beecee

Just commenting on your rhetoric here.... and I asked.... which you then gave a long political statement at..... and I commented on that as per the rest of the posts....why? You need to change your post? My own answer, is of course, no we won't evolve into robots or cyber beings at all, but as per the other thread, at , as discussed by Stephen Hawking, we probably in all likleyhood, will evolve over the millenia, to best suit space exploration, as that endeavour continues to take off. see the White House millenium speech I linked to. So nothing reputable at all? I thought so.

In my very humble opinion, the biggest question of all, is that when we do discover life off this Earth, will it be life, as we know it? In other words carbon based. Or could Abiogenesis possibly get started with say silicon? Hope Moontanman is OK, this is his favourite topic, understandably so.

That someone eventually takes him out, is of course, as ethically morally correct as is resorting to torture on some terrorist orpaedophile, to save innocent lives when all else has failed, and which both you and I have agreed we would do and consider.

How do you know that? Can we have some reference please? I am aware of all that, and have posted many articles supporting those observations. Strange I can't remember you commenting on them though. On the plus side though, we have plenty of scientific satellites, giving us overall views of land and agriculture, and we also have collection agencies where I am and in which I am actively participating, in gathering plastc bottles before they reach our waterways. I have also which adds to my knowledge on such disasters, been with the NSW SES, (state emergency service) and actually fought bushfires. I still hold out hope though, that such practical actions of more of society can help reduce and/or lessen the climate change impact, which I hope you know, that while certainly contributed to by man and society, is also part and parcel of the earthly cycles. Yes, that is tragic and evil, and I sincerely hope that Russian society in general can take this arsehole out, even by an assination. That would be morally the correct thing to do, if all else fails, to stop him starting a world war. In summing up, on all counts, we certainly need more action then simple rhetoric on a science forum.

They may also think you look anything else but happy. Tell me anyway, if you can.

Good question. My mind goes back to the turn of the millenium and a "conference" of sorts at the White House....from memory Clinton was your President at that time and hosted the show.....and Stephen Hawking was a guest speaker. Stephen Hawking virtually said yes, and used our space explorations and research as a reason. this one.........................

Why? That doesn't answer the question.

Both, most probably. It's more about research that has prompted other nations to follow the few that do hold such creatures as sentient beings and able to feel pain. I have often wondered about that aspect myself, with regards to everyday fish we catch with a hook, line and sinker. Do they feel pain with a hook, jagged in their mouths...do they feel pain when we pull the damn thing out, and are they suffering from the injuries/tears from said hook, if and when we throw them back? Secondary of course to the fact that we are carnivorous creatures, well at least have evolved into such, but I have read that we are anatomically herbivorous. Quite disappointing to me as a big meat eater. So we have evolved naturally into ominvores....I can live with that!! Found the following article with apologies to our vegan brothers and sisters..... https://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/ Sorry Vegans: Here's How Meat-Eating Made Us Human: Science doesn’t give a hoot about your politics. Think global warming is a hoax or that vaccines are dangerous? Doesn’t matter, you’re wrong. Something similar is true of veganism. Vegans are absolutely right when they say that a plant-based diet can be healthy, varied and exceedingly satisfying, and that—not for nothing—it spares animals from the serial torments of being part of the human food chain. All good so far. But there’s veganism and then there’s Veganism—the upper case, ideological veganism, the kind that goes beyond diet and lifestyle wisdom to a sort of counterfactual crusade. For this crowd, it has become an article of faith that not only is meat-eating bad for humans, but that it’s always been bad for humans—that we were never meant to eat animal products at all, and that our teeth, facial structure and digestive systems are proof of that. You see it in Nine Reasons Your Canine Teeth Don’t Make You a Meat-Eater; in PETA’s Yes, It’s True: Humans Aren’t Meant to Eat Meat; in Shattering the Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians. (Google “humans aren’t supposed to eat meat” and have at it.) But sorry, it just ain’t so. As a new study in Nature makes clear, not only did processing and eating meat come naturally to humans, it’s entirely possible that without an early diet that included generous amounts of animal protein, we wouldn’t even have become human—at least not the modern, verbal, intelligent humans we are. It was about 2.6 million years ago that meat first became a significant part of the pre-human diet, and if Australopithecus had had a forehead to slap it would surely have done so. Being an herbivore was easy—fruits and vegetables don’t run away, after all. But they’re also not terribly calorie-dense. A better alternative were so-called underground storage organs (USOs)—root foods like beets and yams and potatoes. They pack a bigger nutritional wallop, but they’re not terribly tasty—at least not raw—and they’re very hard to chew. According to Harvard University evolutionary biologists Katherine Zink and Daniel Lieberman, the authors of the Nature paper, proto-humans eating enough root food to stay alive would have had to go through up to 15 million “chewing cycles” a year. This is where meat stepped—and ran and scurried—in to save the day. Prey that has been killed and then prepared either by slicing, pounding or flaking provides a much more calorie-rich meal with much less chewing than root foods do, boosting nutrient levels overall. (Cooking, which would have made things easier still, did not come into vogue until 500,000 years ago.) more at link.... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Interesting article to say the least. While I am omniverous, there are items I have never, nor ever will eat...eggs, kidney, brains, tripe ofal mussels, oysters clams etc. They just look to iffy and gouly to me!!! 🤢 Anything else, and its a case of "Look out guts, here it comes"

Why is that good news? Why do you believe we don't have enough time?

Yeah, I would have thought so. So probably this research is more about the often used throwing Lobsters, crabs etc, into boiling water while alive. Here is more, on the methodology of the research..... https://phys.org/news/2021-12-octopus-crabs-lobsters-pain.html extract: Despite striking evidence for sentience in some well-studied species, there are 750 cephalopod species and 15,000 decapod species—more than double the total number of mammal species. Most individual species have never been studied in detail. But sentience has never been studied in most individual vertebrate species either. With vertebrates, it is usually accepted that we can make reasonable generalizations from laboratory species—such as rats and zebrafish—to other species. Invertebrates should be treated in the same way as vertebrates. That means protecting under-studied animals if it is reasonable to generalize from strong evidence in a better-studied species. This principle led us to recommend extending protection to all cephalopod molluscs and all decapod crustaceans. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Hmmm, I am having fish and calamari for dinner tonight! 🤔😵

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-octopuses-squid-crabs-emotions.html Octopuses can solve complex puzzles and show a preference for different individuals, but whether they, and other animals and invertebrates, have emotions is being hotly debated and could shake up humans' moral decision-making, says a York University expert in animal minds. Most countries don't recognize invertebrates, such as octopuses, crabs, lobsters and crayfish, as sentient beings that can feel pain, but the United Kingdom is considering amendments to its animal welfare legislation that would recognize this. "A London School of Economics (LSE) report commissioned by the U.K. government found there is strong enough evidence to conclude that decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs are sentient," says York University Professor and philosopher Kristin Andrews, the York Research Chair in Animal Minds, who is working with the LSE team. more at link........................... the paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo2378 Abstract If the UK joins a handful of other nations to recognize the sentience of invertebrates, such as cephalopod mollusks and decapod crustaceans, by, for example, prohibiting the boiling of live lobsters, this will be based on evidence that emotions and felt experiences (i.e., sentience) are not limited to animals close to humans, such as the mammals. This topic has been heavily debated in both affective neuroscience (how to define an emotion?) and philosophy (what is the moral relevance of animal experiences?), but a consensus on the criteria for and implications of recognizing animal sentience seems to be emerging (1). ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: No sentience does not mean they will become space faring entities in the future!!! 😁

And adding a third potentially productive tool to our chest! https://phys.org/news/2022-03-nasa-cosmic-mapmaker.html NASA finalizes plans for its next cosmic mapmaker by Jet Propulsion Laboratory NASA's upcoming SPHEREx mission will have some similarities with the James Webb Space Telescope. But the two observatories will take dramatically different approaches to studying the sky. The SPHEREx mission will be able to scan the entire sky every six months and create a map of the cosmos unlike any before. Scheduled to launch no later than April 2025, it will probe what happened within the first second after the Big Bang, how galaxies form and evolve, and the prevalence of molecules critical to the formation of life, like water, locked away as ice in our galaxy. Achieving these goals will require cutting-edge technology, and NASA has this month approved final plans for all the observatory's components. "We're at the transition from doing things with computer models to doing things with real hardware," said Allen Farrington, SPHEREx project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, which manages the mission. "The design for the spacecraft, as it stands, is confirmed. We have shown that it's doable down to the smallest details. So now we can really start building and putting things together." To answer big questions about the universe, scientists need to look at the sky in different ways. Many telescopes, like NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, are built to focus on individual stars, galaxies, or other cosmic objects, and to study them in detail. But SPHEREx (which stands for Spectro-Photometer for the History of the Universe, Epoch of Reionization and Ices Explorer) belongs to another class of space telescopes that quickly observe large portions of the sky, surveying many objects in a short period of time. SPHEREx will scan over 99% of the sky every six months; by contrast, Hubble has observed about 0.1% of the sky in more than 30 years of operations. Although survey telescopes like SPHEREx can't see objects with the same level of detail as targeted observatories, they can answer questions about the typical properties of those objects throughout the universe. more at link.................... https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/spherex The Spectro-Photometer for the History of the Universe, Epoch of Reionization and Ices Explorer mission will provide the first all-sky spectral survey. Over a two-year planned mission, the SPHEREx Observatory will collect data on more than 300 million galaxies along with more than 100 million stars in the Milky Way in order to explore the origins of the universe. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

An unassuming star is thrust into the spotlight during calibration of the James Webb Space Telescope.

You are so easily offended, particularly when you make your own cartoon/movie oriented snide remarks. Is this something that we see with all philsophers?.And really, your red negs or anyone else's, do not altar my moral compass one iota. Try invalidating what I am saying instead of your own cryptic remarks and attempts at philsophy. But hey, I'll accept your pedantic questions anyway! (1)Why do you ask?(2) What does good mean to you?(3) Does your greater good need to be the same as my greater good? (4)Is your greater good, greater then my greater good? Please supply evidence if that is the case. eg: In my moral ethics, the lives of thousands of innocent people, or even the one, greatly outweigh any consideration for the application of moral standards on the perpetrator of crime...including lying. In essence, I'm quite comfortable is admitting that I sometimes lie, and often am not totally forthcoming with the whole truth, for what I see as the greater good. And sometimes for my own benefit, but at the same time, not detracting from anyone else. Everyone lies of course! Is that a friendly lie? 😉 I'll certainly do my best though.

The chances are pretty good, we will find evidence of some basic exobiology, within the next decade or so. Particularly with the advent of the JWST and the Nancy Roman one in 2027. I was always disappointed a couple of decades ago, when the plans for a Europa probe was shelved and preference given to the New Horizons probe. Don't get me wrong, I 'm not at all detracting from the incredible success of the New Horizon's, just that personally, I saw far greater promise with exploring Europa. But that was not to be. A shame we cannot have an open cheque book on the exploration of space, the solar system and beyond. The greatest question is how our religious folk and those believing in supernatural nonsense, would take to the discovery of life off this Earth. The mind boggles! 😁 (I'm reminded of that nut in the movie "Contact" I'm pretty sure most scientists would be far, far more amazed if evidence was forthcoming that we were it on this fart arse little blue orb. Of course that can never really happen, taking into account, that we will probably never know the whole Universe. Moontanman always had some pretty reasonable thoughts on ET. The other thing I would like to see before I kick the bucket, is boots on Mars! Why do you say that? You understand that some scientific endeavours are inherently harder then others? It may be possible? how possible? And of course the chances of finding out depend on how much science we do. You do accept that, yes? Do you have any reason (religious or otherwise) to believe that we maybe the only life in the universe? Why would you think that,(if that is the case) considering that we are all star stuff and that Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation for the emergence of life that we have, and that the stuff of life, (all the star stuff) is found wherever we look? Abiogenesis of course may have occurred in any numbers of places,(including those I have mentioned) and then we also have the possibility of Panspermia, although as yet no evidence to really indicate that. https://www.seti.org/ Where will you be when we find life beyond Earth.

I'm quite comfortable is admitting that I sometimes lie, and often am not totally forthcoming with the whole truth, for what I see as the greater good. And sometimes for my own benefit, but at the same time, not detracting from anyone else..

You are 100% correct re the reality TV shows crap..It still to a large extent is still popular in Australia....reality tv!! what a load of crap!!! I have plenty of time for the likes of Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss, and while "pop science" shows have plenty of criticism for their sometimes less then accurate or over simplification of certain accounts, and the expressing of complicated science into science that can be digestible by lay people, it at least is educational to some extent (and in my opinion, much more) and if it sparks the interest of only a small number of youngens, there is every chance we may have an Einstein among that number. If I was to recommend a few docos worth watching, it would be three I have mentioned before and while somewhat dated in time, are still relevant. Love and Bananas: An Elephant Story. Black Fish. Chasing Ice. If anyone has not seen these and has a passing interest in nature, the environment, and protection of animals, then all I believe can be seen on one or other of the streaming services.

You're not wrong, you are certainly correct and spot on. I could add further re some of the deliberate nonsense and lies posted since I said I would leave this thread, particularly from our group of offended philsophers, including MSC, but hey, like you I remain steadfast with my moral ethics. And back on page 25 above.....Ooops, sorry, gives self uppercut! OK, in anticipating more nonsense, and having made my point, I'll leave you to it.

We'll pose that as a question: So, how close will they be to each other?

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-nasa-roman-mission-cosmic-theories.html NASA's Roman mission will test competing cosmic acceleration theories by Ashley Balzer, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center: These six cubes show the simulated distribution of galaxies at redshifts 9, 8, 5, 3, 2, and 1, with the corresponding cosmic ages shown. As the universe expands, the density of galaxies within each cube decreases, from more than half a million at top left to about 80 at lower right. Each cube is about 100 million light-years across. Galaxies assembled along vast strands of gas separated by large voids, a foam-like structure echoed in the present-day universe on large cosmic scales. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/F. Reddy and Z. Zhai, Y. Wang (IPAC) and A. Benson (Carnegie Observatories) A team of scientists has predicted the science return from one of NASA's Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope's groundbreaking planned surveys, which will analyze millions of galaxies strewn across space and time. The mission's enormous, deep panoramas will provide the best opportunity yet to discern between the leading theories about what's speeding up the universe's expansion. Roman will explore this mystery using multiple methods, including spectroscopy—the study of the color information in light. This technique will allow scientists to precisely measure how fast the universe expanded in different cosmic eras and trace how the universe has evolved. "Our study forecasts the science Roman's spectroscopy survey will enable and shows how various adjustments could optimize its design," said Yun Wang, a senior research scientist at Caltech/IPAC in Pasadena, California, and the lead author of the study. As the Roman Science Support Center, IPAC will be responsible for the mission's spectroscopic science data processing, while the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore will be responsible for imaging science data processing, generating catalogs, and support for cosmology data processing pipelines. "While this survey is designed to explore cosmic acceleration, it will also offer clues about many other tantalizing mysteries. It will help us understand the first generation of galaxies, allow us to map dark matter, and even reveal information about structures that are much closer to home, right in our local group of galaxies." The Roman Space Telescope, planned for launch by May 2027, will provide such an enormous view of the universe that it will help scientists study cosmic mysteries in an unprecedented way. Each image will contain precise measurements of so many celestial objects that it will enable statistical studies that aren't practical using telescopes with narrower views. more at link............................... the paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973 The High Latitude Spectroscopic Survey on the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Abstract: The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope will conduct a High Latitude Spectroscopic Survey (HLSS) over a large volume at high redshift, using the near-IR grism (1.0–1.93 μm, R = 435–865) and the 0.28 deg2 wide-field camera. We present a reference HLSS that maps 2000 deg2 and achieves an emission-line flux limit of 10−16 erg s−1 cm−2 at 6.5σ, requiring ∼0.6 yr of observing time. We summarize the flowdown of the Roman science objectives to the science and technical requirements of the HLSS. We construct a mock redshift survey over the full HLSS volume by applying a semianalytic galaxy formation model to a cosmological N-body simulation and use this mock survey to create pixel-level simulations of 4 deg2 of HLSS grism spectroscopy. We find that the reference HLSS would measure ∼10 million Hα galaxy redshifts that densely map large-scale structure at z = 1–2 and 2 million [O iii] galaxy redshifts that sparsely map structures at z = 2–3. We forecast the performance of this survey for measurements of the cosmic expansion history with baryon acoustic oscillations and the growth of large-scale structure with redshift-space distortions. We also study possible deviations from the reference design and find that a deep HLSS at fline > 7 × 10−17 erg s−1 cm−2 over 4000 deg2 (requiring ∼1.5 yr of observing time) provides the most compelling stand-alone constraints on dark energy from Roman alone. This provides a useful reference for future optimizations. The reference survey, simulated data sets, and forecasts presented here will inform community decisions on the final scope and design of the Roman HLSS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman_Space_Telescope It will orbit at the Sun–Earth L2 orbit The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (shortened as NGRST, Roman or the Roman Space Telescope, and formerly the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope or WFIRST) is a NASA infrared space telescope currently in development and scheduled to launch no later than May 2027. Roman was recommended in 2010 by the United States National Research Council Decadal Survey committee as the top priority for the next decade of astronomy. On 17 February 2016, WFIRST was approved for development and launch.[6] The Roman Space Telescope is based on an existing 2.4 m (7.9 ft) wide field of view primary mirror and will carry two scientific instruments. The Wide-Field Instrument (WFI) is a 300.8-megapixel multi-band visible and near-infrared camera, providing a sharpness of images comparable to that achieved by the Hubble Space Telescope over a 0.28 square degree field of view, 100 times larger than imaging cameras on the Hubble. The Coronagraphic Instrument (CGI) is a high-contrast, small field of view camera and spectrometer covering visible and near-infrared wavelengths using novel starlight-suppression technology. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13583 Each Roman Space Telescope image will capture a patch of the sky bigger than the apparent size of a full Moon. Hubble’s widest exposures, taken with its Advanced Camera for Surveys, are nearly 100 times smaller. Over the first five years of observations, the Roman Space Telescope will image over 50 times as much sky as Hubble has covered so far in 30 years. The James Webb Space Telescope is an orbiting infrared observatory now being built that will also complement and extend the discoveries of the Hubble Space Telescope, with longer wavelength coverage and greatly improved sensitivity. The longer wavelengths enable Webb to look much closer to the beginning of time and to hunt for the unobserved formation of the first galaxies, as well as to look inside dust clouds where stars and planetary systems are forming today. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Both orbiting at L2. I can't find any info re how close they will be. Anyone?

Thanks. from page 6 of the pdf ."Although previous studies demonstrated the maintenance of cooperative traits in the presence of compartments, the spontaneous advent of cooperators has been elusive. Our study suggests that cooperative replicators could emerge and easily become dominant in a realistic molecular replication system". In essence, it's pretty encouraging that continuing research continues to support the only scientific explanation for the emergence of life. Whether that will in time reveal totally and fully, the exact pathway and methodology taken is something else.

Wow! the colour content is quite impresssive, but yeah, I also believe this has run its course, and having made many valid points and many morally correct arguments and assumptions, I will now gladly drop out and concentrate on the hard sciences.