SETI and The Fermi Paradox
K_h
civilizations within the Milky Way galaxy. On the other hand, intelligent
life should exist on a substantial fraction of planets with life because
natural selection broadly increases intelligence with time. Here on the
Earth, for example, numerous mammals have a high degree of intelligence and
I suspect many of them could reach human intelligence with a few more
million years of evolution.
This contradiction can be resolved if the origin of life is far harder than
commonly believed. That is, in the Drake equation, f_L should be far
smaller than most people think it is. Even on planets that are life
friendly the formation of life should be extremely rare for the below
reasons.
For life to start, a molecule must arise that can make approximate copies of
itself. Once that happens then natural selection can work its magic. But a
molecule that can make approximate copies of itself must be a fairly
sophisticated nano-machine being comprised of dozens, if not hundreds, of
molecules and it must arise via inorganic and non-evolutionary processes.
From the study of DNA and genes, it is known that all life on the Earth has
a common origin (undoubtedly from a molecule of the aforementioned kind).
Since Earth is a life friendly planet, why hasn't another molecule (of the
aforementioned kind) arisen? If it had, then life on the Earth would have
organisms with two different molecules for genetic codes: DNA and something
else.
Since all Earthly life is based on DNA, this suggests that, over the four
billion years of life on Earth, this has never happened again. That is,
over the last four billion years, no other molecule has arisen by inorganic
and non-evolutionary processes that can make approximate copies of itself
and evolve other organisms. And Earth is a life-friendly planet so chances
are optimal that such a molecule should arise. This fact is pointed out
clearly in the New Scientist magazine article "Second Genesis" by Bob
Holmes: "Many scientists argue that there is no reason why a second genesis
might not have taken place, and no reason why its descendants should not
still be living among us".
There is no evidence that other instances of the origin of life, with a
different genetic basis, would be consumed by any other life prior to
establishing its own survival. A genetic code based on a different set of
atoms and molecules would not necessarily be palatable to any other life.
In fact, it could be toxic. Two different sets of biochemistry could have
their progeny ignore each other like many species on Earth only have a very
small set of predator and prey. Obviously there would be co-evolution
because of mutual interactions and symbiotic relationships would exist.
If multiple instances of the origin of life happened on the same planet then
there is no reason to think that they would not all have long-term progeny.
People must drop the old western mentality that says "This planet is not big
enough for the both of us".
This suggests that the formation of such a molecule is a very rare event.
In other words, the reaction rate of inorganic chemistry per square meter
times the surface area of the Earth, times the average depth such reactions
take place, times four billion years is <<, much less, than the number of
such reactions needed before an approximately self reproducing molecule
arises by chance.
If that first molecule had not arisen here on the Earth then the Earth would
probably have been lifeless ever since. This same reasoning applies if life
first started somewhere else in the solar system and then migrated to Earth.
During the late heavy bombardment, any life in the solar system could have
been moved to any other place inside the solar system. If life rose
independently on Mars once, over the past four billion years, then that
suggests that the reaction rate of inorganic chemistry per square meter,
times the surface area of a Mars sized world, times the average depth such
reactions take place, times four billion years is about the number needed so
that an approximately self reproducing molecule arises by chance once, ~ 1.
It seems too much of a coincidence that the laws of chemistry work out in
such a way that life arises, on average, once per terrestrial world per
several billion years. Rather, for such cases, it seems much more likely
that life arises multiple times or almost never. The latter possibility
makes sense from a combinatorial perspective. A self reproducing molecule
will be composed of dozens to hundreds of other molecules. But the total
number of permutations for such a molecule's components will far exceed the
total number of inorganic chemical interactions that take place per
terrestrial world per several billion years.
A simple combinatorial thought experiment explains why. The number of ways
of stacking a deck of playing cards is so huge that if 67.8 billion solar
masses were converted entirely into protons then each proton could represent
a different way of stacking the deck of playing cards. But there are 92
naturally occurring chemical elements and a self reproducing molecule will
probably be composed of hundreds of atoms from the set of 92 different
kinds, whereas there only 52 cards in a playing deck. The number of
permutations for any `genesis' molecule could dwarf the number of chemical
reactions occurring in the observable universe over the past 13.7 billion
years.
So, in the Drake equation, f_L could be something really small like 10^-90.
In this case the fact that life exists on the Earth simply shows that the
universe is super huge and its true size far exceeds the visible universe.
During both cosmic inflation and dark energy inflation the universe falls
down its own gravity well converting huge quantities of its gravitational
potential energy into vacuum energy and expansion energy. This probably
explains why the universe is so much larger than just the observable
universe.
So the universe could contain 10^150 planets, for example. If f_L is 10^-90
then the total number of planets in the universe that have life is around
10^60. So there are a lot of planets with life out there but none of them
are close by. So this is one possible explanation for why there is only one
kind of life in the solar system. And this explanation is consistent with
Fermi's paradox. It also suggests that any other life in our solar system
got there via migration.
In light of all this, it cannot be concluded that water, oxygen, and
methane, for example, are indicators of extraterrestrial life. The presence
of these simple gases in the atmospheres of other planets can easily be
explained by inorganic processes. Since little is known about the geology
and chemistry of planets in other solar systems, there could be many ways
that an oxygen rich atmosphere arises by non-biological means. Check out
the below link for just such an example. To claim that oxygen in a planet's
atmosphere is a litmus test for life is unfairly stacking the deck against
more prosaic possibilities. It is unlikely that alien life would use the
exact same photosynthesis that biological processes employ on Earth, or even
have O2 as a waste product.
http://www.physlink.com/News/020304ExopanetOC.cfm
If Earth is the only planet in 10^150 with life then that suggests that the
universe is fine tuned for Earthly life. If a substantial fraction of the
10^150 planets have life then that suggests the whole universe is finely
tuned for life. If the universe if not fine-tuned for life then that
suggests the number of planets with life should be around the logarithmic
middle of 10^150 or around 10^75. If the universe is not fine tuned for
intelligence then the number of planets with intelligent life should be
around the logarithmic middle of 10^75 or about 10^38. It seems there are
lots of planets out there with life and intelligence but none of them will
ever communicate with humans.
The Fermi paradox, and the vast combinatorial possibilities for atoms and
molecules, plausibly suggests that both extraterrestrial life and
extraterrestrial intelligence are relatively rare.
The evolution of life and intelligence may occur in the following way. The
evolutionary tree of life may be like a shrub and the height of each shrub
leaf, say, is proportional to the intelligence of the species represented by
that leaf. As the shrub grows, it has branches growing in all directions,
from zero degrees to ninety degrees relative to the shrub's base.
A leaf at the end of a branch at zero degrees is almost at ground level and
that leaf corresponds to a species whose intelligence has not changed much
over billions of years, for example primitive bacteria like life. Leafs at
the top of the shrub, around ninety degrees, correspond to species with the
most amount of intelligence (for the biosphere represented by that shrub).
Here on the Earth, for example, the hominoid family, and probably a few
others species like Dolphins, are represented by leafs that are around
ninety degrees on Earth's `shrub of life'. As a shrub grows, it has
branches that grow in all directions, from zero degrees to ninety degrees.
In this sense evolution is not selecting for intelligence since the branches
are randomly growing in all directions.
But there is a broad increase in intelligence since the average height of
the shrub increases while it grows. On some biospheres, as its `shrub of
life' grows there will probably come a time when a leaf or two reaches a
sufficient height that its corresponding species is capable of radio
astronomy. Once this happens then that species reworks that planet's biota
which prevents any other species from evolving into high intelligence. It
is certainly possible that most planets with intelligent life follow this
pattern.
There is no evidence that (1) DNA is the only basis for life, (2) multiple
instances of the origin of life have occurred on the Earth, (3) on any
planet one origin of life make other such origins implausible, and (4)
primitive self-replicating molecules are forming all the time on Earth. In
fact, there may never have been an origin of life in the solar system. Life
may have migrated to the solar system on debris from an earlier solar system
and this could explain Earthly life so soon after the Earth's formation.
With just today's technology, astronomers are able to map about a million
galaxies in the Sloan digital sky survey. So it is fair to assume that a
civilization in our galaxy, that is 200,000 years ahead of ours, would have
mapped all, or most, of the stars and planets within the Milky Way galaxy.
To see why note that, in the past century, the technology was developed to
automate the production of hundreds of millions of cars. A civilization
200,000 years ahead of ours would easily have automated the production of
millions of large space based telescopes capable of discovering most of the
planets within the Milky Way.
Such a civilization would already know about the Earth and would be capable
of sending space probes to Earth. Furthermore, a civilization like that
could easily automate the long term continuous broadcasting of
multi-frequency signals toward millions of favorable planets, especially
since its space based automatic broadcasting equipment would have automated
self maintenance systems and therefore require little or no effort to
maintain. Fermi's paradox applies not only to extraterrestrial life
visiting the Earth but also to extraterrestrial life broadcasting to the
Earth.
In conclusion, it is quite possible that f_L is a very small number and both
life and intelligence is quite rare.
K
Virgil
"K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote:
> Fermi's paradox suggests that there are little or no other intelligent
> civilizations within the Milky Way galaxy. On the other hand, intelligent
> life should exist on a substantial fraction of planets with life because
> natural selection broadly increases intelligence with time. Here on the
> Earth, for example, numerous mammals have a high degree of intelligence and
> I suspect many of them could reach human intelligence with a few more
> million years of evolution.
>
>
> This contradiction can be resolved if the origin of life is far harder than
> commonly believed.
All that it would require is that the development of a complex language
be more difficult than believed.
There is a theory that developments, possibly mutations, in the
cro-magnon mental heritage and vocal apparatus allowed a complex
language to develop, and that tose developments were missing in other
genetic lines like the neanderthals.
Meteorite Debris
his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> Fermi's paradox suggests that there are little or no other intelligent
> civilizations within the Milky Way galaxy. On the other hand, intelligent
> life should exist on a substantial fraction of planets with life because
> natural selection broadly increases intelligence with time. Here on the
> Earth, for example, numerous mammals have a high degree of intelligence and
> I suspect many of them could reach human intelligence with a few more
> million years of evolution.
>
>
> This contradiction can be resolved if the origin of life is far harder than
> commonly believed. That is, in the Drake equation, f_L should be far
> smaller than most people think it is. Even on planets that are life
> friendly the formation of life should be extremely rare for the below
> reasons.
There are various ways to resolve the contradiction. All of them
speculation since our knowledge base is limited. F_L is only one of the
variables. Guess work at the other variables could also be way out.
Assumptions are speculative. We have learnt a lot about planets outside
the solar system and some of that is very strange. Observations about
our solar system don't square with other solar systems like gas giants
closer the the star then Mercury is to the sun.
One thought I have had is that leaving a home world does not protect
against species extinction.
If you imagine an ocean with a species (say butterflies) spreading from
island to island and periodically and environmental disaster will send
species extinct, a volcano, a tsunami or cyclone or something. Such an
event that is species extinction material may happen once in X number of
years. If a species is present on other islands it will be more likely
to survive. How fast does the species spread? If it is too slow to stay
ahead of an extinction event each X years on average then it will not
spread all the way across the ocean.
If space travel is slower than assumed possible then normal species
extinction will inevitably overtake the intelligent space traveling
species. That is butterflies spreading too slowly from island to island.
If suitable colonising ports are too few then normal species extinction
will inevitably overtake the intelligent space traveling species. This
is like an ocean with very few islands. The speed of spread and density
of targets would make the difference between "radioactive decay" and
"critical mass" for breeding.
It may be that intelligent space traveling species spring up like
flowers all the time and then disappear. Many commentators on the Fermi
Paradox comment that if a species leaves it home world it will therefore
never become extinct but they do not say why. It's just an assumption
AN intelligent space traveling species needs nutrients in the form of
easily accessible energy and resources. Space is either a rich enough
ore to allow spread or it is not. It may be rich enough in some places
or galaxies or parts of galaxies but not in others. Or such richness may
vary in time. Space may have been richer in the past or it may be richer
in the future.
One thing we can be certain is that the first generation of stars had no
life bearing since there was only hydrogen and helium in the universe at
that time and at some point in the deep future there will again be no
life as the universe expands and cools down and stars cease to
regenerate. That is trillions of years into the future and the universe
is only 13 billion years old now.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened.
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
jigo
news:QrCdnU-QgOvG6FXU...@giganews.com...
> Fermi's paradox suggests that there are little or no other intelligent
> civilizations within the Milky Way galaxy.
No, that is not waht the Fermi paradox suggests. Fermi only posed the
question that, *given certain assumptions*, where is all the intelligent
life?
> On the other hand, intelligent life should exist on a substantial fraction
> of planets with life because natural selection broadly increases
> intelligence with time. Here on the Earth, for example, numerous mammals
> have a high degree of intelligence and I suspect many of them could reach
> human intelligence with a few more million years of evolution.
>
> This contradiction can be resolved if the origin of life is far harder
> than commonly believed. That is, in the Drake equation, f_L should be far
> smaller than most people think it is. Even on planets that are life
> friendly the formation of life should be extremely rare for the below
> reasons.
The paradox can be resolved in various ways. One is that greatly advanced
life forms would have goals and perspective vastly different and possibly
incomprehensible to us. See John W Campbell's old short story
"Forgetfulness."
...
jc
> Fermi's paradox suggests that there are little or no other intelligent
> civilizations within the Milky Way galaxy. On the other hand, intelligent
> life should exist on a substantial fraction of planets with life because
> natural selection broadly increases intelligence with time.
> Here on the
> Earth, for example, numerous mammals have a high degree of intelligence and
> I suspect many of them could reach human intelligence with a few more
> million years of evolution.
>
The galaxy could be full of intelligent life that we just don't
see. SETI makes the assumption that the more advanced
a civilization is, the more EM radiation they emit, but this
is arguably untrue. SETI would not find our civilization
even in the nearest solar system, and more and more of
our communications are being broadcast in forms
that radiate less, not more.
-jc
HVAC
"K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote in message
news:QrCdnU-QgOvG6FXU...@giganews.com...
>
> of itself. Once that happens then natural selection can work its magic.
> But a molecule that can make approximate copies of itself must be a fairly
> sophisticated nano-machine being comprised of dozens, if not hundreds, of
> molecules and it must arise via inorganic and non-evolutionary processes.
Who says that 'inorganic' and 'non-evolutionary' are mutually exclusive?
JTEM
"K_h" <KHol...@SX729.com> wrote:
> Fermi's paradox suggests that there are little or no
> other intelligent civilizations within the Milky Way
> galaxy.
Hardly.
Fermi's Paradox is itself a paradox. It could be restated
to say, "Assuming that aliens are anything like us,
they can't be anything like us."
I'll explain.
Fermi's Paradox is supposed to apply to species with the
technology to travel below the speed of light. The point
being, even at a tenth of the speed of light, or a hundredth,
given the age of the universe there's been more than ample
time for them to reach us. And there lies the problem.
See, given a hundredth of the speed of light, it would take
10 million years for them to cross the galaxy. And that's
a long time, but one way to make it even longer is to say
that the creatures crossing the galaxy are anything like us.
Because, see, all the racial differences between men have
only developed in the last, oh, 100 thousand years of so,
and even going back a few thousand years ago most of the
ethnic groups we see today either didn't exist, or existed
on an entirely different scale.
We're not all still Goths, Vandals and Celts, now are we?
To put it short: Fermi's Paradox is supposed to work with
human like races functioning within the understood limits of
the speed of light. Yet we know that you can't seperate a
species like us at those distances -- at those time intervals
(when messages can't travel faster than a light year per
year) -- and not give rise to entirely new & competing cultures,
turned ethnic groups turned races.
So, by virtue of expanding into the galaxy they would be
creating competition -- enemies, if you will -- which would likely
have the effect of stifling expansion.
Not only can't you exand through your enemies, but the slightest
competition is going to bring conflict.
Then again, why would a race that's anything like us expand
through the galaxy in the first place?
We tend to be incentive driven, and there doesn't appear to be
any incentive.
Warrior Angel/Hybrid
> "K_h" <KHol...@SX729.com> wrote in message
>
> news:QrCdnU-QgOvG6FXU...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > For life to start, a molecule must arise that can make approximate copies
> > of itself. Once that happens then natural selection can work its magic.
> > But a molecule that can make approximate copies of itself must be a fairly
> > sophisticated nano-machine being comprised of dozens, if not hundreds, of
> > molecules and it must arise via inorganic and non-evolutionary processes.
>
> Who says that 'inorganic' and 'non-evolutionary' are mutually exclusive?
"Let Us make man in Our Image and, after Our Likenesss."
With inorganic minerals/dust of the earth, and genes of the
Kingdom, did He make a new species, of the Adam. And
made a 'helpmate' from his genes, taken from a rib........
The rest is wrtten history....also....
And involves genetics.......also......
That's a pompous, arrogant thing to say.....
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Human-Intelligence-Gene-
Identified-By-Scientists-9829-1/
"And Cain knew his wife."
We are 98% Cro-Magnon genome. 99% Chimp
genome, and 99.5%+ Neanderthal genome..
We were the Neanderthal, already human but
no 'intelligence' to learn. We roamed the earth
for 700,000 years and never got any smarter, nor
prettier.
I want to state the fact that the intelligence of a
person is inherited from the gene of a parent. It
DOESN'T/DIDN'T evolve. It's embedded in the
womb, and will learn to its capacity.
The Neanderthal ended up in Northern Israel 60,
000 years ago. Cain saying, "The people in the
wilderness will kill me for killing my brother." Well,
those people were US, the Neanderthal and, "Cain
knew his wife". His offspring were, the much smarter
and prettier, Cro-Magnon. He wiped us out. We
disappeared shortly after the Cro-Magnon showed
up....
When the hybridization was complete, Seth was born
and inbred with his bother's offspring. From then on it
was Kings and Queens cultures and Nations. Each
generation the life span decreasing, From Adam's 930
years to mortal man's years of 120....
What does that do to the "theory" of evolution? It puts it
down the toilet, and makes us a species of interbred/
inbred, hybrids, and instills, the Almighty God of Abram.
Do you have a better Idea for the origin of our species?
Cain is, the "missing link".
http://theconversation.org/booklet2.html
http://www.cropcirclesthemovie.com/cc_cropcircles_02.html
Interaction by a non-human intelligence.....
>
> > K
HVAC
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e21de86d-b800-4bca...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> "K_h" <KHol...@SX729.com> wrote:
>
>> Fermi's paradox suggests that there are little or no
>> other intelligent civilizations within the Milky Way
>> galaxy.
>
> Hardly.
>
> Fermi's Paradox is itself a paradox. It could be restated
> to say, "Assuming that aliens are anything like us,
> they can't be anything like us."
If a civilization desires to explore the galaxy/universe
the only logical way is with a form of Von Neumann probe.
...A self-replicating, ever spreading, type of 'life'.
Perhaps *we* are the Von Neumann probe.
Dave Typinski
Or, given a more advanced understanding of mathematics and better
technology for communications via electromagnetic radiation, what EM
they do radiate may be impossible for us to distinguish from noise.
Assuming they still use EM radiation to communicate, they might
encrypt it - in which case it looks like noise, which is what we
observe. If they don't encrypt it, but use spread spectrum emission
and/or some other fancy modulation scheme, it looks like noise, which
is what we observe.
All that radio noise coming from the sky could be the encrypted
traffic of a galaxy-spanning civilization and we'd never know it.
--
Dave
MarkA
The development of writing is much harder than the development of language
itself, which is, in turn, necessary to pass on knowledge from one
generation to another. Without language, all that you can know is what
you can learn for yourself in a single lifetime.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Chris L Peterson
>The development of writing is much harder than the development of language...
That's not at all obvious. It's pretty much impossible (for now) to say
much about the likelihood of our sort of intelligence developing over
any period of time, along with language. But it is possible to see how
writing developed multiple times. It isn't unreasonable to think that
writing is a nearly inevitable development given language, and the right
sort of intelligence.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
palsing
> Then again, why would a race that's anything like us expand
> through the galaxy in the first place?
************
"The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that it has never tried to contact us." - Calvin & Hobbes
Golden California Girls
chibiabos
<harlowc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Exactly. I'm no Fermi, but I DO understand the argument, and it seems
to me it overlooks one very important point: Somebody has to be first.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Dave Typinski
>
>Dave Typinski wrote:
>>
>> All that radio noise coming from the sky could be the encrypted
>> traffic of a galaxy-spanning civilization and we'd never know it.
>
>http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/ap_faq.php
Thanks for that! I had no idea that SETI had a project to look for
wideband signals.
--
Dave
Larry
news:QrCdnU-QgOvG6FXU...@giganews.com:
> Such a civilization would already know about the Earth and would be
> capable of sending space probes to Earth. Furthermore, a civilization
> like that could easily automate the long term continuous broadcasting
> of multi-frequency signals toward millions of favorable planets,
> especially since its space based automatic broadcasting equipment
> would have automated self maintenance systems and therefore require
> little or no effort to maintain. Fermi's paradox applies not only to
> extraterrestrial life visiting the Earth but also to extraterrestrial
> life broadcasting to the Earth.
>
An old friend of mine uses a great tagline related to this post:
"Amazingly intelligent life must exist in the Universe because it has never
tried to communicate with us."
--------------------------------------------
I, personally, think life is terminally self-destructing as soon as the
highest life form discovers how to make weapons the planet cannot recover
from. We're very close to the terminus for this planet, here in 2009, and
will render it uninhabitable quite soon in astronomical time as our
superstitions and paranoia consume us.
JTEM
> I, personally, think life is terminally self-destructing as soon
> as the highest life form discovers how to make weapons the
> planet cannot recover from. We're very close to the terminus
> for this planet, here in 2009, and will render it uninhabitable
> quite soon in astronomical time as our superstitions and
> paranoia consume us.
I have to agree.
I was read a story -- and it claimed to be true -- that after the
Soviets successfully launched Sputnik a jubilant Mao contacted
the Soviets, telling them to immediately use it to destroy the
United States.
Yes, yes, Sputnik was a harmless satellite, but the story
illustrates two points.
The first is that monumentally ignorant people DO manage to
obtain great power. In addition to the case of Mao, Stalin
himself was a complete moron who thought evolution was a
western conspiracy, and that wheat could be "Trained" to grow
in the frozen Siberian tundra.
The second point it illustrates is that many people -- some of
them national leaders -- aren't interested in peace. Mao never
was. He denounced "Peaceful Coexistence," preaching for
political change at the barrel of a gun.
I hate to say it, and I know it's not PC, but there are countless
people out there, right now, who aren't interested in "Self
Defense," and seek WMDs in order to destroy, and would not
hesitate to use them, if & when they get their hands on them.
Larry
@r29g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> The first is that monumentally ignorant people DO manage to
> obtain great power.
What scares me the most is the class of people who have their fingers on
those buttons of our total destruction. They belong to some of the
craziest cults on the planet. They believe in horrible superstitions that
have nothing to do with decency and logic. There they sit next to that
control box thinking about Knights Templar, All-seeing eyes, attending
ritual cult burnings at Bohemian Grove, members of Skull and Bones yet
another ritual cult.
I don't see any differences between a cult-member President, Prime
Minister, Der Fuhrer, or any of the ancient cultist rulers who killed for
their brand of god.
We constantly stand on the edge of armagheddon as our leaders chant
incantations to owl gods in the woods.....
JTEM
> I don't see any differences between a cult-member President,
> Prime Minister, Der Fuhrer, or any of the ancient cultist rulers
> who killed for their brand of god.
>
> We constantly stand on the edge of armagheddon as our
> leaders chant incantations to owl gods in the woods.....
Although that's all true, there are far worse out there. There are
many nations, many leaders for whom weapons are not for
defense, and they would never hesitate to use WMDs if they
got the chance.
Bush was an idiot and a cult member, but he didn't push the
button. So, yeah, we could (and one day will) do worse.
jerry warner
Virgil wrote:
I have no idea where you are getting this 'speculation'
about Neanderthals but current theory along with genetic
evidence suggests they had language. There is no known physiological
or genetic reason why they wouldnt have and solid reasons to believe they did.
They had well developed cultures and traditions, for one thing. In fact there
have
been attempts to model the kind of grammar they may have used ...
jerry warner
jigo wrote:
> "K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote in message
> news:QrCdnU-QgOvG6FXU...@giganews.com...
> > Fermi's paradox suggests that there are little or no other intelligent
> > civilizations within the Milky Way galaxy.
>
> No, that is not waht the Fermi paradox suggests. Fermi only posed the
> question that, *given certain assumptions*, where is all the intelligent
> life?
If usenet intelligence is any indicator then the species on
this planet are barely capable of finding, much less keeping track of, their own
backsides ... much less worrying about
intelligent anything anywhere else.
jerry warner
JTEM wrote:
> "K_h" <KHol...@SX729.com> wrote:
>
> > Fermi's paradox suggests that there are little or no
> > other intelligent civilizations within the Milky Way
> > galaxy.
>
or better, just state the paradox correctly in the first place?
duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Chris
on Mars, Jupiter and its sattelites and on the sattelites of uranus and on
venus and the moon. Intelligent life is the most common form of life and
there are several other earthly specieas that came close to human
intelligence until we killed them off one as recently as AD1300.
--
Chris.
Remove ns_ to reply
"K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote in message
news:QrCdnU-QgOvG6FXU...@giganews.com...
Christopher A. Lee
<ns_cjrs@ns_chrisspages.co.uk> wrote:
>Life is common in the universe. Life originated on earth several times and
>on Mars, Jupiter and its sattelites and on the sattelites of uranus and on
>venus and the moon. Intelligent life is the most common form of life and
>there are several other earthly specieas that came close to human
>intelligence until we killed them off one as recently as AD1300.
Evidence, cackpot?
haiku jones
> Evidence, cackpot?
Evidence?
Why, Usenet newsgroups.
Obviously we did not succeed in killing off all of them.
Haiku Jones
Chris.B
He might have been an alien tentatively trying to converse on our
(low) level!
It's no wonder there are so few of us left.
I have it on good authority that it's much the same on Usenet on Omega
Andromeda.
I heard it's a complete bloodbath over there!
Pride and prejudice. ;-)
Chris
Chris (ET).
--
Chris.
Remove ns_ to reply
"Chris.B" <chr...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:19689c15-c670-4b38...@l5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
HVAC
"Chris" <ns_cjrs@ns_chrisspages.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Dpxlm.11113$_Q3....@newsfe20.ams2...
> Life is common in the universe.
Well, it's common on ONE planet in the universe.
> Life originated on earth several times
There is no evidence for this. None.
> and on Mars, Jupiter and its sattelites and on the sattelites of uranus
> and on venus and the moon.
Oh. You're one of THEM.
> Intelligent life is the most common form of life
Judging by what you've written, intelligence is
quite rare and not at all common.
> there are several other earthly specieas that came close to human
> intelligence until we killed them off one as recently as AD1300.
Indeed...... QUITE rare.
Chris.B
Joking aside... ;-)
It is not unlikely that advanced alien races could easily cloak their
presence from us either optically or by mass psychological masking. I
am not suggesting they are doing so but it is not impossible. This
might explain the troubling differences in opinion regarding the exact
details of sightings of UFOs by experienced multiple witnesses when
the masking/cloaking/forced-amnesia system (supposedly) breaks
down. :-)
BradGuth
Your honest and open mindset is noted. Problem is, this Usenet/
newsgroup is mostly populated by Zionist Nazis and their Republican
puppets that are extremely closed minded about most everything,
especially with regard to revising anything that's currently published
in support of sustaining their mainstream status-quo.
It's exactly as though ETs are in charge. (as hidden/cloaked in plain
sight)
~ BG
HVAC
It is not unlikely that advanced alien races could easily cloak their
presence from us either optically or by mass psychological masking. I
am not suggesting they are doing so but it is not impossible. This
might explain the troubling differences in opinion regarding the exact
details of sightings of UFOs by experienced multiple witnesses when
the masking/cloaking/forced-amnesia system (supposedly) breaks
down. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Putting your kookiness aside for a minute, consider this:
ANY craft traveling past say 50% light speed would be
visible across 1/2 the galaxy at least. The X-ray emissions
alone would mark it as an alien craft.
Where are the trails?
BradGuth
> "Chris.B" <chri...@mail.dk> wrote in message
ET spacecraft are likely not that inefficient, although our Selene/
moon leaves a 900,000 km trail of sodium as is. Better detection of
sodium might get that worth showing easily over a million km of a
trail.
Electrostatic and magnetic forms of propulsion might go undetected
unless the ET spacecraft were cloaked like somewhat of a black hole.
A purely gravity formulated thruster/puller might be entirely stealth.
~ BG
MikeToms
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:784c9cff-d39b-4819...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Hagar
"MikeToms" <to...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Zpimm.41475$Db2.37555@edtnps83...
You really should stop abusing yourself (i.e. stop wanking, loon), it
seems your brain is paying the price ...
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
through everything in between. You modulate a massive object onto a
high energy photon whose wavelength is less than the Planck distance.
That means its position becomes indeterminate and it can pass through
points that appear to be disjoint.
Chris.B
>
> Putting your kookiness aside for a minute, consider this:
>
> ANY craft traveling past say 50% light speed would be
> visible across 1/2 the galaxy at least. The X-ray emissions
> alone would mark it as an alien craft.
>
> Where are the trails?
Putting your flattery aside, you are making the common mistake in
believing that present knowledge is the sum of all knowledge. We can
only see our scientific beliefs as surfers riding high on the broad,
constantly advancing wavefront of present knowledge. The wave rises
ever higher with each passing second but it seems to show no desire to
topple and crash and dissipate onto some unknown shore. Nothing is
truly written in stone until we reach the end of time and of the
universe. Each generation thinks it has command of its facts only to
be surprised by some chance discovery. The basic science may not
change fundamentally but new understanding can turn our everyday
practices on their heads. For example; microgravity may unearth subtle
new insights which will have far reaching consequences for us all. The
leading scientists of every generation have shown a remarkable
blindness to advancements which even laymen can hardly believe today.
Yet their exalted status at their height would have the world believe
they were the real experts about absolutely everything.
I place my hope and trust for human advancement not in the hands of a
few geniuses but rather in the exploitation of ever larger numbers of
good minds as they are released from the burden of poverty, survival
and lack of education. Only when the full potential of every member of
the human race is finally unleashed for the greater good, rather than
the empty profit of a tiny few, will we finally reach the stars.
Before that we don't deserve to escape form Earth's gravity and would
take our unjust, acquisitive aggression with us. There is still a very
long way to go judging by the present miserably small numbers of human
beings actively involved in the advancement of human knowledge for its
own sake. Most of us are far too busy just surviving to have any
excess energy left for the great dream of expansion beyond our own
atmosphere.
HVAC
On Aug 29, 10:43 pm, "HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Putting your kookiness aside for a minute, consider this:
>
> ANY craft traveling past say 50% light speed would be
> visible across 1/2 the galaxy at least. The X-ray emissions
> alone would mark it as an alien craft.
>
> Where are the trails?
Putting your flattery aside, you are making the common mistake in
believing that present knowledge is the sum of all knowledge.
Where did I say that?
We can
only see our scientific beliefs as surfers riding high on the broad,
constantly advancing wavefront of present knowledge. The wave rises
ever higher with each passing second but it seems to show no desire to
topple and crash and dissipate onto some unknown shore.
Metaphors about crashing waves nonwithstanding, I ask again
for proof. Since nothing in our universe can travel faster than
light and you claim that aliens have visited earth, I ask where are
the X-ray emmissions from a craft traveling a good percentage of C?
They should stand out like a beacon that says, 'Here We Are'
Chris.B
>
> Metaphors about crashing waves notwithstanding, I ask again
> for proof. Since nothing in our universe can travel faster than
> light and you claim that aliens have visited earth, I ask where are
>
> They should stand out like a beacon that says, 'Here We Are'
I do like a good metaphor with morning coffee and toasted spelling
checker. ;-)
Nowhere have I have said that aliens have visited Earth. Though I do
believe there is a class of flying object seen by reliable witnesses
which seems to exhibit characteristics beyond human capability either
in scale, behaviour or extreme feats of acceleration and directional
change. It is unfortunate that all such sightings must be filtered
through the garbled, universal translator of the "UFO expert" crowd.
Most of whom seem to be borderline nuts, completely insane or retarded
attention seekers. The governments of the world have no need for
counter measures against such rumours while these people are free to
espouse their "science". Boredom with mundane lifestyles has its
price. It is little different from religion in its lack of
objectivity and shows poor selectivity regarding any possible evidence
and will drag any "road kill" into the story to reinforce its absurd
illusions.
Though I do fondly wish for an alien contact before I die. Not only
for its own curiosity's sake but in the vague hope that it will help
to destroy our badly broken human organisational systems. As a species
we need a very sharp kick up the backside to head us off in a new and
far more constructive direction. Pandemics seem too wasteful of our
time and our ultimate human potential. Our worn-out warmongering is
the absolute proof that we are crackers in following any leader, flag
or nation.
The need for superheroes and aliens is surely a sign that we
desperately wish for external intervention to undo the mess we are in.
Religion promised justice for all but none ever arrives as the
millennia grind on and on over it's countless victims. Give us one
alien and we'll be forced to build a new world order. Hopefully one
without religious, national or political loyalties. We are an
intelligent race! Not in a race to inevitable global destruction at
the hands of a few aggressive, self-seeking psychopaths. If we cannot
feed the world then we have failed the very first survival test as a
species. We should have no need of vast, sacrificial groups in a
global society of truly intelligent beings. Leave that to the ants we
so like to copy in our daily behaviour. We are really no better than
cavemen with TVs. Amusing ourselves, secondhand, with the detritus of
the kill and pretending the blood and guts are not real.
HVAC
On Aug 30, 2:02 pm, "HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Metaphors about crashing waves notwithstanding, I ask again
> for proof. Since nothing in our universe can travel faster than
> light and you claim that aliens have visited earth, I ask where are
> the X-ray emissions from a craft travelling a good percentage of C?
>
> They should stand out like a beacon that says, 'Here We Are'
I do like a good metaphor with morning coffee and toasted spelling
checker. ;-)
Nowhere have I have said that aliens have visited Earth.
Then I apologize.
Though I do
believe there is a class of flying object seen by reliable witnesses
which seems to exhibit characteristics beyond human capability either
in scale, behaviour or extreme feats of acceleration and directional
change.
Mirages. Tricks of light.
Go and look at the sightings in Mexico City
that has the ufo kook's panties in a bunch.
Looks like a mirage to me.
It is unfortunate that all such sightings must be filtered
through the garbled, universal translator of the "UFO expert" crowd.
Most of whom seem to be borderline nuts, completely insane or retarded
attention seekers. The governments of the world have no need for
counter measures against such rumours while these people are free to
espouse their "science". Boredom with mundane lifestyles has its
price. It is little different from religion
I think it's the NEW religion.
It seems that some humans have a need to be snookered.
Chris.B
> Then I apologize.
>
> Mirages. Tricks of light.
> Go and look at the sightings in Mexico City
> that has the ufo kook's panties in a bunch.
>
> Looks like a mirage to me.
>
> I think it's the NEW religion.
> It seems that some humans have a need to be snookered.
If only it were that simple. How do you console those who have seen
the very unlikely passing low overhead when it is not even dark?
Lights in a the dark are very small beer indeed compared with daylight
observations which can reveal shadows, curves, perspective and
reflectivity. Night lights can be interpreted (or dismissed) in so
many different ways depending entirely on the skills, sobriety and
experience of the witness.
You can't even write off the daylight witness as a hoaxer if they have
no wish to publicly share their life-changing observation but must
learn to live with their barbed memories for the rest of their lives.
What if they were not alone at the time? This immediately closes down
all sorts of mental escape routes for the individual observer. He
becomes a victim of his own memories because he cannot deny them even
to himself. He becomes desperate to unburden the secret but terrified
of classifying the observations as reality. Reality is much too scary
to cope with because it opens up a potentially huge and nasty can of
alien worms. When the strange flying object is no longer just a metal
(Pandora's) box then the what, the who, the why, the how many and from
where, all begin to rear their ugly heads. Thank goodness for the
fabled "secret defence projects!" They must have saved the sanity of
many accidental UFO witnesses. Since they help to soften the gaping
maw of the terrifying unknown into something far more cosy and
acceptable. Particularly on those dark nights when that strange light
is flickering on the bedroom curtains. ;-)
The UFO crowd are their own worst enemy. Their lunacy makes serious
and experienced accidental observers of UFOs far less likely to report
their sightings. Without them it would be far more acceptable to
discuss these things openly. Because of the loons everything now
descends to retarded YouTube hoaxers with torchlights in the park,
another flock of Chinese party lanterns and budding, attention-seeking
Photoshop artists. While listening to any of the self-proclaimed "UFO
experts" suggests that straitjackets are their formal evening wear.
BradGuth
> HO-LY...SHIT !...
>
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
"HO-LY...SHIT !..." might also function for ETs that haven't pissed
off God.
Could ETs survive within an icy Selene? If half as smart as a
terrestrial 5th grader, I don't see why not. Same goes for surviving
on the planet Venus, where it's geothermally hot as hell, but not
outside of what good technology could deal with.
~ BG
Hagar
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:784c9cff-d39b-4819...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
**********************************
Do you have to blow up your "gravity formulated thruster/puller"
every night, or do you keep it inflated all the time ??
BradGuth
You go first. Then return and tell us all about it.
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
With your extremely brown nose always planted deep into those kosher
butt-cheeks of your father rabbi Saul, why would you care either way?
~ BG
BradGuth
Usenet/newsgroups are chock full of kosher brown-nosed clowns, because
it's their full-time job. They lie, cheat and steal, as well as
perpetuate disinformation and otherwise obfuscate their butts off.
Are you saying that you don't see any of this?
~ BG
Hagar
systems in our galaxy, it would not be too far fetched to assume that there
are planets orbiting those stars as well. The distribution of solid,
gaseous and icy planets should follow our Solar System's pattern to some
degree and moons orbiting those planets would be the rule, rather than the
exception.
Apply this to the Drake equation, and life in the Universe is a distinct
possibility. Even though there is no proof as yet, accepting the paradigm
that life on Earth is unique is tantamount to religious fanaticism.
So why don't we hear from them?? We've been broadcasting radio and TV signal
for almost 100 years now and surely some of them must have reached a number
of the nearest stars.
However, any civilization even only 1000 years ahead of us, technologically,
would regard radio transmissions on par with Indian smoke signals rising
from the mountain tops. Even if they were sighted today, no one today would
even know what they were, much less what they meant.
So, what about signals from them?? Assuming that they still use radio, the
waves propagate radially and thus get weaker with distance. In addition,
they are subject to gravity fields and generally subjected to a lot of
noises produced by a host of galactic events, such as pulsars, magnetars,
gamma rays etc. By the time they actually arrive here, more than likely
they'd be reduced to unintelligible white noise.
So why haven't they landed and demand we take them to our leaders ?? Perhaps
they don't want to. Humans have been on Earth appr. 3 million years or so.
The real intelligent human era began after the last ice age. Actually,
"intelligent" is a misnomer, since it has resulted in one blood bath after
another for equally absurd reasons. Perhaps every civilization goes through
such a cycle of trials and tribulations of killing each other and plundering
their planet and its resources. Perhaps a few alien species manage to
survive that ritual of self destruction, to start all over again with a
different perspective of their surroundings, one of them being to avoid
contact at all costs with the sort of civilization which caused their near
extinction. Let's face it, if we were to see a real alien UFO in the sky,
the Air Force would scramble jets in an attempt to shoot it down. Welcome to
Earth.
When you hear them talk about missions to Mars, the overriding reason is not
exploration, but exploitation of its mineral resources. Creating a livable
habitat is governed by that prospect alone. We found another, as yet
untouched piece of real estate, just waiting to be raped and polluted for
the almighty buck and disposable hardware.
No, any aliens taking a close-up snapshot of us and our brief history of
wanton propagation, pollution, gross environmental mismanagement and nasty
demeanor, would turn their spaceship around and put it in hyper-drive,
scratching the Earth of their list of possible progenitors of intelligent
life.
Hagar
***********************************
Inquiring minds need to know these things ... what if it develops a
blowout during one of your "thrust/pull" exercises ??
PS: always use protection, GuthBall, you don't know who was
dipping his wick while you weren't looking.
berk
What I read from the original post is a conclusion looking for
supporting facts.
berk
BradGuth
Chris.B isn't afraid to deductively think and ponder his way through
ideas or interpretations that may seem to lack supporting facts.
However, according to our Apollo wizards, the laws of physics are
entirely different on or anywhere near our moon, so imagine how much
different those laws of physics are on other planets hosting other
forms of intelligent and/or survival worthy life.
~ BG
HVAC
"Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message
news:y4mdnSoWbs0ttwHX...@giganews.com...
> If we take out Solar System as a typical configuration for single Star
> systems in our galaxy, it would not be too far fetched to assume that
> there are planets orbiting those stars as well. The distribution of
> solid, gaseous and icy planets should follow our Solar System's pattern to
> some degree and moons orbiting those planets would be the rule, rather
> than the exception.
>
> Apply this to the Drake equation, and life in the Universe is a distinct
> possibility. Even though there is no proof as yet, accepting the paradigm
> that life on Earth is unique is tantamount to religious fanaticism.
Life, yes....Intelligent life? Maybe not so much.
Using Earth as a guide, life should arise on alien
planets soon after they form. On Earth however,
this simple 'slime' ruled the planet for billions of
years. Only in the last 3/4 of a billion years of so
has any beginnings of complex life been found.
It's really only in the last hundred years that we have
developed the ability to send signals that have the potential
for reaching other planets.
Even tho the galaxy is HUGE, our appearance in it is for
such a fleeting bit of time that cosmologically speaking,
we aren't even really here.
I think we're alone.
Where is the evidence for high-speed travel anywhere in
the universe? Any craft achieving a good percentage of C,
would emit so much X-ray radiation that it would stand out
like a Christmas tree. We could easily see such an object
from Earth.
We haven't. Why?
Even in some sci-fi world of warp drives that would achieve
superluminal speeds by going OUTSIDE our universe, where
are the semi-advanced civilizations that are still using sub-light
travel? Again, such craft would stand out like a Christmas tree
and be visible to Earth's astronomers across 1/2 the visible universe.
And another thing. If a civilization desires to spread across the
universe, a Von Neumann Probe would be the obvious choice.
It doesn't need to be fast, all it needs is time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft
BradGuth
You don't even have to be all that intelligent in order to survive on
the planet Venus, and you certainly wouldn't need the technology of
radio or space travel capability. It seems species/biodiversity
survival is simply far more important than what we call intelligence,
because it doesn't do any good being Einstein smart if your species is
dead.
However, if you have sufficient technology for accomplishing space
travel, Venus would certainly be an ideal planet to pillage, plunder
and rape for all she's worth.
~ BG
Puck Greenman
Hotter, than Hell actually.
Hell is estimated to be about 116 *C to about 125 *C
Steel begins to soften around 425 *C.
Venus has an average surface temperature of 464 *C.
So I would be very interested to hear about this technology that can stand up to that sort
of heat.
> ~ BG
BradGuth
Electromechanical technology already exist that is suited to survive
within 811 K, and if we must venture onto the Venus surface it's
technically doable. However, a much cooler application of using a
rigid airship that's cruising at 25 to 35 km (well below those acidic
clouds) is where the first efforts should be applied, with only
limited robotic applications on the surface.
There are sufficient alloys and even some composites that are well
suited and would survive that kind of heat. Ceramics are a no
brainer, though still technically challenging. Obviously you wouldn't
use aluminum or even mild steel.
There's even plans on hold by an obscure group within NASA (meaning
public funded) that already has most everything figured out. With
their likely employment demise, of being asked to leave because of
insufficient funding, there's a good chance these same folks could be
obtained as consultants and engineers for either accomplishing their
original mission ideas or those of mine.
What is your expertise?
~ BG
Hagar
****************************************
Yes we do GuthBall ... all your boring and convoluted posts have that
unique signature of creeping insanity. Soon you'll be banished to Venus.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
At least Venus as far as we know isn't kosher dominated. Perhaps
that's because such faith-based fools and racist bigots are simply too
dumb and dumber to survive without their kosher approved SEC and its
Ponzi Madoff rusemasters turning tricks and creating false/bogus wars
for decades.
~ BG
Puck Greenman
That assumes that cost, is not an issue.
But let us go with that for now.
Moving about safely in hostile environments, requires two things, protection from the
environment, and a bolt hole.
On the surface of Venus, your diving suit, if I can use the analogy, would probably be
some sort of vehicle, and your bolt hole, would be a biosphere, of some sort; yes?.
Both have several requirements in common, but the two that first spring to mind, are
1: Hermetic seals, capable of withstanding the heat, the corrosive atmosphere, and the
atmospheric pressure (about 1260 > 1300 psi) .
To give you an idea, 300 ft of water is about 10 bar, 140 > 150 psi
For your bolt hole, you may be able to find something that, with the aid of extensive
insulation, and minimal exposure, will suffice for a while.
Your vehicle, OTOH, will be somewhat more difficult, as all of it's external moving parts,
will need flexible protection.
Then there is your landing craft.
It will need seals which will function, both in the intense cold of outer space and in the
lead melting heat of Venus surface.
It will also need to be able to withstand ninety several atmospheres, which will make it
one very heavy baby, but it will need to be able to reach escape velocity in a very dense
atmosphere.
2: Thermal insulation.
For your bolt hole, I would suggest a tunnel, a hundred feet down in the bed rock, but
for your diving suit, I know of no technology that would give protection, and allow
reasonable mobility.
>What is your expertise?
>
I'm an engineer.
Puck Greenman
That assumes that cost, is not an issue.
josephus
josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter,
"Everybody is ignorant but on different subjects"
--Will Rogers
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
its what you know that aint so.
--josh billings.
BradGuth
The raw elements of Venus are worth trillions upon trillions.
>
> But let us go with that for now.
>
> Moving about safely in hostile environments, requires two things, protection from the
> environment, and a bolt hole.
>
> On the surface of Venus, your diving suit, if I can use the analogy, would probably be
> some sort of vehicle, and your bolt hole, would be a biosphere, of some sort; yes?.
No. Human DNA doesn't care about pressure. Your physiology can
adjust to pressure a whole lot better than it can adjust to vacuum.
>
> Both have several requirements in common, but the two that first spring to mind, are
>
> 1: Hermetic seals, capable of withstanding the heat, the corrosive atmosphere, and the
> atmospheric pressure (about 1260 > 1300 psi) .
>
> To give you an idea, 300 ft of water is about 10 bar, 140 > 150 psi
>
> For your bolt hole, you may be able to find something that, with the aid of extensive
> insulation, and minimal exposure, will suffice for a while.
>
> Your vehicle, OTOH, will be somewhat more difficult, as all of it's external moving parts,
> will need flexible protection.
>
> Then there is your landing craft.
>
> It will need seals which will function, both in the intense cold of outer space and in the
> lead melting heat of Venus surface.
>
> It will also need to be able to withstand ninety several atmospheres, which will make it
> one very heavy baby, but it will need to be able to reach escape velocity in a very dense
> atmosphere.
>
> 2: Thermal insulation.
>
> For your bolt hole, I would suggest a tunnel, a hundred feet down in the bed rock, but
> for your diving suit, I know of no technology that would give protection, and allow
> reasonable mobility.
You're making more trouble and grief out of this than necessary. For
the moment, forget about waking around on that toasty surface, because
we'll obviously get to that later.
>
> >What is your expertise?
>
> I'm an engineer.
Then we engineer, rather than procrastinate, exaggerate the negatives
and otherwise whine a lot. Start thinking like an Einstein, and just
make things happen in spite of what others are thinking.
What expertise have you of alloy and composite rigid airships? (we got
<82 kg/m3 buoyancy and only 90.5% gravity to work with)
~ BG
Puck Greenman
>On Sep 1, 1:16�pm, Puck Greenman <dubh.gh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 06:32:13 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 1, 5:40�am, Puck Greenman <dubh.gh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
>> >There's even plans on hold by an obscure group within NASA (meaning
>> >public funded) that already has most everything figured out. �With
>> >their likely employment demise, of being asked to leave because of
>> >insufficient funding, there's a good chance these same folks could be
>> >obtained as consultants and engineers for either accomplishing their
>> >original mission ideas or those of mine.
>>
>> That assumes that cost, is not an issue.
>
>The raw elements of Venus are worth trillions upon trillions.
>
Perhaps, but for what it would cost, to get just one working mine on Venus, and ignoring
the cost of first finding your ore, you could mine the whole asteroid belt.
>>
>> But let us go with that for now.
>>
>> Moving about safely in hostile �environments, requires two things, protection from the
>> environment, and a bolt hole.
>>
>> On the surface of Venus, your diving suit, if I can use the analogy, would probably be
>> some sort of vehicle, and your bolt hole, would be a biosphere, of some sort; yes?.
>
>No. Human DNA doesn't care about pressure. Your physiology can
>adjust to pressure a whole lot better than it can adjust to vacuum.
>
The DNA, may not, but the rest of the body does.
Six hundred feet is about the deepest that a free, saturation diver can reach, you are
talking a pressure of about five times that.
>>
>> Both have �several requirements in common, but the two that first spring to mind, are
>>
>> 1: Hermetic seals, capable of withstanding the heat, the corrosive atmosphere, �and the
>> atmospheric pressure �(about 1260 > 1300 psi) .
>>
>> To give you an idea, 300 ft of water is about �10 bar, 140 > 150 psi
>>
>> For your bolt hole, you may be able to find something that, with the aid of extensive
>> insulation, and minimal exposure, will suffice for a while.
>>
>> Your vehicle, OTOH, will be somewhat more difficult, as all of it's external moving parts,
>> will need flexible protection.
>>
>> Then there is your landing craft.
>>
>> It will need seals which will function, both in the intense cold of outer space and in the
>> lead melting heat of Venus surface.
>>
>> It will also need to be able to withstand ninety several atmospheres, which will make it
>> one very heavy baby, but it will need to be able to reach escape velocity in a very dense
>> atmosphere.
>>
>> 2: Thermal insulation.
>>
>> For your bolt hole, I would suggest a tunnel, a hundred feet �down in the bed rock, but
>> for your diving suit, I know of no technology �that would give protection, and allow
>> reasonable mobility.
>
>You're making more trouble and grief out of this than necessary. For
>the moment, forget about waking around on that toasty surface, because
>we'll obviously get to that later.
>
Walking was the last thing that I had in mind.
However, if you cannot move about on the surface, how are you to retrieve these trillions
of dollars worth of treasures?
>>
>> >What is your expertise?
>>
>> I'm an engineer.
>
>Then we engineer, rather than procrastinate, exaggerate the negatives
>and otherwise whine a lot. Start thinking like an Einstein, and just
>make things happen in spite of what others are thinking.
>
>What expertise have you of alloy and composite rigid airships? (we got
><82 kg/m3 buoyancy and only 90.5% gravity to work with)
>
What exactly do you mean by "composite"?
Which alloys, and which composites, did you have in mind?
Farther: Assuming that you could build it, what would you do with it?
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 6:09 pm, berk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> What I read from the original post is a conclusion looking for
> >> supporting facts.
>
> >> berk
>
> > Chris.B isn't afraid to deductively think and ponder his way through
> > ideas or interpretations that may seem to lack supporting facts.
> > However, according to our Apollo wizards, the laws of physics are
> > entirely different on or anywhere near our moon, so imagine how much
> > different those laws of physics are on other planets hosting other
> > forms of intelligent and/or survival worthy life.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> brad with you touting the 'skeptic' flag I wanna change sides.
> josephus
What the hell does that mean?
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:04:36 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 1, 1:16 pm, Puck Greenman <dubh.gh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 06:32:13 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 1, 5:40 am, Puck Greenman <dubh.gh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> snip
> >> >There's even plans on hold by an obscure group within NASA (meaning
> >> >public funded) that already has most everything figured out. With
> >> >their likely employment demise, of being asked to leave because of
> >> >insufficient funding, there's a good chance these same folks could be
> >> >obtained as consultants and engineers for either accomplishing their
> >> >original mission ideas or those of mine.
>
> >> That assumes that cost, is not an issue.
>
> >The raw elements of Venus are worth trillions upon trillions.
>
> Perhaps, but for what it would cost, to get just one working mine on Venus, and ignoring
> the cost of first finding your ore, you could mine the whole asteroid belt.
I'm certain William Mook would agree with that. I do not.
>
> >> But let us go with that for now.
>
> >> Moving about safely in hostile environments, requires two things, protection from the
> >> environment, and a bolt hole.
>
> >> On the surface of Venus, your diving suit, if I can use the analogy, would probably be
> >> some sort of vehicle, and your bolt hole, would be a biosphere, of some sort; yes?.
>
> >No. Human DNA doesn't care about pressure. Your physiology can
> >adjust to pressure a whole lot better than it can adjust to vacuum.
>
> The DNA, may not, but the rest of the body does.
Not really all that insurmountable, because it'll all equalize.
>
> Six hundred feet is about the deepest that a free, saturation diver can reach, you are
> talking a pressure of about five times that.
Your lack of such knowledge and inability to constructively think
deductively is noted. France offers a 1000 psi habitat cell, although
others should exist.
>
> >> Both have several requirements in common, but the two that first spring to mind, are
>
> >> 1: Hermetic seals, capable of withstanding the heat, the corrosive atmosphere, and the
> >> atmospheric pressure (about 1260 > 1300 psi) .
>
> >> To give you an idea, 300 ft of water is about 10 bar, 140 > 150 psi
>
> >> For your bolt hole, you may be able to find something that, with the aid of extensive
> >> insulation, and minimal exposure, will suffice for a while.
>
> >> Your vehicle, OTOH, will be somewhat more difficult, as all of it's external moving parts,
> >> will need flexible protection.
>
> >> Then there is your landing craft.
>
> >> It will need seals which will function, both in the intense cold of outer space and in the
> >> lead melting heat of Venus surface.
>
> >> It will also need to be able to withstand ninety several atmospheres, which will make it
> >> one very heavy baby, but it will need to be able to reach escape velocity in a very dense
> >> atmosphere.
>
> >> 2: Thermal insulation.
>
> >> For your bolt hole, I would suggest a tunnel, a hundred feet down in the bed rock, but
> >> for your diving suit, I know of no technology that would give protection, and allow
> >> reasonable mobility.
>
> >You're making more trouble and grief out of this than necessary. For
> >the moment, forget about waking around on that toasty surface, because
> >we'll obviously get to that later.
>
> Walking was the last thing that I had in mind.
>
> However, if you cannot move about on the surface, how are you to retrieve these trillions
> of dollars worth of treasures?
Rigid airships and otherwise mostly robotics. Surface habitats would
come come later, although significant structures seem to exist as is
(hope they're mostly unoccupied).
>
> >> >What is your expertise?
>
> >> I'm an engineer.
>
> >Then we engineer, rather than procrastinate, exaggerate the negatives
> >and otherwise whine a lot. Start thinking like an Einstein, and just
> >make things happen in spite of what others are thinking.
>
> >What expertise have you of alloy and composite rigid airships? (we got
> ><82 kg/m3 buoyancy and only 90.5% gravity to work with)
>
> What exactly do you mean by "composite"?
> Which alloys, and which composites, did you have in mind?
Either any number suitable metal alloys and/or a composite of basalt
fibers and milliballoons using a thermally suitable binder.
>
> Farther: Assuming that you could build it, what would you do with it?
Unlike yourself, I'd use logic along with my imagination, and
otherwise stick within the laws of physics. You seem clearly unaware
of the payload hauling capacity of such a rigid airship.
~ BG
BradGuth
I could use your engineering expertise, but this is not where we
should be sharing and bouncing information and ideas back and forth.
How about I start a new topic, just focused on the task of
accomplishing the planet Venus? I'll even post this topic in a
newsgroup that has low public activity, such as "alt.planets.venus".
~ BG
BradGuth
The protective atmosphere of Venus is by itself worth billions per
year if planning on mining/extracting whatever, not to mention the
unlimited renewable energy that such an atmosphere along with the vast
geothermal energy resource at the surface represents a combined energy
cache that's worth trillions per year.
~ BG
Chris
in common in the Universe and intelligent life the most frequent type. They
think like us and some are altruistic like many human beings. And they
respect intellient life like us as we do. So most of you talk nonsense out
of ignorance of alien contact. They look different and have diferent skins
and number of limbs and have a different size and shaped brain but they are
like us really. For some aliens our mental ability is less that theirs by as
much as we are better than cats.
Earth like planets are common.
My whole family have brains ten times the normal size my doctor told me (she
cut some out of mum and made her an idiot). So we know what it like to be
alien. We are far to altruistic for our own good and fail because we
consider others too much and far less than others consider us. For example
if I sell something I try to give the vendor a good deal and so do my self
down- that is no good! We think we are human most of the time.
My brain was put in by my alien creator who then put himself in my brain so
I made myself. My cousins, brother and sister were given these big brains to
keep me company. My mother's brain was similarly upgraded. We are simple as
far as human relationships are concerned.
And we usually lose. Mainly because we care about our competitors.
And I will die soon and return to my star ship where I am already. My body
is fading away as my father said it would when I had lived here nineteen
years and thought I knew everything and now I realise I still know nothing.
Thou shalt not.... kill..... steal... covet.... lie.....
Stars come and stars go and we are still here surveying the galaxy in out
star ship out in space. We search for life intelligent for a conversation oh
so polite so they hit me with a steel bar for they did not understand what I
said. Chop Ya Brain Out! Chop! That will make you normal!
Chop.
--
Chris.
Remove ns_ to reply
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f6652f0-a783-44af...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
berk
I'm reentering this thread in the middle and find talk of Human
existence on the surface of Venus. (correct?)
- Humans stay in orbit.
- Tele-operated waldos operate on the surface, for what ever reason
other than exploration and discovery that humans would/will ever
actually go to Venus in the 1st place.
If it can be chalked up to "because it's there" then OK. But long term
outpost type stuff is ridiculous.
Berk
Chris.B
Why are we so consumed with exploration of the distant when our
understanding of the near (and deep) is so lacking? Don't our oceans
have mystery enough for our race of men? A more alien environment
would be hard to conceive. Yet it goes largely unexplored. Wasted and
polluted before we have even gained a real foothold below the surface.
The seas contain a far greater volume and area than dry land yet we
make little use of it for shelter or accommodation. We are hardly
conscious of the depths beyond out own highly valued shores. Who knows
who (or what) else might think the same? Given the transparency and
regular observation of our atmosphere where more fitting for an alien
race to hide than below the surface? :-)
BradGuth
On Venus there's unlimited local energy to burn, so to speak. Lucky
for yourself, you certainly don't have to do anything constructive or
otherwise positive with any of that energy or other local benefits,
whereas doing nothing would certainly suit the Zionist/Jewish mindset
and policy of obfuscation as enforced by their army of brown-nosed
clowns.
btw; Venus L2 is ideal for a POOF City kind of space depot/gateway/
oasis
~ BG
BradGuth
Much of our Eden/Earth has gotten past the point of no return. We
need to be looking elsewhere.
~ BG
Sjouke Burry
The russian probe even which extra isolation quit after a
short time.
BradGuth
???
Brad Guth posted the following:
> > You don't even have to be all that intelligent in order to survive on
> > the planet Venus, and you certainly wouldn't need the technology of
> > radio or space travel capability. It seems species/biodiversity
> > survival is simply far more important than what we call intelligence,
> > because it doesn't do any good being Einstein smart if your species is
> > dead.
>
> > However, if you have sufficient technology for accomplishing space
> > travel, Venus would certainly be an ideal planet to pillage, plunder
> > and rape for all she's worth.
>
> The protective atmosphere of Venus is by itself worth billions per
> year if planning on mining/extracting whatever, not to mention the
> unlimited renewable energy that such an atmosphere along with the vast
> geothermal energy resource at the surface represents a combined energy
> cache that's worth trillions per year.
Sometimes your replies are hard to follow, so I thought I'd return the
favor.
~ BG
Chris.B
> Much of our Eden/Earth has gotten past the point of no return. We
> need to be looking elsewhere.
>
> ~ BG
Far too many people. Too little of everything else with our
permanently broken sharing system.
Nature could largely repair itself, even within a few decades, if our
numbers were massively reduced.
Tarmac and concrete are no match for nature if left completely to its
own devices.
In the end a pandemic may save the earth... and the human race. (but
only for a while)
There is no other natural, negative feedback to the human curse of
aggression, selfishness and acquisitiveness.
Your plans for the rape of Venus are just a new level of empty
desperation.
Crying for the moon when you already have an obscene abundance of
everything. (and nothing)
BradGuth
So, you're really just in favor of sustaining the terrestrial
mainstream status quo, at all cost and without remorse for whatever
the consequences.
At least I have plans that could salvage what's left of Earth, and
open up other off-world potential. Whereas yourself has nothing
constructive/positive to offer, and you wouldn't dare get caught even
taking an honest look-see at the planet Venus, or that of utilizing
our moon, and therefore everything off-world becomes insurmountable.
Your "There is no other natural, negative feedback to the human curse
of aggression, selfishness and acquisitiveness" pretty much says it
all, doesn't it.
I on the other hand, if given sufficient authority, could fix most
everything (though not within my limited lifetime).
~ BG
Bill M
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
> Far too many people. Too little of everything else with our
> permanently broken sharing system.
"I hate living in Denmark."
> Nature could largely repair itself, even within a few decades, if our
> numbers were massively reduced.
"My wife used to be so slim."
> Tarmac and concrete are no match for nature if left completely to its
> own devices.
"The new BMW Z3 is very nice."
> In the end a pandemic may save the earth... and the human race. (but
> only for a while)
"I wish I could start over again."
> There is no other natural, negative feedback to the human curse of
> aggression, selfishness and acquisitiveness.
"I wish I didn't have to drive a Skoda."
> Your plans for the rape of Venus are just a new level of empty
> desperation.
"Your wife is very young and pretty."
> Crying for the moon when you already have an obscene abundance of
> everything. (and nothing)
"If I save for the next 20 years, I might be able to put a deposit on a BMW Z3."
;-)
--
Herbin' nice job!
Larry
ed0d1a...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> Much of our Eden/Earth has gotten past the point of no return. We
> need to be looking elsewhere.
>
>
The ruling elites are convinced they can buy their way out of our
destructive destiny by a Star Trek kind of escape to some other planet they
think they can dominate, and eventually destroy, like this one.
Nothing will be accomplished saving this planet, until the ruling elites
finally come to the realization that this dream of off-Earth luxury cannot
be attained before the Earth's resources have been depleted and/or they
discover space is simply too hostile to such fragile bodies as theirs to
survive even the trip, to say nothing of the new planet. Our dwindling
resources will continue to be wasted in vast quantities in such space
fantasies as NASA and the other countries' space bureaucracies the elites
control.
By then, it will probably be way too late, prompting them to panic and use
their weapons technologies on the masses to try to conserve, for themselves
and their necessary worker slaves, what resources are left, devastating
Earth's population by up to 90% or more in the ensuing genocide.
It's not a pretty picture and I don't believe, at this late date in the
plan, that the masses have the resources to stop it.
--
Larry
"SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE FROM PEOPLE!" - Movie or prophecy??
Larry
24c039...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
> In the end a pandemic may save the earth... and the human race. (but
> only for a while)
>
Once the ruling elites realize there is no escape from this planet, your
pandemic will be realized as they self-induce it upon the masses to lower
the numbers by a huge amount, eliminating the load on what's left and
reducing their opposition problems to zero.
I'm very lucky to be near the end of my life, reassured it will happen
after I'm dead. I'm 63. Every time I see a tiny child I wonder if he/she
will escape the axe.
--
Larry
Larry
57e181...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> At least I have plans that could salvage what's left of Earth, and
> open up other off-world potential.
We barely possess the resources to put a Shuttle just above the atmosphere
with any load you would need. So, tell us how you plan to take a mining
company to Venus and send back the product, knowing our limited delivery
potential. That first 200 miles up eats vast quantities of fuel to lift
anything heavy.....leaving us stranded on the edge of our atmosphere...only
temporarily until the drag pulls us back down. A mm above the surface of
the classroom globe is a thousand times further than our lift capabilities
for all but the lightest birds in orbit.
--
Larry
BradGuth
wrote:
Cold cathode vacuum tubes can easily survive 811 K with reserve
capability to survive 1000 K. Quartz melts at 1900 K.
Solid state transistors, mosfets and other circuitry on carbon/diamond
or just on quartz is also good to go as is.
Cooling or heat exchanging is also not an insurmountable problem.
~ BG
Chris.B
LOL. Except for the bit about the boring Beemer. It's a tart's/pimp's
handbag!
I want an electric car and I want it now! <stamps foot petulantly> :-)
Chris.B
>
> Once the ruling elites realize there is no escape from this planet, your
> pandemic will be realized as they self-induce it upon the masses to lower
> the numbers by a huge amount, eliminating the load on what's left and
> reducing their opposition problems to zero.
>
> I'm very lucky to be near the end of my life, reassured it will happen
> after I'm dead. I'm 63. Every time I see a tiny child I wonder if he/she
> will escape the axe.
>
the jobs on this planet are just pushing money around the system for
the elite. As such, those doing these jobs have no real purpose except
to act as intermediary, or idler, cogs. They will all die (or retire )
anyway so the elite will see them as merely disposable. For all the
good most people are doing on this planet they might as well not
exist. Consumerism isn't a reason for living. It is an excuse for not
doing something useful. You commute to "a place of work" where you do
nothing useful to earn enough to buy trinkets to decorate a dormitory
you never really own. You spend most of your time in residence fast
asleep or watching piped entertainment aimed squarely at the mentally
retarded. Your car is only a means of transport to get you to your
useless place of work but you invest all your empty ego and status in
its appearance. When it really is only a tool to fulfill your
employer's need for you to turn up on time to play let's pretend "the
work" has any real purpose. If your management decides greater profits
can be made for their rich shareholders, by outsourcing to China or
Eastern Europe, then your "vitally important work" becomes disposable
overnight. Along with you! Bye-by loser!
Now the system demands that you be stressed into seeking "paid work"
elsewhere. You didn't ask to be sacked despite your 25 years of loyal
service to "Your Workplace". Don't expect respect or sympathy from
some jumped-up little Hitler who has been programmed to make your life
abject misery unless you get new "work" when there is absolutely none
to be found. The elite can't have you sponging off the system even if
you have dutifully paid your taxes for decades and contributed to your
pension fund. If you were seen to be enjoying unemployment in
reasonable comfort then all the other useless cogs in the money
circulating system would begin to question why they are taking shit
from some other jumped-up little Hitler in their own "Workplace". If
the system collapses then anarchy will follow. A war is a very good
way to undermine the rising unemployment figures. To get them all
signed up to go off and kill innocent civilians elsewhere. Rather than
becoming angry young men at home. They might turn to crime! Which is
normally a very good business to keep lots of otherwise useless
members of society employed in doing nothing worthwhile but fighting
the inevitable and the totally overwhelming on a deliberately limited
budget.
Without a job you can't buy an already rusting, new car. Or fill your
home with the "essential" detritus to replace the crap which is
deliberately designed not to last too long. Public transport has been
run down as much as the elite will dare to ensure everybody needs a
car to get around to the deliberately placed out-of-town shopping
malls and far flung industrial estates. Pensioners are only starved of
funds to ensure they don't enjoy life too much and give the idler cogs
ideas about joining them in their apparent freedom during daylight
hours.
The system rules are endless and they are all designed to ensure
compliance with the great plan: Keep everybody busy doing something
completely useless during daylight hours. So they are tired enough to
put up with mass-produced entertainment while not physically "at
work". Why else would cheaper products be crap unless it was
deliberately intended to keep the lower paid at the grindstone? Only
ever earning enough to replace their essential crap at ever-shorter
intervals. Only to expire early, themselves, through long decades of
stress, poor health care and overwork?
The wonder of the system is that it is largely self-regulating by
those who actually participate in it. The elite only have to lie back
and enjoy the proceeds. The SS, the Gestapo, the secret police, the
police, the prison service, the judges and the social security workers
are all programmed to ensure compliance with the central directive.
And all, totally regardless of the political system in power locally.
So next time you are feeling important, essential and irreplaceable
"at work" don't look down on those lower in "the system". Or those who
have fallen right out of the bottom through no fault of their own.
Tomorrow could be the very first day of your real life. Then see how
well the "work skills" you have acquired serve you in survival of the
fittest. If you do find your CV lacking then you had better have
something else to barter with! Are you feeling lucky, punks? ;-)
BradGuth
If their favorite Zionist Nazi Hitler was still alive, he'd be smiling
from ear to ear, as in pleased as punch at how things turned out.
The system we have clearly feeds on itself.
~ BG
BradGuth
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in news:7f43c462-a661-4473-b782-
> ed0d1a93f...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Much of our Eden/Earth has gotten past the point of no return. We
> > need to be looking elsewhere.
>
> The ruling elites are convinced they can buy their way out of our
> destructive destiny by a Star Trek kind of escape to some other planet they
> think they can dominate, and eventually destroy, like this one.
Correct, but only as long as we (their village idiots) get pay for
everything they need.
>
> Nothing will be accomplished saving this planet, until the ruling elites
> finally come to the realization that this dream of off-Earth luxury cannot
> be attained before the Earth's resources have been depleted and/or they
> discover space is simply too hostile to such fragile bodies as theirs to
> survive even the trip, to say nothing of the new planet. Our dwindling
> resources will continue to be wasted in vast quantities in such space
> fantasies as NASA and the other countries' space bureaucracies the elites
> control.
Correct again. Before we even accomplish our moon or the planet
Venus, we'll need to fix or at least revise a number of terrestrial
issues that mostly pertain as to trimming the demands imposed by the
rich and powerful, that seem to take the vast bulk of our resources,
talents and personal services.
>
> By then, it will probably be way too late, prompting them to panic and use
> their weapons technologies on the masses to try to conserve, for themselves
> and their necessary worker slaves, what resources are left, devastating
> Earth's population by up to 90% or more in the ensuing genocide.
>
> It's not a pretty picture and I don't believe, at this late date in the
> plan, that the masses have the resources to stop it.
>
> --
> Larry
>
> "SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE FROM PEOPLE!" - Movie or prophecy??
Perhaps Soylent Green doesn't taste so bad, and we should just stop
our whining.
~ BG
Chris.B
> > "SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE FROM PEOPLE!" - Movie or prophecy??
>
> Perhaps Soylent Green doesn't taste so bad?
>
> ~ BG
Perhaps not, but it deserves to be well hung and needs a rich
Creutzfeldt-Jacob sauce to bring out the distinct flavour. ;-)
Larry
739dea...@q35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> The elite only have to lie back
> and enjoy the proceeds.
Well said. The next mass extinction will be self-induced if nature won't
cooperate.
--
Larry
Larry
843cb8...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Perhaps Soylent Green doesn't taste so bad,
Tastes just like chicken.....yecch.
--
Larry
Sam Wormley
It's already in progress, large animals, and eco systems allover the world.
By any definition of mass extinction, it is happening.
Sam Wormley
Right here, right now.
BradGuth
> Larry wrote:
> > "Chris.B" <chri...@nypost.dk> wrote in news:eb3c1342-511e-4c5c-8818-
> > 739dea47a...@q35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> The elite only have to lie back
> >> and enjoy the proceeds.
>
> > Well said. The next mass extinction will be self-induced if nature won't
> > cooperate.
>
> It's already in progress, large animals, and eco systems allover the world.
> By any definition of mass extinction, it is happening.
We've lost perhaps a thousand significant species within just the last
century, we've deforested and left to erode more than a third of the
old growth of what our planet had to start with, and otherwise having
pillaged and raped most of the best soils that now have to be
artificially fed most of their essential minerals and even diatoms
because they are on their way out (including ocean, lake and river
diatoms are at an all time low). Thanks to the Bacardi mafia/cabal,
most of Florida soil and their underlying aquifers have been either
sucked dry and/or having been salted to the point of no return,
because now next to nothing grows without artificial assistance and
commercially osmosis filtered seawater that's simply too energy
consuming and thus too spendy.
~ BG
BradGuth
How about Cajun cooked human body parts, with a thick barbecue sauce?
Supposedly Zionist/Jews don't eat pork, but there's nothing in their
Old Testament against eating humans, including those of their own
kind.
~ BG
Puck Greenman
>On Sep 2, 1:15�am, Puck Greenman <dubh.gh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:04:36 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 1, 1:16�pm, Puck Greenman <dubh.gh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 06:32:13 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Sep 1, 5:40�am, Puck Greenman <dubh.gh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> snip
>> >> >There's even plans on hold by an obscure group within NASA (meaning
>> >> >public funded) that already has most everything figured out. �With
>> >> >their likely employment demise, of being asked to leave because of
>> >> >insufficient funding, there's a good chance these same folks could be
>> >> >obtained as consultants and engineers for either accomplishing their
>> >> >original mission ideas or those of mine.
>>
>> >> That assumes that cost, is not an issue.
>>
>> >The raw elements of Venus are worth trillions upon trillions.
>>
>> Perhaps, but for what it would cost, to get just one working mine on Venus, and ignoring
>> the cost of first finding your ore, you could mine the whole asteroid belt.
>
>I'm certain William Mook would agree with that. I do not.
>
>>
>> >> But let us go with that for now.
>>
>> >> Moving about safely in hostile �environments, requires two things, protection from the
>> >> environment, and a bolt hole.
>>
>> >> On the surface of Venus, your diving suit, if I can use the analogy, would probably be
>> >> some sort of vehicle, and your bolt hole, would be a biosphere, of some sort; yes?.
>>
>> >No. �Human DNA doesn't care about pressure. �Your physiology can
>> >adjust to pressure a whole lot better than it can adjust to vacuum.
>>
>> The DNA, may not, but the rest of the body does.
>
>Not really all that insurmountable, because it'll all equalize.
>
Bullshit!
The only way to work under that kind of pressure is saturation, or containment, as in a
submarine type vehicle.
Prolonged saturation is out.
A sustained pressure of as little as three or four atmospheres can, and does, have
disastrous effects on the metabolism.
For example, the bones soften,.
It happens to deep water divers, and it happens to navies, digging tunnels under rivers,
where increased air pressure is used to hold the water back.
Farther, saturation at that kind of pressure would mean that you needed enormous backup
pressure in your air tanks, in order to breath.
With a thousand psi in your tanks, your lungs would be crushed flat.
Thirteen hundred PSI might just allow you a few gasping breaths, then suffocation.
Don't take my word for it, go ask at your local diving school, about the pressure
requirements, and the damage that prolonged exposure to high pressure can do.
Or you could ask your Union rep, about the health risks of working under compression, if
you work in the construction trade,
>>
>> Six hundred feet is about the deepest that a free, saturation diver can reach, you are
>> talking a pressure of about five times that.
>
>Your lack of such knowledge and inability to constructively think
>deductively is noted.
Yeah, right.
> France offers a 1000 psi habitat cell, although
>others should exist.
>
Relevance?
>>
>> >> Both have �several requirements in common, but the two that first spring to mind, are
>>
>> >> 1: Hermetic seals, capable of withstanding the heat, the corrosive atmosphere, �and the
>> >> atmospheric pressure �(about 1260 > 1300 psi) .
>>
>> >> To give you an idea, 300 ft of water is about �10 bar, 140 > 150 psi
>>
>> >> For your bolt hole, you may be able to find something that, with the aid of extensive
>> >> insulation, and minimal exposure, will suffice for a while.
>>
>> >> Your vehicle, OTOH, will be somewhat more difficult, as all of it's external moving parts,
>> >> will need flexible protection.
>>
>> >> Then there is your landing craft.
>>
>> >> It will need seals which will function, both in the intense cold of outer space and in the
>> >> lead melting heat of Venus surface.
>>
>> >> It will also need to be able to withstand ninety several atmospheres, which will make it
>> >> one very heavy baby, but it will need to be able to reach escape velocity in a very dense
>> >> atmosphere.
>>
>> >> 2: Thermal insulation.
>>
>> >> For your bolt hole, I would suggest a tunnel, a hundred feet �down in the bed rock, but
>> >> for your diving suit, I know of no technology �that would give protection, and allow
>> >> reasonable mobility.
>>
>> >You're making more trouble and grief out of this than necessary. �For
>> >the moment, forget about waking around on that toasty surface, because
>> >we'll obviously get to that later.
>>
>> Walking was the last thing that I had in mind.
>>
>> However, if you cannot move about on the surface, how are you to retrieve these trillions
>> of dollars worth of treasures?
>
>Rigid airships
What makes you think that rigid airships would be any easier to construct for that
environment than for our own?
Besides, you cannot get a balloon into orbit, especial with a 300Km jet stream to
negotiate, so you still need landers
> and otherwise mostly robotics.
And where would these robots get their power?
You can't use solar energy, and we cannot build atomic reactors small enough to be of any
use.
Wind energy is probably out too, as the highest recorded wind speed on the surface is
barely a force three, less than 8mph.
> Surface habitats would
>come come later, although significant structures seem to exist as is
>(hope they're mostly unoccupied).
>
What? On the surface of Venus?
I think that you get too much of your information, from comics.
>>
>> >> >What is your expertise?
>>
>> >> I'm an engineer.
>>
>> >Then we engineer, rather than procrastinate, exaggerate the negatives
>> >and otherwise whine a lot.
But you don't engineer, you fantasise.
>> >�Start thinking like an Einstein, and just
>> >make things happen in spite of what others are thinking.
Just like that huh?
>>
>> >What expertise have you of alloy and composite rigid airships? (we got
>> ><82 kg/m3 buoyancy and only 90.5% gravity to work with)
>>
>> What exactly do you mean by "composite"?
>> Which alloys, and which composites, did you have in mind?
>
>Either any number suitable metal alloys
For example?
> and/or a composite of basalt
>fibers and milliballoons
Milliballoons, Mm, that is a new one on me.
I assume that you are referring to some sort of bubbles filled with a light gas.
>using a thermally suitable binder.
For example?
>
>>
>> Farther: Assuming that you could build it, what would you do with it?
>
>Unlike yourself, I'd use logic along with my imagination, and
>otherwise stick within the laws of physics.
So you don't actually know; Okay.
> You seem clearly unaware
>of the payload hauling capacity of such a rigid airship.
>
I am very well aware of the capabilities of dirigibles.
I am also very well aware of the limitations, and one of the limitations is that they are
notoriously slow and unwieldy, even in the best of conditions.
Remote control, does nothing to help that lack of maneuverability .
Another is that no airship, will ever make orbit which still leaves you with the problem
of getting your treasures, back home.
BradGuth
Your personal rage and perpetual negativity are noted. Good thing you
weren't Einstein, or any other great thinker, because we'd still be
living in caves and preying to various Gods that suit the Puck
Greenman mindset.
Prove me wrong, by giving us an example of something/anything that
you've accomplished that others said couldn't be done.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
"Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6jhab55tej0hsfqrb...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:08:06 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bullshit!
>
> The only way to work under that kind of pressure is saturation, or containment, as in a
> submarine type vehicle.
>
> Prolonged saturation is out.
<snip>
Maximum record depth is 2000 feet in an "ADS" suit.
Maximum recorded depth with SCUBA is 1083 feet.
ADS suits are practical (on Earth), SCUBA is not.
However, nothing will work on Venus. The ADS suit is
rugged but is not designed for chemical or heat resistance.
The denaturing of the proteins in the human body is an extreme
risk. There is no practical way to support the suit (currently
operates like a tethered submersible).
SCUBA will be fatal instantly.
In fact, anything sent there dies. Machine or biological.
The subject is a stupid "what if", anyway. Sort of like the crap you
would hear from a 6 year old.
Puck Greenman
>> >> Farther: Assuming that you could build it, what would you do with it?
>>
>> >Unlike yourself, I'd use logic along with my imagination, and
>> >otherwise stick within the laws of physics.
>>
>> So you don't actually know; Okay.
No disagreement?
>>
>> > You seem clearly unaware
>> >of the payload hauling capacity of such a rigid airship.
>>
>> I am very well aware of the capabilities of dirigibles.
>>
>> I am also very well aware of the limitations, and one of the limitations is that they are
>> notoriously slow and unwieldy, even in the best of conditions.
>>
>> Remote control, does nothing to help that lack of maneuverability .
>>
>> Another is that no airship, will ever make orbit which still leaves you with the problem
>> of getting your treasures, back home.
>
>Your personal rage and perpetual negativity are noted.
So now, pointing out your ignorance, and lack of thought is accounted "personal rage and
perpetual negativity"; You sound like a typical fanatic, no evidence, but you want it to
be so, therefore it must be so.
> Good thing you
>weren't Einstein, or any other great thinker, because we'd still be
>living in caves and preying to various Gods that suit the Puck
>Greenman mindset.
>
As to personal rage, just ask your self; Who is it that is hurling the insults and ad
homonym attacks about?
But never mind that.
I take it from this latest little insult attack, that you haven't actually given any
thought to getting your "treasures", into orbit
>Prove me wrong, by giving us an example of something/anything that
>you've accomplished that others said couldn't be done.
Evasion.
Prove your self right, give us measurements and calculations, name the materials that you
would use, to solve each problem, and explain how you would use them.
Quit with the arm waving, the insults, and the vaguese, and give us details.
Explain how a dirigible is going to help you lift those ores, into orbit.
Are you planning on making it so big that you can land your transports, on it?
Are any labs working on this, are any accredited scientists researching it?
Has anyone that we can reference, done any serious research into the
possibility/viability.
Ask NASA, or JPL, or someone who is liable to have some clue, what it would cost to lift a
thousand tonne payload, into orbit, and bring it back down again at a selected site.
You are going to have to be doing ten or a hundred times this, on a daily basis.
Another point that you seem to have missed, is the return on investment, angle.
People who invest their money, do not expect to wait centuries, to see a return on their
investment, and that applies to the big corporations as well.
Do a little research of your own, find out how much of each raw material, Earth's industry
consumes every day, and what it costs.
In order to make your project pay, you must be able to match that quantity, and do it at a
serious saving to industry.
To fund such a project, would probably take Earth's GDI, for the next century, or more.
Telling us what a thing is worth, without telling us what it will cost to get it, is
pointless.
Consider a thousand tonnes of unrefined gold bearing rock, assaying at... what... 1%; yes?
That is ten tonnes of gold.
Will the refined metal be valuable enough to absorb the costs of mining, transporting and
refining, and still show you a profit?
...Always assuming that they would allow you to import that much gold on a regular basis?
Now you might call all this, "negativity", but, as I said, I am an engineer, and I know
from experience, my own and others, that without that "negativity", no safe structure
would or could be built, be it a mud hut by the river, or a mining complex on Venus.
Puck Greenman
>
>
>"Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6jhab55tej0hsfqrb...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:08:06 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bullshit!
>>
>> The only way to work under that kind of pressure is saturation, or containment, as in a
>> submarine type vehicle.
>>
>> Prolonged saturation is out.
>
><snip>
>
>Maximum record depth is 2000 feet in an "ADS" suit.
>
>Maximum recorded depth with SCUBA is 1083 feet.
>
>ADS suits are practical (on Earth), SCUBA is not.
>
>However, nothing will work on Venus. The ADS suit is
>rugged but is not designed for chemical or heat resistance.
>The denaturing of the proteins in the human body is an extreme
>risk. There is no practical way to support the suit (currently
>operates like a tethered submersible).
>
>SCUBA will be fatal instantly.
>
>In fact, anything sent there dies. Machine or biological.
Quite so.
He can't seem to understand the simplest concepts, like, a bottle, compressed to 1300
psi, on the surface of Venus, is an empty bottle, as far as breathing from it is
concerned.
He has got dirigibles on the brain, and sees them, and some undefined, or at best, ill
defined, "composites", as the answer to everything.
>
>The subject is a stupid "what if", anyway. Sort of like the crap you
>would hear from a 6 year old.
>
True enough, although I have known such "what if" debates, to actually come up with
workable solutions, on occasion.
BradGuth, OTOH, isn't interested in actually working out "How to", he leaves that in the
hands of that great mysterious, "They", and sees all references to the difficulties that
need to be addressed, as negativity.
One can only assume that from his POV, only morons worry about practicalities.
BradGuth
> "Puck Greenman" <dubh_gh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6jhab55tej0hsfqrb...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:08:06 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bullshit!
>
> > The only way to work under that kind of pressure is saturation, or containment, as in a
> > submarine type vehicle.
>
> > Prolonged saturation is out.
>
> <snip>
>
> Maximum record depth is 2000 feet in an "ADS" suit.
>
> Maximum recorded depth with SCUBA is 1083 feet.
>
> ADS suits are practical (on Earth), SCUBA is not.
>
> However, nothing will work on Venus. The ADS suit is
> rugged but is not designed for chemical or heat resistance.
> The denaturing of the proteins in the human body is an extreme
> risk. There is no practical way to support the suit (currently
> operates like a tethered submersible).
>
> SCUBA will be fatal instantly.
>
> In fact, anything sent there dies. Machine or biological.
>
> The subject is a stupid "what if", anyway. Sort of like the crap you
> would hear from a 6 year old.
Your inability to think inside or outside the box is noted.
Obviously you haven't bothered to read any of the previous information
and links posted as of years ago.
99% H2 and 1% O2 is actually oxygen rich under those pressure
conditions.
DNA simply doesn't implode under those pressure conditions.
Gradual pressurization (say over 100 days) and somewhat minor
physiological modifications would be required, including an Ove-Glove
composite suit and heat exchanging would be required.
~ BG
BradGuth
I've done this before, and consistently met with exactly your kind of
soft/stealth rage and otherwise the usual systematic gauntlet of
obfuscation and denial most every time. What's in it for me (other
than continued grief and astonishment at your profound level of
dumbfounded mindset) if I go through all the trouble for the hundredth
time?
>
> Quit with the arm waving, the insults, and the vaguese, and give us details.
Details:
1) Unlike yourself (mainstream arms flying every which way), I don't
happen to know everything there is to know.
2) All the energy and raw elements necessary for technology and
humans surviving on Venus, form the most part already exist on Venus.
3) We have sufficient technology as is to accommodate our scientific
gathering and surface exploring via robotics.
4) The composite rigid airship notion is also a technology that's
within existing spec of what we can accomplish.
5) ... 99) ...
>
> Explain how a dirigible is going to help you lift those ores, into orbit.
> Are you planning on making it so big that you can land your transports, on it?
At first those composite rigid airships would be intended for small
payloads of observation technology, gathering data via remote science,
cruising rather efficiently from an altitude below the lower cloud
haze (say 20~25 km)
A fully manned rigid airship could be made as large and robust as need
be, hauling nearly unlimited crew and payload tonnage, perhaps
including a shuttle for their exiting away from Venus. This composite
airship w/payload should be capable of reaching 75<100 km. Otherwise
a conventional fly-by-rocket (TSTO) method of leaving the surface and
exiting away from Venus shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, except
for those of us stuck forever in perpetual naysay and denial.
>
> Are any labs working on this, are any accredited scientists researching it?
Only in the most top secret (aka need-to-know), because the public is
not supposed to realize about what's already existing/coexisting on
Venus, and folks like yourself are otherwise deathly afraid to look
and deductively think for yourselves.
>
> Has anyone that we can reference, done any serious research into the
> possibility/viability.
Why of course, our NASA and most likely part of our DARPA have, and
I've even posted such information and direct links multiple times.
There's even a few private/civilian insiders with Venus exploration
intentions, along with their own ideas as to the methods they intended
to utilize, so apparently I'm not the one and only crazy village
idiot, as many of you have suggested.
>
> Ask NASA, or JPL, or someone who is liable to have some clue, what it would
> cost to lift a thousand tonne payload, into orbit, and bring it back down again at
> a selected site.
NASA or JPL are each forbidden to say anything, much less contribute
public funded resources. Besides, due to their very own incompetence
and internal corruption they've been bankrupted (secretly borrowing
from future budgets) for more than the past decade.
>
> You are going to have to be doing ten or a hundred times this, on a daily basis.
Why would naysay morons like yourself bother with bulk ore(s), when
highly refined and/or finished products can be exported?
>
> Another point that you seem to have missed, is the return on investment, angle.
I expect eventually seeing a return on public and private investment
in the realm of trillions per year. How's that?
What's another nearby world that's nearly the size of Earth and has
everything of raw mineral and valuable elements (extensively more so
than Eden/Earth), including all the necessary local energy for
accomplishing everything, worth these days?
Are you suggesting that the planet Venus is worthless? (it sounds
exactly like you are, and if so I’ll gladly claim the entire worthless
planet of Venus as mine.)
>
> People who invest their money, do not expect to wait centuries, to see a return on
> their investment, and that applies to the big corporations as well.
That's their loss, because the future is still going to happen no
matters how negative and obstructive the current generation tries to
make it their devout naysay and obfuscation policy.
>
> Do a little research of your own, find out how much of each raw material, Earth's
> industry consumes every day, and what it costs.
>
> In order to make your project pay, you must be able to match that quantity, and do
> it at a serious saving to industry.
>
> To fund such a project, would probably take Earth's GDI, for the next century,
> or more.
Good freaking grief, you do realize that Venus every 19 months is only
a little more than a hundred times as far away as our moon, don't you?
(that's seriously damn close, and to think if Venus wasn't already
recorded as a planet, it would have to be recorded as another NEO)
>
> Telling us what a thing is worth, without telling us what it will cost to get it, is
> pointless.
Anything that's not your idea to begin with is obviously "pointless",
not to mention anything that represents any possible threat to your
precious terrestrial mainstream status quo. You obviously do know
about our William Mook (aka wizard of Oz) don't you, because you seems
to be reacting exactly like a Mook clone.
>
> Consider a thousand tonnes of unrefined gold bearing rock, assaying at...
> what... 1%; yes?
>
> That is ten tonnes of gold.
>
> Will the refined metal be valuable enough to absorb the costs of mining,
> transporting and refining, and still show you a profit?
>
> ...Always assuming that they would allow you to import that much gold on a
> regular basis?
First of all, not that a toasty planet like Venus shouldn't have soft
and easily melted elements like gold nearly flowing out of its
geothermally heated hot rocks, and as much as humans like yourself
need to wear and show off their gold, it's kind of a worthless raw
element compared to dozens of other extremely valuable raw elements
that are either nearly exhausted or in extremely short supply and/or
too spendy to obtain as is.
>
> Now you might call all this, "negativity", but, as I said, I am an engineer, and I know
> from experience, my own and others, that without that "negativity", no safe structure
> would or could be built, be it a mud hut by the river, or a mining complex on Venus.
Your insurmountable negativity and naysayism is noted, as is your
pretend-engineering.
Just a little curious as to what projects have your name associated
with their engineering?
This was an incomplete reply to your many dumbfounded questions, but
then you're an incomplete kind of dumbfounded mindset that's forever
stuck in naysay, denial and/or obfuscation mode anyway. If need be
I'll further edit and resubmit this reply, so that its more LeapFrog
and otherwise PopUp suitable to those of your underdeveloped
intelligence.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:11:37 -0500, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>
> >"Puck Greenman" <dubh_gh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:6jhab55tej0hsfqrb...@4ax.com...
I've delivered more of those viable "How to" and deductive logic
reasoning than all the rest of you silly brown-nosed clowns combined.
Although I seem to have the upper advantage of my not having
mainstream tunnel vision or the insurmountable naysayism and denial
mindset that you folks have to always contend with, covering your
public funded butts before anything else matters.
btw; where's your great contributions to discovery and science, or in
your case of great engineering? (a masters degree in puppet or parrot
doesn't count)
At least my Venus mission and constructively objective focused think-
tank isn't going to be made up of such profound naysayers and
dumbfounded clowns of such perpetual denial and obfuscation as
yourself.
~ BG
Morten Reistad
Nightcrawler <Dirty...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The only way to work under that kind of pressure is saturation, or containment, as in a
>> submarine type vehicle.
>>
>> Prolonged saturation is out.
>
><snip>
>
>Maximum record depth is 2000 feet in an "ADS" suit.
They have been deeper, but the suit depends on steel with
copper o-rings.
>Maximum recorded depth with SCUBA is 1083 feet.
for a bottom time of around 10 minutes.
>ADS suits are practical (on Earth), SCUBA is not.
The deepest saturation dive done was a simulated one to
almost 2000 ft, 600 meters. It was not repeated because
of staggering cost. 2 months of decompression.
>However, nothing will work on Venus. The ADS suit is
>rugged but is not designed for chemical or heat resistance.
>The denaturing of the proteins in the human body is an extreme
>risk. There is no practical way to support the suit (currently
>operates like a tethered submersible).
>
>SCUBA will be fatal instantly.
Now that there are occupational hazard rules for saturation
diving we can use those as a reference. Maximum tolerance for
permanent habitat pressures is 10 atm, with brief excursions
to 18 atm. (90, 170 meters). Max partial pressure for oxygen
is 0.4, max partial pressure for Nitrogen and Argon combined
is 3.2, 2.0 when performing work. So, the remaining 7.5
athmospheres is Helium. Which has a whoe ballpark of problems.
We only have three materials we have knowledge of for such
high pressure use. Steel, Aluminium 6xxx series and kevlar
epoxies. All of these corrode within seconds on Venus.
>In fact, anything sent there dies. Machine or biological.
>
>The subject is a stupid "what if", anyway. Sort of like the crap you
>would hear from a 6 year old.
Indeed. The closest to realism observer craft would be
a dirigible, not exposed to 90 bar, but only to 3-4.
But it would be "plankton", unmanouverable for all
practical purposes. But it could tell us a lot about
Venus by remote sensing.
-- mrr