There are real problems I have with the computer simulation model;
#1) is it's cop-out, basically creating a new deity "there is a creator because I can't explain everything"
#2) it relies on the non existent perfect universe paradox, basically people have confused cause and effect, we evolved to suit the conditions of our world, and had things been different either we would be different or we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
#3) it just doesn't pass the Occams Razor smell test for me, are we observing reality or is the world the elaborate design of some geek in his moms basement?
#4) Why is the universe so big, they could have put the event horizon much much closer, maybe universe needs to be this big, you need to get to 3 generation stars before life is possible, But it seams like the creator of a universe could make it smaller if the point was to simulate us.
#5) Where are the Aliens, If the point of simulating the universe is physics the detail of life seams like a waste of resources making us a paradox. If the purpose is to study life than there should be life at every opportunity, just for efficiency sake. It should be very easy to find other examples of life.
I never really thought of the simulation model as being one that referenced the universe as being "for us". Like, if this was the case, the intention was to create a simulated universe and observe it, not to create human beings eventually.
NASA scientists needed to reorient the 40-year-old Voyager 1 -- the space agency's farthest spacecraft -- so its antenna would point toward Earth, 13 billion miles away. But the "attitude control thrusters," the first option to make the spacecraft turn in space, have been wearing out.
So NASA searched for a Plan B, eventually deciding to try using four "trajectory correction maneuver" (TCM) thrusters, located on the back side of Voyager 1. But those thrusters had not been used in 37 years. NASA wasn't sure they'd work.
Tuesday, engineers fired up the thrusters and waited eagerly to find out whether the plan was successful. They got their answer 19 hours and 35 minutes later, the time it took for the results to reach Earth: The set of four thrusters worked perfectly. The spacecraft turned and the mood at NASA shifted to jubilation.
Patients are born with a genetic defect that means they do not produce a protein needed to stop bleeding.
Thirteen patients given the gene therapy at Barts Health NHS Trust are now off treatment with 11 producing near-normal levels of the protein.
The Following User Says Thank You to calf For This Useful Post:
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...n-to-the-moon/
President Trump signed Space Policy Directive 1 (SPD1), an executive order that will shape NASAs priorities going forward. Essentially the directive states that NASA’s primary mission is human space exploration, with a specific goal of returning to the moon.
So walk before you run. It is likely hubris and folly to set our sights on Mars when the moon is much closer and more feasible.
what happens if they discover unnatural radio signals from it?
Gather the billionaires and send out an unmanned expedition immediately?
Quote:
blistering speed of 196,000 miles per hour - up to one-quarter mile (400 meters) long and highly-elongated perhaps 10 times as long as it is wide - the object passed mars's orbit around nov. 1 and will pass jupiter's orbit in may of 2018. It will travel beyond saturn's orbit in january 2019; as it leaves our solar system, 'oumuamua will head for the constellation pegasus.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...n-to-the-moon/
President Trump signed Space Policy Directive 1 (SPD1), an executive order that will shape NASAs priorities going forward. Essentially the directive states that NASA’s primary mission is human space exploration, with a specific goal of returning to the moon.
So walk before you run. It is likely hubris and folly to set our sights on Mars when the moon is much closer and more feasible.
I don't know if anyone else is watching the free preview of the Smithsonian channel, but they had a documentary on about the design team behind the first Lunar Lander. It was amazing to watch how they innovated around the weight problem.
I do think returning to the moon is essential, not from a waiving of the flag perspective. But to use it as a test run for deeper missions to Mars for example using more modern technologies.
At some point, there has to be a change in design and propulsion technologies.
I mean its estimated that a journey to Mars would take 300 days each way, so the day and age of the tiny capsule exploration would really need to end.
We'd have to look at things like building the transport in orbit. Food storage, long term water and and waste reclamation. The effects of a voyage like this on human psychology and physical conditions. Engine and speed and navigation and computer technologies.
Is it going to be a mission where we get there and land and only stay for a few days, or do we look at the travel time and decide to get them to stay for 6 months or more?
These are all things that we could practice on a moon landing.
Usually with something like the moon landing technology innovations take a large leap forward. I think we need another large leap and this could do it.
I also think that this would be an excellent opportunity to do something globally to split the costs and share the results and bring the world a bit closer together, and make a return to the moon and the mars exploration a global venture with America leading the way.
Anyways, I get excited about this stuff.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
The other issue with a Mars mission besides length of time etc is the radiation issue. The amount of radiation and how to shield a human passenger from it is a major issue. Or rather how to shield a human passenger AND keep the weight down so you can actually launch the craft.
The Following User Says Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
he first phase of observations is complete and, as expected, there is no evidence of artificial signals emanating from ‘Oumuamua. The observations took place on Wednesday, December 13 from 3:45pm ET to 9:45pm ET using the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia. The Breakthrough Listen team observed ‘Oumuamua across four radio bands, which span billions of individual channels from the 1GHz to 12GHz range.
As one of Breakthrough Listen’s biggest backers, Yuri Milner, put it, the equipment used to observe ‘Oumuamua can detect a signal the strength of a mobile phone coming from this object.
that can mean one or two things though.
1) Its a rock
2) The Alien Crew has gone radio silent and are about to Pearl Harbor the World. Kill the men, enslave the woman and marry our cats.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
The other issue with a Mars mission besides length of time etc is the radiation issue. The amount of radiation and how to shield a human passenger from it is a major issue. Or rather how to shield a human passenger AND keep the weight down so you can actually launch the craft.
Agreed.
Except, if you look at it from the perspective of realistically assembling a vehicle in space you get around a lot of weight and fuel issues.
One of the problems with the Lunar Lander's original design was it was too heavy compared to the weight that the launch vehicle could carry, so they stripped it down to the point that they used foil instead of panels and took the chairs out of the lander and made the astronauts stand.
If you assemble the craft in space, then your looking at launching components. However this is a far more complicated undertaking then assembling the ISS.
You're basically having to build a ship yard in space and training personal to build something in zero gravity.
In terms of the radiation, you are absolutely correct. But again if you go against the grain of having to launch your ship from orbit, you can shuttle the heavier materials up using multiple launches, instead of building something heavy and having to build an even heavier lift launch vehicle.
In terms of propulsion, by not having to escape heavy earth gravity you can carry less fuel or go to something exotic based around a nuclear technology to create thrust.
Just guessing here.
The question is also around the pollution aspect of launching 100's of carrgo rockets from the earth to deliver materials into orbit.
Like I said, I'm all for returning to the moon as long as its not using the same theories as the 60's and its designed around the idea of test running for a mars mission.
What if you could build one exploration vehicle that can be reused and refueled for additional trips. What if you decided to do an orbital mission to Venus, that's only 3 months, and you could insert an orbital manned platform or observatory, I mean we are never ever going to land there. But being able to study it close with our own eyes would be amazing.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
For those of you who are interested, the UFO community got big news today in regards to UFO disclosure:
The Pentagon disclosed to spending $22 million in "black money" from 2007-2012 on a UFO research program called Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program (AATIP).
The Department of Defense has also supplied the New York Times with a video of an unidentified flying object that they have concluded appears to outperform any known manmade aircraft in terms of both speed and maneuverability.
Multiple sources are reporting on this (the first being the New York Times), and there is some pretty interesting comments from eye witnesses in the military.
I'm not going to link to the entire list of sources, it can be found at this link on Reddit.
Below is a YouTube link of the released video, but you can also find the same video on multiple media sources, including the NYT.
Most of you think I'm nuts about UFO's anyways, but I believe this is a pretty big revelation from the U.S. Government, who normally doesn't go about releasing information like this.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Nah Ozy, I certainly don't think your nuts at all. It would be arrogant foolishness to believe that in a universe or even a galaxy such as ours that life doesn't exist elsewhere, and that it could possibly be far more advanced or older then our race.
I also believe that there's a possibility that we've been visited.
However, I am a skeptic at heart.
Even with the ability to track and listen to radio waves for example. By the time a "TV" broad cast left our planet and traveled to another civilization, that civilization, might have been born, evolved and died out. Its a pretty safe bet that there isn't advanced life in our "neighbourhood", so now we get into distance problems.
If I likened our universe to a bag full of marbles lets say the size of the North American continent. And then I released those marbles into a room the size of our solar system, the possibility of finding the one marble that I've painted with a green dot become the work on not life times, but mega generations. Math alone makes me believe that even if we were visited, it would have been a fluke visitation, and because of the vastness of the known galaxy or even the universe the chances of that happening are remote.
As well, life is unique. How do we even know that an intelligent life form would even recognize our radio transmissions as a sign of intelligence. And lets say that they arrive here, would they even recognize us as falling into their definition of life. For all they know, they might even see and sense in an entirely different way then us, so we might have had aliens show up here, and they wouldn't recognize us, and we might not be able to recognize them.
Beyond that, what would be the reason for multiple visits to our planet? If they're that advanced, would we even hold interest to them, or would we be like an ant farm, that they looked at for a while and then threw under their bed.
Would we be worth conquering for example, maybe the resources and metals are completely different from theirs. We talk about the requirement of water for life, but that's our definition of life, it might not be theirs so maybe they don't need water.
Like I said, I'm not discounting life out there, I'm discounting the commonality of life, and the size and scope of finding a advanced civilization, and then even if it is there, is it so far out of the realm of what we define as life that we might not even see it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
To be honest, I don't think entirely this is extraterrestrial. Reading up on this story and some of the information surrounding it - including the work done by Bigelow Aerospace, the apparent "metal alloys" found, and comments from top figures like Luiz Elizondo, U.S. Senator Harry Reid, Bob Rich, former Lockheed Martin CEO, and even some initial comments made by Bob Lazar back in late 1980's (yes, I know he's viewed very controversially), I think there is technology that exists that just hasn't been revealed to the public in an honest light - and they might be the first to say so themselves.
Personally I think this might be the first of a series of disclosure announcements that are coming, particularly related to high-speed travel as it relates to space exploration and seeing manned missions to the Moon and Mars, which the former has been identified by the Trump administration as a priority.
Is there a video of it flying away? Apparently it takes off at an incredible velocity at some point but the only video I see is the one posted here (i mean, it's still really cool).
Is there a video of it flying away? Apparently it takes off at an incredible velocity at some point but the only video I see is the one posted here (i mean, it's still really cool).
Read part 2 of the New York Times article. No video of the maneuverability, but apparently the account from the military is that it would hover at 80,000 feet, then drop to 20,000, then shoot right back up again at an incredible speed. I am not sure if this video is the same object, but if it is, there is nothing known to the public that could possibly do this.
Just to play Devils advocate a bit, $22 million is nothing. That's less than the cost of one peace bridge. I feel if the US had irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial vehicles, they would be spending hundreds of millions or billions of black money dollars on research. Spending funds on this type of research is something I would expect the government to be doing.
Doesn't mean there isn't money being spent in other programs, but $22 million seems like nothing especially compared to the overall defence budget.
Pretty cool stuff though, will be interesting to see how this develops.
Is there an reason why this has been disclosed? I read through the NYT article a bit and it looks like they "found" the $22 million program in the defence budget. Perhaps they asked the govt about this program after it was found and that is when the government confirmed? But why? What is the purpose of releasing this video and confirming they are spending the money on UFO research?
Last edited by worth; 12-18-2017 at 07:28 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to worth For This Useful Post:
