rockman

iNOW wrote: "That's a bit of a misnomer. When viewed objectively, there really isn't much of an intelligence gap at all. The only gap is really one of technology, not intelligence." So I can give a monkey technology and he'll become intelligent? Can I introduce to the monkey fire? Will he know what to do with it? Seems to me intelligence came before the technology. No intelligence, no technology. This is why monkeys don't build pyramids. I'm open to being corrected.

I know there is no proof and science requires it, to be science. If we were designed I don't think it was a lousy job. We can think enough to be critical. The planet does indeed wobble. What would the scenario be if it didn't? Did it have to be perfectly round? The point I was trying to make is that if we stand back and become the designers we may learn a little more about why things are the way they are. We have zero experience designing solar systems, yet we are sure things would be completely different if we designed it. And I certainly can't disagree with that. Better might be debatable. We're doing a splendid job making our planet better! Perfection, which we are not, is in the eye of the beholder. I probably would not assume a designer to be perfect, because we are not perfect. So far I gather, we would get rid of the tilt and the wobble, and make the earth a more perfect circle. Then we would move our sexual organs to a more convenient place on our bodies. That ought to be interesting. We are designers. Assuming we can go and design solar systems, how many solar systems would we design by trial and error before we got it right? Life sustaining systems are very complex. If our first 10 solar systems are not "perfect", then would that be proof to the inhabitants of such that we do not exist, and if we did, then we did a lousy job? There is no proof, and I certainly agree with you on that. Why that is may have more to do with our own inabilities to recognize the proof if we seen it, rather than it being designed to prevent us from seeing it. The lack of a missing link in evolution does not mean that is proof evolution is wrong. It simply means we have not found it, or we are not recognizing it.

Intelligent Design Ever wonder what it will be like a couple thousand years from now? Assuming we can exist for that long. What if by then we have figured out how to move across galaxies by some kind of warp, wormhole, or some other unforseen way. If space travel and time was not a problem..then imagine. If we could do that much, then would it be a problem to find a solar system with a similiar setup as ours? Imagine there are many such solar systems where intelligent life does not exist because planets are either too far or too close to their sun, etc. Would it be impossible to re-arrange the planets in an order more hospitable to developing life forms? Imagine engineering a solar system to sustain "us". If we can do that much, could we not introduce life to a planet? How would we do this? Wouldn't "evolution" be a perfect system to introduce? I wonder if we would bring the genetic substance from earth herself. So imagine "creating" if you will, a world very much like our own. Populated with species and plants very much like our own. In this way, the planet would not be "alien" to us. Would we not people our planet? Can you imagine the implications of that? Imagine our new planet like a garden, where everything is set up to grow, evolve, and flourish on it's own. Without our help. But, the primitive man, who has evolved enough to know who he is, we help along until his numbers have grown enough to sustain himself. We show him how to live, clothe himself, govern himself, etc. We give him some laws to follow, for his own good. Who are "we" to our primitive man? How do we explain to primitive man who we are? How do we set our primitive man on the right social path to insure his survival as well as his knowledge? Can we tell our primitive man, who has very little understanding, that he is on a planet, that we moved, and that he is "designed" by us? Basically, just saying I am God who created everything, is about all our primitive man will understand. Intelligent Design to me, can mean we are "seeded". Our solar system could be "designed" for us. We could be getting a little help from time to time by our "creators". We would help our primitive man with as little intrusion as possible, so our creators may do the same. If we could travel the universe and move planets, we most likely would seed life. We are intelligent designers. Knowing that, we could very well be the product of it.

Tar, my understanding of expansion is primitive, so I'm not expecting anyone to agree. I do try to learn though and I do apreciate this forum, and hopefully you guys don't run me off. I do have a few questions though. If I'm understanding Sisyphus right, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. Is this right? And I should look at the expansion similiar to an expanding balloon with points on it, except there really is no surface like such a balloon has. The problem I'm having a hard time grasping here, is that from my searches online space is basically defined as nothing, except for photons, energy, etc., that exist within it. So how does nothing expand? It is not hard to grasp an explosion (big bang) flinging matter across space-nothing. Which is incorrect. And it is not hard to grasp expansion, where there is no motion, only expansion, if we have "something" that is expanding. Hopefully my idiot questions don't have the effect of moving the thread to P&S

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/future-00o.html I wonder if after more research has been done, if it would be possible to do this from the ground instead of building it into the nose cone which adds weight. On aircraft flying here and there, the nose cone would make sense. But with an object taking a predetermined path, ground based may be a possibility.

"You have a sample of one star with intelligent life." And that one sample is debatable. Intelligent compared to what???

Thank you for the replies guys, and sorry to get off subject there. I'll keep reading up on it and try to get up to speed on what people believe now. Things change over 20 to 30 years.

Thank you for the replies guys, and sorry to get off subject there. I'll keep reading up on it and try to get up to speed on what people believe now. Things change over 20 to 30 years.

Actually, I believe what Tar was saying is right. According to what most believe was the beginning of our universe, the big bang, would in my mind be the center. The universe expanded from this point...and still is. "Expansion is not motion away from some central point, or any other kind of motion, just an increase in distances (e.g., one inch is added to every foot every X years). " I'm not sure what is being said here. If any object moves away from another there is motion. "What" is in motion may be debatable. Is it the fabric of space itself? Or is it what occupies this fabric? I like to think there is an edge, or point where the expansion still continues. Having never seen the edge I will not jump up and say there is one, because I don't know. But I do wonder sometimes, did the fabric of space exist before the big bang? If so, then light would have traveled unhindered, and space, for all practical purposes, is infinite. If not, then light would have traveled with or in the fabric as it expanded. To me, the edge is the farthest point light has reached. At that point, what is beyond? Does the fabric continue far past what the light has reached? I guess the real question is, is the fabric of space expanding and all matter as we know it is just along for the ride, like boats in an expanding body of water, or did the water exist before there were ever boats? Did the big bang create the space fabric? Or did the big bang happen in an already existing space fabric? It seems to me, to say the universe is infinite, requires that the fabric existed before the big bang. If it did not, and it is finite, then there is an edge.

What was I thinking??? Those chemtrails are starting to take effect....... I can feel it now.... Of course we never went to the moon!!!!! Vietnam was an evil war where we went and killed people!!! Horrible!! All man made drugs will kill you!!!....Dead!!! The Bush Administration was evil!!! And caused 9-11!!!!!! But Obama is good and will save us all!!!! Yea Baby..it's all clear now!!! I see the light!!!!!! I see the light of the moon!!!!! -------------------------------------------------------- If it was provable that we did not go to the moon it would be worldwide headlines. Unless of course, you believe the U.S. Government controls everything in the world

According to the conspiracy fanatics, The swine flu was genetically engineered. The media is hyping it's supposed deadly effects, so that a vaccine will be mandantory, which will be given to the select undesirable citizens, so we can get rid of excess population. Of course, WHO is the government agency responsible for all of this. FEMA has concentration type camps to quarentine all those people supposedly infected. Martial law will be declared. Finally the government will control everyone and kill with the vaccination all those who do not conform. Hmmm.... Anybody buying any of this?? LoL!!

This is all funny as hell!!! I have a buddy who is dead set that we did not land on the moon. Same buddy says there is an alien base on the backside of the moon! LoL!! The aliens were there when the astronauts were... ...oops!!! LoL!!

Something to consider: We assume we are the intelligent species of the universe because we have not detected any other intelligent life forms out there so far. This is a great, great big assumption. We assume this primarily because of the lack of identifiably civilized radio wave transmissions. How long have we been using radio transmissions?? How much longer will we be?? Wouldn't light be a much better method of communicating for a highly intelligent species?? Our use of radio waves may be ancient technology. It may be like looking for smoke signals! LoL!

forufes wrote: "shaping it like a Frisbee is understandable, the shape will give better penetration and less friction. but why the spinning? don't mix the two,. when something spins while going achieving linear movement it will reach less further, because some of the energy is taken instead of propelling it further into spinning it. that is useful when you have excess energy which will be wasted if the projectile was not spun, bullets spin while flying, that what makes them destroy or penetrate their target, i think the kinetic energy transferred from the spinning of the bullet to the contacted surface is of a greater magnitude than that transferred by the bullet ramming the surface. of course i might be wrong, this is my personal analysis." --------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your reply, And you may not be wrong. My point for the spinning, and it "may" be wrong, is that it may help slice the air. Air is a medium, just like bread is a medium also. Bread can be cut with a knife without a slicing motion, but...you get the idea. Of course I'm trying to consider the rapid entrance into the atmosphere at a very high velocity. No matter what the device...rail gun, spinning and flinging, the object will hit the atmosphere at a tremendous speed. Like a brick slapping water. Well...not exactly like that! But...that being said, Is there any way the atmosphere could be sliced, split, or seperated "ahead" of the object being launched???? It would be a lot easier if we just had to deal with gravity and eliminate some of the atmospheric drag.

According to the liberals, I am a far right racist extremist because I don't agree with Obama's policies! LoL! I'll probably soon be labeled a terrorist next for not agreeing to accept socialism! Sorry, but if I thought Europe was a better place to live, I would move there. It's not. Funny how I haven't seen any news stories of the poor American boat people trying to escape America and seek refuge in Europe! But....some people have a need for the government to tell them what to do and when to do it. Personally...I don't. So...I must be a conservative. Probably the wrong thing to be on a forum full of scientist, some of whom probably depend on government grants to fund their projects. Not that I'm against that in any way.