|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote: : :Rand Simberg and Fred Mc Call simply refuse to think rationally. : This is quite funny, coming from the guy who insists that ONLY an AI probe is possible. .... I don't mean to rain on parades here but a lot of this is based upon the most American myth of a human impulse to explore the unknown. It is a wonderful myth. It inspires. But there is not a single example of it. If there were such a thing why, after the Louisiana Purchase, did Jefferson had to pay people to explore it instead of just interviewing those who had indulged the exploration impulse to explore it on their own? The origin of the myth is Columbus while ignoring it was for profit. Everyone who followed him was for profit. All the exploration of the Americas was for profit. All the European exploration of the world was for profit. The space race was not an impulse to explore but in fact a race of national pride. To bring it all back home, why does S@H exist if the natural impulse of the human race is to do it without a private project? We should see people buying computers just to participate in S@H. We should not have seen the US gov search canceled for lack of interest. While there is obviously nothing preventing an alien species from embodying a human myth I suggest it is as likely as embodying any other human myth. There really may be an alien species plagued with vampires or witches or zombies. However I doubt it on grounds it does not pass the giggle test. I can accept rational variations based upon what we know of life but not pre-scientific imaginings. [Sidebar: The modern idea of zombies is post-scientific so be warned even if it sounds scientific.] As to exploring as a kid I was ready to sign up for the first generation ship to the stars which I was sure I would see. Some time in my twenties I would have declined more than a one year mission to any place. Reality comes crashing unless the pay is outstanding. So much for exploration. -- Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Bush have all tricked the US into war. Why do people resist the facts? -- The Iron Webmaster, 3844 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
On 6 Aug, 10:20, Matt Giwer wrote:
Ian Parker wrote: ... I suppose it is possible, just, that ET has vistited us and is in fact hiding. That some of the dragonflies we say are in fact ET or more accurately a part of ET. Just possible - but I do not think so. You see ET would have come here for some sort of reason, and I think if ET had really been here we would know about it. Anyway Occam's razor explanation is simply no ET. With a sample size of one we can know nothing. With a sample size of one we have zero idea of probabilities or possibilities. As the vulgar say, we don't know jack. Every civilization is confronted with identical technological challenges. If we can build 0.15 micron chips they can be built on Alpha Centauri, If our technology is moving to molecular memories ET is sure to have them (bearing in mind existence at all!). Yes we can make reasonable deductions. It is clear to me that the Area 51 legends are 1950's SF. They cannot be anything else. Either ET is flying tiny robotic spacecraft or he is not flying at all. These are the only two possibilities that remotely pass logic. Rand Simberg and Fred Mc Call simply refuse to think rationally. Intersellar travel can be effected using a Von Neumann probe. It cannot be done any other way. FTL is impossible. I do not speak for anyone else. As to FTL being impossible, who told you that and why did you believe them? Within special relativity there are several ideas on how to do it which are merely grossly impractical to test at the moment. And then who said SR is right? And as there is no general solution to the formulations of General Relativity it might be already discovered simply not solved as yet. If you travel FTL you must postulate a favored frame of reference. In terms of General Relativilty solutions to the equations are possible which are not physical. Let us take a particle. Let it travel FTL, in onr FOR. In another FOR it is going backwards in time. We thus have a situation where we are sending a particle and it is arriving back before it was sent. We can always do this by adjusting FOR. This is independent of technology, warp drive (warped where?) or wormholes. We can postulate two wormholes each travelling at a different speed. Contradictions like this are resolved in Elementary Particle Physics by the use of Feynmann diagrams. Elemetary Particle Physics is a very bootstrap like discipline. You have quarks, there are 3 quarks to a baryon. There are guage particles that quarks exchange. A quark is in fact more massive than a baryon, but 3 quarks weigh less than 1 because of E = Mc^2. When we construct a Feynmann diagram for an FTL transaction we find that the mass of a particle becomes infinite. I tend to believe this would be inflationary. Just as a free quark will give rise to one or more baryons so this particle would give rise to many other particles. To achieve warp/wormholes we need negative mass. Negative mass was thought (in inflationary theories) to have been present at the big bang where matter inflated. Either we can't get negative mass or if we do it would be incredibly unstable. It is after all the stuff of Inflation. If we have FTL particles "tachyons", they are possible, whether they exist is an open question, but if they do they are subject to Cosmic Censorship. They cannot be used for routine signalling. I don't just say things, I look at the way human technology is moving. ET technology will have traversed a similar route to the one we are traversing. This is my central assumption. To me it is the only assumption worth making. If technology on ET planet has moved any other way an explanation of why terrestrial technology has taken the route it has is clearly called for. Why would you require an explanation for a sample size of one? Because that sample tells us the technological possibilities. As to how human technology is moving, I can see one line of thought in that but without disease being the punishment of god the biological revolution could have easily preceded the industrial revolution and that would put us in a much different place than we are today. Interesting but wrong. Katrina (and 9/11 as well) was considered by the likes of Pat Robertson and Gerry Falwell to be the punishment of God. One interesting point I am reminded of here. One thing that has been discussed in this usergroup has been a sunshield to prevent global warming. If you put it at the Lagrange point it is not flexable. If hovever you are at MEO you could in fact think in terms of controlling hurricanes. After all hurricanes are chaos. What is chaos? It is to do with the eigenvalues of the system. Chaos happens when we have positive eigenvalues that can grow. Damp them down and there is no hurricane. Diffiicult, but not impossible. All civilizations, whatever their religious beliefs have given a high priority to the advance of medical science. In effect the medical profession have always told the religious leaders to "go to Hell" if that isn't too much of a pun. Rate these 3 things. Sanitation/sewerage, Anathesia or DNA. Which of those was more important. The general public says "sanitation", the medical profession says "anathesia" and scientists say DNA. To build a sewerage system you need industrialisation. Anathesia requires a good knowlege of chenistry. DNA promises not only a revolution in disease control, but also better mineral extraction, perhaps even a role in producing hydrogen from sunlight. Could a civilization have developed genetic enginnering before it developed deep mining. Good SF, but I doubt it. If you want might have beens, assuming all else being equal a shift in gun technology by a mere twenty years faster or slower would change the entire character of the American Civil War as well as WWI and thus WWII. There is nothing inherently preventing such a minor shift. The wars might not have taken place at all. If ET has developed molecular memories. DNA (400 MB on a sperm or ova) this would give an initial weight of a gram of less for a VN probe. This is a matter of pure maths. I am not just saying it. It would seem inconceivable to me that an interstellar flight would begin without such technology. Which is the paradox of the paradox. If we assume that we cannot say there is a Fermi paradox. Why not? This rechnology is perfectly possible to develop. About Fred and Rand - I wonder one thing. Are they professional disinformers? Is there a reason why we should believe in UFOs in the 1950s sense. Are real UFOs black aircraft for which ET is a cover? It would all fit. I can't of course prove it. I can only prove that ET based UFOs cannot exist. I can't say what else does. I am not aware anyone who has seriously considered the possibility of ET visiting who is stuck in the 1950s which were little different from War of the Worlds. There are still kids around but we don't take them seriously. I have considered it from the mid-50s before I heard of puberty and I haven't thought so simply since then. Rand & fred. The Fermi paradox is far too serious a scirentific question for the likes of you to muddy the water. If by that you mean it do not leave it in the simplest and earliest form and likely not the way Fermi meant it in the first place, remember it is only someone saying what he remembers Fermi saying, then I admit to muddying the water. However there is no water to muddy as this is a discussion of the idea not of a particular formulation of the idea. If you want to discuss what someone remember Fermi saying that is worthy of a separate thread that everyone taking this seriously can ignore. What I am alluding to is this. ET spaceships of whatever vintage are a good cover for black flight. In fact when a stealth bomber was seen over Phoenix the Pentagon pulled out all the stops and produced an ET mannikin. This is what I am talking about. We need to discuss the Fermi Paradox without the Pentagon flying steath bombers and blaming ET. - Ian Parker |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:38:32 -0400, in a place far, far away, Matt
Giwer made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Fred J. McCall wrote: Ian Parker wrote: : :Rand Simberg and Fred Mc Call simply refuse to think rationally. : This is quite funny, coming from the guy who insists that ONLY an AI probe is possible. ... I don't mean to rain on parades here but a lot of this is based upon the most American myth of a human impulse to explore the unknown. It is a wonderful myth. It inspires. But there is not a single example of it. If there were such a thing why, after the Louisiana Purchase, did Jefferson had to pay people to explore it instead of just interviewing those who had indulged the exploration impulse to explore it on their own? He didn't have to. He chose to, so that he could get a good report. Many people were exploring the west on their own at the time and shortly after. They were called mountain men. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Matt Giwer wrote: Einar wrote: Joe Strout wrote: In article , Matt Giwer wrote: Somehow I am missing the connection to the paradox. It appears to lie solely in the assumption that if there is no moon event the planet will be all ocean. That does not compute unless we can explain the disappearance of the moon of Venus. We can; Venus is too hot to have liquid water. But the case for the Moon being responsible for continents is made pretty convincingly in the book Rare Earth. IIRC, it basically goes like this: without the impact event that blasted much of the Earth's crust into orbit (forming the Moon), our crust would be too thick to support plate tectonics (just like Venus, I think). So they would end up a very uniform thickness, and the only mountains that would form would be from volcanoes, and these would quickly be eroded back down, leaving a uniform planet-spanning ocean. It's only because our crust is so thin that we can have tectonics and enough variation to produce continents and oceans. Hm. I'm not explaining this very well, but check out the book, it spends a chapter or two on this topic. Best, - Joe -- "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/ Hmm, plate tectonics does perform a pretty effective recycling of materials. That means theyr availabilty is maintained for processes abow ground. I have also heard speculations about effects of water being present in the crust, about the precense of life and what effects it may have on the crust. It appears though certain that plate tectonics help the Earth staying livable. Our planet really looks like an extremelly far out outlyer variable. The more unique characteristics of a planet you consider the more of an outlier it appears to be. But none of those apply to life on land which we assume is a prerequisite to visiting us. Recycling sounds like something interesting but since the issue is life on land how much dry land has been recycled since then? And I know of no variation in land biomass based upon who long since the last "recycle." In other words, no connection. -- Republicans are more interested in protecting the president than the troops. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3839 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7 Think about it, carbon dioxide has a tendency to react with materials and form carbonated rock. Oxygen also forms great many combounds with materials. The resycling which occurs melts old rock and released its constituent parts back into athmophere, back into nature. This aspect may be really important. Cheers, Einar |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Matt Giwer wrote: Joe Strout wrote: In article , Matt Giwer wrote: Somehow I am missing the connection to the paradox. It appears to lie solely in the assumption that if there is no moon event the planet will be all ocean. That does not compute unless we can explain the disappearance of the moon of Venus. We can; Venus is too hot to have liquid water. So it has gaseous water. If comets delivered it, what is there to selectively take it away and not all gases? If earth were that temperature H2O would be around 99% (a guess) of the atmosphere with the rest as trace gases. A guess because there is a question if it would be gaseous at the resulting pressure at Venus temperature. snip Remember the Sun has been gradually heating up right since it began burning. That means it was considerably cooler 3.5 billion years ago, which means Venus probably had oceans and raincloads like the Earth today. At some unknown point in the past, the Sunīs gradual and inexorable heating caused the temperature of Venus' athmospheric temperatures to exceed some critical threshold. A runaway greenhouse effect began, the oceans boiled away, the water was lost into space what remains is immenselly thick mostly carbon dioxide athmosphere and very, very warm. Cheers, Einar |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Matt Giwer wrote: Einar wrote: Matt Giwer wrote: Somehow I am missing the connection to the paradox. It appears to lie solely in the assumption that if there is no moon event the planet will be all ocean. That does not compute unless we can explain the disappearance of the moon of Venus. If Venus had had the same amount of water as earth, and there is little way to explain a significantly different amount, there should be enough water vapor in its atmosphere to 9000psi (600 At.) of pressure on the surface. But last I heard there is negligible water in the atmosphere and clearly no such pressure. We have no idea if there is a minimum amount of ocean needed to approximate an ecology like our own however it appears reasonable that all else being equal the amount of rainfall is proportional to the evaporative surface of the oceans. It also follows as a reasonable assumption (but which cannot be supported in the least, that the more life the faster evolution but we are not in a rush so a few extra billion years does not matter. However surface area only would be a factor in rainfall. Depth would not be. So without a moon and nothing lost there is nothing prohibiting large and shallow seas. The South China Sea with a depth averaging over a few hundred feet has all the characteristics of any other ocean save it is warming at all depths. This would speed evolution among the cold bloods. Tectonic forces would still raise mountains and and volcanoes broad expanses like the Deccan Plains. As long as the planet is large enough there is no reason to suggest plates would not form and move. The only different would be the longevity of the created land above the surface. Given Earth we find old and new mountains in proximity such as in the US so we can expect there would always be dry land. So maybe a world with shallow seas needs also have greater tectonic activity requiring a somewhat more massive planet and the world average being more like Japan. So maybe the funny thing about ET is if the ground shakes he curls into a ball. Am I missing something? -- An entire cool summer is trumped by a warm day in January if you are a global melter. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3836 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12 Venus has no plate tectonics. However, it might if it had oceans. Maybe I missed that too but I thought plates moved because of convection current in the mantle. I think itīs believed Venus' oceans evaporated, once the Sun warmed up, and that the water left the planet altogether being blown away into space. What remains is possibly the most hostile to life plase in the solar system. I see no way for water to preferentially be removed as at that temperature was is a gas like any other. -- Itīs a mistery actually how plate tectonism began on Earth. As water is present in great amounts in the crust, it has been suggested that it sort of acts like a grease on the plater, lowering the threshold where bounds between rock brake apart. Itīs believed that water left Venus and was blown into space. Look it up. Einar |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Matt Giwer wrote: Joe Strout wrote: In article , Matt Giwer wrote: The more unique characteristics of a planet you consider the more of an outlier it appears to be. But none of those apply to life on land which we assume is a prerequisite to visiting us. You don't know that. To take the point in this thread: without plate tectonics, you get no land at all. Makes it a bit hard to get life on land. Of course we cannot know that. With a sample size of one we can't know anything. The problem is simply no one has come up with a way to start a technological culture in the sea. And short of teleportation by will alone we have no idea how to leave a planet. Of course if anything is possible then in a universe this size everything does happen and we have worse than Fermi's paradox. -- The Iraqi government has not prosecuted a single Iraqi for killing American troops. At least the government supports its citizens. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3832 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4 Would they wonder at all about the universe if they wouldnīt be able to observe it from underneath the waves? Cheers, Einar |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Matt Giwer wrote: Ian Parker wrote: On 4 Aug, 06:37, Matt Giwer wrote: A joke because once you introduce intelligent intervention anything is possible. But this might be the general answer. As there is no credible natural answer for the paradox then it has to be intelligent intervention. I would be thinking in terms of s simulation. If a simulation is complete enough what separates a simulation from real? Excellent dilemma which was explored in the Matrix trilogy. If we are part of some sort of a computersimulation and God is about to unplug the thing ET in the form of UFO sightings is completely impossible. The sort of ET spaceship we saw was in fact 1950's SF. real ET spaceships would be very small and the exploration would be done by nanotech. There we go with that impossible thing again. He is extrapolating a bit to far with his idea that aliens would have recorded themselves into some sort of a data-from. There is really no way to know, but if recordings of a self are possible, it sounds logical that aliens would. However that is by no means certain, it may prove impossible or alternativelly the alienīs religion might have banned such recordings of a self. For whatever itīs worth, an alien generation ship would be entirelly possible. It could be, for all what we know, be mascerading as an asteroid in the asteroid belt. However, in like manner as the hypotheses about God, the alien hypotheses remains completelly untestable. That does not necessarilly make it rubbish, as after all both could be true, even both at the same time, but they really are completelly untestable. Cheers, Einar |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Ian Parker wrote: On 5 Aug, 05:33, Matt Giwer wrote: Ian Parker wrote: On 4 Aug, 06:37, Matt Giwer wrote: A joke because once you introduce intelligent intervention anything is possible. But this might be the general answer. As there is no credible natural answer for the paradox then it has to be intelligent intervention. I would be thinking in terms of s simulation. If a simulation is complete enough what separates a simulation from real? The other explanation is much simpler. If 1/10th of 1% of UFO sightings are really aliens then earth is a quite popular destination as there are so many sightings. ET in the form of UFO sightings is completely impossible. The sort of ET spaceship we saw was in fact 1950's SF. real ET spaceships would be very small and the exploration would be done by nanotech. There we go with that impossible thing again. But taking it to its logical conclusion the exploration is done by things that are never seen and therefore we cannot distinguish between their presence and absence. Therefore we cannot know if there is a paradox at all; the paradox of Fermi's paradox. But as for being seen, I agree it is strange to not be able to keep from being observed even if bigger than an aircraft carrier. However the teenagers can't be stopped from using the family saucer to terrorize the natives. You know how kids are. On the third claw, why bother not being seen when there are a thousand sightings of natural phenomena for each real sighting? It won't matter and will just add to the confusion. I suppose it is possible, just, that ET has vistited us and is in fact hiding. That some of the dragonflies we say are in fact ET or more accurately a part of ET. Just possible - but I do not think so. You see ET would have come here for some sort of reason, and I think if ET had really been here we would know about it. Anyway Occam's razor explanation is simply no ET. Rand Simberg and Fred Mc Call simply refuse to think rationally. Intersellar travel can be effected using a Von Neumann probe. It cannot be done any other way. FTL is impossible. I don't just say things, I look at the way human technology is moving. ET technology will have traversed a similar route to the one we are traversing. This is my central assumption. To me it is the only assumption worth making. If technology on ET planet has moved any other way an explanation of why terrestrial technology has taken the route it has is clearly called for. http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/a...ml?printable=1 If ET has developed molecular memories. DNA (400 MB on a sperm or ova) this would give an initial weight of a gram of less for a VN probe. This is a matter of pure maths. I am not just saying it. It would seem inconceivable to me that an interstellar flight would begin without such technology. About Fred and Rand - I wonder one thing. Are they professional disinformers? Is there a reason why we should believe in UFOs in the 1950s sense. Are real UFOs black aircraft for which ET is a cover? It would all fit. I can't of course prove it. I can only prove that ET based UFOs cannot exist. I can't say what else does. Rand & fred. The Fermi paradox is far too serious a scirentific question for the likes of you to muddy the water. - Ian Parker Common, itīs far to early to assert anything like that about spacetravel. For all what we know, itīs possible to develope a reliable freesing process so that aliens or for that we could travel for eons frosen to be woken by our computers on arrival in a new system. Cheers, Einar |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Fred J. McCall wrote: Ian Parker wrote: If you want to discuss the Fermi Paradox, let me ask you a question that is germane to that issue. If ETs exist, why haven't we already detected them via radio? If I reply to that one, it might be because they donīt use radio. Personally I have never quite bought the argument that radio is the most convenient technological communication method in all of exchistence. This is one of those question we probably have to accept to be an unknown. Aliens might be out there, they might not. Our assumptions on theyr behavior based on what we would do could all be false. Cheers, Einar |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox | [email protected] | Policy | 827 | September 4th 07 06:26 PM |
Missing Earth's sial explains Fermi paradox | Andrew Nowicki | SETI | 44 | May 1st 07 05:47 AM |
Missing Earth's sial explains Fermi paradox | Andrew Nowicki | Policy | 43 | April 9th 07 09:48 PM |
Why is 70% of Earth's sial missing? | Andrew Nowicki | Astronomy Misc | 15 | April 7th 07 08:10 PM |
Fermi Paradox | localhost | SETI | 0 | August 10th 03 12:26 AM |