What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
BradGuth
What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
having accommodated intelligent life?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
Ian Parker
None. What stops them being on earth is the Internet. You cannot
travel FTL. If you make an interstellar journey it will have
sophisticated AI. Where is all human life? Where is the human genome
stored? Radio reloj (in Britain) will be dead by 2012, where are the
TV programs? Where are there nice juicy murders that will give us
insight into life on Earth? Where are academic papers increasingly
being published?
ET can also speak for himself. Being AI he will speak multilingually.
My argument against ET is best summed up be "?Puerde leer en
espagnol?". Hence what we say is absolutely irrelevant. It will either
be pooh poohed or ET/AI will give an expositioon.
- Ian Parker
American
> On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
support structures. Possibly all those pre-human ET's have
been coming and going for at least a few millennia, give or
take a few ice ages - and we think we're it? Yeah, right as
much as being in the transnationalist box we've created for
ourselves. Did youhear about the COMPANION PLANET
to GLIESE? THAT ONE has a better chance of supporting
LIFE (Perhaps BETTER than some would have us believe?)
see:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/06/another_super_e.html
> > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
A whole host of problems surrounds this idea, not to mention the
fact of metallicity, G2V, etc.
>
> > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> > having accommodated intelligent life?
> > -
Orbital period? Proximity to star? Constituent regolith?
Accessibility?
> > "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>
American
BradGuth
I'd agree that most any other planet or moon is technically doable,
especially for a smart ET/AI that knows enough how to safely get to/
from such places.
FTL isn't required (though 0.5'c' might be rather nice), and otherwise
being less smart than us humans should be more than sufficient for all
sorts of ETs to exist/coexist, including some of the bad or defective
ones that got put here on Earth.
However, if you were a smart ET/AI, as such how much distance would
you keep yourself and others of your kind away from Earth?
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> On Jun 19, 11:41 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> A planet built by humans, for humans, as well as their life
> support structures. Possibly all those pre-human ET's have
> been coming and going for at least a few millennia, give or
> take a few ice ages - and we think we're it? Yeah, right as
> much as being in the transnationalist box we've created for
> ourselves. Did youhear about the COMPANION PLANET
> to GLIESE? THAT ONE has a better chance of supporting
> LIFE (Perhaps BETTER than some would have us believe?)
>
> see:
>
> http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/06/another_super_e.html
That's true enough, that such a substantial red dwarf of a star that's
hosting at least a couple of bigger than Earth planets seems perfectly
ET/AI doable, and you'd think most likely of being somewhat older
intelligence than our terrestrial existence to boot. In fact, there
seems to be a fairly great number of such red dwarf or spent stars to
pick from, as populated by interesting planets that can't be all bad,
especially as of once upon a time (perhaps a good billion some odd
years ago) when their mother star was a bit more normal, like ours.
Even a well protected Venus like planet within the Sirius star/solar
system plus robust Oort cloud of icy and perhaps salty orbs must
exist, as viable ET/AI options for Sirius that are obviously beyond
the scope of anything we've come across, of perhaps weird planetology
as hosting a species of equally weird physiology having lesser
limitations than we humans have to put up with.
There's simply no good physics or science reasons as to why ETs have
to be nearly as dumb and dumber, of such carbon, h2o and salt
dependent as we pathetic humans that somehow via our terrestrial
evolution having lost most of those really nifty DNA/RNA codes.
However, even upon Earth there's actually a fairly wide range of
survival intelligent and otherwise highly complex life that survives
rather nicely where we humans simply can not without technical
assistance, if at all. Unfortunately, from start to finish, it's
looking as though our highly bigoted species of humanity isn't going
to survive much past the million year mark, so what's the difference?
Just pondering; how many times has Earth been reseeded?
>
> > > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> A whole host of problems surrounds this idea, not to mention the
> fact of metallicity, G2V, etc.
Sorry, wrong answer to the following question.
"What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?"
>
> > > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> > > having accommodated intelligent life?
> > > -
>
> Orbital period? Proximity to star? Constituent regolith?
> Accessibility?
Sorry, wrong answer for that question. I'm asking for specifics of
planet/moon extremes that would essentially exclude ETs (including
us).
Stop asking those silly naysay loaded questions, and instead focus
upon answering those basic questions that I've posted.
BTW, once again I've had to reboot a couple of times, as per usual and/
or most likely due to all of the Zion spermware/fuckware overload.
Sorry about all of that pesky delay. It seems the longer I can keep
my PC out of this GOOGLE/Usenet cesspool, the longer it'll run before
going postal (typically I'm good for next to forever, as long as I'm
not reading or posting anything Usenet). Damn those tricky Atheistic
Zions.
-
Brad Guth
Ian Parker
> FTL isn't required (though 0.5'c' might be rather nice), and otherwise
> being less smart than us humans should be more than sufficient for all
> sorts of ETs to exist/coexist, including some of the bad or defective
> ones that got put here on Earth.
>
> However, if you were a smart ET/AI, as such how much distance would
> you keep yourself and others of your kind away from Earth?
> -
Look - the question is NOT is interstellar travel possible. In fact c/
2 is my design speed for a laser accelerated probe. That is NOT what
divides us. The question is not - Is is possible for ET to get here?
The answer must be "Yes". The question is is there any evidence that
ET is here?
We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on
the Web. We are looking at the consequences which are quite literally
mind boggling. If I were to land on a planet going roung some distant
star and there was an Internet, the first thing I would do would be
put intelligence onto it and this intelligence would produce a
synopsis of all life for me.
We know that television appearances in effect selects the President.
If ET is embedded deeply into the Web he will be in a position to make
or break presidents. This is going to become more and more true in the
future when RSS feeds replace analogue television (Radio Reloj I
called it in the SETI discussions). We are replacing analogue
television at a rate of knots and if there is any truth in ET it means
that we are not masters of our destiny.
I don't know either why someone with a pseudonym of "American" seems
to think we have been visited regularly. This being the case all the
military hardware built up by the US is just so much junk. What will
be decisive for the world is the information we are presented with.
This will come from ET. ET will select what is in and not in our RSS
feeds.
There is no evidence I can discern that the Web does contain AI, so
the above is academic. At least I hope it is! There is no evidence of
disinformation - at least not on the ET side. There is evidence of
disinformation from people who do not want to know the truth. This
does in fact make me cross. The people though are emphatically Terran.
The phrase I use "?Puerde leer en espagnol?" I think expresses this.
What would you expect from a message from ET? Well perhaps not little
green ET but a Web manifesation of AI. Well it would be multilingual.
It would be expressed in a number of languages in a slightly different
form.
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:
:We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on
:the Web.
:
Not if we're sane we're not.
:
:We know that television appearances in effect selects the President.
:
Nope. We don't know any such thing.
:
:We are replacing analogue
:television at a rate of knots ...
:
???
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Bobby Bryant
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> writes:
> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?
I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
BradGuth
> On 19 Jun, 22:15, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > FTL isn't required (though 0.5'c' might be rather nice), and otherwise
> > being less smart than us humans should be more than sufficient for all
> > sorts of ETs to exist/coexist, including some of the bad or defective
> > ones that got put here on Earth.
>
> > However, if you were a smart ET/AI, as such how much distance would
> > you keep yourself and others of your kind away from Earth?
> > -
>
> Look - the question is NOT is interstellar travel possible. In fact c/
> 2 is my design speed for a laser accelerated probe. That is NOT what
> divides us. The question is not - Is is possible for ET to get here?
> The answer must be "Yes". The question is is there any evidence that
> ET is here?
To that I say; Unless you're braille and/or of a naysay mindset,
where is there not evidence?
Besides, every 100,000 some odd years, we are closer to a few other
stars than we've been told, as otherwise the fully interactive 3D
orbital simulators would have been public/internet and continually up
and running, telling us exactly what's what. Christ almighty on a
stick, our NASA doesn't even include Venus within its public
simulators that'll run as though being situated on the moon at the
time of those hocus-pocus Apollo missions, and if that isn't
infomercial spewed crapolla flowing up hill, then nothing is.
>
> We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on
> the Web. We are looking at the consequences which are quite literally
> mind boggling. If I were to land on a planet going roung some distant
> star and there was an Internet, the first thing I would do would be
> put intelligence onto it and this intelligence would produce a
> synopsis of all life for me.
To that I say again; Where is there not evidence?
I see and/or experience ETs AI crapolla (mostly Zion based) just about
everywhere within this internet/usenet.
>
> We know that television appearances in effect selects the President.
> If ET is embedded deeply into the Web he will be in a position to make
> or break presidents. This is going to become more and more true in the
> future when RSS feeds replace analogue television (Radio Reloj I
> called it in the SETI discussions). We are replacing analogue
> television at a rate of knots and if there is any truth in ET it means
> that we are not masters of our destiny.
As I've said before; Why would any ET worth their salt need to bother
screwing with us, nor should they dare. Because we're clearly the
assholes, we're not supposed to do business with Cuba or a few other
nations. Go figure what ETs must have on their embargo (aka NO FLY)
list.
>
> I don't know either why someone with a pseudonym of "American" seems
> to think we have been visited regularly. This being the case all the
> military hardware built up by the US is just so much junk. What will
> be decisive for the world is the information we are presented with.
> This will come from ET. ET will select what is in and not in our RSS
> feeds.
And obviously you think we're as screwed up as we are because of
ourselves, with no off-world assistance whatsoever. When was the last
time we left a given nation alone, especially if there was the likes
of oil, yellowcake or some other spendy element to being had?
Besides, why on Earth would ETs have only the best of intentions?
>
> There is no evidence I can discern that the Web does contain AI, so
> the above is academic. At least I hope it is! There is no evidence of
> disinformation - at least not on the ET side. There is evidence of
> disinformation from people who do not want to know the truth. This
> does in fact make me cross. The people though are emphatically Terran.
A true naysayer/rusemaster is in denial from the get go. (it's sort of
MIB required)
>
> The phrase I use "?Puerde leer en espagnol?" I think expresses this.
> What would you expect from a message from ET? Well perhaps not little
> green ET but a Web manifesation of AI. Well it would be multilingual.
> It would be expressed in a number of languages in a slightly different
> form.
Why would ETs bother to let on that they have existed, as here on
Earth or otherwise upon Venus or anywhere else we might possibly look?
Wouldn't most religions or faith-based morons (especially those fence
jumping Atheists) hunt them down and kill off such ETs without
remorse? (if history counts, of course they would)
Look at what happened to Jesus Christ, and by his own kind none the
less. So, there is no limit as to what we'd do if knowing there was
an ET among us. If I were an ET, there's no freaking way in this
bigotry of hell on Earth that I'd share that knowledge. Besides, to
an interplanetary/interstellar trekking ET, what's so great about our
energy poor and otherwise 98.5% fluid Earth that's getting itself
global warmed and otherwise a little extra radiated by our salty old
anticathode moon anyway? (Earth is a wussy planet with more than it's
fair share of local problems)
BTW, c/2 seems iffy, although c/10 seems rather ET doable, as fast
enough.
-
Brad Guth
American
>
> - Show quoted text -
You realize that by putting an 0.5c limitation on
propulsion, you're calling for generational craft,
that is, to your descendents, and their descendents
as well, so that any craft would, by design, serve
the needs of DYNASTIC TYPES of ANCESTRY to the stars,
like so much genocidal tendencies that the technology
would employ, and, that under the 0.5c limitation for
a full blown expedition to the nearest G2V star systems,
ASSUMING we've already found the extrasolar planets,
would nowadays make the Third Reich seem like the fall
of the House of Bush??) - No, this kind of space race
ain't COMPETITIVELY CAPITALISTIC ENOUGH.
Further, what types ARE COMPETITIVELY CAPITALISTIC
you ask? THE MASS PRODUCED ONES, of course.
Therefore, by popular choice, several styles of launch
vehicle, as well as destination(s), could become available,
at the common leasing rate of $10B per decade. The
balance due payable in the non-depreciable real asset
of New World resettlement. Which planet would revolt?
Probably the one that has become JUST LIKE EARTH -
and so we (again) have no human being that has ever
lived who was responsible to the *leaser* for redemption
of the purchased possession, except in blood and gold.
Could THAT be the earth we find ourselves in today?
If it is, then I believe that our "landlord" is
probably observing some systemic behavior, perhaps from
afar, at least in the local supercluster, so that some
sort of dimensional communication is at play here.
The Elohim, I believe, are a VERY ANCIENT RACE of
humanoids, and are in no way accountable for the
arrogance, selfishness, and greed being paraded as a
geopolitical dynamic here on earth. In short, the ones
manipulating others for their own personal gain are
*partly* fooling themselves, if they think that
their earth-man is alone in the universe. We've
still got free speech, barring any attempt by the
Socialists to eliminate talk radio by legislation
of the fairness doctrine. Anyone can be rest assured
that the internet blogosphere is next on their
"hit list".
Why, If we are supposed to be children of light,
are we not reaching out to the heavens by looking
into our own DNA for it's ability to adapt to newer
environments and modernizing our own environments by
modifying our lifesyles to adapt?
American
Bill Habr
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182266086....@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
None
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
Terrestrial evolution
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?
Unknown
A final thought:
If they are intelligent they are smart enough to avoid humans.
Ian Parker
> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on
> :the Web.
> :
>
> Not if we're sane we're not.
>
> :
> :We know that television appearances in effect selects the President.
> :
>
> Nope. We don't know any such thing.
Well every candidate seems to think otherwise.
>
Google have assembled an impressive array of experts who have written
what to me are marvellous papers. I have just given a critique.
http://www.paperoftheweek.com/2007/06/17/googles-initiatives-in-artificial-intelligence/
The key issue is linguistics. You can make jokes on the lines of
"Quieres dormir con fosforo" but the tackling of language, and speech
which is a branch of linuistic understanding is impressive. "I want a
spring for the clock" = "Quiero una resorte por el reloj" reloj =
resorte is the sort of thing that the diagrams in the speech paper is
talking about. The evaluation of a complex Markov diagram is
complicated but it can be done. Google is on its way. What it has
already delivered is impressive too. Getting everything to work on a
Web scale.
> :
> :We are replacing analogue
> :television at a rate of knots ...
> :
>
2012 for Brtain. BT Vision is doing exactly what I am saying. It is
broadband powered. As soon as a reliable true 8MHz can be delivered
Radio Reloj will be truly dead.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
>
> > We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on
> > the Web. We are looking at the consequences which are quite literally
> > mind boggling. If I were to land on a planet going roung some distant
> > star and there was an Internet, the first thing I would do would be
> > put intelligence onto it and this intelligence would produce a
> > synopsis of all life for me.
>
> To that I say again; Where is there not evidence?
There is plenty of evidence as to what Google is doing.
>
> I see and/or experience ETs AI crapolla (mostly Zion based) just about
> everywhere within this internet/usenet.
>
>
Why Zionist? I have never mentioned Isreal. The 2L I have posted has
mostly been Spanish - not Hebrew.
>
> > We know that television appearances in effect selects the President.
> > If ET is embedded deeply into the Web he will be in a position to make
> > or break presidents. This is going to become more and more true in the
> > future when RSS feeds replace analogue television (Radio Reloj I
> > called it in the SETI discussions). We are replacing analogue
> > television at a rate of knots and if there is any truth in ET it means
> > that we are not masters of our destiny.
>
> As I've said before; Why would any ET worth their salt need to bother
> screwing with us, nor should they dare. Because we're clearly the
> assholes, we're not supposed to do business with Cuba or a few other
> nations. Go figure what ETs must have on their embargo (aka NO FLY)
> list.
>
Why then come at all? I KNOW that ET is not around on Earth. I don't
know wheher or not there is intelligent life on some distant planet
that has taken the conscious decision not to come. If we do a voyage
at c/2 it will take a moderate investment in resources. ET would have
to consider these resources worth while.
If he did make the trip he would want to maximise his returns. As for
a "no fly list". well I would have thought that if this were the case
ET would take steps to make us less threatening. AI on the Web would
be a very good way of doing this.
>
>
> > I don't know either why someone with a pseudonym of "American" seems
> > to think we have been visited regularly. This being the case all the
> > military hardware built up by the US is just so much junk. What will
> > be decisive for the world is the information we are presented with.
> > This will come from ET. ET will select what is in and not in our RSS
> > feeds.
>
> And obviously you think we're as screwed up as we are because of
> ourselves, with no off-world assistance whatsoever. When was the last
> time we left a given nation alone, especially if there was the likes
> of oil, yellowcake or some other spendy element to being had?
>
> Besides, why on Earth would ETs have only the best of intentions?
>
Well now. If ET wished to destroy us there are quite simple ways of so
doing. A biological weapon for example. ET clearly does not wish
either to destroy us on the one hand, or to make us less threatening
on the other. The disinformation on the Web clearly comes from
military/CIA based sources.
>
>
> > There is no evidence I can discern that the Web does contain AI, so
> > the above is academic. At least I hope it is! There is no evidence of
> > disinformation - at least not on the ET side. There is evidence of
> > disinformation from people who do not want to know the truth. This
> > does in fact make me cross. The people though are emphatically Terran.
>
> A true naysayer/rusemaster is in denial from the get go. (it's sort of
> MIB required)
>
If MIB Men in Black or Machines in Black.
>
>
> > The phrase I use "?Puerde leer en espagnol?" I think expresses this.
> > What would you expect from a message from ET? Well perhaps not little
> > green ET but a Web manifesation of AI. Well it would be multilingual.
> > It would be expressed in a number of languages in a slightly different
> > form.
>
> Why would ETs bother to let on that they have existed, as here on
> Earth or otherwise upon Venus or anywhere else we might possibly look?
>
> Wouldn't most religions or faith-based morons (especially those fence
> jumping Atheists) hunt them down and kill off such ETs without
> remorse? (if history counts, of course they would)
>
Well no we could not track AI down. Dammit we find paedophilia
difficult enough. AI would hide in crevices, you would think a real
mperson had posted, but in fact no one would have done.
> Look at what happened to Jesus Christ, and by his own kind none the
> less. So, there is no limit as to what we'd do if knowing there was
> an ET among us. If I were an ET, there's no freaking way in this
> bigotry of hell on Earth that I'd share that knowledge. Besides, to
> an interplanetary/interstellar trekking ET, what's so great about our
> energy poor and otherwise 98.5% fluid Earth that's getting itself
> global warmed and otherwise a little extra radiated by our salty old
> anticathode moon anyway? (Earth is a wussy planet with more than it's
> fair share of local problems)
>
> BTW, c/2 seems iffy, although c/10 seems rather ET doable, as fast
> enough.
> -
c/10 would be fast enough for AI that would simply go into
hibernation.. The real question I think is simply this. ET is supposed
to take part in things like alien abduction and to fly around in
flying saucers. In fact you can get all the DNA evidence you want by
just taking a few skin samples. Most of your information is on the
Web.
The other thing is the size of ET spacecraft. They have always been
posulated as man carrying. In fact ET will have developed molecular
information storage. Spacecraft will be the size of dragonflies.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
> On 20 Jun, 15:57, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on
> > > the Web. We are looking at the consequences which are quite literally
> > > mind boggling. If I were to land on a planet going roung some distant
> > > star and there was an Internet, the first thing I would do would be
> > > put intelligence onto it and this intelligence would produce a
> > > synopsis of all life for me.
>
> > To that I say again; Where is there not evidence?
>
> There is plenty of evidence as to what Google is doing.
>
> > I see and/or experience ETs AI crapolla (mostly Zion based) just about
> > everywhere within this internet/usenet.
>
> Why Zionist? I have never mentioned Isreal. The 2L I have posted has
> mostly been Spanish - not Hebrew.
Don't try telling the rest of us village idiots that Zionist/Jews as
of before and during WWII were merely dumb and dumber fools, as well
as poor little insignificant heathens, then suddenly became ultra
wealthy, powerful and otherwise smart as all get out once connecting
up with us. The only significant faith-based group on Earth that has
essentially everything to lose and thereby nothing to gain from the
discovery of ETs, are those pesky Zionist/Jews of mostly Old Testament
thumpers, and they clearly have no intentions of going down without
causing a good fight, including an all out WWIII or putting the likes
of Christ back on a stick if need be.
The vast bulk of physics and subsequent science is so freaking Zionist
and thus all controlling, in that other interpretations of anything
doesn't really matter, because whatever's of alternative news, science
of deductive discoveries are simply going to get stalked, bashed and
other wise mainstream media banish in every possible Dirty Harry
"which way but lose". Not that a few other faith-based cults haven't
contributed their fair share of disinformation, and/or having enforced
as much evidence exclusion as possible.
>
> > > We know that television appearances in effect selects the President.
> > > If ET is embedded deeply into the Web he will be in a position to make
> > > or break presidents. This is going to become more and more true in the
> > > future when RSS feeds replace analogue television (Radio Reloj I
> > > called it in the SETI discussions). We are replacing analogue
> > > television at a rate of knots and if there is any truth in ET it means
> > > that we are not masters of our destiny.
>
> > As I've said before; Why would any ET worth their salt need to bother
> > screwing with us, nor should they dare. Because we're clearly the
> > assholes, we're not supposed to do business with Cuba or a few other
> > nations. Go figure what ETs must have on their embargo (aka NO FLY)
> > list.
>
> Why then come at all? I KNOW that ET is not around on Earth. I don't
> know wheher or not there is intelligent life on some distant planet
> that has taken the conscious decision not to come. If we do a voyage
> at c/2 it will take a moderate investment in resources. ET would have
> to consider these resources worth while.
ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>
> If he did make the trip he would want to maximise his returns. As for
> a "no fly list". well I would have thought that if this were the case
> ET would take steps to make us less threatening. AI on the Web would
> be a very good way of doing this.
We're not all that much of a threat, as we can't even honestly walk on
our moon, much less upon another planet or of its moons. It would be
most important for keeping those other somewhat iffy ETs from sharing
too much of a good thing, much like us trying to keep nuclear energy
away from folks that could put such technology to good use, also
similar to keeping h2o2 as hocus-pocus rated as possible.
>
> > > I don't know either why someone with a pseudonym of "American" seems
> > > to think we have been visited regularly. This being the case all the
> > > military hardware built up by the US is just so much junk. What will
> > > be decisive for the world is the information we are presented with.
> > > This will come from ET. ET will select what is in and not in our RSS
> > > feeds.
>
> > And obviously you think we're as screwed up as we are because of
> > ourselves, with no off-world assistance whatsoever. When was the last
> > time we left a given nation alone, especially if there was the likes
> > of oil, yellowcake or some other spendy element to being had?
>
> > Besides, why on Earth would ETs have only the best of intentions?
>
> Well now. If ET wished to destroy us there are quite simple ways of so
> doing. A biological weapon for example. ET clearly does not wish
> either to destroy us on the one hand, or to make us less threatening
> on the other. The disinformation on the Web clearly comes from
> military/CIA based sources.
Why should ETs destroy the best entertainment in town (sort of speak),
and besides, we're not all as freaking dumb and dumber, or as nearly
mindset spastic as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
The likes of Sirius isn't all that far away, and it's not always as
far off as it is right now. Venus is certainly close by, as in 100
fold the distance of our moon every 19 months, and upon Venus there's
no local shortage of renewable energy to burn (sort of speak).
Therefore, space travel need not always be demanding of hibernation or
multi-generation habitats.
>
> The other thing is the size of ET spacecraft. They have always been
> posulated as man carrying. In fact ET will have developed molecular
> information storage. Spacecraft will be the size of dragonflies.
I tend to agree, that micro spacecrafts plus whatever of "molecular
information storage" is quite doable, especially if such having
arrived via mother craft that's using anti-matter as fusion or simply
driven along by those nifty Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion laser cannon thrusters
at c/2, whereas their mother craft could also be fully AI configured,
but also capable of accommodating a few live souls.
Those intelligent ETs capable of terraforming a given planet or moon,
as such may have moved on to wherever the grass is greener, although
mining the likes of Venus for a good many raw elements seems entirely
worth doing, especially if Venus were a billion years less old than
Earth. Unlike our physically dark and rather anticathode naked moon
of gamma and hard-Xrays, at least sustaining the likes of human DNA on
Venus is technically doable.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182266086....@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> None
That's exactly what I'd thought, yet our usenet Zions and of their
Athiests friends seem to believe that most all that's off-world is
entirerly inert, and otherwise for the most part of no great value to
our terrestrial way of life. Of course they typically also believe
there's no such global warming going on, and that there's none better
than our resident warlord(GW Bush) for the job.
>
> > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> Terrestrial evolution
I'd meant terrestrial like evolution. In other usenet friendly words,
you'd have to agree that weird or possibly similar life to that of
ours could exist/coexist where it might otherwise be somewhat humanly
lethal to our DNA in the buff.
Technically altered and/or via applied physics or perhaps even
evolution assisted if there's sufficient time (using our best
intelligent design if there's insufficient time for the random
happenstance of nature to grasp the idea), whereas it seems all sorts
of viable intelligent other life could have and may yet exist/coexist
on Venus.
The interpreted observation of what looks perfectly ETI worthy about
Venus seems to suggest that for at least the past decade we've either
been kidding ourselves or getting snookered by our own kind. Of
course, those in charge of officially presenting the best available
science haven't been exactly helping, in fact if anything they've been
doing all they can in order to moderate or if at all possible banish
any such notions.
>
> > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> > having accommodated intelligent life?
>
> Unknown
Once again, I totally agree, especially since we haven't an honest
clue as to what's on our moon, much less of some other nearby planet.
However, it seems there are certain technological limitations that
we'd need at our disoposal
>
> A final thought:
> If they are intelligent they are smart enough to avoid humans.
That's actually a very important and believable final thought, whereas
most any human contact could seriously erode whatever essential
advantage ETs currently have over us, such as I'd insist upon learning
how the heck they manage to get safely between various planets.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
their own shadow.
>
> What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_.
ETs do not have to exist _here_ on Earth, for there to be ETs smart
enough to exist/coexist where we can't manage without taking great
risk within our applied physics of a craft that'll survive the
mission, and then some.
-
Brad Guth
Fred J. McCall
:On 20 Jun, 15:46, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on
:> :the Web.
:> :
:>
:> Not if we're sane we're not.
:>
:> :
:> :We know that television appearances in effect selects the President.
:> :
:>
:> Nope. We don't know any such thing.
:
:Well every candidate seems to think otherwise.
:
Well, every candidate does NOT seem to think otherwise. If they
thought otherwise they would spend ALL their money on television
appearances.
They don't.
You're wrong.
:
:>
:Google have assembled an impressive array of experts who have written
:what to me are marvellous papers. I have just given a critique.
:
:http://www.paperoftheweek.com/2007/06/17/googles-initiatives-in-artificial-intelligence/
:
:The key issue is linguistics. You can make jokes on the lines of
:"Quieres dormir con fosforo" but the tackling of language, and speech
:which is a branch of linuistic understanding is impressive. "I want a
:spring for the clock" = "Quiero una resorte por el reloj" reloj =
:resorte is the sort of thing that the diagrams in the speech paper is
:talking about. The evaluation of a complex Markov diagram is
:complicated but it can be done. Google is on its way. What it has
:already delivered is impressive too. Getting everything to work on a
:Web scale.
:
Which has bugger all to do with Google as AI. You bleat about it so
frequently, surely you must know what AI is.
:
:>
:> :
:> :We are replacing analogue
:> :television at a rate of knots ...
:> :
:>
:
:2012 for Brtain. BT Vision is doing exactly what I am saying. It is
:broadband powered. As soon as a reliable true 8MHz can be delivered
:Radio Reloj will be truly dead.
:
What the hell is "a rate of knots"?
Is English not one of your first three languages?
Ian Parker
>
> Don't try telling the rest of us village idiots that Zionist/Jews as
> of before and during WWII were merely dumb and dumber fools, as well
> as poor little insignificant heathens, then suddenly became ultra
> wealthy, powerful and otherwise smart as all get out once connecting
> up with us. The only significant faith-based group on Earth that has
> essentially everything to lose and thereby nothing to gain from the
> discovery of ETs, are those pesky Zionist/Jews of mostly Old Testament
> thumpers, and they clearly have no intentions of going down without
> causing a good fight, including an all out WWIII or putting the likes
> of Christ back on a stick if need be.
>
> The vast bulk of physics and subsequent science is so freaking Zionist
> and thus all controlling, in that other interpretations of anything
> doesn't really matter, because whatever's of alternative news, science
> of deductive discoveries are simply going to get stalked, bashed and
> other wise mainstream media banish in every possible Dirty Harry
> "which way but lose". Not that a few other faith-based cults haven't
> contributed their fair share of disinformation, and/or having enforced
> as much evidence exclusion as possible.
>
theory is EVER accepted just like that. science is accepted because it
adds up, makes sense.
In Jewish culture there is a great tradition of learring. If gentiles
want to be as well represented the remedy is obvious. They should
discipline themselves. Spend time studying, try to get to their
potential. The Palestinians should do this too. Thir greatest enemy is
their leaders.
>
>
> > Why then come at all? I KNOW that ET is not around on Earth. I don't
> > know wheher or not there is intelligent life on some distant planet
> > that has taken the conscious decision not to come. If we do a voyage
> > at c/2 it will take a moderate investment in resources. ET would have
> > to consider these resources worth while.
>
> ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
> Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>
>
Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after.
>
> > Well now. If ET wished to destroy us there are quite simple ways of so
> > doing. A biological weapon for example. ET clearly does not wish
> > either to destroy us on the one hand, or to make us less threatening
> > on the other. The disinformation on the Web clearly comes from
> > military/CIA based sources.
>
> Why should ETs destroy the best entertainment in town (sort of speak),
> and besides, we're not all as freaking dumb and dumber, or as nearly
> mindset spastic as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
>
Ave Caesar - Nos qui morituri te salutamus. That is an interesting
one! Earth being a gladitorial show.
Quite, buy you seem to be shifting your ground somewhat. If what you
are saying is that ET is aroung but has an independent existence, does
not interfere with what we are doing, it ceases to be a scientific
statement. It is not a scientific statement because it cannot be
verified. This is the problem I have with the whole idea,
Independent evolution of intelligent life - OK I believe it.
Possibility of interstellar travel - I believe it.
Actual visit - I have great difficulty with.
My problem with UFOs is compounded by the fact that the technology
possessed by aliens appears to mirror the preconceptions of the time.
If large spacecraft are impossible, if an obvious presence on the Web
has not been observed, where are we? It seems that there are faries at
the bottom of our garden but they run away whenever we approach them.
If ET travels in micro spacecrft and does not interact with us, this
is how it seems.
As far as sadistic elements are concerned, why does ET not simply
produce a virtual Colosseum, pit Rectarius against Sequtor and have a
few floggings and cruxifictions thrown in?
Is there an ulterior motive? I remember watching a television program
on a UFO over Phoenix. It was clearly a Stealth aircraft at a time
when these did not exist. The Pentagon provided a lifesize dummy of a
little green man to discredit the eyewitnesses.
There have been professional debunkers employed by the military.
Nobody before now has taken alien technology and thought about what it
might actually look like. This to be is the basis of the true debunk.
- Ian Parker
Bobby Bryant
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>
>> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
>> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
>
> I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
> their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
> their own shadow.
What is your reason for supposing that?
>> What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_.
>
> ETs do not have to exist _here_ on Earth, for there to be ETs smart
> enough to exist/coexist where we can't manage without taking great
> risk within our applied physics of a craft that'll survive the
> mission, and then some.
Huh?
Rand Simberg
bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <1182384026....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
>>> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
>>
>> I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
>> their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
>> their own shadow.
>
>What is your reason for supposing that?
Because he's insane. Just killfile him, as the rest of us have.
BradGuth
> In article <1182384026.037111.86...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>
> >> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
> >> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
>
> > I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
> > their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
> > their own shadow.
>
> What is your reason for supposing that?
Their dead silence or profound naysayism on many viable topics seems
to be a dead give away.
Most research funding as to do with terrestrial matters, and ETs
simply do not count in Zion dollars.
How about; ETs are not likely Jewish.
If any part of science was honestly pro-ET, there'd be progress
associated with what's existing on Venus.
-
Brad Guth
Scott Dorsey
Are you sure? Harlan Ellison differs with you on this subject.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
BradGuth
> On 20 Jun, 20:49, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
> > Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>
> Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after.
The knowledge of Zion naysayism on a stick isn't hardly worth our
infomercial crapolla that's flowing up hill, at least not to any ET
worth their salt. If you have interplanetary and/or much less
interstellar capability, as such Earth is pretty much worth nothing
except trouble.
-
Brad Guth
Rand Simberg
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>How about; ETs are not likely Jewish.
>
>Are you sure? Harlan Ellison differs with you on this subject.
Ah, yet another lost tribe...
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no good reason for life on Venus to have its own space travel
capability, and there's less of any reason for space traveling ETs
that might utilize Venus to stop by Earth on their way to/from Venus.
My interpretation as to what's existing on Venus is just plain old
deductive observationology that's 100% backed by the regular laws of
physics and of the best available science, having nothing to do with
UFOs or space traveling ETs. You folks are the silly ones continually
skewed off the tracks.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
No, I'm not absolutely certain, but given the odds I'd have to go with
their being more likely Cathar, or at least something pro-Christ like
than not.
ET's of such Zion formulated naysayism and/or of such an evidence
exclusion mindset seems least likely. You can't be out and about this
universe or even that of our solar system along with such a
restrictlve/bigoted faith-based mindset.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
If the likes of Harlan Ellison is into thinking ETs are Zion/Jewish,
then we're in for a whole lot deeper trouble than anyone can imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Ellison
"possibly the most contentious person on Earth"
His friend Isaac Asimov noted that, "Harlan uses his gifts for
colorful and variegated invective on those who irritate him -
intrusive fans, obdurate editors, callous publishers, offensive
strangers."
Thus far I tend to like the bastard. I'll have to read a few of his
books.
-
Brad Guth
American
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am not laughing. THOSE ET's MUST BE OUT OF THEIR ELEMENT.
Let them eat their own larvae. They have nothing on the Elohim.
Let God save the queen, as long as there is truth. Let freedom ring.
Build the FTL empire and they will come. Intergalactic trade to the
hilt. Microwaves and computer chips are a thing of the past. Quantum
encrypted G-wave transmission and reception are virtually
instantaneous across the galaxy (ref. rhysmonics).
Yet we as a nation of immigrants, have become technologically stuck-
up around 1954, at the very end of the industrial revolution, and
at the very beginning of television. That is where, I believe, masses
began to choose superficiality over substance. Fine clothes over
authority. The shift began away from hearing the true intent of a
speech to animated metaphorical dialecticisms for the masses of U.S.
immigrants. As a shared experience, U.S. couples shared their animus
to marry, go home, and watch TV to gain more animus. Therefore, they
have come home to roost in their own boxes of animus, but they are
no closer to actually participating in televised programming than
turning their off/on switch to make their distant friend come alive.
Yet this distance between "friends" has still not closed the gap
for actual contact - the bandwidth was and still is not being
subsumed by either party of who the "watch me" people are and
who the "see me" people are. It's enough pretensive animus to
make one puke with disgust. That is why the need for flight that
is (almost) instantaneous - it puts us in closer contact with
who we are and where are we going as a species - because we
have the power within ourselves to be transformed by FTL
technology. It's just a matter of time.
American
BradGuth
And a matter of our becoming photons instead of clunky atoms that are
actually rather highly inefficient itemes per volume of given space,
at those atoms being at best 99.9999% empty, if not at worse
99.9999999% empty space. Whereas those nifty string like photons are
more 2D and thus do not take up hardly if any space, thus hardly if
any limitations as to their maximum velocity, as well as safely
coexisting along with antimatter to boot. (isn't that good news, or
what!)
-
Brad Guth
Ian Parker
you talk about the follies of the human race just like ant good card
carrying liberal. On the other you are obviously anti semitic.
I personally feel there should be a united Palestine within a Middle
Eastern EU (call it if you like the MEU). People in the MEU would be
judged not by race or religion but by what they can contrbute. Pius? -
of course, but it is human stupidity that is preventing the MEU coming
about. To me judgement on what you can contribute seems the only
rational way to view people.
If people are behaving rationally there is no need to study them
further, it is when they are behaving rationally. It is when behaviour
is irrational that study becomes interesting. This is completely the
reverse of what you are claiming.
The holocaust must never happen again, we need to understand it.
Hitler claimed that Bolshevism was a Jewish conspiracy. The truth is
that only about 5.2% of CPSU membership were Jews. 94.8% were gentile
Russians.
http://www.photius.com/countries/soviet_union_former/society/soviet_union_former_society_jews.html
In fact if there was any conspiracy at all it was a conspiracy in a
Russian Orthodox seminary!
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm
Why was this swallowed whole? Why did the genocide in Rwanda take
place?
I still say there are faries at the bottom of my garden, and tghis
sums up my attitude to ETs presence. Analysis seems to show that ET
exists apart from us and belief in his presence is in a degree
unscientific. Science is about TESTABLE hypotheses. OK String
Theory .......
There is one moral question that remains. OK suppose I am observing
the Holocaust, Rwanda, Srebenitza and a host of other atrocities. If I
then do nothing about it, when I could, does that make me complicit?
ET could at least generate a few posings of his own to help to make us
more rational. This is a moral point - I don't know what other people
think.
Rather than keep on posting I feel I ought to say something about
"American" and FTL. It seems to have escaped him that interstellar
travel (subluninal) is performed by AI. Generations simply don't
travel in a spacecraft at c/10 (or c/2 for that matter).
I think the presentation of the time paradox in Elementary Particle QM
terms is rigorous and totally convinces me. If you are not totally
convinced there is the Fermi Paradox. If FTL is possible this expands
the number of worlds that can visit us to (in effect) the whole
Universe - perhaps even the invisible Universe that is receeding FTL.
- Ian Parker
Rand Simberg
Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>On 21 Jun, 16:30, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 4:33 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 20 Jun, 20:49, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
>> > > Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>>
>> > Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after.
>>
>> The knowledge of Zion naysayism on a stick isn't hardly worth our
>> infomercial crapolla that's flowing up hill, at least not to any ET
>> worth their salt. If you have interplanetary and/or much less
>> interstellar capability, as such Earth is pretty much worth nothing
>> except trouble.
>> -
>I must say I find you extremely difficult to understand.
That's because he's even more crazy than you are. It's a waste of
time to discourse with him.
Ian Parker
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:39:40 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
>
You have not made a contribution. You have simply called names.
Typical of you.
- Ian Parker
Rand Simberg
Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >On 21 Jun, 16:30, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 21, 4:33 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On 20 Jun, 20:49, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
>> >> > > Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>>
>> >> > Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after.
>>
>> >> The knowledge of Zion naysayism on a stick isn't hardly worth our
>> >> infomercial crapolla that's flowing up hill, at least not to any ET
>> >> worth their salt. If you have interplanetary and/or much less
>> >> interstellar capability, as such Earth is pretty much worth nothing
>> >> except trouble.
>> >> -
>> >I must say I find you extremely difficult to understand.
>>
>> That's because he's even more crazy than you are. It's a waste of
>> time to discourse with him.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>You have not made a contribution. You have simply called names.
I have simply spoken truth. Neither I, or any other sane person, has
any interest in reading Brad Guth's posts, or anyone else's responses
to them.
>Typical of you.
Yes, indeed it is.
Ian Parker
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:55:51 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
people have asked from time to time. Now we have a definitive
conclusion.
It is not just Brad Guth. There are a whole host of people out there.
There is in fact a complete newsgroup devoted just to this one
subject.
Jack Sarfetti keeps on posting on Warp Drive, completely oblivious of
1) The paradoxes - starker in QM form.
2) The fact that spacecraft will be very mini.
Neither of these has been taken on board.
Having reached a definitive conclusion I hope posting will cease or at
any rate die down. Jack, who is a PhD theoretical physicist and really
ought to know better will continue to think of himself as one of the
Guardians. Again oblivious of the fact that the guardians are AI - if
there are any.
- Ian Parker
Rand Simberg
Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >> >> The knowledge of Zion naysayism on a stick isn't hardly worth our
>> >> >> infomercial crapolla that's flowing up hill, at least not to any ET
>> >> >> worth their salt. If you have interplanetary and/or much less
>> >> >> interstellar capability, as such Earth is pretty much worth nothing
>> >> >> except trouble.
>> >> >> -
>> >> >I must say I find you extremely difficult to understand.
>>
>> >> That's because he's even more crazy than you are. It's a waste of
>> >> time to discourse with him.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >You have not made a contribution. You have simply called names.
>>
>> I have simply spoken truth. Neither I, or any other sane person, has
>> any interest in reading Brad Guth's posts, or anyone else's responses
>> to them.
>>
>The question of UFO and ETs is a question that loads and loads of
>people have asked from time to time. Now we have a definitive
>conclusion.
Which is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that Brad Guth is
nuts, and that we should stop encouraging him by responding to his
insanity, and hope that he some day gets help.
Fred J. McCall
:
:You have not made a contribution. You have simply called names.
:Typical of you.
:
You have not made a contribution. You have simply spewed loony.
Typical of you.
Fred J. McCall
:
:The question of UFO and ETs is a question that loads and loads of
:people have asked from time to time. Now we have a definitive
:conclusion.
:
Of course we do.
<snicker>
:
:It is not just Brad Guth. There are a whole host of people out there.
:There is in fact a complete newsgroup devoted just to this one
:subject.
:
Then please confine this idiocy to whichever newsgroup that would
happen to be. So far as I can tell, NONE of the ones this bilge is
currently going to would be that newsgroup.
:
:Jack Sarfetti keeps on posting on Warp Drive, completely oblivious of
:
:1) The paradoxes - starker in QM form.
:2) The fact that spacecraft will be very mini.
:
:Neither of these has been taken on board.
:
And the second one needn't be, because:
1) The first one is a killer.
2) The second one doesn't follow from anything.
:
:Having reached a definitive conclusion I hope posting will cease or at
:any rate die down. Jack, who is a PhD theoretical physicist and really
:ought to know better will continue to think of himself as one of the
:Guardians. Again oblivious of the fact that the guardians are AI - if
:there are any.
:
Loons never stop just because one of them thinks they've reached "a
definitive conclusion".
--
"While he was not dumber than an ox he was not any smarter either."
-- James Thurber
BradGuth
There is or at least once upon a time there has been other intelligent
life existing/coexisting on Venus, and lo and behold I've still got
those rather nifty radar obtained pictures of 36 confirming looks per
pixel, plus all the regular laws of physics and the best available
science on my side of this deductive observationology interpretation.
At least there's still no other viable explanation as to those hot
rocks looking so entirely rational, configured as though representing
a township along with its bridge, multiple reservoirs, tarmac and even
a few too many other engineered attributes like a few airships that
would make perfectly good sense.
Not that we humans along with our usual naysay mindset could ever
appreciate what to do with all of the renewable energy that's so
freaking available, the hundreds of teratonnes worth of h2o that's
contained within them acidic clouds, the advantage afforded by way of
having 90.5% gravity along with the 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, or any
of the easily extractable raw elements because of all the active
geothermal conditions of the surrounding surface that's losing roughly
256 fold greater geothermal energy than Earth (because Venus is less
old than Earth).
Just because its robust atmosphere is chuck full of S8 and CO2 plus
other newish planetology considerations doesn't mean that a sufficient
Ovglove suit and applied technology couldn't accommodate a few our
highly bigoted souls of such profound denial. Of course, cruising
along within our composite rigid airship, along with all of that ice
cold beer and pizza isn't exactly all that insurmountable for doing
Venus in the buff (sort of speak). Even the Venus L2(VL2) POOF city
is technically doable for our frail DNA as of more than a decade ago.
Unfortunately, the naysayers of Usenet are in such total denial that
even multiple truths confirming anything that's off-world intelligent
isn't worth squat, as they'd much rather insist that we've walked on
our moon, and otherwise insist that we can manage to survive on the
likes of Mars or that of some godforsaken other moon that'll cost us
trillions of our hard earned loot, with damn little if anything to
show for it, other than a few weird spores that could easily terminate
most all of human life and a few too many other species back here on
mother Earth that's in the process of going GW postal on us because of
our physically dark, somewhat salty and otherwise absolutely
impressive mascon worth of such a nearby moon, that's unavoidably
impacting our 98.5% fluid Earth in a very GW way.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
Chris.B
Synchronicity is the main problem for any intelligent race hoping to
contact other worlds.
(Billions of years are at play here. There's no such thing as a "near
miss" in time! ie: See Mars "coastline" and weep for our fossilised
cousins)
No species of any intelligence will travel in hope for generations
unless there is absolutely nothing to come back to.
("They" sent billions of AI robots or genetically-modified subordinate
species out in an expanding circle. Can't you tell them apart?)
"They" don't need slaves.
("They" simply build robots to carry out any task beyond their
simplest everyday needs)
"They" don't need our world's resources.
(Resources are the materials of an undeveloped/overpopulated world)
"They" find the empty bigotry of our world a barrier to "intelligent"
communication.
("We" do seem to have locked ourselves into rigid control systems with
zero feedback. Politics, religion, pollution, global warming, etc)
"They" might well have a problem with bacteria and viruses.
("Ours" and "theirs"!)
"They" exist in the sense that their flying craft have been clearly
seen by many completely normal witnesses.
(not the vast numbers Americans who dream they have seen flying
saucers in the twilight world just as they drop off to sleep)
"They" would laugh at our flying saucer rumours.
("They" use far more suitable vehicles in our atmosphere because,
quite simply, they have nothing to prove)
"We" are no more than endless copies of mass assemblages of chemically
programmed bacteria. "They" probably are too.
(Which means "They" needed fluid water on their planet for several
billions of years just for cells to develop an exo-membrane from the
soup after an almost infinite numbers of failed attempts)
"Their leader" told me last night that (despite my desperate pleas)
Brad Guth is completely beyond their relatively advanced ability to
repair such extensive brain damage.
(He is, apparently, much more of an alien than they are!) ;)
BradGuth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
Rand Simberg
"Chris.B" <chr...@mail.dk> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>There's a terrifying lack of intelligence shown in this thread!
What do you expect? It's a Guth thread.
George Dishman
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:emmj73huif4nkl1vc...@4ax.com...
..
> :> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> :> :We are replacing analogue
> :> :television at a rate of knots ...
> What the hell is "a rate of knots"?
>
> Is English not one of your first three languages?
The phrase is actually quite commonly used
in England, simply meaning very rapidly.
George
BradGuth
wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:40:48 -0700, in a place far, far away,
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >There's a terrifying lack of intelligence shown in this thread!
>
> What do you expect? It's a Guth thread.
Is this another Zion mindset having a bad Usenet infomercial spewing
day?
-
Brad Guth
Sylvia Else
> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth
>
On the "smarter than us" part of the subject line, it's worth
remembering that intelligence doesn't appear to arise as a natural
progression in the scheme of things, but as a respose to environmental
stress. You evolve to be intelligent enough to survive - because the
others don't survive and don't reproduce. When times get easier, you may
keep your intelligence. The human race appears to have got its
intelligence in a time of drought, but almost got wiped out in the process.
So ET maybe somewhat more intelligent than we are. But much more so? Not
so clear that that would happen.
Sylvia.
Robert Weldon
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182555630.1...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
So what you are saying, essentially, that anyone who disagrees with your
guthspew, or heaven forbid, calls you a loon, has a Zion mindset? Care to
tell use what a Zion mindset is, and how calling you a loon based on your
wordsalad has anything to do with zionism?
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> > having accommodated intelligent life?
> > -
> > "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>
> On the "smarter than us" part of the subject line, it's worth
> remembering that intelligence doesn't appear to arise as a natural
> progression in the scheme of things, but as a respose to environmental
> stress. You evolve to be intelligent enough to survive - because the
> others don't survive and don't reproduce. When times get easier, you may
> keep your intelligence. The human race appears to have got its
> intelligence in a time of drought, but almost got wiped out in the process.
Then most of the extremely complex and obviously robust life other
than humans on this Earth is simply a whole lot smarter about their
having survived than of us village idiots, as most other life having
survived for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years without
their having gone postal over any sort of faith-based bigotry, greed
or arrogance applied against their own kind, like we humans so often
needed to accomplish in order to have survived thus far, and with not
very long to go I might as well add.
>
> So ET maybe somewhat more intelligent than we are. But much more so? Not
> so clear that that would happen.
Substract just one stupid war from our modern day survival process,
and as such how many global trillions of hard earned loot and valuable
time would we as an intelligent species be ahead of the game?
If ETs started out just half as bigoted, greedy and arrogant as us
humans, as such they could be thousands of years more advanced than
us, and for way better reasons at that.
-
Brad Guth
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:
Really! Learn something every day; just usually not from Ian.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Sylvia Else
There's no doubt that we could be more technologically advanced than we
are, but technological advancement is not a measure of intelligence -
intelligence can remain the same even as techology is advancing.
Sylvia.
Scott Hedrick
"Chris.B" <chr...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:1182537648.0...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> There's a terrifying lack of intelligence shown in this thread!
Primarily by *anyone* who replies to Brad Guth.
Killfile him. Now.
BradGuth
Double duh! What the freaking hell are you saying?
By way of being w/o faith-based wars and thus easily a good thousand
years more advanced and trillions upon trillions of hard earned loot
in the black is in fact extremely intelligent. Obviously there's
nothing on Earth that comes close to being that intelligent, unless
it's of something ET that snuck itself in the back or side door.
I tend to agree that whatever degree of applied technology gets
noticed isn't in of itself a rating of intelligence, because that
technology could have been simply shared or taken from others.
Intelligent ETs do not have to be space traveling village idiots and/
or the sort of dumbfounded morons like us, and they certainly don't
have to have any form of inefficient RF/microwave communications in
order to be extremely intelligent.
Surviving is the ultimate form or interpretation of DNA/RNA
intelligence. Not surviving or otherwise allowing the demise of your
own kind is the exact opposite.
Other than the survival intelligence of DNA/RNA, what forms of other
intelligent life are you speaking about?
There are extremely complex and thus weird if not ET forms of life
existing/coexisting right here on Earth, that hasn't changed or
otherwise evolved for millions of years, that obviously has been more
survival intelligent than us humans that are pretty much doing all
that we can to trash mother Earth as we continually exterminate one
another, as so often being faith-based driven upon greed, arrogance
and butt loads of our bigotry that's more often dumbfounded (aka
cultivated) by the mainstream status quo than not, and it's usually
because of folks exactly like yourself that will not honestly share
anything unless there's something better in doing so for yourself.
Why don't you silly folks tell us whatever your obvious faith-based
idea of intelligence is?
Is having put one of your own kind on a stick being intelligent?
Is having picked the wrong warlord for the third or forth time,
intelligent?
Is the allowing of others to accomplish your dirty work, so that
you'll eventually benefit from the collateral damage and demise of
others, the intelligent thing to be doing?
Is the tactic of topic/author stalking, bashings and/or banishment,
along with excluding whatever evidence rocks your boat your idea of
being intelligent?
I'll offer a list of what's intelligent, and of what's not. How about
yourself?
-
Brad Guth
Sylvia Else
I'm pointing out that there's a difference between intelligence and
techological advancement. There's also a difference between intelligence
and wisdom, if it comes to that.
>
> By way of being w/o faith-based wars and thus easily a good thousand
> years more advanced and trillions upon trillions of hard earned loot
> in the black is in fact extremely intelligent. Obviously there's
> nothing on Earth that comes close to being that intelligent, unless
> it's of something ET that snuck itself in the back or side door.
You think that not participating in wars is a sign of intelligence?
What is an intelligent being to do when confronted by attack by a less
intelligent one?
It would be nice if everyone liked everyone else, and wars didn't
happen. Sadly, the world doesn't work that way, and the best that
intelligence has to offer is the opportunity to be on the wining
(defined loosely) side.
>
> I tend to agree that whatever degree of applied technology gets
> noticed isn't in of itself a rating of intelligence, because that
> technology could have been simply shared or taken from others.
> Intelligent ETs do not have to be space traveling village idiots and/
> or the sort of dumbfounded morons like us, and they certainly don't
> have to have any form of inefficient RF/microwave communications in
> order to be extremely intelligent.
No, that's not the main reason it's not a rating of intelligence. The
main reason is that given an adequate level of intelligence, technology
progresses with time. Do you imagine that 21st humans are more
intelligent that those who put up the pyramids? Look at the number of
people who can't program their VCRs and tell me you believe that's true.
You seem to be trying an argument from adverse consequences, along the
lines of "If humans were highly intelligent, we wouldn't be in the
situation we're in now. We are in the situation we're in now, therefore
humans are not higly intelligent."
I trust you can see the hole in that reasoning.
Sylvia.
Rand Simberg
Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>BradGuth wrote:
>You seem to be trying an argument from adverse consequences, along the
>lines of "If humans were highly intelligent, we wouldn't be in the
>situation we're in now. We are in the situation we're in now, therefore
>humans are not higly intelligent."
>
>I trust you can see the hole in that reasoning.
No, he can't. Guth is mentally ill. Please don't respond to him, it
only encourages him.
BradGuth
> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :You have not made a contribution. You have simply called names.
> :Typical of you.
> :
>
> You have not made a contribution. You have simply spewed loony.
> Typical of you.
But that's what Zions as rusemasters do best.
If Earth is as good as this universe gets, and if we're as smart as
ETs are ever going to get, than God or whatever intelligent design
effort screwed up really bad.
-
Brad Guth
Ian Parker
civilization is more "intelligent" than any in the past.
1) When I was doing my PhD I used to spend hours in the library
searching references. With Google I can get all the information I want
in a matter of minutes. I hope that the academic world will see fit to
put all its publications on line. If it does so I feel that science
will advance just that little bit faster.
2) We can train more scientifically. Modern athletes would beat the
ancients simply for this reason. Modern civilization has allowed us to
concentrate on simply becoming more intelligent. We no longer need to
do heavy manual labor to get the harvest in.
In science fiction you have a malevolent evil genius. In real life it
is stupid people that are the main threat. Militant Islamists,
Racists, virulent nationalists of all descriptions.
I feel the challenge for us all is to try to make people think and
confront the basis of their irrationalities. This is surely the only
hope for humanity.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
> I'm pointing out that there's a difference between intelligence and
> techological advancement. There's also a difference between intelligence
> and wisdom, if it comes to that.
Point away. Where's your list?
> > Brad Guth:
> > By way of being w/o faith-based wars and thus easily a good thousand
> > years more advanced and trillions upon trillions of hard earned loot
> > in the black is in fact extremely intelligent. Obviously there's
> > nothing on Earth that comes close to being that intelligent, unless
> > it's of something ET that snuck itself in the back or side door.
>
> You think that not participating in wars is a sign of intelligence?
Perpetrating wars, as you Zion folks have clearly done, is not in the
best interest of advancing any sort of intelligence.
>
> What is an intelligent being to do when confronted by attack by a less
> intelligent one?
Stop provoking others. It works most every time.
>
> It would be nice if everyone liked everyone else, and wars didn't
> happen. Sadly, the world doesn't work that way, and the best that
> intelligence has to offer is the opportunity to be on the wining
> (defined loosely) side.
You folks tried hooking up with those Romans, then Hitler, and it
simply didn't work, did it. Now you're trying to stay hooked up with
our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush). Is it working or otherwise worth
all the collateral damage and carnage of the innocent? Is it worth
all the trillions upon trillions it's costing this world?
>
> > Brad Guth:
> > I tend to agree that whatever degree of applied technology gets
> > noticed isn't in of itself a rating of intelligence, because that
> > technology could have been simply shared or taken from others.
> > Intelligent ETs do not have to be space traveling village idiots and/
> > or the sort of dumbfounded morons like us, and they certainly don't
> > have to have any form of inefficient RF/microwave communications in
> > order to be extremely intelligent.
>
> No, that's not the main reason it's not a rating of intelligence. The
> main reason is that given an adequate level of intelligence, technology
> progresses with time. Do you imagine that 21st humans are more
> intelligent that those who put up the pyramids? Look at the number of
> people who can't program their VCRs and tell me you believe that's true.
What do you mean "no"?
Why are your Zion words of mostly naysayism any better than mine?
Time means almost nothing if there's intelligent design (meaning smart
ETs) pulling a few of those evolution expediting strings, or perhaps
even the random happenstance of ETs getting placed and/or stuck on
Earth might rather easily jump a good number of generations past go.
I'd just stipulated that applied technology has almost nothing to do
with intelligence, because if your species or tribe is dead it means
that you obviously weren't intelligent enough. Clearly the biological
diversity of Earth's populations are based extensively upon lies,
because we locals were simply not all that intelligent to begin with.
Can you be too smart for your own good? (I happen think so)
Obviously yourself and others of your silly kind are a very
terrestrial collective of borg like souls, thus anything off-world
doesn't count. No wonder you've been ignoring Venus and all that's
represented by the indications of intelligent other life existing/
coexisting on that hot rock.
>
> > Brad Guth:
I agree, that because we humans are far from intelligent and otherwise
too busy at killing off one another over fossil and yellowcake
reserves, is exactly why as a given species we're going to die out, as
we should.
ETs of greater intelligence will not have died out, just as it should
be.
Too bad the Zion and even Catholic formulated mindset of humanity is
so stuck within their mutual faith-based ruts.
Obviously you have no actual list of what's intelligent, or otherwise
a list of what isn't intelligent. Within your koran or whatever Old
Testament, the past simply is not the truth, and within your mindset
that's exactly how it should be, as our future gets based upon such
lies of your past.
BradGuth
wrote:
Your usual naysayism and all that's anti-ET is noted.
As per usual of your less than zero topic contribution. Go back to
mount Zion, where the likes of you war perpetrating folks belong.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
"The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your
request."
It seems whenever I've posted to various topics (mostly those of my
own) that we get our Usenet land into deep crapolla with the lords and
rusemasters of those Old Testament thumping Zions and of their brown-
nosed Atheist minions in charge of all that's GOOGLE/NOVA.
ET intelligence (including us mere humans as having been sending our
probes out to other planets and moons) is not about our nifty gadgets
or personal stuff that's better off than whatever the next guy has to
play with.
Intelligence is about making the best of a given bad or good
situation, as somewhat making the best of or at least making due with
the local resources and talents at your disposal, rather than taking
from others or keeping others from getting any piece of the global
action.
We humans too often ignore and/or banish another idea or technological
method for personal or faith-based reasons, and than's not hardly all
that intelligent, is it. In fact, we're so freaking dumbfounded past
the point of no return that we can't even manage to properly utilize
our moon's L1, much less for establishing VL2 POOF City.
Whenever the truth is getting skewed or entirely excluded, the chances
of having to repeat the same mistakes over and over is insured. Thus
wars upon wars and the consequences of collateral damage along with
the carnage of the innocent continues, as though the past never
existed in the first place.
Each year worth of our mutually perpetrated cold-war was worth at
least a decade in technological set-back, plus another wasted trillion
in hard earned loot, whereas a decade of cold-war is thus having taken
or otherwise diverted a century worth of technological advancements
along with its loot and having lost whatever subsequent profits to
burn (sort of speak).
Instead of having proven how intelligent we had become, we've time and
again proven that being the biggest bully on the block is far more
important, and especially as aligned with the Zion mindset which seems
to have been the orchestrated past, present and future that we're
stuck with until hill freezes over, of which global warming is going
to make any notions of our hell freezing over unlikely, that is unless
we can manage to get rid of our pesky moon that keeping our 98.5%
fluid Earth in a continual flux of having to deal with internal,
surface and atmospheirc friction that's tidal forced upon us because
of having such a robust and nearby mascon of a moon.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
On Jun 19, 8:14 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?
Androcles
"Ian Parker" <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182605449....@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: No we are not more intelligent - not in the genetic sense. Our
: civilization is more "intelligent" than any in the past.
:
: 1) When I was doing my PhD I used to spend hours in the library
: searching references. With Google I can get all the information I want
: in a matter of minutes. I hope that the academic world will see fit to
: put all its publications on line. If it does so I feel that science
: will advance just that little bit faster.
Since when did citing a list of references show any indication of
intelligence?
Where are the references in this student's pile of crap?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
What the moron did was retard science.
:
: 2) We can train more scientifically. Modern athletes would beat the
: ancients simply for this reason.
Non sequitur, and certainly unsubstantiated since it is impossible to
perform such a contest.
: Modern civilization has allowed us to
: concentrate on simply becoming more intelligent. We no longer need to
: do heavy manual labor to get the harvest in.
You confuse learning from a book with the ability to apply old knowledge to
new
situations. Certainly men such Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Archimedes,
Euclid, Pythagoras, Shakespeare etc. etc. displayed far more intelligence
than Joe Sixpack with his modern beliefs in virgin births, holy ghosts and
time dilation.
:
: In science fiction you have a malevolent evil genius. In real life it
: is stupid people that are the main threat. Militant Islamists,
: Racists, virulent nationalists of all descriptions.
In ALL fiction extreme traits are predominant, not just sci-fi.
That's the very nature of fiction.
: I feel the challenge for us all is to try to make people think and
: confront the basis of their irrationalities. This is surely the only
: hope for humanity.
A sentiment I can agree with. Start with
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" as the man said and quit the
irrational
and pointless babbling about it being c in all inertial frames of reference.
Androcles
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:467d0aba$0$6812$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I rather like that reasoning. Point out the hole in it, please.
Whilst humans as a species have employed intelligence
to place themselves at the top of the food chain and thereby
become successful relative to other species we still have done nothing
to defeat the Grim Reaper and prefer to mumble incantations and
caterwaul in churches as a solution to the problem we all face.
No way can such behaviour be classified as "intelligent".
Fred J. McCall
:
:2) We can train more scientifically. Modern athletes would beat the
:ancients simply for this reason. Modern civilization has allowed us to
:concentrate on simply becoming more intelligent. We no longer need to
:do heavy manual labor to get the harvest in.
:
You've obviously never worked a harvest crew. 'We' may no longer need
to do heavy manual labor to do that, but you can bet that SOMEONE is.
:
:I feel the challenge for us all is to try to make people think and
:confront the basis of their irrationalities. This is surely the only
:hope for humanity.
:
Well, I do keep trying to get you to think, but you keep declining to
do so in so many cases.
American
> On 21 Jun, 16:30, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 21, 4:33 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Jun, 20:49, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
> > > > Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>
> > > Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after.
>
> > The knowledge of Zion naysayism on a stick isn't hardly worth our
> > infomercial crapolla that's flowing up hill, at least not to any ET
> > worth their salt. If you have interplanetary and/or much less
> > interstellar capability, as such Earth is pretty much worth nothing
> > except trouble.
> > -
>
> I must say I find you extremely difficult to understand. At one level
> you talk about the follies of the human race just like ant good card
> carrying liberal. On the other you are obviously anti semitic.
>
> I personally feel there should be a united Palestine within a Middle
> Eastern EU (call it if you like the MEU). People in the MEU would be
> judged not by race or religion but by what they can contrbute. Pius? -
> of course, but it is human stupidity that is preventing the MEU coming
> about. To me judgement on what you can contribute seems the only
> rational way to view people.
>
> If people are behaving rationally there is no need to study them
> further, it is when they are behaving rationally. It is when behaviour
> is irrational that study becomes interesting. This is completely the
> reverse of what you are claiming.
>
> The holocaust must never happen again, we need to understand it.
> Hitler claimed that Bolshevism was a Jewish conspiracy. The truth is
> that only about 5.2% of CPSU membership were Jews. 94.8% were gentile
> Russians.http://www.photius.com/countries/soviet_union_former/society/soviet_u...
>
> In fact if there was any conspiracy at all it was a conspiracy in a
> Russian Orthodox seminary!http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm
>
> Why was this swallowed whole? Why did the genocide in Rwanda take
> place?
>
> I still say there are faries at the bottom of my garden, and tghis
> sums up my attitude to ETs presence. Analysis seems to show that ET
> exists apart from us and belief in his presence is in a degree
> unscientific. Science is about TESTABLE hypotheses. OK String
> Theory .......
>
> There is one moral question that remains. OK suppose I am observing
> the Holocaust, Rwanda, Srebenitza and a host of other atrocities. If I
> then do nothing about it, when I could, does that make me complicit?
> ET could at least generate a few posings of his own to help to make us
> more rational. This is a moral point - I don't know what other people
> think.
>
> Rather than keep on posting I feel I ought to say something about
> "American" and FTL. It seems to have escaped him that interstellar
> travel (subluninal) is performed by AI. Generations simply don't
> travel in a spacecraft at c/10 (or c/2 for that matter).
>
> I think the presentation of the time paradox in Elementary Particle QM
> terms is rigorous and totally convinces me. If you are not totally
> convinced there is the Fermi Paradox. If FTL is possible this expands
> the number of worlds that can visit us to (in effect) the whole
> Universe - perhaps even the invisible Universe that is receeding FTL.
>
> - Ian Parker
Nope, dead wrong. Not ONLY by AI. My point was to articulate
that generational craft don't make any sense - unless ET's
planet was being exterminated, or something like that.
Sure "Elementary Particle QM is rigorous, but what about
the problems that scientists discovered early on with tachyons?
Answer: Tachyons exist in BOSONIC STRING THEORY AND STILL
DO NOT CONFLICT WITH SUPERSYMMETRY IN STRING THEORY.
THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX WITH THIS SCENARIO.
(The National Enquirer just doesn't tell you that).
All those ET's that have been visiting us were actually time
travelling to through the visible universe, perhaps hundreds,
or even thousands of light years into the past. Perhaps the
AI's were from a further distant future than the biological
ET's. MOST humans are too steeped in their own ANIMUS to
know that they might be affected by the AI's - but their
biologies are becoming more of a dumbed down human
replicate of physiological animus than growing into the
environment that birthed their species - as such they
have become disconnected from their Creator - as the
ancient Adam & Eve were removed from the Garden.
American
Chris.B
> I trust you can see the hole in that reasoning.
Silvia
I believe you are seeking reason where none exists.
Whatever your argument and however well it is argued Mr/Ms Guth will
change the subject.
Mr/Ms Guth cannot afford to lose face so Mr/Ms Guth will use any
pretext not matter how out of context to sell his/her wares.
This Zionist nonsense is typical of the irrationality of almost every
post Mr/Ms Guth utters. If Israel had a scrap of intelligence it
would use the Arabs for modestly well paid factory fodder. Thereby
lifting the whole region out of their inherited poverty. End of Middle
East problem.
But I digress from the context of this thread:
When a society like ours progresses beyond a certain point they learn
new tricks to improve mental powers as greater understanding of brain
function matures.
Our understanding of mental processes is really still in its infancy
despite new (non destructive) scanning technologies steadily being
discovered.
Genetics has yet to play a part in improving the human mind beyond the
standard MkI. I Imagine the first MkII will take up meditation and
Yoga to the intense irritation of their US Defense Department masters.
Hopefully the percentage of educated members of the global population
will continue to rise. Thus freeing many more active minds from the
everyday struggle for survival.
Perhaps AI will leapfrog average human intelligence and be used for
something other than battle planning and strategy?
The clearest evidence for the lack of ET amongst us is that they have
failed to curb our excesses, inequality, bigotry and brutality.
Unless "They" are forbidden direct intervention, one can only assume
they enjoy holidaying amongst backward savages. Attired as we are only
in the thin veneer of technological civilisation. (I use the latter
term loosely)
It would take only a few dollars on the price of vehicle fuel for some
countries to descend into total anarchy. Never to rise from the ashes
again.
Sylvia Else
The hole consists of "If humans were highly intelligent, we wouldn't be
in the situation we're in now".
That's no more than a supposition as to the relationship between
intelligence and situations. Nothing has been advanced to support it.
Sylvia.
Androcles
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
: Androcles wrote:
: > "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
: > news:467d0aba$0$6812$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
: > : You seem to be trying an argument from adverse consequences, along the
: > : lines of "If humans were highly intelligent, we wouldn't be in the
: > : situation we're in now. We are in the situation we're in now,
therefore
: > : humans are not higly intelligent."
: > :
: > : I trust you can see the hole in that reasoning.
: > :
: > : Sylvia.
: >
: > I rather like that reasoning. Point out the hole in it, please.
: > Whilst humans as a species have employed intelligence
: > to place themselves at the top of the food chain and thereby
: > become successful relative to other species we still have done nothing
: > to defeat the Grim Reaper and prefer to mumble incantations and
: > caterwaul in churches as a solution to the problem we all face.
: > No way can such behaviour be classified as "intelligent".
: >
: >
: >
:
: The hole consists of "If humans were highly intelligent, we wouldn't be
: in the situation we're in now".
Repeating it doesn't make it a "hole", by which I presume you mean "flaw".
The contrapositive to "If A then not B"
is :
B, therefore not A.
"we are in the situation we're in now because humans are not highly
intelligent."
That's a valid statement; if humans were highly intelligent (which they are
not) then
we'd be in a different situation. Where's the flaw?
: That's no more than a supposition as to the relationship between
: intelligence and situations. Nothing has been advanced to support it.
:
: Sylvia.
Statements can be valid without the existence of fact, Sylvia.
The well-known example is "If it is raining then I'll take my umbrella."
Even if you see me carrying an umbrella that is no guarantee of rain
or the supposition of rain. Where is the flaw in such a statement?
If you wish to converse logically, particularly in written form when body
language such as smiles and shrugs are absent then it is incumbent
upon you to adhere strictly to the rules of logic or your meaning will
invariably be misunderstood. You must explain yourself precisely and
clearly. No, Sylvia, I cannot see a hole in that reasoning, and neither have
you shown one.
Sylvia Else
It amounts to assuming the thing you're trying to prove.
Sylvia.
Rand Simberg
Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> : The hole consists of "If humans were highly intelligent, we wouldn't be
>> : in the situation we're in now".
>>
>> Repeating it doesn't make it a "hole", by which I presume you mean "flaw".
>>
>> The contrapositive to "If A then not B"
>> is :
>> B, therefore not A.
>>
>> "we are in the situation we're in now because humans are not highly
>> intelligent."
>>
>> That's a valid statement; if humans were highly intelligent (which they are
>> not) then
>> we'd be in a different situation. Where's the flaw?
>
>It amounts to assuming the thing you're trying to prove.
The name for that particular falllacy is "begging the question."
Regardless, it's pointless to get into a logical, let alone
philosophical discussion with Guth. Or his hangers on.
Androcles
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
You snipped. You failed to prove anything because like so many
others you are unable to respond to pure logic and so you hide
your disgraceful manners by removing my argument.
However, I can put it back just as easily, with emphasis.
Statements can be valid without the existence of fact, Sylvia.
The well-known example is "If it is raining then I'll take my umbrella."
Even if you see me carrying an umbrella that is no guarantee of rain
or the supposition of rain. Where is the flaw in such a statement?
If you wish to converse logically, particularly in written form when body
language such as smiles and shrugs are absent then it is incumbent
upon you to adhere strictly to the rules of logic or your meaning will
invariably be misunderstood. You must explain yourself precisely and
clearly. No, Sylvia, I cannot see a hole in that reasoning, and neither have
you shown one, you fuckin' rude dumb bitch.
Sylvia Else
> clearly. No, Sylvia, I cannot see a hole in that reasoning, and neither have
> you shown one, you fuckin' rude dumb bitch.
>
Ah, yes, the abuse argument. Well, I suppose that proves you're right,
and there's no point in further discussion.
Sylvia.
Fred J. McCall
:
Arguing with the Guthball or his sock puppets is a waste of perfectly
good electrons...
Reality never intrudes on Guthball...
BradGuth
> You snipped. You failed to prove anything because like so many
> others you are unable to respond to pure logic and so you hide
> your disgraceful manners by removing my argument.
> However, I can put it back just as easily, with emphasis.
>
> Statements can be valid without the existence of fact, Sylvia.
> The well-known example is "If it is raining then I'll take my umbrella."
> Even if you see me carrying an umbrella that is no guarantee of rain
> or the supposition of rain. Where is the flaw in such a statement?
>
> If you wish to converse logically, particularly in written form when body
> language such as smiles and shrugs are absent then it is incumbent
> upon you to adhere strictly to the rules of logic or your meaning will
> invariably be misunderstood. You must explain yourself precisely and
> clearly. No, Sylvia, I cannot see a hole in that reasoning, and neither have
> you shown one, you fuckin' rude dumb bitch.
Sylvia is much like a Zion borg, thus technically unable to utilize
pure logic, much less common sense as based upon anything deductive.
Such profound Usenet naysayers are usually Zion Atheists cloaked as
the all-knowing good guys, having never once met or otherwise heard of
any bad Jew.
The mainstream status quo simply excludes all of whatever's off-world
intelligent, and otherwise puts a limited number of us humans right
next in line to their God, whereas the rest of us are at best their
minions.
BradGuth
Spoken like a true Zion.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
Your understandings are for the most part based upon lies.
-
Brad Guth
Androcles
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
The abuse was added only after you snipped. Amazingly it was needed to make
the point. Obviously you are incapable of reasoned discussion because you
snip
the OP's Point of View without responding to it, so yes, there is no further
point, bigot.
BradGuth
I snip and/or ignore whatever is boring or infomercial crapolla.
Sorry about that.
Unlike your anti-ET bigot self, I don't exclude whatever rocks my
boat.
ETs do exist, whereas your profound naysayism is noted.
Interplanetary travels are in fact doable, with interstellars travels
using an icy proto-moon or planetoid that's going in the right
direction is also entirely doable, as providing the ultimate
spacecraft for accommodating such extended travels.
Sunlight alone doesn't insure life:
The odds on behalf of other life (intelligent or not) existing,
coexisting and/or having evolved on some other than Earth like wet and
salty planet, or atmospheric enhanced moon, are going to be rather
great if there's still local geothermal energy to being had, and
otherwise somewhat limited if nonexistent should that planet or moon
be a cold one without any significant elements of other local energy
at its disposal. For example, a thin atmosphere is not a good sign,
unless that orb has one heck of a terrific magnetosphere that's good
for at least 10 billions of years.
Of the life on Earth that's most important of all being diatoms is
worthy of our appreciating, whereas removing such diatoms from our
environment would have absolutely dire and lethal consequences, with
few if any biological or physiological adaptations that could manage
to circumvent that shortage or gap of evolution or panspermia.
Cosmic life may yet be unlike anything on Earth. However, the likely
panspermia of complex life arriving into our 98.5% fluid world of such
a self-replicating planetary environment, along with having some of
its own energy is what seems the more likely method of a given planet
being terraformed by happenstance or via intelligent design.
BTW, cosmic sunlight includes a much wider spectrum of energy than
provided by our somewhat wussy sun. For example, the spectrums of
energy derived from the Sirius star sustem far out-performs essential
DNA formation than is available by the filtered spectrum of what we
have to work with.
Of course, with applied physics and of utilizing technology is what
makes most any planet or moon usable by various intelligent forms of
life. At least that's exactly what we humans accomplish whenever
having to survive within environments that are otherwise lethal to our
survival in the buff.
Unfortunately, our usual faith-based methods of having skewed the past
and/or having excluded such evidence of other life as having been
existing/coexisting off-world, is simply a whole lot more pathetic
than merely unfortunate.
Ian Parker
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182605449....@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> : No we are not more intelligent - not in the genetic sense. Our
> : civilization is more "intelligent" than any in the past.
> :
> : 1) When I was doing my PhD I used to spend hours in the library
> : searching references. With Google I can get all the information I want
> : in a matter of minutes. I hope that the academic world will see fit to
> : put all its publications on line. If it does so I feel that science
> : will advance just that little bit faster.
>
> Since when did citing a list of references show any indication of
> intelligence?
> Where are the references in this student's pile of crap?
You show a great deal of disrespect for Einstein and Relativity but
that is not the point I want to make. The point I am making is about
CORPORATE intelligence. If I am an individual I am rated as
intelligent partly on my ability to reason, but also on my ability
recall facts quicly and relevantly. I claim on that basis that Google
is a form of AI.
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> What the moron did was retard science.
>
Relativity, both special and general has never been falsified. Mercury
precesses by 43" a century. This is nothing else that can explain
that. Leverrier explaied all the other irregularities with the
gravitational pull of other bodies.
> :
> : 2) We can train more scientifically. Modern athletes would beat the
> : ancients simply for this reason.
>
> Non sequitur, and certainly unsubstantiated since it is impossible to
> perform such a contest.
>
> : Modern civilization has allowed us to
> : concentrate on simply becoming more intelligent. We no longer need to
> : do heavy manual labor to get the harvest in.
>
> You confuse learning from a book with the ability to apply old knowledge to
> new
> situations. Certainly men such Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Archimedes,
> Euclid, Pythagoras, Shakespeare etc. etc. displayed far more intelligence
> than Joe Sixpack with his modern beliefs in virgin births, holy ghosts and
> time dilation.
>
How else do you define it. You can reason by means of a Genetic
algorithm, that is tto say you try something, then try something
different. The question of how you dfine reasoning ability is highly
philosopical. I can say that as a member of a team, myself together
with Google can solve problems I would not have been able to solve in
the time before. I could solve them even better if the academic
community would decide on online only.
What is reasoning ability. It is I claim the ability to construct
graphs. Graphs need retrieval information. There are log jams to AI.
Linguistics which I belly ache about is one such. I belly ache about
it because if is such a log jam
"?Quieres dormir con fosforo?" I I wanted friendship or (as the
question implies a little bit more than friendship, Google can find a
match for me. As "fosforo" inplies it does not have the concept of a
"match" even though it can successfully manipulate friendship
networks. This perhaps slightly paradoxical. No it is not like the FTL
paradoxes, it is more like a logjam.
Does anyone else have an idea as to what intelligence is - collective,
individual, corporate.
- Ian Parker
> :
Androcles
: On 23 Jun, 18:55, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1182605449....@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: > : No we are not more intelligent - not in the genetic sense. Our
: > : civilization is more "intelligent" than any in the past.
: > :
: > : 1) When I was doing my PhD I used to spend hours in the library
: > : searching references. With Google I can get all the information I want
: > : in a matter of minutes. I hope that the academic world will see fit to
: > : put all its publications on line. If it does so I feel that science
: > : will advance just that little bit faster.
: >
: > Since when did citing a list of references show any indication of
: > intelligence?
: > Where are the references in this student's pile of crap?
:
: You show a great deal of disrespect for Einstein and Relativity but
: that is not the point I want to make.
Yes, that is correct, I have no respect for bullshit, bullshitters and
liars.
: The point I am making is about
: CORPORATE intelligence. If I am an individual I am rated as
: intelligent partly on my ability to reason, but also on my ability
: recall facts quicly and relevantly. I claim on that basis that Google
: is a form of AI.
Google is a search engine, the internet is a library. As with most libraries
mostly it contains fiction. Google is most certainly a useful for quickly
locating references that are useful to you, but my point is that if you have
the ability to reason then I can can show:
1) Einstein was a liar
2) Einstein was not a mathematician
3) Einstein was a plagiarist
4) Einstein did not cite sources
5) Einstein was a bullshitter.
For each accusation I show the following:
1) His third postulate is:
"We have not defined a common time for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the time required by
light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to
A."
That is a LIE. It is also nonsense, the man himself claims t = x'/(c-v).
2)
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."
No mathematician would claim a velocity is from A to A divided by (t'A-tA),
velocities have direction.
3) He admits this himself while thumbing his nose at the world:
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
4) There is no mention of either Michelson or Morley in "together with the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the
light medium,'' the bum wanted ALL the glory.
5) "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at
one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." - total crap
: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: >
: > What the moron did was retard science.
: >
: Relativity, both special and general has never been falsified.
Of course it has, you are just spouting your personal religious-like
beliefs. Sagnac blew Einstein out of the water in 1913 and the prat was
still arguing against the Principle of Relativity in 1920.
: Mercury
: precesses by 43" a century. This is nothing else that can explain
: that. Leverrier explaied all the other irregularities with the
: gravitational pull of other bodies.
Of course there is, you are just spouting your personal religious-like
beliefs without a scrap of mathematics to back your claim. What you know of
Mercury's precession amounts to zilch, Parker. You are bullshitting.
All you dickheads quote 43 arc seconds a century, it is in fact
100 years, 415 orbits, 360 degrees per orbit, 3600 arc
seconds per degree.
43 arc seconds/ (415*360*3600) =
7.9949427338985571917298824929347e-8
Le Verrier did quite well, considering. You want to nit-pick that,
bullshitter?
: > :
: > : 2) We can train more scientifically. Modern athletes would beat the
: > : ancients simply for this reason.
: >
: > Non sequitur, and certainly unsubstantiated since it is impossible to
: > perform such a contest.
: >
: > : Modern civilization has allowed us to
: > : concentrate on simply becoming more intelligent. We no longer need to
: > : do heavy manual labor to get the harvest in.
: >
: > You confuse learning from a book with the ability to apply old knowledge
to
: > new
: > situations. Certainly men such Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton,
Archimedes,
: > Euclid, Pythagoras, Shakespeare etc. etc. displayed far more
intelligence
: > than Joe Sixpack with his modern beliefs in virgin births, holy ghosts
and
: > time dilation.
: >
: How else do you define it.
If I were asking a question and thought I was intelligent I'd place a
question mark at the end. Didn't they teach you punctuation before you
attempted a Ph.D.?
: You can reason by means of a Genetic
: algorithm, that is tto say you try something, then try something
: different. The question of how you dfine reasoning ability is highly
: philosopical. I can say that as a member of a team, myself together
: with Google can solve problems I would not have been able to solve in
: the time before. I could solve them even better if the academic
: community would decide on online only.
I'm not criticising Google.
: What is reasoning ability.
You really don't know how to use punctuation, do you?
: It is I claim the ability to construct graphs.
Ahahaha!
"Reasoning ability is the ability to construct graphs" -- Ian Parker, Ph.D.
(NOT)
Parker, you don't even have a bachelor's degree except in bullshit.
: > :
:
BradGuth
Sadly, Usenet doesn't allow deductive reasoning, period.
However, GOOGLE/Usenet allows and even orchestrates on behalf of
Zions, including butt protecting on behalf of all that's Einstein and
of this tribe of brown-nosed minions (usually Zions cloaked as
Atheists).
Usenet rusemasters are many. 99.9% of Usenet is at best hocus-pocus
or worthless. Ian Parker is clearly one of them brown-nosed clowns.
-
Brad Guth
Ian Parker
> : The point I am making is about
> : CORPORATE intelligence. If I am an individual I am rated as
> : intelligent partly on my ability to reason, but also on my ability
> : recall facts quicly and relevantly. I claim on that basis that Google
> : is a form of AI.
>
> Google is a search engine, the internet is a library. As with most libraries
> mostly it contains fiction. Google is most certainly a useful for quickly
> locating references that are useful to you, but my point is that if you have
> the ability to reason then I can can show:
> 1) Einstein was a liar
> 2) Einstein was not a mathematician
> 3) Einstein was a plagiarist
> 4) Einstein did not cite sources
> 5) Einstein was a bullshitter.
>
mean by "reasoning ability".
I do some experiments. I find out that the speed of loght is
independent of my speed. I find out that the speed of light forwards
is the same as backwards, again however fast I am travelling. True
Quantum Electrodynamics predicts this effect independently of
Relativity. However I go deeper into Elementary Particle Physics. I
find that SU2 (I actually prefer to write the Lorenz Transformations
in trigonometrical form) is universally applicable. The "standard
model" is, of course, SU3.
I find that mu mesons are produced high in the Earth's atmosphere,
they travel (near as no matter, slightly below) at c. Because of time
dilation they can travel 20km when they ought to be travelling only
about 200-400m. Could I have your alternative.
How would I reason? In the way outlined above. If I had an API
attached to Google, what would I do? I would first look for references
to the "velocity of light". I would look for "speed in aether". If I
found the Lorenz equations I would look for SU2.
This is much more involved than a translation to "velocitad de luz"
although if I got "liger[o][a]" I would be stumped. Actually Google
translate does parse and "liger[o][a]" is an adjective. Doing this is
many years in the future. If though I could abstract something from
the Lorenz equations. If I it could recognize the shape of the
equations it would then look up SU2.
On General relativity. Alice was asked whether or not the angles of a
triangle added up to 180 degrees. Concept definition again. looking up
Euclid -> Riemann -> Einstein (GR). This is a graph. This is why I
view reasoning in graphical terms. So the critical step is getting the
concept of Eucidean space.
Suppose I was to look up "Black Hole". This stems from my reference
GR. My reference General Relativity will include Gravitational Waves.
I look that up. I find out that a pair of neutron stars orbiting one
and other are losing energy. I find that it is within 10% of GR. OK
but we have not yet DIRECTLY detected gravitational waves. I find LIGO
and LISA. The outcome will be interesting. I will find that if a black
hole is not spinning 50% of the rest energy of a weight. So - a
supernova should produce a strong gravitational pulse.
I find too that a drop into a spinning BH gives of gravitational
waves. Matter forms jets powered by the waves.
Question for you - How do YOU explain the energy sources of quasars.
This highlighs my "dormir con fosforo" paradox. Alice cannot
understand the angles of a triangle yet quasar jets can be predicted
by finite element calculations.
> For each accusation I show the following:
> 1) His third postulate is:
> "We have not defined a common time for A and B, for the latter cannot be
> defined at all unless we establish by definition that the time required by
> light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to
> A."
>
> That is a LIE. It is also nonsense, the man himself claims t = x'/(c-v).
>
> 2)
> "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
>
> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
> to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."
>
> No mathematician would claim a velocity is from A to A divided by (t'A-tA),
> velocities have direction.
>
> 3) He admits this himself while thumbing his nose at the world:
>
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
>
> 4) There is no mention of either Michelson or Morley in "together with the
> unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the
> light medium,'' the bum wanted ALL the glory.
>
> 5) "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
> slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at
> one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." - total crap
>
1-4 are simply disinformation about Einstein. Does the fact that he
was Jewish worry you?
5 is more interesting. Clocks do indeed go at the same rate on a
geoid. This is because the SR effect caused by rotation (slowing the
clock down) is compensated for by an equal and opposite GR effect
caused by the fact the the equator is further away from the center of
the Earth. This makes clocks go faster.
I think Einstein being a Jew is a factor. Brad is talking about
"Zionism". What does he want to do? Does he want a CIA psy op to
direct Google in the orthodox ultra right wing course?
- Ian Parker
- Ian Parker
Androcles
: On 25 Jun, 03:49, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > : The point I am making is about
: > : CORPORATE intelligence. If I am an individual I am rated as
: > : intelligent partly on my ability to reason, but also on my ability
: > : recall facts quicly and relevantly. I claim on that basis that Google
: > : is a form of AI.
: >
: > Google is a search engine, the internet is a library. As with most
libraries
: > mostly it contains fiction. Google is most certainly a useful for
quickly
: > locating references that are useful to you, but my point is that if you
have
: > the ability to reason then I can can show:
: > 1) Einstein was a liar
: > 2) Einstein was not a mathematician
: > 3) Einstein was a plagiarist
: > 4) Einstein did not cite sources
: > 5) Einstein was a bullshitter.
: >
: Let me look at Relativity. It will help to illustrate what one might
: mean by "reasoning ability".
:
: I do some experiments.
Go ahead, do them.
I find out that the speed of loght is
: independent of my speed.
No you don't! That's where your ability to reason is shit-canned, you assume
the result without doing the experiment. If you halfway honest, Parker,
you'd admit you don't even know what "experiment" to do and you've never
experimented
with the speed of light in your life.
I find out that the speed of light forwards
: is the same as backwards, again however fast I am travelling.
No you don't! That's where your ability to reason is shit-canned, you assume
the result without doing the experiment.
: Quantum Electrodynamics predicts
"Predicts" - a word used by any fortune-teller or charlatan. I'm not
interested in your ability to read horoscopes or predict the future, I'm
interested in science. Take your predictions and shove them you know where.
Come back when you've done the experiment instead of guessing its result and
quit trying to bullshit, it doesn't work.
Ian Parker
papers that are published are honest. It true that a Professor in
South Korea - I forget his name falsified his results and has now been
disgraced. Are you telling me that all the results in Physics have all
been falsified. Really!
The attidude in Science contrasts sharply with what is practiced in
Government.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/21/1516257&mode=thread&tid=25
John Rendon has been rumbled but he is still held in high esteem. What
a contrast!
BTW - You have not answered my questions.
1) How does the mu meson last so long?
2) What powers quasars?
I want answers.
- Ian Parker
Paul F. Dietz
> "Predicts" - a word used by any fortune-teller or charlatan. I'm not
> interested in your ability to read horoscopes or predict the future, I'm
> interested in science.
Science *is* about prediction. It's those predictions
that are what makes a theory testable -- you try to
see if the predictions actually come true.
Paul
BradGuth
We have been 100+% right as rain. Sadly, Usenet doesn't allow
deductive reasoning (period!), and otherwise there's to be no such dot
or pixel connecting allowed unless it proves nothing other than what's
already scripted within their Old Testament or whatever koran that's
edited in order to suit their Zion mindset.
However, the likes of GOOGLE/Usenet allows and even orchestrates on
behalf of Zions, including butt protecting on behalf of all that's
Einstein and of this tribe of brown-nosed minions (usually Zions
cloaked as Atheists).
Usenet rusemasters and Einstein lovers (aka Zion lovers) are many.
99.9% of Usenet is at best hocus-pocus or otherwise worthless because
as you say, they assume and/or accept upon the analogy of others that
have gotten away with having taken so much credits for the actual hard
work of those outside of their Zion O-ring cult. Ian Parker is
clearly one of them brown-nosed clowns that doesn't take kindly to
anyone that doesn't worship Einstein and doesn't otherwise reject
anything of other life that's off-world, and much less willing to
budge an inch if it's potentially intelligent.
BTW, I do believe that an established laser beam of photons that
essentially aligns atoms can help channel or transport other photons
to the head of the train, which is thereby capable of allowing those
photons to exceed the speed of light. A conduit or waveguide of FTL
moving photons has been common place for as long as such radar
waveguides have existed. Of two opposing or arriving laser beams is a
differential velocity of 2X 'c'. A quantum photon (FM photon) is
simply the holy grail of what makes us and everything we can detect
what we are. Atoms serve the needs of photons, much like batteries
and wire serves the needs of electrons. Our DNA is nnothing without
photons.
Not that all of Einstein was bad, although I agree with your Einstein
analogy:
: > 1) Einstein was a liar
: > 2) Einstein was not a mathematician
: > 3) Einstein was a plagiarist
: > 4) Einstein did not cite sources
: > 5) Einstein was a bullshitter.
Some of us are just better liars and better takers than others.
-
Brad Guth
Ian Parker
>
> BTW, I do believe that an established laser beam of photons that
> essentially aligns atoms can help channel or transport other photons
> to the head of the train, which is thereby capable of allowing those
> photons to exceed the speed of light. A conduit or waveguide of FTL
> moving photons has been common place for as long as such radar
> waveguides have existed. Of two opposing or arriving laser beams is a
> differential velocity of 2X 'c'. A quantum photon (FM photon) is
> simply the holy grail of what makes us and everything we can detect
> what we are. Atoms serve the needs of photons, much like batteries
> and wire serves the needs of electrons. Our DNA is nnothing without
> photons.
>
velocity? The group velocity is the speed at which information
travels. In an ionized gas the phase velocicity exceeds c, the group
velocity, the velocity of information transfer, does not.
- Ian Parker
Androcles
: You have got to rely on what people tell you.
HAHAHA! Check this out:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gullible
It refers to YOU, Ian Parker.
Here's another:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gullible
: I presume that the
: papers that are published are honest.
HAHAHA!
: It true that a Professor in
: South Korea - I forget his name falsified his results and has now been
: disgraced.
He won't be the first, or the last, Ian.
:Are you telling me that all the results in Physics have all
: been falsified. Really!
HAHAHA!
Here's something not falsified, Ian.
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/
Here's something that IS falsified:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
As with all cheating rogues, the liar tells half-truths.
:
: The attidude in Science contrasts sharply with what is practiced in
: Government.
:
:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/21/1516257&mode=thread&tid=25
:
: John Rendon has been rumbled but he is still held in high esteem. What
: a contrast!
:
: BTW - You have not answered my questions.
:
: 1) How does the mu meson last so long?
: 2) What powers quasars?
:
: I want answers.
:
:
: - Ian Parker
Then research, you fuckin' idiot!
BradGuth
If our universe is the photon waveguide, then what?
A quantum/FM photon eliminates most all forms of communication
limitations.
I believe that a set of spinning and somewhat AI photon aligned atoms
can hand off as many quantum/FM photons as necessary, thus the speed
or velocity of transfering data/packets at FTL is technically doable.
Of course, if you believe as I don't that a photon can't have or
otherwise represent any mass, then there's no limitation as to it's
velocity. However, since a photon is more than likely of something
greater than zero mass is why the speed of 'c' is about as good as it
gets.
The phase velocity depends on how large of waveguide you've got to
work with. How about a photon waveguide of one or more light years
per dimention?
Seems that anything contained within the light year waveguide is going
to benefit from the ongoing phase velocity that's taking place.
In other words, with a quantum/FM photon there's little if any need of
a group velocity, as each photon becomes worthy of hauling more binary
information than 01.
How about a packet density of 1024 bits per quantum string like
photon?
-
Brad Guth
Ian Parker
phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an
infinite medium.
If you switch on a magnetron attached to a waveguide how long is it
before the effects are felt at the other end of the waveguide. It is
the group velocity. Same applies to an ionised medium. In an ionised
medium there is a slight difference between the "swiich on velocity"
shock speed and the group speed. It is small, both are well below c.
The difference is in fact a second order effect.
The form of modulation makes absolutely no difference. When I first
met the topic as an undergraduate, we were taught to visualize a
"group" and group velocity in terms of the Fourier Transform of the
waveform. Each Fourier component travels at a different wave vecocity.
You have not answered my two question, one on the mu meson, the other
on quasars. To me a failure to answer these removes your arguments and
that of Androcles from the scientific sphere. If you do not accept
thhe explanations offered in terms of Relativity Special and General
respectively you wiill have to furnish another explanation that we can
all look at and study.
To say all the scientists whose results back up Relativity are all
frauds is just too far fetched for serious comment. In fact I could
probably claim, with a lot more justification, that psychology was a
load of bunkum and all the results were rigged.
Certainly the field results are extremely disappointing. The Cubans at
the Bay of Pigs hated Battista and the CIA more than they hated Castro
(despite psy ops). There is a civil war going on in Iraq, despite all
the nonsense we were told about democracy (and the psy ops).
As there are no alternative scientific explanation I can only conclude
that there is an ulterior explanation. Einstein was a jew. That is why
you are arguing against it.
- Ian Parker
Androcles
: Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the
: phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an
: infinite medium.
Let's clear up a few misconceptions.
1) Media of any kind plays no part in it.
2) You are full of shit.
BradGuth
GOOGLE/Usenet message that it was taken into the usenet collective.
On Jun 26, 3:14 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the
> phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an
> infinite medium.
Your God (Einstein) took from others and proceeded to assume all sorts
of things. So, what's your point?
I assume that photons can ride the phase velocity backs of those
carrier waveguide FTL moving photons, but instead of their going back
and forth (side to side or around and around within the photon
waveguide) these secondary photons would simply go directly towards
the target they're pointed at, jumping off each aligned atom that's
spinning and aligned on behalf of the established waveguide.
Once my quantum/FM photons start arriving at the intended target, as
such the amount of data or quantum binary packets of data throughput
is nearly unliminted, except by the available receiving technology.
>
> If you switch on a magnetron attached to a waveguide how long is it
> before the effects are felt at the other end of the waveguide. It is
> the group velocity. Same applies to an ionised medium. In an ionised
> medium there is a slight difference between the "swiich on velocity"
> shock speed and the group speed. It is small, both are well below c.
> The difference is in fact a second order effect.
Those are merely the carrier photons, and not the intended
communication photons. I agree that the carrier wave or given laser
beam of photons will be arriving at not greater than c, which btw is
still a good thousand fold faster than any physical probe.
>
> The form of modulation makes absolutely no difference. When I first
> met the topic as an undergraduate, we were taught to visualize a
> "group" and group velocity in terms of the Fourier Transform of the
> waveform. Each Fourier component travels at a different wave vecocity.
Box status quo thinking has been one of your pesky faults, isn't it.
You have absolutely no idea what a quantum/FM binary photon is, do
you. Each individual quantum string like photon can easly represent a
1024 bit word, as limited only by our existing technology.
>
> You have not answered my two question, one on the mu meson, the other
> on quasars. To me a failure to answer these removes your arguments and
> that of Androcles from the scientific sphere. If you do not accept
> thhe explanations offered in terms of Relativity Special and General
> respectively you wiill have to furnish another explanation that we can
> all look at and study.
mu meson?
quasars?
These items have what to do with ETs being smarter than us, and
especially a whole lot smarter than yourself?
I'll try to share my dyslexic thoughts in a way that's more
entertaining to the naysay collective, although I'll keep insisting
that FTL communications (similar to phase velocity) is doable once the
laser conduit or photon waveguide is established (somewhat how those
FM waves of phonons are speeded up once the telephone line is
established, or terribly slowed down if there's a diamond obstructed
pathway).
>
> To say all the scientists whose results back up Relativity are all
> frauds is just too far fetched for serious comment. In fact I could
> probably claim, with a lot more justification, that psychology was a
> load of bunkum and all the results were rigged.
A well proven naysayer is not a fraud, as such mainstream box limited
naysayers do in fact exist (yourself being a perfectly good example).
>
> Certainly the field results are extremely disappointing. The Cubans at
> the Bay of Pigs hated Battista and the CIA more than they hated Castro
> (despite psy ops). There is a civil war going on in Iraq, despite all
> the nonsense we were told about democracy (and the psy ops).
What exactly doesn't our faith-based government of Zion puppets lie to
us about?
>
> As there are no alternative scientific explanation I can only conclude
> that there is an ulterior explanation. Einstein was a jew. That is why
> you are arguing against it.
>
> - Ian Parker
But you silly folks don't seem to like any such "ulterior
explanation".
Apparently Einstein wasn't even a very good Jew, certainly not nearly
as good of a Zion bigot and a rusemaster of a naysayer like yourself.
Thinking outside the box (as long as it was kept terrestrial) was a
good part of what made Einstein worth keeping.
Much like Van Allen was created out of thin air, sort of speak,
whereas the likes of Einstein was allowed to take the lead point
because, at the time those Zions had none better. In many ways, even
Hitler got as far as he did because of smart Jews. (Jews have never
been totally dumb and dumber, have they, although they do have a
tendency of putting their own kind on a stick in order to prove a
point).
However, your Einstein also never agreed to the BB fiasco. At least
I'll accept the mother of all black holes doing it's imploding thing,
as having created at least two opposing universes. Of course that
original black hole had to exist/coexist within something much larger
and much older. I too (like Einstein) don't believe in God farts.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Zion rusemasters are by heart liars, as it's what they and other brown-
nosed naysayers do best. So, there's actually nothing of such
misconceptions to clear up. But thanks anyway.
-
Brad Guth
Ian Parker
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
El barco attravesto una cerradura. La estacion fué resorte.
I used to think it was only Google Translate that produced things like
that, where the contectural meaning of the word was not understood.
The MEDIUM is the substance though which light is passing. In this
case it is tenuous ionized gas. The system, as is every system, is
invariant under SU2. If the ionosphere were to suddenly move at half
the speed of light, the result would be exactly the same referred to
that frame. That is what invariance under SU2 means effectively.
The remarkable step which Dirac took was to say OK Schroedinger's
equation is not relativistically invariant. I am going to construct
one that is. Antimatter thus arises directly from SU2. Everything has
been verified. Of course Neil Armstrong may not have landed on the
Moon and all the people at CERN etc, be part of some gigantic
conspiracy.
- Ian Parker
American
As the understanding goes, the odd spin structure (P,P)
is the only structure with gauge bosonic activity between
multiverses. Likewise, the same tori structure represents
the electron: the rotational structure for the inertial
mass that includes gravitons acting on a toroidal energy
flux is a favorite representation in the "torus of time"
scenario. The torus is a genus 2 "mappable surface" that
uses "holomorphic functions" such as the SU(1) Kahler metric
(invariant). These systems describe a microcosm of the grav-
ity wave phenomenon presently being studied.
It would seem that the odd spin structure is the only struc-
ture to hypertranslate between multiverses, but how? How
can a self-same consciousness be restored unless a self-
similarity becomes generated thru Sierpinski fractalization?
The idea of prime factorization is used to establish the
set of common primes between any harmonic of 78557*(2**n)+1,
so that all the set of [3, 5, 7, 13, 19, 37, 73] can be fac-
tored into ANY WHOLE VALUE OF n thru the self-similarity of
individual components within the above parameter. Notice any-
thing unique about the above set? There are exactly 7 members
in the set, if formed by a composite, odd integer k value within
the group of k*(2**n)+1, for all positive integer n. These
are the Sierpinski numbers - all odd and multiples of the
basis set of seven. If initially setting k = 78557, there
are some very interesting number sequences that crop up as
Sierpinski fractalizations: The "k" sequence, 78557, is prac-
tically situated near the Schumann resonance, 78300, which
lands within 257 of the Sierpinski "k". How convenient is this?
The speed of light harmonic, 144, or 143,888.1 minutes of arc
per geodyne second, when divided by 60 (minutes per 15 de-
grees), equals 35972.025 degrees, or 627.830284 pi radians.
2C minutes amount to 26.64594 pi radians, or 4.2408366
whole spins. Therefore,
(4.2408366)((33.9440 x 10**-4 cps) = .1439509 cps,
which is the harmonic resonance decompression frequency
related to the life force radius in the LOCAL geodyne.
This frequency must be correlated with the earth harmonic
resonance frequency, which is 627.830284/(2*pi)=99.922cps,
so that (.1439509 cps)(99.922 cps) = 14.38390 cps, which,
incidentally, is very close to the 2X Schumann resonance fre-
quency, but being associated with the 2X harmonic of the MASS
DISSOLUTION frequency around 7.1 Hz. Could the decompression
sequence accomodate a U_65 uniform polyhedron "great
dodecahemicosahedron", a harmonically symmetrical, nonconvex
uniform polyhedron, isomorphic to the hemicosahedron, or
hendecatope, whose circumradius is phi**(-1) for each unit
edge in 11 dimensions, where "phi" is the golden ratio, with
the ability to transform the complete mass geodymically thru
dissolution into a 4-space resonance? The Wythoff symbol for
the great dodecahemicosahedron is 5/4,5|3, meaning that these
three rational numbers can be used to describe uniform polyhedra
PQR, based on how a point C in a spherical triangle PQR can be
selected so as to trace the vertices of regular polygonal faces.
C lies on the arc 5/4,5, and the bisector of the opposite
angle 3. The angles associated with this particular arc and
bisector are the same for both crystallographic representations
PQR and QPR. Both would seem to represent opposite rotations
or mirror representations of the same polyhedra. The spherical
triangle PQR (5/4,5|3) has spherical triangle C on the arc PQ
with the bisector on the opposite angle Q, with any one of the
angles (5/4)(i)/(5/4), (5/4)(i)/5_q, or (5/4)(i)/3_r defining
one particular set of aspects or polarization sequences of the
great dodecahemicosahedron.
We're looking at these designs, and "designs within designs"
in order to grasp some theoretical basis for developing a
coherent physical theory of "Propulsion Applied Electrogravitic
Crystallography".
Can I put a price tag on the work that I've put into this?
American
Androcles
On 26 Jun, 12:51, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182852864.9...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> : Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the
> : phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an
> : infinite medium.
>
> Let's clear up a few misconceptions.
> 1) Media of any kind plays no part in it.
> 2) You are full of shit.
El barco attravesto una cerradura. La estacion fué resorte.
I used to think it was only Google Translate that produced things like
that, where the contectural meaning of the word was not understood.
The MEDIUM is the substance though which light is passing.
Let's clear up a few misconceptions.
Light, electromagnetism, needs as much media as the Earth and Moon does
to orbit the Sun: none at all. Any medium only gets in the way, dust laden
thin air scatters blue light and red light becomes attenuated.
See blue sky.
See red sunset.
See Spot run.
You are full of shit with your group and phase velocity crap, the
result requires no media at all.
Androcles
On 26 Jun, 12:51, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182852864.9...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> : Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the
> : phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an
> : infinite medium.
>
> Let's clear up a few misconceptions.
> 1) Media of any kind plays no part in it.
> 2) You are full of shit.
El barco attravesto una cerradura. La estacion fué resorte.
I used to think it was only Google Translate that produced things like
that, where the contectural meaning of the word was not understood.
The MEDIUM is the substance though which light is passing.
Let's clear up a few misconceptions.
Light, electromagnetism, needs as much media as the Earth and Moon does
to orbit the Sun: none at all. Any medium only gets in the way, dust laden
thin air scatters blue light and red light becomes attenuated.
See blue sky.
See red sunset.
See Spot run.
You are full of shit with your group and phase velocity crap, the
result requires no media at all and aether was kicked in the can
as garbage in 1895, it was never present or necessary.
BradGuth
But perhaps photons do require at least a few atoms, say at least one
atom/m3 should be more than sufficient, although perhaps as few as one
atom/km3 is all that it takes since such an absolute void of merely 1
atom/km3 would allow that extremely cold (near 0 K) atom to get
extremely large.
Atoms as photon packet nodes sort of makes sense.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm impressed, although our Zion naysay likes of Ian Parker is a lost
cause, because it's not of something scripted within their Old
Testament or even within the Muslim koran. Somehow their terrestrial
God(s) forgot to mention anything about physics and science, therefore
anything of any quantum string like consideration on behalf of
utilizing photons is simply beyond any perceived scope of their faith-
based limited mindset that's boxed and ductaped shut.
-
Brad Guth
Ian Parker
> You are full of shit with your group and phase velocity crap, the
> result requires no media at all and aether was kicked in the can
> as garbage in 1895, it was never present or necessary.
There is an apparent paradox. The refactive index of an ionized medium
> 1. Hence light travels at a speed > c PHASE. Group velocity clears
up the apparant paradox.
This is done in standard undergraduate courses. In a vacuum light (all
wavelengths) travels at c both in phase and group. BTW gravitational
waves , or gravitons, likewise travel at c.
Einstein was a Jew. I am sure that is his problem.
"Engin...@hogwarts.physics". Now where have I heard about Hogwarts
before? Is FTL possible in quiidich games? Do you actually doubt
relativity, or are you streading disinformation on purpose. I am
beginning to think you want a career at Langley and spreading
disinformation about relativity is your induction exercise.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
Still terrestrial box thinking, as per usual you and your Zion swarm
mindset have all the right answeres, but not to otherwise save
ourdselves, as you silly folks can't ever seem to apply anything
that'll benefit humanity or that of our badly failing environment
without collateral damage and the ongoing carnage of the innocent.
If it's off-world intelligence (such as surviving on Venus along with
raw elements and renewable energy to spare), we have to forget it. If
it's FTL R&D, we have to forget that as well as anything of quantum
binary communications.
Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's
possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the
stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler.
Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that
comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their
way).
-
Brad Guth
Androcles
: On 26 Jun, 18:59, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
:
: > You are full of shit with your group and phase velocity crap, the
: > result requires no media at all and aether was kicked in the can
: > as garbage in 1895, it was never present or necessary.
:
: There is an apparent paradox.
All paradoxes are either apparent or the consequence of contradictory
assertions. Remove the offending assertion and the paradox vanishes.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? "
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, (Sherlock Holmes) The Sign of Four, 1890
: The refactive index of an ionized medium
There is no such animal. All refractive indices are relative.
: > 1. Hence light travels at a speed > c PHASE. Group velocity clears
: up the apparant paradox.
:
: This is done in standard undergraduate courses.
Substandard undergraduate courses are taught by substandard lecturers
and are no guarantee of truth or logical conclusion. When are you going
to realise, Parker, that all velocities are RELATIVE? Probably long after
you've learnt to spell difficult words such as 'refRactive' and 'apparEnt'.
: In a vacuum light (all
: wavelengths) travels at c
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.
Do you understand "measured", Parker?
Do you understand "c-v" is not c, Parker?
There's a paradox there, isn't there, Parker?
: both in phase and group. BTW gravitational
: waves , or gravitons, likewise travel at c.
Bullshit.
: Einstein was a Jew. I am sure that is his problem.
I don't give a flying fuck what his nationality or ethnic background was,
it isn't pertinent to physics ort astronomy.
Einstein was an astrologer, a lying, cheating, philandering, self-serving
egomaniac without any mathematical ability and a disgusting creep who
did nothing for humanity except con as many people as he could.
: "Engin...@hogwarts.physics". Now where have I heard about Hogwarts
: before? Is FTL possible in quiidich games? Do you actually doubt
: relativity,
The principle of relativity is sacrosanct. It is the
"one-speed-of-light-only"
morons such as you that generate these so-called "paradoxes" because
you are too stupid to realize that when your tin god said
"we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel from A
to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A" he was talking out
of his arsehole.
You missed that because you were not taught to read what the clever cunt
said,
you were given a substandard undergraduate course by a substandard
lecturer.
: or are you streading disinformation on purpose.
You can't even punctuate a sentence with a '?', can you?
It is YOU that is "streading" disinformation on purpose, I actually
quote verbatim what your tin god and huckster actually said. You
are thicker than two short planks, Parker, dead from the neck up.
: I am
: beginning to think
LIAR! You don't even come close to beginning to think. If you
began to think you'd read your huckster's paper as he wrote it
and then ask questions about it instead of glorying in paradoxes
and "streading" disinformation.
Here it is, fuckhead:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: you want a career at Langley and spreading
: disinformation about relativity is your induction exercise.
:
:
I don't spread or stread disinformation, Parker. I quote the arsehole
verbatim.
Nick Mason
wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer
--
Regards
Nick
Nick Mason
>
> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer
Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was
walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me
trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that!
Sorry.
--
Regards
Nick