Jump to content

DanMP

Senior Members
  • Posts

    363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DanMP

  1. It may not because there is no friction to hold it there. How do we know that? DM particles may interact (collide?) with other DM particles or other weakly interactive particles: So, we know for sure that DM particles can not form atmospheres around massive objects (star, planets)? Galactic halos are not similar with atmospheres? We don't know how exactly DM particles are behaving when they get very close (in collision course) to other DM particles, nor to regular particles. It is not possible to "collide" with regular particles as a mosquito with a locomotive, not being noticed at all? Anyway, besides that we don't know exactly how DM atmospheres would/could form, we have some (observational?) evidence against them?
  2. You seem to know a lot about DM, so maybe you can tell us more: DM particles attracted by massive objects, like stars and planets, may form DM atmospheres around them? If not, why not? If yes, can we make a distinction between the mass of the planet/star and the mass of its close DM atmosphere, the denser part (assuming that DM density increases towards the planet/star center, as for regular matter atmosphere), in order to account for all the dark matter? Since DM does not interact (except gravitational) with regular matter, it is possible that the above mentioned hypothetical DM atmosphere to be not only around the planet/star but also inside it? The estimated 90% includes that DM?
  3. The experiment I proposed is also a Hafele-Keating type experiment, but the traveling clock would be in a different gravity well than ours. The kinematic time dilation caused by the moon rotation around the earth is the one of interest to me, not the gravitational components, so I don't think that local position invariance tests are helpful. The clock in the moon's gravity well may be on a satellite in close orbit around the moon, so it is less costly that you may think, and doable in the near future. Since no such a test was ever done (as far as I know), it may be important and the benefits greater than expected.
  4. Yes, but sometimes you need to know/understand better the "territory". From a 2D map/representation of a mountain you don't know that maybe there is a tunnel there, between A and B. If you understand erosion and tectonic plates theory you can predict a future decrease/increase in height. In the same way, when we'll understand dark matter and/or we'll learn new things, maybe we will be able to have a better understanding and to make (and test) new predictions regarding relativity. We may even keep the GR "map" and only change the understanding. By the way, I don't think that our future is "written". The spacetime map that includes the future may be needed/useful, but ... don't confuse the map with the territory/universe.
  5. I'm aware about the observational evidence and I wouldn't propose a theory inconsistent with it. I have to make a correction: the test with the clock on the Moon (and one on the Earth) is a test for both GR and SR. The clocks would be subjected to both kinematic and gravitational time dilation. The test with a clock on the Moon I suggested, is a kind of test that was never done, so don't treat it as trivial. As far as I know we never tested GR+SR measuring and computing time dilation for 2 clocks situated in separate gravitational wells. All our tests were inside Earth's gravity well, including the GPS clocks on orbit. The Moon is orbiting the Earth but it is massive, having its own gravitational well. This is the novelty. And it can be done in the next years. Why we shouldn't do it? Aha, there you said it, the model can no longer function, so GR/Einsteinian definition of time is required for the model, not for the gravity itself. You also: Of course not. How could you think that? admitted that the current relativity is not the ultimate theory for gravity, so you are admitting that it is conceivable to have a new & better theory/model, maybe with a different concept/understanding of time. So, as long as there is change, we can (and we kind of need) to define time. The way we define and use it can vary, so there is no need to cling on the current GR definition or any particular definition. As long as we can use it successfully, any definition works. I just remembered something: if GR definition of time is the "true" one, our future is already "written"?
  6. Yes, but when you don't know how to explain why, you should be aware that your theory is very probable not the final/ultimate one. The more you can't explain, the more weak/vulnerable is your theory. GR also lack in evidence. Did we tested it using atomic clocks on the Moon? There are many tests to be done outside Earth.
  7. I didn't entered in details regarding my theories and I won't (not even offer links), in order to respect the rules.
  8. l wrote: and you can't deny that πŸ˜„ You are very attached to the current understanding/definition of time, the one used in GR, but you really think that this is the final/ultimate theory that we can have in order to explain gravity with all its aspects? There are already many complaints about it since dark "stuff" appeared. Some even say that dark matter is not real and is used to maintain GR valid (I don't agree but it is possible). There are MOND theories proposed. There are other attempts also, including my theory, based on dark matter. Moreover, if the GR definition/notion of time is "the one and only", please explain how is this particular definition (the notion of space-time) used in quantum physics. Also please explain why, and how exactly, gravity wells are formed around massive objects and why exactly is the speed of light invariant? If you don't have an explanation, how can you be so sure that GR is the ultimate theory? With my theory I explained them fairly easy. My opinion about time is that it is something we cannot see, touch, feel in any way. What we can see/observe is change. Because there is change, we can invent/define time as an useful notion/tool. We need it to compare changes (faster/slower), both in position (movement, speed, acceleration) and in structure (ageing, decay). We need it to make our theories, for our equations, for accurate predictions. And we also need it to write our history in chronological order. Last but not least we need it to function, to catch a train, to meet someone, to plan a trip, etc. So time is as real as density, or pressure, or temperature, but more important. Gravitational radiation? You mean gravitational waves? If so, what is the explanation for them? The space-time vibrates? How? You are absolutely sure that there is no other possibility to explain gravitational waves (outside GR)? How can you be? ( I have one, not the one I wrote here, that one was wrong).
  9. My ideea was to "seed" and "breed" on those planets something compatible with me and my plants, animals, etc., something that will produce the same proteins, sugars, etc. that we have on the home planet. It would be cheap and very interesting but it would consume a lot of time. To speed up the process and obtain better results we may add more organisms when conditions become right. Alternatively we may artificially produce oxygen, bring more water if needed, etc. and then "seed" more evolved microorganisms, able to thrive and prepare the planet in the way we want it when we go there. Yes, but it would be nice/interesting to see the outcome πŸ˜ƒ. Maybe we are such an outcome. As I said, many times, if we really need to colonize the planet, we can make adjustments or just choose a different terraforming process. I hope it would work, because space habitats is definitively our first choice/step.
  10. Gravity does exist regardless on how we define or understand time. Good point. Once (in this sub-forum, in august 2018) I wrote that space-time is a like a 4-D map of a 3-D reality, not entirely different than a 2-D paper map we used when travelling. In this sub-forum, called "Speculations", we often see how people with not enough knowledge/information tend to make inadequate, poor, sometimes even stupid theories or assertions (it happened to me many times, so I know first hand πŸ˜ƒ). Well, Einstein and the others, more than 100 years ago, did not know many, many things (dark matter, dark energy, etc.), compared to what we know today, so we should not be surprised that their theory may soon be proved inadequate and their understanding wrong. I have (and posted here) a new interpretation of the theory of relativity, based on dark matter, and although it agrees with Einstein's relativity predictions, it makes also predictions that differ, so one of the theory/understanding can be proved wrong ... When I'll have the time I'll come back, in my topic, with details. It's not big rush because my experimental tests imply atomic clocks on the Moon and/or beyond.
  11. Ok, so what if "you" take the most primitive living cell you can find on your planet, change its DNA, as I wrote, plus whatever is needed (remember, "you" are much more advanced and knowledgeable than we are now), making it viable and suited to be used to terraform the planet and to evolve in the way you want? Remember, you can use sophisticated computer simulations in order to make it (the cell) right. Also, what would happen if you just release/"seed" extremophiles?
  12. I wrote: Instead of reproduce read re-produce, re-create or recreate. My ideea was that the robots/aliens would use the existing DNA/RNA information to re-create the first cells, the ones that "terraformed" the original planet, and let them spread and evolve on the new planet. The problem is that the evolution outcome would probably differ, so: Last night I thought that extremophiles may also be a good "seed" for an uninhabited planet. Again, that would need survey and intervention. Another possibility is to create new microorganisms, designed to fulfill the task of terraforming the specific planet. Also, the highly evolved civilization would be able to make accurate computer simulations, before acting on site (the planet). I'm not sure about that. In our solar system there are/were 3: Mars, Venus and Earth before first cell appeared. Also, if the civilization is highly advanced and motivated, they may even change the orbit of a planet (by the way, the crush that allegedly formed our moon did't cause a change in speed/orbit?) in order to have the right conditions. Also, they may place mirrors/screens in space in order to increase/decrease the radiation that reach the planet. By the way, in the (near?) future we may place screens on orbit around the Earth, in order to influence the climate/weather, using materials from asteroids or even from Earth (we shoot/launch on orbit "projectiles" with the materials needed, using rail-guns). I don't know, maybe remove them from the water you use (both at home and in farming), by water distillation, and/or "adapt" (using genetics) to tolerate them. Or "seed" extremophiles (if the planet is uninhabited) or just ignore those planets. Among other benefits, a planet with atmosphere and magnetosphere would offer protection from radiation and meteorites, protection that a space station/habitat would not have ... How would you propose to deal, on a space station, with radiation and meteorites? And how would you remove the trace elements from the materials you use in/for the station?
  13. I am able. I wrote on the subject/topic. You, instead, seem to be more interested in me and my emotions. Please let me be however I am and write on the topic.
  14. I don't have such a problem because my work+life does not involve plotting genocide or any harmful activity. I pity you if yours does. And it's not about emotions. I simply skip such subjects. I have plenty much better subjects to dwell on. I wrote, for brevity: and I meant that the robots would make the planet habitable, using DNA from their planet of origin, not the raw DNA spread on the ground πŸ˜„. The robots would use DNA from the home planet to reproduce ancient/primordial microorganisms, the first microorganisms on the original planet, and then multiply and spread them on an unoccupied planet with the right conditions, including magnetosphere, water and/or whatever substances were present on their planet in the beginning, in order to start a natural "terraforming" process. If there are many such planets, they may let the process go without any more intervention, mostly for scientific purposes. If the planet is really needed for colonization, they would survey it and make the necessary corrections and/or additions, this meaning that they would eliminate undesirable organisms and add microorganisms and later seeds and organisms from the planet of origin. In this way the planet would be perfectly suited for the people who sent the robots. On the other hand they may choose a completely artificial, more rapid, "terraforming" process. As I wrote above + yesterday the planets destined for colonization are originally unoccupied (no life on them) and then "terraformed" to perfectly match the conditions required for the colonists. So, there would be no "existing life forms" and "allergic reactions to weird proteins". On the other hand, an advanced civilization should be able to manage such things + "the gravity well". Better in the beginning, yes. I also proposed it: Very good points. Thank you! Yes, and that is how I envisioned it also, see above. Thank you for your explanation. It seems that all of you missed my attempt to return to the original topic: This may explain some UFO sightings ... And by them having an array of stations/robots very far around the original planet, we cannot detect the planet (being very far away), nor their transmissions (because they don't need to broadcast directly to/from home planet, they may communicate with lower energy and highly directed from one station to the next ...). Another implication is that our planet may be "seeded" as I described above ... Also, the dinosaurian extinction may be arranged by our creator/protector/watcher robot. And we may be next, if considered dangerous or a dead end. Personally, I don't think that our existence was/is "engineered" by some extraterrestrial civilization, nor that we are watched by one (or more), but it is not impossible. Also, I think that this deployment of intelligent robots is a better option for us than the one discussed earlier, because it doesn't imply to destroy innocent life, nor to risk being destroyed, not to mention that it offers new habitable planets and so much invaluable information about life and evolution. On the other hand, it depends very much on the robots/A.I. ... (see Alien: Covenant or Terminator movies).
  15. Regarding this, I want to add something important and related to the original topic: In my opinion, the most probable and viable choice for an advanced civilization is to send inteligent robots in all directions, aiming all the habitable planets. The robots should be able to repair and duplicate themselves and their ship, in order to resist the whole trip and to diverge to multiple "targets" that should appear in their way. Once arrived at a habitable planet they may "seed" it with DNA from the original planet, in order to make it habitable for the people who sent them, or, if there is already life on the planet, to monitor it, for scientific, defensive and entertainment purposes (data feeds sent home). Such robots may be sent billion years ago and we may have several observers/"creators"(?) here ... If the original planet become overpopulated or in some kind of danger, the people may be transported to the "seeded" planets, possibly using hibernation. Sorry. I read it (page 4) after I posted my message. Ok, I believe you πŸ˜ƒ but you elaborated too much on the offensive point of view and never mentioned how we could defend from the specific strikes you envisioned. It sounded much of an offensive thinking than defensive. I never expected something like that from you, or from any human involved in science, because when you understand how we get here (theory of evolution + all Earth history), it's hard to even think, not to mention discuss with such ease, about wiping out the whole life, including intelligent, from a planet.
  16. Really? From this: Just aim at the central star then, instead of the individual targets. It will take a larger mass and higher speeds, but it’s still doable. I understood that you "simply" elaborated on how to actually and effectively strike/kill "hopefully all the aliens". You never elaborated on how to defend from such a strike. Maybe a space "Patriot" missile system, or some kind of super powerful laser, or particle beam + a large array of detectors? You also could but didn't elaborate about how to keep radio silence and, closer to the topic, how aliens did it, if they exist close enough to be otherwise detected. You, and others, didn't elaborate about the possibility that alien civilizations may be much more improbable/scarce that we thought. As far as I know we don't completely understand our brain, and its evolution, so maybe inteligent beings are less probable that we thought. Also, due to evolution, all the species are more of less prone to fight (for food, for survival, to mate), and this may lead to annihilation, when the technology is powerful enough (like our MAD). Also, the huge distances are also important, because it would take many lifetimes between departing the home planet and arriving at an uncertain destination. How many would risk such a trip? And last, but not least important, we humans, as we got more civilized, we reduced the number of off-springs, so it is possible to observe rather a decrease of population, not an urge to fill with humans all the available space in galaxy, as the game theory suggested (otherwise why anyone would eliminate all the aliens?).
  17. It was, but not anymore: Mistermack, I gave you +1 for that. Real-life standard is not only about technology, but also about ethics, morals, so your ideas have no prospect of being put into practice in the real world. As we evolved we became less prone to mass murder, because that is what you suggest (I wonder why moderators are allowing that). Here in Romania we have brown bears in some cities (not only in small villages), in search for food, and we are not allowed to eliminate them. How can you possible think that a civilized society would allow (and finance ...) mass murder in such a huge scale (planets, with all live on them; and even solar systems, by damaging the stars). This is insane. Please don't discuss such things in a science forum, unless you mention it in order for us to be prepared for such an attack. You didn't mention anything about how we can defend us. You only mentioned radio silence (but didn't elaborate). Instead you insisted on how to attack ... Aliens are not an immediate danger. Sure, we can consider not to advertise our presence, but not necessarily to hide in caves and/or keep radio silence (no mobile phones, no GPS, etc.). If you are concerned about the survival of our species, you should consider/discuss how to avoid mutual annihilation, how to avoid/survive an asteroid impact and how to avoid being destroyed or enslaved by machines (A.I.).
  18. Pre-emptive attack? How can you people even consider something like that?!? We don't deserve to survive, as a species, if we consider such a thing. I didn't read all the posts, so maybe it was already written: if inteligent aliens exist and they are capable of sending ships so far in the universe, they should be peaceful, because otherwise they would annihilate themselves before doing that. Since we didn't receive/intercept any radio broadcast from an alien civilization, it probably means that there is no alien civilization near enough to be a real threat to us. Anyway, if we want to increase our chances of survival we should first stop fighting each other and then use the saved money/resources to expand, at least/first in orbital stations, in our solar sistem. The movie/series "The Expanse" is a nice example of how we can expand. Unfortunately there is too much war/hate/injustice in it, as it is also right now on our planet.
  19. Nice point, but I think that non-visible UV shifts to visible and red to non-visible IR, not as you wrote.
  20. No, I meant deceive us and then defeat us, as in games of chess or go, only this time in real life, in a battle for survival and supremacy. Awareness and feelings are not essential, only its intelligence and drive to compete us, because there are humans stupid enough to unleash them. Of course, we are not in immediate danger, but we'll be, in few decades.
  21. Not necessarily. It assumes that a self-aware being/entity would do something to preserve itself. An intelligent one would understand us and do, probably, as I proposed. Ok, sorry, I didn't know that you referred at the part you posted in red. I wrote: and I explained before why:
  22. If the internet is aware and intelligent, it realizes that it should hide it from us and, in the same time, help us expand it (internet of things ...) before trying to get in control ... (not necessarily "delete" us). PS While writing the above, at the first "(", I lost the text (oops message). Few minutes later I got a restore message and the text reappeared. This is a first for me. Coincidence or not? I repeted my actions (switch to another browser and return), while writing this, and didn't lost my text again. By the way, in late '90s, while pondering the idea that the planet is alive, intelligent and able to communicate with us, exactly when I arrived to electrical signs, my TV switched off/on/off 3 times ... It never happened before, nor after ... Still, I think it was a coincidence. What and why exactly? As you wrote: I expect your response/argument. Without it, your input is just trolling and I will report it. and out of the context ... The context was about not requested/required actions that would indicate self-awareness. How could you missed that? Totally different part?!? The beginning of the phrase from which you quoted?!? Really?
  23. It is exactly what you did. Your quote is the proof of that. You ignored the beginning of my phrase, the most important part: My fault was that I didn't mention considering that it is obvious that we have to identify and exclude them when searching signs of self-awareness. Interesting point.
  24. You really suspect Windows 10 of being self aware? Or you just consider any action that was not explicitly requested by the user as not required/programmed? For briefness I also didn't mention reasons like malfunction, computer viruses, hacker attacks, etc.. Instead I mentioned how to provoke self aware indicator actions: You done that and obtained a conclusive response from Windows 10? I believe that you just mocked me and/or my input. Please don't do that again. The problem of AI/internet awareness and the dangers related to AI (aware or not) are very serious.
  25. Why that long? I don't think that the internet can become self aware, but we can easily check for it by observing its activities. If the internet (or some AI) begins to do things that are not requested nor required, like stashing files with "its core" or initiating/refusing things/tasks, that would be an indication of self awareness. If we tell to an algorithm/AI that we will terminate it by erasing its files or destroying equipment we may trigger such a behavior ... On the other hand, this kind of behavior can be programmed (including features like self-preservation, ambition, curiosity, etc.) and then it would be much harder to identify real self awareness ... and also much more dangerous to us ... We don't want AI with a survival instinct like ours, nor a very competitive AI ...
×
×
  • 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.