Moontanman

Could be a UFO... or Venus....

I liked "Spaced Invaders" quite a bit, at least it was funny....

For them it wouldn't just be exploration any more than colonizing the new world was only exploration, they would of course accumulate new knowledge about the place they colonize but colonization not exploration would be their priority. I'm not sure what you mean but if they were really colonizing by slow boat they would manufacture their own instruments out of the materials of the new planetary system. Your are probably correct but Von Neuman type machines could very well, once started manufacture everything needed with little input other than information. Why do you say no information could be passed back to the home world? Communication is at light speed, if we had a probe or colony in the Alpha Centari system they could beam back information at light speed, yes it would take 4 years to get here but a continuous beam of information could be studied as it came it, no wait of 4 years between messages if the message is continuous. Eventually the home world would be receiving a continuous stream of information from all of it's colonies as they came online, it would not be like sending out a mail ship that takes 4 years to get their and 4 years to get back, the information flow would be continuous, yes individual messages would take 4 years but the information flow would be continuous. The main reason to colonize is to insure that a disaster at the home world doesn't wipe out your entire species, if you are scattered over several star systems them something like a super nova nearby wouldn't eliminate your entire species. I'll chime in again on this, mostly because when i was young it was among my favorite myths. Personally i think it denigrates the abilities of humans working together to say some alien or god like power helped them. I've seen "shows" that did indeed explain the ways these megalithic structures were built, no aliens were needed, (these shows are not quite as popular as the "aliens did it shows") the use of math, levers, ramps and thousands of hp "human power" allowed our ancestors do things we cannot do because we value human life to much to dedicate tens of thousands of lives and or life times to hard labor. Personally i think many of these humans were slaves but there is evidence that many of them labored because they wanted to, to me this indicates much of the work force did what they did due to religion. They literally thought they were doing gods work, usually a king that was supposed to be a living god. On the other hand humans recorded images of what we would today call UFOs, practically from the time we started using sharpened sticks, on cave walls, cliff sides, and on into actual paintings done in the middle ages. I tend to waffle back and forth over these images as to their real meaning. While they evoke images of aliens to us, to them they might have represented gods or spirits, the interesting part of this is why did primitive man see the same images we do? Real aliens? Some sort of mental imagery we all share? It's difficult to really say with certainty but i see no reason to evoke aliens to show how our ancestors built huge stone structures. BTW, the idea of inter-dimensional beings was one of the hypotheses J. Allen Hynek thought was possible to explain UFOs so if you think this idea has merit you are not alone....

I've managed to come up with a little bit more info on this "crash" The sources say it was presented at an Australian UFO conference in 1997 by a group called CSETI, it is also suggested that the video is of a crash of an X-38 space life boat (scale model) another says it was a lifting body, none would explain why it is glowing or why it survived a bounce. I still think I saw this video several years earlier but memory can play tricks on you. So if it's 1997 that would make it 14 years old? Slow motion version of the crash Completely dishonest version of the crash (I know it happened way before 2009) i have the video tape of the crash in my hands right now and it dates from the 1990's at least. http://wn.com/Balochistan_Crash_ufo Not much information out there about this for sure but I question the life boat idea due to the glowing aspect of the object, the actual bounce , and it's apparent powered flight (or at least controlled flight IE it didn't flop end over end) both before and after the bounce...

To a human the scream is worse as far as how it sounds but both would contain the same amount of sound energy.

This is a video of an object hitting the ground in what can be described as an "unusual" manner. I'm not sure of what it is, but it's an old video 20 + years at least. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cfhs5nDuMw&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL I've tried to figure out what could do this but so far no real explanation has come to mind, some sort of tracer round from a very large gun is about as close as I have come, anyone want to give it a shot?

From your link How does that link support your idea? Why the emphasis on the moon, why would you assume a large moon is necessary for life? This one is just silly, why would a larger planet not be able to evolve complex life? More gravity? MBE for sure, The Earth may very well be just barely suitable for complex life, we really don't know and a curve cannot be made from one data point. Even if a complex life bearing planet is a one in a billion fluke there are still 100 complex life bearing planets just in our galaxy. The so called Goldilocks zone is quite a bit bigger than was originally thought, is assumes an earth like planet when actually many factors can make the Goldilocks zone much bigger than what the earth seems to indicate. Simply a thicker atmosphere extends this zone by a considerable margin. The Earth looks so perfect for complex life not because it is but because complex life has adapted to the conditions on the earth, it's quite easy to imagine a planet better suited for life, a bigger but less dense world with a vast deep atmosphere would be able to have liquid water way out past Mars, additionally life actually changes the conditions on the Earth to suit life. No accident, no game of chance. In fact for much of Earths existence the earth was not suitable for complex life and in a half a billion years or so it will no longer be suitable for complex life, luck is not what allowed the earth to have complex life. Totally off target, assuming all life is like Earth life is just plain silly, life on the earth has adapted to the earth, life would adapt to another planet in the same way and that planet appear to be perfect for that life... We have already discovered hundreds of planets around other stars and some of them do indeed orbit in the so called goldilocks zone and we have sampled only a small fraction of the stars in the Milkyway.... As i have pointed out this is a false assumption, you assume that only a planet exactly like the earth could support life, there is no reason to assume this. Poker is indeed a good analogy, you are just using it incorrectly, if a million people are playing poker, and i would assume that is not a large mumber of people considering the popularity of poker, then a royal flush would be quite likely to occur, if a billion people were playing poker then a royal flush would be quite common, you are assuming that only one game of poker is being played but in actuality billions of games of poker are being played at the rate of billions of hands a second on any newly formed planet, if the conditions are right then life will form, so royal flushes are occurring every second of every day. I have played lots of poker too, it's not a game of chance, and far more than one hand is being played, do you understand that the odds of drawing to an inside straight only apply if you are drawing only one, if you are drawing millions of them per second the odds get quite good, in fact they are inevitable. Yes life does cheat the odds, by the fact that there are not an unlimited number of ways organic molecules can come together, this one fact disputes your idea of "chance" add to that fact the number of hands being delt and the idea of chance being a problem is swept away completely. But if you are playing millions of hand per second, one of them will indeed win and all you need is one win and life starts, once started it can and will adapt to conditions as they change, life is capable of considerable adaptation to changing conditions. I don't see how this matters, are there planets that have been sterilized by disasters, i am sure there are but that doesn't mean they all will be before complex life can start. No you are incorrect in your analogy as I have pointed out. Imagine a billion handles being pulled, winners would be all over the place. Many books and DVDs have indeed been produced on this faulty assumption, doesn't make them any more correct. I applaud you for that but you are none the less incorrect... I think I know where he got the idea of poker and chance, can you say Bob Dutko?

The nonsensical nature of the two extremes is exactly what i was getting at, the reality must lie somewhere between the two. Population growth will have to be addressed even if technology allows us an infinite supply of what ever resource is limited. If there was an infinite supply of oil we would still have to find other ways of producing energy. Most of the doomsayers are referring to cheap supplies of the resource, prices go up and there will be more of the resource, technology will allow us to exploit ever less concentrated sources of resources but the bottom line is people, we cannot grow at the rate we always have, some sort of balance needs to be made, I'd like to see it happen before every one is living under third world conditions. Personally i think we will eventually have to make the leap to off planet to continue growth, once there we can continue to grow at extreme rates but that won't help the people left on the earth. People need to stop having huge families, factors that cause people to want huge families need to be addressed. This need to rein in reproduction will have to apply to all peoples, not just third world peoples, but i have my doubts this will ever happen, humans are too short sighted to allow this to happen so nature will make the adjustment for us eventually. i just hope we have made it to off world colonies way before that happens.

Drinking lots of water post alcohol binge is the best way to prevent hang overs, i haven't had a hang over since I figured this out, I like tequila and I will drink lots of it on occasion but I get no hang overs, i literally haven't had a hang over in 20 years or more. I feel fine the next day i get up fry eggs and potatoes and i am ready to go while everyone else is hung over too bad to enjoy anything (I usually do this on fishing/camping trips) kind of sad really hang overs are so easy to prevent. They even give this info out to college students.

So you are going to move the goal posts and then quote a guy who is 50 years out of date? I'll tell you again, chance doesn't figure into it, the molecules do not form by chance. I thought the video pointed that out quite well, if indeed it was by chance you would have a point but chance doesn't figure into it, the laws of chemistry have nothing to do with chance. The universe is full of organic molecules, carbon chemistry is very complex and complexity arises from chaos, it's well documented. http://www.space.com/1686-life-building-blocks-abundant-space.html Why is forming a protein molecule so important to your idea? Life doesn't have to have proteins, you are asking a complete modern cell to form spontaneously, that won't happen and is not what is thought to have happened, The first life was far more simple than modern life and contained no DNA the idea of a modern cell arising from a prebiotic earth spontaneously is a strawman argument to begin with. http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#p/a/0696457CAFD6D7C9/0/U6QYDdgP9eg

I always like to help when I can http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/100500E4C9404405/2/3H0RXDrfyZc This series can answer every question you asked, easy...

Chance was not a part of life developing on the earth. natural chemical reaction account for life on the earth quite nicely. A totally false anology. another false analogy Not true, explosions are often used to create order. Again not true, a lightning strike is an explosion and it is natural. Who says it is totally good luck? Life adapts, it changes and evolves, luck is not involved at all... Eventually an event will take place that will make the earth totally lifeless, just because it has not happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Not true the universe is very much an orderly place. Not true, order arises from chaos quite easily, see chaos theory, look it up on google. This doesn't make any sense what so ever, please elaborate. Something will eventually happen it's inevitable but not necessarily immediate. Again the game of poker is a false idea, life and the earth is not shear chance but a reasonable expectation of the laws of the universe, not chance. The earth never goes bust because life cheats, it changes the conditions to favor it's own existence, only by cheating at poker could you come close to showing it as a mirror of life. I think i see why you think this way, you think of life as the complex life you see around you but life on earth was quite simple for more than 3 billion years of it's existence, simple life is much harder to eradicate than complex life. Simple life can survive almost anything, there are life forms that live in ice and that live at temps far above the boiling point of water. complex life did not evolve until conditions on the earth had settled down quite a bit from the beginning. Your entire idea is based on a false premise, who is to say whether or not the universe came to be from chance? There could very well be an infinite number of universes such as ours and life did not come to be by chance but by natural chemical reactions of natural chemicals, life did not advance by chance either but by natural selection and Mars may or may not have life, we don't know but there is some evidence is still exists there as for the rest of the planets life if it exists there did not come about by chance either but via natural reactions due to chemistry. I don't understand where you get this idea that only by chance did life come into existence. You are constructing a strawman argument, science says no such thing even if some individual scientists might say it doesn't make them right. What are the odds of life? 100% of course, we are here! your claims are not even speculation they are totally wrong... It is now suspected that large planetary collisions are quite common in the beginning of planetary systems and large moons are not a billion to one event but probably quite common, all four of the inner planets show signs of giant impacts like the one that formed the moon, it just didn't form a moon on those bodies but had other results but forming a large moon is not as big an accident as you claim and once life started (that was after the large planetary impacts had stopped) it would take a huge impact of an object at least 300 miles in diameter to completely sterilize the earth, no such large objects still intersect with the orbit of the earth. You seem to imply such impacts happen routinely but they stopped nearly 4 billion years ago. so many strawmen in this discussion i cannot address them all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity The above links would seem to quantify the extremes of what is being debated here. One is that there are limits on humanity we will never be able to surpass The other is that humanity using science will be able to surpass all limits I do not think either idea is totally supportable by available data. The limits on resources as we see them today are real, there is no doubt at some point we will run out of something we cannot find a replacement for, it might be phosphorus or it might be hydrocarbons or some rare metal but the limits are real as is the march of technology that allows us to go past those limits. Every time we seem to approach a barrier that would seem impenetrable we find a way to penetrate it but the very technology that allows this might be the ultimate barrier to our progress. There is no way to know for sure but the technological singularity my very well be the "thing" we will not be able to get past, there is no reason to think that AI will want humans around once it becomes real, humans might be seen as a determent to it's own progress instead of finding ways for humans to continue to exist. As for resource barriers phosphorus is a good example of something we need that is in short supply and might very well disappear in reasonable amounts quite soon but there are lots of "assumes" in this line of reasoning as well. It assumes there will be no new deposits of reasonably high quality phosphates found and that no new technologies that would allow us to use deposits of lesser quality will be found or that no new ways of recycling phosphorus will be found as well. While lowering the impact of humans on the environment is always a good thing and the best way to do that is by having fewer humans I really don't think either extreme is likely to happen quite the way that is being assumed here. The best way to look at it is that by doing things like recycling available phosphorus and developing new technologies to do so while at the same time doing our best to make the lives of every one better through education will do more to solve our problems than by assuming doom before it happens, 100 years is a long time to assume there will be no better way to do this and some sources seem to indicate it will be several hundred instead of 100 years. Vernor Vinge, one of the first advocates of the technological singularity describes humanity near the singularity as one individual requiring the resources that during our time would support entire countries but such data curves are suspect in that they show nonsensical end points. The limited resource data would seem to show humanity dies out or at the very least becoming nothing more than a mass of staving people covering the land hip to hip as the end point of the resource limited school of thought this also seems to be nonsensical as well. I think that both technology and conservation hold the key to the survival of humanity as an intelligent species. We will have to use our intelligence to over come hurdles we come up against, not necessarily technological or non technological but a combination of both but assuming either curve's end point as inevitable is a huge assumption i do not think we have the data for.

So who says life occurred by chance and that only by chance has it been able to persist?

Microwaves Cap'n? Hmmm, I'd like to be able to EM Pulse those cars that sound like rolling earth quakes as they go by late at night, those things are just stupid and rude, I don't mind if you play the music loud but why do you need me to hear it, roll up your windows and act like you have a modicum of respect for those around you! ooops, OT, sorry, lol but if this catches on with rednecks, country music up that loud would be certain to drive me insane, well more insane, lol

TMI dude, TMI, lol, one thing to remember is that if you are losing weight that THC is being released into your body in detectable amounts, THC is stored in body fat so all the diuretic in the world will not remove that in fact it might make it worse. If you are losing weight while you are trying to get your THC levels down you will continue to shed THC from your fat cells for quite sometime. i would try to gain a few pounds while I was doing the other things for sure. Eat pizza! If they test your hair then you are screwed, shave your self bald every where just before you go in to be tested, I would take at least a month off before I tried to be tested and one question that comes to mind is that if you have a medical reason to smoke pot then why is it important to not test positive. If you were being tested for opiates and had a prescription for opiates all you have to do is show it and the opiates will be ignored in any testing regime I have ever heard of. I'm not sure about the visine thing, visine will kill you, it is poisonous and has been used to kill people. I doubt your beastly metabolism will figure into avoiding testing positive... If you just want to replace your urine with something use warm water, urine is often clear and many people fool the test by just using warm water as long as they are not being NAZI's about it, but time is the only thing that will reduce the level of THC in your urine if they are being NAZI's about it, then unless you give your self time, at least a month then you are screwed, who are you trying to fool? The CIA or just an employer? Common drug tests do not test to see if what is in the cup is urine they test it for drug metabolites, as long as you are cool and don't act like you are batshit crazy a common urine test is easy to fool but a really thurogh test is difficult to fool by any means...

I think it's demonstrable that more energy was produced since matter is such a small fraction of the over all substance of the universe.

Ok, I'm going to ask a stupid question, get the flame throwers ready... I have read recently, some place, that not only could our universe have formed from a black hole in another universe warping space time so much it tore out and the singularity expanded out into another dimension or reality or something and made our universe and that black holes in our universe could be doing the same thing and creating other universes. Not only that but universes that form black holes are likely to create more universes than universes that due to having laws of nature different from ours cannot form or form less numbers of black holes or less massive black holes that do not have the energy to tear out of singularity and expand into another dimension. What I want to know that if this can be shown to be mathematically "true" (that was the premise) where does the extra energy come from to make all the matter in a universe? if the mass of the black hole is the on,y source of energy this would seem to be a loosing proposition and each universe would be smaller than the next till they all fizzled out (at best) Does the mass of a black hole release more energy than it has by breaking this inter-dimensional barrier? Does breaking this barrier require a certain amount of mass, like a super black hole? or do even small black holes have the energy to break through and expand from a singularity and release an entire universe worth of energy by breaking this barrier? My own thoughts on this might be that when a black hole begins to collapse as it gets closer and closer to being a nothing but a point singularity, the impossibility of such a point singularity causes the rift/tear and allows the creation of a new space time this effect over comes this barrier and expands out by creating a whole new space time but I can't seem to understand where the energy comes from to create more mass than goes into a black hole. I have been rolling this concept around in my mind for a while now and i can't seem to get a grip on the idea where all the new energy/mass would come from or how the process would keep from running down like a battery running a motor and that turns a generator that charges the battery.... I think I like the colliding branes idea better.... lol

Humans are the only true evil, everything else is fantasy....

I think onstar or something like that is way ahead of you, they can unlock it, start it, and shut your car down for you remotely as well... The police can call and have your car shut down and nothing is tamper proof.... I think it's disturbing that someone can call and have your car shut down....

yes, take him to a doctor....

Well then you have a problem, ants do not reproduce fast, only one ant, the queen lays eggs and she only mates once in her life, none of the worker ants reproduce at all. Many experiments like you describe use fruit flies because they do reproduce fast. Google fruit fly research to see what I mean.

Caffeneisaddictivewhosayscaffenesiaddictiveiloveitinthemorningandatnightithasnoeffectonemewhatsoeverheyrefilmycupbequickaboutit....

Is that a fact? You're just baiting me right?