Henry Spencer - Any Word?

On Mar 12, 6:13*pm, Wallace Wright wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:26:16PM -0700, Eric Chomko wrote:
As long as the First Amendment is present you shouldn't worry.

Now there's a statement. *Son, I absolutely rely on the strength of the
Constitution. *It is a good document protecting our freedoms and will
undoubtably outlive both you and I. *Nevertheless in this age of modern
technology it is showing its age, hence my opinion above.

Do you have anything constructive to add?

You mean like proposeing a manned flight to Venus to find Guth's
aliens?

Perhaps that can be just a small part of a multi-purpose exploration and
science mission.


What Brad doesn't understand or actualy believe, is that Venus is 450C
on the surface and has 90 times the atmosheric pressure as does the
Earth. Russian probes have been sent and usually last about an hour
before their electronics fail.

Explain that to Brad and all the sudden he starts ranting about
mainstrean status quo crapola, Third Reich/CIA/MIA Skull and Bones, as
if the whole scientific community were controlled by spooks within
intel. Well sometimes you just have to trust the literature until
something else comes along. It isn't like only one "Big Brother"
source is telling us Venus is as hot as hell and that people would end
up squashed like bugs if we went there, either.

Eric

On 13 Mar, 20:28, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 12, 6:13*pm, Wallace Wright wrote:





On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:26:16PM -0700, Eric Chomko wrote:
As long as the First Amendment is present you shouldn't worry.

Now there's a statement. *Son, I absolutely rely on the strength of the
Constitution. *It is a good document protecting our freedoms and will
undoubtably outlive both you and I. *Nevertheless in this age of modern
technology it is showing its age, hence my opinion above.

Do you have anything constructive to add?

You mean like proposeing a manned flight to Venus to find Guth's
aliens?

Perhaps that can be just a small part of a multi-purpose exploration and
science mission.

What Brad doesn't understand or actualy believe, is that Venus is 450C
on the surface and has 90 times the atmosheric pressure as does the
Earth. Russian probes have been sent and usually last about an hour
before their electronics fail.

Explain that to Brad and all the sudden he starts ranting about
mainstrean status quo crapola, Third Reich/CIA/MIA Skull and Bones, as
if the whole scientific community were controlled by spooks within
intel. Well sometimes you just have to trust the literature until
something else comes along. It isn't like only one "Big Brother"
source is telling us Venus is as hot as hell and that people would end
up squashed like bugs if we went there, either.

I am more interested in a place at 1 atm which peaks at round about
50-60C. The one whose leaders Cheney was seen to embrace. I think Brad
is being made too much of a scapegoat. The real malaise is that
certain individuals have a hidden agenda.

Rand is now waxing eloquent about the evils of Wahhabism. Yet he is a
staunch supporter of the chap who embraces its leaders. There are
several points.

1) If people are so obviously posting to please some lobby group or
other, credibility is diminshed. Lets take an example. If an explosion
occurs in space it is perfectly true that all material must cross the
altidude at which the explosion took place and that perigree will in
general be reduced. Perigree remains the same for objects ejected
forwards in the plane parallel to the Earth. This is true, but Rand's
credibility is such that people were reluctant to believe it.

2) The leaders of NASA can be criticised for a number of things, but
their failure to produce a low cost LEO craft is not one of them. I
feel we have been rather led a wild goose chase.

3) People get abused for stating what everyone in mainstream AI
believes. Venus is indeed at 90 Atm & 470C, we can say, in the same
breath I think, that AI is making tremendous strides. If people in
this group decide for their own reasons that it is irrelevant for
space then the group is clearly heading in the wrong direction.

In fact what we should be discussing is how AI can be brought more
into space exploration. If we don't then quite clearly we are doomed
to total irrelevancy.

Another fact is that people claim things which they themselves know to
be completely untrue. Lets take another example, the evolutionary
dwevelopment of AI. A certain individual claims to have done some
research on the subject. Now I happen to know that any research has to
be based on bounded rings/fields and genetic algorithms. I also feel
that people should not be using pseudonyms.

Obviously people must make their own decision, just don't blame Brad
for everything.


- Ian Parker