Science fact thread

[NeonKnight]

I am really hesitating on replying to you Sparrow. It is comments like this that cause my doubts:

Some people want to hate me because I remind them that there are limitations to science and technology?

Look, I'm not hating on you, if it is indeed me you're referring to. I've simply found some of your replies, disappointing, and short-sighted. I also think you've deflected some of my responses, rather then answer them properly.

I realize there are limits to science. No question about it. There is a concession to you right there. I admit my disappointment is my own, but maybe I should clarify it a bit, and see if that helps you see my POV?

I've always thought people who enjoy reading SF, speculative visions of the future if you will, would be by nature, more optimistic then pessimistic. That's all I mean by disppointment.

sheeesh... c'mon, is that the very best you can come up with?.. a tourist business that caters to the fabulously wealthy among us. And there are most definitely not "many, many more" companies interested in exploiting space for profit. If there was you would be able to give better examples than Branson's latest ego trip... which btw, doesn't actually get people into Space proper.

Here's an example of what I mean by deflecting. This is what I responded to:

Private industry isn't interested in Space, not in low Earth orbit, not on the Moon, and certainly not on Mars.

Your original statement only required one example of a private entity that is interested in Space to disprove it. Your latest reply is BS, and you should know better. It doesn't matter that you need to be wealthy to get on Branson's flights. He runs a private industry that is interested in Space. You should concede that first.

Now here is why I decided to engage you one more time to see if you can be intellectually honest enough to seriously discuss these ideas with me. The problem with all this is it gets so tricky, we have to dig way back to previous responses on other pages, other folks are chiming in, it becomes too much of a chore after a while to discuss the issues in this way.

And it really becomes tiresome when there is deflecting going on. So I'll try one more time, and see what happens. In other words, I'm optimistic there is still some optimism within your pessimism.

I said: But you are clearly not open to the idea of space exploration at all. Why should I even bother debating you about this? Your mind is made up.

Sparrow said: I never said that. What I have said in the past is that our current priorities are here on Earth.
It's not our time to colonize Mars or any other planet, we should be building the foundations for saving our own planet... which btw, is the only planet we know of that can sustain human life.

OK, this statement is the reason why I decided to re-engage you. I detect a small bit of optimism here.

But Sparrow, you sure as hell have not given me much reason to believe you are open to Space Exploration....

You were bashing NASA when I got in here....when I arrived and listed a few positive NASA thoughts, you ignored them or you want to separate NASA from the science. You don't seem to want to concede any part of NASA has ever achieved anything worthy. It has no redeeming value whatsoever in your view.

I, on the other hand, have conceded NASA has problems. Big problems even. But not the type of problems that indicate that NASA should be totally eliminated, like you appear to think is the only really good solution.

Why do you think I find you close-minded when it comes to Space?

...ridiculous notion of colonizing our solar system...Whatever for?....We didn't go to the Moon to explore it or as some lofty endeavor....Push forward where, and to do what?....We are traveling down the same road every creature that has ever lived goes, it ends in extinction....

Kind of a bleak and hopeless outlook on the whole idea if you ask me.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: long term thinking it what I'm talking about. Your views appear to me to be pessimistic and very short-term. Optimists like myself think we need these big goals, they're inspirational, and these type of projects have proven many times in the past to generate unforeseen benefits.

I said:I get the feeling you are so disillusioned with mankind, you prefer the big asteroid that would send us off the stage like the dinosaurs. Getting the human race into space on a regular basis would only reduce those chances for extinction.

you said:This is the typical scare tactic NASA uses to get ever more money for ill conceived projects, which btw, usually don't do a darn thing for our long term chances at survival.

Perhaps this is more deflection on your part, but I'm once again just trying to illustrate the pessimistic outlook I detect in your replies when I mentioned your disillusionment with mankind. I don't mean to use my statement as a scare tactic at all there.

Some people look at the issues of exploring space and can only see huge obstacles, impossible to overcome.

Others see those same obstacles, these "limits on science and technology", as hurdles, and sometimes they can even envision a way to flip those hurdles and transform them into stepping stones. I was hoping to engage with people like that here in this thread.

I am not talking blind and unrealistic optimism here. Can you show me any optimism about Space exploration at all Sparrow?

 

[Sparrow]

Look, I'm not hating on you, if it is indeed me you're referring to. I've simply found some of your replies, disappointing, and short-sighted. I also think you've deflected some of my responses, rather then answer them properly.

Be disappointed then.
It won't be nearly so disappointing as when three or four centuries roll past us and we still haven't colonized another world. There's nothing short-sighted about what I'm telling you because I truly think you don't understand what's involved in colonizing a world beyond our solar system. Do you have any idea how long it may take to even find another Earth-like candidate?.. the search alone could take hundreds of years, and perhaps yield nothing. I'm telling you that there's a strong probability that humanity will not survive long enough to ply the stars. It's the interim that interests me. That we conduct our affairs on Earth in ways that improve our chances at colonizing distant planets.

I realize there are limits to science. No question about it. There is a concession to you right there. I admit my disappointment is my own, but maybe I should clarify it a bit, and see if that helps you see my POV?

I've always thought people who enjoy reading SF, speculative visions of the future if you will, would be by nature, more optimistic then pessimistic. That's all I mean by disppointment.

I think I understand your point of view fine, it is after all the prevalent opinion in and out of the SF community, I just don't share it. People are amazed by speculative fiction and all the possibilities but they forget the most amazing thing in the universe is right under their feet-- a planet teeming with life. The simple fact is that all our eggs are in one basket and we should not believe that Science/God can save us from ourselves.

Your original statement only required one example of a private entity that is interested in Space to disprove it. Your latest reply is BS, and you should know better. It doesn't matter that you need to be wealthy to get on Branson's flights. He runs a private industry that is interested in Space. You should concede that first.

Virgin Galactic proves one thing, a private company can develop new technology faster and much, much cheaper than can NASA. Beyond that, Branson's interest in Space is purely as a novelty for the rich and bored.
There will be nothing manufactured, no goods produced. Perhaps if someday a space motel is in low Earth orbit that may spur industry.

Now here is why I decided to engage you one more time to see if you can be intellectually honest enough to seriously discuss these ideas with me. The problem with all this is it gets so tricky, we have to dig way back to previous responses on other pages, other folks are chiming in, it becomes too much of a chore after a while to discuss the issues in this way.

And it really becomes tiresome when there is deflecting going on. So I'll try one more time, and see what happens. In other words, I'm optimistic there is still some optimism within your pessimism.

I don't see it as pessimism.
I think folks who put too much stock in Science and/or God sometimes remove themselves from their own responsibility to live better lives and to make sacrifices for future generations. This is in the belief that Science/God will make things right in the end. So we go on not making those necessary sacrifices. Do you realize it's almost 2011 and most of our energy is derived from coal and fossil fuels. It's the 21st Century and we're still burning coal! I'm sorry, but ape-like creatures still burning coal don't get to go to Mars.

OK, this statement is the reason why I decided to re-engage you. I detect a small bit of optimism here.

But Sparrow, you sure as hell have not given me much reason to believe you are open to Space Exploration....

You were bashing NASA when I got in here....when I arrived and listed a few positive NASA thoughts, you ignored them or you want to separate NASA from the science. You don't seem to want to concede any part of NASA has ever achieved anything worthy. It has no redeeming value whatsoever in your view.

In the past NASA has done some incredible things, they still do amazing things and I'm certain they'll continue to spend hundreds of billions on projects with questionable payoffs. What NASA should have been doing since the Apollo program ended was building infrastructure so private corporations could get involved in space exploitation/exploration.

I, on the other hand, have conceded NASA has problems. Big problems even. But not the type of problems that indicate that NASA should be totally eliminated, like you appear to think is the only really good solution.
Why do you think I find you close-minded when it comes to Space?

Kind of a bleak and hopeless outlook on the whole idea if you ask me.

NASA does so much work in conjunction with the military we aren't ever going to see less of them.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: long term thinking it what I'm talking about. Your views appear to me to be pessimistic and very short-term. Optimists like myself think we need these big goals, they're inspirational, and these type of projects have proven many times in the past to generate unforeseen benefits.

We shouldn't need to be inspired by government or an agency within government. Government can do some great things, creating and maintaining infrastructure, developing standards and regulating, etc... and you're definitely right that it does indeed generate unforeseen benefits.
Where I disagree with you is that exploring Mars has any real benefits.

I am not talking blind and unrealistic optimism here. Can you show me any optimism about Space exploration at all Sparrow?

The James Webb Space Telescope is very exciting... I reckon we'll learn more about our universe from that than any manned missions to Mars. At present we can only detect some gas gaints circling neighboring stars, perhaps we will someday discover a planet with a heavy atmosphere, a planet similar to our own. I feel we need to remove space exploration from the realm of sf and romantic adventure.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Be disappointed then.
It won't be nearly so disappointing as when three or four centuries roll past us and we still haven't colonized another world. There's nothing short-sighted about what I'm telling you because I truly think you don't understand what's involved in colonizing a world beyond our solar system. Do you have any idea how long it may take to even find another Earth-like candidate?..

I thought we were talking about Mars.

psik

 

[pox]

see I was more thinking Von Neumann probes or similar...

If we're going for long term then we need to explore autonomous systems alongside developing our next stage of species development at home.

Not as a programme... This stuff will have to be emergent. The (semi)autonomous probes are easy low hanging fruit compared to manned trips...

 

[Sparrow]

I thought we were talking about Mars.

psik

We're talking about space exploration and colonizing planets in general.

If the motivation for going to Mars is to remove an egg from humanity's basket here on Earth or just as a bold adventure, then I think we have no business on Mars.

 

[Sparrow]

see I was more thinking Von Neumann probes or similar...

If we're going for long term then we need to explore autonomous systems alongside developing our next stage of species development at home.

Not as a programme... This stuff will have to be emergent. The (semi)autonomous probes are easy low hanging fruit compared to manned trips...

Even sending unmanned probes to distant stars (the closest is 4.3 light years away) is way beyond our current technology. A probe traveling insanely fast, say 10%/Speed of Light, would take decades to reach our nearest neighboring star. Like I said, it may very well take hundreds of years to simply find an appropriate destination for our first manned deep space mission.

 

[Paul Twigg]

I would just like to say "Warp factor 9 Mr Sparrow!"

Anyway, the whole point of sci-fi or any other kind of fictional stories is perhaps to entertain people? Unless your (not you personally, but the world and his Mrs generally) so smart and you have a PhD from Cambridge or Harvard, then let's just be satisfied with 5 facts :

1. A story should have a beginning ,middle and end

2. Women are always right

3. Sci-fi ,on the whole, relies on pesudo-science and that really whether you have warp 9 or wormholes or aliens with 6 heads (of a different colour of the rainbow of course!) providing it makes some kind of logical sense then that will be enough science for the reader.

4. Aliens always speak English (but never French or German, Greek or Latin).

5. Patrick Stewart never made a realistic Frenchman! (LOL).

 

[pox]

Even sending unmanned probes to distant stars (the closest is 4.3 light years away) is way beyond our current technology. A probe traveling insanely fast, say 10%/Speed of Light, would take decades to reach our nearest neighboring star. Like I said, it may very well take hundreds of years to simply find an appropriate destination for our first manned deep space mission.

Von Neumann probes aren't truly autonomous. They're for local space. Mining, evolving....

and yet I'm still just talking about laying the foundations for a "billions of years" adventure, where we evolve on what seems to be an exponential curve. All that isn't my problem to be fair. Just getting ANYTHING done toward that...

 

[pox]

or we all die on a rock.


cast your vote now kids!

 

[pox]

back on topic, 3d reconstruction in realtime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QrnwoO1-8A&feature=player_embedded

 

[NeonKnight]

Be disappointed then.
It won't be nearly so disappointing as when three or four centuries roll past us and we still haven't colonized another world. There's nothing short-sighted about what I'm telling you because I truly think you don't understand what's involved in colonizing a world beyond our solar system. Do you have any idea how long it may take to even find another Earth-like candidate?.. the search alone could take hundreds of years, and perhaps yield nothing. I'm telling you that there's a strong probability that humanity will not survive long enough to ply the stars. It's the interim that interests me. That we conduct our affairs on Earth in ways that improve our chances at colonizing distant planets.

I can honestly say I see some optimism in parts of your reply, so I am anything but disappointed. However, this first paragraph is not one of the parts I found to be overly optimistic.

You don't think I understand what's involved in colonizing a world beyond our solar system? Really?

Who does? Is there some kind of planet conquering manual I don't know about?

We need to plant the seeds for galactic empire by next Thursday.

I agree there is a question about whether or not humanity can survive long enough to ply the stars. Where we really disagree is I think exploring space can not only help us survive for a few thousand years. I think it is the key to that survival. You appear to think it is a diversion, at least in the near present.

We both agree we should "conduct our affairs on Earth in ways that improve our chances at colonizing distant planets." We just differ on the ways to do that. I think we can use what we see around us in the solar system to help achieve that goal. Not next Thursday, but in the coming decades.

I think I understand your point of view fine, it is after all the prevalent opinion in and out of the SF community, I just don't share it. People are amazed by speculative fiction and all the possibilities but they forget the most amazing thing in the universe is right under their feet-- a planet teeming with life. The simple fact is that all our eggs are in one basket and we should not believe that Science/God can save us from ourselves.

No, I don't think you quite understand my POV at all really. I'm encouraged by the idea that pursuing real space exploration is considered prevalent in the SF community. I'm not really sure thats the case here in this forum.

I am constantly amazed by the planet teeming with life right under our feet. Especially when viewed as "Spaceship Earth" surrounded by lonely space.

Yes, Science/God ( religion is way off-topic, lets not go there) is a two-edged sword, Science/God knows there has been enough good/bad SF stories told about that old story, going back to Frankenstein.

I'm reading a nonfiction book right now called Atlantic. It is a history of that Ocean, told within a Shakespearean Seven Stages of Man framework.

Think about this. Mankind has had what we call "civilization" for what? 10-15 thousand years? That is literally an eyeblink in time, when thought about in the context of the geological history of the Earth. And also when we look outwards at the immensity of space. We are also looking at the immensity of deep, deep time.

Don't you think it is amazing what we puny humans have done since the ancient Phoenicians first poked their little ships into the great ocean beyond the Mediterranean around the 5th century BC? In just 25OO years we now contemplate the immensity of the universe and even have an estimate to its age. (15 billion years I believe)

That is amazing. Astounding. Astonishing even.

Now think about just the last 100 years or so. We have so many things today that would have been considered impossible or magic just 100 years ago. Medical technology, DNA decoded, GPS, the list is nearly endless.

Michael Shermer has a great perspective on this:

Because of science and technology, our world has changed more in the past century than in the previous 100 centuries. It took 10,000 years to get from the dawn of civilization to the airplane but just 66 years to get from powered flight to a lunar landing.

Moore’s Law of computer power doubling every 18 months or so is now approaching a year. Ray Kurzweil, in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, calculates that there have been 32 doublings since World War II and that the singularity point — the point at which total computational power will rise to levels so far beyond anything that we can imagine that it will appear nearly infinite and thus be indistinguishable from omniscience — may be upon us as early as 2050.

When that happens, the decade that follows will put the 100,000 years before it to shame.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/01/shermers-last-law/

I am thrilled at all the amazing things happening in the world of quantum science. I want to discuss this in some subsequent posts. The supercolliders are very exciting to me, we are learning so much about the universe from the realm of the infinitely small. I am really excited about the implications of that research, and I am certain the science there will lead us to breakthroughs that will only help us unlock the puzzle that is space exploration.

Virgin Galactic proves one thing, a private company can develop new technology faster and much, much cheaper than can NASA. Beyond that, Branson's interest in Space is purely as a novelty for the rich and bored.
There will be nothing manufactured, no goods produced. Perhaps if someday a space motel is in low Earth orbit that may spur industry.

There are indeed other private companies interested in Space. I note that you still haven't backed down from your assertion that there are no private companies interested in space. If you are willing to admit you were wrong about that, I'll provide more proof.

I don't see it as pessimism.
I think folks who put too much stock in Science and/or God sometimes remove themselves from their own responsibility to live better lives and to make sacrifices for future generations. This is in the belief that Science/God will make things right in the end. So we go on not making those necessary sacrifices. Do you realize it's almost 2011 and most of our energy is derived from coal and fossil fuels. It's the 21st Century and we're still burning coal! I'm sorry, but ape-like creatures still burning coal don't get to go to Mars.

Again, not touching the religion topic, thats the 3rd rail Sparrow!

I think what I've already said here makes your 21st century ape-like perspective completely and utterly moot. These apes know a hell of a lot about the universe in a mere 2500 years.

Science/God knows where we can be given another 2500 years!

In the past NASA has done some incredible things, they still do amazing things and I'm certain they'll continue to spend hundreds of billions on projects with questionable payoffs. What NASA should have been doing since the Apollo program ended was building infrastructure so private corporations could get involved in space exploitation/exploration.

In agreement with most of your view here. Clean them up, get more private money involved, and there will be less questionable payoffs, more concrete benefits for mankind.

We shouldn't need to be inspired by government or an agency within government. Government can do some great things, creating and maintaining infrastructure, developing standards and regulating, etc... and you're definitely right that it does indeed generate unforeseen benefits.
Where I disagree with you is that exploring Mars has any real benefits.

You realize the study I've linked was done by university professors right? And that I think this Mars proposal should and could be done with private money?

At this point I don't want to get involved in the whole "benefits of exploring Mars discussion". IMV, it is just one aspect of very a large picture when it comes to space exploration. I actually think there are a lot of reasons to aim much closer than Mars, which is some 40 million miles away from us. The moon is only 200,000 miles away.

I think there is a lot of logic to establishing some sort of initial presence on the moon. It is surely one hell of a lot easier to escape the gravity well on the moon then it is from here on Earth.

But there is nothing wrong with pursuing multiple goals in space at the same time.

The James Webb Space Telescope is very exciting... I reckon we'll learn more about our universe from that than any manned missions to Mars. At present we can only detect some gas gaints circling neighboring stars, perhaps we will someday discover a planet with a heavy atmosphere, a planet similar to our own. I feel we need to remove space exploration from the realm of sf and romantic adventure.

The Webb telescope is tremendously exciting. I don't think we go to Mars with the express goal of learning about the universe. There is the tantalizing question of ancient or present biology on Mars, we could learn lots about evolution and DNA from that. Again I don't want to get too involved with that right now.

I am pleased that there is some optimism and excitement about space exploration within you Sparrow. This discussion has taken a pleasant turn, I hope it continues.

 

[psikeyhackr]

We are also looking at the immensity of deep, deep time.

Don't you think it is amazing what we puny humans have done since the ancient Phoenicians first poked their little ships into the great ocean beyond the Mediterranean around the 5th century BC? In just 25OO years we now contemplate the immensity of the universe and even have an estimate to its age. (15 billion years I believe)

That is amazing. Astounding. Astonishing even.

Now think about just the last 100 years or so. We have so many things today that would have been considered impossible or magic just 100 years ago. Medical technology, DNA decoded, GPS, the list is nearly endless.

OK, you're excited about science.

How much of the planets oil have we used up since the Wright brothers took flight and how long did it take for geological processes to produce it?

We couldn't build skyscrapers until it was possible to produce lots of structural steel cheap enough. But if there is so much love of science why can't the distribution of steel be discussed to figure out if an airliner can destroy a skyscraper in less than 2 hours.

Is science about being told the cool things other people are doing with it or is it understanding at least some of it for yourself, like 300 year olde Newtonian physics? Why should we listen to scientists talk about global warming and sea level rise if they haven't said squat about the planned obsolescence of automobiles for the last 40 years? Didn't making all those cars produce CO2?

I mean, check out some REAL science fiction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Merchants

psik

 

[pox]

This is my fear, and the responsibility wrapped up in being a rare shot the planet has to produce off world 'life'. The metals and the accessible energy is almost gone. The timer is very nearly spent on this.

 

[NeonKnight]

OK, you're excited about science.

How much of the planets oil have we used up since the Wright brothers took flight and how long did it take for geological processes to produce it?

psik

psik, have you considered thinking about what you're responding to, before reacting to it?

Because your first sentence proves to me that you have completely missed my point. No, I'm not going to explain it to you. Figure it out for yourself.

Your second sentence/question only reinforces my point that you just don't get it.

No reason to respond to anything else you want to post until you prove you get it.

 

[pox]

it's pretty full on in here isn't it?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Because your first sentence proves to me that you have completely missed my point. No, I'm not going to explain it to you. Figure it out for yourself.

Fine, assuming I missed it I'm not going to spend any time thinking about it.

psik

 

[NeonKnight]

it's pretty full on in here isn't it?

A little maybe, but I've seen worse here. The other thing is it doesn't need to get any hotter. If someone posts something I'm not fond of, I'll ignore it or joke about the point. But not the person. We can rib each other about ideas and the like, but lets keep it light and not personal. Thats what I mean by the discussion taking a good turn.

The reason I suggested to "psik" that he should really think about the point I'm making in post #91 is because I think he is plenty smart enough to do just that.

To be honest, I was kind of hoping you would get the point also. I'm pretty sure Sparrow will have some interesting perspective about post #91. I don't think I've seen these a lot of these types of ideas discussed before, at least in forums I am aware of. Surely, some of these concepts are new to you as well. I for one thought sure you would make a comment about Shermer's idea that a singularity could be reality as soon as 2050. Take a look at his linked article, I think you'll find lots of other interesting ideas there.

You say you have this "fear", vital materials are becoming scarcer, energy is paramount to our future. Surely that means we have to look to the solar system for these needs if we expect to survive as a species?

What are the implications of the accelerating rate of technological progress?

I've got a lot of other concepts and ideas that I would like to share in some future posts about what I think all of this might mean. For instance, I'm looking into a private company that actually has some really radically cool ideas to achieve some of the things that we're discussing, including tangible benefits of exploring the solar system. The brains behind this company actually has an idea that may blow the one-way mission idea to Mars out of the water. (or out of orbit maybe).

They're talking about a way to get all the way to Mars in about 40 days! (Plasma Engine Technology) Let me do some more research and I'll post some interesting links and quotes.

I also note your interest in holography. I share it. You really want to blow your mind? We can also discuss the radical concepts of the Holographic Universe theory. String theory has opened up some very strange avenues of thought. I think discussing some of this "Edge of Science" kind of stuff would be very revealing and a hell of a lot of fun.

Don't you?

 

[Steven L Jordan]

I'm glad I donned my lead-lined, quantum-string-knitted booties before stepping in here!

I'm mainly commenting on the mention of Shermer's singularity prediction. It sounds fun to place a date on such a moment... like predicting the end of the world in 2012. Realistically-speaking, however, so many things have to happen to achieve that point, and as most computer scientists and engineers will attest to, achieving Moore's equation-doubling has required a significant ramping up of effort, technology, resources and money over time, almost to the point of matching Moore's equation itself. The closer we approach that singularity, therefore, the more energy, technology, money, etc, will have to be poured into the effort, on a (probably) exponential scale. Sooner or later, we'll be unable to keep pushing that limit, because the cost will just be too high... and I don't think we'll reach the singularity before then.

Still, we might be able to go far enough to get pretty damned close, as far as we're concerned...

Oh: I saw a Popular Science article on the former astronaut who is developing the Plasma Engine Technology. Without having enough info to be able to tell where his biggest hurdles will be, I wish him well. What I'd really like to see, myself, is a better way to just get from ground to orbit. I think the many things we should be doing in Earth orbit (clean-up, Earth and distant observation, habitats and platforms, materials and manufacturing research, etc) actually outweigh trips to other planets, in the short term.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What I'd really like to see, myself, is a better way to just get from ground to orbit. I think the many things we should be doing in Earth orbit (clean-up, Earth and distant observation, habitats and platforms, materials and manufacturing research, etc) actually outweigh trips to other planets, in the short term.

Tah-Dah!

Short term being like the next 100 years. Our idiotic economists won't even admit planned obsolescence has been going on in cars for the last 50.

NO, manufacture more junk to throw away. That's economic growth!

Oh yeah, that science fiction stuff. Dune is about ecology ain't it?

psik

 

[pox]

What I'd really like to see, myself, is a better way to just get from ground to orbit. I think the many things we should be doing in Earth orbit (clean-up, Earth and distant observation, habitats and platforms, materials and manufacturing research, etc) actually outweigh trips to other planets, in the short term.

yes to all that.