1
   

Aliens?

 
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 02:01 pm
And you did not apologize for:

1) your specious and uncalled for personal attack that I "completely made up this "hot/cold differential power" system"

2) Not reading the links I have presented
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 02:02 pm
How do you propose to use a thermopile evice in a closed system like a biosphere? Sure, you can keep one side hot, from the nuclear generator... But how do you keep the other side sooo cold? You can't use electricity to refridgerate it, that violates thermodynamic laws. You could use a compression/expansion turbine... except you don't have any outside air to use... ?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 02:07 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
How do you propose to use a thermopile evice in a closed system like a biosphere? Sure, you can keep one side hot, from the nuclear generator... But how do you keep the other side sooo cold? You can't use electricity to refridgerate it, that violates thermodynamic laws. You could use a compression/expansion turbine... except you don't have any outside air to use... ?
Act normally, show respect, read the links I provide, and I'll be happy to continue.

Last answer unless I am treated properly; as to keeping one side cool, you can vent it in space. Also remember what I said about this type of generation, it is one possibly, there are others.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 02:22 pm
My father "just happens to be a physician" also.

If there a congruent point you are trying to make beyond the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam I do not see it, unless you are claiming your boyfriend is the equivalent or better of "a graduate research assistant in Roth's laboratory" in the field in question, My physician father is certainly no expert in this field, and from what you have told me your boyfriend is simply a physician and not a research scientist in the referred field either.

Here is the link to the logical fallacy in question argumentum ad verecundiam

As discussed, no more links unless or until you show you take the time to read them and understand them.

Anarchy:
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 04:58 pm
Your father or my boyfriend being a dr has little to do with the problems inherent in prolonged unconsciousness. I was merely telling you from where I got the information, since I am not a doctor. I'm not terribly upset at your reluctance to continue. I was trying to figure out how you expect us to reach these stars with "today's technology" but all you do is keep posting links about things that are in the infant stage of research; which is "tomorrow's technology." And you need not answer my questions. I was only asking because you can't expect a space-based laser of x mass to propel a biosphere of cx mass (where c>1). Instead, the laser would move and the biosphere would remain still. I asked about the length of sleep because many astronauts that return after 6mo or 12mo missions have such atrophy that they spend several more months in rehabilitation. Sleeping is not going to work. Your muscles would shivel away to nothing.

Anyway, for the sake of everyone else reading this thread. You are right. I'm sure we could have a ship on the way to alpha by 2010. Perhaps you'll be on it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 05:12 pm
Well, Chumly, it seems that your standards for a term such as "many of our finest scientists" are not stringent, either for a definition of "many," nor for "finest."

Good to know, when one becomes engaged with you in what passes for debate around here.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 06:32 pm
And how many more examples would I be expected to provide in writing here and now before you consider my perspective has merit?

Based on my prior questions to you: "I'll get more if it makes any sense to carry on, though for what net benefit is beyond me, are you actually interested, or is this for arguments sake only? If you are actually interested what is the relevance to this admittedly drifting thread?" - if you are now claiming that you intend to reevaluate my legitimacy in your eyes, that is a prerogative you are more than welcome to embrace at any time, and in any way, and there is no need to inform me (unless you have some dire burning compulsion).

If perchance you have such such burning compulsions, expect a small smile and a raising of my substantial eyebrows Rolling Eyes

Why? Because as mentioned "You gonna make me work fer me supper?". What that means is it's a lotta work to ferret out these scientist's biases in a cheap and nasty way that would suit the timetable for a rather dubious net benefit, bearing in mind all the transcribing (at a minimum) I would have to do.

However, I can say that over the years, I have read a lot about many good scientists, and a number of them either mentioned that they have read SF at one time or another, and/or have contributed to SF at one time or another, and/or have an appreciation for certain aspects of the genre and/or were interviewed by publications and editors who supported SF directly or indirectly. That I would argue also provides substantive weight against the "boring" premise.

In that context, I can name the now defunct Omni magazine of which I own every copy (somewhere) and publications such as some of the more popular Science Fiction magazines (of which I used to read avidly but have now cut back). Those publications periodically (pun) have and do run science articles by well received scientists.

On the other side of the spectrum, I have never read about scientists claiming SF is boring. That is not so say that there are not any however, but to qualify and quantify good scientists who could be imputed to consider SF as "boring" is going to be a challenge and is outside the scope of the weight of the evidence / weight of the argument as per my original premise.

Further and as discussed, I very quickly pulled up a cheap and nasty short list of what I consider very fine ones of which it's highly dubious would say SF is boring,

I consider it a small but not unreasonable sample to demonstrate my point in conjunction with my piles of periodicals of other sources I have read over the years, but of which as mentioned, are not in a cheap and nasty format.

Dr. Arthur C. Clarke, Dr. Gregory Benford, Dr. Robert L. Forward, Dr. Geoffrey A. Landis, Dr. Marvin Lee Minsky, Dr. Carl Edward Sagan
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 09:28 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Your father or my boyfriend being a dr has little to do with the problems inherent in prolonged unconsciousness. I was merely telling you from where I got the information, since I am not a doctor.
I am well aware that being a physician dos not qualify one to be an expert on mammalian hibernation. Further I note it was I that brought this to your attention not you bringing to mine! Given that you have made it plain you do not understand, nor have read up on logical fallacies, how do you expect to fully understand the dubious claims you have made as per your physician boyfriend's presumed expertise in the matter at hand?
USAFHokie80 wrote:
I'm not terribly upset at your reluctance to continue.
I am not reluctant to continue at all, as long as you follow and understand the basics of argument and evidence, which so far you have laid waste to on a number of occasions.
USAFHokie80 wrote:
I was trying to figure out how you expect us to reach these stars with "today's technology" but all you do is keep posting links about things that are in the infant stage of research; which is "tomorrow's technology."
Then you have clearly misunderstood the definition I have provided for "today's technology", go back and find it.
USAFHokie80 wrote:
And you need not answer my questions. I was only asking because you can't expect a space-based laser of x mass to propel a biosphere of cx mass (where c>1). Instead, the laser would move and the biosphere would remain still.
That makes the assumption of a number of items, which certainly need not be the case, and certainly I did not say were the case, inclusive of but not limited to:

1) that you could not have multiple space based lasers
2) that you could not correct for action-reaction considerations in the multiple space based lasers
3) that ground lasers are not going to work
4) that moon based lasers are not going to work
5) that some combination of the above is not going to work
USAFHokie80 wrote:
I asked about the length of sleep because many astronauts that return after 6mo or 12mo missions have such atrophy that they spend several more months in rehabilitation. Sleeping is not going to work. Your muscles would shivel away to nothing.
I made no argument whatsoever about how long each sleep cycle could/should last. I made no argument whatsoever that artificial gravity would not be available via rotation. As to your claims of muscle atrophy as per "astronauts that return after 6mo or 12mo missions" that condition is related to weightlessness. Weightlessness is not a function of mammalian hibernation. Further as I have discussed with you numerous times, it was an aside. Do you know what that word means, as I gather you do not. Recall that many higher mammals can and do hibernate every year without your so-called "several more months in rehabilitation".
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Anyway, for the sake of everyone else reading this thread. You are right. I'm sure we could have a ship on the way to alpha by 2010. Perhaps you'll be on it.
A number of Points:

1) I made no timetable for this craft, but my considerations would be a massive and very time consuming global project. We would not even get close by 2010. Perhaps by 2100 or 2200, maybe not even then, and only if man has the drive and intent, which as has been pointed out numerous times already by myself and Set in this thread, is of question. I also made no argument as to it's practicality or sensibility or rationality or that we could do it with your definition of today's technology. Again I suggest you go back and confirm my definition of today's technology as it appears to differ from yours despite the fact that I made my definition quite clear already and brought it to your attention a number of times.

2) I note another logical fallacy where you snidely remark:
Quote:
You are right. I'm sure we could have a ship on the way to alpha by 2010. Perhaps you'll be on it
This logical fallacy is called argumentum ad hominem or personal attack. If you expect to be taken seriously on A2K, you will not find many people sympathetic to you, should you persist with your argumentum ad hominems.

3) I consider the arguments and evidence and expertise as presented by Dr. Robert L. Forward & Dr. Geoffrey A. Landis to vastly exceed you and your physicians boyfriend's arguments and evidence and expertise unless or until you demonstrate otherwise. I'll not bother with links as you appear to be dismissive of them, so I'll supply the below experts who both support the premise at hand.

"Make no mistake - interstellar travel will always be difficult and expensive. But it can no longer be considered impossible." - Dr. Robert L. Forward Dr. Robert L. Forward worked for 31 years at the Hughes Aircraft Company Corporate Research Laboratories in Malibu, CA in positions of increasing responsibility until he took early retirement in 1987 to spend more time on writing novels and his aerospace consulting company business - Forward Unlimited. During his tenure at Hughes, he received 18 patents, and published numerous papers on experimental gravity instruments and measurements, including the first paper on using the normal modes of the Earth to set an upper limit on interstellar millicycle gravitational radiation; a paper on the details of the wideband "chirp" signal to be expected from the gravitational collapse of a binary neutron star pair; and a method for "flattening" spacetime over a hatbox-sized region in an orbiting microgravity space lab to the picogravity level.

Forward also published the first paper showing that it was possible to build and operate a laser interferometer gravitational radiation antenna that was photon noise limited over the band from 1-20 kHz, and that further improvements in gravitational strain sensitivity needed only more laser power and longer lengths in the interferometer arms. The broadband gravitational strain sensitivity his laser interferometer antenna reached in 1972 was not bettered for over a decade. Forward also invented the multidirectional spherical bar antenna for gravitational radiation, and the rotating cruciform gravity gradiometer Mass Detector for Lunar Mascon measurements (which Misner, Wheeler & Thorne pointed out can detect the curvature of spacetime produced by a fist).

From the time of his retirement from Hughes in 1987 onward, Forward was a consultant for the Air Force and NASA on advanced space propulsion concepts, with an emphasis on propulsion methods (lightsail, antimatter, electrodynamic tether, etc.), that use physical principles other than chemical or nuclear rockets. In 1992 he formed the company, Tethers Unlimited, with Dr. Robert P. Hoyt. When he reached 70 he "retired" to part time consulting and writing.

In addition to over 200 papers and articles, Forward published 11 "hard" science fiction novels, where the science is as accurate as possible-consistent with telling a good story. Forward "taught" science through his novels. His first book, DRAGON'S EGG, expanded upon Frank Drake's idea of tiny fast-living creatures living on the surface of a neutron star. Forward called it, "A textbook on neutron star physics disguised as a novel." The book is often assigned as "extra credit reading" in beginning astronomy courses. The science in his books has often been novel enough that many of his fiction books have been referenced in journal publications as "prior art publications".

Dr. Geoffrey A. Landis Research Scientist Photovoltaics and Space Environment Branch, NASA John Glenn Research Center, SF author.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 09:51 pm
You are redirecting. I don't see any "logical fallacy" with the hibernation. I was pointing out the limitations with human physiology. We have issues that could be resolved while someone where in a hibernative state, but only if someone else was awake and tending to that sleeping person. You are absolutely right about the hibernation vs. atrophy. I didn't mean to imply that one had anything to do with the other. I only meant to say that the atrophy is a problem due to the weightlessness. Hibernation would only serve to worsen the problem.

As for your lasers, I suppose you could have a gigantic array of lasers... and suppose you do manage to get your biosphere moving. You still have no way to steer it once it's on its way. It will eventually pass out of range of the lasers... and then what will you do?



As for "today's technology." I don't see any other possible definition for it than "that technology which is readily available today." You can't call something that is in a very early stage of research "today's technology" simply because it may not develop into a technology. It may be found that the desired results are completely beyond our ability. Until you are sure something is usable, today, you cannot attribute it to "today." You can't just give a definition to something to fit your needs. Today means today... not 50 years from today... not 100 years from today.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 10:50 pm
All the whizzes I have read about say that with focused lasers, the issue of passing out of range will not be enough of a consideration with the closet stars and sufficient collectors on the craft. Lasers are, after all, coherent light and don't fuzz out much.

You can claim one of your logical fallacies as my "redirecting" or in any other way you choose, but that does not change the facts of the matter as per your boyfriend's lack of expertise in the matter at hand, that being artificial hibernation and that being argumentum ad verecundiam.

You can claim that there can be only your definition of today's technology, but all that clearly shows in this case, is that you do not understand the premise of defining your terms. Something essential in logical argument and hence I did at the beginning. I even went way out of my way, a number of times, to point you to my definition, so that there would be no confusion, not that it did a damn bit of good. Again, I suggest you find and read my definition.

To now claim your interpretation, and your definition of today's technology is the only one of merit is clearly specious and backpedaling.

It is in fact rather absurd to now complain to me that you did not understand what I meant when I kept referring to my definition over and over. Further, show me where the phrase today's technology must mean "readily available today." as it does not.

All it need mean is how I defined it as per technologies that are in evidence today, it need not mean, and I said this right from the start, "off the shelf". Further show me where I made any specific short term timeline predictions so as to impute "off the shelf" technology, as I did not.

However, I refer to your argumentum ad hominem "You are right. I'm sure we could have a ship on the way to alpha by 2010. Perhaps you'll be on it" which I countered immediately.

Again I will quote Dr. Robert L. Forward:

"Make no mistake - interstellar travel will always be difficult and expensive. But it can no longer be considered impossible." - Dr. Robert L. Forward

The disappointing thing about our dialogue was that it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot, have a good Easter :wink:
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 11:18 pm
His expertise is in human physiology and need not be specifically "hibernation." I was only telling you what we KNOW happens to the human body in prolonged sleep. If you want to argue, look it up, or ask your father.

Ya know... you define it any way you like. Your lasers will NOT work for one simple reason. Even if they have infinite range and infinite power. Their speed is fixed. If your ship is 3 ly from the laser... That laser would have to send a pulse 3 years before you would ever need it. How is that laser supposed to know the trajectory of the beam and the timing? There is absolutely NO way to communicate in any sense of real time. If you can explain this to me without just pasting a bunch of nonsesnsical links that some random scientist dreamed up and all the ridiculous latin, then I'll whole heartedly admit that you are right.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 10:57 am
Thay have been publicly rallying against deportation.


I wish the INS wud earn its pay.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 12:07 pm
Didn't read the thread, did ya?
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 01:19 pm
lol. that's great. :-p
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 03:54 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
lol. that's great. :-p


Thank u.

I was hoping SOMEONE wud appreciate it.

David
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Apr, 2006 10:22 pm
So I was thinking about this the other day... Satellite lasers in orbit shooting at ship would not work, for the reasons I mentioned. However, that problem of when to pulse to hit the ship at 3ly from here... is solved if you mount the lasers to the ship itself. The ship could always aim at another object and fire a pulse to propel it, as long as that object is larger. That being said, if they were solar, you would still need to be near a star to get the power... and you probably won't be able to generate enough power to get the velocity you need.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 02:54 pm
They are developing lasers able to be equipped to planes, to shoot down missiles.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 02:06 pm
aperson wrote:
They are developing lasers able to be equipped to planes, to shoot down missiles.


What does that have to do with aliens or using lasers to propell a spacecraft?

FYI, the lasers used in the retrofitted 777 are chemical lasers and they can only produce limited power before the chemicals need replenishing. and the chemicals are also highly toxic.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 02:26 pm
It doesn't, but it doesn't hurt for me to say it either.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 02:30 pm
Besides, these threads always end up going off on great tangents, so it's not going to make a difference.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Aliens?
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 02:18:27