Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by alt_f13

  1. Due to carbon's versatility, I think we'd have more of a chance finding organic compounds containing sulfur instead of something based entirely on sulfur, just like the concept of silicon. ?


    I'm sure you meant "I think we'd have more of a chance finding organic compounds based on carbon and containing sulfur than of something based entirely on sulfur."


    Well, we really don't have much to go on, so I wouldn't be counting my carbon-based chickens just yet. That would be akin to saying "there's no other life in the universe because Earth is the only living planet we've found."


    Maybe instead of being based only on sulfur, it'd just be a major part of the creature's body?

    I don't see any reason to speculate either way. Who knows, maybe David Grinspoon is just a crazy, and Sulfur based life is a stupid idea. I just like keeping my mind open to the possibilities.

  2. So' date=' to sum it up, sulfur is just a poor excuse for carbon.

    [/quote']No. Noone suggested that in any way. That statement doesn't even make sense.

    Life as i see it is a rather unique constellation. That's why i don't totally exclude the possible existence of a god. I'd even go as far as saying there is no other life in this universe.

    You wouldn't consider "a god" (whatever that means in context to this thread) an extra-terrestrial form of life? And how can you consider one completely invisible immeasurable concept over another completely invisible immeasurable concept? In one post!?!


    As far as I'm concerned, gods and aliens are the same thing until we find evidence of either.


    At the risk of sounding like a complete hypocrite... I'm all for religious and philisophical discussion, but I tried my damndest not to let my last post steer the thread away from the subject at hand, and I think it would be beneficial for you to consider thinking about this before posting.


    Someone let me know if I'm out of line here... preferably not in this thread.

  3. alt F13

    If I am making false assumptions' date=' please correct them.


    As I see it, life MUST conform to certain characteristics.


    1. It must be able to replicate its pattern, in a way similar to DNA.

    2. It must be able to manufacture structural molecules in a manner analogous to proteins.

    3. It must be able to vary in its set of instructions (genetic material) and have the poorer versions eliminated, permitting evolution.

    4. In a sequel to condition 3, it must have the potential to form literally billions of different complex molecules, or else evolution has no base.


    Carbon compounds can do all the above, but sulfur????????[/quote']


    You said DNA or an equivalent is a requirement of life, and I'd argue that it isn't neccessarily. You haven't said anything too unreasonable, but you're assuming ET life would somehow operate in a similar fashion to how we do.


    David Grinspoon seems to have a bit of a fantastical view. From what I've read, he isn't talking about 'conventional' forms of life as you've laid out; he's suggesting that there might be some as yet unimagined forms of life.


    I tend to agree, as DNA and protein synthesis would be pretty hard to invent, even for us now, so the chances of us coming up with a new system of life that reproduces, transforums energy, whatever, may be lower than the chances of use merely discovering new life. Who knows - it could go either way, but you get my point.


    I haven't read about the sulphur idea, but it doesn't sound as if it resembles anything close to what we observe of life on earth.

  4. Sign of a true Canadian.

    Ha! Not sure if that was sarcasm or not. Most BCers would say it wasn't.

    Government wants to keep the image but doesn't want pay more then they have too' date=' and not just in terms of money. It would be interesting to hear the "off the record" conversations about this whole deal. That caledonia thing was pretty out of hand, I don't think that it favored anyone.[/quote']

    I hope someone went to jail this time... The government is such a bunch of wusses, with any crimes committed in the name of "native rights" the chances of sentences being handed out are bloody slim. I doubt there are investigations for any of them... not that there needs to be. It's not like the perpetraitors hide who they are; they know they aren't going to jail.

  5. To begin with, some equivalent to DNA would be needed, and I do not believe any sulfur compound does this.


    You're making assumptions.

    Wouldn't they just cool down in a cooler atmosphere and be rendered solid? Thus I don't think they'd be able to leave their world' date=' would they?

    Also, they'd have to live in a narrow stretch of temperature range, since it says that the viscosity is reduced after a certain temperature.[/quote']

    You think humans are somehow exempt from either of these conditions?

  6. Actually' date=' there was another episode (even a few more) with a second Commander Riker being found on a planet, after a weird transporter malfunction three years in their past; the "real" riker managed to be beamed, but the transporter on the ground didn't recieve the "okay" message, so he reconstructed him on the ground, having, in effect, two rikers: One continuing on his mission onboard enterprise, and the other stuck for three years on the planet's face. It was really interresting, specifically since after they found the 'second riker', the entire question of what to do with a copy, what to do with malfunctions and all those things came to question. It was quite good.


    I forgot about that episode. That was one of the best for sure. Sure is a grounded view of the whole thing: It suggests the mind is merely composed of its physical components (for humans at least...Q doesn't use transporters). I like that.


    As for solaris: The environment was the only good thing there. Sadly' date=' the movie was so damn boring that I didn't get the same point you did. I just almost fell asleep.. it was.. boring.. and the proof is that all I can remember now - a while after i watched it - is 'something about afterlife'. The message didn't stick at ALL, and that is the most important thing..


    Says you. But subjectivity is a good thing about movies.

    In any case' date=' I'm going to stand with my face to the wall and have you guys throw stones at me (rightfully so!) since I admit, sadly and shamefully that I hven't watched 2001: A Space Odyssey" yet. It's on my list in netflix, and I will watch it soon. I swear. Don't kill me.


    Whatever. It was a bunch of monkeys, some philosophy, a space thing happened and then the dude tripped on acid.


    It was pretty cracked out for the last 5 minutes. I doubt you'd like it if you didn't like Solaris... Then again, subjectivity's a wildcard.

  7. lots of stuff about movies

    Agree many lots of dem tings der.


    I don't believe Solaris had anything to do with the afterlife. Yah, maybe it was boring, but no afterlife.


    The ball thing was generating copies of people by reading people's minds. The end Clooney character was a copy of the real one, and was able to remake his wife in the end, as he was of the solaris ball.


    Nothing about afterlife. It merely raised the same question as Star Trek did about the transporters: When you're deconstructed in one place, jumbled all around and reassembled somewhere else, are you really the same person that was taken apart?


    In Solaris' case, no. The Clooney character died. His copy was just that, a copy. In Star Trek, they don't go into that much detail, except when Worf is held in the transport buffer in that one episode where he grabs a worm thing, brings it back and it turns out to be a person. I guess they imply the same person is reassembled as was taken apart.


    But you don't think Solaris was at least an appealing view of what space faring vessels might look like in the future? What about his home? It's all beautiful and rather contemporary. I think the set designers where awesome, and should have received all sorts of accolades.


    I take it you didn't like "2001: A Space Odysee" either?

  8. Since it is fiction, you obviously have some leeway. Just don't call it pseudo-mathematics ;) (This thread just might belong in pseudoscience though :S)


    At this point, you're beyond me. The singularity bends space quite drastically so it's conceivable that you could use it to bend spacetime for your Alcubierre drive.


    If your story allows the technology to create singularities, I would have them be very unstable and collapse after small fractions of a second, temporarily warping spacetime. Though I don't know what happens when a 'micro-singularity' collapses (supernova?) you could just write it as collapsing into nothing (perhaps as the negative and positive timespace distortions in the field converge?). Who knows, this is where the fiction comes in I guess.


    I would use a non singularity source of energy though, as I doubt the energy you could retain from the singularity being created/maintained could anywhere match the power draw of whatever brings them into existance. Otherwise, it sounds akin to free energy or a perpetual motion machine, and I think that's something people would pick up on rather quickly.

  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_Canada#History


    This isn't the full story. The major problem wasn't the Spanish going hog wild or anything. A combination of foreign viruses, whisky trade and forced integration were what really hurt the natives in Canada.


    Ugh. I don't know what happenned to all the net sources I used during high-school.


    Anyway, since confederation it's been treaty after treaty after treaty, landclaim disputes, constant commercial/traditional hunting and fishing disputes etc. Basically they were never integrated at all with society, largely due to the racist views of the European settlers, partly because they wanted to retain their ways. It was a doomed operation because they were naive to how the Europeans operated, and the Europeans took advantage of that.


    One of the more disturbing occurances was the institution of the so called "residential school system" where native childred were taken from their families and "Canadianized." Mostly this consisted of molestation and physical and psychological abuse. This pretty much disrupted an entire generation of native children. The "residential school system" was aventualy abolished, and the children were returned...


    Jesus... makes me rethink my whole stance on the subject.



    Took the happy winky face and canada joke out of the top of this post. ****in depressed now. Screw Canada.

  10. Well' date=' I wanted to call it something else, but it's generally inappropriate to have post titles which are logically congruent with a sub-title of "Relax: it'll only hurt for a moment..."


    Haha. No, it's not the actual title I have a beef with. The message itself seems to lend to the idea that creationist viewpoints were welcome in that forum, provided that they were presented in a logical manner. Obviously that makes no sense, but a Creationist thinks his belief is logical. I think we should teach him it isn't. The hard-line I was referring to was a verbal one - "Creationism is crap, so don't post it here." Or something along those lines.


    Well, there's only so many hands; Posts get cleaned up, either deleted or sorted to other forums, with the few that ask legitimate questions left behind.


    The only thing more hard-line I can think of would be deleting any and all creationist threads, which might be less effective. Deleting may be read as "we're silencing you", while sending threads/posts into a forum about Yeti and Perpetual Motion Machines sends the message of "We think your ideas only have value as humor".

    Again, it's a plainly visible, literal hard-line I was referring to. [edit] Like you say, taking it further in this way would prove to be destructive.


    You mean something like a 'Skepticism' forum? On one hand, I can see the use, as a place to put threads about whether or not X or Y is true. On the other hand, given that this is a science forum, shouldn't we expect logical and critical thinking in *all* the forums?

    Of course, but a forum on the topic of developing or using these skills would be beneficial in promoting them too, no? Besides, those of us still struggling with circular logic and the like would have a place to ask what's what from what, rather than just being told off and served a link. There isn't really a problem with that, but alone it doesn't change the fact that the particular offender still can't sort his arse from his elbow.


    Like I said, it's hard to predict whether it would be used properly, but some other address of the specific issue could be helpful.

  11. You guys are obviously from the USA. From what I've seen up here in the great white north, views are so torn you can barely tell they're from the same country. People seem to oppose the caste separation, and yet they still get all the amenities one could ask for. Welfare checks, tax exemptions, free healthcare, free post-secondary education and even gun ammo and booze checks!


    I'm all for helping the down and out get back on their feet, but at this point it's just lunacy! They aren't even down and out! They get more money than I do, and I still have to pay for school!


    Frankly, I'm for reintegration, whether they like it or not... and obviously not; who'd want to give up free money?

  12. Yeh, I read it - but I feel that even having that thread in the EvMEx forum kindof promotes discussion about Creation in that forum. I know the guidelines are to meant to prevent the irrationality and false logic that enevitably rear their ugly heads when a creationist involves himself with evolution, I don't think the title "Welcome, creationists, to Science Forums and Debate!" quite rams the concept home. ;)

    Yah, I'm slowly changing my mind on wanting to allow religious bents into the EvMEx forum. An issue concerning the acceptance of evolution as a religious person is a philisophical issue, not one of evolution.

    Well' date=' of the mods I'm probably the least willing to give creationism any sort of consideration (and I tend to be quite ban-happy and delete-happy on the topic). Personally, what I've been doing is one of the following things:


    If a thread is just about creationism *anywhere*, I dump it in the 'Speculations' section. The faith involved no more warrants consideration than someone claiming that God gave them the blueprints of a perpetual motion machine. If it's a real question (rather than creationist trolling), I (or someone else) answers it. If it's just a question in a thread, and it might derail the thread, I split it out.


    However, post or thread, if it's just "Here's why evolution is wrong", I delete it without a second thought. Trolling is trolling.


    Last but not least, if someone shows up posting creationist drek, and I look though their post history and see no actual science posts, they're gone. Those who actually contribute in worthwhile ways will be told, in no uncertain terms, that this is a board for serious science.


    Personally, I do my best to keep creationism and such crap from overrunning the forum, and a heavy hand is often necessary for that. However, I doubt they'll be missed.


    And I thank you for your efforts :) The problem as I see it though, is that creationist commentary really has no place in the EvMEx forum, but still arises. I have no doubt that you work hard to keep it scientific in the science forums, but I think a more visible hard-line stance on the issue might help.


    Perhaps an entire forum (a sub-forum of General Science maybe) devoted to logic and critical thinking, perhaps even scientific method as a whole, would be helpful. It may even bring a few Creationists over from the dark side, as I'm sure such a forum would help them see the world through a much more analytical light.


    I know it would be a big help to some, but would it be used enough to justify itself...

  13. I wouldn't like to use this because I need a means for the vessels to travel at low but constant velocities without using a source of depleting fuel, this way it makes sense that they can go from the heliosphere of a star system to one of it's planets within a reasonable amount of time (a few months in large systems), slingshotting wouldn't be enough for that.

    First of all, you cannot contain a singularity without using an enormous amount of energy, without some sort of exotic matter that doesn't exist; if you wish to invent that matter, that's up to you. Secondly, a constant velocity means that you stop accellerating, meaning either, you need to conserve fuel for the decelleration period, or you are travelling near the speed of light, where furthur accelleration is nearly impossible.


    And slingshotting around a black hole would accellerate you to incredible speeds, if it didn't rip your ship apart. The problem afterwards would be stopping your ship.


    wikipedia:The space inside alcubierre's warp field is not moving. here "For those familiar with the effects of special relativity' date=' such as Lorentz contraction, mass increase and time dilation, the Alcubierre metric has some apparently peculiar aspects. Since a ship at the center of the moving volume of the metric is at rest with respect to locally flat space, there are no relativistic mass increase or time dilation effects. The on-board spaceship clock runs at the same speed as the clock of an external observer, and that observer will detect no increase in the mass of the moving ship, even when it travels at FTL speeds. Moreover, Alcubierre has shown that even when the ship is accelerating, it travels on a free-fall geodesic. In other words, a ship using the warp to accelerate and decelerate is always in free fall, and the crew would experience no accelerational g-forces. Enormous tidal forces would be present near the edges of the flat-space volume because of the large space curvature there, but by suitable specification of the metric, these would be made very small within the volume occupied by the ship."



    Thus, this ship does not disobey SR, as I said. Your paraphrase was incorrect. And it would be a good idea to cite the wikipedia page here, even though I gave the link to you.

  14. It's evident that "Religion vs Athiesm" and Creation vs Evolution debates are beginning to run rampant on SFN, and although I am not directly opposed to these debates, I fear SFN is in a bit of danger of becoming known to the science forum community for the amount of topics with this debate becoming a footnote of their closed threads. Then again this could be said about almost every other science forum.


    But that's not really what I am concerned about. My concern is that this debate not only exists in the religion forum (where I believe it belongs, as it is not a debate about science, but about theology, as Creation has yet to be proven as science, and religion debates are a no-brainer) but has spilled over into the evolution forum repeatedly.


    I'm wondering if a new rule prohibiting discussion or debate on the subject of creation in the evolution thread might be prudent. I believe the discussion of evolution needs to be based around the merits of the theory alone. Debates about Creation vs Evolution usually degrade into one-shot exchanges on rhetoric and semantics anyway and rarely yield any new ideas. I doubt that promotes healthy scientific debate, and just don't think it has a place in the evolution forum.


    I realise it's not uncommon or harmful to discuss two or more subjects of science in a topic that relates them directly; I want to emphasise that Creation theory is unscientific, and its inclusion in the evolution forum has impeded scientific debate in some cases.


    I would like to iterate that I do not oppose the discussion of religion or creation in the religion forum, or even oppose the discussion of religion in regards to evolution, as that is an important topic to many people. I just don't think Creation has a place in the evolution forum.


    I'm curious to read the views of the moderators.

  15. The 3rd dimension shows the degree of spacetime curvature in the plane. Instead this could be shown by, say, a color gradient, with a legend to match the color gradient to a curve that shows the degree of spacetime curvature.

    I was going to suggest the color gradient, but I like the idea of a 3D representation, so I went with the warped grid. Perhaps a series of points with either varying densities in distribution, or same distribution but varying size would be more appropriate.


    I just don't like the idea of the concept being used to describe the concept.


    Like I said though, there's hardly an analogy that you can express verbally that can match the bowling ball analogy as far as how easy it is to visualize. I just wish there was.

  16. I need to go buy a dictionary before I can participate in the poll.

    Heh, perhaps so for me too...


    I think that without the mechanisms used in the storage of short, and long term memory, the part of the brain responsible for conciousness is of no use, so I would take that into consideration.

  • 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.