Alien Review - Q&A - Charles - Dark & Other Matters

Charles D. Bohne asked of us:

You pretend to be millions of years old and expect challenges from us?

Absolutely!
Consider the number of brain cells you have.
Consider also than many Other cells in your body contribute to the thinking
process.
Billions of cells working in harmony to come up with new, sometimes exciting
combinations.
Age gives us a decided edge to be sure.
However, age is but one tiny factor here.

The greatest factor is your potential to devise new combinations.
And yours is actually quite a bit better than ours due to your harsher
evolutionary environment.

The down side is that devising new combinations is usually a case of "what
do you get when you cross an elephant with a rhinoceros?"
The answer of course being "elephino" (hell if I know).

The upside is the potential for things such as light bulbs, wheels, fire,
E=mc^2, etc.
Things you can use to enhance and brighten your experience in the universe.

What is the basic of live and how did it spread throughout the universe?

Life develops naturally when conditions merit.
All evidence points to a living, breathing universe as source for the living
essence.
Living things everywhere are component parts of this universe.

We are alike enough to be evidence for commonalities with the living
universe.
We are unlike enough to be evidence for the natural and independent
development of life in different star systems.
"Viva la Difference!" G

Or to continue to disappoint us with your primitive idiotyncrasies.

What a silly stance for someone who claims to have lived throughout
millions of years ... Would I go to kindergarten and boast to know more
than they do?

You do not Have to.
The children Assume that you know more than they know.

In This situation, you cannot make such an assumption.
So by boasting, we may prod you and your cohorts to ask Sagan-esque
questions?

One carrot on a stick for Dr. Sagan was the proof of Fermat's Last
Theorem.

So? Any proof from your side?

This Was and Is a good question.
It Was a good question before your mathematicians proved the theorem because
you had no proof and your mathematicians Could have verified the proof.
So it would have, at the very least, proved that I was a great
mathematician.
Unfortunately, your mathematicians Have finally proved FLT.

This is Still a good question because the existing proof of FLT is very long
and complex.
And it involves some math principles that were nonexistent in Fermat's time.
So some people are still looking for an elegant and simple proof, the type
of which Fermat would have devised.
It does not exist.

Most people who have tried to prove the theorem begin by inadvertently
making a wrong assumption.
In a matter of hours, or even minutes, they feel strongly that they have
proved the theorem.
What they have before them is a simple, elegant "proof" of Fermat's Last
Theorem.
Then they go back and check on the assumption they made, and they find it to
be false.
Kicking themselves, they go "back to the ol' drawing board."

This is precisely what happened to Pierre de Fermat.
He devised the proof, made a note in the margin of his father's work that he
had done so, THEN he double-checked to find that his original assumption had
been mistaken.
He continued to try to prove the theorem unsuccessfully.
Finally, he gave up and went on to other things.
And, of course, he never went back to the note in the margin to explain what
had happened.
He just forgot about the note and the theorem altogether.

So while the theorem Can be proved as your mathematicians have shown, there
is No possible short and sweet proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

Who are the puppet-masters in human history?
Where could we find inhabited underground cities?
Did Atlantis exist, and if yes where?
Who built the megalithic centers?

Humans, for the most part.
Virtually anywhere there is a surface to dig under and living things to
inhabit the excavations.
No, Atlantis is a myth; it existed only in the awesome imaginations of some
of your forefathers.
Humans with extreme ingenuity and the ability to harmlessly deceive others.

I am sure you would not be able to answer even a question like:
who was behind the murder of JFK.

So Many possibilities, are there not?
For reasons I cannot divulge at this time, I will not answer this.
If, however, your Americans are avid enough, they will persuade the existing
powers to reveal who was behind the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy
BeFORE the scheduled day.

What is dark matter? Tell us the properties of at least one "particle".

There is dark matter, and then there is Dark Matter.
I assume you are not asking about the general usage "dark matter" defined
merely by low-albedo constitution.

So let us discuss Dark Matter, that mysterious substance that your
scientists speculate about as having kept our galaxy in shape, and has also
contributed to the ordered relationship of galaxies in clusters.

Where does Dark Matter come from?
Since Dark Matter is common, low-albedo matter in many ways similar to some
of the types of dark matter that you can see in your star system, it is the
tremendous Amount of Dark Matter existing which begs this question.

The "mysterious" Dark Matter is seldom as cohesive as "normal" dark matter,
and is often made of compounds which you have not come by yet such as
xofiugopkl, xeiuy890i7 and xpoyho.
It Does sometimes get long and stringy with amazing internal properties.
The inner flow of Dark Matter often travels at many times your "c," and
gives rise to the inexplicable breakage of your "laws" of physics that your
Bill Sheppard mentions.

And as normal dark matter comes from the innards of stars and is spread by
explosive means, Dark Matter comes from the innards of what You call
"quasars," quasi-stellar objects.
When you first see one of these explode, you instantly understand how the
tremendous amounts of Dark Matter came to be.
What you might come to call a "Quasanova" makes a Supernova in our galaxy
look like a small firecracker pop.
Unfortunately, the next time this is expected to happen is well outside the
individual's lifespan of you and your kind.

So which of you is Oannes?

None of us.

Oannes is a myth, and one of the oldest ones handed down to you.
As with every myth, there is a foundation in truth.

The one you call Oannes (shall I say it? "believe it or not" G) was a
marine mammal, a porpoise.
A very special porpoise to be sure, Oannes was one of the more astute
geniuses of her species.
She learned the language by swimming around the boat as the fisherman spoke
to himself all day.
Then she popped her nose out of the water and started conversing with the
fisherman.
The little xoa;ljf[o (oops, that was a Very mild expletive) told him some of
the things we had told her.
And the fisherman ran with it, concocting a mystical story that his
superstitious and gullible people would swallow.

What Some of you will not do to "turn a buck!" G

Darla

'Darla' asks,

"what do you get when you cross an
elephant with a rhinoceros?" The answer of course being "elephino"
(hell if I
know).

What do you get if you cross a billy goat and an owl?
A hootenanny.

What do you get if you cross 'Darla' and a urangatang?
A very retarded urangutang. oc

C.D. Bohne wrote,

Urangatang is

A dynamic network of Christian
freelancers, working together to create
unique, cost-effective solutions for
customers around the globe.

Well gaw-lee. I thought is was a spoof of orang-utan. oc

"Charles D. Bohne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:49:16 GMT, "Darla" wrote:

Charles D. Bohne asked of us:

You pretend to be millions of years old and expect challenges from us?

Absolutely!

Ok, here we go.
From my Swiss (German) background (obvious from my domain and
mailing address) you should have got a hint that at least I am not your
"typical" American ... nevertheless your answers as well as your
examples are deeply rooted in North American context (or should I say
Canadian :-), Nova Scotian context :-)). This is proof that your
etymological studies lack some elegance. As to an apparent lack in
human psychology we will see later :-).

Interesting notes, Charles.
Pros Pere has decided that since we have ended our study of humans as
individuals, we may continue posting to this newsgroup Only if we remain
on-topic.
So for the rest of this, you can expect us to either ignor off-topic areas
or to try to relate them to astronomy.
Deepest sorrow if this causes you any inconvenience in trying to Americanize
us.

Billions of cells working in harmony to come up with new, sometimes
exciting
combinations.

Hardly :-, but let this pass as a well-intentioned assumption.

This is a well-known biological fact on your planet.
You do not just think with your head, but with your entire being.
Read up!

The greatest factor is your potential to devise new combinations.

Only if one practices lateral thinking ...

Typical myopic view, Charles.
Why are humans so near-sighted?

You should try "omnidirectional" thinking to succeed.
When this hits a good "feeling," only Then do you focus.
Lateral is okay, but Omni's the ticket!
Again, Charles, you would do well to "read up," because all this is covered
by authors on your planet.

The upside is the potential for things such as light bulbs, wheels, fire,
E=mc^2, etc.
Things you can use to enhance and brighten your experience in the
universe.

And the downside is?

The down side is that devising new combinations is usually a case of "what
do you get when you cross an elephant with a rhinoceros?"
The answer of course being "elephino" (hell if I know).

In other words, the downside is that the results are only Infrequently
helpful.

The down side is that devising new combinations is usually a case of
"what
do you get when you cross an elephant with a rhinoceros?"
The answer of course being "elephino" (hell if I know).

Life develops naturally when conditions merit.

Right, but on what BASIS?
What form must a chemical cycle have to become self-reproducing?
Are there non-carbon based live forms? Forms without matter at all?
Or in different states of matter.. fluid, gaseous, plasmatic,
Bose-Condensat, Fermion-Condensat?

Form is not as important as DETERMINATION.
Your human biases are showing.

All evidence points to a living, breathing universe as source for the
living
essence.

Breathing?

Yes, the universe goes through one cycle (breathing in, breathing out) every
few billion years or so.
Presently, it is just beginning to inhale again.

You do not Have to.
The children Assume that you know more than they know.

Not with our kids, they mostly think they know it all ... and better
than grown-ups...
That's why you get sometimes tempted to boast ...

This is a very Adult perspective that shows you know very Little about your
young ones.
An adult in a kindergarten classroom possesses Automatic authority.
Children will "look up to you" as long as you do not give them reason to do
otherwise.
Disagreement with this merely shows that you have forgotten what it was like
to be a child.
Success REQUIRES you to remember.
You Cannot succeed without the help of your inner-child.

In This situation, you cannot make such an assumption.

Well, we did, didn't we?
We assume that you know far less than the combined brain
power of this group...

You have been fairly civil up to now, Charles.
Your continued civility would be appreciated.

So by boasting, we may prod you and your cohorts to ask Sagan-esque
questions?

I respect your venerations of good old Carl, but not all of us share it.

Your reasons for your negativity about Carl Sagan would be welcome to hear!
We realize that he was ultimately human with some of the usual human
weaknesses.
Which ones do You hate so much?

One carrot on a stick for Dr. Sagan was the proof of Fermat's Last
Theorem.

So? Any proof from your side?

This Was and Is a good question.
[snip}
This is Still a good question because the existing proof of FLT is very
long
and complex.

Well I am convinced you bordcomputer could print it in 1 second .. so
why not post it here?

Because it is available to you through other means.
So again, this would show nothing useful.
If you can get the proof from your mathematicians, then so could I.
And last time I checked, the latest version was over 150 pages long.
This is too large and off-topic for alt.astronomy.

And it involves some math principles that were nonexistent in Fermat's
time.
So some people are still looking for an elegant and simple proof, the
type
of which Fermat would have devised.
It does not exist.

Any proof, that holds some water, would be accepted here.

Read up.

So let us discuss Dark Matter, that mysterious substance that your
scientists speculate about as having kept our galaxy in shape, and has
also
contributed to the ordered relationship of galaxies in clusters.

Again, I did not ask for what "our" scientist know, but what YOU know
about it.

You will have to bear with us on this, Charles.
For the sake of smoothness and connected clarity, we may often have to
depict our answers beginning with what Your science has discovered before we
go on to what We have discovered.

The "mysterious" Dark Matter is seldom as cohesive as "normal" dark
matter,
and is often made of compounds which you have not come by yet such as
xofiugopkl, xeiuy890i7 and xpoyho.

Well, yes .. lets talk about xofiugopkl, xeiuy890i7 and xpoyho.
Could you give some attributes of

xofiugopkl:
xeiuy890i7:
xpoyho:


These compounds possess attributes that help give Dark Matter certain
external and internal properties.
Dark Matter Does sometimes get long and stringy with amazing internal
properties.


Like?

The inner flow of Dark Matter often travels at many times your "c," and
gives rise to the inexplicable breakage of your "laws" of physics that
your
Bill Sheppard mentions.

So you claim these are tachions? Or what do you mean by "inner flow" ...
compared to ... outer flow? ... movement?
Speed compared to what?

I believe the correct term is "tachyons," and no, this is not what is being
claimed.
The outer sheath of this gas stream flows much slower than internally.
Effective velocity through a gas stream is a highly complex proposition.
We begin by Not violating your physics such as your relativistic
machinizations.
We end by getting where we want to go and Still not violating physics.
And yet somewhere in the middle is an Effective or Apparent violation.
Admittedly, we do not fully understand it, and certainly not well enough to
explain it to humans.
But it serves to increase our bounds.

Which brings us to an interesting point: while you and yours are prisoners
of your planet, I and mine are prisoners of our galaxy.

And as normal dark matter comes from the innards of stars and is spread
by
explosive means, Dark Matter comes from the innards of what You call
"quasars," quasi-stellar objects.
When you first see one of these explode, you instantly understand how the
tremendous amounts of Dark Matter came to be.
What you might come to call a "Quasanova" makes a Supernova in our galaxy
look like a small firecracker pop.
Unfortunately, the next time this is expected to happen is well outside
the
individual's lifespan of you and your kind.

Ok this is a testable statement: You say Dark Matter comes from Quasars?
And it derives form !Quasa(r)novas! ?
Let us see if we can find some in their vicinity :-))

As I said, Charles, testability will not be available to you for several of
your generations.

She learned the language by swimming around the boat as the fisherman
spoke
to himself all day.

SHE to HIMself?
As far as my knowledge goes they are not hermaphroditic on this world

Please read this Again, Charles.
"She" refers to the porpoise, and "himself" refers to the male, human
fisherman.
The young fisherman thought he was By himself and was talking To himself.

The little xoa;ljf[o (oops, that was a Very mild expletive) told him some
of
the things we had told her.

xoa;ljf[o= brat?

Very Good, Charles.
It is more complicated than brat, but if I had been concerned about
translation, I would have considered words like brat, imp, jerk, etc., to
replace the x-word.

Well, reported history has it, that Oannes went with him and stayed
among the old Sumerians for quite some time .. ON LAND..
http://oannes.com/

Just the usual baloney you find with myths after you have sifted through the
truth-base.
You have to remember that a good 80-85% of your "reported history," even
that which is fairly recent and believed to have really happened, is either
embellished upon or total, imaginary human concoction.

Darla

"Charles D. Bohne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 08:39:02 GMT, "Darla" wrote:

Interesting notes, Charles.
Pros Pere has decided that since we have ended our study of humans as
individuals, we may continue posting to this newsgroup Only if we remain
on-topic.

Well this would mean we have to depart as I am neither an astronomer nor
a regular in this group. I came here to study YOU as individuals. Unlike
you my interest in individuals is enduring and lasts longer than just a
couple of days.
My topic is alien psychology.

Apologies, Charles, as I have been putting off a response to your post.
Just have not felt much like thinking about this material lately.

Alien psychology, eh?
The study of the extraterrestrial psyche.
Are they Adlerian? - Freudian? - Jungian? - Franklian?
Probably a little of all of these, perhaps mainly coming in with Frankl's
"will to meaning."

We have our Own alien shrinks, you know.
Our alien psychologist tell us that you Earth people are mostly Sartreian.
More's the pity.

So for the rest of this, you can expect us to either ignor off-topic
areas
or to try to relate them to astronomy.

I would have appreciated you to answer my questions. But of course this
is up to you.

Still trying.
Thought I was doing a fair job, but apparently not.
I shall endeavor to persevere. G

Deepest sorrow if this causes you any inconvenience in trying to
Americanize
us.

You have been "Americanized" by you enculturation not by my pointing out
of that fact.

A huge compliment for which we are endearingly grateful!

Read up!

You will hardly find anyone on this planet who has read more than my
humble self. I posses more than 30 000 books and this is just a small
part of those that I did read. I need less than 1 hour to read 300 pages
and I am a little older then you might expect :-)).


Mental age I would put at about 130-150 years.
What kind of books, Charles?
After all, 30,000 Spider Man comics would be less helpful than 30,000 books
on various objects of scientific study.
Also, 300 pages an hour is undefined - a "words per minute" figure is more
meaningful.
The American president John F. Kennedy was able to read 15,000 words per
minute at greater than 80% comprehension.
Most people come in at about 250-400 words per minute at less than 50%
comprehension.

Teaching This to Earth children - now That is a worthy undertaking.

Only if one practices lateral thinking ...
Typical myopic view, Charles.
Why are humans so near-sighted?
You should try "omnidirectional" thinking to succeed.

Being able to float thru that "dimension" that you call "time"
I have no difficulty to connect all these lateral points ... this
is "omni" enough for my taste.

This is as a horse with blinders.
Understandable, and yet - being able to view in omni-directions is merely a
matter of methodical conditioning.
First, like the horse, you would have to give up your "taste" for
half-truths.

Again, Charles, you would do well to "read up," because all this is
covered
by authors on your planet.

Yes, yes ... nothing new under the sun :-))

Plenty new.
New associations are needed and always possible.
What do a leaf and a race car possess in association?

Life develops naturally when conditions merit.
Right, but on what BASIS?
What form must a chemical cycle have to become self-reproducing?
Are there non-carbon based live forms? Forms without matter at all?
Or in different states of matter.. fluid, gaseous, plasmatic,
Bose-Condensate, Fermion-Condensate?

Form is not as important as DETERMINATION.
Your human biases are showing.

What do you mean by that term "determination"? Some higher authority?
"Laws" of nature?

Determination as in sheer will to live.
Now THERE's A School of Psychology For You - "will to live!"
Sort of "anti-Sartreian."

And still: you did not answer the question if you ever met "life"
without form, or "lifeforms" on a non-carbon base.

Possibly - there are many forms still under study.
Carbon-based lifeforms seem to be the norm, at least in Our galaxy.
We still go by the assumption that they are the norm throughout the
universe.
This is one of many sources for wonder, though.

All evidence points to a living, breathing universe as source for the
living essence.

What did you find out about "living essence"?

Grand question, Charles.
You can get all the chemicals together and build a "cell."
But how do you get the "living essence" into it?
Where does this "spark of life" come from?

Your science is on the verge, so keep reading.

Breathing?
Yes, the universe goes through one cycle (breathing in, breathing out)
every
few billion years or so.
Presently, it is just beginning to inhale again.

Unless you can show us the trick how further expansion leads to
contraction, the present observations contradict your claim ... which
BTW is a very old Indian myth :-

Your "present observations" are being naively misinterpreted, Charles.
A little thinking on your part will serve to enlighten you on this.
Your science gives Little more than lip-service to the fact that when you
look out on the universe with your telescopes, YOU ARE PEERING INTO THE
PAST.
This has ramifications that Earth scientists have not yet considered
thoroughly.

You do not Have to.
The children Assume that you know more than they know.
Not with our kids, they mostly think they know it all ... and better
than grown-ups...
That's why you get sometimes tempted to boast ...

This is a very Adult perspective that shows you know very Little about
your
young ones.

Well maybe I AM a very adult being :-)), nevertheless, I am in constant
contact with young ones and very young ones.

How about your Own "inner child?"
You know - the one who is in total control of your very being?
When Earth people "grow up" they have a tendency to block their inner child.
This just ****es the child off.
No wonder that Sartre was so powerfully correct?

An adult in a kindergarten classroom possesses Automatic authority.

Ask any kindergarten teacher; child teacher, they will tell you a
different story.

Just because a child does not Behave as if he recognizes authority does Not
mean that he does not Recognize authority.
It is in all of your natures to rebel against status quo.
The heart of rebellion is to ACT As If you do not recognize authority.

Children will "look up to you" as long as you do not give them reason to
do
otherwise.

Not if you sit among them :-))

Disagreement with this merely shows that you have forgotten what it was
like
to be a child.

I can easily float to my younger days, as I mentioned before. No chance
to forget anything - I do have "absolute memory" by traveling thru
"time".

Success REQUIRES you to remember.
You Cannot succeed without the help of your inner-child.

Better leave those topics like "inner-child" to Rogers et al.
Now you are entering my profession and the grounds could
become slippery to you...

Not likely.

In This situation, you cannot make such an assumption.
Well, we did, didn't we?
We assume that you know far less than the combined brain
power of this group...

You have been fairly civil up to now, Charles.

I still am.

Your continued civility would be appreciated.

None of us has to lose his temper :-))

So by boasting, we may prod you and your cohorts to ask Sagan-esque
questions?
I respect your venerations of good old Carl, but not all of us share
it.

Your reasons for your negativity about Carl Sagan would be welcome to
hear!

No "negativity" here, but there are a lot of people I adore more, names
like Dirac, Minkowski, Gamov, Gödel ...

We realize that he was ultimately human with some of the usual human
weaknesses.
Which ones do You hate so much?

He worked for the forces of human limitation.

Humans are limited.
Deal with it.

We too are limited.
Life is limited by many things.
One must accept and know one's limitations before one can work to exceed
them.

I find it interesting that you would cite one of Carl Sagan's most admirable
and wise traits as one which you hate.

[snip]

The "mysterious" Dark Matter is seldom as cohesive as "normal" dark
matter,
and is often made of compounds which you have not come by yet such as
xofiugopkl, xeiuy890i7 and xpoyho.

Well, yes .. lets talk about xofiugopkl, xeiuy890i7 and xpoyho.
Could you give some attributes of

xofiugopkl:
xeiuy890i7:
xpoyho:


These compounds possess attributes that help give Dark Matter certain
external and internal properties.

Well that's a big surprise :-))

Dark Matter Does sometimes get long and stringy with amazing internal
properties.

Does it? No tell us more...!

Like?

The inner flow of Dark Matter often travels at many times your "c,"
and
gives rise to the inexplicable breakage of your "laws" of physics that
your Bill Sheppard mentions.

Inner flow?

Yes, it is just this inner flow that enables us to travel great distances
very quickly.

The outer sheath of this gas stream flows much slower than internally.
Effective velocity through a gas stream is a highly complex proposition.
We begin by Not violating your physics such as your relativistic
machinizations.
We end by getting where we want to go and Still not violating physics.
And yet somewhere in the middle is an Effective or Apparent violation.
Admittedly, we do not fully understand it, and certainly not well enough
to
explain it to humans.
But it serves to increase our bounds.

A very mechanistic view of spacetime :-))

Mechanistic AND simplistic.
There are few words in your English to help us describe all this.
Another "human limitation."

Which brings us to an interesting point: while you and yours are
prisoners
of your planet, I and mine are prisoners of our galaxy.

Well go and ask the Pleiadians, they "bend the continuum" .. the rim is
you limit :-))

Ok this is a testable statement: You say Dark Matter comes from
Quasars?
And it derives form !Quasa(r)novas! ?
Let us see if we can find some in their vicinity :-))
As I said, Charles, testability will not be available to you for several
of
your generations.

If it's there, we will find it within the next 5 years.

No, you won't.
From your perspective on Earth it will be many more than 5 years until the
next quasar explodes.

You have to remember that a good 80-85% of your "reported history," even
that which is fairly recent and believed to have really happened, is
either
embellished upon or total, imaginary human concoction.

Well this last one reminds me that you omitted all questions as to this
planets history .. the one and only object which would be of central
importance to us, sorry...

Darla

Charles

What questions as to Earth's history have been omitted?
If I missed something, do please point it out to me, and be specific.
Pretty much All historical questions are level-one (1).
Ollie is very interested in this subject, BTW, nearly to the point of
obsession.
He loves to compare your Actual histories to your Recorded ones.
Please ask Ollie any questions you may have about Earth history.

Charles, once again, please forgive me for any shortcomings I may have in
your eyes.
It's not always easy being me.

Darla