Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
The first quantum space engine will "rip" through the fabric of space and "hopefully" arrive at a parallel universe or "section of the folded carpet of this universe. At least that is what is hoped.
Warp driving is a theoretical possibility.

We don't even need super-technology to cross the distances. Even traveling at even 1/10'th the speed of light and stopping for 10,000 years on each planet to establish colonies, any race with our technology could colonize a galaxy (if they have the desire and economic stability) in a little over a million years. To put things in perspective, that could have happened 65 times just since the dinosaurs went extinct. And even if the wherewithall to do such a thing is rare... all it takes is one race with even our clunky technology and the desire, and it would have already happened. Yet we don't see any evidence of that happening. So maybe Set is right, and there isn't a single race out there in all of our galaxy with our level of technology, an economic support mechanism, and the desire to do it. But I don't believe that, so for me, the paradox still exists.

The paradox only exists because you are ignoring a basic quantity, which on our planet is referred to as human nature. What do you suggest would be the motivation to expend such huge resources on ventures which would do nothing for those who did not participate, but nevertheless had to make the necessary sacrifice?

In the early 1970s there was a famous (famous underground, at least) proto-rap entitled "Whitey's on the moon." Have you ever heard it?

0 Replies

If you take offense to Fermi being referred to as a putz, that's your problem, not mine. I was being facetious, and i find it pathetic that you feel you have some mission to defend "great men." However, now that i know that it gets under your skin to hear of someone such as Fermi referred to as a putz, i've got another arrow in my quiver.

farmerman wrote:

Weve got another 50000years to go before weve "Signal swept" across our galaxy, so, we can sit here and argue that ENrico Fermi should be criticized for his thinking out loud or we can get back to work and keep listening.

Spare me the cheerleader's speech--i've never said that we shouldn't be listening. You make it sound as though i'm some sort of Luddite who has said we shouldn't waste resources on such an effort. I've said nothing of the kind.

Once again, my argument boils down to, in response to the question of where is everybody, that they are likely at home.

People here are telling me what i don't know--what about what you jokers don't know? How do you know that within a few centuries, a sentient civilization doesn't develop more efficient technologies which mean that they aren't dumping huge radio signatures into near space? How do you know that they don't send out signals for a few centuries, and we've simply missed those which have already passed this way?

I'm not saying there are or aren't other civilizations out there. I am saying that i consider it highly improbable that they'd be launching lots of "manned" missions, or even a few colonizing missions. I am saying that it's entirely possible that they're out there, and we simply don't know it yet. For what it's worth, i really don't care if they're out there or not, it would be interesting to know, but it has no real effect on the quality of my life.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Unless and until someone shows some incredible short cut around the laws of the physical universe, it will require incredibly huge amounts of energy and resources to......

If one lived in the 17th century , he might finish this sentence "travel from America to China in a day"

Yet, jet travel is now commonplace.

And the cost of designing, testing, building, deploying, fueling, crewing and flying that jet is orders of magnitude greater than the cost of the three used, tiny, clumsy ships with which Columbus completed his first voyage. It is the cost/benefit equation to which i refer. Columbus only got funded because it could be done on the cheap.

You think you can send thousands of colonists to a nearby planet with all that they need to survive both the journey and the new planet, and with all that they will need to terraform that planet on the cheap?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Every response i've seen here ignores the practical considerations of demanding that the sentient members of a technologically advanced civilization accept the sacrifices inherent in deploying the immense material and energy resources required to accomplish the end of constant interstellar colonization. That is the issue which i am raising, and which all of you are dodging.

That's a fair argument. I'm not trying to dodge it. But it does make the assumption that there always will be "immense material and energy resources required to accomplish the end of constant interstellar colonization."

But I'm not convinced that's a valid assumption. Right now only a tiny fraction of our time and effort and economy is spent on space exploration. NASA's budget us miniscule compared to the military, and the same is true for most other large countries. The economy will actually support space exploration, if it is not consumed by other cultural drains.

And other races might have a cheaper time getting off-planet (lower gravity), or their lifespan might be longer (our insects go through metamorphosis which might make them more easily viable for long travel times), or their environmental requirements might be cheaper to maintain.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The paradox only exists because you are ignoring a basic quantity, which on our planet is referred to as human nature. What do you suggest would be the motivation to expend such huge resources on ventures which would do nothing for those who did not participate, but nevertheless had to make the necessary sacrifice?

Right now, for us, you are correct, there is insufficient motivation to overcome the costs. And that's exactly why we haven't started it full force ourselves.

But even our economic balance might change, especially over hundreds of years. And there can be economic motivations for expansion beyond just colonization. The desire for materials could easily lure us to other worlds, especially as our resources begin to dwindle. Once we find ourselves moving minerals from the asteroid belt to the earth, living on space stations and spending long durations in transit, the economic equation for exploration for its own sake will be very different. Much of the rudimentary technology for space travel/life will already be in place and on the production line.

And those are only the things limiting us right now. We can't even assume those same restrictions apply to other possible races. I agree with you that the need for exploration/expansion to make economic sense will be almost ubiquitous, but I don't see why the equation won't work in many cases. It almost works for us even in present day. If our culture were to change in such a way to reduce the need for military spending on such a gigantic scale, and if raw material resources were to become scarce (as they will over time), then the economic feasibility of space exploration could become quite attractive. I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, but unless we get killed by something, then we've got a very long road ahead of us.

0 Replies

set, your problem is that youre too touchy, relax Im just funning you and you bit.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

That's a fair argument. I'm not trying to dodge it. But it does make the assumption that there always will be "immense material and energy resources required to accomplish the end of constant interstellar colonization."

But I'm not convinced that's a valid assumption. Right now only a tiny fraction of our time and effort and economy is spent on space exploration. NASA's budget us miniscule compared to the military, and the same is true for most other large countries. The economy will actually support space exploration, if it is not consumed by other cultural drains.

And other races might have a cheaper time getting off-planet (lower gravity), or their lifespan might be longer (our insects go through metamorphosis which might make them more easily viable for long travel times), or their environmental requirements might be cheaper to maintain.

First, you are ignoring what our space program accomplished, as well as its origin. We did not start a space program to boldly go, etc., despite what Kennedy said. We had a space program because sputnik had proven the Soviets had ICBM technology, and until we got caught up, we had to rely on the USAF and their B52s to have a credible nuclear threat. The space program yielded lots of benefits for our society and our economy, no doubt about it. But the billions of dollars were appropriated because there was a sound military reason.

Next, you are ignoring how little our space program accomplished, in comparison to the task which is implied by colonization. We put about a dozen people on the surface of the moon, it took years and years, and it cost us billions of dollars, and we didn't put them there to stay. My point about "Whitey's on the moon." was to show that there can and likely would be serious objections to major expenditures for such an end in any society. How much would it have cost us to put thousands of people on Mars, and to attempt to terraform it? That's only a few tens of millions of miles away--what would be the cost of sending people light years away? We actually spent a pittance on the space program, in the terms of a greedy and profligate government--but then, we didn't do much with it.

I have thought about the gravitational "mother well" of other planets--the lower that gravitational pull is, the less likely the sentient species is to be muscular and robust--to get off the planet, it might well cost them more material resources because they would be unable to withstand the heavy "g-force" of straight-off-the-surface rocket launches. If they are too frail, they'd probably have to fly off in an extremely long and expensive "space shuttle" type of launch. Even if one could get off the surface relatively cheaply, there is still the enormous expense of sending along provisions, providing the means of survival after arrival at the destination, and shielding from cosmic radiation during the journey.

Believe me, i've given this a good deal of thought over decades. This type of scenario would not be a solution to over-population. If we attempted to get rid of a billion or two humans that way, what would the cost be? Without a drastic stimulus, i just doubt that you'd get any society to go along with this. If social conditions were sufficiently well managed that no one would resent the expenditure, why would anyone want to leave the cradle?

0 Replies

Discussions get a Helluva lot more interesting when you drop the Bobble out of the discussion.

(Why did my spell check pass "Helluva?" Is that really a word?)

0 Replies

By the way, Boys . . . since y'all are stickin' to your paradox hypothesis, does that mean you don't think there ain't nobody out there?

(If they figure out the grammar of thing, i'll be impressed.)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

(Why did my spell check pass "Helluva?" Is that really a word?)

I did an intensive search and found out that lots of dictionaries mention it..

0 Replies

Well i'll be go to Hell . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Unless and until someone shows some incredible short cut around the laws of the physical universe, it will require incredibly huge amounts of energy and resources to......

If one lived in the 17th century , he might finish this sentence "travel from America to China in a day"

Yet, jet travel is now commonplace.

And the cost of designing, testing, building, deploying, fueling, crewing and flying that jet is orders of magnitude greater than the cost of the three used, tiny, clumsy ships with which Columbus completed his first voyage. It is the cost/benefit equation to which i refer. Columbus only got funded because it could be done on the cheap.

You think you can send thousands of colonists to a nearby planet with all that they need to survive both the journey and the new planet, and with all that they will need to terraform that planet on the cheap?

All I am saying is that our present perception of what would be prohibitively expensive (because of the technological challenges involved) may not be so in the future.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

All I am saying is that our present perception of what would be prohibitively expensive (because of the technological challenges involved) may not be so in the future.

Quit agreeing with me RL, you're undermining my credibility.

0 Replies

.

WE seem to forget that "contact" doesnt meam that we have to bump into ET at the Wal MArt. It only means that an ichno-trace of ET can be confirmed by his electromagnetic exudates. When I mentioned (c) as a controlling quantity, we can intercept EM signals from such things as electric shavers/ If detecting a signal consistyent with a relatively advanced civilization is made, then we render this whole discussion moot.

At present we look at planetary occultations and "wobbles" mon their sun. We search for terratype planets (Not a big Jupiter where our concepts of life may not be realized).
Dealing with what we know(or can know for now) limits what we look for and how we look for it.

As our new generation of visible light telescopes with huge computer assn light collectors and atmospheric correction aps and super focii are built, we will be able to do short and mid field locations on planetary objects and take close looks at their water balances. Water is the key, we ve already detected spec and radiation signals from various planets in other solar systems that show a signal consistent with water. The entire story of this planets rise to prominence is based solely on its free water. EVerything else is a detail that molecular reactions can easily overcome.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
All I am saying is that our present perception of what would be prohibitively expensive (because of the technological challenges involved) may not be so in the future.

Quit agreeing with me RL, you're undermining my credibility.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Unless and until someone shows some incredible short cut around the laws of the physical universe, it will require incredibly huge amounts of energy and resources to......

If one lived in the 17th century , he might finish this sentence "travel from America to China in a day"

Yet, jet travel is now commonplace.

And the cost of designing, testing, building, deploying, fueling, crewing and flying that jet is orders of magnitude greater than the cost of the three used, tiny, clumsy ships with which Columbus completed his first voyage. It is the cost/benefit equation to which i refer. Columbus only got funded because it could be done on the cheap.

You think you can send thousands of colonists to a nearby planet with all that they need to survive both the journey and the new planet, and with all that they will need to terraform that planet on the cheap?

All I am saying is that our present perception of what would be prohibitively expensive (because of the technological challenges involved) may not be so in the future.

And all i am saying is the projection of material and energy costs (i.e., the expense) are not realistically addressed with regard to interstellar colonization efforts. This is not a matter of objecting to the concept, it's a matter of pointing out that people are giving realistic consideration to the scope of such missions. You can't get around the need to get huge amounts of material and people out of the mother well (gravity well of the home planet), including the means to sustain the people during the journey and after arrival at the new planet, the material necessary to make the new planet habitable, the material necessary to provide a means to overcome zero g, and the material necessary to shield people effective against cosmic radiation over long periods of time.

So, you're just doing your usual song and dance of attempting to pick apart subsidiary issues while dodging the main issue. To revert to your rather dull-witted attempt at analogy, the cost of successful colonizing efforts in the 16th century were enormous, and were almost always undertaken by private individuals (Columbus is right out of the picture, as his colonization efforts were secondary to his exploratory mission--when the Spanish monarchy attempted to support "New World" colonies, they had to make huge expenditure, because it couldn't be done on the cheap). Cortés, for example, attempted to finance his invasion of Mexico by lying, cheating and stealing, and suckering other Spaniards into participation by a song and dance about gold to had for the taking. In the end, he was only successful because, first, he basically stole the wherewithal for the expedition from the colonial government of Cuba (i.e., the Spanish monarchy paid to launch the expedition willing or not), second because he successfully enlisted other Amerindians to help him destroy the Aztecs (whom the others referred to as "Mezicans"), and finally because he successfully destroyed the leadership of a larger expedition sent to arrest him, and enlisted the members of that expedition to help him take Tenochtitlan. He never succeeded in his efforts to get King Carlos (the Emperor Charles V) or his son Philip II to "repay" him for his efforts, and the colony of New Spain (Mexico) became just another charge on the increasingly overburdened Spanish treasury. There really is no issue of what was or was not prohibitively expensive when you're dealing with the sorts of exploiting thugs, the sorts of pirates and investment sharks who stood behind the European colonization efforts of four centuries.

None of these things can be accomplished on the cheap--somebody always pays the bills, even if it is not always obvious who is paying. Flying to China is not cheap, and that's because it costs money to do everything necessary to get you a berth on a relatively comfortable airliner. Thinking to cross interstellar space, while provision is made to reduce or eliminate the effects of zero g, and while shielding you effectively from cosmic radiation simply increases the degree of difficulty by orders of magnitude.

0 Replies

None of you Boys have answered my question of whether or not you think there is intelligent life out there. For my part, i'm still engrossed in a search for intelligent life on this planet. Wish me luck.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

None of you Boys have answered my question of whether or not you think there is intelligent life out there. For my part, i'm still engrossed in a search for intelligent life on this planet. Wish me luck.

Yes, I think there is other intelligent life out there (in our galaxy).

0 Replies

Well, Ros, if that is so, and given that you subscribe to the Fermi-Hart paradox, how do you reconcile those positions? I wouldn't wish to think that you were suffering from cognitive dissonance.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Well, Ros, if that is so, and given that you subscribe to the Fermi-Hart paradox, how do you reconcile those positions?

That's why the paradox exists for me. You have a solution which seems to satisfy you, but I don't.

0 Replies

Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know