baric

(This data is from year 7 BC which is the accepted date of Jesus birth)

This is untrue.

M aybe the core of a black hole depends on if it is spinning, how big it is, and how it formed.

Keep in mind that all black holes are spinning and doing so at an extremely high rate. There's no other way to conserve angular momentum.

It's just all happening within the event horizon.

but you cannot see the core, you see the photosphere which is what we measure rotation with.

This is exactly correct.

Here's a thought experiment..

(yes, I know this is implausible, but please accept the premise)

Premise: Astronomers discover a huge, Pluto-sized body deep in the Kuiper Belt and realize that, due to a recently perturbed orbit, that it will directly impact Earth in 30,000 years -- destroying all life on our planet. Because of its size, this impact is unavoidable. Many suggest that the only way for humans to survive extinction is to start an intensive and expensive effort to terraform and colonize Mars, which would take at least 20,000 years to complete.

Question: Does our generation choose to do anything about it, or do we shrug and decide to let future generations worry about it?

These speculations point to size scales of "separation" of order-of-magnitude hundreds of millions, to billions, of light-years. Hyper-acceptance, that Super-Aliens "must" Exist, nearer to earth, could therefore require, an explanation for 'Their' non-observable 'Darkness', e.g. 'They' camouflage & conceal 'Their' Presence; or, 'They' "don't glow", i.e. 'They' are energy efficient w/o wasting energy on broadcasted emissions.

We all understand the timescales involved, but the reality is galactic colonization (or even noticeable super-advanced civilizations in a single star system) are contingent upon futuristic technologies that remain undiscovered.

To suggest colonization for example, requires either the possibility of relativistic speeds or the ability for organisms to survive eons in deep space (in transit).

There are significant technological hurdles to both of those options and clearing those hurdles may simply not be possible for biological civilizations constrained to the resources a single planet. Even terraforming nearby Mars is projected to take THOUSANDS (>10K) of years. While that may seem like a blip in galactic time, that planet is a very close analogue for our own (lucky us!) and yet the timescale is still much longer than our written history.

It's just as possible that interstellar travel is so impractical that it makes far more sense for civilizations to simply terraform their local system to suit their needs.

"Adapted" is a more directly appropriate word. But, "better adapted", in theory, has amounted, in evolutionary practice, to ever-increasing "sophistication", of earth life systems, over the past 4 Gyr, generally; and, over the last 0.5 Gyr, specifically. For example, mammals today have 4-chambered hearts, an unambiguous increase in "sophistication", over comparatively "simple" evolutionary precursors, originally having only 1-chambered hearts, half-a-billion years ago.

Your bias towards your own species clouds your judgment.

The most populous and durable organisms on this planet consist of just a single cell.

And are you really suggesting that we are more well-adapted than this species? http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8127000/8127519.stm

Thus "you are an idiot and therefore your statement is absurd" is an ad hominem argument, but "your statement is absurd and therefore you are an idiot" is an observation and an insult, but not an ad hominem argument.

 

...

 

Life is just too short to spend time dissecting in detail the rantings of the numerous nut cases found today on the internet -- and science forums attract more than their fare share.

 

...

 

The first step in doing research and developing radical new valid science is understanding what is already known, the basis of that knowledge and the limits of its applicability. That requires serious intense study. There is a reason why almost all research scientists have Ph.D. degrees.

 

...

 

Sincere newbies deserve consideration and tolerance. But kid gloves are not for wackos, cheaters or even just lazy students.

 

...

 

It is therefore expedient, and in fact necessary, to learn to discriminate between arguments and sources that are deserving of the expenditure of intellectual capital and tripe that should be dismissed out of hand, not even read fully.

I wish I could +1 your post separately for each of those excerpted comments.

'the Rule' -- more advanced organisms replace more primitive forms

 

There are always 'exceptions', but, as a 'rule', more advanced organisms, having competitive advantages over more primitive precursors, tend to replace those less advanced organisms, over evolutionary time. For example, more advanced humans dominate the earth, numbering in the billions (and growing); whereas, less advanced chimpanzees are restricted to marginal habitats, not yet exploited by humans, and number in the hundreds of thousands (and shrinking).

So you are drawing conclusions governing evolution on the grand scale of eons from population trends in the last ten thousand years?

Also, your "rule" is incorrect. Better adapted organisms replace less adapted organisms.

Conditions could change on this planet (and have in the past), that could make single-celled organisms the most well-adapted forms on the planet. Are you aware that some scientists believe that the "more advanced" humans almost became extinct just 70,000 years ago when our population crashed to possibly under 10,000 due to catastrophic environmental changes?

http://en.wikipedia....astrophe_theory

How I wish this was true. It might be in general, but not all scientists are 'smarter' than the average person. Scientists might be more didactic, more analytic, more mathematical -- but I wouldn't say they're generally "smarter".

Perhaps we are simply quibbling over a semantic definition of "smart". I am not talking about some innate, inborn characteristic. I am talking about environmental characteristics like rationality (learned), academics (learned), and passion for their field of study.

These things combined make scientists, as a group, the undisputed experts in their fields of knowledge. They are SMARTER than those whose desires and efforts took them into other fields.

We can all condescend everyone as much as we want, but the bottom line is that rarely are people born science-ready. I was always curious about the universe, so in that aspect, I was "a skeptic" from a young age. Was I a scientist?

Of course not. "Scientist" is a profession. Being a skeptic is certainly a valuable, perhaps indispensable, prerequisite for being a good scientist. But that alone does not make you one.

And I was ridiculed by some science-minded folk, mainly online, but also off; I knew that I'm not stupid, and I knew I wanted to understand what's going on, but instead of explaining to me *why* my methods lead to the wrong answer, people ridiculed -- so instead of considering they might have a point, I thought they're pompous asses that are afraid of change.

Ridiculing those less able is symptom of insecurity, an unfortunate characteristic of human personality. It occurs in ALL professions, and human scientists are no more immune to that personality flaw than anyone else.

You need to recognize it as a flaw of the ridiculer, not you, and shrug it off. All that ultimately matters in science is the pursuit of knowledge.

There are enough people out there who think that scientists and science-minded people are obtuse jerks who don't listen and consider themselves smarter than everyone else. We don't need to get out of our way to convince them that they're right.

I hate to burst your bubble, but scientists as a whole ARE far smarter than the average person. There is a huge academic threshold that has to be crossed and then they spend their entire lives in the pursuit of knowledge in their particular fields.

So yes, in their fields, they are much SMARTER than you or I. It's a fact. If they weren't, they could not cut it as scientists.

Just like soldiers are braver.

Models are prettier.

Professional athletes are more fit.

etc etc

Replace God with unknown force.

Still an incoherent, undefined term.

If you admit that you don't know what "god" is (an "unknown force"), then how can you rationally posit it as an explanation for anything?

If you try to tell me our universe is a product of God, I cannot tell you otherwise, until I have proof.

Until you can provide a coherent definition of the word "God", then you can say the same thing by positing that the universe is the product of blarg.

(Blarg is another incoherent, undefinable word I just made up.)

No one can really define what "god" means, so using that word renders a statement ultimately meaningless.

By "ridiculous" assertions, I mean an those so detached from established science that there are only two plausible explanations for their existence:

1) There is a known, non-scientific agenda being pushed that requires ignoring clearly established observations. Examples include creationism/ID (religious agenda), global warming denial (economic/political agenda), crop circles, ancient astronauts and telepathy (huckster agenda).

or 2) There is pattern of willful ignorance by a particular presenter who rehashes the same, tired theories without acknowledging previous refutations.

In both cases, ridicule is warranted rather than repeating the same, meticulous refutation that has been made many times before. Unnecessarily wasting time on frauds like these diverts attention from more productive activities!

This does not mean we should ridicule someone who is innocently presenting a flawed case. However, if they are really uninformed there is no shame in plainly letting them know that they need to learn a bit more before, for example, attempting to disprove relativity.

"The steady state model is now largely discredited, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe."

 

 

And what can you even argue his rejection did? The theory was proposed by Lemaitre. I don't understand your argument, perhaps because I'm not well informed on this. Please explain.

The first thing is to think of an example of ridicule. That was the first to come to mind. However, Hoyle's labeling of "Big Bang" had the opposite effect intended because it gave a memorable name to the new theory.

My example about cold fusion is more concrete.

I am saying that science might be able to prove ID one day.

Except that there is no ID theory to prove. Seriously. It's little more than an untestable "God did it" statement that falls apart upon cursory examination.

You said I shouldn't get mad because I want everything to be sunshine and lollipops all of the time. I took it as you alluding to the fact that I'm childish. I find this insulting.

 

If it wasn't to be taken personally, cool.

 

I'm still waiting on a response as to a specific example of where ridicule has been shown to advance science.

Fred Hoyle's rejection of a competing theory that he dismissed as the "Big Bang" theory.

Also, the rapid rejection and ridicule of "cold fusion" in the late 80s undoubtedly redirected a lot of research time back away from it and onto more worthy subjects.

What do you guys think would happen if this was possible? If Jupiter had the same mass it has now but was undergoing nuclear reactions of such a level that it was shining just as bright as our sun, what would that do to our life here on Earth?"

I'm going to ignore the physical impossibilities of this and try to answer your question per the intent you asked.

The Sun burns about 635e12 kg per second of Hydrogen for fuel. Jupiter has a mass of 1.89e27 kilograms, 90% of which is Hydrogen (fuel for stellar fusion).

This means that, in order to burn as brightly as the Sun, Jupiter would burn 2.68e12 seconds before running out of Hydrogen fuel, or about 85,000 years.

With two suns, one at 1 AU from Earth and the other averaging 5.2 AU from Earth, our planet would receive energy equivalent to the Sun being 4% closer. That would raise the effective temperature of our planet about 5 degrees Kelvin, or as bad as some of the worst-case global warming scenarios -- on top of our own global warming issues.

The ice caps would melt, lowering the albedo of the planet and probably warming things up a bit more. It would be global warming on steroids, with all of the flooding, agricultural and sociological problems that would cause.

For 85,000 years.

Yes intelligence can be observed in a number of life forms. And some even make tools. But the point is that, with all the myriad species on this planet, and some 5 billion years of its existence, one and only one species has the intelligence-level to create and comment in this forum.

There were indeed more than one tool-using species of hominid living concurrently. Our particular species won the war of competition long before the first pages of history were written.

If another hominid species had won out, they might very well indeed be here, in some alternate timeline, posing the same questions.

If chimpanzees have been using stone tools for at least 4,300 years, they have not made much progress. They use sticks to dig into termite mounds and a small twig to "fish" out termites. Why do they not carry a spear or club around with them at all times? They live in a dangerous area and yet a simple club or spear is not something they ever thought about carrying around for defense, even though the Senegal chimp will hunt Bushbabies with a spear.

Are you suggesting that humans made that same step in less than 4300 years? I'm not exactly sure you understand how glacial technological development was for our species until the very recent past.

How much longer will it take for the chimpanzee to make more sophisticated tools? Probably never. We are very much alone as a technological intelligence.

Probably never? In the tremendously long chain of evolutionary adaptations that have led to our tool use and technology, chimps have undoubtedly traveled over 99% of the way with us. To assume that they could not take that last step if we suddenly disappeared seems very presumptuous.

I would like to add that I like very much when disagreeing politely with someone.

When two scientists disagree, the odds are great that one of them is going to walk away from the discussion slightly wiser.

Normally, politeness need not enter into the equation. If it does, it should scale with the absurdity of the assertion.

Examples:

Assertion #1: "consistencies in ancient Greek texts indicate that an historical Atlantis is a real possibility"

Reply #1: "I've never seen literary evidence to warrant that level of certainty. I'd like to hear your case for it"

Assertion #2: "an iron-age Atlantis existed during the Mycenaean period at Santorini, and their survivors may have triggered the rapid advances in classical Greece"

Reply #2: "wow, that's pretty far out there. Your timelines are way off and there is no archaeological evidence to support that. Perhaps you should study up more on this subject"

Assertion #3: "a historical Atlantis existed with futuristic technology and their descendants now visit us in spaceships"

Reply #3: "that is complete rubbish and you are a nut"

Really? Hundreds of thousands of species on the planet and a handful develop tool use. That's like, 0.0004% of animals have developed some form of tool use. That seems an exceptionally low percentage to me.

An adaptation that allows generic tool use is a TREMENDOUS selection advantage because it removes the need for further morphological changes to adapt to new environments. Once this threshold is crossed, a species is rapidly able to move into many previously unsuitable habitats, effectively stunting the evolutionary progress of all other species.

And clearly tool use is generally not a selective advantage or else it would be commonplace, like walking, swimming or flying, for example.

It is ubiquitous. In fact, you will find tool-using animals in almost every corner of the Earth, driving out all other competitors for natural resources. Of course, these animals are all members of the same species. The competition for resources will prevent multiple tool-using species from co-existing for any amount of time.

Are you equating having a brain with intelligence? Even on this forum we have evidence that the two are not equivalent.

I was using the term 'brain' as a shorthand for intelligence, but obviously not every bundle of nerves fits that description. Nevertheless, some early invertebrates did indeed eventually evolve intelligent brains.

Airbrush raised some interesting points in his last reply to you. Will you be responding to them?

I missed it. I'll go look at it.

That is a false premise. While tool use may spread within the population, it is not a certainty that proficiency will increase. Anatomic limitations are a simple counterexample. And of course tool use often spreads non-genetically within a population.

Anatomic limitations are only a temporary constraint. If tool use provides a selective advantage, those individuals more anatomically suited to use the tools efficiently will disproportionately contribute to the gene pool of future generations.

The problem is that "ridicule" is a subjective term.

If someone proposes "theory A", someone else may point out that theory leads to logical conclusions that are clearly absurd. The first person may consider that "ridicule", but the second may consider it an illustrative refutation.

For example, Albert Einstein used the term "spooky action at a distance" to ridicule the QM notion of non-locality.

My opinion is that, as long as people are not PERSONALLY ridiculed, then it is all legitimate discussion.

Please read what I write, or else I cannot address your questions. I did not make the assertions, that you are attributing to me (apparently by simply & summarily scanning my post for its pictures).

That's interesting, because I read your post in its entirety, restated your premise using your same choice of words, and then gave an indication of why I considered it fallacious.

All that I have said, is that "the absence of evidence, is not an evidence of absence"; and, that hypothetical Super-Alien space-habitats could be as big as worlds, and as bright as stars, and still be beyond our current capacities to detect.

This is also interesting. You accuse me of not reading your post and then reinterpret your words post-hoc. Despite your use of quote marks above, you in fact did not quote Sagan at all and, regardless of that, at no point did I claim that the lack of evidence represents a falsification. What you said was (in giant bold), and what I responded to, was:

"I can't see" does not imply that there is nothing to see"

If you can't see it, then you have no evidence to support it. Until such evidence is found, it is conjecture.

In fact, dismissing "I can't see" as a justification for believing those interstellar structures may exist is just another form of Russell's Teapot fallacy -- thus my teapot reference.

The Kardashev scale, in the first paragraph of the wiki link you provided, is described as "only theoretical" and such civilizations are "highly speculative". And since advanced alien structures are so speculative, no one really has any idea of how they could be detected or even if any anomalous detections are ever indications of such a civilization.

This is why they are science fiction. So while it may make an interesting addition to a Star Trek script, it really has little place in discussions about actual science.

Planets need not, necessarily, ever be colonized. Rather, "superior-to-natural" space-habitats could be employed, with planets 'processed & harvested' like little more, than big asteroids, which is what they are.

 

 

 

"I can't see" does not imply that there is nothing to see

 

White Dwarves are planet-sized, yet star-hot, with stellar surface brightnesses. Yet, WDs are so faint, that they are barely visible, as faint foreground objects, even in the HDF. Thus, hypothetical Super-Aliens could currently reside, in planet-sized super-habitats -- "cybertron with every street-light on bright", i.e. an actual "NYC-in-the-sky" -- and still be human un-observed:

 

Yes, hypothetical Super-Aliens could certainly live in planet-sized space habitats, orbiting around white dwarfs and harvesting planets for raw materials, making it impossible for us to observe and disprove their existence.

Are these "cybertron" habitats shaped like teapots, by any chance?

Baric, if you had actually read the previous 5 pages or knew of Kardeshev or Freeman Dyson's work, or even got the part where the orbital solar collectors are integral to the Bernal sphere and don't need to "laser" their energy to an Earthbound user, then it might be a lot easier for you to understand statements that have been substantiated over the past few decades.

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Bernal_sphere

 

http://en.wikipedia....Kardashev_scale

 

http://en.wikipedia....ce_colonization

 

http://en.wikipedia....ered_propulsion

 

As you hopefully can see, this is not Gene Roddenberry stuff. Actual scientists have crunched the numbers and this is what our future holds. However, space is the final frontier and these are the best solutions to over-crowding and survival, so not just our species would figure this out.

You did not provide any evidence of actual "crunched numbers". In fact, the Kardashev scale link was exhibit #1 that you are residing in credulous science fiction land.

I mean, your "Beam Power Propulsion" page actually compared launching an object weighing 1.8 ounces for 12 seconds to Goddard's first rocket test flights and then extrapolated that peashooter launch to placing a 1 kg probe into orbit for $20 worth of electricity! That is a prime example of irrational exuberance.

Here's are some example pages that is a bit more grounded in reality:

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

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

Now, what do you see on those pages that is missing from your references? Crunched numbers.

This does not mean that laser-powered launches will never happen, but it is far too early to look at them and predict planetary colonization.

The Sun produces a million times humanity's annual energy needs every second.

Unfocused and at broad wavelengths! A solar collector can only be in one place at a time, so you have to measure the lumens per area. It's one thing to build a cost-effective solar collector on Earth to gather photons within a narrow spectrum, and entirely something else to build, launch and maintain millions of orbital collectors and efficiently transfer their energy (via laser, presumably) to some local users. That is engineering on an unspeakably grander scale that we have ever attempted.

A ten-mile diameter asteroid would have more ore on it than humanity has mined on Earth in all of history. Orbital solar-powered lasers can energize the hull of a spherical shuttle on the ground so that the atmosphere under it explodes and drives the ship to orbit. Dyson calculated that an orbital colony in Bernal spheres would grow exponentially and produce enough living space in new space habitats to house the population of the Earth in less than 60 years. We have the technology to do all of these things right now.

You're saying that, RIGHT NOW, we have the technology to:

Orbital solar-powered lasers can energize the hull of a spherical shuttle on the ground so that the atmosphere under it explodes and drives the ship to orbit

I dispute that.

A star, and whatever orbits it, would provide all the energy and resources a civilization would need to continue exponential colonization. Even a white dwarf star would radiate heat energy from convection that could be used by a colony. So an entire galaxy would eventually be colonized by any space-faring species.

Science fiction is really interesting, I understand that, but you use "would" far too extravagantly. You should be wary of speaking with certitude about futuristic and uncertain technologies.

I can't tell you how a civilization with technology a million years more advance than we have would travel from star to star or galaxy to galaxy. I can only tell you that no scientific reason exists that they couldn't.

Science does not prove negatives. It never has, and never will.

This is the "they" that Fermi is talking about when he asked, "Where are they?"

Two possibilities:

They are stuck on their planets, waiting for us to notice them?

They are dead?

The paradox is easily solved without invoking human exceptionalism or hiding aliens.

'Biblically-advanced', i.e. 'God-like', Super-Aliens would not rely on mechanical (e.g. water, wind); or, on chemical (e.g. oil, gas) power sources.

I agree, which is why I said there would need to be a "huge technological jump to find new sources of energy" in order to continue advancement beyond the limits of Earth.

So the questions become, by precedence:

1) Is this jump even possible? (i.e. does the nature of the universe allow for it)

2) Is this jump practical? (i.e. is attaining this level within the scope of a planet-based civilization?)

3) Will this jump occur? (i.e. is human civilization capable of making this jump before killing themselves or running out of time?)