Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Posts

    11811
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Posts posted by Moontanman

  1. 13 hours ago, deappri said:

    In recent years the discovery of the Bucky ball, C60 molecule, was touted as proof of the versatile nature of the Carbon bond and an example of why it was so good at being the scaffolding of life. But another element can make Bucky ball type molecules, Boron. The B80 molecule is stable and shows that Boron is also a very versatile atom, does this point to the possibility that Boron might in some environments make a suitable scaffolding for life as well?

    commercial advertising links removed by moderator

    It does seem to point out the versatility of Boron and in fact Boron does rival carbon in its versatility but Boron has some extreme drawbacks. The rarity of Boron is probably the most significant, free Boron is explosive in an oxygen atmosphere and Boron "oxide?" is a solid at the temps water is liquid but it does dissolve in water (makes your laundry squeaky clean as well) 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

    Quote

    Boranes are dangerously explosive in Earth's atmosphere, but would be more stable in a reducing atmosphere. However, boron's low cosmic abundance makes it less likely as a base for life than carbon.

    Quote

    Non-carbon-based biochemistries[edit]

    On Earth, all known living things have a carbon-based structure and system. Scientists have speculated about the pros and cons of using atoms other than carbon to form the molecular structures necessary for life, but no one has proposed a theory employing such atoms to form all the necessary structures. However, as Carl Sagan argued, it is very difficult to be certain whether a statement that applies to all life on Earth will turn out to apply to all life throughout the universe.[12] Sagan used the term "carbon chauvinism" for such an assumption.[13] He regarded silicon and germanium as conceivable alternatives to carbon[13] (other plausible elements include but are not limited to palladium and titanium); but, on the other hand, he noted that carbon does seem more chemically versatile and is more abundant in the cosmos).[14] Norman Horowitz devised the experiments to determine whether life might exist on Mars that were carried out by the Viking Lander of 1976, the first U.S. mission to successfully land an unmanned probe on the surface of Mars. Horowitz argued that the great versatility of the carbon atom makes it the element most likely to provide solutions, even exotic solutions, to the problems of survival on other planets.[15] He considered that there was only a remote possibility that non-carbon life forms could exist with genetic information systems capable of self-replication and the ability to evolve and adapt.

    This may be interesting;

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265737139_Alternative_Chemistries_of_Life

    https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/alternative_forms_of_life.html

    https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/boron-based_life.html

    Quote

    Boron is one of the few elements that seems to offer a plausible alternative to carbon as a basis for life elsewhere in the universe. Like carbon and silicon, boron has a strong tendency to form covalent molecular compounds. Being a group III element, however, it has one less valence electron than the number of valence orbitals, which makes its chemistry noticeably different from that of carbon.

     

    There are no direct analogs to hydrocarbons in boron chemistry because, although boron forms a lot of different structural varieties of hydride, in these the boron atoms are linked indirectly through hydrogen bridges. Boron forms bonds with nitrogen that are somewhat like the carbon-carbon bond – two electrons from the nitrogen being donated in addition to the covalent electron sharing. Boron-nitrogen compounds largely match the chemical and physical properties of alkanes (such as methane and ethane) and aromatic hydrocarbons (such as benzene) but with higher melting and boiling points. Borazole especially is both chemically and physically similar to benzene. However, the fact that borazole and its derivatives are more reactive than their benzene counterparts would make any boron-based biochemistry more feasible within the lower temperatures at which ammonia is a liquid solvent since the reactions would then be more controllable. Interestingly, boron has an affinity ammonia as a solvent, which would suit a low-temperature biological scheme.

     

    One of the biggest drawbacks to boron as a basis for life it is scarcity. On Earth, its abundance in the continental crust is only about 10 parts per million, so that any biology would seem to depend on their being present some mechanism for bringing about greater local concentrations of the element.

     

  2. Most if not all of these technologies would require what is known as "Clark Tech" or from our point of view "magic" I have my doubts that a star trek like leap in technologies is in our future at any point. The entire premise of Star Trek was the discovery of a new layer of reality, warp tech, subspace tech, and sometimes they talk about hyperspace, that sort of reminds me of the leap mankind made after the discovery of magnetism and electricity the control or use of both. Our entire civilization is based on electricity and magnetism, I have severe doubts we will ever make such a discovery again or that there even is one waiting to be discovered.  

  3. 12 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

    I remember you from another forum before you shortened your moniker. ;)

    You were on that other forum with INow too Moontanman, back in 2006, the good old days lol.

    Mine is boring because it's just my email, which is my name and the initials of my first company.

    Yeah the good old days, hypography has gone down hill rather drastically. 

  4. 2 hours ago, swansont said:

    I think the primary reason aliens don’t communicate with us is that they would be many light-years away from us and the speed of light is finite. That’s a show-stopper even before you consider other confounding effects.

    Not necessarily, aliens of one or several species could inhabit the Kuiper belt living in O'Neil type habitats or many other configurations. They could indeed avoid planets for many reasons but a planet with a burgeoning civilization may tempt specialists to observe us, especially since they inhabit our solar system. This idea of inhabiting many planetary systems could suggest that the galaxy is full of intelligent life but planets would be avoided this still leaves room for colonization of the galaxy and nearly every star would be a candidate, not just stars with habitable planets.     

    3 hours ago, tylers100 said:

    Ants work together. A pack of wolves work together. Birds work together. Some animals hunt alone, granted.. but still, a form of communication must exist for them and they must got to have different types of intelligence specified and / or evolved by a relation between life condition(s) and general animal/insect/etc psychology. For life / survival tasks.

    It is just that there are too much of incompatibility in communication between us humans and insects, animals, etc. There has to be an intermediate language between us and them, we can't just expect and force to bring them up or down to our communication level because of different intelligence types.

    An intermediate or universal language has to be realized first. We have to start thinking about a common and physical characteristic shared across us humans, insects, animals, etc in order to have a formulation of an intermediate or universal language then make derivations of languages from it for specific intelligence types.

    Maybe with math and AI machine learning assistance, we could learn how to communicate with ants, wolves, birds, etc here on Earth in future. To better take care of Earth.

    Then after that, maybe who know we might make a contact, encounter, and / or visit by aliens from outer space or something like that.

    There are elephants that have taught themselves to speak human languages. On in Korea speak Korean, maybe when we taught apes to use sign language we were picking the wrong species. 

  5. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    I joined when I was creating a number of online accounts (some personal, some for work), and wasn't going to try and get too clever. Last name, first initial. Reduced chance of registering a name already in use, so I wouldn't have to be Gandalf7 on one site and Gandalf44 on another and keep track of which one was associated with which site.

    My now-dormant blog's name (Swans on Tea) is a phonetic derivative of this.

    No wonder i think of swans on a lake of tea when i read your name! 

    2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    And here I thought it was hillbilly for mountain....

     I was born on a mountain raised in a cave... no wait that's something else. I was raised a hillbilly but my adult life has been spent on the beach. 

  6. 3 hours ago, NTuft said:

    Ookay. In indirect fashion at the end I elaborated on the ideas of immanent vs. remote. I don't feel it obligatory to elaborate on terms that are readily available to be defined by a search. And I don't accept the question as though he's asking on behalf of a group of hillbillies who have limited computer time or speed at the local library or something.

    I am a hillbilly, I apologize for my attempt at humor to try and defuse the situation.

    3 hours ago, NTuft said:

      

    That is the question of the thread, and I have to disagree that since it is made explicit it is not a form of special pleading, being that the exception being declared defines the issue under argument.

    So you are asserting that if special pleading is part of the answer then it isn't special pleading? An interesting way to get around that logical fallacy.  

    3 hours ago, NTuft said:

     

    As an exercise in abstraction, let's examine empiricism. I'd say results of empirical science follow from an initial measurement or observation, and deductions then made to explain those observations or measurements. There is a small leap of faith made in granting that the instrument of observation or measurement has been calibrated precisely against an objective standard. Here if our instrumennt is human perception or reasoning we take it that these are not fallible or that enough observations and deductions agreed upon as reasonable constitutes sufficient support.

    If the same instrument/person was being used for every measurement then you would have a point, this is not the case. Once the "measurement" has been made it isn't automatically accepted as fact, it has to be measured by many people using many instruments who are doing their best to prove the initial person/measurement wrong. It's called the scientific method and has done a pretty good job of sorting chaff from the wheat so far. 

    3 hours ago, NTuft said:

    By assuming that a result of epmiricism, like Darwin's theory of evolution, is based on precise or objective data is making a special plea for the results of a science that has not performed sufficient validation of it's base method -- being that it always relies on observation, human vision (which no doubt arose from random point mutations in the chemoreceptors of amniotes), or reason, which may be error prone.

    I disagree, you are using a tactic often used by science deniers to muddy the water of any scientific theory, in fact I think your argument qualifies as solipsism, which in my personal view is a somewhat less that honest argument.   

    3 hours ago, NTuft said:

     

    I'm not trying to fool anyone, nor evangelize to hillbillies. Although if there are any Mohammedans in the Hills, the 99 attributes or names of God also speaks to immanent vs. remote. Why you want to act aggrieved and insist that I elaborate on things such as that is beyond me.

    I think you are certainly beyond an honest argument.  

    3 hours ago, NTuft said:

     

    Well reasoned I'd say, and important to delineate that it may be a conception for explanation that is being examined; wholly equally weighted conclusion based on evidence that the concept is a construct of the human mind, IMO.

    Solipsism again?  

  7. 3 hours ago, NTuft said:

    I am not so sure. The implication is that the special exception is part and parcel of the definition.

    Only that if people created G-d/gods it is an "immaterial" creation.

    No.

    If a clock-work universe were designed and then the guy (or possibly Descartes' demon) walked away it may be impossible to discern the hand which wrought it out.

    "who created god?" is also a loaded question.

    I didn't ask you who created god, the special exception is special pleading no matter if it is part and parcel of the definition. You seem to be good at answers that make little to no sense except in your own world, I would suggest you try to pull your head out and answer more clearly. No one here is fooled by vague attempts to sound philosophical. 

  8. On 6/2/2022 at 6:17 PM, Trurl said:

    Why would he have to be created?

    We talk about infinity in the forums all the time. How about always was.

    Special pleading anyone? 

    On 6/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, NTuft said:

     

    I think an idea would be that God is the uniquely uncreated or self-created.

    Again special pleading. 

    On 6/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, NTuft said:

    But which came first, the turtle or the egg?

    The egg, amniotes appeared before there were turtles. 

    On 6/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, NTuft said:

    This and other discussion pointing out "people did" brings to my mind the concept of an egregore:

    Which idea I think implies a certain materiality or existence of thought, the existence of "consciousness", which topic is a slippery eel...

    I'm not sure what you are saying here, care to elaborate? 

    On 6/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, NTuft said:

    Also I think an aspect of theology to consider is immanent vs. remote. Judaism I think is largely concerned with making Yahweh immanent in the world. Christianity, or Pauline Christology, developed what I conceptualize as a semi-remote Tri-une God of "The Trinity": the mysterious aspect of which is that it can be self-creating through interaction of its constituent parts. May be the Absolute is further remote from the trinity, itself a unity. An eel egg, obviously.

    Again I do not understand what you are saying, can you elaborate in manner that us hillbillies can understand? 

    On 6/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, NTuft said:

     

    I would like to know who created the bacterial flagellum, or the ATP-proton pump. I don't think Chuck D. can rap his way out of a paper bag. Although, there sure is a lot of work done on that line.

    Asking who created the flagellum or the ATP-proton pump is a loaded question. Such things are clearly the result of evolution via natural selection over vast periods of time no creator needed. 

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

    Quote

    There is good evidence that the bacterial flagellum has evolved from a Type III secretory and transport system, given the similarity of proteins in both systems.[6]

    All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of exporting (injecting) toxin into eukaryotic cells. Similarly, flagella grow by exporting flagellin through the flagellar machinery. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[7] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system.

     

  9. While acknowledge my experience in this is highly limited, I've known only one transgendered Male/Female, he/she was... trying to put this delicately, well I'll describe her, about 6'6, muscular, large breasts, huge feet and hands, almost a walking circus act. She went to our church I felt a lot of sympathy towards her, I had extensive talks with her and found out the transition had pretty much brought her life to a halt, she lost her kids to her ex-wife, lost her job because she couldn't stand the hostility from her co workers. Her life was a mess, a horrific mess. I hope it got better as time went on but I have my doubts, she left town for a job and I never saw her again. This was a horror story by any ones measure. 

    This thread make me wonder if she would have been better off if the transition had started before or around puberty. One thing is for sure, the transition didn't affect her manliness and I have known very tall women before but she was a fish out of water for sure.  

  10. 5 hours ago, beecee said:

     

    This thread, despite the title, has essentially been about no sex segregation what so ever in any sport. In other words, a professional woman rugby player, should be allowed to play agaisnt a professional 110 kg male player, IF they achieve the same skill, and endurance levels. The "IF" is an absolute furphy if we get right down to the nitty gritty. The facts are men are generally "STRONGER", they are generally "FASTER", they do generally "HIT HARDER" they are generally able to "ABSORB AND TAKE BIG HITS" far better, they are generally "MORE AGGRESSIVE" the are generally "HEAVIER".

    Now certainly we may have some women that might be faster then a professional rugby player, but will they be as aggressive? and stronger? and be able to take big hits? and hit harder? and absorb punishment better? 😁

    The transgender argument is another matter, that my reference sport alreay have rules for, based on scientific medical advice, (or the lack thereof) as there is much to learn in that regard and much to measure and decipher.

    I can remember playing sports with girls when I was young, got my clock cleaned by a girl playing football when I was 13, she was 13, by the time I was 15 she was no longer able to dominate me physically, in fact we went to several dances together and she was significantly smaller than me by then. 

    Base ball might be a different thing, girls were completive with boys, in sand lot baseball, all through high school.  

  11. I'm not going to read all 1200 posts in this thread but I would like to ask if anyone has thought of the idea of letting trans kids participate in a order by themselves? This is all above my pay grade, maybe i will skim through the posts after all. 

     

  12. Any bio markers seen by telescope would have some doubt attached to them. Right now there is a biosignature on Titan and a pretty good idea of how life could be possible in liquid methane/ethane. We will have to visit Titan either by robot or in person to be sure.  

  13. 20 hours ago, swansont said:

    The military's 2021 report said no evidence of aliens had been found. Scott W. Bray, the deputy director of Naval intelligence, told lawmakers that they still haven't uncovered anything "nonterrestrial in origin," even though there are incidents they can't explain.

    Why do people keep mentioning aliens when the reports say that there is no evidence of aliens?

    That is a very good point, but when asked about this it was said that aliens are not being ruled out. I think it would be a step to far at this point to name aliens as a probability but the ones that are inexplicable, and not from lack of data, are being labeled "unknown" at some point the label "unknown" becomes quite provocative of something extraordinary. I think we may have crossed that line, only a continuing investigation will sort out the wheat from the chaff.   

  14. On 5/22/2022 at 4:26 PM, swansont said:

    Where? I see 5 mentions, and a couple of them mentioned where one sighting was confirmed as a deflating balloon, but nothing about them being ruled out.

    I over stepped, out of 400 current sightings being studied one was ascribed to a partially deflated balloon... many pilot reports contained the info that the objects were traveling against prevailing winds and or were reacting to the jets and maneuvering at high speeds and therefore could not be balloons. this was not part of the hearing. I had seen these from other sources and mixed them up, I apologize. 

  15. 8 hours ago, swansont said:

    Which are still anecdotal. Observations being made by military personnel doesn’t change that. Plus, they admit  “The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.”

    This is true, the sensors are not ideally suited for UAP's but they are suited to identify other aircraft and have detected the UAP and have given enough info to warrant more study simply because they cannot identify the UAP. This has resulted in the admission of a need for further study.   

    8 hours ago, swansont said:

    One thing missing here is an analysis of known aerial phenomena as a comparison. Surely birds and balloons, etc. have been detected and identified by aircraft before, without being categorized as UAP. What are those signals and how do they differ? There’s also no mention of any sort of systematic test of the sensors to see what kind of signals can be created from any of these mundane phenomena. 

    I would have to assume these tests/comparisons have been done since most of these UAP's currently under study lack any explanation. Balloons are specifically mentioned as being ruled out and birds seldom appear as hollow clear spheres with opaque cubes inside them that can fly among the jet aircraft and exceed their speeds.   

  16. 9 hours ago, swansont said:

    But not so much by people with a physics background, since the physics didn’t even start to exist until Newton.

    Point taken. 

    9 hours ago, swansont said:

    You also have to take into account the date and ability to investigate, including the speed and depth of communication. Vague reports of a rock falling from the sky from a place a hundred miles away isn’t likely to be investigated when there’s no science to be used and that’s a multi-day trip. That’s assuming the news traveled that far.

    UFOs/UAP's were in a similar category of vague and hard to study, now they are being studied from more than just vague reports. 

    9 hours ago, swansont said:

    These reasons why people didn’t investigate is a separate issue from the question I was answering. The issue was investigated after it became clear that there was evidence rather than anecdotes, and actual analysis could be done.

    I think there is a comparison to be made, it was often said UFO's consisted of nothing but anecdotes but now there is evidence in the form of radar and other sensors as well as human eyes and videos made by the military, not just civilians with polaroids.   

    9 hours ago, swansont said:

     

    Do these experts say they do, or do they qualify this by saying “could” i.e. if the objects are real, and other assumptions are valid.

    (Linking to your sources would be helpful when you paraphrase what others say)

    https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/report-no-explanations-for-uap-but-they-threaten-flight-safety/

    Quote

    Ominously, the task force found national security implications. “UAP pose a hazard to safety of flight and could pose a broader danger if some instances
    represent sophisticated collection against U.S. military activities by a foreign government or demonstrate a breakthrough aerospace technology by a potential adversary,” the report concluded. But in the next sentence, the report says, “We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary.” The documentation showed that there were 11 instances of near misses with UAP.

    9 hours ago, swansont said:

     

    I’m sorry, I thought this was about a congressional hearing. What is this “real investigation”?

    The congressional hearing describes the investigation.

  17. 11 hours ago, swansont said:

    It was actual analysis and the weight of observational evidence. You actually had meteorites in hand, and could compare them to stones from the area. And a large number of eyewitnesses of the same unambiguous event, rather than isolated events.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1803-rain-rocks-helped-establish-existence-meteorites-180963017/

    Biot distinguished two kinds of evidence of an extraterrestrial origin of the stones,” Gounelle writes. First, the kind of stone that had fallen was totally different than anything else available locally—but it was similar to the stone from the Barbotan meteor fall in 1790. “The foundries, the factories, the mines of the surroundings I have visited, have nothing in their products, nor in their slag that have with these substances any relation,” Biot wrote.

    Second, unlike earlier falls, there were a number of witnesses “who saw ‘a rain of stones thrown by the meteor,’” Gounelle writes. They were from different walks of life, and, Biot wrote, it would be ridiculous to think they had all colluded to describe something that hadn’t happened. “One can follow Biot’s enquiry, village by village, step by step,” writes Gounelle.

    Good link, it should however be said that meteorites were poopooed for a long time and although it was eventually solved it wasn't solved by people who refused to even look at the evidence and tried to ridicule anyone who did try to investigate the phenomena.  I doubt it's reasonable to require possession of an actual alien space craft for analysis before realizing we might have something extraordinary going on. 

    Right now we have recent photos of objects that simply cannot be explained by conventional means. Sightings by qualified observers, radar contacts, interactions with military jets, and professionals who are saying these objects actually pose a danger to military aircraft. 

    I have to admit that the idea of some type of military hardware that most people are unaware of should still be the main go to but this cannot be said to be true of all present or past sightings. At what point to the contradictions between what is possible for us and what is not begin to point to something extraordinary? 

    Luckily it would appear that a real investigation is going on and results could be forthcoming soon, let us hope it's not adversary technology and turns out to be ours. One thing is, IMHO, misidentification of conventional aircraft is getting less and less likely as the evidence mounts.  

    On 5/18/2022 at 7:22 PM, TheVat said:

    I think Ockham's razor is useful when evaluating cases like children claiming to have encountered aliens.  Given what we know about the psychology of children, there seem to be compelling reasons to consider the ET explanation less likely.  

    A similar response to the notion "they can't all be hoaxes" -- given what we know of the human propensity for trickery, mischief, and a vast array of schemes for self-promotion and/or boosting tourism in places with sagging economies.  (And never underestimate the power of boredom, especially in a small town)

    Our beliefs should never be guided by something being unidentified, except in forming the belief that we may not always get sufficient data about the myriad of small anomalies that occur.  I heard an odd sound last night at three a.m.  The cat was out, so it wasn't the cat.  Nothing in the local news next day.  Spouse asleep.  Probably will never know what it was.  Maybe just some ordinary event, but heard half-asleep.   Many things like that in everyone's life.  Now multiply by 7.4 billion...

    https://nypost.com/2018/08/07/hundreds-of-school-kids-who-saw-a-ufo-and-their-story-was-ignored-for-50-years/

    On 5/18/2022 at 7:22 PM, TheVat said:

    I think Ockham's razor is useful when evaluating cases like children claiming to have encountered aliens.  Given what we know about the psychology of children, there seem to be compelling reasons to consider the ET explanation less likely.  

    A similar response to the notion "they can't all be hoaxes" -- given what we know of the human propensity for trickery, mischief, and a vast array of schemes for self-promotion and/or boosting tourism in places with sagging economies.  (And never underestimate the power of boredom, especially in a small town)

    Our beliefs should never be guided by something being unidentified, except in forming the belief that we may not always get sufficient data about the myriad of small anomalies that occur.  I heard an odd sound last night at three a.m.  The cat was out, so it wasn't the cat.  Nothing in the local news next day.  Spouse asleep.  Probably will never know what it was.  Maybe just some ordinary event, but heard half-asleep.   Many things like that in everyone's life.  Now multiply by 7.4 billion...

    https://nypost.com/2018/08/07/hundreds-of-school-kids-who-saw-a-ufo-and-their-story-was-ignored-for-50-years/

    There is another sighting that is new and little info is available that I know about as of yet but a triangular craft was seen and photographed leaving the ocean, soaring into the air and up and out of range of the super hornet that was witness to the craft, it was recorded on radar as well. I am investigating this and as soon as I get a link to the info other than a you tube video I will share it. 

  18. 20 hours ago, TheVat said:

    I think Ockham's razor is useful when evaluating cases like children claiming to have encountered aliens.  Given what we know about the psychology of children, there seem to be compelling reasons to consider the ET explanation less likely.  

    A similar response to the notion "they can't all be hoaxes" -- given what we know of the human propensity for trickery, mischief, and a vast array of schemes for self-promotion and/or boosting tourism in places with sagging economies.  (And never underestimate the power of boredom, especially in a small town)

    Our beliefs should never be guided by something being unidentified, except in forming the belief that we may not always get sufficient data about the myriad of small anomalies that occur.  I heard an odd sound last night at three a.m.  The cat was out, so it wasn't the cat.  Nothing in the local news next day.  Spouse asleep.  Probably will never know what it was.  Maybe just some ordinary event, but heard half-asleep.   Many things like that in everyone's life.  Now multiply by 7.4 billion...

    I agree with you in spirit but in the reality it is far more complex than kids making something up. Adults were involved and witnessed the same events the children saw. 

×
×
  • 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.