Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

"Star Trek" and Real Science


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 511 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2011 12:55:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2011 4:44:10 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
"Yes I am, to some degree. Any entity that produces sentient life has to know what it's doing, eh wot?

And what's the matter, D.... haven't you noticed the world going distinctly GREEN over the last fifty years.... Rachel Carson, Greenpeace, recycling, non-petroleum automotive propulsion, Sierra Club, etc.etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad hoc committee....The world has gone so nature conscious over the course of the last half century, it's not even remotely funny."
==================================================================
Well there is nothing to suggest that a galaxy has any sort of intelligence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes there is, old boy....US!!!

And any possible beings LIKE us, if they exist, in other places in the Universe....
=============================================================
As far as the 'green' movement goes, it's actually a movement that owes it's origins to the preservation movement that began at the turn of the twentieth century and ironically had a lot to do with the automobile. Despite this we have seen the growth of urban sprawl and extinction of a number of species. The reality is that the green movement is all sentiment and only seems to currently have any real effect today as a means to effect energy use in rather minute ways.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My friend...pollution in the fifties and sixties was so bad, whole lakes were dying in the Midwest....that is the GREAT Lakes....Erie, Michigan, Huron....Lake Erie pretty much WAS dead. It has since been replenished. Air pollution was so bad in cities like New York, San Francisco and Washington D.C., that women's nylons were melting ON THEIR LEGS....laundry that was left on a clothesline as an experiment in pollution-gaging ROTTED after a year's exposure, looking like it had been buried for a couple of decades in somebody's swampy backyard.

The green movement has pre-emptively probably saved more lives than any mass crusade since the invention of pasteurization, nursing and the Red Cross.....

"Minute", indeed...! :-D

Posted on May 17, 2011 6:39:04 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Page 2 of this discussion from one year ago:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/science%20fiction/ref=cm_cd_np?_encoding=UTF8&cdPage=2&cdThread=Tx3VOLRFRBZJRPZ

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2011 7:43:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2011 7:51:21 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"And that's all...nothing more. Poppycock. A good argument against that "dumb mass of gas" stand is per example: The Earth's perfect position to produce life, and intelligent life at that."

Life is only a moderately recent occurence in the lifespan of the planet; multicellular life even more recent.

The Earth is about 4.54 billion years old; multicellular life only dates back about 550 million years and in about 600 million years Earth will start to be unsuitable for life as we know it. If you were dropped more than a few hundred million years into the past, or a few hundred million years in the future, you'd not live very long.

You are basically citing the Anthropic Principle, but you have things backwards.

"If there were no inherent, active intelligence present in the galaxy, why, then, did we happen? You can't be silly enough to believe that Earth's intricate system of lifeforms and the solar system's maintenance of it happened accidentally can you?? The odds against this all happening by accident have to be so astronomical it would take half the supercomputers on Earth to calculate it...."

The Earth is quite unusual in many ways, but the only reason we are here is pure, blind chance and a whole series of fortunate events. And, the odds of Earth being the way it is, are literally astronomical. Given a very large universe, filled with many galaxies, each containing many stars, and many of those stars having planets, the odds are good for at least a few Earth-like planets in a galaxy, for Population I stars, at least. Of course, not all of those Earth-like planets might exist at the same time, but during the lifespan of the Galaxy.

If you want to cite a Creator, then, given the Laws of Physics and Physical Constants, it's inevitable that sooner or later, it is probable that a planet like Earth might exist, in this universe. So if this universe is the result of a higher intelligence setting it off, then once it is running it's likely that complex life might arise. And, of course, ours isn't the only conceivable practical biochemistry, so there may be worlds very different to Earth that bear very different forms of life.

"What have you been smoking, Helsdon? The moon is roughly the size of the US. I, for one, would not want to chance a significant colony on it disrupting its orbit , at LEAST affecting the weather and the tides! And don't get me started about La Grange Point!!"

The Moon has a mass of 7.3477 × 10^22 kg, and, given that scale numerous lunar colonies and mines would have zero effect on its orbit.

Nothing humans have ever built is even a fraction of that mass.

The Great Pyramid of Giza only has a mass of about 6×10^9 kg and it is one of the largest things humans have built, and it's one of the few things that would last a few million years if we were to go extinct tomorrow; even the footprints on the Moon left by the Apollo astronauts won't last forever as cosmic ray impacts and micrometeorites will erode them away in a few million years.

"And what civilization would be crazy enough to dismantle its moon? First of all, you can only 'dismantle' something MODULAR, and the last time I looked....most moons weren't..."

Dismantle means to take apart.

A Type II civilisation building a Dyson swarm would dismantle planets and moons to gain access to the heavy elements to build its constructs. Planets and moons might be both convenient sources of raw material, and inconvenient concentrations of mass that would disrupt the orbits of habitats, so, it would be sensible to dismantle them. Remember, a Type II civilisation would have very different aims and requirements compared with those of primitive Type 0 civilisations like us.

"True, but lemme see....Lord knows how many animal species extinct....dead rivers, lakes, massive pollution from the turn of the century until just recently, clear-cutting of forests, the ozone layer problem, oil spills, etcetera...things COULD be better"

Sadly the Anthropocene is proving to be a period of mass extinction, and if we degrade our biosphere sufficiently, we could well go extinct as well. But, species go extinct all the time. If we permit our environment to degrade sufficiently to kill us off as well, it will be in part because intelligence isn't necessarily a viable survival strategy. And Home Sapiens Sapiens is misnamed, because it isn't very wise at all.

Industrial pollution can be traced back at least to the Bronze Age; there are some plants in the Alps and elsewhere that will only grow on the spoil heaps of ancient mines.

"MOI?? I never, repeat....NEVER transfer/project, my firend....you, however, are, walking away, the most condescending and smug soul in the forum."

Go look in a mirror.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2011 8:36:11 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
LOL. This is the point where, were you so inclined, you would be completely justified in feeling smug. :)

Posted on May 17, 2011 9:00:07 AM PDT
Photoscribe,

Here is why engineering and Math is important. You stated that messing with the Moon would have horrible effects on us.

Doing the math, and assuming we could launch 70 metric tons OFF of the Moon never to return each and every week, it would take 1,000 years to eject 1 pyramid's worth of material.

This would have less effect than one that is ALREADY happening, with no dire effects, which is that the Moon is naturally receding from the Earth at about 1.5 inches per year.

In fact, if all of that excavated material was sent to Earth, the net effect of our 'stealing' the Moon's mass on the orbit of the Moon would be exactly zero. It would cancel out. We would still be left with the natural receding.

So don't worry about THAT. Instead, did you know that there are folks who want to launch robotic craft to the Moon and have them skid around to make giant artwork that we can see from Earth? Moon crop circles, I guess! What do you think of THAT?!

Posted on May 17, 2011 9:17:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2011 9:18:38 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"And don't get me started about La Grange Point!!"

Now this is confusing.

Not "La Grange" but Lagrange, named for Joseph-Louis Lagrange, with Lagrange points being five points where objects can be stable relative to two larger objects, in the context you are possibly referring to, the Moon and the Earth. As there's nothing at present in any of these Lagrange points, except dust, changing the Moon's orbit wouldn't result in anything significant.

Maybe you are afraid of the Moon coming within the Roche limit and disintegrating? The Roche limit is named for Édouard Roche.

You'd have to seriously alter the mass of the Moon to bring it into the Earth's Roche limit, which is about 9,496km to 18,261km above the Earth's surface, varying according to how rigid or fluid the body is.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2011 11:03:24 AM PDT
You can never convince me that teleportation is possible.To Meet Fate (stories of the future)

Posted on May 17, 2011 1:08:00 PM PDT
Not to mention Lagrange multipliers that I had to use in advanced physics classes in college!!

See the cow and the milkmaid problem at http://www.slimy.com/~steuard/teaching/tutorials/Lagrange.html

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2011 4:26:18 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Really, J. Richard? Why is that?

(Bonus points if you actually come back and reply. And prove you're not just spamming!)

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2011 4:29:06 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
"Here is why engineering and Math is important."

Particularly understanding the conventions of scientific notation.

That's where things went to La-La-Lande last time.

Posted on May 17, 2011 8:20:47 PM PDT
Ron,

I had a nice PowerPoint that I put together for my 9th grade Math students on scientific notation, with questions like "How much does a mosquito weigh?" and "You can see yourself in the past (calculate how far in the past is your image)" and "What is the furthest object you can see with the naked eye (and how far is it [Andromeda Galaxy])". I had some nice images in the PowerPoint.

The kids liked it, and I only hope they took some of that along with them for later in life.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2011 8:23:01 PM PDT
TO: D. Kneeland

RE: "...the Dyson Sphere's purpose of collecting infrared radiation for use as energy."

The swarm of Dyson habitats would collect full-spectrum radiation from the star that they would be orbiting. The infra-red radiation would be merely the waste heat emitted by each habitat in the swarm. The "intense point source of infrared radiation" would be all that would be seen from outside of the system at interstellar distances.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2011 8:29:08 PM PDT
TO: Photoscribe

RE: "That is, unless the galaxy itself allows it TO be altered....!"

What do you mean by this? Are you seriously proposing that the galaxy itself is sentient?

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2011 9:03:22 PM PDT
TO: Photoscribe

RE: "But what does infrared have to do with it?"

The swarm of Dyson habitats would collect full-spectrum radiation from the star that they would be orbiting. The infra-red radiation would be merely the waste heat emitted by each habitat in the swarm. The "intense point source of infrared radiation" would be all that would be seen from outside of the system at interstellar distances.

Posted on May 17, 2011 10:15:16 PM PDT
i.e. The star would heat up the inside of the sphere, which will then leak over to the outside of the sphere and then into space, which we could detect.

Note: If the energy/heat didn't leak out, the inside temps would keep going up and they would fry.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2011 11:15:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2011 11:18:36 PM PDT
D. Kneeland says:
Photoscribe says:
<<<Yes I am, to some degree. Any entity that produces sentient life has to know what it's doing, eh wot?>>>

Why?

<<<My friend...pollution in the fifties and sixties was so bad, whole lakes were dying in the Midwest....that is the GREAT Lakes....Erie, Michigan, Huron....Lake Erie pretty much WAS dead. It has since been replenished. Air pollution was so bad in cities like New York, San Francisco and Washington D.C., that women's nylons were melting ON THEIR LEGS....laundry that was left on a clothesline as an experiment in pollution-gaging ROTTED after a year's exposure, looking like it had been buried for a couple of decades in somebody's swampy backyard.

The green movement has pre-emptively probably saved more lives than any mass crusade since the invention of pasteurization, nursing and the Red Cross.....

"Minute", indeed...! :-D>>>

Yes, but is that a change derived from some altruistic love for the environment or is it a change derived from necessity. It should also be noted that by 50 years ago much of these issues were already being addressed and had improved from the turn of the 20th century. Locally for instance, the river was so polluted in the 1910's (mostly due to the lack of waste management) that the sediment would release huge clouds of deadly gas at times and even at one point killed 113 people in there sleep. The decision to create the sewer system and institute policies to reclaim the local waters had little to do with love as much as dealing with a serious problem that threatened us directly. Even still it's become a reoccurring issue that seems to only really hit home when it does hit home.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 1:58:40 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
The green movement has pre-emptively probably saved more lives than any mass crusade since the invention of pasteurization, nursing and the Red Cross.....

"Minute", indeed...! :-D>>>

Yes, but is that a change derived from some altruistic love for the environment or is it a change derived from necessity. It should also be noted that by 50 years ago much of these issues were already being addressed and had improved from the turn of the 20th century. Locally for instance, the river was so polluted in the 1910's (mostly due to the lack of waste management) that the sediment would release huge clouds of deadly gas at times and even at one point killed 113 people in there sleep. The decision to create the sewer system and institute policies to reclaim the local waters had little to do with love as much as dealing with a serious problem that threatened us directly. Even still it's become a reoccurring issue that seems to only really hit home when it does hit home.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huh? Where did we turn into an argument about whether the environment was being seen to out of "love" or whatever? The point [[I]] was trying to make is that it's instinctual for sentient or SEMI-sentient living things to try to improve their surroundings or, in the case of the intelligent, living galaxy theory, for nature itself to try to return to its normal, pristine self.

In fact, one of the points I was trying to make is that, yes, society and people, via the MASS green movement, which we are right in the middle of another cycle of, DOES see to the environment when it is threatened, the point you made in your last sentence above.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 2:02:53 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
To W.R. Johnson:

TO: Photoscribe

RE: "But what does infrared have to do with it?"

The swarm of Dyson habitats would collect full-spectrum radiation from the star that they would be orbiting. The infra-red radiation would be merely the waste heat emitted by each habitat in the swarm. The "intense point source of infrared radiation" would be all that would be seen from outside of the system at interstellar distances.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What...are they going to glow in the damned dark...? :-D

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 2:07:16 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
Johnson again:

TO: Photoscribe

RE: "That is, unless the galaxy itself allows it TO be altered....!"

What do you mean by this? Are you seriously proposing that the galaxy itself is sentient?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you have a cogent argument to the contrary...? Because the strongest one [[I]] have is our own presence in it! I think that's pretty strong evidence for my side, frankly.

Tell me, did you ever read Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question"...? (One of the most incredible short stories ever written, I might add....)

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 2:26:52 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
"And don't get me started about La Grange Point!!"

Now this is confusing.

Not "La Grange" but Lagrange, named for Joseph-Louis Lagrange, with Lagrange points being five points where objects can be stable relative to two larger objects, in the context you are possibly referring to, the Moon and the Earth. As there's nothing at present in any of these Lagrange points, except dust, changing the Moon's orbit wouldn't result in anything significant.

Maybe you are afraid of the Moon coming within the Roche limit and disintegrating? The Roche limit is named for Édouard Roche.

You'd have to seriously alter the mass of the Moon to bring it into the Earth's Roche limit, which is about 9,496km to 18,261km above the Earth's surface, varying according to how rigid or fluid the body is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, Msr, H, nobody likes a know-it-all....

And I am fairly familiar with Roche's Limit. I would imagine it and La Grange Point are pretty much in the same neighborhood.....at least in majorly affecting the Earth's environmental spheres.....There's no WAY the break-up point could be so close as you cite, if indeed there IS a "break-up point".....

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 2:35:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2011 2:18:37 PM PDT
Photoscribe says:
Here is why engineering and Math is important. You stated that messing with the Moon would have horrible effects on us.

Doing the math, and assuming we could launch 70 metric tons OFF of the Moon never to return each and every week, it would take 1,000 years to eject 1 pyramid's worth of material.

This would have less effect than one that is ALREADY happening, with no dire effects, which is that the Moon is naturally receding from the Earth at about 1.5 inches per year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know this? The ONLY way to see whether this is true or not is to actually DO something like that, and I, truthfully, would not want to waste the resources or take the chance that I might be right. even at THAT relatively low level....
=============================================================

So don't worry about THAT. Instead, did you know that there are folks who want to launch robotic craft to the Moon and have them skid around to make giant artwork that we can see from Earth? Moon crop circles, I guess! What do you think of THAT?!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yez tax dollars at woik! ;-D

(Total waste of time and resources, as per what I said in my first paragraph in this post.)

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 4:11:48 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2011 5:27:52 PM PDT
Photoscribe says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 18, 2011 7:40:43 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Wow. I mean, just... wow.

It's been quite a while since we've seen such an impressive (and depressing) display of complete ignorance around here. Congratulations! :)

Posted on May 18, 2011 8:27:48 AM PDT
Dead thread ... I'm gone!

Posted on May 18, 2011 10:48:59 AM PDT
M. Carole says:
This discussion should move out of science fiction and into fantasy, because science isn't working. Forget all that Newtonian physics with mass and weight calculations, people can move the earth if they just all concentrate when they jump! The moon is doomed to be reduced to nothingness because there is this bird that sharpens its beak on Mare Imbrium once a year... Basically, forget all those sciency things, we don't have to believe in them if we don't want to! Proving that a very small amount of knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

By the way, more pollution was put out by the Romans clear cutting Europe to build roads than in modern Europe, the evidence stays behind in tree rings and geological strata and - oh wait, more science, nevermind. I just really dropped in to lend moral support to the people using actual facts. You go, guys, the Internet is not a hospitable environment for you.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science Fiction forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  511
Initial post:  Sep 24, 2009
Latest post:  Jul 29, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions