are other issues like how would the ship navigate? How would you deal with fast moving interstellar debris? What would the ship be made of? Certainly something stronger than material we commonly use now. So I don't see this happening any time soon but it's a good start when compared to just a short while ago when a way around the speed of light was considered impossible.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #23 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Now there are some things to still work out as far as the other aspects of a warp drive craft but this is a good start and a lot closer than any of us had thought!

Anyway I've been following up on research about the Alcubierre drive and they seem to be working out the kinks in this idea. One of the biggest was the amount of power it would take. Anyway this isn't just some crack pot. This is for real.

Yeah, all they need is:

a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble

Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
About Curiosity however the scientists should be more careful when commenting to reporters. That was disappointing..

Surely it's far safer if the audience is just a little more cynical. Enthusiasm in the unknown is best reserved for that other science.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Yeah, all they need is:

a spheroidal object - available at most grocery stores
a donut-shaped negative vacuum energy ring to put round it
a way to oscillate a warp bubble
a way to make a warp bubble so it can be oscillated
a way to convert a 1600lb mass into pure energy (1600lbs of Uranium?) in order to contract/expand space-time around the bubble

Should be any day now. It seems like they already have the bubble though, they just need to figure out a way out of it.
 

Well someones already cynical. I've never stated that this was just around the corner. I do think because of this research it's closer than thousands of years. Hundreds or less maybe. At any rate it's fundamentally different than just saying it's impossible and there's no evidence to support it. That's what they were saying just a few years ago.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #24 of 40
Awesome stuff. Warp Drive. Faster Than Light. 100 Years. Doable. Then again, think of the sickos that would use this to annihilate entire planets. Hence my theories above regarding evolving enough to use the tech without destroying ourselves. The first phase of the galactic "quarantine".

PS
I love that stuff how the warp bubble is a donut instead of sphere. That's like how our iPads are so rich in colour compared to the PADDs of 'Trek. Truth stranger than fiction and all that.
post #25 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Well someones already cynical. I've never stated that this was just around the corner. I do think because of this research it's closer than thousands of years. Hundreds or less maybe. At any rate it's fundamentally different than just saying it's impossible and there's no evidence to support it. That's what they were saying just a few years ago.

That's like someone in 200AD saying that light bulbs are closer than thousands of years away. You can't tell until someone figures out how to do it. We can barely keep nuclear power plants under control, you really think they'll be able to use 1600lb of mass-energy to warp space-time in a controlled way? The mass-energy of the bomb that flattened Hiroshima was around 600 milligrams:

http://socyberty.com/history/hiroshima-67-years-on/

They are talking about 725kg = 1200 nuclear bombs. And this is just to distort the fabric of space to move the thing. They have to keep distorting space through the whole journey.

No matter if it's in a timeframe long after we all die, I still wouldn't get my hopes up. As mentioned, people with access to that amount of energy could easily wipe out an entire planet, even unintentionally.

I think as far as scientific efforts and the finances used to support them go, everybody just needs to take a step back and see that there are more important things to be focusing on than shooting something very quickly out into a vast area of empty space in the hope that we come across something beneficial.

The problems we have are right here and so are many of the solutions to them.
post #26 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

As mentioned, people with access to that amount of energy could easily wipe out an entire planet, even unintentionally.

That's how the "system" is supposed to work for this galactic community...
post #27 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Well someones already cynical. I've never stated that this was just around the corner. I do think because of this research it's closer than thousands of years. Hundreds or less maybe. At any rate it's fundamentally different than just saying it's impossible and there's no evidence to support it. That's what they were saying just a few years ago.

That's like someone in 200AD saying that light bulbs are closer than thousands of years away. You can't tell until someone figures out how to do it. We can barely keep nuclear power plants under control, you really think they'll be able to use 1600lb of mass-energy to warp space-time in a controlled way? The mass-energy of the bomb that flattened Hiroshima was around 600 milligrams:

http://socyberty.com/history/hiroshima-67-years-on/

They are talking about 725kg = 1200 nuclear bombs. And this is just to distort the fabric of space to move the thing. They have to keep distorting space through the whole journey.

No matter if it's in a timeframe long after we all die, I still wouldn't get my hopes up. As mentioned, people with access to that amount of energy could easily wipe out an entire planet, even unintentionally.

I think as far as scientific efforts and the finances used to support them go, everybody just needs to take a step back and see that there are more important things to be focusing on than shooting something very quickly out into a vast area of empty space in the hope that we come across something beneficial.

The problems we have are right here and so are many of the solutions to them.

Sigh! Marvin you've forgotten one tiny thing in your analogy. Scientific progress is moving multiple times faster now than it was in 200 A.D.  That's an established fact since the start of the industrial revolution we've made more progress than in all of the rest of human history that came before. As a matter of fact it's still speeding up exponentially. So bad analogy.

 

A little stuff on this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change

 

 

 

Quote:

In his 1999 book The Age of Spiritual Machines Kurzweil proposed "The Law of Accelerating Returns", according to which the rate of change in a wide variety of evolutionary systems (including but not limited to the growth of technologies) tends to increase exponentially.[6] He gave further focus to this issue in a 2001 essay entitled "The Law of Accelerating Returns"[7] which argued for extending Moore's Law to describe exponential growth of diverse forms of technological progress. Whenever a technology approaches some kind of a barrier, according to Kurzweil, a new technology will be invented to allow us to cross that barrier

Also it's been proven that space exploration is as beneficial as war or more so ( since it's not based on better ways to kill people ) to progress and finding solutions for mankind's problems.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #28 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Scientific progress is moving multiple times faster now than it was in 200 A.D.  That's an established fact since the start of the industrial revolution we've made more progress than in all of the rest of human history that came before. As a matter of fact it's still speeding up exponentially. So bad analogy.

The point wasn't about the length of time but that problem solving isn't always simply a matter of waiting long enough. If someone said they had a problem with the position of the sun and we needed to move it, it doesn't matter if human progress has sped up exponentially and we wait another 10,000 years, we simply don't have the capacity to move worlds around as we please. We similarly don't have the capacity to distort space. We certainly can't put an arbitrary timeframe on when it's likely to happen. You'd be as well saying a million years as a thousand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Also it's been proven that space exploration is as beneficial as war or more so ( since it's not based on better ways to kill people ) to progress and finding solutions for mankind's problems.

It could be done more cost-effectively if they applied the R&D directly to the problems we have though. Right now there are scientists working on these problems of space travel when they could be working on renewable energy solutions.
post #29 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Scientific progress is moving multiple times faster now than it was in 200 A.D.  That's an established fact since the start of the industrial revolution we've made more progress than in all of the rest of human history that came before. As a matter of fact it's still speeding up exponentially. So bad analogy.

The point wasn't about the length of time but that problem solving isn't always simply a matter of waiting long enough. If someone said they had a problem with the position of the sun and we needed to move it, it doesn't matter if human progress has sped up exponentially and we wait another 10,000 years, we simply don't have the capacity to move worlds around as we please. We similarly don't have the capacity to distort space. We certainly can't put an arbitrary timeframe on when it's likely to happen. You'd be as well saying a million years as a thousand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Also it's been proven that space exploration is as beneficial as war or more so ( since it's not based on better ways to kill people ) to progress and finding solutions for mankind's problems.

It could be done more cost-effectively if they applied the R&D directly to the problems we have though. Right now there are scientists working on these problems of space travel when they could be working on renewable energy solutions.

Who's talking about moving worlds around? Did you read the most recent stuff in that article? White has reduced the amount of power necessary to to do this from energy the size of Jupiter to energy equivalent to the size of the Voyager space craft!

 

 

Quote:
They are talking about 725kg = 1200 nuclear bombs. And this is just to distort the fabric of space to move the thing. They have to keep distorting space through the whole journey.
 

You do realize there are natural objects out there right now that distort space in a simliar fashion right now so why is this a problem?

 

What do you think a gravity well is? And black holes have pretty big ones.

 

 

A quote : 

 

Quote:
And in fact, White says that the warp drive could be powered by a mass that's even less than that of the Voyager 1 spacecraft.

The link to the article again :

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive?utm_source=io9+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0993d0ea41-UA-142218-29&utm_medium=emailI'm not saying they have everything down to do this now. That would be silly. However this is a big step forward.

 

Also you seem worried about this tech falling into the wrong hands. Well it's always been that way with progress. When humans discovered fire they had the potential to burn down the Forrest. Essentially their world at the time. We now have the ability to sterilize the entire planet several times over. So being able to take out a planet seems like a moot point. We're already in a position to wipe out everything living here. How much worse do the consequences of misuse have to get? My attitude is that knowledge is a tool. There's always the potential for that tool to be used for evil. It's always been that way and it always will be. I simply don't think we should stop learning because of that. If we should then we should be back running around naked in the tall grass waiting for lightning to strike so we could have a fire.

 

 

Quote:

Right now there are scientists working on these problems of space travel when they could be working on renewable energy solutions.

That's a very subjective stance. I'd try to tell you how the two are linked and once we become a space faring society ( which we will ) it will benefit those same issues you're worrying about. But I'm guessing you've already made up your mind. About a hundred years from now people will be wondering how they got along without space travel. That's my attitude.

 

Please read :

http://www.universetoday.com/13600/the-value-of-space-exploration/

 

http://phys.org/news11640.html

 

http://io9.com/5963955/how-space+based-solar-power-will-solve-all-our-energy-needs

 

And this is just a tiny portion you can learn about the benefits of space travel. And the cost sounds like a lot but when you break down what we've been spending by comparison people in America spend 3 times the budget of the space program every year on cigarettes. The welfare dept. spends it every 8 days. And we shouldn't even talk about the military. With space exploration you get a lot of bang for your buck and it's getting cheaper all of the time.

 

http://www.zmescience.com/space/sabre-jet-rocket-technology-space-and-atmosphere-05254/

 

http://www.gizmag.com/sabre-engine-skylon/25218/

 

http://ph.omg.yahoo.com/news/factbox-sabre-engine-could-revolutionise-space-flight-162207789--finance.html

 

You seem to act like this stuff is thousands of years off. It's not. Some of it's here already. And it won't take 10,0000 years to get to the stars. All through out human history it's always been we've needed to do something then we find a way to do it. That hasn't changed.

 

On a side note the will to see what's out there in another solar system will only increase once we spot an earth like planet out there ( we're coming close already ). And that will probably happen sometime in the next 10 years or so.

 

The fact that progress is moving faster is scary. It's a race between our growing up and our acquisition of knowledge. Myself I'm very optimistic about the future and I think we're up to the challenge.


Edited by jimmac - 12/4/12 at 2:55pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Who's talking about moving worlds around? Did you read the most recent stuff in that article? White has reduced the amount of power necessary to to do this from energy the size of Jupiter to energy equivalent to the size of the Voyager space craft!

That's still a lot of energy. We're not talking about burning a bag of coal that size. It's like a nuclear explosion using material of that size. Deploying that amount of energy without knowing how to control it could easily wipe out the entire world. That's also not the energy it would take to travel the whole distance, just to create the effect. If it can't sustain itself, that energy would have to be used repeatedly.

It would be a good excuse for disarming the world of nuclear weapons and explode them all at once but if it only moves an egg a few feet, it's going to feel like a bit of a letdown. I'm not sure the egg will survive to tell the tale either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
You do realize there are natural objects out there right now that distort space in a simliar fashion right now so why is this a problem?

There are suns and stars out there, are you saying it should be possible for us to recreate them without a problem? Or is a black hole somehow easier to recreate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
being able to take out a planet seems like a moot point. We're already in a position to wipe out everything living here.

Not by just turning the ignition. Also, who's 'we'? I'm not in a position to wipe out everything. If I were, there would be some changes getting implemented real quick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
I simply don't think we should stop learning because of that.

Learning is about prioritizing. You can spend your life studying the mating rituals of the Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat (not even made up btw) and call it learning but if it's not practical, it's wasting time and money that could be better spent on more important things.

Now you could say how do I know it's not practical when we could stumble on something in the process. I base it on the facts that we've spent a long time looking into space and haven't found anything worhwhile and the problems needing to be overcome for this venture are incredibly difficult.
Quote:
once we become a space faring society ( which we will ) it will benefit those same issues you're worrying about. But I'm guessing you've already made up your mind. About a hundred years from now people will be wondering how they got along without space travel. That's my attitude.

I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
You seem to act like this stuff is thousands of years off. It's not. Some of it's here already. And it won't take 10,0000 years to get to the stars.

Some of what is here already? Batteries? Telescopes? Minty toothpaste? Certainly not the components needed for a warp engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
All through out human history it's always been we've needed to do something then we find a way to do it. That hasn't changed.

True, we wipe feces off ourselves on a daily basis with handfuls of paper now. To think we'd have had to use leaves or our bare hands just a few millenia ago. How far we've come. Given the acceleration of human progress, there's bound to be something better within the next... oh let's say hundred years.
post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

...
True, we wipe feces off ourselves on a daily basis with handfuls of paper now. To think we'd have had to use leaves or our bare hands just a few millenia ago. How far we've come. Given the acceleration of human progress, there's bound to be something better within the next... oh let's say hundred years.

 

Some of us have ALREADY improved upon the "handfuls of paper".

... Google "bidet" for some enlightenment!

1wink.gif

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #32 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The point wasn't about the length of time but that problem solving isn't always simply a matter of waiting long enough. If someone said they had a problem with the position of the sun and we needed to move it, it doesn't matter if human progress has sped up exponentially and we wait another 10,000 years, we simply don't have the capacity to move worlds around as we please. We similarly don't have the capacity to distort space. We certainly can't put an arbitrary timeframe on when it's likely to happen. You'd be as well saying a million years as a thousand.

Oh, we'll be able to move stars around in 10,000 years. Without lifting a finger. That's a possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

That's still a lot of energy. We're not talking about burning a bag of coal that size. It's like a nuclear explosion using material of that size. Deploying that amount of energy without knowing how to control it could easily wipe out the entire world. That's also not the energy it would take to travel the whole distance, just to create the effect. If it can't sustain itself, that energy would have to be used repeatedly.

That's how the galactic community is designed. We either make it or break it. We've already horribly broken the planet. Either we find somewhere else or game over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?

Space tourism as it is now is a novelty of sorts, like when you could fly across the Atlantic in a tiny plane with literally no margin for error. People thought it was fun but stupid, because you had good ol' steam ships. Space tourism to sub-orbits will lead to (A) space tourism and colonisation of Mars within 50 years, the solar system within 100 years, and (B) sub-orbital intercontinental flights. Eg. Sydney-LA, London-Tokyo in a matter of a few hours by 2100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Certainly not the components needed for a warp engine.

We're in a unique time in our history where we're close enough that while it is not guaranteed, within the space of 200 years, it is very likely. From manufacturing techniques, to understanding of physics, to computing power to process and manage such technology, etc... Plus the drive (pun intended) to do it, like I mentioned, we've worn out our use-by date on this planet by very, very far.

If a billion Chinese started living like Americans tomorrow, there literally will be no more planet to live on, not in any form we are familiar with.

So as I outlined, there are three paths: status quo, ie, something our generation might not enjoy very much, or, singularity, ie. offload bodies to servers, or, faster-than-light colonisation of other planets, "Super-Earths" that can then hold more billions of people, etc.
Edited by sr2012 - 12/5/12 at 3:17am
post #33 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot 
Some of us have ALREADY improved upon the "handfuls of paper".
... Google "bidet" for some enlightenment!
1wink.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1Y6ueYqVgXg#t=51s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=68pN_c7DGUE#t=104s
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 
We've already horribly broken the planet... colonisation of Mars within 50 years

It doesn't make much sense to me though that we'd leave a habitable planet claiming that it's broken to end up on a planet with no breathable atmosphere, 1/3 of the gravity, no vegetation, no water, an atmospheric pressure that won't allow us to use typical electronics or maintain a water supply and average temperatures of -50C. Frankly, I'd rather share a bunk-bed with a Chinaman.

If we do become over-crowded, we can always just have a sterilisation program, a world war or just encourage older people to take up extreme sports. Whatever problems seem insurmountable on Earth, it's still by far the best option we have.

If we eventually do get terraforming worked out, wouldn't it be better to use the planet we already have? It's closer for a start.
post #34 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It doesn't make much sense to me though that we'd leave a habitable planet claiming that it's broken to end up on a planet with no breathable atmosphere, 1/3 of the gravity, no vegetation, no water, an atmospheric pressure that won't allow us to use typical electronics or maintain a water supply and average temperatures of -50C. Frankly, I'd rather share a bunk-bed with a Chinaman.
If we do become over-crowded, we can always just have a sterilisation program, a world war or just encourage older people to take up extreme sports. Whatever problems seem insurmountable on Earth, it's still by far the best option we have.
If we eventually do get terraforming worked out, wouldn't it be better to use the planet we already have? It's closer for a start.

Well, by that reasoning, perhaps in 200 years it will be 50-50... The Earth may be so messed up and terraforming Mars may become rather possible.

The problems of Earth in 200 years will probably be far more shocking than you mention if humanity is on its current trajectory.

As for terraforming, terraforming the Earth itself... Hmm... it could be like stuffing a PowerPC G5 into a mobile phone. Better to start with an ARM and scale up.
post #35 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Who's talking about moving worlds around? Did you read the most recent stuff in that article? White has reduced the amount of power necessary to to do this from energy the size of Jupiter to energy equivalent to the size of the Voyager space craft!

That's still a lot of energy. We're not talking about burning a bag of coal that size. It's like a nuclear explosion using material of that size. Deploying that amount of energy without knowing how to control it could easily wipe out the entire world. That's also not the energy it would take to travel the whole distance, just to create the effect. If it can't sustain itself, that energy would have to be used repeatedly.

It would be a good excuse for disarming the world of nuclear weapons and explode them all at once but if it only moves an egg a few feet, it's going to feel like a bit of a letdown. I'm not sure the egg will survive to tell the tale either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
You do realize there are natural objects out there right now that distort space in a similar fashion right now so why is this a problem?

There are suns and stars out there, are you saying it should be possible for us to recreate them without a problem? Or is a black hole somehow easier to recreate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
being able to take out a planet seems like a moot point. We're already in a position to wipe out everything living here.

Not by just turning the ignition. Also, who's 'we'? I'm not in a position to wipe out everything. If I were, there would be some changes getting implemented real quick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
I simply don't think we should stop learning because of that.

Learning is about prioritizing. You can spend your life studying the mating rituals of the Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat (not even made up btw) and call it learning but if it's not practical, it's wasting time and money that could be better spent on more important things.

Now you could say how do I know it's not practical when we could stumble on something in the process. I base it on the facts that we've spent a long time looking into space and haven't found anything worhwhile and the problems needing to be overcome for this venture are incredibly difficult.
Quote:
once we become a space faring society ( which we will ) it will benefit those same issues you're worrying about. But I'm guessing you've already made up your mind. About a hundred years from now people will be wondering how they got along without space travel. That's my attitude.

I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
You seem to act like this stuff is thousands of years off. It's not. Some of it's here already. And it won't take 10,0000 years to get to the stars.

Some of what is here already? Batteries? Telescopes? Minty toothpaste? Certainly not the components needed for a warp engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
All through out human history it's always been we've needed to do something then we find a way to do it. That hasn't changed.

True, we wipe feces off ourselves on a daily basis with handfuls of paper now. To think we'd have had to use leaves or our bare hands just a few millenia ago. How far we've come. Given the acceleration of human progress, there's bound to be something better within the next... oh let's say hundred years.

 

 

Quote:
I don't see that happening. I reckon this whole space tourism thing is going to wear out pretty quickly. You go up, float around a bit, you come down, you go home. If you want to travel a far distance, why not go to Australia?
 

Yeah! Just like that air travel thing did!lol.gif

 

Australia is fine but how about somewhere no one from here has been before? That has been the driving force for exploration and travel in the early days of human history and it's becoming next to impossible if you stick to just this planet. The way I view it we just can't stay in the womb forever. If we did we become stagnant and die. Also you really can't ignore that we're in space already ( most people don't get this ). It's all around us right now. Ignoring it's there is just ignoring what's around you ( and when have humans been good at things doing that? ). Why put all of your eggs in one basket? That's just dumb. Say an asteroid comes along ( which has happened many times in earth's history ) wipes out everything? If you're stuck to just one world there goes the human race.

 

You know when reading your comments ( which everyone is entitled to their opinion ) you seem to be contrary just for the sake of it. Either that or you genuinely just don't think in very big terms. Anyway it's very subjective. I've offered plenty of third party evidence for my side how about offering the same for your claims.1wink.gif

 

Ps. If you're really worried about this world going to pot how about moving all of those factories up into earth orbit?1wink.gif


Edited by jimmac - 12/5/12 at 11:18am
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Australia is fine but how about somewhere no one from here has been before?

Well you could ask Susan Boyle out on a date but some uncharted territory is uncharted for a reason. Some people have this drive to be the first to step on new land but you're really just standing in the middle of nowhere with a flag. It's like those 'first' comments in threads; where's the achievement? It's only an achievement if they find something useful and I have a feeling that we are going to be finding a lot of dusty rocks. If they find rare and valuable minerals then there's some benefit but they still have to get them back to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
The way I view it we just can't stay in the womb forever. If we did we become stagnant and die.

What progress are we going to make, living in those harsher conditions though? You could start a new town in the middle of the desert but you are taking so many steps back before you can go forward.

It obviously had to start like this anyway but we're now quite well developed. I don't see an urgency to find distant planets to populate. Think of the latency online gamers will have to deal with. Those people would most likely be entirely cut-off from us.

So many problems: a stable economy, jobs, agriculture, sanitation, healthcare, the list goes on and on. It's like starting at square one again and for what ultimate benefit? Aren't we just going to end up doing pretty much what we do on Earth but somewhere else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Also you really can't ignore that we're in space already ( most people don't get this ). It's all around us right now.

If we assume that the universe has come about through the process of natural change, what's out there is nothing more than a billion ways on how not to support human life. What we have here was the successful attempt. Why rummage through the rejects?

For whatever reason, we humans are a few feet in size and the galaxy is about a billion billion billion times that. I don't see that as a challenge in much the same way I don't see a sumo wrestler as a challenge. I just think some things are practically insurmountable and any attempt is just going to be painful. If I could see a goal state that made it compelling perhaps I'd see it differently.

When I read about the technical challenges involved in putting an actual dent in the universe, I see it as an insurmountable problem and I don't see any worthwhile goal. Our only goal in life is the achievement of happiness. We don't need to find another species to tell us we are part of a video game. 'The machine' isn't artificial, it's just a description of what we are. We are all just little hard drives connecting common sets of information to form a collective knowledge and understanding.

The sum total of it so far is to just make survival more pleasant. Convenient food, a nice warm house, easy ways to keep in contact with friends, it all just narrows down to getting up in the morning and the little sparks in your head reacting in a positive way. There's absolutely no need to tear everything down and start over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Say an asteroid comes along ( which has happened many times in earth's history ) wipes out everything? If you're stuck to just one world there goes the human race.

On the plus side, nobody would be left to complain about it.
post #37 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Australia is fine but how about somewhere no one from here has been before?

Well you could ask Susan Boyle out on a date but some uncharted territory is uncharted for a reason. Some people have this drive to be the first to step on new land but you're really just standing in the middle of nowhere with a flag. It's like those 'first' comments in threads; where's the achievement? It's only an achievement if they find something useful and I have a feeling that we are going to be finding a lot of dusty rocks. If they find rare and valuable minerals then there's some benefit but they still have to get them back to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
The way I view it we just can't stay in the womb forever. If we did we become stagnant and die.

What progress are we going to make, living in those harsher conditions though? You could start a new town in the middle of the desert but you are taking so many steps back before you can go forward.

It obviously had to start like this anyway but we're now quite well developed. I don't see an urgency to find distant planets to populate. Think of the latency online gamers will have to deal with. Those people would most likely be entirely cut-off from us.

So many problems: a stable economy, jobs, agriculture, sanitation, healthcare, the list goes on and on. It's like starting at square one again and for what ultimate benefit? Aren't we just going to end up doing pretty much what we do on Earth but somewhere else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Also you really can't ignore that we're in space already ( most people don't get this ). It's all around us right now.

If we assume that the universe has come about through the process of natural change, what's out there is nothing more than a billion ways on how not to support human life. What we have here was the successful attempt. Why rummage through the rejects?

For whatever reason, we humans are a few feet in size and the galaxy is about a billion billion billion times that. I don't see that as a challenge in much the same way I don't see a sumo wrestler as a challenge. I just think some things are practically insurmountable and any attempt is just going to be painful. If I could see a goal state that made it compelling perhaps I'd see it differently.

When I read about the technical challenges involved in putting an actual dent in the universe, I see it as an insurmountable problem and I don't see any worthwhile goal. Our only goal in life is the achievement of happiness. We don't need to find another species to tell us we are part of a video game. 'The machine' isn't artificial, it's just a description of what we are. We are all just little hard drives connecting common sets of information to form a collective knowledge and understanding.

The sum total of it so far is to just make survival more pleasant. Convenient food, a nice warm house, easy ways to keep in contact with friends, it all just narrows down to getting up in the morning and the little sparks in your head reacting in a positive way. There's absolutely no need to tear everything down and start over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Say an asteroid comes along ( which has happened many times in earth's history ) wipes out everything? If you're stuck to just one world there goes the human race.

On the plus side, nobody would be left to complain about it.

Well I still haven't seen any 3rd party support or any links. I guess as I said this is just your opinion ( you're entitled ). Also as I've said space exploration would help with many ( if not all ) of the problems you seem to care about however it's clear you wouldn't entertain the idea. I'm glad there aren't too many that share it anymore as I've fought against this kind of thinking all of my life ( I'm 59 now so this kind of thinking was more prevalent when I was younger on the positive side not so much now ). Thank you for your opinion. I'm glad you're comfortable in your life.


Edited by jimmac - 12/5/12 at 7:29pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #38 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Our only goal in life is the achievement of happiness...

That's just it. For some people, happiness is looking across the red, dusty plains of Mars, knowing that you helped move humankind beyond our birth planet. Sure, there's fear and worry and pain living somewhere (initially) uninhabitable, but there are people in Antarctica for a reason.
post #39 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
Well I still haven't seen any 3rd party support or any links.

To address what specific things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac 
I've said space exploration would help with many ( if not all ) of the problems you seem to care about however it's clear you wouldn't entertain the idea.

If we are able to achieve very fast travel and efficiently convert small amounts of matter into huge quantities of energy in a safe way, it has huge benefits on Earth. You could go anywhere in the world in a very short period of time and we could power entire countries with ease and without pollution. This Earth should be the focal point though.



Space exploration has opened our eyes to the fact that we are a minute part of a huge system and I think there are times we should accept our limitations rather than expend countless resources in a futile attempt to overcome them. That isn't being defeatist, it's just picking the right battles to fight. When someone says they need the mass-energy equivalent of 1200 nuclear weapons to make something work, it's time to say 'go work on something else'.

Scientific advances like fitting billions of bits of information into a thumb-sized device or splitting the atom might lead people to believe we can do anything we set our minds to. Maybe we can but we still have to think about the end-game. Perhaps we could blast 50 people off to HD 40307 to start a new civilization using a warp drive. What happens next?

Just saying that we should make copies of ourselves all across the universe in case something goes wrong here isn't enough because it makes an assumption that our existence has purpose beyond existence itself. As per the anthropic principle, the observable universe has no description without an observer so it's really inconsequential whether we're here or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 
there are people in Antarctica for a reason.

Well, someone has to keep an eye on the seal count:

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/people-in-antarctica/why-live-in-antarctica

No seals on Mars though... or are there?
post #40 of 40
@Marvin... But this is where we are now in human civilisation. We've reached what I believe to be the peak of the current phase of our evolution (say, since learning to use a stick to whack something).

The next step...

Is beyond the physical.

Beyond imagining.

Beyond the furthest reaches of space and time.

Beyond this single universe we think we know.

If we unlock unlimited energy and unlimited space travel...

Humanity... will do things we never thought possible. Ever.

When we discovered fire, everything changed.

When we discovered oil, everything changed again.

If we discover unlimited energy...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › What Did Curiousity Find On Mars?