A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

we need more than a single planet



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #13  
Old February 11th 20, 03:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default we need more than a single planet

On 9/02/2020 11:18 pm, wrote:


www.asps.it/prooooot.htm


How does colonising another planet help the vast majority who must
remain on Earth?

Sylvia.
  #14  
Old February 11th 20, 09:54 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default we need more than a single planet

Il giorno martedì 11 febbraio 2020 03:18:10 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 9/02/2020 11:18 pm, wrote:


www.asps.it/prooooot.htm


How does colonising another planet help the vast majority who must
remain on Earth?

Sylvia.


The time needed to colonize the far rocky planets will be like the Americas years and years, if not centuries ... but meanwhile new worlds will be born and the exploitation of the earth will slowly decrease.
Of course we will not see the whole history of this event as the first European inhabitants of the Americas did not see it. Meanwhile, in the medium term with outposts on the Moon and on Mars we will be able to transfer many industries and water and minerals we will collect them from the other planets of the solar system without exploiting the Earth.

But I repeat the most important thing about the violation of the third principle of dynamics is in its devastating effects on the other two principles..

I realized it in about 20 years increasing, with enormous difficulties the current in the circuits pnn or increasing the thrust. I repeat that for those used to Newtonian mechanics it seems crazy…. But I didn't know this even about 10 years ago and the first granted patent of the pnn dates back to about 20 years ago. It took me a long time to understand what was happening experimentally as I was completely unprepared for the change of the other 2 principles.
Now I just want to experimentally demonstrate this to some industry or funder who can protect my priorities.

I will certainly not be the one who will have the most benefits from PNN.


  #15  
Old February 12th 20, 06:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default we need more than a single planet

On 11/02/2020 7:54 pm, wrote:
Il giorno martedì 11 febbraio 2020 03:18:10 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 9/02/2020 11:18 pm,
wrote:


www.asps.it/prooooot.htm


How does colonising another planet help the vast majority who must
remain on Earth?

Sylvia.


The time needed to colonize the far rocky planets will be like the Americas years and years, if not centuries ... but meanwhile new worlds will be born and the exploitation of the earth will slowly decrease.
Of course we will not see the whole history of this event as the first European inhabitants of the Americas did not see it. Meanwhile, in the medium term with outposts on the Moon and on Mars we will be able to transfer many industries and water and minerals we will collect them from the other planets of the solar system without exploiting the Earth.

But I repeat the most important thing about the violation of the third principle of dynamics is in its devastating effects on the other two principles.

I realized it in about 20 years increasing, with enormous difficulties the current in the circuits pnn or increasing the thrust. I repeat that for those used to Newtonian mechanics it seems crazy…. But I didn't know this even about 10 years ago and the first granted patent of the pnn dates back to about 20 years ago. It took me a long time to understand what was happening experimentally as I was completely unprepared for the change of the other 2 principles.
Now I just want to experimentally demonstrate this to some industry or funder who can protect my priorities.

I will certainly not be the one who will have the most benefits from PNN.


That doesn't seem to address my question at all.

Sylvia.
  #16  
Old February 12th 20, 07:51 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default we need more than a single planet

Il giorno mercoledì 12 febbraio 2020 06:24:26 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 11/02/2020 7:54 pm, wrote:
Il giorno martedì 11 febbraio 2020 03:18:10 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 9/02/2020 11:18 pm,
wrote:


www.asps.it/prooooot.htm


How does colonising another planet help the vast majority who must
remain on Earth?

Sylvia.


The time needed to colonize the far rocky planets will be like the Americas years and years, if not centuries ... but meanwhile new worlds will be born and the exploitation of the earth will slowly decrease.
Of course we will not see the whole history of this event as the first European inhabitants of the Americas did not see it. Meanwhile, in the medium term with outposts on the Moon and on Mars we will be able to transfer many industries and water and minerals we will collect them from the other planets of the solar system without exploiting the Earth.

But I repeat the most important thing about the violation of the third principle of dynamics is in its devastating effects on the other two principles.

I realized it in about 20 years increasing, with enormous difficulties the current in the circuits pnn or increasing the thrust. I repeat that for those used to Newtonian mechanics it seems crazy…. But I didn't know this even about 10 years ago and the first granted patent of the pnn dates back to about 20 years ago. It took me a long time to understand what was happening experimentally as I was completely unprepared for the change of the other 2 principles.
Now I just want to experimentally demonstrate this to some industry or funder who can protect my priorities.

I will certainly not be the one who will have the most benefits from PNN.


That doesn't seem to address my question at all.

Sylvia.


Excuse me but your question translated to the years around 1492 and addressed to Colombo, Caboto, Magellano Vespucci (and others)
could be:

"How does colonizing the americas help the vast majority who must
remain in Europe?"

An answer would be: tomatoes, potatoes, tobacco :-)

That is, you say in practice that it was better for Europeans to stay in Europe and not disturb the Indians?
The story went differently and one day if we colonize the universe an extraterrestrial will come to tell us comically.
Why did you invade us? You could have stayed on your planet.

Obviously it is assumed that the wars with extraterrestrials (the new Indians) we win :-)
  #17  
Old February 12th 20, 09:52 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default we need more than a single planet

On 12/02/2020 5:51 pm, wrote:
Il giorno mercoledì 12 febbraio 2020 06:24:26 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 11/02/2020 7:54 pm,
wrote:
Il giorno martedì 11 febbraio 2020 03:18:10 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 9/02/2020 11:18 pm,
wrote:


www.asps.it/prooooot.htm


How does colonising another planet help the vast majority who must
remain on Earth?

Sylvia.

The time needed to colonize the far rocky planets will be like the Americas years and years, if not centuries ... but meanwhile new worlds will be born and the exploitation of the earth will slowly decrease.
Of course we will not see the whole history of this event as the first European inhabitants of the Americas did not see it. Meanwhile, in the medium term with outposts on the Moon and on Mars we will be able to transfer many industries and water and minerals we will collect them from the other planets of the solar system without exploiting the Earth.

But I repeat the most important thing about the violation of the third principle of dynamics is in its devastating effects on the other two principles.

I realized it in about 20 years increasing, with enormous difficulties the current in the circuits pnn or increasing the thrust. I repeat that for those used to Newtonian mechanics it seems crazy…. But I didn't know this even about 10 years ago and the first granted patent of the pnn dates back to about 20 years ago. It took me a long time to understand what was happening experimentally as I was completely unprepared for the change of the other 2 principles.
Now I just want to experimentally demonstrate this to some industry or funder who can protect my priorities.

I will certainly not be the one who will have the most benefits from PNN.


That doesn't seem to address my question at all.

Sylvia.


Excuse me but your question translated to the years around 1492 and addressed to Colombo, Caboto, Magellano Vespucci (and others)
could be:

"How does colonizing the americas help the vast majority who must
remain in Europe?"

An answer would be: tomatoes, potatoes, tobacco :-)

That is, you say in practice that it was better for Europeans to stay in Europe and not disturb the Indians?
The story went differently and one day if we colonize the universe an extraterrestrial will come to tell us comically.
Why did you invade us? You could have stayed on your planet.

Obviously it is assumed that the wars with extraterrestrials (the new Indians) we win :-)


Tobacco helped?

There is no reasonable expectation that a food will be found on another
planet.

Sylvia.

  #18  
Old February 12th 20, 12:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Scott Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default we need more than a single planet

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 3:52:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12/02/2020 5:51 pm, wrote:

Obviously it is assumed that the wars with extraterrestrials (the new Indians) we win :-)

Tobacco helped?

There is no reasonable expectation that a food will be found on another
planet.


… or a breathable atmosphere.
  #19  
Old February 12th 20, 01:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default we need more than a single planet

In article ,
says...

The TV series "The Expanse" was one of the first science fiction series
depicting "human" who grew up on mars unable to function in higher
gravity of Earth without period of adaptation.


Yes.

Evolution would likely also make such beings more and more different
than humans.


There are differing points of view on this topic, but I'm of the opinion
(and some experts in the applicable fields agree) that modern medicine
has virtually eliminated natural selection in humans. Using modern
medical practices (vaccines, medicine, operations, advanced neonatal
care, and etc), we save the lives of countless millions that would have
otherwise died long before procreating. Therefore, humans have largely
short-circuited evolution due to modern medical care.

So, why would humans on Mars make this any different? Are humans on
Mars going to abandon modern medicine? Why would they ever do that?

If humans cannot control pollution, resource overuse and population,
then humans aren't smart enough to go do the same on other planets.


This statement is clearly b.s. We do know how to control pollution, so
it's not a matter of not being smart enough. It's more a matter of
politics than anything else.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #20  
Old February 13th 20, 02:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default we need more than a single planet

Le Feb/12/2020 Ã* 07:00, Jeff Findley a écritÂ*:
In article ,
says...

The TV series "The Expanse" was one of the first science fiction series
depicting "human" who grew up on mars unable to function in higher
gravity of Earth without period of adaptation.


Yes.

Evolution would likely also make such beings more and more different
than humans.


There are differing points of view on this topic, but I'm of the opinion
(and some experts in the applicable fields agree) that modern medicine
has virtually eliminated natural selection in humans. Using modern
medical practices (vaccines, medicine, operations, advanced neonatal
care, and etc), we save the lives of countless millions that would have
otherwise died long before procreating. Therefore, humans have largely
short-circuited evolution due to modern medical care.


Evolution is much more than the elimination of deleterious genes. Take
for example cystic fibrosis, an autosomal recessive disorder for which
people afflicted 70 years ago typically lived less than a year.
Therefore those with two copies of the deleterious gene couldn't pass it
on to the (non existent) next generation. Today life expectancy is about
50 years and female patients have no problem conceiving. Males have more
difficulty but can have biological children through artificial
insemination. That means that the alleles that cause cystic fibrosis
will become more frequent. The genetic makeup of humanity is changing.
That is evolution. It used to be that those with two deleterious copies
of the gene for the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator
(what causes cystic fibrosis) were not fit for survival. The environment
has changed, they are now fit for survival, humanity evolves because of
the environment change.

Another example of evolution. Fertility rates and population growth in
Africa is much higher than just about every where else in the world.
That means that once again the genetic makeup of humanity is changing.
In the future there will be more of the alleles which are more frequent
in Africa.

So, why would humans on Mars make this any different? Are humans on
Mars going to abandon modern medicine? Why would they ever do that?


If you change the environment (Mars is a different environment) it is
likely that some traits will produce more offspring than others
relatively to the previous environment.

Evolution, in the biological sense, is not about a species developing
abilities that someone thinks are better. It is not about becoming
stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful... It is about survival of
the fittest. If having alleles that cause cystic fibrosis works in your
environment, you can evolve towards that. If a species is in an
environment where being more intelligent makes it more fit, then it will
evolve towards more intelligence. If a species is in an environment
where being stupid makes you more fit, it will evolve towards stupidity.


Alain Fournier
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
tired of being single? 8d1 peter_ Misc 0 September 16th 06 08:50 AM
Single Stages That Could Go All The Way Charles Talleyrand Technology 4 March 15th 06 08:43 PM
Machholz and single malt Joe S. Amateur Astronomy 23 December 22nd 04 09:59 PM
reading a single value Nico Vermaas FITS 1 July 28th 03 07:14 PM
Reading a single value Nico Vermaas FITS 1 July 21st 03 06:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.