Moontanman

Originally posted by Moontanman

 

 

Ok so 10,000 years ago the early humans were CAVEMEN and did not know mathematics, engineering, and other stuff that could be considered as ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY perse'. Then about 3-4000 years later they built cities, ziggurats, towers, learned math, sciences, medecine, mold bricks, extract metals from the earth and other stuff that so absurdly they weren't ready for. HOW ON EARTH DID THEY ACCOMPLISHED SO MANY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY IN A VERY SHORT SPAN OF TIME??????????

Please give me detailed explanation, because you claim that they are geniuses!

Did you not read my post or are you just being obtuse? I didn't say our ancestors were cave men 10,000 years ago, i said people ten to think our ancestors were stupid and living under rock over hangs. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If you want cave men go back a few more tens of thousands of years.....

UFO are an invention of the US Military as a cover for testing experimental aircraft.

 

Aliens capable of space travel are too intelligent to come here.

Now that's the smartest thing I've heard so far

Hold a magnet near a AC transformer, you can feel the magnet vibrate.

This is something I kind of call "Sherlock Syndrome" when trying to find answers:

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

 

The problem is that often, the simplest, most brilliant methods are the ones that are the easiest to miss. Very few people have been urged to solve the problem of moving such heavy blocks with primitive tools since the advent of cranes, but as has been mentioned here, there are some very clever ways of doing so.

 

It is just too easy to dismiss something as impossible by available means when it really is, possible.

 

It doesn't rule out that aliens visited our ancestors, but it does seem more probable that we've overlooked a simpler explanation than aliens traveling across light years to help us move some rocks.

People tend to think of our ancestors as dumb naked people living on the edge of rock over hangs eating raw meat and picking their noses for fun. Ancient people were very bit as smart as we are and in some ways maybe even smarter. They might not have had the great technology we do but they had their brains and they used them, probably much more than we do. When you have huge population of people willing to do almost anything for the people in power almost anything is achievable. Roll blocks of stone up dirt ramps that are later removed, build a pyramid, similar techniques can be used to build large objects, even huge stones apparently suspended in impossible places. Given time and labor I wouldn't fault them for anything.

Differentiating the water can be done two ways. The first way is labor intensive and requires examining each situation, independently. The other way is to develop some broad based principles that can treat the water affect in a more broad based way. This is less resource intensive but has the requirement of redefining some existing chemistry.

 

Over the years I have developed a number of approaches but many involved theories that required basic research before you could even get started. Recently I made a simple observation that should allow us to get up to steam much quicker. It represents a way to define the potential that can be stored in water and hydrogen bonding.

 

To begin, the following reaction defines the range of energetics within the living state. O2 + H2 <=> 2H2O

 

This is typically written as a forward reaction. I show it as a reversible reaction since life can work within the potential range of this equation in both directions. The production of H2 by life was discovered during research for alternative energy, making H2 gas with bacteria. It is not clear if these bacteria can also eat H2. Most of life uses intermediate reduction and oxidation states, within this energy range, with C-H and N-H as the reduced state since it is easier to store than H2. This energy value is stepped down, with enzymes, all the way to H2O, if O2 is present. Life can go the other way with plants able to make O2 and most of life able to make highly reduced states of C such as saturated lipid material and methane.

 

The area of this equation this is of most interest for the water is the reaction H20 + H2O <=> H2O...H2O. This is just a way of representing hydrogen bonding. If you look at this closely, what happens when a hydrogen bond forms, the H is able to share extra electron density. What that means is the hydrogen bond in water reduces the hydrogen, relative to the zero state of an isolated water molecule. The oxygen is also oxidized relative to this same zero state. One way O shifts this back toward the oxidation of H, is the pH affect, which generates H+ or H3O+.

 

Putting aside the pH affect, liquid water defines an equilibrium between high and low density zones, depending on how the hydrogen bonding is arranged. Relative to the above observation and definition, this can be correlated to each zone defining a different reduction potential, i.e, how well the H is able to share the electron density of water, with the O trying to oxidize this affect. We tend to lump and average this but this average exists within a bandwidth of reduction potential, slightly to the left of the water in the H2 + O2 <=> 2H2O equation. What this means is everything in the cell is assisted by a slight reduction potential in the water, which can be tweaked locally and globally, around this bandwidth depending on how the bio-materials impacts the local and global water.

Yes there are organisms that use hydrogen to combine with carbon to make hydrocarbons and I still don't see your point. Just because we don't have an example of life with out water doesn't make water special or even necessary to any life but our own and that is easily explained by life evolving in water. Of course water has had an effect on life, if the solvent was HF it too would have an effect on the evolution of life. I'm not trying to be obtuse i just don't see the point of pointing out the painfully obvious.

No - because the evidence indicates that dark matter doesn't clump in small distance scales.

True, dark matter doesn't clump but if there is Mirror matter in the universe it should be an amount equal to the amount of matter. this would mean that most of the matter in the Universe would still be something we still do not know. I can't remember off hand what the actual percentage is but if matter comprises 5% of the universe then mirror matter should also make up 5% of the universe. Which would of course be 10% leaving the rest to dark matter and dark energy.

If that were the case, then it would be ruled out, since we would 'see' them via gravity.

Exactly! That is where we get the idea of Dark Matter, there is plenty of evidence of mass we cannot see, hence the question could at least some of it be Mirror Matter?

One of the more interesting things about Mirror matter (if it's real) is there would be not only mirror matter but also mirror anti-matter. Depending on how strong the interaction between matter and mirror matter is, a container of mirror matter could contain antimatter or conversely a container of matter could contain mirror matter and another could contain mirror anti-matter. These two matter containers full of mirror matter and mirror anti-matter could be used to power a space craft, depending of course on how strong the interaction between matter and mirror matter proves to be. More than likely any interaction between the two will be too weak to use in this manner but interaction between the two types of matter could be used in various ways depending of course on how strong this interaction really is.

If mirror matter exists it would at least be as abundant as matter in the universe. Which could mean mirror matter planets, stars and even galaxies.

How would it do that, exactly? Parity is violated in weak interactions. How would some other matter make this not so?

I found this link it should explain mirror matter better then I can but it's mirror reflection symmetry that is violated with out mirror matter.

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

Mirror matter is matter that would be needed to restore parity symmetry as a fundamental symmetry of nature.

Could mirror matter comprise a significant quantity of the missing mass in the universe and how would we go about detecting it?

Sorry about that, I got the info that the inner core of the earth was as hot as the sun from Discovery channel. Should have known better.

 

Also, Id like to clarify that my original post is not what I actually think at this time, it was just a theory. not even a hypothesis. Kind of a , What if question. But I am glad I posted it, its really created an interesting thread. for me at least.

Actually it's the core of the Earth is more or less the same temp as the surface of the sun. I saw that show too. opps sorry for the cross post janus

If it evolved in NH3, we would need to tweak the design to get the same release rates. Life needs to be tailored to the solvent.

No shit sherlock, where did you park your squad car? That is exactly what I have been saying, water appears to be so perfect to us because we evolved to fit water, if some other solvent had been used we would be sitting around thinking how perfect it was. If in some distant reach of the universe there is a planet with molten silicate as it's oceans and metal vapor as it's atmosphere and it has life they will think molten silicate is the perfect solvent.

Uhh.. didn't you just quote it in your previous post, as adding credibility to your claim?

 

 

 

So.. you treated it as credible when it suited your claim, but now it's "making stupid claims" when you disagree with the suggestions in it?

 

It's either credible or it isn't.. which is it?

I didn't quote blue book to make anything look credible, It was said the sighting was made up by Ufologists. I pointed this particular sighting was not made up in this manner. Blue book is widely know for simply wanting to debunk and cover up. No effort was given to really investigating anything. the scientist hired by blue book to investigate eventually became critical of Blue Book due to Blue Books actions. Don't put words in my mouth, I am not a "true believer" but I do call a spade a spade, Blue Book was a farce, used to only try to down play all reports, even the ones that were inexplicable. This pattern became worse as the project went on. The sighting I mentioned was explained away in a manner that was insulting to everyone involved, it may very well have nothing but a shared hallucination of military ground personnel, air traffic controllers, military pilots and civilian pilots. I have no idea what it was but it could not have been what the "official " explanation was. This pattern of obfuscation was wide spread in Operation Blue Book and only served to put an air of suspicion on all explanations even the ones that were obvious.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc296.htm

An earlier investigation came to an unusual conclusion.

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

Which parts of your description were part of project blue book? You said they concluded it was Venus. I'm guessing they didn't also say it was a "gigantic structured craft." So where did that part of it come from? Have you read the report itself?

Yes I have read the report and it was reported as a gigantic object but the people at blue book assumed the B-52 pilots and the commercial airline pilots were mistaken, also Venus was not visible at the time of the sighting. Blue book is famous for making stupid claims like the object was a comet, that made less sense than the sighing it's self.

When and where?

While there is much in the way of theoretical reasons to expect antimatter to be attracted by gravity and to matter I was wrong, no actual experiment has been done with neutral antimatter as yet to show it's reaction to matter. I apologize and with drawl my post. Having said that, if antimatter could somehow warp space in a way that would repel matter it would violate several laws we now hold dear but this shouldn't reason to assume anything. again I apologize for making an assumption based on assumptions.

It has been demonstrated that antimatter reacts with gravity the same way matter does. No antimatter gravity and anti matter doesn't repel matter

The trouble with these sorts of sightings is that there's no way to tell what people actually saw, what they thought they saw, what their minds pieced together, etc. All the time you hear these accounts, with demands to explain them. Well, I can't explain them, because I didn't see them, and I'm certainly not going to trust the account of someone who's already decided they're ETs or something, since they're going to make the observation fit the hypothesis. As far as I'm concerned, the stories put together by "ufologists" might as well be completely made up.

The report i told about is not a report made up by a ufologist, it was part of project blue book.

Everyone needs to understand that yes most UFOs are indeed misidentified normal objects and made up BS but some, a very small core group, are not only quite detailed but not made up or in some way suspected of being a hoax, they are truly inexplicable with an embarrassment of information. If only one is true, even if the one has has promoted and or has been covered up by hoaxes and misidentifieds, this one is of profound significance. Focusing on the ones we know are false and rehashing them over and over again to prove the rest are false as well is not good science.

Ok, I'm going to be the devils advocate here. First I would like to say that it totally disingenuous to say that all UFO reports are from wild eyed crazies or that all UFOs are just lights in the sky. One of my favorite sightings was seem close to the ground, in the air, seen on radar, ground and airborne, the air radar was from a nuclear armed B-52 that was diverted from it's flight plan by ground radar operators to investigating the sighting. Radar returns were not only seen from the B-52 but a gigantic structured craft was also seen from both the B-52 and a commercial craft. the UFO was first seen over a nuclear missile complex by ground observers. This was very complex sighting by many well qualified people some of which were qualified to carry nuclear weapons. the UFO was observed for many minutes and never explained except that blue book concluded it was the planet Venus. At one point early in the sighting it was seen hovering close to the ground and then took off at a high rate of speed not to mention seen on radar and by the eyes of pilots as a structured craft, Venus seems to be a little less than credible. Ok, this is just one of many such sightings. I am very skeptical but that doesn't mean I take the track of most skeptics and only discuss easily dismissed sightings. One of my favorite explanations often given by skeptics is the comet explanation. The observer sees a bright light in the sky that moves slowly over head and then disappears. it's in sight for several minutes and is close enough to be seen as a ball and not a point source of light. the explanation is a comet or meteor. Does anyone else see the problem with this knee jerk reaction?

Bob Lazar who may or may not be a total BS artist, said that not only did he see saucer shaped alien craft at area 51 he also read a description of the aliens that said they had bred us back the beginning of our humanity from more primitive but human shaped hominids to be workers for the aliens who later set us free to take over the planet. BS probably but it's another bizarre story that might give us some perspective on the possibilities or at least the BS.

I would like to add that i agree, photos are a catch 22, good photos are automatically fake and bad ones are just not evidence. In this day and age of photo shop all photos and films are suspect. there was a film going around on the Internet a year or so ago that looked so real you would expect to see alien troops landing at any time but of course it was a total fake.

Pioneer, what is your point? Can you really claim any of these things you list as unique properties of water are things absolutely required by life? I don't think so, I think you simply want to win this argument and water is your God. I see absolutely no reason to lay claim to water as the unique basis for all life or even most life. Lots of fluids could work even better, hydrocarbons, ammonia, HF, the list is large and the universe is larger.

Pioneer, how do you know that only water can do the amazing things you say? You are still only working from one data point. For all we know hydrocarbons might be the fluid of choice in 99.999999999999% of all life in the universe and we are just an anomaly. Our life has managed to use water in amazing ways for sure but we have no data to support water as being either an absolute necessity for life or even the preferred fluid for life.

You're misapplying the term "3-" and "2-D".

 

Besides that, it's overwhelmingly obvious that this is entirely pulled out of your posterior.

Sorry HB but that was really funny, I laughed my posterior off Pioneer (HB) are you thinking of a three legged animal using each leg in turn? Did you see the latest War of the Worlds with Tom Cat? The aliens had three legs, they walked like a tripod, two then one, two then one, not one two three, this gait looked entirely natural. To walk One two three your legs would have to be in a row wouldn't they?

Sisyphus and bombus, yes I have heard of insects, I've never seen an insect as large as a man or capable of making tools or technology. Haven't you ever heard of centaurs? While I doubt a being would likely have hooves and hands a six legged being with four legs and two arms makes much sense especially in a high gravity situation. A vertebrate with six limbs would be better at crawling around in higher gravity than a four or two legged being. If evolution selected for tool use going to four legs and two arms might be as natural as animals going from four legs to two in our case.

Moonman - While I appreciate the sentiment, and agree that Knupfers posting behavior here is not aligned with a desire to have an accurate understanding of the universe (more aligned with a desire to lie and misrepresent), but I must point out... we ARE apes and so were Neanderthals.

Inow we both know humans are apes but not in the context that knupfer was using, yes we are apes, hominids to be exact but in knupfers mind there is only room for us and them and them is chimps and gorillas although I'm betting he doesn't know the difference between monkeys and apes either.

Since this thread was originally about the number of legs, three to be exact, how about six legs? Might result in a centaur like being. What could bring this about? Higher gravity?

Life as we know it requires C, which can form 4 bonds. It also requires a medium, water. Alternate life might need a variation on this theme. Si is often chosen because it is below C on the periodic table and can also form 4 stable covalent bonds. Other atoms can be made to form 4 bonds, such as NH4, but N doesn't form long chains. Boron is trivalent or will form three covalent bonds, which although can still form extended structures has a limitation relative to C or Si. The chemistry gets too complicated.

 

Using current life, as a model, we know silicones are stable and don't break down easily with enzymes based on C. This means the enzymes needed for Si will need to be more aggressive. But the paradox created is Silicone polymers are more stable than C analogs such that Si polymers needed for silicone enzymes begin with less built in energy. We might still be able to compensate for this with higher temperature environments or a more aggressive continuous phase.

 

Now we need an energy source to run the life machine. Life on earth uses CO2 and its continuous phase solvent phase H2O, as the feed stock for photosynthesis. The CO2 is a gas at room temperature. The Si equivalent is SiO2 which will form a solid at room temperature as sand and glass. The question is what solvent do we need that can play the role of continuous phase, also be part of photosynthesis or some other means of food generation and dissolve rocks? This place a limit on solvents since glassware is not affected by most solvents. One simple exception is HF. Maybe that is part of our solvent package so we can make SiO2 based food out of rocks. Again we may be stuck using water as part of an acid medium. But runs into surface tension problems.

 

Maybe we need another energy source and can't use photosynthesis. Maybe we need to begin with silicone hydrides. But this is not likely if there is too much oxygen competing for H and Si. But without O you don't get big polymers. Also if we get rid of the O what becomes the terminal electron acceptor? Maybe F can do it all, but F is not conducive to polymers if we leave out the O.

At very cold temps, around the temps we find on Titan Si could form chains and rings like carbon without the help of oxygen. Such molecules could also sport methane radicals attached to the Si chains. This would allow even more complex molecules to form that would still be unstable enough at these low temps to react in the way hydrocarbons do on Earth. It also just so happens that liquid hydrocarbons are pretty good at dissolving these Si chains. Since water would be rock at these temps it would be able to react with these Si chains and they would be stable. Just another possibility. Lots of hydrogen, Si and C sloping around there, anything could happen!