Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Airbrush

  1. This confirms your assertion that gravity was a force before the inflationary period. It would seem to me that the big bang would have been enabled if it inflated before gravity became a force, thereby allowing the explansion unimpeded. It appears counterintuitive that gravity appeared before the inflationary expansion. So the big bang was expanding against the force of its' own gravity. "It is believed gravity split from the primordial 'superforce' almost simultaneously with the big bang. See Neil Tyson's discussion here http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/category/subjects/bigbang" Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/big-bang-gravity-split.320140/
  2. Did cosmic inflation happen before the force of gravity existed?
  3. "Breakthrough Starshot is a research and engineering project by the Breakthrough Initiatives to develop a proof-of-concept fleet of light sail interstellar probes named Starchip,[1] to be capable of making the journey to the Alpha Centauri star system 4.37 light-years away. It was founded in 2016 by Yuri Milner, Stephen Hawking, and Mark Zuckerberg.[2][3] "A flyby mission has been proposed to Proxima Centauri b, an Earth-sized exoplanet in the habitable zone of its host star, Proxima Centauri, in the Alpha Centauri system.[4] At a speed between 15% and 20% of the speed of light,[5][6][7][8] it would take between twenty and thirty years to complete the journey, and approximately four years for a return message from the starship to Earth. "The project was announced on 12 April 2016 in an event held in New York City by physicist and venture capitalist Yuri Milner, together with cosmologist Stephen Hawking, who was serving as board member of the initiatives. Other board members include Meta Platforms (then known as Facebook, Inc.) CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The project has an initial funding of US$100 million to initialize research. Milner places the final mission cost at $5–10 billion, and estimates the first craft could launch by around 2036...." Breakthrough Starshot - Wikipedia Solar sail - Wikipedia Even Stephen Hawking was interested. So you still think it is a fools' mission? What is possible if aliens had another million years to develop better interstellar probes? Here is an interesting interview with Brian Cox. When asked about the probability of intelligent life in the universe he answered that he is only concerned about our galaxy. I'm only interested in the probability of intelligent ETs within a few thousand light years. Beyond that is irrelevant It's way too far away to be of interest. Brian thinks intelligent aliens are so few and far between that there may be only one or two per galaxy.
  4. "Using an array of laser thrusters, a probe weighing one gram would travel 4.4 light years, to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, in just two decades. That’s only twice as long as it took the New Horizons spacecraft to fly by Pluto." "Such probes would combine nanophotonics, a miniaturized radio thermal generator for 1 W of power, nanothrusters for attitude adjustment, thin-film supercapacitors for energy storage, and even a small camera. Equipped with a laser sail just under one meter (3 ft) in diameter, such a spacecraft could be propelled by a 70 GW laser array to about 26 percent the speed of light in about 10 minutes and reach Alpha Centauri in only 15 years." Reaching for the stars: How lasers could propel spacecraft to relativistic speeds (newatlas.com) If we can do this in the not very distant future, what kind of masses could an ETI send at what kind of speeds if their technology was thousands or millions of years beyond ours? They may have superior nanotechnology.
  5. Suppose they were thousands or millions of years beyond our technology. Maybe they have surveyed this region of the galaxy for thousands of years and they already know precisely where the best habitable zones are in this local. They could send high-speed probes to all interesting, highly habitable solar systems, that report back to the home planet. If they witnessed life evolving on many different planets, they might be able to anticipate that Earth of 10,000BC was promising to evolve technological beings within a few thousand years. Then they return thousands of years later when things get interesting.
  6. Brian Greene said "Nobody out there cares about us because we are so ill-developed, we are so young on the cosmic scene that there is nothing interesting to find here." That is misleading. It would be more correct for Greene to say "Nobody out there cares about us, because they don't know we are here." He makes it sound like we are not advanced enough for them to be interested. We are mere ants, boring. No, it is because they don't know we are here. They are beyond 100 LY from us, that is all.
  7. Maybe they can determine idyllic habitable zones in the galaxy where any possible life would have a high probability to thrive and evolve for a long time and evolve intelligence. They know how fitful red dwarf stars are, so they may only look at sunlike stars and look for gases in planet atmospheres to reveal what stage of evolution life is in. They could have methods of surveying the galaxy we can't imagine.
  8. Physicist Greene thinks we can't prove aliens exist because Earth would not be very interesting to aliens, because we are not very intelligent. What's the point of trying to communicate with an ant hill? Michio Kaku said we don't try to communicate with a squirrel. "Nobody out there cares about us." That's why we cannot prove that advanced interstellar "aliens" exist. Which also explains the Fermi Paradox, why we don't see evidence for aliens. Rogan argues the opposite, that we would probably be interesting to any "aliens." The Kepler and TESS satellites have found FEW other "Earth 2.0s, where life can evolve long enough to become technological. The vast majority of planetary systems are hellish, most planetary orbits are not circular but elongated ellipses. 3/4 of stars are red dwarfs that have flare fits, over half of all stars are binary systems that make habitability more complicated. Exactly, especially if intelligent, technological life is very rare, and not what "Star Wars" would suggest. Yes but what is PROBABLE about a hypothetical alien that can travel to Earth, IF intelligent life is rare? The Fermi Paradox suggests they are rare. Kepler and TESS haven't found many havens for intelligence to thrive.
  9. The center and spiral arms of the Milky Way are too densely packed with giant stars going supernova. Any life would get extinguished before the billions of years it may take to get intelligent. Earth is more isolated from explosive events in the galaxy. It is hard for me to imagine how intelligent life can evolve without super-habitable conditions, like we have on Earth. Look at the Rare Earth Hypothesis: "In the 1970s and 1980s, Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, among others, argued that Earth is a typical rocky planet in a typical planetary system, located in a non-exceptional region of a common barred-spiral galaxy. From the principle of mediocrity (extended from the Copernican principle), they argued that the evolution of life on Earth, including human beings, was also typical, and therefore that the universe teems with complex life. However, Ward and Brownlee argue that planets, planetary systems, and galactic regions that are as accommodating for complex life as are the Earth, the Solar System, and our own galactic region are not typical at all, but actually exceedingly rare." Rare Earth hypothesis - Wikipedia
  10. Do you agree with the physicist Brian Greene? I also heard this reasoning from Michio Kaku. I strongly disagree. They reason that we would be no more interesting to an ETI than an ant hill is of interest to us. There are lots of ant hills on Earth, but we don't know how many Earths there are in the galaxy, or more importantly within 1,000 light years of us. So far, Earth is very unusual and would be of great interest to any ET. The Rare Earth Hypothesis explains the Fermi Paradox, and also why we would be of great interest to ANYONE more advanced to us. Kepler Mission has NOT found many Earth 2.0s out there. Neither has the TESS (transiting exoplanet survey satellite) telescope. Most planets are hellish. Solar systems are not nice and circular like ours. Most planets don't have a big moon like we do. We are in the galaxy's narrow habitable zone. There are probably not many advanced ETs in our local of the Milky Way. Earth must be the greatest circus within 1,000 light years, IF anybody is watching us. Maybe the greatest circus in our galaxy. What do you think?
  11. I just discovered this happened over 2 months ago. Did anyone hear this in the news? Armand Duplantis set another pole vault world record 20'4" in Belgrade on March 20, 2022. He cleared the bar by a few inches, brushing the bar on the way down. Only 2 other people ever vaulted higher than 20 feet, Bubka and Lavillenie.
  12. "...while attempting to study genetic differences between plants in a massive undersea [Australian] meadow, their samples revealed that the "meadow" was in fact just one very old — and very large — organism." It is estimated to cover 77 square miles, is about 4,500 years old, a strange hybrid ribbon weed, that kept all chromosomes from both mother and father. "it is a haven for all sorts of sea creatures, including "turtles, dolphins, dugongs, crabs and fish," Scientists Discover World's Largest Organism, Chilling Out Under Ocean (futurism.com)
  13. If the Rare Earth hypothesis is true, that would explain the Fermi Paradox. Earth would be seen by the few aliens that exist in our local, as a freak of nature, a rare jewel covered with life, an extraordinary planet with strange life for aliens to study. BUT try to not interfere! If they have been observing us for a long time, they could know the exact state of our technology. They could routinely steal cell phones from people, and other technology samples to study and figure out, and always stay one step out of our reach. They would now be well aware cell phone cameras, satellites watching Earth, and other surveillance cameras, are everywhere. Why would an advanced ET, with the ability to travel such distances, not be stealthy? They have lights on the outside of their craft, as if to attract attention. It only makes sense if the lights in the sky are a diversion while something they want you to NOT notice is happening somewhere else. Or they are so confident that they will be only recorded as a vague light in the sky, and thereby remain unidentified. If tic tacs can make dramatic maneuvers that cause thousands of g forces, any biological being would be crushed. Maybe the craft are piloted by AI, little grey indestructible crash-dummy robots.
  14. What if when the first cars were invented, there was a collision between two cars and both gas tanks exploded and killed the people driving the cars? Was that an indicator that the internal combustion engine was unsafe and could never be useful in cars? No. Something like that may be going on with nuclear power. Just because the early nuclear reactors were not safe enough, does not mean that they will never be safe. Here are some ideas for safe nuclear reactors, thorium molten salt, and the Natrium reactor. Comments to this video: "Advantages of thorium: Much safer than uranium-no pressure vessel, no fuel rods to melt down. Much simpler reactor. Thorium salt liquid is pumped from the reactor tank through a heat exchanger and back into the tank. Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium--in fact so plentiful it is considered a waste product from rare earth mining. Thorium doesn't need expensive enriching to make it usable. Thorium is of little use for weapons. If power goes off, liquid simply drains into a pit which stops reaction. No fuel rods to cool or melt down if power fails. This technology has been around for years. Why was it not developed long ago? Politics, methinks." "I'm a retired nuclear engineer and have worked on nuclear fuel and safety aspects. In those early years in the 1980s, Thorium was not utilized in NPPs. But its potential was always recognized, and India's 3-stage strategy included Thorium utilization in stage-3. Hopefully, good progress has been made in the last 40 years and would not be surprised if Thorium bundles are loaded in the operating heavy water reactors." "...Thorium reactor, which is usually called Thorium battery, has already been used for decades in both US and USSR satellites to power satellites. It's not unknown. It's in fact well-known in aerospace field, but the knowledge of it has been closed for public by big energy engineering companies." "A good talk but he has a number of small errors. The two biggest are: --- Current nuclear reactors burn only 0.5 % of the U235, not a couple percent as he says. --- Thorium is about as common as Lead. We have enough Thorium on the planet Earth to power everyone for 100,000's of years. You can take ordinary dirt, and the trace amounts of Thorium are equal to 12 barrels of oil. Energy wise, we can burn the Thorium in ordinary dirt, and make an energy profit." "The reason we don't use Thorium for energy is because it can't be used for weapons and isn't rare enough to monopolize the market so it can be controlled by governments. It's cheap energy which means no one makes money which means those making money on energy right now which includes renewable energy are not going to support this energy source." "Recycling the nuclear waste is a must and very doable, France is currently doing just that. Nuclear waste holds 90% of energy still even after 5 years of use. Especially with electric cars becoming very popular it will put a huge strain on our current energy grid so nuclear plants will be a necessity sooner than later." I know the consensus here is probably opposed to ANY nuclear power, but renewables have bigger problems. France gets 71% of its' power from nuclear. Finland is spending billions of US dollars on a new nuclear reactor.
  15. Yes, and even though Barr thinks Trump is "unfit for office" he thinks change is probably worse than the devil he knows.
  16. You are correct about upscaling to blocks or communities. My hopes are that engineering a SFD intelligently could be affordable to many, if not most people of 2122. It would require excavating a deep cellar under the home for water and battery storage, and survival supplies, and it's a storm shelter. Cover the roof with solar panels, collect all water runoff in a reservoir. And in the back yard a green house. If the house is not too big, maybe living away from the grid could be affordable.
  17. Very interesting. You have many good points here. That gets me thinking. I like the idea of low-rise structures for small communities. You can have communal green houses for raising as much food as possible. Build geodesic domes over or around buildings to support them better. Have hanging gardens. "Deep cellars" are needed for my idea for stand-alone single-family structures. Stand-alone houses would be less common, and more expensive, than low-rise apartment complexes. But if you can afford it, many would prefer the autonomy of their own stand-alone home. Deep cellars are necessary for water storage of a thousand gallons per house, banks of "super" batteries, and a storm shelter stocked with survival supplies, which may be more common in 100 years. In 100 years, I think battery technology will have improved so much that the entire roof of a stand-alone house will produce far more than enough solar power for a single family. The excess power generated can be sold. "With climate change and extreme weather events in mind, the carbon footprint of the stand-alone home and the automobile-centric infrastructure required to sustain it is hard to rationalize." Maybe.
  18. It struck me what Attorney General Bill Barr said in interviews about his new book. Barr declared that Trump was "unfit for office." Barr investigated all of Trump's plausible fictions about "voter fraud" in the 2020 election. He found NOTHING. When asked if he would vote for Trump in 2024, Barr replied that he doesn't want Trump to be the GOP nomination. He will vote for someone else in the GOP primary. But if Trump wins the primary, Barr will vote for Trump. He said that Trump is preferrable over the "progressive agenda." What exactly does he mean? Here is what Wikipedia says about Progressivism: "Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform.[1] Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition, progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread around the world from Europe." Progressivism - Wikipedia That makes sense to me. So, what's wrong with Progressivism? It all sounds positive to me. This is what Right Wing News says: "Despite voluminous amounts of saccharine coated “progressive” rhetoric to the contrary, today’s “progressives” do not care about “the little guy”, women, children, or minorities of any shape, color, creed, form or substance. Their method is to surreptitiously use cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness in combination with gradual inevitability to create divided, hyphenated special interest victim groups. Once those groups have been created, the next step is to inflame those groups with hate-filled red herring and straw-man hyperbole in hopes that the under-educated, under-informed and/or fully indoctrinated members of those hyphenated special interest victim groups will vote against Conservative Americans who have been targeted for character assassination." The “progressive” Agenda for America | John Hawkins' Right Wing News My initial reaction to this critique of progressivism in the USA is the GOP is projecting. What do you think?
  19. Good question! The maximum surface area is used to collect as much solar power and water as possible. The suburbs surrounding the city maybe can contribute their excess water and power. Remember that all city pavement (sidewalks, parking lots, streets, and highways) will have rainwater runoff. As much as possible will be channeled to local reservoirs. You can't solve ALL problems. Maybe besides covering all roofs in a city with solar cells, you can also have solar cells embedded on pavement, sidewalks, parking lots, streets, and highways? Another thing, storm shelters for all houses. 100 years from now weather may be so extreme that hurricanes and tornadoes are more common. Tsunami shelters for all island and coastal dwellers!
  20. In 100 years from now, what features would you expect a house to have? POWER: By 2122 you would think that all roofing material would be very durable and covered with solar cells. The entire roof will generate power to be stored in banks of super batteries. Only a fraction of the power generated on the roof will be needed by the household, most will go to community batteries for local public use. WATER: Where I live in dry southern Calif, fresh water will become an issue. I was thinking of gutters to collect all rainwater. But simpler than that, and a great expansion of surface area for rain to be captured would be to have about an 8-foot concrete margin around the perimeter of the house, sloping towards the house to save all that water, channeled into drains to the reservoir under the house, skipping the need for gutters. All the water that lands on the roof pours off and it collected in drains around the house. Also rain runoff from streets, sidewalks, and parking lots, would channel rainwater to local reservoirs. INSULATION: The walls and windows would be incredibly insulating, and yet thin, durable, and non-flammable. Very little energy would be needed to change the climate inside the house. Once a dwelling is room temperature, even if the temp outside is very high or low, the insulation is so good that it stays room temperature inside. FOOD PRODUCTION: Everybody has greenhouses to grow a lot of good stuff at home. What else?
  21. "In Mark Rienzi's Aug. 22 letter, he mischaracterized the study of abortion's effects on crime. He stated that the study implies that abortions among poor and minority women reduced crime, when it says no such thing. It states that babies born to mothers who do not want them, due to life circumstances, are more likely to grow up neglected and/or abused, which makes them more likely to turn to crime. "That is proven by many studies of children. The authors simply are stating that fewer unwanted children mean reduced abuse and neglect; reduced abuse and neglect means reduced crime. Sounds logical to me, and race has nothing to do with it." "More than 30 years ago, Hans Forssman at Sweden's Goteborg University followed 120 children born after their mother's requests for abortion had been denied. These unwanted offspring had significantly higher rates of crime, mental illness, welfare dependence, school misbehavior and alcoholism. The unwanted girls had more early, and out-of-wedlock, pregnancies. The unwanted boys were behavior problems in their military service. The recent study confirms these findings." Unwanted Children, Unwanted Crime - The Washington Post
  22. When a woman decides that she would rather abort her fetus than give birth, it could indicate that perhaps she would not be the ideal parent for that child. Unwanted children often grow up to be criminals. Tens of millions of abortions have happened since Row v Wade. How many of them would have been unwanted, abused, neglected, and sent to the street to be educated as criminals.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.