You are not logged in.
I'm sorry you went to the trouble of recovering it. What a disgusting set of xenophobes.
Nancy and I will be traveling to the 2014 Convention in League City, Texas. Transportation from Houston Hobby airport to the South Shore Hotel is really expensive - about $70 each way by cab, and I can't find any cheap shuttle services between those two locations.
So, we're renting a car, and would be willing to drive one or two people to and/or from the Convention. Our arrival time at Houston Hobby on Wednesday the 6th will be approximately 7:30 PM. We'd be willing to wait till at least 9 PM. We plan to arrive back at Houston Hobby on Sunday the 10th no later than 6 PM, but would be willing to move that up by an hour or so.
If interested email me at bobunf@aol.com with "Mars Society Convention" in the title.
“I don't see how this could move anything physical, only information.”
But isn’t moving information getting awfully close to moving objects? As in 3D printing and the advanced forms such concepts may take in a few hundred years? “Send the file for a piano” could have a whole different meaning in 3000 AD than in 2000 AD. Maybe even, “Send the file for Brodsky.”
ET doesn’t need our radio signals to know we are here. ET needs a large telescope; perhaps, a bit larger than we are currently building.
The footprint of robust life on Earth has been broadcast for well over three billion years with an antenna of about 600 million square kilometers.
1. Methane in quantities not possible on a sustained basis from non-biological processes on a planet as hot, as irradiated and (for the last two billion years) with as much oxygen as Earth. With varying strength this signal has been sent out from Earth for well over three billion years.
2. Oxygen and Ozone levels out of thermal equilibrium by one or two orders of magnitude for more than 2-1/2 billion years.
3. Nitrous Oxide produced by bacteria on land and in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years.
4. The relatively low levels of CO2 in our atmosphere may present some interesting evidence
5. ET may also be able to detect chlorophyll, which has been evident in Earth’s spectrum for 450 million years.
ET, centuries, millennia or eons more technologically advanced than us, will know a lot more.
And they will very definitely know that the Earth harbors abundant life.
We’ve been using the same 600 million square kilometer antenna to broadcast the presence of a technological civilization for millennia:
> Signals from agriculture, metal working and coal burning could give ET knowledge of our technology for as much as 10,000 years.
> Industrial gasses such as chloroform, gasoline, kerosene, naphthalene, benzene, DDT, methyl cloride, Freon and their by-products would give ET an interesting set of patterns to follow for about two centuries.
There are lots of other opportunities for advanced ET to form a sophisticated understanding of biological and social evolution enabling extrapolation from limited or non-current data. The patterns of change in the various indicators will be more significant than any one set of observations. In addition, very clever entities may figure out ways to tease out the signals of other effects of intelligence in ways we haven’t even imagined, yet.
Even without instantaneous travel, communication or observation, ET, centuries, millennia or eons more technologically advanced than us and within a few thousand light years, will know that a technological civilization exists on the surface of the Earth.
ET won't stay in the radio bubble strait-jacket any more than we would.
Instantaneous communication with another technological species could take place if both have the technology for instantaneous communication, i.e., they’d both have senders and receivers. Doesn't it seem very likely that, if we are anywhere near developing instantaneous communication, it should be a fairly trivial issue for species even a century more advanced than us, let alone several millennia?
And wouldn't it be likely that instantaneous communication with another technological non-instantaneous communicating species could be achieved simply by sending them the instructions for constructing a receiver and later a sender? Although one device should pretty much lead to the other. This would reduce the time for communications and observations to take place for a star system 100 light years away from a thousand plus years to a hundred or so years.
It’s pure speculation what the effects of multiple instantaneously communicating species would be, but doesn't it seem that such conversations would make interstellar space faring, outposts and even colonization more probable? I find it hard to imagine a network of instantaneously communicating civilizations across the galaxy, or further, at least some of whom would not also be interstellar space farers, at least to some degree.
Also, doesn't it seem really likely that somebody would, at least, be interested in a comprehensive survey of the home galaxy, the local group, and probably much more? Wouldn't such surveys most probably, if not primarily, include discovery and description of all instances of life, and especially of technological civilizations? We are constantly doing all kinds of surveys of the skies, of geology on Earth and beyond, and of biota. And after all that cataloging, doesn't it seem likely that eventually somebody would make some practical use of the data?
Wouldn't it be pretty simple for ET more advanced than us to identify robust biology? Just look for the atmospheric effects. Discovering technology would be more challenging, but wouldn't it be well within the capabilities of a species a millennium or more advanced than us?
Are there not hundreds of motives for various ET groups to contact us, or at least making it obvious that they are out there? Isn't the question really, why not? Why the Great Silence even with all that enhanced potential produced by instantaneous communication?
“Einstein never did get the Nobel Prize for Relativity...Relativity was never accepted sufficiently in his lifetime.”
??
Einstein died in 1955; after the widespread deployment and use of uranium, plutonium and hydrogen bombs. And commercial fusion power was only 20 years in the future. I remember the time fairly well, and it certainly seemed to me that Relativity was very widely accepted.
There was a book written by Einstein, “Relativity, The Special and the General Theory, A Clear Explanation that Anyone Can Understand,” published in 1916; the same year Einstein was appointed president of the German Physical Society. By 1952 the book had been through 5 printings in multiple languages. He received the Copley Medal from the Royal Society in 1925. In 1929 the Max Planck medal.
In 1933 Einstein took a position with the Institute for Advanced Study at 1 Einstein Drive in Princeton, New Jersey. He was one of the first four selected for the Institute, the others being John von Neumann, Oskar Morgenstern and Kurt Gödel. In 1936, he received the Franklin Medal. In 1939 he was influential in establishing the Manhattan Project. The Albert Einstein Award was established in 1951. Element 99, einsteinium, was named for him in 1955
Of course, one can say that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was never wholly accepted. And, of course, Darwin also did not get the Nobel Prize.
If instantaneous travel were practical, that would make interstellar colonization much, much easier than if limited to the speed of light. A habitable world in the Gleise 620 star system? Instantaneously send colonists; the instantaneous transport eliminating the numerous problems of life support and protection for centuries or millennia, reducing risk, and enormously increasing the payoff of colonization. If the colonists need something, just send it, instantaneously.
Hundreds, thousands, of colonies, bases, observation posts could be planted over hundreds or thousands of light years. The whole galaxy could be colonized, or at least visited, in a few centuries, at most.
If the colony or base doesn't work out, just send everybody back, instantaneously.
Even if it’s only instantaneous communication that’s practical, that would still make colonization easier and with a higher payoff. The civilizations would remain in constant contact, and more integrated than if limited to the speed of light, with conversations taking place contemporaneously rather than over hundreds of years.
Instantaneous travel obviously results in the ability to instantaneously communicate to and observe anywhere.
Instantaneous communication reduces the time for observations to take place by the distance to the observee. Send a probe at 10% of the speed of light to a star system 100 light years away; and in a thousand years observations will be forthcoming, rather than 1100 years. And, more importantly, once there ET will be able to engage in two-way instantaneous communication with the indigenous population.
The Great Silence question isn't “Would we be able to eavesdrop on ET?” But, “How easy would it be for ET to know we are here?” and, “How easy would it be for ET to communicate with us?” and “How likely is it that ET would leave artifacts in our solar system?” or colonies? There is also the issue of ETs increasing effect on its environment; a characteristic that life on Earth has exhibited for four billion years. These increasing effects must eventually become observable even by us, e.g. Dyson spheres, or unpleasantness associated with large scale inter- or intra-species conflict.
Practical instantaneous travel, communication and/or observation would clearly make all of that much more likely, especially if there is more than one species in the universe that has developed this technology.
Most, if not all, ETs are likely to be quite heterogeneous on their home world and in well developed colonies. There will be large numbers of empowered groups within each civilization that will respond to the news about us in many different ways from many different motives: academic, ideological, altruistic, religious, adventuresomeness, psychosis. Multiple responses are even more probable over a period of centuries or millennia; and there is clearly a probability that some groups from one or more civilizations would signal this intelligent life bearing world in multiple possible ways:
radio or optical signals
painting colored images on our moon
producing holographs or sound vibrations in our atmosphere
sending artifacts of one kind or another into our solar system
sending colonists
modifying, as a consequence of peaceful or warlike actions, star systems that are observable by us
or doing something I can’t even imagine.
Instantaneous travel, communication or observation does, I believe, enormously magnify the problem of the Great Silence.
Robert, I do stand in awe of your apparent understanding of quantum entanglement, quantum mechanics and physics. Also your ability to track down and order a copy of a thesis from February of 1983 – more than 30 years ago.
As for me, I last studied physics in 1958, and, at my age, don’t remember much of what they taught back then. Besides which, my class was barely catching up with Newton, let alone Einstein and Schrodinger.
But, over the years, I have read a little bit about some of these things. And I have some naive questions:
For instance, wouldn't a discussion represented by a series of articles in multiple peer reviewed journals be more authoritative than a thesis by a single author from 30 years ago? Maybe supplemented with patents and a series of deployed applications? After all, the subject has been covered for over 80 years.
Why is instantaneous and more secure communication such a game changer for military purposes? A one second delay is so critical? Is there really a significant problem with current ciphers being broken? I don’t think Edward Snowden is an example of a broken cipher.
And, I rather doubt that the military of any country is doing instantaneous communication in secret. Remember Dr. Spock’s admonition, “Military secrets are the most fleeting of all.”
As for the physics, of which I have no background and very little understanding - but is it not the case that elementary particles, like, say, electrons, are not really particles in the classical sense? That they are something represented, apparently pretty accurately, by mathematical constructs; that we have no way of directly observing electrons, nor even of describing them, except by most imperfect analogies?
That, for instance, elementary particles have no specific location; that an electron associated in some way with my shoes has a probability of being anywhere? In Winnipeg? Of course a low probability. In Andromeda? Or Abell 732? And there’s the vacuum problem. The overall vacuum might be in a zero particle state, but it still has particles in finite regions. Then there are virtual particles, the Unruh effect, and much other weird stuff.
And what about fields? They’re quantized, which gives rise to particles (like the photon), and all the problems with particles,
Some physicists might say that it not at all clear what particles actually are; that particle physics is a misnomer. Since we don’t know what or where particles are, it’s no wonder particles can react instantaneously across the universe. Maybe they were there to begin with? Whatever they are.
To put it another way, it sounds to me like quantum entanglement is not well understood and its use for possible instantaneous communication in the near future is problematic.
One could make another observation: If instantaneous travel, communication, even just observation were practical, does that not make the Great Silence, the utter absence of ET, even more of a puzzle?
Per NASA’s press release dated May 30, 2013 at https://webmail.west.cox.net/do/mail/me … DELIM29072 “The RAD [Radiation Assessment Detector] data showed the Curiosity rover was exposed to an average of 1.8 milliSieverts [mSv] of GCR [Galactic Cosmic Rays] per day on its journey to Mars.” Almost all of which was GCR. If the Sun had been more active, while the dangers of solar flares and coronal mass ejections would have been greater, the GCR would have been less - probably a net positive.
Note: NASA had previously defined all of the acronyms.
That works out to about 330 mSv in a six month voyage to Mars or about a 1.7% increase in the risk of developing a fatal cancer. In the United States the average background radiation is around 3 mSv, and average radiation from man-made sources is around 4 mSv – almost all medical – for a total of less than 4 mSv per six months. 330, an increase of two magnitudes; a very significant increase.
In addition, cancer is not the sole risk factor of increased exposure to radiation which also adversely affects reproductive tissues and the central nervous system.
And, of course, there is the trip back.
The simplest mitigation strategy would be to get the humans there faster, pre-positioning supplies and equipment that do not need to worry about cancer, reproduction or Alzheimer’s. Still others:
It is very likely that better preventives and cures for cancer will be continuously developed over the next few decades.
Shielding with hydrogen rich materials will make some difference depending on how much shielding is possible.
Shielding with magnetic and/or electrostatic devices is another, more remote and difficult, but appealing possibility
On the planet, I suspect that RAD will find an incidence of GCR substantially less than 50% of 1.8 mSv per day; perhaps 0.7 mSv or lower.
The planet will block out half the particles
The atmosphere will have some protective effect
Being within a crater will raise the average horizon so that GCR will enter from less than 180 degrees of sky.
In addition, a habitat would be organized with radiation protection as a prime concern addressed in numerous possible ways:
Fossil magnetic fields may have a substantial mitigating effect.
Living quarters can be located in valleys, in hollows, near crater walls, in the shadows of mountains and underground with substantial hydrogen rich shielding atop.
Once substantial electrical power is available, it may be possible to protect a large area using magnetic and electrostatic shielding.
A two year stay on Mars may result in less than a 100 mSv exposure; quite possibly far less. That could bring the total exposure of voyaging to Mars, staying for two, perhaps more, years, and returning to Earth at less than 300 mSv – a 1½% increase in fatal cancer risk, or less.
I think that, like weightlessness, radiation is a very significant problem – not to be discounted - but one that can be managed, and does not fatally affect the long term possibilities of humans on Mars. People are very clever.
After the Apollo 11 television spectacular, coverage of the following moon missions became increasingly brief and critical. NASA actually had to pay the networks to cover the last Apollo mission
"Did the Jamestown Company get charged with manslaughter for transporting willing individuals to a new world?"
That was then; this is now.
A serious effort without funding is not a serious effort.
"Good news, everyone! New observations taken in the past few days have now ruled out an impact by the asteroid Apophis in 2036. Which is good, because it turns out to be even bigger than we thought...
"The B612 Foundation was created by scientists, engineers, and astronauts specifically to locate, identify, and possibly prevent asteroids from hitting the Earth—they have a program to build a space mission called Sentinel to track potentially hazardous asteroids. At JPL, scientists are looking into building a similar mission called NEOCam."
From Slate at http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom … hreat.html
Facebook Live Chat January 9, noon to 1 PM Pacific Standard Time
It is difficult to understand how the Turner Thesis can be used by anyone who seriously considers the matter. It was first presented by Turner at the 1893 Chicago World's Columbian Exposition, which adjoined the then under construction University of Chicago. It’s kind of surprising that lay people put such store in a discredited theory of history that wasn’t much good when it originated more than a century ago. It does have appeal for American jingos.
The Thesis has morphed into something a bit slippery, but for purposes of New Mars, it runs something like this: a physical frontier results in more innovation, equality, direct individual involvement in political processes, and better living standards. There are so many counter examples; and so many other ways to explain what differences exist between the United States and other countries. It’s embarrassing.
Josh mentioned a bunch, but there are innumerable others:
> The Polynesians had an unbelievably vast frontier, quite compareable to Mars. I don’t see the kind of innovation that occurred in Song China, or Renaissance Italy, or Classical Greece. And I don’t think the Polynesians were particularly noted for equality, direct individual involvement in political processes, or particularly better living standards.
> By the way Classical Greece and Renaissance Italy were noted for their great scientific and artistic innovations, equality, direct individual involvement in political processes, and better living standards. Song China for innovation and better living standards. None had frontiers.
> Siberia has been part of Russia since at least the 17th century in a colonization process very similar to what occurred in the US, Canada and Australia. If Siberia were its own country, it would be the largest country in the world, over 13 million square kilometers – larger than the US, Brazil, Australia, Canada or China. Until 1867 the Russians also had Alaska. Even today Siberia has a population density lower than almost any country in the world – comparable to Australia with about 3 people per square kilometer. In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries the population density was much lower. I don’t think the Russians or Siberians of the 17th, 18th, 19th or early 20th century were noted for innovation, equality, direct individual involvement in political processes, or particularly better living standards.
> Brazil has had a frontier similar to the US during a similar time span, and until the late 20th century was not noted for innovation, equality, direct individual involvement in political processes, or better living standards.
> Two other countries with frontiers that still exist even today are Canada and Australia, both still monarchies. Both evolved through the 19th century into egalitarian democracies with much direct individual involvement in political processes, and better living standards. An evolution that has continued though the 20th and 21st centuries to the point that one could plausibly claim that Canada and Australia are as innovative, egalitarian and democratic as the US – or more so, and that their living standards are as good or better.
> Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan never had frontiers, but do have innovation, egalitarian democracies with much direct individual involvement in political processes, and better living standards. Maybe a bit less democracy in Singapore.
> On the other hand, there are many other explanations for the relative degree of innovation, equality, democracy and better living standards that evolved in the US: slavery (an economic system that existed in and underpinned Classical Greek and Roman civilizations), selective immigration, free trade within the colonies - for a start.
There are a huge number of historical examples that cannot be crammed into the Turner Thesis, and numerous plausible alternative hypotheses to explain the US. Including that it's just not that special. Thus we see that the Turner Thesis might more appropriately be referred to as the Turner Myth.
One could go on and on. But what’s the point. After all, Hegel made it clear: “Then so much the worse for the facts.”
John, I don't believe that the Hegelian dialectic reaches a conclusion that significant change occurs by replacing the old with the new. Do you not remember? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. The old ideas evolve into contradictory explanations and eventually yield a synthesis. And, I don’t think Hegel directly commented on the emergence of new states.
Citing Plato (of the Ideal Forms) as a believer in the “Mortality of states” is ironic? When Socrates finished constructing his Republic, it was perfect. Of course, once finished, it would never change. I can hear Socrates now:
“Is the perfect not good?”
“Certainly.”
“Can the good by virtue make it bad?”
“Assuredly not.”
“Any more than heat can produce cold?”
“It cannot.”
And if some smart ass pointed out the fact that heat could produce cold, Hegel would have responded, "Then so much the worse for the facts."
With the beginning of another year, I would like to note that it was 55 years ago that I expressed some skepticism about the enthusiasm for fusion power displayed by my high school friend, who would go on to become a nuclear physicist. Unlimited power from fusion was only 20 years away.
Now it appears that unlimited power from nuclear fusion is 50 years away, more or less. I'm still skeptical about hot fusion. Power from cold fusion, on the other hand, is just a fraud.
Here is an example of acronym use from the Lowell Observer, the newsletter of the Lowell Observatory, the largest privately owned and operated observatory in the world:
“The Large Monolithic Imager (LMI), a camera built at Lowell Observatory and funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), recently took a set of first-light images on Lowell’s 4.3 meter Discovery Channel Telescope (DCT). At the heart of the LMI is the largest charged-coupled device (CCD) that can be built using current fabrication techniques and the first of its kind to be made by the firm e2v. The 36 megapixel CCD’s active surface is 3.7 inches on a side. The LMI’s ability to provide much more accurate measurements of the faint light around galaxies separates it from cameras that use a mosaic of CCDs to produce images...”
The Observatory was founded 119 years ago by Percival Lowell, who was in search not only of life on Mars, but of Martian civilization. It is known as the source of the first evidence for red shift and the expanding universe, and for the discovery of Pluto.
The Lowell Observer addresses a lay audience, but an audience that is at least interested enough in astronomy to donate money to the institution. Thus, the audience is probably not completely ignorant. Nonetheless, note the careful and proper style with respect to acronyms.
All in all, the discovery of life on Mars will be very exciting, but the aftermath depressing.
I doubt such a discovery would have much effect on religion. Really, why should it?
As far as Mars is concerned, I am not a people or object manipulator; but an observer.
My personal interest in Mars is that visiting the planet, establishing bases (similar to the situation in Antarctica), and colonizing Mars would be one hell of an adventure. From a broader perspective, it would also be good to have humans located in more than one place so that a single disaster would not necessarily cause the extinction of the species.
The scientific return of a serious presence on Mars would be enormous. On Mars we can study comparative geology, comparative meteorology and comparative climatology in a setting that is different from Earth, but not as different as any other place in our solar system.
It is really, really helpful to study phenomena under different conditions. Just for instance, think of what can be learned about water under different conditions of temperature. Water becomes ice; water becomes vapor. Vary the pressure or salinity and water has different melting and boiling points. From these observations we find ice for food preservation, tastier drinks, making ice cream, and sculpture; steam for power and heat; salts for clearing ice from roads and walkways; engine coolants; and these are just the very beginning.
Mars is another data point. With geology, for instance, unlike Earth, Mars has preserved a much more ancient landscape. Understanding this ancient landscape, and how Mars become so different from Earth, will help with understanding Earth’s own geological history. How does erosion work with lower temperatures, more extreme temperature variation, less air pressure, lower gravity, and a thoroughly different atmosphere? What happens and has happened geologically as the core cools?
With climatology, what kind of climate cycles exist on Mars; how are they generated; and how do those cycles and mechanisms compare to Earth? It appears that Mars is in a comparative Ice Age. Could that give us clues as to how Ice Ages are triggered on Earth? With meteorology, how do weather systems develop with no oceans, a dimmer sun, and lower gravity?
Did Mars ever have reversals of its magnetic poles? How does the solar wind interact with a weakly magnetized planet? There would be interesting opportunities for astronomical observations. All of Mars is almost like being in space as far as atmospheric effects are concerned; and the different location of Mars, its increased distance from Sun, and the lack of radio noise would be helpful.
The list of questions is endless; and some of the answers could be really valuable. Then there is the issue of life, which could have important consequences for our understanding of life, its origins, processes and possibilities. A study of comparative biology would lead to incredible insights and very practical results.
However, if life is found on Mars, it means that interplanetary (and possibly interstellar) transport of life is practical, or that abiogenesis is not rare. This would mean that the reasons for the Great Silence would not include that interstellar transport of life is impractical and that abiogenesis is rare. Other reasons, of necessity, would be more likely; and those reasons include a short lifetime for technological civilizations such as ours.
Finding life on Mars would suggest a bad prognosis for the long term survival of our civilization and us. Also, if life is found on Mars, it will make visiting, bases and colonization more problematic and, in any case, much more complex, what with issues of contamination, back contamination and preservation.
Is is easy to understand how there could be no life on or in Mars: abiogenesis is rare and interplanetary transport of life is difficult. Besides conditions on Mars are difficult in many ways.
The hypotheses that abiogenesis is rare and interplanetary transport of life is difficult are also supported by the facts that there is no hint of a second abiogenesis on Earth, nor of life anywhere else in our our solar system, nor in the rest of the universe.
The origin of life is not understood, but it is not hard to imagine that it is a very rare event. The effects of an impact that removed samples of life from Earth, the radiation, vacuum and cold of space, the issues of entry through an atmosphere and impact on a planet's surface all make it rather easy to imagine that interplanetary transport of life is difficult.
The simplest and quite plausible explanation for all of our observations to date is that there is, indeed, no life on Mars, anywhere else in our solar system except Earth, and not anywhere else in the universe.
The situation with Homo Floresiensis is not understood and is evidence of nothing at this point. None of the hypotheses explaining these fossils seems very likely, which is probably why no hypothesis has received scientific consensus – to put it mildly.
Speculating about what these creatures mean in terms of human evolution is kind of silly when it will all be based on quicksand. As always, more study is needed.
I'm going to San Diego to give my daughter, the famous writer, Deb Olin Unferth, away in marriage to the famous philosopher, Matt Evans.
What happens to people who reject the social contract? What about people who are not competent to make such a decision? And who decides?
John Maynard Keynes: "That all things are possible is no excuse for talking foolishly."
Void, all you've done is list a bunch of suppositions with no evidence that any of it actually occurred.
What there is evidence for:
> After meticulously inspecting virtually every square meter of the surface of Mars for decades from orbit and from multiple rovers and landers, there is nothing to suggest the effects of any kind of life. Even a few parts of the sub-surface have been poked at, yielding nothing.
> After decades of increasingly sophisticated analysis, the Martian atmosphere shows no effects of life whatever.
> After decades of examining meteorites from Mars, there is no confirmed evidence of any effects of life.
The negative will never be proved, but one can make an educated assessment. Namely, there probably isn't any life on Mars, and if there is any, it has to be in extremely tiny amounts. The upper limit of that quantity of life declines with each new measurement from Mars, measurements which come in hourly.
Most likely, when we get around to colonizing Mars, we won't have to worry about any indigenous life.
Louis, what a scam. These quantum heat characters are asking for money without giving:
> a physical address, not even a country
> the type of entity: corporation, profit or non-profit, sole proprietorship, or whatever
> where incorporated or registered; so you can find their filings
> the name of even one officer (if they have any), members of their board (if they have one), advisers (if they have any), etc. In fact, there are no names of anyone living except the donors, and all of those names are untraceable and quite possibly fake.
> no hint of what they will actually do with your money. Who are they going to write checks to, for what purposes?
A case of fraud piled on fraud?