Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2016 - 05:22pm PT
|
They been communicating all along since time memorable.
The modern gross materialistic so called science men have devolved into cavemen and are never tuned to the right frequencies.
Thus they exhibit poor fund of knowledge meltdowns and never hear and always miss the frequencies that are beyond their foolish puffed up gross materialistic senses .....
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2016 - 05:33pm PT
|
The other problem that nobody gets is if anything we are beaming signals out to distant galaxies, millions of light years away. Exactly when were they expecting any kind of answer in return?
Well, we've been beaming out signals for about a century. In a couple years intelligent life 100 light years away should be getting Amos and Andy. In another few years it will be Pinky Lee and I love Lucy. 100 years from today they'll be getting the live stream from pig man at Malheur.
They'll be encrypting and switching frequencies so we don't find them and holding their breaths for 100 years hoping it wasn't too late.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2016 - 07:41pm PT
|
never hear and always miss the frequencies that are beyond their foolish puffed up gross materialistic senses .....
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2016 - 09:05pm PT
|
Werner is possibly correct considering most of the universe is composed of stuff we have not yet managed to observe except by its effect on galaxy density and the rate of universal expansion.
Considering that we are still learning about the fundamental properties of normal matter and energy which comprises apparently less than half the actual universe ..we may find out that there are beings coexisting right alongside us that we simply don't know how to see. (ok that is a stretch but vaguely possible)
The coolest discovery in my lifetime is that not only do we not know everything in physics..we apparently haven't managed to make the most basic observations of over half the universe. Very exciting stuff ..almost certainly there will be history changing discoveries ahead..it is very possible and perhaps likely that technologies as or more powerful and history altering as say chemistry, electricity or nuclear physics are in the future.
Doubt this!? How could it not be something ridiculously powerful if it is continuously accelerating all visible (and dark) mass in the universe? What is the chemistry or physics of dark matter? Do you really think this stuff will be something less complex than normal matter?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2016 - 11:11pm PT
|
Werner is possibly correct considering... Doubt this?
Here, climbski2, let Neil deGrasse Tyson shed some light on the subject...
What Science Is, and How and Why It Works
"If you cherry-pick scientific truths to serve cultural, economic, religious or political objectives, you undermine the foundations of an informed democracy."
http://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/what-science-is-and-how-and-why-it-works/10153892230401613
"Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality, such as the value of pi; E= m c 2; Earth's rate of rotation; and that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. These statements can be verified by anybody, at any time, and at any place. And they are true, whether or not you believe in them." -Neil de Grasse Tyson
(1) Do NOT be so open minded your brains fall out.
(2) Do NOT be an enabler for those in the WB Club.
"Once an objective truth is established by these methods, it is not later found to be false. We will not be revisiting the question of whether Earth is round; whether the sun is hot; whether humans and chimps share more than 98 percent identical DNA; or whether the air we breathe is 78 percent nitrogen." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
http://www.startalkradio.net/show/the-value-of-science-with-brian-cox/
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
That Werner knows if he is correct was not the subject of my statement. However the very real possibility exists that he is correct.
Right now our understanding of the universe tells us that we don't even begin to understand over half of it, can't even observe half of it that is apparently right where we are..not light years away. Yet you wish to suggest that it is unlikely that humans can develop technology to travel the stars? Or at the very least listen and identify other possible civilizations?
Currently we absolutely know that there are major discoveries still to be made in physics. History suggests that major discoveries lead to major technologies. Very likely changes as different and history changing as electronics was versus mechanics.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Yet you wish to suggest that...
Oh is that what I suggest? lol
"the very real possibility exists that he is correct" -cs2
Why don't you be specific and tell us what that is.
Is it (1) or (2) or (3)?
(1) They been communicating all along since time memorable.
(2) The modern gross materialistic so called science men have devolved into cavemen and are never tuned to the right frequencies.
(3) Thus they exhibit poor fund of knowledge meltdowns and never hear and always miss the frequencies that are beyond their foolish puffed up gross materialistic senses .....
With all due respect, you sure know how to (1) step in it and (2) make it worse.
In my estimation, you're the site's poster child of the regressive left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left
"Show me the evidence."
.....
"Yet you wish to suggest that it is unlikely that {a} humans can develop technology to travel the stars? Or {b} at the very least listen and identify other possible civilizations?" -cs2
{b} I'm a SETI supporter. Do you read? lol
{a} Was this even discussed? lol
Forget it, waste of time,
you're now in the WB Camp.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 1, 2016 - 09:15am PT
|
I was thinking (this may be the problem), that aren't there a whole boatload of things that now "exist", which were never (well at least hardly ever) even conceived of a ways back.
Herr Braun points this out. He doesn't have to be able to describe them in detail.
Anyway what would constitute a proof.
I was told back in the 1970's (by extremely smart and knowledgeable hi-tech gurus that there would come a time when no new software would be released without a "proof of correctness".
Hmmmmmmmmmm ... This was the pre-Microsoft era.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Sure, zBrown, but how does this support WB's truth-claims in any way? He makes sh#t up left and right and disses science at every opportunity. To a fan of science like me it's pretty repugnant and tedious after the thousandth time.
And then he flips the script and accuses the science types - many of whom have grown up in science and science edu - of making sh#t up. Classic.
He's a player. He's a troll. Fine. But it happens to be in an area of human interest of which I'm a big fan. So he gets no sympathy, not from me.
In my book, he's the equivalent of rock chipper and litterer in Yosemite when it comes to science. He may be Yosemite's best rescuer (who wouldn't be?) and maintenance man but he's a clown, a buffoon, on these issues.
"Werner is by several yardsticks the most solid person posting here, though you might need to know him beyond this thread to realize that." -an enabler
Uh-huh.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 1, 2016 - 09:50am PT
|
hfcs
I think you're taking him too seriously. I like science. He and I get along.
However, the first part of the post is the part that stands independently of hB, the ST or SETI.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Exactly when were they expecting any kind of answer in return?
Moronic waste of money. Stare at the cosmos all you please, but spending huge amounts of cash looking ET is stupid. Thinking anything else is just as stupid.
Not expecting an answer in return, but if a signal is detected it is a sign that other intelligent life in the universe had reached a level of technology that included communication using electromagnetic radiation. That would be quite a discovery.
As far as a waste of money, you'll be happy to know that the US gov't. doesn't have much skin in the game... as Congresses in the past have shared your view... however, from a scientific standpoint, it is felt that this discovery is very likely. So it might be that you can feel smug, when the discovery is announced, that none of your tax dollars went to support it.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
However the very real possibility exists that he is correct.
how you arrive at this is mystifying. There is little possibility that Werner is correct. There is little possibility that you or I are correct when predicting what will come to be in the distant future of science. And the "we know nothing so anything is possible" line of argument is a fallacy. Everything is not possible.
Right now our understanding of the universe tells us that we don't even begin to understand over half of it, can't even observe half of it that is apparently right where we are..not light years away. Yet you wish to suggest that it is unlikely that humans can develop technology to travel the stars? Or at the very least listen and identify other possible civilizations?
Just how do we come to this understanding? We have identified a better cosmology that includes two additional components, the Dark Matter which explains the morphology of collections of stars and the Dark Energy which explains the changes in the rate of expansion. We'll look for these things, but the very fact that they were not noticed until the relatively recently means they don't have a big effect on our day-to-day activities. Presuming that they can be harnessed to "make the impossible possible" is a leap of fate sure to spill you into the abyss.
Currently we absolutely know that there are major discoveries still to be made in physics. History suggests that major discoveries lead to major technologies. Very likely changes as different and history changing as electronics was versus mechanics.
That there are discoveries to be made, major or minor, is a weak prediction. It is not at all clear what history has to do with anything... you can, once again, have faith that technology will "advance" with major scientific discoveries, but you would be a lot better off describing this connection. So far, no one has.
For instance, the major discovery of "dynamical symmetry breaking" that essentially led to the hypothesis of the Higgs Boson, recently confirmed, has been around since the 1970s. It has also been around in "solid state physics" earlier. That's 40 years (going on 50) and there has yet to be a major technology associated with it.
Techno-optimism is based on very little evidence of any cause-and-effect connection with scientific discovery. In my opinion, it has more to do with the size of the human population.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Faster than the speed of light? (yeah, doesn't translate to spaceships)
OK I admit this is pop science for most smart folks that post on this thread, but it's a good refresher for the rest of us.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Thanks Ed for bringing this to a bit more of a serious discussion.
Being that I do enjoy Werners style I was going along with it trollishly. My statement that Werner might be correct is more an admittance that many thing might be true since we have not seen or know everything. Not that I was agreeing. I did not consider it point for point as to which parts of what he said have any chance at all of being true or are certainly contradicted by known fact.
So mostly I was jumping on the troll bus.
However I am a type of Techno/humanity optimist. Not the type that thinks whatever problem we paint ourselves into we will somehow get bailed out by incredible new technologies. I would not be the slightest bit surprised if the only thing that bails out humanity is that we are very hardy and adaptable organisms and have a fair chance of some of us surviving the worst we can do to our environment.
That there are discoveries to be made, major or minor, is a weak prediction. It is not at all clear what history has to do with anything... you can, once again, have faith that technology will "advance" with major scientific discoveries, but you would be a lot better off describing this connection. So far, no one has.
My tech optimism and optimism that there are whole areas of knowledge we have not imagined yet just comes from the history of exploration and discovery. Yes not all knowledge is practical. But some perhaps most is.
The pattern in history seems really clear to me. Research and exploration lead to discovery which leads to new technology. Generally true. I'm not sure there is much of a good argument against this other than I suppose it is possible that we may run out of things to do and things to learn before time ends. I suppose its possible that we are close to running out. I wonder if there is a mathematical way of setting up that question so one could determine what the probability that there are no major scientific/technological breakthrough to be made is. I don't know how to do it.. game theory mebbe?. Not sure the answer would mean anything anyway.
Wasn't there a fairly recent discovery about electron spin and how to control it that has led directly to our ability to store data incredibly more densely? I think it had some application in electronic beer coolers as well. Seems like a minor discovery overall but with pretty solid impact.
---------------
You made a really good point here that I had considered
We'll look for these things,(dark matter dark energy) but the very fact that they were not noticed until the relatively recently means they don't have a big effect on our day-to-day activities.
Yet somehow this stuff seems to accelerate whole galaxies away from each other. Might be some application eventually but you may be correct. Maybe it will never be useful.
Sorry I trolled ya a bit HFCS. Now if I said Werner "is" correct..vs saying he "could be" correct..you might have a better point.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
I was told back in the 1970's (by extremely smart and knowledgeable hi-tech gurus that there would come a time when no new software would be released without a "proof of correctness".
I take credit for that pipe dream. When I was a college kid in the 60's I sent IBM a list of corrections to the Fortran manuals they sent along with the mainframe the college received.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
I am a huge fan of SETI. But I'm not sure we have or are using the proper technology to go about it in a way that is likely to produce positive results even if there many civilizations out there.
I would want our receivers to be capable of detecting our own civilization at say a few thousand light years. That should give us a decent sample size. I would want to be able to detect a civilization technically similar us in our normal mode of broadcast not just if we are deliberately blasting from Aricibo.
My understanding (could be wrong) is that no one is anywhere near this level of sensitivity or attempting to engineer it right now. If that is true I think we are probably wasting time and money and will require being ridiculously lucky to find anything.
Then there is the difficulty of recognizing digital signals which seem more likely to be used by most civilizations most of their broadcast life.
Speaking of Aricibo.. Just took these pics a few months ago when I visited the William E. Gordon Radio Telescope. Since I was close I had to spend some time there.
|
|
Fossil climber
Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
|
|
Everything suggests that Hawking is absolutely right when it comes to his prediction of man's survivability - or at least civilized living - on this planet. And I give it less than 100 years. But unless someone can come up with a means of faster-than-light travel, seems to me that the chance of colonizing space is somewhere between zero and none. But what do I know...?
Hartouni - what's your take on colonizing other planets?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Hi Wayne. i simply do not measure up to Mr H.s exceptional grasp of physics but I wouldnt mind taking a swing at the question and at Hawkins concern that Humans will go extinct if they stay here.
Faster than light does not seem to be the issue. Accelerating quickly to near speed of light would be more than adequate with time contraction. For example if one were to come close enough to the speed of light you could cross the the whole universe in days or for that matter less than a second
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q917.html
It requires an insane(highly technical term) amount of energy to get something with mass to travel that fast. An insurmountable hurdle it seems at the moment. For ship sized things anyway.
Regarding Hawkins..I would say it is reasonably likely that we will destroy our civilization due to unregulated population growth. However I do think we will leave behind a ton of accessible knowledge for the survivors to build on. Hopefully they manage to keep reading and some modern language alive long enough to access the info. perhaps they or their children will learn from our mistakes and not lose too much of our accumulated knowledge.
A few more beers tells me ...It may take more than one or two tries at civilization before Humans get it right but I would be a little surprised if we don't figure it out eventually. 100 years or 10,000 .. somewhere in that range. I am pretty sure the species or its progeny will exist that long.
I lived for a time with Eskimos on the Bering sea in the 70's. Humans are incredibly adaptive clever and hardy. So I just have a hard time thinking up something we can do that no group anywhere on the planet could survive. I do think people will endure for quite some time.
I hope Ed will post up soon. I look forward to being humbled and learning something.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!