asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

Paul Schlyter wrote:
And how could we prevent ourselves to evolve into something else? A
few billion years is a looooooooooong time, and evolution won't stop.

Well, evolution isn't voodoo. It's grounded in biology, biology
that we can work to understand and manipulate. I don't think
that it's inconceivable that within a century, we could have
either (a) killed ourselves off, or (b) developed the ability to
direct evolution as we see fit (with our usual poor aim g).

Understand that I'm not suggesting that we actually do this.
I don't think that we have the policy skills to do it wisely. But
I also believe that the technical issues aren't insuperable.

--
Brian Tung (posting from Google Groups)
The Astronomy Corner at http://www.astronomycorner.net/
Unofficial C5+ Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
My PleiadAtlas Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ at http://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html

On 11/7/11 5:34 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
Are you still suggesting that only our solar system has planets,
planetoids, moons, asteroids and any kind of Oort cloud?

Don't be silly, Brad, the are planets found orbiting many many
other stars. But *none have been found orbiting Sirius A or B*.

On 11/7/11 5:25 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
I put the Sirius Oort cloud radius at roughly 8 ly and worth something
like a hundred fold the mass of our Oort cloud, but you can always
pretend that such Oort clouds are only unique to our solar system. If
pretending is your thing, we might as well go all the way.

The Oort cloud is a hypothesized spherical cloud of comets which may lie
roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun. The outer limit
of the Oort cloud defines the cosmographical boundary of the Solar
System and the region of the Sun's gravitational dominance.

If the Sirius system (which has no detectable planets) even has an
Oort cloud, why would you expect it to be bigger than our own. Please
articulate a scientific argument and not just bull****.

On Nov 8, 1:31*am, Brian Tung wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
And how could we prevent ourselves to evolve into something else? A
few billion years is a looooooooooong time, and evolution won't stop.

Well, evolution isn't voodoo.

Empiricists don't believe in evolution as they imagine they can see
the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly which is out of
context with all evolutionary histories be it the solar system's
evolution,geological/biological evolution on the planet or an
individual evolution from child to an adult.

People who imagine they have a direct sensual sight of the past suffer
an affliction which they would willingly inflict on everyone else in
that all history loses substance and dignity when a group decides that
something as awful as 'big bang' makes sense.

On Nov 7, 3:54*pm, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Nov 7, 3:25*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

... I put the Sirius Oort cloud radius at roughly 8 ly and worth something
like a hundred fold the mass of our Oort cloud...

I would sure like to see the math (or even just the verbal argument)
you used to come to this conclusion.

The original progenitor mass of those Sirius stars could have easily
been worth 25e30 kg, and it's currently worth at most 7e30 kg. This
leaves us with 18e30 kg as MIA, most of which transpired within the
last 150 million years.

The accelerated main sequence life of Sirius(B) gave off a great deal
of its mass, and the solar wind of that process was considerable (kind
of soft nova). So, why wouldn't this help create a substantial Oort
cloud with a radius of 8+ ly?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 7, 8:38*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/7/11 5:25 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

I put the Sirius Oort cloud radius at roughly 8 ly and worth something
like a hundred fold the mass of our Oort cloud, but you can always
pretend that such Oort clouds are only unique to our solar system. *If
pretending is your thing, we might as well go all the way.

The Oort cloud is a hypothesized spherical cloud of comets which may lie
roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun. The outer limit
of the Oort cloud defines the cosmographical boundary of the Solar
System and the region of the Sun's gravitational dominance.

If the Sirius system (which has no detectable planets) even has an
Oort cloud, why would you expect it to be bigger than our own. Please
articulate a scientific argument and not just bull****.

Original mass, energy and spin.
~ Main sequence time ~
Current mass, energy and spin.

Why wouldn't Sirius have generated planets, planetoids, moons,
asteroids and its own Oort cloud?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 11/7/11 11:50 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


Why wouldn't Sirius have generated planets, planetoids, moons,
asteroids and its own Oort cloud?


Perhaps Sirius A and B didn't offer room for stable planetary orbits.
Brad has noticed that it rare to find planets orbiting binary stars.
One was recently found, but it is rare.

On Nov 8, 1:31*am, Brian Tung wrote:
that within a century, we could have
either (a) killed ourselves off, or (b) developed the ability to
direct evolution as we see fit (with our usual poor aim g).

Understand that I'm not suggesting that we actually do this.
I don't think that we have the policy skills to do it wisely. *But
I also believe that the technical issues aren't insuperable.

It would be a terrifying balancing act above a yawning abyss without a
safety net.

Our aggressive overconsumption and selfishly acquisitive behaviour
suggest an underlying psychopathic disinterest in the welfare of
others. Limited (in part) only by possible repercussions for more
extreme behaviour. Though the prisons continue to become more
overcrowded with time. Suggesting an overoptimistic view of the chance
of meaningful sanctions for criminal behaviour. Or a distinctly poor
economic outlook for the growing armies of underemployed.

If we suddenly degenerate to a lower level of social order it might
take hundreds or even thousands of years to rebuild to the same
economic level as presently "enjoyed" in the West. Even if it were
remotely desirable.

Any slight, but deliberate, change in our normal behaviour could
eventually lead to total apathy. Or go completely the opposite way.
With Nazi/Cambodian/Stalinist levels of slaughter of the innocents.

Even a large reduction in childbirth by the "lower orders" could have
a long term effect on acceptable human values. Even by our present
very doubtful standards. Raising overall intelligence levels by social
engineering is already possible but would we like the consequences?

The doubtful anonymity of online commenting and posting suggests that
racism and group targeted hatred are as commonplace as poor drivers.
It could simply be overcrowding and increased competition for limited
resources. Though our present method of "muddling through" by constant
experimental adjustment could be our saviour. But only if the cork can
be kept in the bottle of rage against the present colossal
mismanagement of human, environmental and economic affairs. The
pressure for change is becoming uncontrollable.

Genetic engineering of our behaviour seems almost an irrelevance right
now. Unless it was forced on the "lower orders" to maintain discipline
to a corrupt minority. Be it democratic, autocratic or some form of
religious dictatorship. We are a heartbeat from the social abyss
already. Nothing suggests any hope of a new form of leadership which
will improve the lot of the vast majority. Nothing can now stave off
the inevitable meltdown in the human reactor. Once the containment is
breached the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

I'd give it less than ten years before global society collapses to
anarchy and the survival of the "armed" fittest. Once the the thin
veneer of supermarket stocks has been pillaged there is no new supply
of food for the masses. No more energy production means no normal
society can possibly survive. It requires our own cooperation for most
of us to survive in such numbers. Perhaps we should pray for an
impacting asteroid? It would be much kinder to most of us. ;-)

On Nov 7, 7:31*pm, Brian Tung wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
And how could we prevent ourselves to evolve into something else? A
few billion years is a looooooooooong time, and evolution won't stop.

Well, evolution isn't voodoo. *It's grounded in biology, biology
that we can work to understand and manipulate.

In the case of plants, cattle, dogs, fine.

snip

I don't think that we have the policy skills to do it wisely.

The "policy skills" to which you seemed to have alluded are inherently
unethical and would always be unwise.

But
I also believe that the technical issues aren't insuperable.

Unfortunately.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 03:23:11 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The "policy skills" to which you seemed to have alluded are inherently
unethical and would always be unwise.

Precisely the immature viewpoint that demonstrates our societal
weaknesses!