Sostyles Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 why colonize a planet and be in the same position in a few decades because of technology growth! (and yeah i do like the !!! lol) Why stay marooned on a planet when you could find if you travelled through space a cluster of habitable planets or better yet intelligent\primative beings!! I know which id choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 But it wouldnt be to bad if your country would sign the treaty to cut carbon emissions! but it wont and thx severian i was gonna point out france also britain produces 2% of the pollution because we use wind turbines' date=' and tidal power along with others such as solar power so america has no excuses there are other power sources but they refuse them all for oil!! Im not making it up check the news sites for the pollution statistics!!! Juststuit!![/quote'] Yea it would be better if we didn't. It would be better if any country didn't. You concentrate only on the US as a scapegoat because so far you have claimed no responsibility. I would also like a reputable link to your source because, while I may not doubt it, I think it would be interesting to read up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sostyles Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 "Yea it would be better if we didn't. It would be better if any country didn't. You concentrate only on the US as a scapegoat because so far you have claimed no responsibility." I have i live in the uk we produce 2% of the pollution stop trying to say im just picking on the usa, im not im just saying things would be better if they would pitch in and do their bit to heal what we all have damaged!! As for the source of the stats go to sky news sites or bbc news 24 site and type in climate change or polar caps it should come up! If the above reveals nothing of any interest then go to any search engine and type global pollution statistics!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Kovich Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Well, it makes a lot of sense. On the International Space Station (My Avatar) we can build something like a ship dock, and simply start building from there. After the ship is built, already in space, as you said, we wouldn't have to launch it through our atmosphere. This would cost an immense amount of money, but I do see where you are coming from. Eco-sphere...quite advanced for our current technology is it not? Also, as aforementioned, where would you get the water to sustain all of these living things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sostyles Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 true it would cost alot of money but that's the problem why do we need to put a price on everything why not say money should be no object for something this important! I see what you mean with the international space station but it is falling apart and it was supposed to be crashed into the ocean some time soon!! so maybe we cant use it. Ecosystems are only as good as the plants and organisms which sustain it like our planet we used it wrong now its got holes in the ozone layer. So if we created a fully working ecosystem the question is not can it sustain us but can we sustain it! thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sostyles Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 If we were all planning to leave the planet, the whole of mankind then we could hopefully try to take with us as much water as possible, then try to use recycling machines and a form of distillation in the ecosystem's environment to prolong its use but eventually it would be hard to use!! This is my only problem with the plan water?? What to do cos everything needs water? This could be the new question for the thread to debate. How would we recycle or solve the water problem plz post if you have any ideas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Kovich Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I read about this recently, where this machine would take in used water, split it into hydrogen and oxygen, then combine them again, making fresh water. I suppose this would work... But other than money and water, your idea seems to work.. Lets try to refine this idea a bit more, its pretty good so far Also, about the money thing: We may find this important, but its not important in the eyes of everyone else...you have to think of things from the perspectives of others also. And, the International Space Station was an example, basically, if we had a structure capable of holding a spacecraft, it could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 "Yea it would be better if we didn't. It would be better if any country didn't. You concentrate only on the US as a scapegoat because so far you have claimed no responsibility." I have i live in the uk we produce 2% of the pollution stop trying to say im just picking on the usa' date=' im not im just saying things would be better if they would pitch in and do their bit to heal what we all have damaged!! As for the source of the stats go to sky news sites or bbc news 24 site and type in climate change or polar caps it should come up! If the above reveals nothing of any interest then go to any search engine and type global pollution statistics!![/quote'] Things would be better if any country did more to prevent it. So far you have been only picking on the US. Could you post a link? I couldn't seem to find anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Maybe we havent got the technology or the will at the moment to construct my dream ship but in recent news the north polar cap has melted faster than we ever thought possible and soon will be beyond repair! The sea will rise 7-8 metres and the global temperature will rise slowly which will increase the melting process at the poles. You have no sense of scale, do you? "Build a big space ship" is not a solution to the problem of changes to the planet. At best you'd be looking at a generational or hibernative ship for a few hundred people, which is frankly as good as useless when you're playing the exodus card. Even if you're planning to get the whole population onto this ship (which would be ludicrous), you haven't solved anything. Know any good terrestrial planets laying about? No, you don't - because we lack the technology to identify true Earth-like candidates from here, and who wants to spend thousands of years hopping between random systems looking for a place to pull over? Granted the long-term survival of the species does hinge on spreading to other stars, but in the scenario you are describing it would be a lot cheaper and a lot more realistic to try and deal with the problems we have caused for this planet. It's possible that the rise in sea levels, change in climatic temperature, and worsening weather patterns are irreversible. If this is the case we will still have the option of meeting that adversity in the same way that every species has done since the dawn of life: by adapting at the individual level, and evolving at the species level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeropoint Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Who thinks we are wasting time on the space exploration side of things' date=' to many unmanned missions. I thought by now the governments would of started to construct a spaceship in space because then the size wouldnt be an issue because you wouldnt have to lauch it through our atmosphere. What they could do is build a massive city like ship capable of accomadating up to 500 maybe more ppl easily. Oxygen can be sustained by a huge ecosphere in the center of the ship containing all forms of plantlife which is rich in oxygen output and carbon dioxide input. Which would be grow and cared for by computerised sprinklers supplying recycled human water before the fresh supply. With this many ppl aboard and a constant supply of air the ship could venture far out in to the galaxy further than we have ever gone before!!! This may seem like a crazy, sci-fi idea but looking at how fast our technology is evolving the above idea may be the best thing to do before our technology evolves to kill us!!!! If you like my ideas please contact me on [email']strangey_boy@o2.co.uk[/email] i always reply thank you. Bye H-m-m-m.... SOUNDS good but I foresee a lot of problems. Not that there aren't a lot of problems with the current space program already! Okay, we would need to transports all the materials to the building spot, no? I assume those materials would come from Earth, no? The magnitude of it all would require many trips from Earth to space with these materials. Can we use an overunity device to supply the energy we would need to power everything? The COP of this device would need to be pretty high. We're talking about tapping into zero point here. This would give us the CONSTANT supply of energy we need, possibly coupled with solar cells. Also, how many plants would be needed to supply enough oxygen for 500 people? Are we using hydroponics or soil? Either way, we need a supply of nutrients for the plants. They can't survive on just water; we'd need a CONSTANT supply of plant food. Are we eating plants too? Oh, my! Now we need twice as many or more plants. What about us carnivores? Perhaps we are all adopting a raw vegan diet? As for waste by-products, I think maybe we could siphon them off into a separate containing station for a while. Of course, we could recycle SOME by-products. Bath water and other sources of water that aren't too gross might be re-used on plants before it is recycled for use again. We could build a water distiller. I know how to do that. Perhaps the whole geo-dome could be fitted with a system that allows water to evaporate and come back down again, directed to strageticaly placed containers. (This would be our version of rain.) With a COP on the zero point power source (from the vacuum) we could sustain the operation of the city. The thing I can't figure out is how do we sustain the plants without having to mine Earth? Is mining Earth in your plan? Anybody else have any ideas? zeropoint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeropoint Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I like your thinking. We do need to think about cleaning up Earth. It's a workable plan at least, however large. You'd be surprised to know that the powers that be (withouth sounding conspiracy here) don't want too much information on how to do that floating around. It would disturb the eco-currency. One simple example will get you thinking.... We are shown pictures of children in squalor in 3rd world countries without decent water to drink. Hogwash! A simple distilling unit is less expensive than shipping in fresh water. Recycled, boiled water put in a distiller makes fresh clean water. Politics keeps that from happening. If you want other information I have plenty. Did you know you can drink from the ocean and that the oceans have an endless supply of water? We're not talking about drinking salt water. Did you know (even without Tesla) there is a source of free energy from the vacuum? Did you know that solid hydrogen fuel is MUCH less dangerous than gasoline? zeropoint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Well' date=' it makes a lot of sense.On the International Space Station (My Avatar) we can build something like a ship dock, and simply start building from there. After the ship is built, already in space, as you said, we wouldn't have to launch it through our atmosphere. This would cost an immense amount of money, but I do see where you are coming from. Eco-sphere...quite advanced for our current technology is it not? Also, as aforementioned, where would you get the water to sustain all of these living things?[/quote'] The way the ISS is going it wont even have most of it's experiments sent up to it due to NASA cut backs. I can't see it being of a great scienfic use as it could have been. And it's probably in too low an earth orbit to have a space dock for a ship the scale of which is being proposed... BTW where are we supposed to get the materials to make said ship? I read about this recently, where this machine would take in used water, split it into hydrogen and oxygen, then combine them again, making fresh water. I suppose this would work... This process can NEVER be profit making in terms of energy, it is a physical impossibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 This process can NEVER be profit making in terms of energy, it is a physical impossibility. I strongly suspect that he was being ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I like your thinking. We do need to think about cleaning up Earth. It's a workable plan at least' date=' however large. You'd be surprised to know that the powers that be (withouth sounding conspiracy here) don't want too much information on how to do that floating around. It would disturb the eco-currency. One simple example will get you thinking.... We are shown pictures of children in squalor in 3rd world countries without decent water to drink. Hogwash! A simple distilling unit is less expensive than shipping in fresh water. Recycled, boiled water put in a distiller makes fresh clean water. Politics keeps that from happening.[/quote'] I agree there is alot to be said for simple little devices saving many lives, I know there are several charities that supply filtration devices... If you want other information I have plenty. Did you know you can drink from the ocean and that the oceans have an endless supply of water? We're not talking about drinking salt water. To make desalanation a viable option would cost an awfull lot of money in research' date=' no one is yet prepared to give this money. Did you know (even without Tesla) there is a source of free energy from the vacuum? Conservation of energy, as it may be true that a vacuum is a bubbling mass of particles being created and annihilating all the time, you cannot take energy from nothing. Did you know that solid hydrogen fuel is MUCH less dangerous than gasoline? The problem is generating it and keeping it solid. Genrally the hydrogen in hydrogen vehicles is created using some form of energy from some fossile fuel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I strongly suspect that he was being ironic. I wish I had your faith in humanity... But my appologies to him if he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saryctos Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 The way the ISS is going it wont even have most of it's experiments sent up to it due to NASA cut backs. I can't see it being of a great scienfic use as it could have been. And it's probably in too low an earth orbit to have a space dock for a ship the scale of which is being proposed... BTW where are we supposed to get the materials to make said ship? This process can NEVER be profit making in terms of energy' date=' it is a physical impossibility.[/quote'] He was answering this on the idea of recycling used water. If we were all planning to leave the planet' date=' the whole of mankind then we could hopefully try to take with us as much water as possible, then try to use recycling machines and a form of distillation in the ecosystem's environment to prolong its use but eventually it would be hard to use!! This is my only problem with the plan water?? What to do cos everything needs water? This could be the new question for the thread to debate. How would we recycle or solve the water problem plz post if you have any ideas![/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I see.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node_3 Might be worth reading more on node 3 but I'm off to sleep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeropoint Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I agree there is alot to be said for simple little devices saving many lives' date=' I know there are several charities that supply filtration devices... To make desalanation a viable option would cost an awfull lot of money in research, no one is yet prepared to give this money. Conservation of energy, as it may be true that a vacuum is a bubbling mass of particles being created and annihilating all the time, you cannot take energy from nothing. The problem is generating it and keeping it solid. Genrally the hydrogen in hydrogen vehicles is created using some form of energy from some fossile fuel...[/quote'] There is a lot to be said for distillation. As far as energy from the vacuum, I can assure you that zero point is a reality. Note patent #6,362,718. A friend of mine holds this patent, along with Jean Louis Naudin, Stephen L Patrick, James C. Hayes, and Kenneth D Moore. He sent me his book some time ago. We are trying to get this book into schools as a text because it disproves some old and faulty "principles" of science. What we encounter in putting new technologies into use is politics. I'm sure you're aware of the politics involved in fossil fuel use. It's not like the C.O.P. in overunity devices is the FIRST or even the MAJOR try to override the politics of oil. It IS, however, one of the suppressed technologies due to politics. No one has said that the production of hydrogen fuel is FREE. However, it's by-product is quite safe. Its by-product could eliminate the need for desalination altogether. zeropoint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 There is a lot to be said for distillation. As far as energy from the vacuum' date=' I can assure you that zero point is a reality. Note patent #6,362,718. A friend of mine holds this patent, along with Jean Louis Naudin, Stephen L Patrick, James C. Hayes, and Kenneth D Moore. He sent me his book some time ago. We are trying to get this book into schools as a text because it disproves some old and faulty "principles" of science. What we encounter in putting new technologies into use is politics. I'm sure you're aware of the politics involved in fossil fuel use. It's not like the C.O.P. in overunity devices is the FIRST or even the MAJOR try to override the politics of oil. It IS, however, one of the suppressed technologies due to politics. No one has said that the production of hydrogen fuel is FREE. However, it's by-product is quite safe. Its by-product could eliminate the need for desalination altogether. zeropoint[/quote'] Which principles of science are you talking about? And what is this patent about and does it have proof behind it - people can patent something and it still may not work or have any value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 If zero point energy were readily accessible now the world would be a very different place, idiotic "oooooh the shady conspiracy wants to keep free energy quiet" distractions notwithstanding. I call bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 As far as energy from the vacuum, I can assure you that zero point is a reality. Note patent #6,362,718. A friend of mine holds this patent, along with Jean Louis Naudin, Stephen L Patrick, James C. Hayes, and Kenneth D Moore. He sent me his book some time ago. We are trying to get this book into schools as a text because it disproves some old and faulty "principles" of science. I've seen patented perpetual motion machines, as well as books about how all of history is wrong and was invented in the Renassaince. Just because you have a patent and a book doesn't mean you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeropoint Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I've seen patented perpetual motion machines, as well as books about how all of history is wrong and was invented in the Renassaince. Just because you have a patent and a book doesn't mean you're right. All of history is wrong??? Is that like trying to make me believe that what I see is not real or something? I'm not familiar with books that try to prove all of history is wrong. It's an interesting concept but I think something is amiss. zeropoint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 All of history is wrong??? Is that like trying to make me believe that what I see is not real or something? I'm not familiar with books that try to prove all of history is wrong. It's an interesting concept but I think something is amiss. zeropoint Read the bible as a literal text, the world is 5000 years old you know.... And I'm well aware of the existance of zero point energy, a quick analyssys of a quantum harmonic oscillator will mathematically show you it exists, I don't belive that it's easily accessable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 All of history is wrong??? Is that like trying to make me believe that what I see is not real or something? I'm not familiar with books that try to prove all of history is wrong. It's an interesting concept but I think something is amiss. zeropoint "History: Fiction or Science?" by Anatoly T. Fomenko, "leading mathematician of our time". http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/2913621058/qid=1139183154/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/103-0563376-1799031?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 "Just because I have a book and an impressive name doesn't mean I'm right." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeropoint Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Read the bible as a literal text' date=' the world is 5000 years old you know.... And I'm well aware of the existance of zero point energy, a quick analyssys of a quantum harmonic oscillator will mathematically show you it exists, I don't belive that it's easily accessable.[/quote'] Whoa....! Now we're way out in left field! The Bible is for superstitious people at best. (Yes, I understand that you jest.) When Brazilian tribesmen saw their first airplane, they exclaimed that it must be the bird god who created the world. Of course, the people who created the plane didn't think so. Who was right? I liken this argument to the argument waged today between religious people and athiests. Needless to say, I'm an athiest. Tapping zero point does involve some evidence that a few of our long-believed "facts" aren't. zeropoint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now