Spyman
-
Posts
1948 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Spyman
-
-
Aliens lands in US and wants us to join the other planets in peace but warns us that Earth will be eliminated if our violence continues.
-> Alien is shot by a nervous soldier, put under guard, when he escapes he is hunted by agents and finally gunned down.
Picture of the landing in the movie retrieved from http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2013/02/Aliens-Landing-Earth-Best-Movie-Scenes.html
0 -
The UN is not without problems and certainly some of the critics is well deserved, but its power stems from its members, which is an impressive worldwide list, and if they really wanted to, they could likely increase the influence of the UN organisation.
Map of the United Nations (UN) member states, with their territories (including dependent territories) recognized by the UN in blue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations
If we encounter an intergalactic alien federation, I think UN would be the simplest solution to handle communication, at least initially.
(Any human organisation big enough to handle negotiations with aliens could be prone to ineffectiveness, corruption and bias.)
0 -
If aliens would show up at our doorstep and invite us to join their intergalactic federation, then that would give us a new perspective and more than likely help us humans to come and stand together as one.The idea would be that because each planet(assuming that the aliens that are intelligent think this way) should have a common government, there would need to be a way to merge or develop a new world government in order to join this hypothetical galactic/universal government. Here lies the problem.
If we try to found a new government, there could be two ways we would go: war or peace. War because if there is the development of a common government, there would be conflict with how to develop it, along with other conflicts such as racism and such.
Will this happen, if intelligent life does find us and add us to this hypothetical galactic government? Or would we simply kill ourselves off?
Unless the alien coalition specifically demands it, I don't think a new world government is needed. We already have the United Nations with intergovernmental cooperation and they could probably step up and peacefully* forge a new organ with the purpose of extraterrestrial communication and to speak for the whole of humanity in this hypothetical galactic/universal government.
(* Off course there would be conflicts and lots of disagreements, but I don't think there would be armed conflicts or war about them.)
0 -
Well then, please do, I am curious.Up to now I haven't told why the French secret services are after me, but I can, and as it seems I should.
0 -
Yes, you are correct, research shows that interbreeding took place and the Neanderthals location in our family tree is still contested.Spyman, I think it's been identified that a good deal of Neanderthal DNA has survived in modern human populations of non-African descent, so maybe there was some violence and competition, but also a good deal of interbreeding too.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7492/full/nature12961.html
http://www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-percent-neanderthal-genes.html
Also, there are some authors that consider Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo Sapiens:
(Good points +1)
But my main point that the Neanderthals was not our main ancestor and that they didn't survive as a species when our ancestors arrived to their territory still stands. There are no Neanderthals walking on Earth today, only Homo sapiens with traces of Neanderthals in them.
Looking back at our known history regarding interactions with newly discovered and very different cultures, I think there was in general lots of mistrust, hostile competition and violence, but certainly also events with peaceful interaction and trading.
0 -
It is possible that the Neanderthals were a separate species and we (Homo sapiens) were the aliens coming to Europe and then caused their extinction by violent competition for food and shelter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Extinction_hypothesesAs the 2014 study by Thomas Higham of Neanderthal bones and tools indicates that Neanderthals died out in Europe between 41,000 and 39,000 years ago, and that Homo sapiens arrived in Europe between 45,000 and 43,000 years ago, it is now apparent that the two different human populations shared Europe for as long as 5,000 years. The exact nature of biological and cultural interaction between Neanderthals and other human groups has been contested.
Possible scenarios for the extinction of the Neanderthals are:
1.Neanderthals were a separate species from modern humans, and became extinct (because of climate change or interaction with humans) and were replaced by modern humans moving into their habitat between 45,000 and 40,000 years ago. Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict and displacement.
2.Neanderthals were a contemporary subspecies that bred with modern humans and disappeared through absorption (interbreeding theory).
As Paul Jordan notes: "A natural sympathy for the underdog and the disadvantaged lends a sad poignancy to the fate of the Neanderthal folk, however it came about." Jordan, though, does say that there was perhaps interbreeding to some extent, but that populations that remained totally Neanderthal were probably out-competed and marginalized to extinction by the Aurignacians.
mtDNA-based simulation of modern human expansion in Europe starting 1600 generations ago. Neanderthal range in light grey.
From the human behavior that occurs whenever more advanced technology reach less advanced territory, we better hope that any visiting aliens are not competitive like us and that we don't have anything they need or desire.
1 -
Sure we have, but the Milky Way is huge and we have not had the radio technology for very long, so our signals have not reached very far.Well, haven't we been experimenting a bit with radio waves and sending random pieces of information into space for no obsolute reason... Either they find this offensive or they find it like a love letter. And the chances are that 'advanced life' exists is highly possible. Am I correct that we are made out of 'space-stuff' so Hydrogen fuses to Carbon, blah, blah, blah... They can be made out of the same stuff that we are made from and have the elements to build an 'advanced' piece of technology. This can be possible by the Drake equation:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2107061/Earth-calling-Tiny-yellow-dot-shows-distance-radio-broadcasts-aliens-travelled.htmlEarth calling... but not very far: The tiny yellow dot in our galaxy that shows the (comparatively small) distance radio broadcasts have travelled in a century of reaching out to aliens
Since the invention of radio more than a century ago, man has been broadcasting into space in the hope that any listening aliens could learn of our presence.
Yet, despite waves travelling a distance of 200 light years in all directions, they still have 118,800 light years to go until the entire Milky Way has heard the word.
In the photograph below, the small yellow dot - with the even tinier Planet Earth buried somewhere in its centre - reveals the limited extent of broadcasts since Marconi invented the radio in 1895.
And while I agree that the chances for primitive life elsewhere is highly possible, the probabilities for advanced technological life is much much harder to determine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#CriticismCriticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Star formation rates are well-known, and the incidence of planets has a sound theoretical and observational basis, but the terms in the equation become increasingly speculative from left to right. The uncertainties revolve around our understanding of the evolution of life, intelligence, and civilization, not physics. No statistical estimates are possible for some of the parameters, where only one example is known. The net result is that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful.
If we assume that several alien civilizations exists in the Milky Way, that are carbon based like us and have very advanced technology, then what do you think they would be like, in what purpose would one of them come here and would they be friendly or hostile?
0 -
Can you extend a little more on what you think can happen if they come to Earth, instead of your hard to relate analogy about a rock?
I can understand that no.3 is that they leave us alone or totally ignore us. But is no.1 that they take us to a better place or that they destroy us and is no.2 that they enslave us/take our stuff or that they invite us to join a galaxy federation or similar?
Also who are they, how can they find us and why would they come here?
0 -
If you are asking whether energy can be converted to matter then yes, Patrick Blackett was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 1948 for amongst other things showing the "transmutation of light into matter".is e=mc^2 a unairy mechanisim
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1948/index.htmlThe Nobel Prize in Physics 1948
Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett
Prize share: 1/1
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1948 was awarded to Patrick M.S. Blackett "for his development of the Wilson cloud chamber method, and his discoveries therewith in the fields of nuclear physics and cosmic radiation".
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1948/press.htmlThe discovery of the pair creation of electrons led, on the theoretical side, to the acceptance of two fundamental radiation processes of a reverse nature, which may be called transmutation of light into matter (represented by electron pairs) and vice versa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production#Photon_to_Electron_and_PositronPhoton to Electron and Positron
For photons at high-energy, (MeV scale and higher) pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. These interactions were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled cloud chamber, leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics. If the photon is near an atomic nucleus, the energy of a photon can be converted into an electron-positron pair:
γ → e− + e+
The photon's energy is converted to particle's mass through Einsteins equation, E=mc2; where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light. The photon must have higher energy than the rest of mass of an electron and positron (2 * 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV) for the production to occur. The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as a photon pair producing in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum. Because of this, when pair production occurs, the atomic nucleus receives some recoil. The reverse of this process is electron positron annihilation.
1 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiverseThe multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes or "alternate universes".
The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationships among the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology, and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternate universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternate realities", "alternate timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others. The term 'multiverse' was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James in a different context.
The multiverse hypothesis is a source of debate within the physics community. Physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists, and whether the multiverse is a proper subject of scientific inquiry. Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Raj Pathria, Sean Carroll, Alex Vilenkin, Laura Mersini-Houghton, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. In contrast, critics such as Jim Baggott, David Gross, Paul Steinhardt, George Ellis and Paul Davies have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific, that the multiverse cannot be a scientific question because it lacks falsifiability, or even that the multiverse hypothesis is harmful or pseudoscientific.
0 -
Resistor Wattage Ratings:Anybody know what kind of max current these std resistors can handle?
The photo below shows various styles and wattage resistors. From left to right, the wattage ratings are: 5 watt, 3 watt, 2 watt, 1 watt, 1/2 watt, 1/4 watt and a 1/6 watt.
http://www.bcae1.com/resistrs.htm
The link also have a calculator for power dissipation in resistors.
0 -
If the PLC have relay outputs with individual terminals, then the 12 VDC power supply could be used to control the transistors.If you can decrease your 24VDC power supply to, say, 15VDC (and re-calculate resistor values accordingly) you should decrease resistor heating a lot.
Or you can keep as it is, and use more powerful resistors (or use parallel/serial combinations of several resistors).
Or you can program your PLC never to keep single output switched on for a long time (when motor is stopped, switch output on/off with, say, 50% duty cycle, as fast as you can).
Relay outputs have a mechanical lifetime to consider -> faster switching = broken sooner.
If the turning object don't need the motor to keep holding it still when stopped, it's probably better to turn off all power to the motor completely. Or alternatively if it needs a brake to have a second circuit with limited current for the brake feature.
0 -
"Like other motors, stepper motors require more power than a microcontroller can give them, so youll need a separate power supply for it. Ideally youll know the voltage from the manufacturer, but if not, get a variable DC power supply, apply the minimum voltage (hopefully 3V or so), apply voltage across two wires of a coil (e.g. 1 to 2 or 3 to 4) and slowly raise the voltage until the motor is difficult to turn. It is possible to damage a motor this way, so dont go too far. Typical voltages for a stepper might be 5V, 9V, 12V, 24V. Higher than 24V is less common for small steppers, and frankly, above that level its best not to guess."(any tips on the voltage I should use would be appreciated)
http://www.tigoe.com/pcomp/code/circuits/motors/stepper-motors/
0 -
I am not experienced with stepper motors, but from skimming the article at Wikipedia and a quick Google find, it seems doable if you don't want to spin the motor fast or with a smooth rotation and are more interested in positioning.
It looks like a fun and interesting project!
Do you already have schematics of how you want to connect the motor and data on the hardware?
(Would also be nice if we could get a short backstory of the purpose with the motor control.)
0 -
I am sorry but I was wrong. I didn't think it trough entirely and was in a hurry.If we one day find a way to observe neutrino radiation from the early universe then it's very likely that the current size of the observable universe will increase substantionally, without any need to change the current estimated age of the universe.
The observable universe is only about 2% larger than the visible universe and includes everything that it is theoretical possible to detect, independent of whether we have the technology to do so or not.
Any relic neutrinos from before the CMBR must thus still be within our observable universe.
The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can, in principle, be observed from Earth at the present time because light and other signals from these objects has had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction. That is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer. Every location in the Universe has its own observable universe, which may or may not overlap with the one centered on Earth.
The word observable used in this sense does not depend on whether modern technology actually permits detection of radiation from an object in this region (or indeed on whether there is any radiation to detect). It simply indicates that it is possible in principle for light or other signals from the object to reach an observer on Earth. In practice, we can see light only from as far back as the time of photon decoupling in the recombination epoch. That is when particles were first able to emit photons that were not quickly re-absorbed by other particles. Before then, the Universe was filled with a plasma that was opaque to photons.
The surface of last scattering is the collection of points in space at the exact distance that photons from the time of photon decoupling just reach us today. These are the photons we detect today as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). However, with future technology, it may be possible to observe the still older relic neutrino background, or even more distant events via gravitational waves (which also should move at the speed of light). Sometimes astrophysicists distinguish between the visible universe, which includes only signals emitted since recombination-and the observable universe, which includes signals since the beginning of the cosmological expansion (the Big Bang in traditional cosmology, the end of the inflationary epoch in modern cosmology). According to calculations, the comoving distance (current proper distance) to particles from the CMBR, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years), about 2% larger.
0 -
If we one day find a way to observe neutrino radiation from the early universe then it's very likely that the current size of the observable universe will increase substantionally, without any need to change the current estimated age of the universe.Edit: I was wrong, further explanation in post #8.
The cosmic neutrino background (CNB, CνB) is the Universe's background particle radiation composed of neutrinos. They are sometimes known as relic neutrinos.
Like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the CνB is a relic of the big bang, and while the CMB dates from when the Universe was 379,000 years old, the CνB decoupled from matter when the Universe was 2 seconds old. It is estimated that today the CνB has a temperature of roughly 1.95 K. Since low-energy neutrinos interact only very weakly with matter, they are notoriously difficult to detect and the CνB might never be observed directly. There is, however, compelling indirect evidence for its existence.
0 -
While individual sites certainly can block specific persons, I hardly think there is a worldwide censorship against Enthalpy.
Googling the phrase: "Flywheels store electricity" gives me these three links on top:
(Oh, and I live in Northern Europe if that makes any difference.)
1. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/flywheels-store-electricity.517812/
2. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59338-flywheels-store-electricity-cheap-enough/
3. http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Flywheels-Store-Electricity_29531.html
They are all threads made by Enthalpy, but on three different science forums.
(The middle link is to this thread.)
1 -
No, it really don't, NO communication do not support more 'esoteric' anything, it falsifies communication.Perhaps this supports my idea that there is possibly , just possibly , an additional, more ' esoteric '. nature about the cosmos...
(Doing hocus pocus and dressing it up with fine words doesn't make it science.)
Did you not understand what I said or do you refuse to listen? I asked for a crucial confirmation and you failed to deliver:
Why did you ignore my request and continue to obfuscate such a simple question?Mike, I think it is crucial that you understand that if the communication is screened behind ambiguity to such extent that it can't be measured with a scientific test, then from a scientific standpoint that is evidence for absence of communication.
It's good that you like the idea of truth, so can you now please stop beating around the bush and confirm that you understand by clarifying whether you have a scientific measurable communication or unreliable, unrepeatable and subjective signs.
I ask again: Do you claim to have a scientific measurable communication or not?
If your messages are indistinguishable from random events and have three possible answers, then they will be wrong twice as often as they are correct. Thus such collection of answers are totally unreliable and essentially worthless. But if the communication is false and your answers instead came from your subconscious then they can have some worth and meaning.Maybe , or it's all a load of bunk! Then , However , then I am left with a set of interesting answers , that came from somewhere. Maybe memories that have been churning around inside my brain for years . Maybe they came out of an ' insight' , out of my own mind , out of an oblique observation of nature , out of a memory , out of the nature of the cosmos itself in its totality , whatever that is or ..?
Fondness for an idea does not make it true, but it can make you more likely to be fooled by it.I must say . I do quite like the idea...
0 -
Mike, I think it is crucial that you understand that if the communication is screened behind ambiguity to such extent that it can't be measured with a scientific test, then from a scientific standpoint that is evidence for absence of communication..Yes I like the idea of truth . However what if my idea about ' ambiguity ' , is a truth . In other words , for all sorts of reasons of , damage limitation to culture , a higher ,intelligent , life form , MAY , consider it an essential , to keep its existence and contact , at arms length , namely screened behind ' ambiguity ' . So that it is always possible to dismiss it.
It's good that you like the idea of truth, so can you now please stop beating around the bush and confirm that you understand by clarifying whether you have a scientific measurable communication or unreliable, unrepeatable and subjective signs.
Oh, don't bother for my satisfaction, I am already convinced that you are wrong, it would be for your own good.I will try and think of a way that it could be still possible to make a scientific test . To your satisfaction .
Yes, I did, there was no answer whatsoever, not even a wrong one.Other than you trying it out for yourself , that is !
0 -
Seriously? You don't seem to think your own claim is important nor really interested in trying to find the truth.Wow ! I am not sure I can handle being on the end of that one !
I was quite happy with my ' Ambiguity ' approach .
I could just say to myself ' happy coincidence '. Serendipity !
If I have to consider there might be someone on the other end ?
Eek ! That might freak me out ! Zap ! Oops too much signal! Man! You just 'Burned me to a frazzle ' !
However it is a question? And it deserves an answer .
If you don't hear from me again . You know I will have been scorched !
Help.
Mike
0 -
No, the challenge is to scientifically test if your observations is random events or messages from a higher life form.Sorry , what bit , have I not taken up your challenge.
0 -
But if you want a good scientific discussion you still have to reach some level of rigor and demand.( I am offering this in the 'Lounge '. Where one can meet friends , have a drink , and fireside conversation ! )
Ok, I tried that and this is what I got for it:You could always take me outside and give me a good talking to, and tell me I have had too much to drink !
And as expected you didn't take my challenge and instead argue something I never have opposed, as if you don't want to find out the truth and deliberately avoid to engage in the discussion, floating away with random thoughts and wishful thinking.I need to say , that you have put a slant on this subject that is not necessary . Many people genuinely think about this subject " are we alone " even SETI is set up to this end .
Years ago I thought about... /Snip/
There is a very large gap between thinking about other life forms elsewhere in the Universe and claiming that communication exists.
No Mike, you are basically arguing hocus pocus and subjective opinion, your claim lacks critical thinking and scientific procedures.So there is NO HOCUS POCUS there . How does any person question ideas they have . Try it out . Test the idea on colleagues , Think again.
Then WHY don't you do that? Why don't you do scientific tests or listen to the answers you have gotten here in this thread?But if there were any merit in the particular thought, try it out , test it , investigate it , discuss it with a colleague .
Well, I have important news for you, you are certainly att odds with science and "way over the horizon" in this matter.I am not at odds with much of science , I just can not, and never have been able to resist , " , what's way over the horizon , and beyond "
The truth is that there is NO ONE communicating with you, this "gentle signal" exists only through your imagination.So I am saying here , maybe the universe is trying to communicate gently , maybe we will miss something if we are expecting too strong a signal . When a gentle signal is there all the time .
(And you better snap out of it and sober up, before you get delusional.)
1 -
I think MigL ment that it is the rotation that is causing Earth to be squished in the first place...QUOTE(MigL): "That's a non-answer DrP.......Why is it further from the centre of the earth.... Does the rock weigh less at the equator?"
It is further from the centre because the earth is not a sphere - it is squished. I didn't think it necessary to explain that.
So, yes, the rock weighs less at the equator than it does at the poles. Seriously? have you not covered that in school yet or something?0 -
Well Mike, you are claiming, that on more or less daily basis and when you are alone, you have a ritual where you can ask questions directed to a higher power. This more advanced life form will then, within a few minutes, reveal the answer to you by manipulating your surroundings and show you a mystical sign. Moreover you think you have a method to correctly decipher this serendipity and are accepting this information as useful contribution for consideration.
So I can only see four possibilities here:
1) You want to believe this is true so badly that you fool yourself by finding and interpret random events to support your wishes.
2) You lie deliberately and tries to deceive us with this exotic fantasy for some unknown reasons.
3) You are really losing your grip on reality and should seek professional help as soon as possible.
4) You are correct and there actually exists a higher life form which is communicating with you.
IMHO the first alternative is the very best and most likely of them, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, I don't wish the third to happen to anyone and for humanity's sake, I hope the last option is false, I don't think higher powers nor advanced life forms, who hides and secretly interferes with human business will do us any good.
Looking at the options, an insane person would very likely have revealed himself already and an objective and honest person would actively and eagerly seek a way to discern the truth and try to scientifically verify it, which is something that so far, from your side, is painfully missing throughout the whole thread.
That leaves us with the first and second alternatives which both have the trouble that if true, you will do your best to avoid and dodge anything that could expose the opposite of your claim, both logic conclusions and scientific tests.
It's fine by me if you want to keep your belief, but if you want to convince us that something actually exists and communicates with you, then you really need to start to engage in the discussion, answer questions directly without superfluous and misleading thoughts and seriously search for a scientific way to verify or falsify this supposed communication.
The friendly community here can more than likely help you devise a scientific blind test if you truly are willing to fully commit.
1
Question About Time Dilation
in Relativity
Posted · Edited by Spyman
Diagram of the local clouds of matter that the Solar System is moving through, with arrows indicating cloud motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Interstellar_Cloud
----------
I am not an expert on general relativity but from my understanding gravitational time dilation on the scale your story needs doesn't sound feasible for somewhat similar stars and planets, you need to get very close to a very massive and dense body to get large effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilationYou need to either use scientific accepted travel speeds close to the speed of light to get a substantional time dilation due to realtive velocity during the travel forth and back to their home planet or simply invoke a new (magikz) time dilation that happens from the instantaneous movement or due to a strange effect from the device (magikz) they use for this kind of travel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Specific_example