Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    11644
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Posts posted by Moontanman

  1. 1 minute ago, CharonY said:

    So Trump says that he is leaving the hospital (much to the surprise to health experts). Even worse, instead of taking that as a teachable moment he tweeted:

    That almost immediately puts folks at risk who are silly enough to believe him. I am aghast. Not surprised, though, which is a very weird mental state to be in.

    This is getting out of hand, can this be a real move on Trump's part to disrupt the election and become dictator? Is he really trying to kill people or is he just a psychopath and this is all about him?  

  2. The morning after Trump tweeted out his "sickness" I saw a woman drive by my house in a flashy convertible with a skeleton/manikin in the passenger seat wearing a mask but the woman driving had on no mask. Made me wonder if she had seen the news yet. 

    Lot's of Trumpers and Trumpettes around here, usually less than 50% are wearing a mask and if they are wearing a mask more likely than not they leave their noses out of the mask. I haven't seen any change since Trump announced his diseased status but I am keeping "them" under observation. 

    Of course this is the deep south and lots of high income people live around here in gated communities and it makes sense so many trump supporters are supposed to be rich as I have been informed. 

    Lots of big pickup trucks with american and confederate flags flying from the bed of their trucks here too...  

  3. 2 minutes ago, Jack Jectivus said:

    It's intuitive. The vast majority of universes would consist of an atom or two, but all those with sentient life will have enough mass for at least one instance. Smaller mass universes are more likely, so the mass would tend towards enough for a single instance.

    What are the parameters "fine tuning" necessary for life?  

  4. 5 minutes ago, Jack Jectivus said:

    You misunderstand the logic here. Under these assumptions all values for Ω will exist in the multiverse, but larger ones will be far outweighed by smaller ones when selected randomly (not by quantity, but by probability, of course). Therefore, a randomly selected universe with a specific trait is likely the minimum mass needed for that trait to exist.

    If that trait is a sentient being, then that universe will likely be the minimum size needed for sentient life to exist.

    Sentient life, under these assumptions, will find itself in a universe that is the minimum mass for it to exist, leaving no room (I go in more detail in the work) for sentient life beyond the species that is already there.

    In short, sentient life will more often be alone in its universe, but it will always find itself in a universe with mass sufficient to contain at least one instance.

    The point of this work isn't very clear apparently. Definitely something for me to add. This is not an argument for the model of those premises.

    Apparently, but I am open to you explaining further... How do you know that the "fine tuning" you talk of is anything but there only being one possibility for those parameters? Considering the universe is not exactly friendly to life and "fine tuning" isn't the word I would use for a universe so inherently hostile to life? 

     

  5. 14 minutes ago, Jack Jectivus said:

    The model is the two premises:

    1. The universe exists in a bubble multiverse

    2. Every unit of mass at the beginning of the universe had probability of existing that was a certain independent constant

    Those are assumptions, rather large assumptions, in fact I see no reason to make those assumptions. Why should I make those assumptions anything but the bald speculation they are? And yeah all the stuff Bufofrog, dimreaper, and Area51 said...    

  6. 19 hours ago, studiot said:

    Sea levels rise in one place and fall in another, due to tectonic activity and evaporation.
    This is measurable today (and being measured) in Alaska.

    It is also important to distinguish between local sea level rise/fall and land level subsidence/rise

    Unless there is something to provide the additional water for the rise, the levels fall back again fairly smartly.
    Such additional water is provided for instance by the melting of land borne ice.

    In the time periods mentioned, divers are beginning to do submarine archaeology on a now submerged land, that existed then in what is now the middle of the North Sea.
    It was called Doggerland.

    But it was no advanced civilisation.

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=NRlhX5ysLqmNlwTzlo3YAQ&q=doggerland&oq=doggerland&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIFCAAQsQMyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADIECAAQCjICCAAyAggAMgIIADoICAAQsQMQgwE6CAguELEDEIMBOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjoOCC4QsQMQxwEQowIQkwI6BQguELEDOgIILjoLCC4QsQMQxwEQrwE6CAguELEDEJMCOgUIABCSAzoICC4QxwEQrwFQwA1YzB5g-iBoAHAAeAGAAegEiAGOGpIBCzAuMi4xLjUuMS4xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjcmrLX9evrAhWpxoUKHXNLAxsQ4dUDCAg&uact=5

     

    A good source of reliable data about (past, present and future) coastal civilisations and their fates is sypplied by the Californian Professor Brian Fagan in his book
    The Attacking Ocean.

    https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-attacking-ocean-9781608196920/

    10,000 years further back an ice age prevailed and sea levels were consequently lower.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54160645

    I would very expect strong evidence for a sustained level rise, especially in the wider and deeper ocean as opposed to a shallow sea like the North Sea or the Behring Sea.

    And I haven't seen it so far in this thread.

    I was going to post a link to Sweatman's video but I looked at his list and there are more than twenty videos on this subject just by Sweatman. 

  7. 15 hours ago, Area54 said:

    I have not read and assimilated enough material on the subject to have a properly informed opinion, but I do find it interesting. Well the Younger Dryas is interesting in and of itself, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a bolide impact. I am not convinced that the Carolina bays are evidence of such - in fact I think that been adequate;y disposed of. (Nor was the impact involved in the death of Elvis, for the obvious reason that he is alive and well and living in Bogota!)

    Your thoughts?

    I've been following the idea of a rapid sea level rise around 12,000 years ago for many years. Most of the "evidence" appears to be hidden in deep or turbid water along coastal areas near river mouths. I think there might be three areas where some difficult exploration can be done but so far no smoking gun. The idea is that something caused a huge sea level rise and possibly extremely high coastal waves that trashed what was a globally linked world wide civilization. 

    A great many people take this and run into weirdness like ancient aliens, atlantis and a civilization more advanced than our own. This is just nonsensical for many reasons but a ocean going trade oriented power something like the phoenicians but maybe a bit more widespread could have connected a net work of river mouth and coastal cities at least across the atlantic basin if not the pacific ands indian oceans as well. 

    A sudden rise in sea level from a violent event could trash such a civilization but the cause of such and event much less remnants of those are highly speculative. However this Younger Dryas event could at least be a possible cause. The reason for a lack of buildings might be reasonably explained if these people worked in wood instead of stone like the Egyptians and other later more inland orientated peoples... 

    Sadly I have to admit that very little real investigation into this is being done and what is either too difficult to pursue with our own underwater archeology or is being written off as impossible and nothing but pseudoscience. 

    The guy I mentioned got my attention a while back but he has an agenda and seems to be trying to steer the evidence toward his own conclusions... 

    Everyone knows Elvis is retired to Hawaii....  

  8. Is anyone paying any attention to any of the hypothesis surrounding the Younger Dryas Impact? For a long time this subject was being used to explain everything from the fall of an ancient civilization to the JFK assassination, possibly the death of elvis as well. But lately some detailed explanations of many papers being used to explain things like the Carolina Bays and the scablands out west not to mention various flood myths and myths of earlier civilizations of humans here on earth which fell when the impact caused a scouring of coast lines all over the planet to raising sea levels as much as 400 feet.   

    For awhile it was barely interesting but an actual scientist, who is of course being called nuts by mainstream science, but it appears some of his stuff is difficult to refute. If not for Martin Sweatman being a well thought of scientist in his field which is unfortunately not archeology he might get more respect for his views on this impact catastrophe.  

  9.  

     

    On 8/11/2020 at 4:06 PM, Airbrush said:

    We are HOW we eat.  HOW we eat includes all kinds of things, such as WHAT we eat, how MUCH we eat, what COMBINATIONS of foods we eat, how OFTEN we eat, how much WATER we drink, how much we EXERCISE, our HEREDITY, ETC ETC....

     

    We are how we eat? Hmmm... I think you missed the point, you are sentenced to watching the video twice more and dancing around the room nude... 

  10. Wait!!! You mean we could have fixed this POTUS thing that plagues us by simply stopping that Homo sapiens from having sex with that Pongo noselfestemii???

  11. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Have we done any manufacturing in space? 
     

    Yes, yes we have on a tiny scale on the ISS https://www.nasa.gov/oem/inspacemanufacturing

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Have you presented an analysis to support the claim that it will cut costs to do so?

    There you got me,it was an assumption on my part that using in situ materials instead of hauling them up of earths grvity well would be less expensive. 

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    I didn’t say you made a claim about speed. You referred to a claim about speed. I want to know details about what you’re referring to.

    https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120270-us-navy-ufo-video/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-1140011

    I asked string junky about the speed of drones, he answered me. 

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

     

    All known physics? Freeman Dyson was able to popularize an idea that violates all known physics? How does it violate the laws of thermodynamics? Newton’s laws?

    No, a distorted take on a dyson sphere was popularised, he was talking about a swarm of small objects in space that could harvest all the energy of the sun, O'Neil cylinders were part of what he envisioned... 

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    I never mentioned a Dyson swarm. Stop pretending I did. (funny how the don’t mention how a Dyson sphere violates all physics, though)

    Again dyson's vision was of a swarm not a solid shell covering a star... others came along later and didn't understand his Idea. 

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    I never claimed otherwise.

    Is the ISS a Dyson swarm?

    It is an orbiting space station but anything functioning in space around the sun can be defined that way. A dyson swarm has to start with the first object.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Straw man. My comment was regarding extraterrestrials visiting, and these are not crewed vessels.

    I would not expect the objects on film to be manned nor would I expect them to have traveled from another star. Either a manned mothership sends them or an AI machine... if indeed they are anything but military drones testing our technology.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

     

    Are you not capable of determining whether or not I called something impossible?

    evidently not

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You have not answered questions, and provided jokes instead. Not acknowledging that you made a reference to speed.

    In all honesty i had forgotten but thank you for reminding me.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Every reference of mine to a logical fallacy is tap-dancing.

    Thank you or pointing that out.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Based on our experience building things in space? You say pithy things like this, but provide NO analysis to back it up

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Bldg-structures.html

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/astronauts-robots-and-the-history-of-fixing-and-building-things-in-space

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You can search this thread. The search box is in the upper right corner (choose the “this topic” radio button)

     

    Thankyou.  

  12. 1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

    Yes the future will be just glorious. 

    In 1968 when 2001 A Space Odyssey was written most people (I sure did) believed that by 2001 we would have space liners taking tourists to the moon, like the book.  I mean it made sense; in less than 10 years we were on the cusp of people landing on the moon, imagine what would happen in the next 30 years.  Well not much happened.  It is now almost 50 years since anyone has been on the moon.  Why?  The public lost interest and funding dried up.  That's reality.  Frankly, at this point I think we should stop human space travel and instead of pouring money into human space flight use that money to concentrate on robots and ai to explore.  By the way 'pour in money' in this case is about 0.2% of the federal budget.  NASA budget is 0.47% of the federal budget and human space flight is 48% of NASA budget

    I hope I'm wrong and we colonize the galaxy.  I would really like to have drink in a bar on Tatooine.😃

    What I am saying is that once we establish a manufacturing base in space that uses in situ materials the economics of space flight will change. Right now everything has to be dragged out of the Earth's gravity well, the economics of that is truly staggering but building a brobdingnagian object in space using materials already there will cut costs considerably. 

     

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    IIRC an O'Neill cylinder actually consists of 2 counter-rotating ( once about every 2 min ) cylinders, about 5 mi in diameter, and 20 mi in length. Each cylinder is divided lengthwise into 6 alternating transparent and habitable areas,, for a total habitable area of almost 1900 mi^2.

    Since these cylinders rely on sunlight just as the Earth does, any travel away from the Sun would need not only propulsive power, but also a replacement for sunlight. You mentioned nuclear power ( fission ), but that would involve carrying all of the fuel for the long journey with you, as well as the shielding. Your original idea of fusion ( from a Bussard ramjet type of propulsion/power source ) seems more practical, other than the fact that it doesn't exist yet ( fusion in a hi-speed flow ), and may never exist; and you would still need an alternate means of propulsion ( chemical or fission ) to get up to sufficient speed for the 'scoops' to be efficient, and establish orbit at your destination. Then you would need landing craft, and fuel to make all the landings ( and take-offs ) to transfer the ( by then ) large colony of the two cylinders.

    Once you actually start considering the scale and logistics of such a project, you realize how immense an endeavor it actually is.
    But it does seem simple enough to say " You take an O'Neill cylinder, slap a fusion reactor on one end, and you have your slow boat."
     

    Perhaps I dumbed down the concept a bit, I am trying to avoid as much typing as possible since I almost sliced off my thumb a few days ago. Yet trying to type fast to avoid the boss, my wife my wife hits me in the head with a ball bat, plastic thank god, when she catches me... Actually, if you on a slow boat fuel requirements are smaller and a solar sail could be used to slow down at the end.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You asked “How about the speed claims?” I want details.

    I am honestly unaware of where I made any claims about speed, please let me where and I'll either defend to admit i was wrong.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You don’t get to back out by saying they weren’t yours.  You brought it up. You need to defend it.

    See above...

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    No, assume I meant what I said.

    An actual dyson sphere consisting of a solid sphere covering the sun violates all known and hypothetical physics...

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    My point. Have your claims been tested to a degree that would allow one to see if there is a similar violation? Or are they flights of fancy with similar disregard

    https://www.space.com/38031-how-to-build-a-dyson-swarm.html

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

     

    And yet one of these actually exist (using technology from ~60 years ago) and the others do not

    Sending small objects in orbit to build larger structures is currently being done, the international space station is an example.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

     

    Don’t be moving the goalposts. I did not claim anything was impossible, especially in the context of physics laws being violated. My first response was to the claim about people who “think it likely that extra terrestrials may have visited Earth”

    ????

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You talked about physics preventing it. (I noted that you don’t have any analysis to support that).

    I was answering the idea that physics prevent star travel when in fact it does not.We currently have two space craft on the way to doing it.  Time and energy are what it's all about, which do you have the most of?
     

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    And now we’re at “impossible”

    "To say anything is impossible you must point out something about it that supports that idea. Neither space travel, dyson swarms, O'Neil cylinders, or star travel has any impossible or even yet to be invented aspects but controlled fusion would be a nice touch for star travel....

    If you did not say these things were impossible I apologize

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Nope. Not letting you get away with that, especially on top of you backing out of other claims. Every time you are asked to support claims, you start tap-dancing.

    Please show me were I am tap dancing around anything?

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

     

    Scale is often a problem

    Building things in microgravity redefine scale...

    I cannot find where I claimed much of the stuff you are asking about,sadly there appears to no way to tell what number post I said these things, I feel overwhelmed swansonT but I will say,and please take note of this I am hear to learn not to convince people of things not true but answering this post makes me feel like you have mistaken I said either out of context or attributed to me something someone else said. I need help here, please show where I claimed these things. I have labeled them with question marks for your benifit...  

  13. 5 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Were any of claims regarding speed the result of measurement?

    Wasn't my claim...

    5 minutes ago, swansont said:

     

    That’s almost equivocation. 

    One can cite hypothetical technology like Dyson spheres under the same notion, but it ignores all of the technological steps that are required to work that get glossed over, since there’s no analysis being done. Orbital insertion, OTOH, relies less on specific technology and more on physics analysis. Can you offer up either one (detailed analysis of technology, or physics)?

    First I am going to assume you mean a dyson swarm and not an actual sphere which is beyond any known materials physical strength, actual or theoretical. A dyson swarm is just physical application of known materials and physics. 

    Orbital insertion requires technology much the same way a dyson swarm does as does a O'Neil cylinder. To say anything is impossible you must point out something about it that supports that idea. Neither space travel, dyson swarms, O'Neil cylinders, or star travel has any impossible or even yet to be invented aspects but controlled fusion would be a nice touch for star travel.... 

    An O'neill cylinder is well within the boundaries of current technologies much the same as sending something into earth orbit is,  just on a larger scale...

  14. 6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    Yes I have heard of them.  Did you know that generation ships don't exist, except in science fiction, like Star Trek.

    Yet they can exist unlike ftl star ships?

    6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    I think that may be possible, but it course there would be no astronauts involved.

    Who says astronauts have to be involved?

    6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    Except they don't exist and the cost is so prohibitive

    The cost of setting up a place to manufacture them is costly, once you have that infrastructure the cost falls off. Can you think of how costly building a modern car would have been in the 19th century?

    6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

     

    Yep, just invent something that doesn't exist and we are on way.   Of course it would still be too expensive and too slow

        

      Why is it too expensive and too slow? I have not suggested any impossible technology and only fusion has yet to be invented and you could do it with nuclear power, it would just be more difficult...

    6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    If interstellar space travel existed maybe, but there isn't any.  There has literally been billions of years for an alien species to have colonized the galaxy, it hasn't happened because unfortunately it simply appears, you can't get there from here...

    So if something hasn't been invented yet it's impossible? Tell that to Einstein...

    6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    There is nobody that would love to have interstellar space travel more than me, but the physics and the economics at this point and in the foreseeable future make it essentially impossible.  I will have to enjoy going to other stars in the pages of sci-fi books.☹️

    The economics will be a problem but not forever.

    6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    physics in no way prevents star travel”

    I honestly don't know how to answer this, it's like you are asking me to prove physics doesn't prevent space flight...

    6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Were any claims made based on measurements?

    I'm not sure what you mean

    6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    As with Alex’s comment earlier, how about not relying on unproven technology or science that is not currently confirmed. 

    Conjecture is not evidence

    Other than fusion, which I admitted wasn't a thing yet, I think you need to elaborate about what you mean by "science that is not currently confirmed" and "conjecture"... Until you do something it's conjecture but as long as the conjecture isn't impossible I think you are incorrect. I can conjecture from a knowledge of physics that orbital insertion of a satellite is possible without doing it... 

  15. Just now, Bufofrog said:

    Well let's look at the speed of space craft first.  The fastest manned spacecraft flew at about 25,000 mph, back in the 1960's.  The fastest space craft ever attained a speed of about 150,000 mph.  That is an increase of about 5X, not bad.  To get to 10% the speed of light we would need an additional increase of about 4000x.

    Where would we go?  The chances of finding a planet that has an environment that we could survive in with out some sort of protective suit is nil.  Think Mars or Venus.  In all likelihood the trip would take hundreds of years so the ship would be absurdly huge.  Even if we assume that the closest extra solar system to earth had a planet to land on, that would be a trip of more than 45 years.

    The cost would be staggering and the benefit (other than feeling good) to the people footing the bill would be nothing.  We have trouble funding space flight now, think of trying to convince the public that every family should pay several thousand dollars a year to the government to send a few people out into space with a reasonable chance of utter failure.

    There are radiation issues and others the list of problems is huge.

    Personally, I think the world should start realizing that there is no new frontier outside of a few individuals being sent on missions to the moon, mars and some asteroids.  We ain't getting off of this rock and we should start treating the Earth based on that realization.

     

    You've been watching too much star trek, ever hear of generational ships? Or exploration by AI machines? Slow boats are perfectly good and of course some think that Oneal cylinders are the best way to colonise the solar system. All you need to do is add a fusion drive and you can slow boat it to alpha centauri. It would be possible to colonise the entire galaxy in the time it takes the sun to rotate once around the galactic core... 

×
×
  • 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.