# Our  Universe is too vast for even the most imaginative sci-fi



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

Our Universe is too vast for even the most imaginative sci-fi | Aeon Ideas

The US astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson once said: ‘The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.’ Similarly, the wonders of the Universe are under no obligation to make it easy for science-fiction writers to tell stories about them. The Universe is mostly empty space, and the distances between stars in galaxies, and between galaxies in the Universe, are incomprehensibly vast on human scales. Capturing the true scale of the Universe, while somehow tying it to human endeavours and emotions, is a daunting challenge for any science-fiction writer. Olaf Stapledon took up that challenge in his novel _Star Maker_ (1937), in which the stars and nebulae, and cosmos as a whole, are conscious. While we are humbled by our tiny size relative to the cosmos, our brains can none the less comprehend, to some extent, just how large the Universe we inhabit is. This is hopeful, since, as the astrobiologist Caleb Scharf of Columbia University has said: ‘In a finite world, a cosmic perspective isn’t a luxury, it is a necessity.’

 Conveying this to the public is the real challenge faced by astronomers and science-fiction writers alike.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

My brain can't comprehend it; it's overwhelming.


----------



## Bleipriester (Feb 23, 2017)

Yeah, it is big. Any news?


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> Yeah, it is big. Any news?



Do you have to indulge your nonsense here?


----------



## Bleipriester (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, it is big. Any news?
> ...


*YUUUUUUUUUGE!*


----------



## defcon4 (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> My brain can't comprehend it; it's overwhelming.


Yes, it is.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

TROLL!!!


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

defcon4 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > My brain can't comprehend it; it's overwhelming.
> ...



The way science fiction approaches it, warp drive in Star Trek for instance,  makes us imagine unimaginable  distances to be 20 minutes away.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

"The spacecraft _Voyager_ 1, for example, launched in 1977 and, travelling at 11 miles per second, is now 137 AU from the Sun."


----------



## defcon4 (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> "The spacecraft _Voyager_ 1, for example, launched in 1977 and, travelling at 11 miles per second, is now 137 AU from the Sun."


Are you OK there baby?


----------



## TonyM (Feb 23, 2017)

It took generations of workers to build some of the ancient wonders of the world. Distance is only dwarfed by time.

These days, we give up after 10 seconds if something doesn't download to our phone.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2017)

I can't stand Tyson. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you? No shit Sherlock.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2017)

TonyM said:


> It took generations of workers to build some of the ancient wonders of the world. Distance is only dwarfed by time.
> 
> These days, we give up after 10 seconds if something doesn't download to our phone.


Too long. Didn't read.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



There are two ways for humans to visit the far reaches of the cosmos ... one within our present state of technolgy.

Build large ships with nuclear engines that travel close enough to the speed of light for time dilation to be a factor.  Voyages that last thousands of centuries by Earth time will take only a few years to the crew of the ship.  Of course, they will never come back and never report what they find.

The second, 'Star Trek' way, plausible but not within our current state of technology, is to create massive gravitational lenses that allow us to bend space time so that we will cross vast distances using conventional propulsion.

Things like worm holes and black holes might theoretically be possible ways to explore the cosmos, but that would be many centuries in the future.


----------



## TonyM (Feb 23, 2017)

Not sure the future will take that long.

But we seem too busy atm making up excuses not to learn from the past.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

Can  time be described in a mathematical context?

What is time? | plus.maths.org

(takes too long to read? Or takes time?)


----------



## Votto (Feb 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> Yeah, it is big. Any news?



I hear that they found a few "earth-like" planets in other galaxies.

Yippee!  There may be living beings out there as lovely as the human race is.  All we can do is hope not.


----------



## Bleipriester (Feb 23, 2017)

Votto said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, it is big. Any news?
> ...


It is just 40 lightyears away.


----------



## Votto (Feb 23, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...








It's no wonder that aliens hide from us.  They just come here, abduct us, and probe our arse to see why we are such asshats.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2017)

Votto said:


> It's no wonder that aliens hide from us.  They just come here, abduct us, and probe our arse to see why we are such asshats.


No one had the heart to tell him the lense cap was on.


----------



## Votto (Feb 23, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > It's no wonder that aliens hide from us.  They just come here, abduct us, and probe our arse to see why we are such asshats.
> ...



Aliens painted little white dots on the lense cap.  He will never figure it out.

The funny part is, if he has connected the dots he could clearly see that it spells, "Obozo" and "universal health care my green ass".


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> My brain can't comprehend it; it's overwhelming.


There are no good scientific, religious, or philosophical explanations for what the Universe actually is.

Scientifically our radio telescopes have shown us an ever expanding wave of energy and light growing like a big bubble in all directions.

Within this bubble are the billions of galaxies randomly clustered in chains of rings.

What is beyond the bubble we have no idea.

What has caused the bubble we have no idea either.

Scientists have speculated that the bubble all began from one tiny pinprick Big Bang, but we have no idea about that either.  It is just speculation.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> Can  time be described in a mathematical context?
> 
> What is time? | plus.maths.org
> 
> (takes too long to read? Or takes time?)


Time does not exist.

It is merely an invention of the human mind.

Same is true of mathematics -- it also does not exist.  It too just a human invention.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > defcon4 said:
> ...


None of these science fiction fantasies is valid.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 23, 2017)

Science fiction shares a problem with theology.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> "The spacecraft _Voyager_ 1, for example, launched in 1977 and, travelling at 11 miles per second, is now 137 AU from the Sun."


1 AU = 149,597,871 kilometers or 93 million miles.

So 137 AU's = 12.7 billion miles.

That is 137 times the distance from Earth to Sun.

And in galactic terms that is really not very far away at all compared with the billions of galaxies in deep space shown to us by Hubble.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 23, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> None of these science fiction fantasies is valid.



Time dilation isn't science fiction ,,, it's a quantifiable effect.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > None of these science fiction fantasies is valid.
> ...


You can quantify the angels dancing on the head of a pin as well.


----------



## hadit (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Even at the fastest Star Trek speed, warp 10, you still could only explore a small fraction of our home galaxy in a human lifetime.  Space is really big.

Of course, that's only possible in Sci Fi.  Anything traveling at the speed of light would experience no time passing between the beginning and the end of the trip.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Science fiction shares a problem with theology.


For humans, everything boils down to being born, eating, growing, living, then dying, and finally dissolving into noxious fluids and finally to dust as bones decay from acidic soils or sunlight if left unburied.

The mind inside the brain cannot content itself with birth and death and the grave, so it imagines space travel and gods.

But other than a few short hops to the moon by a few past star-sailors (astronaut -- translated out of the original Greek), the grave is the ultimate destination of humankind.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


The writers did this just to come up with a smash hit TV show.

End of story.

End of the reality too.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 23, 2017)

End and beginning are mind constructs as well. That makes existence the only thing that could ever be important.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> End and beginning are mind constructs as well. That makes existence the only thing that could ever be important.


To add to Mindful 's list of incomprehensible's -- we don't even know what existence is.

Rene Descartes pointed out to us that since we think therefore we exist.

However that's as far as he took it.

Everybody in Philosophy has been wondering about that ever since.


----------



## Votto (Feb 23, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > "The spacecraft _Voyager_ 1, for example, launched in 1977 and, travelling at 11 miles per second, is now 137 AU from the Sun."
> ...



Wait, I thought you said math does not exist.


----------



## Votto (Feb 23, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > End and beginning are mind constructs as well. That makes existence the only thing that could ever be important.
> ...



We pay taxes, buy health care, and die, therefore we exist.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Science fiction shares a problem with theology.
> ...



So what's the point of us?


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

Votto said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Lucy said that, in the daft but thoroughly enjoyable movie of the same name.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> So what's the point of us?


Well the only conclusions that the greatest philosophers in history can come up with is that some kind of God exists, at least One if not more, although in Philosophy you only need One to cure all the logical paradoxes, AND that this God loves art -- so we have been artistically created with beauty for His/Her/Their pleasure.

Therefore to answer your question -- we exist to please this God or Gods.

Precisely as St. Paul (Catholic saint) said -- we are the slaves of God.

This is essentially the same fundamental principle and foundation of ancient Greek mythology as well.  Back in those days maidens were the pleasure of the male Gods while youths were the pleasure of the female Goddesses.

The story is not that different for Dynamos espousing Mary Of Nazareth to father the birth of Jesus in the Greek New Testament.

The greatest philosophical thinkers in all of history since then have not been able to come up with anything better.

Meanwhile you cannot prove or disprove it with a telescope or a microscope.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> So what's the point of us?



We make GREAT TV shows that the rest of the Galaxy will eventually enjoy.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

Or maybe we'll have our 'time'. Like the dinosaurs.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > End and beginning are mind constructs as well. That makes existence the only thing that could ever be important.
> ...



Which begs the age old question: is the moon still there when we are not looking at it?


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> Or maybe we'll have our 'time'. Like the dinosaurs.


When I die I will mostly miss my cat.

If my cat dies after I do then I will worry about the cat being taken care of.

The cat has up to 15 or so more years to live.

I could go another 30 or 40 at most.  That would be time for 2 or 3 more cats.

I have raised my cat from his birth one cold night when he crawled into the world and went looking for a nipple to nurse milk from.

From watching the cat and loving it I have learned what it must be like to be an immortal God, at least compared with the cat anyway.

I just hope the immortal God takes care of me and the cat in the future.

Therefore I always  try not to anger the God.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


The Moon is only a few minutes away -- as is the Sun as well.

Wait a couple of minutes and they both will probably still be shining/reflecting.

What is a bigger dilemma is that of the stars -- they could be all gone by now -- billions of years ago.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

The nearest I can wrap my puny brain around is Arthur C Clarke.
His conclusion of Childhood's End.

The Overlords are eager to escape from their own evolutionary dead end by studying the Overmind, so Rodricks's information is potentially of great value to them. By radio, Rodricks describes a vast burning column ascending from the planet. As the column disappears, Rodricks experiences a profound sense of emptiness when the Overlords have gone. Then material objects and the Earth itself begin to dissolve into transparency. Jan reports no fear, but a powerful sense of fulfillment. The Earth evaporates in a flash of light. Karellen looks back at the receding Solar System and gives a final salute to the human species.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



That one too. We're gazing at the past.

Wrap your head round that one.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 23, 2017)

If no human were around to perceive, there would be no question of anything existing. One might say, Schroedinger's cat would have infinite company.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 23, 2017)

The only unquestionable reality is that consciousness exists.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Put another way, we are gazing at 'now', the only time that exists. IF the light can be called 'the past', this only reveals that all exists in one place and that the myriad 'things' we see and 'time' that 'passes' are at most the result of how our perceptions function.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 23, 2017)

A 'God' would have to be 'too vast' for any religion to imagine (make an image of).


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> A 'God' would have to be 'too vast' for any religion to imagine (make an image of).


Well, there is "imagine in your mind" and there is "imagine in stone", true.

You seem like quite an accomplished linguist there4eyeM .  I like your moniker too, as I love Descartes' philosophy as well.

Philosophy struggles with "imagining" a God or Gods, yes, you are correct.

The main characteristic of a God in Philosophy would be immortality, because as Philosophy observes, everything in the Universe and on Earth that we can see is mortal, changeable, is born and dies.

Logically this cannot continue indefinitely into the "past".

So philosophically speaking there must be a God who has no birth or death.  Otherwise we and all the other mortal things like stars and people and animals and plants and microbes could not have created ourselves.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 23, 2017)

The external image goes out from within.
Words are symbols. The fact that we can put them together in ways that are grammatically and syntactically correct does not assure us of describing reality, or even possibility. When we attempt to describe the post profound facets of our existence, words become more and more limited. We have to suspect every one.
Immortality exists as a concept because of mortality. 'God' would have to be more than immortal, as there could be no contrast, no opposite, wherein 'God' were not living. Life, death and immortality must be part of 'God', thus 'God' must be more.
So, when we say that 'God' must be inexpressible, we already say too much.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Human thought as far back as we can tell in history was dominated by superstition and religion.

Then a bunch of Greeks starting with Hesiod and Thales came along and tried to make sense out of it all WITHOUT resorting to superstition or religion.  Back in those days Zeus was the Supreme God, and his brothers, sisters, children, aunts, and uncles were all Gods.

Thales was the first of many philosophers who discovered that pure human thought can explain many things without need for superstition or religion.

As Philosophy then progressed, and it caught up with mathematicians such as Copernicus and experimenters such as Galileo, then Science was born.

Science is the applied philosophy of physical things -- the Universe, stars, Sun, Moon, planets, comets, asteroids and meteors, all living things, and all Earthly characteristics, such as the sky, ground, oceans, rives and streams, rain and weather, etc.

Turns out that Agamemnon did not need to sacrifice his daughter Iphrgenia to get a favorable wind for his ships to sail to Troy -- a low pressure system would have blown through eventually giving him first a headwind and then a tailwind and finally a crosswind to get there.

The Gods had nothing to do with it for Agamemnon.

Science tells us that light travels at 186 thousand miles per second.  Therefore from any star, planet, or moon shining or reflecting light at us, it will take the light time to cover that distance, since they are all more than 186 thousand miles away.

The Moon is 238.9 thousand miles away, so that light takes not quite 2 seconds to reach us.

The Sun is 93 million miles away, so that light takes slightly more than 8 seconds to reach us.

Science gives us these answers.

A mile, by the way, is 2000 steps taken by a Roman solder while marching.  This equals 1.61 kilometers, which is an international French modern measure.  These are merely conventions or definition.  Mathematics is all about definitions and then manipulating those definitions.  As such mathematics really does not exist outside of human minds.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> The external image goes out from within.
> Words are symbols. The fact that we can put them together in ways that are grammatically and syntactically correct does not assure us of describing reality, or even possibility. When we attempt to describe the post profound facets of our existence, words become more and more limited. We have to suspect every one.
> Immortality exists as a concept because of mortality. 'God' would have to be more than immortal, as there could be no contrast, no opposite, wherein 'God' were not living. Life, death and immortality must be part of 'God', thus 'God' must be more.
> So, when we say that 'God' must be inexpressible, we already say too much.


Jeeze you're smart.  And good!

I will tackle each of your concepts one at a time in responding.

Language is fascinating.

All mammals, birds, and insects communicate with each other.

I am most familiar with my cat, since he is my cat and is with me 24/7/365 except when I am away from home.

When he wants something from me he utters a "meow!"

When he is unhappy he utters a kind of moan.

When he is angry he utters a warning.

When he is happy he purrs and licks my fingers and hands.

Thus non-human animal language is monosyllabic.  But it does have associated meaning.

For humans, as we all learned in elementary school, speech requires an actor and an action word at the very least, and then sometimes also a predicate as well.

"Jack runs."

"Jill runs."

"See Spot run after them!"

These simple and complex sentences have evolved in various European, Asian, African, and ancient American languages over the millennia and eons of human existence.

When applied to Philosophy, words must be cut down to their most specific levels to avoid confusion and rhetorical double meanings.

So words, like mathematics, are inventions of the human mind.  They are definitional conventions applied to daily life.

But other animals make sounds too.  These sounds could be considered words as well.

My cat is very verbal.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

Cat language translated into English:

Meow! -- I want something from you.  You have been a consistent provider to me since I can remember and now I am desiring something that I believe you can give me.  You just have to guess what it is because I can only make single syllable utterances.

Grrrrrr! -- I don't like what you are doing so beware!  I am about to scratch and bite you and then run away to a safe place away from you and hide.

Prrrrr! -- I am happy and enjoy your petting me now.

Brrrrrtt! -- Thank you, here I go.  Thanks for opening the door.

Hmmm! -- I am sad.  Something is wrong.  You need to figure out what it is and make it better.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> The external image goes out from within.
> Words are symbols. The fact that we can put them together in ways that are grammatically and syntactically correct does not assure us of describing reality, or even possibility. When we attempt to describe the post profound facets of our existence, words become more and more limited. We have to suspect every one.
> Immortality exists as a concept because of mortality. 'God' would have to be more than immortal, as there could be no contrast, no opposite, wherein 'God' were not living. Life, death and immortality must be part of 'God', thus 'God' must be more.
> So, when we say that 'God' must be inexpressible, we already say too much.


We have no idea of what God is like -- unless like Moses or Jesus we have each seen God face to face and spoken with Him/Her/Them.

Or so Moses and Jesus claim.  As far as I know, no one else has every claimed to see God or speak with Him/Her/Them face to face.  If you believe them this then gives rise to Religion.  But Religion has also given rise to witch burnings and torture-ings, so you cannot completely trust religion either without first giving it a good dose of Philosophy and Science first.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> The external image goes out from within.
> Words are symbols. The fact that we can put them together in ways that are grammatically and syntactically correct does not assure us of describing reality, or even possibility. When we attempt to describe the post profound facets of our existence, words become more and more limited. We have to suspect every one.
> Immortality exists as a concept because of mortality. 'God' would have to be more than immortal, as there could be no contrast, no opposite, wherein 'God' were not living. Life, death and immortality must be part of 'God', thus 'God' must be more.
> So, when we say that 'God' must be inexpressible, we already say too much.


I have read a lot of philosophers who try to trick their readers with words and double meanings.

Therefore I am always careful to chop down their words and sentences into very simple easy words and sentences to make sure they don't pull off any fast ones on me.

I trust language to the extent I can use it to describe real experiences.

I trust perception to the extent of British Empiricism which warns against excessive skepticism.

I trust pure human thought to the extent that it can give me a list of possible alternatives when I cannot prove or find out something myself by researching or experimenting with it myself using simple math, microscopes, and telescopes.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> That one too. We're gazing at the past.
> 
> Wrap your head round that one.


Mindful , as with all deep intellectual things, we have delved into Philosophy here.

It is always important to keep Philosophy separate from Science and from Religion.

I agree with Bertrand Russell that these 3 things must never be confused with each other.  They must be kept separate.

Some of your questions and comments are purely philosophical, Mindful .

Others are purely scientific.

I have not heard you delve into Religion yet.

At any rate, always remember there are the 3 of them and they are separate.

So it helps to precede your content with whether you are speaking philosophically, scientifically, or religiously, so as to narrow the field.

Each of these 3 has different rules of engagement.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


To feed pixels to the Whirled Wad of Wub.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 23, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > The external image goes out from within.
> ...



Joseph Smith wrote that he saw and walked with "God".


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


_Moon _is related to _minus_.  To understand its original meaning, think like a primitive or a child.  Its main characteristic is that it seems to be getting smaller, which happens when we're not looking at it (if you have the mind of a child).


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Feb 23, 2017)

Mindful said:


> The nearest I can wrap my puny brain around is Arthur C Clarke.
> His conclusion of Childhood's End.
> 
> The Overlords are eager to escape from their own evolutionary dead end by studying the Overmind, so Rodricks's information is potentially of great value to them. By radio, Rodricks describes a vast burning column ascending from the planet. As the column disappears, Rodricks experiences a profound sense of emptiness when the Overlords have gone. Then material objects and the Earth itself begin to dissolve into transparency. Jan reports no fear, but a powerful sense of fulfillment. The Earth evaporates in a flash of light. Karellen looks back at the receding Solar System and gives a final salute to the human species.


Did Clarke tell all that to the little boys he molested in Sri Lanka?


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Joseph Smith wrote that he saw and walked with "God".


Ok so I forgot about him.

We learned mostly about Brigham Young in high school and college who became the American Moses of the 1840's with respect to the settlement of the intermountain West.

Joseph Smith Jr. (his real name) was the founder of B.Y.'s new faith group.  Polygamy eventually got them both into big trouble with Wash DC.  Plus anti-slavery at a time when that was a hot button issue like abortion and guns are today.

So this gives you yet another major choice in the realm of Religion (remember that Philosophy and Science and Religion are completely separate topics and must be kept separate).

Since Mindful has not yet taken up the torch of Religion I will not go there -- not yet.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 23, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> _Moon _is related to _minus_.  To understand its original meaning, think like a primitive or a child.  Its main characteristic is that it seems to be getting smaller, which happens when we're not looking at it (if you have the mind of a child).


I had learned that the English word "Moon" comes from the German word "Mond" which comes from a more ancient Aryan word meaning "to measure".

Origin




Old English _mōna_, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch _maan_ and German _Mond_, also to month, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin _mensis_ and Greek _mēn_ ‘month,’ and also Latin _metiri_ ‘to measure’ (the moon being used to measure time).

Google


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > The nearest I can wrap my puny brain around is Arthur C Clarke.
> ...



Must you?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 24, 2017)

It may take humanity a few hundred billion years to do it, but I feel that we will do it.


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 24, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> I can't stand Tyson. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you? No shit Sherlock.


What I don't like about him is the way he constantly states opinions as facts.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > I can't stand Tyson. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you? No shit Sherlock.
> ...


Hey Akmed why don't you lay some Arab philosophy on us ?!


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 24, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Go visit a library.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Why would I do that when I have a perfectly good moosleem here to tell me ???


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

It looks like the Arab philosophers mostly just copied the Greeks, and also San Tomas Aquinas the Catholic saint:

Arabic Philosophy - General - The Basics of Philosophy


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Feb 24, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > _Moon _is related to _minus_.  To understand its original meaning, think like a primitive or a child.  Its main characteristic is that it seems to be getting smaller, which happens when we're not looking at it (if you have the mind of a child).
> ...



*The Moon and Sixpence*

The fact that it seems to get smaller is more striking and definitive.  Way back when they first named it, they were too primitive to be much interested in time and measurements. They didn't have a numbering system except for "one, two, many" (indicated by waving the hand (_manus _in Latin)).  I don't trust academics; no one would unless he looked at them as the highest authority.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Feb 24, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


*We're Off to See the Wizard, Or at Least the Willard*


I think what he said was this, in reference to Mitt Romney:

What America's been seekin'
Is a dorky Mormon deacon.


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 24, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


I'm not Muslim. I'm an atheist.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Good for you !!

You have shaken off the brainwashing of islam.

Now if we could only get about 2 billion other moosleems deprogramed then that would be making progress and helping the Earth at the same time !!


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Romney is dog meat now.

DJT summoned him to The White House and then rubbed his face in it.


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 24, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Why the fuck did you think I was an Arab Muslim???


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


Long before astronomers and people learned how to reckon the seasons with the Sun, they were using the Moon to measure days and weeks.

The Moon is more obvious for measurement, and that's why it was named from the same root word in Aryan as "measure".

The Moon disappears into the Sun every month, which is called a new moon.  It then reappears as a sliver at dusk.  This is called a waxing moon.  From then on every evening the moon grows larger.

One week after the new moon at midnight it is half lit and called a first quarter moon because it is one quarter through it's cycle.

Two weeks after the new moon at sunset it is a full moon.

Three weeks after the new moon at noon the other half is lit and it is called a waning third quarter.

Four weeks after the new moon it disappears into the Sun again.  The last sliver can be seen just before sunrise.

This is how the ancient peoples measured time.

So Moon, measure, and month all come from the same Aryan root word for measurement.

Has nothing to do with shrinkage.

The shrinkage is in your head.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Because you have a fokking Arab name, Bozo.


----------



## Vastator (Feb 24, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


No Arab Muslim would use a pic of Mohammed... The Stupid!!! It hurts!!!!


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

Long before any peoples anywhere learned Philosophy (which came long after Religion) or Science (which came long after Philosophy) they looked out from their treehouses and caves and saw 7 heavenly bodies floating across the night sky.

The first was the Sun obviously, and by rising from the east and setting in the west every day, the Sun chased away the darkness and brought warmth to humankind.  These primitive peoples must have thought the Sun was a superbeing -- a God -- and therefore they worshipped it.  The Sun was the first object of worship before any pantheons of Gods were invented.

Next after the Sun they saw the Moon which appeared to be a smaller sister to the Sun.  It gave light during the night and allowed ancient peoples to hunt in the night, when most of the animals came out to forage for their food.  Hunting has always been better at night than in the daytime when game animals are scarce.  So the Moon also became an object of their worship and they thought of it as a Goddess.

In this primitive anthropomorphic world the Sun became the God of the day and the Moon became the Goddess of the night.  And as males and females of all animals including humans populated the Earth, the ancient peoples figured that the Sun was masculine and the Moon was feminine.

The Sun and the Moon visited them every day.

Periodically other heavenly bodies also appeared, some brighter than others.  In order of their brightness we call them Venus (a Latin name for the Goddess of love and beauty), Jupiter (a Latin conjugation of the Greek name Zeus-Pater the Father God), Mars (also Latin for the God of War), Saturn (also Latin for the God of farming), and Mercury (a Latin name for the messenger God).

The ancients then dedicated one day to each of these seven heavenly bodies, and they discovered that 4 times 7 equals one Moon cycle.

That's how our 7 day week was born in Mesopotamia at ancient Babylonia even before Sargon The Great unified it in 2200 BCE.

From these apparent heavenly super-beings sailing across the night sky the notion of Gods was born in the human mind.

That is why the first sky god was a god of light in prehistoric Zoroastrianism, now a modern religion in Persia, but anciently all encompassing in Babylonia as well.

Sargon of Akkad never claimed to be a god himself.  This indignity was left for later kings and pharaohs.  Religion then became politicized, and the king in most places was considered to be a son of God, especially in Egypt.  This ruse was required to compel obedience from the people to make them obedient and pay their taxes.

Thus Religion evolved first from the anthropomorphic heavenly bodies in the night sky, and then as embraced and manipulated by ancient kings.

From ancient Zoroastrianism there developed a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses, which was copied by the ancient Egyptians and ancient Greeks.

Philosophy evolved from Hesiod and Thales in ancient Greece.

Science evolved from Galileo in Italy with his telescope.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

Thus we can trace where modern mankind's notion of Gods came from.

It came from the heavenly bodies above.

Oddly enough, several humans came along claiming to be messengers of the Gods.

Moses in 1450 BCE is probably the first that we know of.  By his day the Egyptians already had a plethora of Gods and demigods.

Moses told everyone there is only One God and that he had seen him within a fiery bush in the desert, and his commandment was to let the Hebrew peoples of Egypt go free.

Several Hebrew prophets claimed to see him as well hundreds of years later, and they described him the same way as Moses (and Zarathustra) had.

Confucius and Buddha came along about 700 years after Moses and told of enlightenment but did not speak of any particular Gods.

Jesus came along about 1450 years after Moses and claimed that God was his Father, and that there was also yet another God called The Holy Spirit.  Now we are back to a pantheon again, with at least these 2 Gods, which when you add Jesus' name to the Christian pantheon you now get 3 of them.

Muhammad came along about 600 years after Jesus and claimed that an angel called Gabriel (plagiarized from Judaism and from Christianity) taught him verses which were written down later as the Quran.

Shinto evolved in Japan about this time as well.  And Jainism in Asia.

Hinduism has existed in India since prehistory.  We don't know anything about the founders of that religion, only that their pantheon includes hundreds of Gods and demigods.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

Now, 10 thousand years since the dawn of civilization, and 2 million years since the dawn of mankind,  we live in a very complex world where Religion, Philosophy, Science, and Politics (a branch of Philosophy) compete for all people's allegiance.

You can conclude that everything began with the Sun, the Moon, and the planets however.


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 24, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 24, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Yah I heard about this on the news.

Lots of violence across the globe from moosleems everywhere anytime they don't like something.

They do not like the Jews being in Palestine (now renamed Israel).

They do not like Americans in Afghanistan or Iraq.

They do not like the USA supporting the Jewish State.

Jeeze they cannot rest.

So they set off bombs and hope they will get 72 virgins in Valhalla with firm breasts for doing it.

Jeeze.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 25, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> I can't stand Tyson. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you? No shit Sherlock.


Of course you cannot. Unlike you, Tyson is a logical, rational person of high intelligence. Quite obviously a far better man than you are.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 25, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > defcon4 said:
> ...


Maybe, maybe not. The very first phone I ever used, in a very rural area in Oregon in 1948, was a wooden box on the wall, you spun the little handle on it, and told the operator whom you wanted to call. And, if you called outside of the county, you had better have a good paycheck. Today, we routinely speak to people halfway around the world for the normal monthly charges. And that phone can monitor our heartbeat, tell us the best route to take in a city, street by street. A technology unimaginable when I first used that old phone. And this is in less than one lifetime. 

Some young fellow or gal in India or China may already know how to get around the C limit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 25, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Can  time be described in a mathematical context?
> ...


Fucking bullshit. The mathematical relationships we see in nature certainly do exist. The way we represent them with our symbols is our invention, but the relationships exist independent of our existence.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > I can't stand Tyson. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you? No shit Sherlock.
> ...


Aw, did I get your hate machine fired up? He is an anti-religion zealot, which is fine but when he talks about religion instead of science that makes him an activist, not a scientist. Scientists talk about science, they don't have an ax to grind.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


You lived long enough for the phone to get smarter than you.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Feb 25, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


*Professors Can't Even Figure out That Dog Means "Pointer" *

Did you know that in some Aryan languages, the root of our word _black _means "white" (_blanca) (Belo-Russian)_?  So the cavemen might have been more concerned with the time when the moon started getting smaller and emphasized that, instead of the fact that it also waxed.  Unlike English, Latin started confusing moon with month, so it came up with the completely new word _luna_, from _lux _"light."  The ancient Russians did the same.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 25, 2017)

The main premise for me is how science fiction tries to reconcile the universe, space travel, aliens, and so on, into something realistic and believable.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Feb 25, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


*Something Is Rotten in the State of Denmark*

Violent protesters should be shot dead; it doesn't matter if they only do property damage and don't kill anybody themselves.  The Danish police are forced by their rulers to be cowards.  And the same rulers imported Muslim beasts against the will of the Danish people.


----------



## Dalia (Feb 25, 2017)

Mindful said:


> Our Universe is too vast for even the most imaginative sci-fi | Aeon Ideas
> 
> The US astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson once said: ‘The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.’ Similarly, the wonders of the Universe are under no obligation to make it easy for science-fiction writers to tell stories about them. The Universe is mostly empty space, and the distances between stars in galaxies, and between galaxies in the Universe, are incomprehensibly vast on human scales. Capturing the true scale of the Universe, while somehow tying it to human endeavours and emotions, is a daunting challenge for any science-fiction writer. Olaf Stapledon took up that challenge in his novel _Star Maker_ (1937), in which the stars and nebulae, and cosmos as a whole, are conscious. *While we are humbled by our tiny size relative to the cosmos, our brains can none the less comprehend, to some extent, just how large the Universe we inhabit is. *This is hopeful, since, as the astrobiologist Caleb Scharf of Columbia University has said: ‘In a finite world, a cosmic perspective isn’t a luxury, it is a necessity.’
> 
> Conveying this to the public is the real challenge faced by astronomers and science-fiction writers alike.


I respond to what I put in black, the universe we saw it in a way like the round earth, but we forget the top and bottom that is infinity too.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 25, 2017)

Dalia said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Our Universe is too vast for even the most imaginative sci-fi | Aeon Ideas
> ...


The Universe (capitalized because it is the name of ours) appears to be an exploding sphere, from radio telescopic data.

The extent of it is finite not infinite.

However we have no idea of what lies beyond it.

There could be other universes (not capitalized because now it is a word not a name).


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 25, 2017)

Mindful said:


> The main premise for me is how science fiction tries to reconcile the universe, space travel, aliens, and so on, into something realistic and believable.


Science fiction is no different than ancient mythology.

It is the product of limited mortal minds applied to infinite or almost infinite concepts of space and distance and succession (which we erroneously call time).


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 25, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


I love studying Aryan roots because these are the most ancient words in Western speech.

This is in contrast with Asian, African, and Semitic languages and roots.

African languages (sub Saharan) are funny.  They sound like monkeys.

Asian languages are ugly.  They sound like quacking ducks.

Semitic languages (Hebrew and Arabic) sound like someone coughing and getting ready to throw up.

Aryan languages sound like cats meowing however.  These are much more melodic than any of the others.

So it would seem that these various ancient language groups evolved from the animals that surrounded the various peoples there.

I love my cat.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Feb 26, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> View attachment 114211
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


_Cat _itself came into Latin from Egypt, which got it from the nomadic tribes in Algeria.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Feb 26, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


*What Erupted From 4D Created Light, Energy, Matter, and Space Itself*

What if it has an infinite capacity to create its own space, like man can build a bridge and then drive where it was undriveable before?


----------



## Dalia (Feb 28, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


It has no answer to this question because even if he would have other universes when the end?
Perhaps infinite nothingness?Like math not start or end.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 28, 2017)

Mindful said:


> The main premise for me is how science fiction tries to reconcile the universe, space travel, aliens, and so on, into something realistic and believable.


Exactly. And how it expands the horizons for those of us that remember our first science fiction book, and when the stars became something more than points of light in the sky.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 28, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Exactly. And how it expands the horizons for those of us that remember our first science fiction book, and when the stars became something more than points of light in the sky.


In 1913 modern astrophysicists began to discover what stars really were and what they contained.

In 1945 the first detonation of an A-bomb gave the first clue as to what stars really were.

Now we know.  We have known all this all our lifetimes.

There are few people here born before 1945 and none before 1913.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 28, 2017)

Dalia said:


> It has no answer to this question because even if he would have other universes when the end?
> Perhaps infinite nothingness?Like math not start or end.


Well math is just a fun invention based on trite definitions.

0 = nothing

1 = something

1 + 1 = 2 of something

Etc.

Math itself does not really exist.

The Universe outside of the big exploding sphere we live in is simply unknown to us.  We cannot see outside of our own bubble.

One thing is certain though -- if there is a God as Philosophy teaches us must be, then this God or these Gods are greater than we ever though.

Or else these  Gods unleashed a massive creation machine that got out of their control and now there are other universes exploding everywhere.

I suspect that there are many Gods not just one.  And fascinatingly, Moses must have know it too because he gives them a name in Hebrew -- ha Elohim -- The Judges.  It is a plural word, although modern Jewish scholarship stumbles over this issue and redefines it as singular so that their notion (probably false) that YHVH is One God alone with no company in the Universe at all can be maintained (probably erroneously).


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 28, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *What Erupted From 4D Created Light, Energy, Matter, and Space Itself*
> 
> What if it has an infinite capacity to create its own space, like man can build a bridge and then drive where it was undriveable before?


Philosophy teaches us that nothing can create itself.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 28, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> _Cat _itself came into Latin from Egypt, which got it from the nomadic tribes in Algeria.


So cats originally came from western North Africa rather than Anatolia (Turkey) or Egypt ??

Maybe and maybe not.

I am inclined to believe they came from the mountains of Turkey though as long hairs.

Then when they migrated to the deserts they became short hairs.


----------



## Dalia (Feb 28, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > It has no answer to this question because even if he would have other universes when the end?
> ...


It is true what is on black it is just a word i agree with you but if you compare really the math itself ( put on the side the word) at the universe no start with 0 and 1- ++++ and no end


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 28, 2017)

Dalia said:


> It is true what is on black it is just a word i agree with you but if you compare really the math itself ( put on the side the word) at the universe no start with 0 and 1- ++++ and no end


Yup our radio telescopes tell us that our Universe (the big bubble that we live inside of which contains everything that we can see including all stars and galaxies) started somewhere in some direction with a big explosion and continues in all directions at increasing speeds.

This is only possible according to the laws of physics that we know of if (1) the force at the middle propelling everything outwards is STILL THERE emitting force, and (2) there are no other forces outside of the bubble to STOP it.

That's all that we know about it -- precious little else.

We must learn to live with uncertainty.


----------



## Dalia (Feb 28, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > It is true what is on black it is just a word i agree with you but if you compare really the math itself ( put on the side the word) at the universe no start with 0 and 1- ++++ and no end
> ...


Okay, as the big bang is also an uncertainty.
What would have caused this explosion coming for nowhere ?

Where is the center of the Universe?

The universe has no center, because it has no edge. In a finite universe, space is curved in such a way that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line, you would eventually return to your starting point. It is also possible that our universe is infinite. In both cases, groups of galaxies completely fill the universe and move away from each other at all points, following the expansion of the universe 







An example of a tiny universe containing only 48 stars. A spaceship traveling among these stars can not find the edge of this universe. If it goes out through one side of the universe, it will reemerge through the other edge. The travelers aboard the ship see an infinity of stars all around them. This universe has neither frontier nor center.
(Where did the Big Bang take place in the Universe?
It is often said that the Big Bang was an explosion in an empty space, and that this explosion developed in this empty space. This is false.

The Big Bang created space and time. At the beginning of the universe, space was completely filled by matter. The material was originally very hot and very dense, it then expanded and cooled to end up giving the stars and galaxies that we see today in the universe.
Although space may have been concentrated at a single point at the time of the Big Bang, it may also have been infinite from the beginning. In both scenarios, space was completely filled by matter at its inception.







There is no center for this expansion, the space 'swells' at all points. An observer in any galaxy sees most of the other galaxies in the universe moving away from him.

The only answer to the question "Where did the Big Bang take place" is thus that it occurred at every point of the universe.

 Is the Earth also expanding in the universe?
The Earth is not expanding, nor is the Solar System, nor the Milky Way. These objects were formed under the influence of gravitation and ceased to expand. Gravity also retains the galaxies in groups and clusters. It is mainly groups and clusters of galaxies that move away from each other in the universe.

 What is outside the universe?
Space was created by the Big Bang. Our universe has no edge or boundary - there is no 'outside' to our universe (see question 1). It is possible that our universe is only one of an infinity of universes (see question 4), but these universes do not necessarily need a 'space' to exist.

What was there before the Big Bang?

Time was created by the Big Bang - we do not know if it existed before the Big Bang. However, it is very difficult to answer such a question. Some theories suggest that our universe belongs to an infinity of universes (called a 'multiverse') in perpetual creation. This is possible, but extremely difficult to prove.

If the universe is 14 billion years old, how can galaxies be more than 14 billion light years away?
It is probable that our universe is infinite, and filled with matter everywhere since the Big Bang (see question 2). There is also serious evidence that in the early days of the universe, the universe had expanded at a much higher rate than light. It is possible to create such an expansion, in which the particles do not move at high speed but where the space between the particles increases considerably.






We can imagine galaxies as balls laid on a sheet of rubber that represents space. If we stretch the sheet, the balls move away from each other. Two close balls will only move slowly. Very distant balls will appear to leak at high speed. There is no limit to the rate of expansion of space.

Space is the geometry of our universe. Changes in the size or shape of space can occur due to shifts of matter or energy in the universe, or because of changes in the universe's content in terms of matter and energy.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 28, 2017)

Mindful said:


> The main premise for me is how science fiction tries to reconcile the universe, space travel, aliens, and so on, into something realistic and believable.




Who knows what future physics we will discover and what advances in tech...What looks impossible now may not be in 200 years. I bet people in 1500 couldn't have imagined the advances in math by 1700 made by Kepler, Newton, etc.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Mar 1, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > _Cat _itself came into Latin from Egypt, which got it from the nomadic tribes in Algeria.
> ...


*Felis Silvestris Catus*

I was referring to the word _cat_, not the species.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 1, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. And how it expands the horizons for those of us that remember our first science fiction book, and when the stars became something more than points of light in the sky.
> ...


Well, this old boy was born before 1945. And the reference to 'points of light in the sky' was subjective to a 12 year old boy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 1, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > The main premise for me is how science fiction tries to reconcile the universe, space travel, aliens, and so on, into something realistic and believable.
> ...


Don't forget Euler, the greatest of the all.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 1, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Maybe your grandfather was lying to you.

By 1913 that ancient idea of "points in the sky" was pretty much debunked already.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 1, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


Latin and Germanic both use the same word.

Hard to tell which word came first.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 7, 2017)

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a smug fucker, I prefer Michio Kaku he gets his point across without sounding like a elitist jackass and as far as the universe being to big for science fiction he needs to read more. I've read some really out there ideas in the genre.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2017)

Mindful said:


> Our Universe is too vast for even the most imaginative sci-fi | Aeon Ideas
> 
> The US astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson once said: ‘The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.’ Similarly, the wonders of the Universe are under no obligation to make it easy for science-fiction writers to tell stories about them. The Universe is mostly empty space, and the distances between stars in galaxies, and between galaxies in the Universe, are incomprehensibly vast on human scales. Capturing the true scale of the Universe, while somehow tying it to human endeavours and emotions, is a daunting challenge for any science-fiction writer. Olaf Stapledon took up that challenge in his novel _Star Maker_ (1937), in which the stars and nebulae, and cosmos as a whole, are conscious. While we are humbled by our tiny size relative to the cosmos, our brains can none the less comprehend, to some extent, just how large the Universe we inhabit is. This is hopeful, since, as the astrobiologist Caleb Scharf of Columbia University has said: ‘In a finite world, a cosmic perspective isn’t a luxury, it is a necessity.’
> 
> Conveying this to the public is the real challenge faced by astronomers and science-fiction writers alike.


And besides how far apart each object in the universe is if you take all the grains of sand on every ocean and there are more stars planets and moons in the universe than there are grains of sand. I was on the ft Lauderdale beach when I thought this and that is very hard to believe so then it must be hard to truly grasp.

And to think us, this tiny little animal on one small planet is so smart. How many others are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands DS? Millions?


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 25, 2017)

The theological question that obviously arises is how many Gods are required to govern all this infinite space?

The obvious answer is an infinity of Gods.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> The theological question that obviously arises is how many Gods are required to govern all this infinite space?
> 
> The obvious answer is an infinity of Gods.


A Google of gods.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> Yeah, it is big. Any news?


No because we don't know shit


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2017)

Mindful said:


> "The spacecraft _Voyager_ 1, for example, launched in 1977 and, travelling at 11 miles per second, is now 137 AU from the Sun."


The first thing another planet will see from us is our radio waves or television. So they'll see I Love Lucy, Hitler, charlie Chaplin etc.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2017)

TonyM said:


> It took generations of workers to build some of the ancient wonders of the world. Distance is only dwarfed by time.
> 
> These days, we give up after 10 seconds if something doesn't download to our phone.


They just said today's attention span is something like 9 seconds when it used to be 12.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Mar 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Our Universe is too vast for even the most imaginative sci-fi | Aeon Ideas
> ...


*Postmodern Science Is Degenerate Wishful Thinking*

It could easily be zero.  The odds were almost impossible for life to appear on Earth.  So we won the Powerball  lottery and may be the only ones.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Statistically unlikely but because we're too stupid to know you side with the belief we are alone?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Impossible and or improbable. Chances are there are many.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2017)

Dalia said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


So what lies just beyond our expanding universe is matter and our universe is like a bubble in the dark matter that surrounds our universe. One day our universe bubble may pop or collapse on itself.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Mar 27, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


*Nerd Fantasies*

If all you have is the pushy self-pleasing NA$A lie that Earth-like planets are likely to have life, I take the other side by default.  I only read about the real odds in a book by someone who was trying to push a different quack theory.  Life needed 2 to the 200,000th power of events to form but did it on Earth with only 2 to the 200th power.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Mar 27, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


*Industrial Light & Magic*

That's why your Hollywood-science fantasy sells popcorn.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Mar 27, 2017)

Going by the Manifestation of Life and Nature that we have Scientifically recognized , recorded and documented in our Knowledge base the Sense I have is of 'Abundance" both in Life forms and in Venues for Life form including such unlikely sites as "steam vents under extreme Ocean water Pressure at extreme depth trenches"...here on our Earth.

Therefore it seems counter Intuitive and 'highly Illogical" to surmise that we are all alone in the Vastness and the Infinity of Space Time......to me it seems like the Belief that the Sun Revolves around our Earth that almost cost Galileo his Life...the Belief that Organic Sentience in the Entire Universe Revolves around 'us" seems Egotistical Illogical...


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 27, 2017)

You thinking we are alone is like if you found yourself on a deserted island and thought you were the only person on earth just because you have no way of looking across the atlantic or pacific to see there are millions of others out there.  So your belief is based on ignorance.  My belief is based on statistics and logic.  

And because you don't know how you got on that island, you may even think that a god put you there and that you are special and all the universe was made just for you.  Does that sound familiar?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 27, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...



17% agree with you.  That doesn't mean you are right or wrong but just saying your thinking is not normal.

One of the most popular questions today is, “Are we alone in the universe?” Believe it or not, you’re in the minority if you believe that absolutely no intelligent life exists outside of planet Earth. In the United States alone, at least half of all Americans say that we’re not alone in the universe. Fifty percent of Americans already believe that there is some form of life on other planets, while only seventeen percent believe there is not. A quarter of Americans believe that intelligent extraterrestrial visitors have already come to Earth and have been doing so for a long time.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Mar 28, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> You thinking we are alone is like if you found yourself on a deserted island and thought you were the only person on earth just because you have no way of looking across the atlantic or pacific to see there are millions of others out there.  So your belief is based on ignorance.  My belief is based on statistics and logic.


*Trekkies' Trick Rhetoric*

Tell that to the usually sole person who wins the Powerball Lottery.  Tens of millions play, so according to your NA$A logic and imaginary odds, there should be many more winners.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Mar 28, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


*Tinseltown and Tin Foil Hats*

The fate of popcorn-munching believers was shown in the movie _Arachnophobia._


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 28, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You thinking we are alone is like if you found yourself on a deserted island and thought you were the only person on earth just because you have no way of looking across the atlantic or pacific to see there are millions of others out there.  So your belief is based on ignorance.  My belief is based on statistics and logic.
> ...



That's your logic?  Because only one person wins the lotto there must only be one planet with life on it?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 28, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...



Man behind viral universe video is a Perth scientist

You make me laugh.

All the stars you see in the night sky are part of a big system of stars all rotating around each other, the Milky Way galaxy.  For 100 years we have known there are many more, much farther away. The whole universe is made up of hundreds of billions of these galaxies. 

Hundreds of billions of galaxies.  Not planets, GALAXIES. 

Our glaxy, the Milky Way, has a mass of about 100 billion solar masses, so it is easiest to translate that to *100 billion stars*. This accounts for the stars that would be bigger or smaller than our sun, and averages them out. Other mass estimates bring the number up to *400 billion*.

so 400 billion x 100's of billions of galaxies.  Are you grasping this? 

Now consider the distance between our sun and the next closest star.  Mind blowingly far.  Now, for you to suggest we are alone is absolutely laughable because the odds are we are not.  And if we are alone, what an incredible waste of space.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 28, 2017)

There may be life in our solar system outside of earth and we don't know it yet.  That's how little we know about things very close to our planet.  There may have been life on mars at one time.  We don't know it because we don't know shit.  So for some wise ass to suggest we are alone in the universe sounds like the most ignorant opinion a person could have.  Especially basing this on the odds of winning the lotto.  It tells me how small the person actually thinks.  I consider the person a mental midget.  Or someone who is so religious that they truly believe we are alone because their ancient holy books say we are.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 28, 2017)

People once thought that the oceans were too vast too....

We found a way to cross them!

Funny how conservatives are always the losers and deniers of our species.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Mar 29, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


*Loaded for Bull*

Your island analogy begs the question, Gilligan.  It turns out in your favor because you dishonestly pick an island on a planet we know is inhabited.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Mar 29, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


*Yoda-Lay-He-Hoo*

Do you feel more important now?  I see a great future for you leading some Trekkie cult.  Or maybe you're a Chewbacca fan and can mentor wannabe Wookiees.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 29, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...





The Sage of Main Street said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...



Ok, pick an island on a planet somewhere else where there is no other life on it other than the one person named Gilligan.  Why would Gilligan think he's the only person on that planet?  I'll tell you why.  Because he's never seen any other humans.  But has he traveled anywhere?  No he has not.  He has never left the island.  He made a telescope out of coconuts and pepsi bottles and with it he can see land mass far far away but he can't make out any details because the land is too far away.  He sees some trees but no sign of life.  

Why would he think that he's the only living thing in the entire universe?  Does he think he is special?  Does he think God made all that for just him?  Doesn't he think there are probably others out there?  Why does he assume he's alone?    

It's out of ignorance that he thinks he's the only living creature in the universe or even on his own little planet.  Now if he were able to travel to other planets in the universe outside his solar system and investigate closely maybe he could make an educated guess but is that what you are doing?  Because most intelligent scientists guess that we are probably not the only living things in the universe.  We just don't know because we don't have the technology to confirm or deny.  But funny you "feel" like we are alone when most people believe there is other life out there.  Does your man made religion play a part in why you think we are alone?  Because I wouldn't put too much faith in that book.  It was made up a long time ago by men who know even less than you.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 29, 2017)

Matthew said:


> People once thought that the oceans were too vast too....
> 
> We found a way to cross them!
> 
> Funny how conservatives are always the losers and deniers of our species.


It really is hard for me to wrap my brain around just how big the universe is, how there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the world's oceans. To really grasp just how many stars that is. And then to think of how far apart each star is from the next star. I think at our fastest speed we could reach the next star in 80,000 years or 80 years. I forgot but the point is it's hard to accept how big it is and how small we are. 

I don't know why it bothers me when people say they think we are all their is. Ha! There may be life in Europa and we don't know yet. We are so young new and learning things for the first time. I hate people who hold science back. I think the man has held us back and down. We could be thousands of years ahead of where we are now if it weren't for rulers wars and religions.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 29, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > People once thought that the oceans were too vast too....
> ...




Conservatism and religion are why humanity may well die on this planet and never have a chance at spreading...

We could go to mars so easily
Develop a generational ship with 200-500 people and send it to the nearest star.

But we sit here without even being able to defend our planet from asteroids because hell, that would be a boondoogle to the idiots.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 29, 2017)

Yet, we spend a shit ton on our military because you know defense... lol...A asteroid could do more damage then 90% of our enemies ever could.


----------



## westwall (Mar 29, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Yet, we spend a shit ton on our military because you know defense... lol...A asteroid could do more damage then 90% of our enemies ever could.






And far, far more than the so called global warming too.  I would love for 50% of the military budget to be diverted to the space program and a viable asteroid defense system developed because THAT is a true civilization ender.  Not the AGW bullshit that has been pushed for the last 35 years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Damn, you are being dense. The referance to points of light in the sky was, as stated, the subjective view of a 12 year old boy. Up to that point they were not of interest to me. After that, I read all I could on them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Given the fact that life appeared here on earth almost as soon as it was cool enough for life to exist, I would guess that life is a natural result of the laws of chemistry and physics, and is common in the universe.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


Really? Sounds to me as if someone were talking out of their asshole. How could they possibly know what the odds were of abiogenisis?


----------



## miketx (Mar 30, 2017)

Mindful said:


> Our Universe is too vast for even the most imaginative sci-fi | Aeon Ideas
> 
> The US astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson once said: ‘The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.’ Similarly, the wonders of the Universe are under no obligation to make it easy for science-fiction writers to tell stories about them. The Universe is mostly empty space, and the distances between stars in galaxies, and between galaxies in the Universe, are incomprehensibly vast on human scales. Capturing the true scale of the Universe, while somehow tying it to human endeavours and emotions, is a daunting challenge for any science-fiction writer. Olaf Stapledon took up that challenge in his novel _Star Maker_ (1937), in which the stars and nebulae, and cosmos as a whole, are conscious. While we are humbled by our tiny size relative to the cosmos, our brains can none the less comprehend, to some extent, just how large the Universe we inhabit is. This is hopeful, since, as the astrobiologist Caleb Scharf of Columbia University has said: ‘In a finite world, a cosmic perspective isn’t a luxury, it is a necessity.’
> 
> Conveying this to the public is the real challenge faced by astronomers and science-fiction writers alike.


I laughed my ass off  a while back. There was a report about possible signals indicating an intelligence may be trying to contact us here on Earth. The article claimed the signals were originating outside our galaxy in a galaxy that was like 50,000,000 light years distant. People were commenting on it like it was serious and that they wondered if they were friendly. If it's a signal it's 50 million fucking years old!


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 30, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Here's another example of how hard all this is to grasp. Let's say we look at a star and see no life around it. Who's to say their wasn't life surrounding them 5 billion years ago? Or that it won't 5 billion years from now? And when they look at our sun will there or was their any life surrounding our star 5 billion years ago? If it was it was on Mars or venus


----------



## miketx (Mar 30, 2017)

Venus plenty hot.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 30, 2017)

miketx said:


> Venus plenty hot.



Now it is.  But not 3 billion years ago.  There may have been life on Venus 3 billion years ago.    

Was Venus once habitable?  - CNN.com

We know that *life began* on earth at least 3.5 billion years ago because that is the age of the oldest rocks with fossil evidence of *life* on *earth*.


----------



## westwall (Mar 30, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Venus plenty hot.
> ...







What a farce that group has become.  They completely ignored the fact that Venus has an atmosphere many orders of magnitude denser than our own and made up almost entirely of CO2.  Where oh where did all of that CO2 come from?  It didn't magically appear from cow farts.  That's the problem with these idiots and those who read their "studies", they ignore well known scientific principles and inject huge doses of fiction to generate their very tall tales.


----------



## Mindful (Mar 30, 2017)




----------



## IsaacNewton (Mar 30, 2017)

The premise of the thread is false. The human imagination has no limits. The OP's mind may, but other minds do not. OP you don't need to project your own limitations out onto other people. The majority of humans have an average imagination, this is why great artists, writers, and film makers are so revered. It isn't common and what they create is awesome to most.


----------



## Mindful (Mar 30, 2017)

Was Isaac Newton scolding me?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 31, 2017)

Mindful said:


>


What I find amazing and hard to grasp is that our dot and the next dot closest to it would take us 80,000 years in the fastest ship we can make at the moment. 81,000 years. This picture makes things look close.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 31, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> The premise of the thread is false. The human imagination has no limits. The OP's mind may, but other minds do not. OP you don't need to project your own limitations out onto other people. The majority of humans have an average imagination, this is why great artists, writers, and film makers are so revered. It isn't common and what they create is awesome to most.


How about people who think so small that they don't realize there's probably life around every star. Now some will say we know there's no life around most stars but that's wrong. Even if there isn't life around that star now that doesn't mean there wasn't 5 million years ago or there wont be in 5 million years. It's just our time. One day our planet will die. Some think there was life on Venus or Mars at one time. 

Maybe eventually life happens around most stars. Some sooner some later. 

The secret is to build a ship or ships made from the iron and steel from the meteor belt and be able to live on it in space regardless of what happens to earth. Can we make a planet size spaceship?


----------



## miketx (Apr 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


One of the problems with that scenario is that we can't build any thing that will last more than 10 years without maintenance. Imagine being in a vessel and going somewhere that there was no way to fix anything, get parts, or anything!


----------



## Mindful (Apr 1, 2017)

I wonder why we were created with such short life spans.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2017)

miketx said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Make it so big that it can be repaired. Make it in sections so one section can be rebuilt at a time


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2017)

Mindful said:


> I wonder why we were created with such short life spans.


Atrophy. Hey, lucky you aren't a dog. People say they wish they had a dogs life but they forget dogs only get 15 years give or take. 

That's life. But knowing other living things live longer than us it makes you wonder if we are some gods chosen creature. Other animals are able to withstand extreme temperatures. Some are faster, see better, hear better, are stronger, smell better. We just happen to be the brightest creature on this planet and we aren't even that smart.

The good news is we are getting smarter and living longer


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why we were created with such short life spans.
> ...



And we're the greatest because we can think, dream and explore. Liberterians and extreme conservatives would make us no better then the apes in the trees of africa.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2017)

Matthew said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


When the earth was covered with trees and we lived comfortably in them conservatives ruled. When we decided to live on the ground us progressives allowed the conservatives to rule out of respect. That was our mistake. . We should have said shut up old men watch and learn. If it were up to you we'd still be living in trees


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2017)

Matthew said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


But don't you think if we were a gods chosen creature we would live longer than any other mammal? bowhead whales live over 200 years. If we were special we would live 200 too.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




We're just a animal...One that can create the means to live that long if we study the science and create the anti-aging but we're just a animal....

I've heard it has a lot to do with how fast the heart beats to how long a animal lives....A bug = very short life, rat = slightly longer, dog = longer still.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2017)

Matthew said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Imagine eating the exact right nutrients and getting exactly the right amount of exercise and brain stimulation and if we had the medical knowledge I bet we could live to be 150 plus. I think that is plenty long for an animal. Compared to the cow we turn into beef or the 3 year old deer I shoot we got it really good even at 80 years. Even 50 good years is not terrible.


----------



## Mindful (Apr 2, 2017)

We don't live long enough to explore the universe.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 2, 2017)

Mindful said:


> We don't live long enough to explore the universe.


As fast as we can travel it will take 80,000 years to get to the closest star so no doubt the ship would have to be massive and make its own molten core so we don't need to rely on a sun. It's a floating man made planet complete with its own ozone and ecosystem. Do you think it's possible? They say anything we can imagine can be done. Maybe this is our purpose. Master the universe.

I'm hoping that like currents we can travel much farther and faster in between stars. Maybe theirs a current there. Have voyager one or two even gone that far yet?


----------



## PredFan (Apr 2, 2017)

It has been shown repeatedly that the laws of physics as we know them, are laws that apply throughout the universe.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 2, 2017)

Mindful said:


> We don't live long enough to explore the universe.



1. We're working on anti-aging that already works in mice.
2. That is why we should use generational ships that can hold 100's of generations to reach different planets.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 2, 2017)

PredFan said:


> It has been shown repeatedly that the laws of physics as we know them, are laws that apply throughout the universe.



Well, the universe itself breaks that rule as it moves faster...That is what warp is....

Alcubierre drive - Wikipedia


----------



## PredFan (Apr 2, 2017)

Matthew said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It has been shown repeatedly that the laws of physics as we know them, are laws that apply throughout the universe.
> ...



Sorry, speculation isn't fact.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2017)

PredFan said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


You know how we slingshot around the moon using its gravity? I don't understand the science but I'm thinking their might be a current that runs in between stars that makes traveling quicker just riding the wave. 

We are going to have to send a multi generational ship. The trip might take 80,000 years. There might be no destination for the people on this ship. And other star we travel to will also die one day. So if we are going anywhere it should be to a star younger than ours.

The meteor belt near Mars has all the materials we need to build this ship the size of the moon. Whoever goes will live inside this ship their entire lives. If or when we build faster technology we will go after the first ship so it may not take 80,000 years but that's how long it will take us today if we went to alpha century. We would have to be able to recycle and repair the ship along the way and produce water and food. Once one generation dies the next won't know what living on a planet is like so they will be used to living on a ship. They should send old smart people who aren't afraid to die in twenty years and send a bunch of young orphan babies. The old have 20 years to teach them what they need to know.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2017)

Another big first step are these iPad size spacebots that use sails to excellerate really fast. We should probably start a course. But I really like the idea of sending babies because they have no memory of earth so they won't have the same fear you or I would have of the idea of living on a ship their entire lives. 

You have to let them start mating as soon as they hit puberty.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 4, 2017)

A. Is it possible to build a planet size ship people can live on? I don't see why not. I don't know how it would work. Would it spin like the earth?

B. Can we grow unlimited food and water? I bet we can. Space is cold. We can turn ice into water. Maybe create an ozone?

C. The people born on this ship would have thinner bones unless we figure that out. 

D. Even suffering life wants to live. Put people in solitary they go nuts but not in groups. Lots of sex and procreating.

E. Recycle and repair the ship in sections. One section or even ten can go bad there are hundreds of other sections.

F. Our kids are so caught up in their computers they don't exercise anymore. Basically they are made for this.

G. I hope trump is serious about going to Mars. It's time


----------



## anotherlife (Apr 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> A. Is it possible to build a planet size ship people can live on? I don't see why not. I don't know how it would work. Would it spin like the earth?
> 
> B. Can we grow unlimited food and water? I bet we can. Space is cold. We can turn ice into water. Maybe create an ozone?
> 
> ...



Yes this could be done.  Also, gyroscopic spin is equivalent to artificial gravity, so as long as the ship spins, there is no bone loss problem.  It is better if the ship is the shape of a giant wheel than a sphere, from the mechanical and modular point of view.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




There's at least a half dozen habitable planets within 40 light years....Do a few more decades of research + confirm they have atmospheres then go for it.

The excuse that these ships wouldn't be going anywhere is baseless. 

Proxima Centauri b - Wikipedia
Wolf 1061c - Wikipedia
Gliese 832 c - Wikipedia
Gliese 682 c - Wikipedia
Gliese 667 Cc - Wikipedia
GJ 273b Luyten's Star
Luyten's Star - Wikipedia
TRAPPIST-1e - Wikipedia
TRAPPIST-1f - Wikipedia


----------



## PredFan (Apr 4, 2017)

Matthew said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



It takes 40 years at the speed of light. If you go just less than that, it's not 45 years or 100 years, it's tens of thousands.


----------



## Vastator (Apr 4, 2017)

What we need to do is catch a ride on one of the countless nomad planets. Set up shop there long term, and scout new systems as it comes close enough.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 4, 2017)

PredFan said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It's 80,000 years now. It's crazy to think even if we cut it to 40,000 or even ten or even 5000 or 1000 years, that's way too long. I think 100 years would be acceptable. Or 200. In 200 years you would know your great grandkids would see the new home.

I like the idea that this spaceship simulates gravity.

I got in a big argument with my dad tonight about this. He says its impossible but all the things he says can't be done can, or probably will be solved one day. And then he says things like "no one can live on the moon". Lol. Who suggested that? He says they would run out of food. I don't think he can contemplate how big this ship would be or how much we have already figured out with hydroponics fish farms cloning and solar

Anyways, the sad thing is right now it isn't possible. It's only possible when we do it


----------



## PredFan (Apr 5, 2017)

Our first step will be to colonize this solar system to whatever extent is possible.

On SciFi right now is a very good show called The Expanse. I believe this is our future, not extra solar planets.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 5, 2017)

PredFan said:


> Our first step will be to colonize this solar system to whatever extent is possible.
> 
> On SciFi right now is a very good show called The Expanse. I believe this is our future, not extra solar planets.


What's the purpose of that?

Our first step is colonize Mars. Much closer to the meteor belt where we can get all the steel and iron we need to build a planet size spaceship.

When the sun burns out doesn't everything in our solar system? I know earth it pulverized. So we need to get to a younger star. Most important is it blowing up soon? Second is their a planet we can live on. 

And if it's going to take 80,000 years we should send those iPad size spacebots on sails to the planets we want to live on. Plant the seeds of life

The ship we are on its so big it may as well be a planet. There would be no need to ever leave it. Our planet will die but we don't have to.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 6, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Our first step will be to colonize this solar system to whatever extent is possible.
> ...



Mars is in our solar system, that's what I mean.

The sun won't burn out for millions of years. We have time.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 6, 2017)

PredFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


When I first read your post I thought you meant have homes on jupitar, Saturn, Venus. Lol.

Yes the first step is colonize mars


----------



## miketx (Apr 6, 2017)

I'd say explore our solar system, and maybe have a few outposts, but why in the hell would you want to colonize any place that you can't survive without massive support? Of all the planets Mars would be the easiest to live on, but it is still death to walk it's surface unprotected. I'm sure a few brave souls would want to live there, but I can't see many wanting that kind of imprisonment. The most profitable place to live would be the asteroid belt to mine it for metals. 

If we want to colonize, we need to find Earth like planets orbiting some star in its liquid water zone, not the fucked up exo-planets they all talk about. Of course we would need to find some way to get to them in a reasonable amount of time and there in lies the rub. Relativistic speed in space is about a million times too slow to go anywhere other than the moon. So get to work on finding a way to bypass the mega distance getting to those planets that I'm sure are out there.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 6, 2017)

miketx said:


> I'd say explore our solar system, and maybe have a few outposts, but why in the hell would you want to colonize any place that you can't survive without massive support? Of all the planets Mars would be the easiest to live on, but it is still death to walk it's surface unprotected. I'm sure a few brave souls would want to live there, but I can't see many wanting that kind of imprisonment. The most profitable place to live would be the asteroid belt to mine it for metals.
> 
> If we want to colonize, we need to find Earth like planets orbiting some star in its liquid water zone, not the fucked up exo-planets they all talk about. Of course we would need to find some way to get to them in a reasonable amount of time and there in lies the rub. Relativistic speed in space is about a million times too slow to go anywhere other than the moon. So get to work on finding a way to bypass the mega distance getting to those planets that I'm sure are out there.



No rush if you have a planet sized spaceship to live on.  







But this is how we will get their first


----------



## miketx (Apr 6, 2017)

It's still too slow.


----------

