Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Earth 2.0? (Read 20058 times)

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #50 –
The man liked time, did he? Cf. "The Men Who Murdered Mohammed". :P

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #51 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

Quote from: ensbb3 on
I have faith there is life out there. Nothing you can say will change that.

That I accept.
No pseudo science. Sorry if I didn't understood.

Sometimes I also do...
What's deep inside human beings has to be true. We need company.


i assume that was an apriori , which that also an apriori .
on the other hand , appeal to belief is  logically fallacious.

thus..  empirical Evidences is needed .
so the Apriori becomes Aposteriori .

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #52 –
Empirical evidence is exactly where the problem is. We have no firm evidence of life on other planets-- at least so we're told (giving a nod to the Roswell camp). On the other hand--- we can't prove that there is no life on some other planet.

In order to do these things, we either have to get some sort of signal from outer space-- so far nothing intelligible has been detected-- or we actually have to go to the planet in question and look for ourselves.

Problem: At the present stage of technology, we can barely get men to Mars--- and then there's question about when or if those men we sent could get back to Earth. A planet in another solar system? Fergeddaboudit, Not gonna happen in our lifetimes.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #53 –
i think most people do it wrong .

rather than searching for intelligence lifeform .
why not search , unintelligence lifeform ?

Germs , microbes , etc .

well , the bad news is ..
i dont think they can make an electrical device to sending signals .

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #55 –
Quote from: Sparta on

i think most people do it wrong .

rather than searching for intelligence lifeform .
why not search , unintelligence lifeform ?

Germs , microbes , etc .

well , the bad news is ..
i dont think they can make an electrical device to sending signals .


Maybe, in this solar system, on planets and moons we can actually reach, we may be able to find something. We can send robots-- like we've already done on Mars-- and have our robot-pooch sniff around and see what he can dig up.

Once you get beyond our solar system-- forget it. Any planets we find that we think might support life-- we'll just have to guess about, and your guess is as good as anybody else's. There's no way to prove the existence or lack thereof of any kind of life-- intelligent or otherwise-- when you're talking distances of multiple thousands of lightyears.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #56 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
our robot-pooch sniff around and see what he can dig up.

That's fun and all, but literally one hour of human presence on Mars makes everything that NASA has done thus far obsolete. Aside from map the surface. It's time to take many samples and crack some rocks open... Do people stuff on that planet.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #57 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on
Do people stuff on that planet.
This is a wise description… Programming robots to do what people do naturally is deucedly hard!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #58 –
There's much more advanced technology available and being used in Earth than the Nasa's garbage they sent to space.
Those ridiculous robots and space rockets are shown to fool the public.

Every single day, literally thousands of people all over the world watch it around the skies.
Even yesterday a friend was showing me a couple of photographs he took from the same machine. Those are not "objects" those are man made machines able to break every single law of physics we've learned.
Wake up.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #59 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
man made machines able to break every single law of physics we've learned
O-kay… That explains a lot.
(Where's a Galactic Cop when you need one! :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #60 –
Be aware that there's a decided difference in the distance between Earth and its Moon, and the distance between Earth and Mars.

The distance between Earth and its Moon is relatively short and doesn't vary much. We can--- if we wish to do it again-- send manned missions to the Moon and expect a round-trip in a matter of days--- weeks at the most if they spend much time there.

The distance between Earth and Mars is considerably greater, and varies by a huge margin. There's only a narrow window when a manned mission may launch from Earth and expect--- reasonably-- to get to Mars. Then, the planets get out of alignment for quite some time and it may be several months-- if not more than a year-- before the return trip can be made. If it can be made. The possibility has to be accepted that a manned trip to Mars could very well be a one-way trip.

Of course, if you've had a hankering to get away from it all a Mars mission could be your chance. Just don't get homesick--- if you do, you're bollixed.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #61 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
The possibility has to be accepted that a manned trip to Mars could very well be a one-way trip.


I believe many people wouldn't have a problem with that. Although in reality the time concerns are not so different than they were for the exploration and colonization of the new world. Ever decreasing as experience and tech develops.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #62 –
The next Portuguese space mission will clear up many of Belfrager's misunderstandings, of which there are so very,very many.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #64 –
You might mention a couple of the machines that break the laws of physics.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #65 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on
You might mention a couple of the machines that break the laws of physics.

I said machines on purpose because I have no reasons to believe that such things, objects, whatever come from outer space. It has to be man made and  therefore there's no better calling then call it, in a very simple way, machines.

That's not flying machines in the sense that those things don't fly according any rule of physics that allows airplanes or rockets to fly. It just dislocates in the air and stops at unbelievable velocities. It doesn't suffer any consequence from contact with the air, gravity or anything else.
All that exists. Today.

Countries, Obamas, Merkels, Putins, oil, energetic dependence and so on are fuckery. The real thing are those machines.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #66 –
Er, I'm sorry: What machines? Are you referring to some old Kodachrome stills? :) A Polaroid? :)

If you take such things seriously, what do you make of the fact that -since cellphones and their cameras became ubiquitous- "sightings" have declined?
Smoke your peace-pipe, Yaqui! :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #67 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Er, I'm sorry: What machines? Are you referring to some old Kodachrome stills? :) A Polaroid? :)

If you take such things seriously, what do you make of the fact that -since cellphones and their cameras became ubiquitous- "sightings" have declined?
Smoke your peace-pipe, Yaqui! :)


Isn't that odd?? In the same time that cell phones and their cameras became ubiquitous, so did Photoshop. Given that, I might expect MORE sightings, not fewer.

I note that cell-phone cameras have gotten better. My first phone to have a camera had a 2 megapixel unit that was OK, but not exactly stellar. The cell-phone camera I just bought early last week boasts ten times that, plus it does motion too.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #68 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
If you take such things seriously, what do you make of the fact that -since cellphones and their cameras became ubiquitous- "sightings" have declined?

I couldn't care less about the amount of "sightings", about your "statistics" and even less about your "conclusions".
I know what I and others I know personally - and totally deserves my trust - sees more than once, your remarks about what you don't even want to see doesn't interests me at all.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #69 –
All the unbelievable millions spent on space is totally pointless and would be far better spent here on Earth.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #70 –
Makes sense to spend more given our planet's ability to sustain our population growth over the next 100 years is questionable.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #72 –


But! Scotland's first satellite was launched successfully in Kazakhstan in 2014.
UKube-1 is a cubesat, packing six payloads into a space not much bigger than a shoebox.


It can be used as a toaster.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #74 –
Yes,jimbro but as they were putting in ex-colonist brains it didn't need a lot of space.........
"Quit you like men:be strong"