Wow! A rare and noble gesture on the internet on your part!
I hope you'll excuse my enthusiasm here but I have a passion for history.
I hope you'll excuse my enthusiasm here but I have a passion for history.
UFO 'filmed for 40 minutes' by Chinese scientists during eclipse
- Thread starter Bad Bishop
- Start date
K'riq, ultimately, no one can draw a straight line. Get a pen and paper and a ruler and try your best. Now look at the result under a microscope. At sufficient magnification, your supposedly straight line looks more like a USGS topology map of the Everglades.
I love the enthusiastic rantings of Ray Kurzweil who points out that technological progress is accelerating to an event he (and others) like to refer to as the Singularity ... a point beyond which it is impossible to foresee the outcome. He claims the Singularity will hit within twenty years and that beyond that point, intelligent machines, augmented humans, uploading of the mind, virtual immortality, and many other wondrous outcomes are but the tip of the iceberg as the combination of massive human intelligence improvements coupled with true artificial intelligence reduce the kind of progress that currently takes years down to hours and minutes. The definition of 'human' will almost certainly lose all meaning at that point, and it's quite likely the species will become extinct, although possibly without losing many individual people -- if you get my meaning, we all upgrade to something much greater than human.
Without getting into a discussion of whether Kurzweil's right (and sometimes he sure seems to be out there), if alien visitors are real (and that's another big 'if') perhaps this is the event they're waiting for?
Also, regarding 'farming', I doubt they'd be doing it for food. I think they're breeding a race of warriors. We're the true Klingons of this galaxy.
Beyond the fact that our own history is chock full of hang ups that potentially cost us centuries, if not millennia, of development, you are also forgetting that our sun does not belong to the first generation of stars in our universe.
Your supposition is based on the incorrect idea that our solar system has been around as long as the universe has. But the truth is stars and planets have had plenty of time to form, become enclaves for life, and subsequently get obliterated by a nova while our own solar system was still just a dust cloud. It also should be noted that our solar system is located in a relatively quiet section of the galaxy that is less prone to cosmic collisions and bursts of radiation (like the star systems located closer to the galactic core.)
No, my supposition is not based on the idea that our sun has been around since the early universe. My "supposition" is based on the fact that stars older than our sun tend to exhibit a lower metallicity than it does. In other words, they tend to have lower percentages of elements heavier than helium, and thus do their surroudings. So, any planets orbiting stars older than the sun will have fewer heavy elements that are necessary for life to emerge and evolve, and life as we know it will be less likely to be found there.
It is our isolation from galactic cataclysms that has made our emergence and longevity more likely, not less. Those cataclysms tend to result in mass extinctions that would prevent complex life forms from ever evolving in the first place, hence no us.
^^
It's an entirely moot point to argue. Another species might develop technology much faster or much slower based on innate abilities. We have NO was of estimating and to presume that all intelligent beings are likely to progress in a similar fashion at a similar pace is essentially fantasy-based speculation.
Further, the advances that make it possible to travel the stars (if it IS possible) may come in 100 years or 10 million years, depending on the complexity of accomplishing the goal. We've seen how our own civilization could have easily been another 1000 years or so advanced if only a handful of events had played differently so a culture otherwise IDENTICAL to our own could be studying us right now IF the solution (again, if there IS a solution) to traveling between star systems is possible within the next ten centuries.
If a species was able to progress twice as fast as us (say the have double our life spans--just for the hell of it) they could be half our age and about to pass us up right now. It's all vague speculation.
It's an entirely moot point to argue. Another species might develop technology much faster or much slower based on innate abilities. We have NO was of estimating and to presume that all intelligent beings are likely to progress in a similar fashion at a similar pace is essentially fantasy-based speculation.
Further, the advances that make it possible to travel the stars (if it IS possible) may come in 100 years or 10 million years, depending on the complexity of accomplishing the goal. We've seen how our own civilization could have easily been another 1000 years or so advanced if only a handful of events had played differently so a culture otherwise IDENTICAL to our own could be studying us right now IF the solution (again, if there IS a solution) to traveling between star systems is possible within the next ten centuries.
If a species was able to progress twice as fast as us (say the have double our life spans--just for the hell of it) they could be half our age and about to pass us up right now. It's all vague speculation.
To assume species would advance at similar rates is fantasy speculation? But, to assume that we could have been many centuries more advanced by now ISN'T??? No, we haven't SEEN anything, you've simply asserted it (that a handful of events slowed our progress, but some other species wouldn't have had this problem). You're arguing from your posterior.
How many years difference would it take to justify a suitably advanced culture, Hneftafl?
A thousand years? Ten thousand? I'd argue, given the accelerating trends in science and technology and information sharing that only 100 years would be sufficient to result in a culture radically more advanced than our own and likely capable of interstellar travel, even without violating provisions of Relativity, simply by virtue of drastically lengthened lifespans.
But in your case, I'll be very generous and go the other direction. Let's say it takes 100,000 years for a civilization to progress to the point where they possess nearly magical technology and routinely visit other stars. Assuming a ridiculously linear progression, this means they'd be as far beyond us as we are beyond paleolithic humanity. An arithmetically correct comparison even if it completely ignores the logarithmic rate at which knowledge and ability grows.
Thus, in 100,000 years, it's not unreasonable at all, I'm sure you'll agree, to expect that human civilization will be capable of genetically augmenting itself, granting individuals extended lifetimes possibly approaching immortality, creating sophisticated synthetic organisms, routine travel between the stars at less than light speed, creating artificial intelligences at least equal to natural human brains, possibly sharing consciousness with said artificial intelligences, and possibly even performing feats of super-science like faster-than-light travel, visiting parallel worlds, and maybe even a form of time travel or at least observation.
One hundred thousand years is a long time. And yet, that measures out to a mere 0.2% of the age of the planet Earth. That is swamped by the noise of biological setbacks caused by incidents like the Permian and Cretaceous-Tertiary extinctions.
Another Earth-like planet formed at the same time as our own, need only develop an advanced civilization 0.2% earlier than our own for that civilization to be (again, arithmetically) 100,000 years in advance of our own. And if I've been too generous to your cause and it only takes 10,000, 1,000, or even 100 years to get there ... the difference shrinks to 0.02%, 0.002%, or even 0.0002%
A thousand years? Ten thousand? I'd argue, given the accelerating trends in science and technology and information sharing that only 100 years would be sufficient to result in a culture radically more advanced than our own and likely capable of interstellar travel, even without violating provisions of Relativity, simply by virtue of drastically lengthened lifespans.
But in your case, I'll be very generous and go the other direction. Let's say it takes 100,000 years for a civilization to progress to the point where they possess nearly magical technology and routinely visit other stars. Assuming a ridiculously linear progression, this means they'd be as far beyond us as we are beyond paleolithic humanity. An arithmetically correct comparison even if it completely ignores the logarithmic rate at which knowledge and ability grows.
Thus, in 100,000 years, it's not unreasonable at all, I'm sure you'll agree, to expect that human civilization will be capable of genetically augmenting itself, granting individuals extended lifetimes possibly approaching immortality, creating sophisticated synthetic organisms, routine travel between the stars at less than light speed, creating artificial intelligences at least equal to natural human brains, possibly sharing consciousness with said artificial intelligences, and possibly even performing feats of super-science like faster-than-light travel, visiting parallel worlds, and maybe even a form of time travel or at least observation.
One hundred thousand years is a long time. And yet, that measures out to a mere 0.2% of the age of the planet Earth. That is swamped by the noise of biological setbacks caused by incidents like the Permian and Cretaceous-Tertiary extinctions.
Another Earth-like planet formed at the same time as our own, need only develop an advanced civilization 0.2% earlier than our own for that civilization to be (again, arithmetically) 100,000 years in advance of our own. And if I've been too generous to your cause and it only takes 10,000, 1,000, or even 100 years to get there ... the difference shrinks to 0.02%, 0.002%, or even 0.0002%
Last edited:
Re: Swamp gas 'filmed for 40 minutes' by Chinese scientists during ecl
Well if it is there for 40 frakking minutes they would have time to read the bluddy manual.
Well if it is there for 40 frakking minutes they would have time to read the bluddy manual.
Based on the long history of pilot accounts and such, I think there are almost certainly some kind of organic, possible "multi-phasic" creatures that exist in the atmosphere, which we don't have any science to describe at this point.
But where I sign off is the notion of all these "crashed UFO's". They made it across distances barely imaginable, with technology far far beyond us, and yet they crash in the desert? Not feasible, and its one point I never see come up. (On TV, anyway)How is it that such an advanced tech species has presumably crashed so many times here? Why would they leave bodies here? I know I'm preaching to the choir here.
I believe in subtle energy, I have witnessed too much of it to deny. And it is exciting to know that the Universe is not bound, and has never been bound, by current science. But they don't crash in Nevada. That makes no sense at all.
But where I sign off is the notion of all these "crashed UFO's". They made it across distances barely imaginable, with technology far far beyond us, and yet they crash in the desert? Not feasible, and its one point I never see come up. (On TV, anyway)How is it that such an advanced tech species has presumably crashed so many times here? Why would they leave bodies here? I know I'm preaching to the choir here.
I believe in subtle energy, I have witnessed too much of it to deny. And it is exciting to know that the Universe is not bound, and has never been bound, by current science. But they don't crash in Nevada. That makes no sense at all.
With all due respect, kind "Sir", it is YOU who has argued in turn:
1:
And then:
2:
So the inherent contradictions in your own statements would seem to suggest rather clearly that you simply enjoy arguing BOTH sides of an equation. If you allow me to speculate, perhaps you are overly enamored of the clatter of your own keyboard, but I don't really know your motives.
And, yeah, my statement that we would be more technologically advanced without certain setbacks in history IS totally speculation. I got NO PROBLEM at all if you want to call it that. None at all. It's totally open to debate.
And, yeah, another species MAY have had similar problems. Then again, they may NOT. See, that "not knowing" and having no way to estimate is EXACTLY what kinda paints it as--well, FANTASY SPECULATION.
"ZACH????!!" Indeed!
My statements were not contradictory, although perhaps you would like to think they were so you'd have something to argue against. As for my love of a clattering keyboard, your posts are typically much longer than mine.
My statements were not contradictory, although perhaps you would like to think they were so you'd have something to argue against. As for my love of a clattering keyboard, your posts are typically much longer than mine.
Your statements are DIRECTLY contradictory. In the first you say:
Your implication clearly intending to suggest that the pace of OUR OWN DEVELOPMENT should be considered as a valid and relevant metric for estimating the likely pace of another civilization.
Thereafter, you NEGATE that premise when you state:
So, why SHOULD anyone think something similar must have happened sooner or quickly anywhere else in the cosmos?
Oh, I dunno . . maybe because "Technological advance is NOT NECESSARILY LINEAR".
Wow, are you even paying attention to what you are saying?
My statements were not contradictory, although perhaps you would like to think they were so you'd have something to argue against. As for my love of a clattering keyboard, your posts are typically much longer than mine.
Your statements are DIRECTLY contradictory. In the first you say:
Your implication clearly intending to suggest that the pace of OUR OWN DEVELOPMENT should be considered as a valid and relevant metric for estimating the likely pace of another civilization.
Thereafter, you NEGATE that premise when you state:
So, why SHOULD anyone think something similar must have happened sooner or quickly anywhere else in the cosmos?
Oh, I dunno . . maybe because "Technological advance is NOT NECESSARILY LINEAR".
Wow, are you even paying attention to what you are saying?
Yes, I am. You, however, only seem to be paying attention to what YOU are saying, while disregarding anything else. When I said technological advance is not necessarily linear, I meant that we won't necessarily be x number of years advanced beyond our current level of technology after x number of years have passed. You are taking what I said to mean the inverse of what I meant when I said it.
^^
Sorry, Waldo. I did not "take" what you said to mean the inverse of what you meant. Not at all. What you SAID was the inverse of what you earlier stated. It's not ambiguous nor did I deconstruct your arguments to misconstrue meaning.
You stated the position that the pace of our development should be a valid consideration as a metric for estimating the pace of development of other possible civilizations to make one point and THEN you argued the pace of technological development is "non-linear" to try to justify another point.
You're just arguing for the sake of arguing and advocating positions to suit the occasion without any larger consistency. You don't have any real motives here other than rank contrariness. You're arguing to be arguing and changing your position simply to stand in opposition to whatever statement or opinion is being offered even if your most recent statement is in direct conflict with one of your earlier positions. You're a little trouble-maker, that's all.
Sorry, Waldo. I did not "take" what you said to mean the inverse of what you meant. Not at all. What you SAID was the inverse of what you earlier stated. It's not ambiguous nor did I deconstruct your arguments to misconstrue meaning.
You stated the position that the pace of our development should be a valid consideration as a metric for estimating the pace of development of other possible civilizations to make one point and THEN you argued the pace of technological development is "non-linear" to try to justify another point.
You're just arguing for the sake of arguing and advocating positions to suit the occasion without any larger consistency. You don't have any real motives here other than rank contrariness. You're arguing to be arguing and changing your position simply to stand in opposition to whatever statement or opinion is being offered even if your most recent statement is in direct conflict with one of your earlier positions. You're a little trouble-maker, that's all.
Beyond the fact that our own history is chock full of hang ups that potentially cost us centuries, if not millennia, of development, you are also forgetting that our sun does not belong to the first generation of stars in our universe.
Your supposition is based on the incorrect idea that our solar system has been around as long as the universe has. But the truth is stars and planets have had plenty of time to form, become enclaves for life, and subsequently get obliterated by a nova while our own solar system was still just a dust cloud. It also should be noted that our solar system is located in a relatively quiet section of the galaxy that is less prone to cosmic collisions and bursts of radiation (like the star systems located closer to the galactic core.)
No, my supposition is not based on the idea that our sun has been around since the early universe. My "supposition" is based on the fact that stars older than our sun tend to exhibit a lower metallicity than it does. In other words, they tend to have lower percentages of elements heavier than helium, and thus do their surroudings. So, any planets orbiting stars older than the sun will have fewer heavy elements that are necessary for life to emerge and evolve, and life as we know it will be less likely to be found there.
"Less likely" doesn't mean "didn't." And I apologize for my misunderstanding. I must have misread your implication when you emphasized that it took as long as it did for life on Earth to form in relation to the age of the universe.
Unfortunately, I'll have to yield to that argument. I can only assure you that my statements weren't based on some grossly incomplete understanding on the conditions of the galactic core, but were actually based on a new paper I had read not too long ago about the subject written by a group of evolutionary scientists. Unfortunately, right now I'm unable to find the paper again amidst all the google-crap.
