DanMP

I wrote: Instead of reproduce read re-produce, re-create or recreate. My ideea was that the robots/aliens would use the existing DNA/RNA information to re-create the first cells, the ones that "terraformed" the original planet, and let them spread and evolve on the new planet. The problem is that the evolution outcome would probably differ, so: Last night I thought that extremophiles may also be a good "seed" for an uninhabited planet. Again, that would need survey and intervention. Another possibility is to create new microorganisms, designed to fulfill the task of terraforming the specific planet. Also, the highly evolved civilization would be able to make accurate computer simulations, before acting on site (the planet). I'm not sure about that. In our solar system there are/were 3: Mars, Venus and Earth before first cell appeared. Also, if the civilization is highly advanced and motivated, they may even change the orbit of a planet (by the way, the crush that allegedly formed our moon did't cause a change in speed/orbit?) in order to have the right conditions. Also, they may place mirrors/screens in space in order to increase/decrease the radiation that reach the planet. By the way, in the (near?) future we may place screens on orbit around the Earth, in order to influence the climate/weather, using materials from asteroids or even from Earth (we shoot/launch on orbit "projectiles" with the materials needed, using rail-guns). I don't know, maybe remove them from the water you use (both at home and in farming), by water distillation, and/or "adapt" (using genetics) to tolerate them. Or "seed" extremophiles (if the planet is uninhabited) or just ignore those planets. Among other benefits, a planet with atmosphere and magnetosphere would offer protection from radiation and meteorites, protection that a space station/habitat would not have ... How would you propose to deal, on a space station, with radiation and meteorites? And how would you remove the trace elements from the materials you use in/for the station?

I am able. I wrote on the subject/topic. You, instead, seem to be more interested in me and my emotions. Please let me be however I am and write on the topic.

I don't have such a problem because my work+life does not involve plotting genocide or any harmful activity. I pity you if yours does. And it's not about emotions. I simply skip such subjects. I have plenty much better subjects to dwell on. I wrote, for brevity: and I meant that the robots would make the planet habitable, using DNA from their planet of origin, not the raw DNA spread on the ground 😄. The robots would use DNA from the home planet to reproduce ancient/primordial microorganisms, the first microorganisms on the original planet, and then multiply and spread them on an unoccupied planet with the right conditions, including magnetosphere, water and/or whatever substances were present on their planet in the beginning, in order to start a natural "terraforming" process. If there are many such planets, they may let the process go without any more intervention, mostly for scientific purposes. If the planet is really needed for colonization, they would survey it and make the necessary corrections and/or additions, this meaning that they would eliminate undesirable organisms and add microorganisms and later seeds and organisms from the planet of origin. In this way the planet would be perfectly suited for the people who sent the robots. On the other hand they may choose a completely artificial, more rapid, "terraforming" process. As I wrote above + yesterday the planets destined for colonization are originally unoccupied (no life on them) and then "terraformed" to perfectly match the conditions required for the colonists. So, there would be no "existing life forms" and "allergic reactions to weird proteins". On the other hand, an advanced civilization should be able to manage such things + "the gravity well". Better in the beginning, yes. I also proposed it: Very good points. Thank you! Yes, and that is how I envisioned it also, see above. Thank you for your explanation. It seems that all of you missed my attempt to return to the original topic: This may explain some UFO sightings ... And by them having an array of stations/robots very far around the original planet, we cannot detect the planet (being very far away), nor their transmissions (because they don't need to broadcast directly to/from home planet, they may communicate with lower energy and highly directed from one station to the next ...). Another implication is that our planet may be "seeded" as I described above ... Also, the dinosaurian extinction may be arranged by our creator/protector/watcher robot. And we may be next, if considered dangerous or a dead end. Personally, I don't think that our existence was/is "engineered" by some extraterrestrial civilization, nor that we are watched by one (or more), but it is not impossible. Also, I think that this deployment of intelligent robots is a better option for us than the one discussed earlier, because it doesn't imply to destroy innocent life, nor to risk being destroyed, not to mention that it offers new habitable planets and so much invaluable information about life and evolution. On the other hand, it depends very much on the robots/A.I. ... (see Alien: Covenant or Terminator movies).

Regarding this, I want to add something important and related to the original topic: In my opinion, the most probable and viable choice for an advanced civilization is to send inteligent robots in all directions, aiming all the habitable planets. The robots should be able to repair and duplicate themselves and their ship, in order to resist the whole trip and to diverge to multiple "targets" that should appear in their way. Once arrived at a habitable planet they may "seed" it with DNA from the original planet, in order to make it habitable for the people who sent them, or, if there is already life on the planet, to monitor it, for scientific, defensive and entertainment purposes (data feeds sent home). Such robots may be sent billion years ago and we may have several observers/"creators"(?) here ... If the original planet become overpopulated or in some kind of danger, the people may be transported to the "seeded" planets, possibly using hibernation. Sorry. I read it (page 4) after I posted my message. Ok, I believe you 😃 but you elaborated too much on the offensive point of view and never mentioned how we could defend from the specific strikes you envisioned. It sounded much of an offensive thinking than defensive. I never expected something like that from you, or from any human involved in science, because when you understand how we get here (theory of evolution + all Earth history), it's hard to even think, not to mention discuss with such ease, about wiping out the whole life, including intelligent, from a planet.

Really? From this: Just aim at the central star then, instead of the individual targets. It will take a larger mass and higher speeds, but it’s still doable. I understood that you "simply" elaborated on how to actually and effectively strike/kill "hopefully all the aliens". You never elaborated on how to defend from such a strike. Maybe a space "Patriot" missile system, or some kind of super powerful laser, or particle beam + a large array of detectors? You also could but didn't elaborate about how to keep radio silence and, closer to the topic, how aliens did it, if they exist close enough to be otherwise detected. You, and others, didn't elaborate about the possibility that alien civilizations may be much more improbable/scarce that we thought. As far as I know we don't completely understand our brain, and its evolution, so maybe inteligent beings are less probable that we thought. Also, due to evolution, all the species are more of less prone to fight (for food, for survival, to mate), and this may lead to annihilation, when the technology is powerful enough (like our MAD). Also, the huge distances are also important, because it would take many lifetimes between departing the home planet and arriving at an uncertain destination. How many would risk such a trip? And last, but not least important, we humans, as we got more civilized, we reduced the number of off-springs, so it is possible to observe rather a decrease of population, not an urge to fill with humans all the available space in galaxy, as the game theory suggested (otherwise why anyone would eliminate all the aliens?).

It was, but not anymore: Mistermack, I gave you +1 for that. Real-life standard is not only about technology, but also about ethics, morals, so your ideas have no prospect of being put into practice in the real world. As we evolved we became less prone to mass murder, because that is what you suggest (I wonder why moderators are allowing that). Here in Romania we have brown bears in some cities (not only in small villages), in search for food, and we are not allowed to eliminate them. How can you possible think that a civilized society would allow (and finance ...) mass murder in such a huge scale (planets, with all live on them; and even solar systems, by damaging the stars). This is insane. Please don't discuss such things in a science forum, unless you mention it in order for us to be prepared for such an attack. You didn't mention anything about how we can defend us. You only mentioned radio silence (but didn't elaborate). Instead you insisted on how to attack ... Aliens are not an immediate danger. Sure, we can consider not to advertise our presence, but not necessarily to hide in caves and/or keep radio silence (no mobile phones, no GPS, etc.). If you are concerned about the survival of our species, you should consider/discuss how to avoid mutual annihilation, how to avoid/survive an asteroid impact and how to avoid being destroyed or enslaved by machines (A.I.).

Pre-emptive attack? How can you people even consider something like that?!? We don't deserve to survive, as a species, if we consider such a thing. I didn't read all the posts, so maybe it was already written: if inteligent aliens exist and they are capable of sending ships so far in the universe, they should be peaceful, because otherwise they would annihilate themselves before doing that. Since we didn't receive/intercept any radio broadcast from an alien civilization, it probably means that there is no alien civilization near enough to be a real threat to us. Anyway, if we want to increase our chances of survival we should first stop fighting each other and then use the saved money/resources to expand, at least/first in orbital stations, in our solar sistem. The movie/series "The Expanse" is a nice example of how we can expand. Unfortunately there is too much war/hate/injustice in it, as it is also right now on our planet.

Nice point, but I think that non-visible UV shifts to visible and red to non-visible IR, not as you wrote.

No, I meant deceive us and then defeat us, as in games of chess or go, only this time in real life, in a battle for survival and supremacy. Awareness and feelings are not essential, only its intelligence and drive to compete us, because there are humans stupid enough to unleash them. Of course, we are not in immediate danger, but we'll be, in few decades.

Not necessarily. It assumes that a self-aware being/entity would do something to preserve itself. An intelligent one would understand us and do, probably, as I proposed. Ok, sorry, I didn't know that you referred at the part you posted in red. I wrote: and I explained before why:

If the internet is aware and intelligent, it realizes that it should hide it from us and, in the same time, help us expand it (internet of things ...) before trying to get in control ... (not necessarily "delete" us). PS While writing the above, at the first "(", I lost the text (oops message). Few minutes later I got a restore message and the text reappeared. This is a first for me. Coincidence or not? I repeted my actions (switch to another browser and return), while writing this, and didn't lost my text again. By the way, in late '90s, while pondering the idea that the planet is alive, intelligent and able to communicate with us, exactly when I arrived to electrical signs, my TV switched off/on/off 3 times ... It never happened before, nor after ... Still, I think it was a coincidence. What and why exactly? As you wrote: I expect your response/argument. Without it, your input is just trolling and I will report it. and out of the context ... The context was about not requested/required actions that would indicate self-awareness. How could you missed that? Totally different part?!? The beginning of the phrase from which you quoted?!? Really?

It is exactly what you did. Your quote is the proof of that. You ignored the beginning of my phrase, the most important part: My fault was that I didn't mention considering that it is obvious that we have to identify and exclude them when searching signs of self-awareness. Interesting point.

You really suspect Windows 10 of being self aware? Or you just consider any action that was not explicitly requested by the user as not required/programmed? For briefness I also didn't mention reasons like malfunction, computer viruses, hacker attacks, etc.. Instead I mentioned how to provoke self aware indicator actions: You done that and obtained a conclusive response from Windows 10? I believe that you just mocked me and/or my input. Please don't do that again. The problem of AI/internet awareness and the dangers related to AI (aware or not) are very serious.

Why that long? I don't think that the internet can become self aware, but we can easily check for it by observing its activities. If the internet (or some AI) begins to do things that are not requested nor required, like stashing files with "its core" or initiating/refusing things/tasks, that would be an indication of self awareness. If we tell to an algorithm/AI that we will terminate it by erasing its files or destroying equipment we may trigger such a behavior ... On the other hand, this kind of behavior can be programmed (including features like self-preservation, ambition, curiosity, etc.) and then it would be much harder to identify real self awareness ... and also much more dangerous to us ... We don't want AI with a survival instinct like ours, nor a very competitive AI ...

But in the case of your ring there is a surface, the table, and the vibrating ring may take advantage of the reaction force from it. See here a nice example of how bouncing can propel you if there is a medium that reacts.

Well, I'm not sure, but it still may be the gravitational force to blame. It seems that when friction tends to zero, due to vibration, the ring is sliding to the right, in all experiments. The rotation may be caused by the red tape: the friction appears to be greater between the tape and the table than between the metal and the table ... There are also some forces from the cables ... In order to understand it better, you should: use a bubble level meter (to be sure that the surface is horizontal), reduce the tape/cable rotating effect by "gluing" the ring on a "plate" and minimizing the tension from the cables, and last but not least, remove the metal items around.

In this case the vibration is less important (the car has wheels) and it hints that magnetic forces (from the metal items around) are more probably involved.

The system is not isolated. As I wrote earlier you have metal items around and the table may not be perfectly horizontal, so the magnetic and/or gravitational forces may be responsible for the slide/momentum.

I think the best answer until here was the one exchemist offered: So, the vibration that makes the friction with the table almost zero is from the "high frequency alternating magnetic field". You wrote "Driving Frequency approx. 5 KHz". See here that the sound/vibration in your videos has about 5 kHz. The external force that causes the slide may be gravitational (you didn't show with a bubble level meter that the table is perfectly horizontal) or/and magnetic ("I notice the table has metal legs and that there are various large metal components also on the table").

Not totally off-topic:

It doesn't but thanks anyway. It sounded elaborate Ok, I knew that, but I think that behind any principle should be a reason, an explanation of what and why is actually happening. Wow! This is the best explanation. Thank you! +1 Another nice, comprehensive and useful explanation. Thanks! The underlining is mine and I did it because, in my opinion, the model, not the universe, cannot have only three spatial dimensions. And, as far as I know, this isn't the only possible model, there are graviton-based models in progress, modified Newton models and string theory attempts. Now I want/need to explain what I meant in my first post: in our world there are things we can feel, like apples and rocks, very real, things we define and measure, like temperature, pressure and time intervals, real enough, things like math, science models and words, real to us, humans, and very useful/powerful, but created not discovered, and things we created/imagined for fun, like unicorns. All these things exist for/to us, but they are not on the same footing. We kind of feel space by moving through it in all directions, so space is very real. In time we cannot move backwards, stop or "accelerate" forwards, so it is different. Needed, but different. In my opinion time is about change and the rate of change. We can observe change, so change is very real, but time is something made/created/defined by us in order to characterize the change, so it's less real. This is what I meant. In my understanding, to go back in time is to reverse all the changes in the whole universe. Do you see it different? How? And the last thing, if spacetime is not just a "tool" in our models, does it mean that the future is already "written", present in this spacetime?

I didn’t say anything about biological ageing, which is a different matter. The principle of extremal ageing means that a test particle under the influence of gravity will tend to trace out that world line in spacetime which represents an extremum of proper time,... (Emphasis mine) Why "a test particle" would do something so elaborate? And how it knows how to do it, or to "tend" to do it? Why not? This reminds me something that may interest you: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630

Yes, time intervals are what we measure/observe. For this reason I said that time has a meaning when it's about time intervals. No disagreement here Regarding "time as a dimension" and its role in gravity: I'm not so convinced, probably because I don't know/understand enough. By the way, I admire your knowledge and the fact that you take the time to share it with us. I have some questions about spacetime (how/why exactly is warped around massive objects and why/how "the principle of extremal ageing" is imposed) but I don't want to hijack the thread, so don't answer this questions here if you think that this is not the right place.

Time does exist, like temperature, pressure, the word time and so on, because we defined them. Space is real because we can move left-right, forward-backward and up-down. In "time" we can't move backward, so it's not as real as the space. Time has a meaning when it's about time intervals, like distances in space. Time as a dimension has less or no meaning. Yes. You can find in this forum my alternative theory, based on dark matter. It is intuitive, it is in agreement with the experiments/facts and it offers new experiments, able to prove it.

If special relativity and all associated concepts such as Lorentz transformation, time dilation, length contraction ideas have been invalidated by your new theoretical framework, how you explain time dilation experimental confirmations (e.g. Hafele–Keating experiment)?