Hi all
I have just finished reading "Space" by James Michener.
Interesting read. Actually the best bits were in the closing chapter where Mott's ,(a key Character) analysis of the likelihood of life in the universe. Just looking at the distances quoted here makes a sobering read.
'Inside our galaxy'
Proxima Centauri At light speed = 4.2 years (Wikipedia)
Altair 93,850,000,000,000 miles / at light speed = 16 years ...At 25,000 miles per hour = 428,544 years.
At that point the options for us being able to send or receive communications are considered . Of the billions of years that our solar system has existed, we have only been capable of sending or receiving information for about 70 - 80 years.
To send and receive to outside our galaxy takes 20,000,000 years (at light speed to NGC_4565)....= 40,000,000 for a round trip At the speed of light. So if there is no life in our galaxy.....don't wait by the phone.....
Added to that is at what stage of development the other culture is. Have they achieved culture yet or have they peaked a billion or so years ago ? a culture may well be at the same stage as us , but may have been extinct for millions of years by the time we send and receive information.
Really. What it means is that even achieving light speed travel is unlikely to mean we would be able to travel to a distant galaxy and return to talk about it, because the earth will no longer be here in anything like the form we left it in.
Like wise for a visitor from another culture. We shouldn't expect to "go to the neighbors for "coffee and alien tarts" . A visit from an alien planet is probably a one time event for them as well as us (if it were to happen)
I am not placing much in the accuracy of the actual distances, but thought the sentiments to be relevant when posters talk about "popping off into space" or "traveling at the speed of light".......light speed doesn't mean much unless everybody does it with you, cause there ain't much sense in turning back.
Cheers
Iseason
- Zarkov, that delusional idiot doth return ..... please rp, remove its posting rights for 7 (what! he's allowed to post next week) ..... and a half ...... million years.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 13 2009, 04:14 AM)
Hi all
I have just finished reading "Space" by James Michener.
Interesting read. Actually the best bits were in the closing chapter where Mott's ,(a key Character) analysis of the likelihood of life in the universe. Just looking at the distances quoted here makes a sobering read.
'Inside our galaxy'
Proxima Centauri At light speed = 4.2 years (Wikipedia)
Altair 93,850,000,000,000 miles / at light speed = 16 years ...At 25,000 miles per hour = 428,544 years.
At that point the options for us being able to send or receive communications are considered . Of the billions of years that our solar system has existed, we have only been capable of sending or receiving information for about 70 - 80 years.
To send and receive to outside our galaxy takes 20,000,000 years (at light speed to NGC_4565)....= 40,000,000 for a round trip At the speed of light. So if there is no life in our galaxy.....don't wait by the phone.....
Added to that is at what stage of development the other culture is. Have they achieved culture yet or have they peaked a billion or so years ago ? a culture may well be at the same stage as us , but may have been extinct for millions of years by the time we send and receive information.
Really. What it means is that even achieving light speed travel is unlikely to mean we would be able to travel to a distant galaxy and return to talk about it, because the earth will no longer be here in anything like the form we left it in.
Like wise for a visitor from another culture. We shouldn't expect to "go to the neighbors for "coffee and alien tarts" . A visit from an alien planet is probably a one time event for them as well as us (if it were to happen)
I am not placing much in the accuracy of the actual distances, but thought the sentiments to be relevant when posters talk about "popping off into space" or "traveling at the speed of light".......light speed doesn't mean much unless everybody does it with you, cause there ain't much sense in turning back.
Cheers
Iseason
Of course.
Which is why space aliens have never visited the earth, or if they have, it was by probe.
Nobody with any remotely imaginable realistic technology would ever spend the amount of energy and resources necessary to travel to a distant world for any reason other than colonization.
I will concede that if someone did somehow succeed in harnessing so-called "zero point energy" as in Stargate-SG1, then costs and energy would become irrelevant. However, it is highly unlikely that is physically possible, and even it were possible, actually doing it would be another matter entirely.
As for anti-matter, I have considered this extensively in the past. It turns out anti-matter is far, far more powerful as a fuel source in propulsion than I ever realized, and by almost six orders of magnitude.
Apparantly a single kilogram of antimatter annihilating with a single kilogram of matter is slightly MORE energy (~50 megatons of TNT worth,) larger than Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated.
In order to accelerate a craft having the mass of the Space Shuttle orbiter (~91, 819kg) "arbitrarily close to" the speed of light requres far less than one kilogram of anti-matter and the same amount of matter. For the sake of argument I will assume only 2.5% of the energy produced by the explosion can be harnessed for thrust.
E = mc^2
So with any given mass of anti-matter, since the matter also annihilates, we end up having.
energy = 2mc^2 = 1.8*10^17 joules
About half of this is theorized to get lost to neutrinos, but the other half is theorized to be "available to do work".
Notice how big 1.8*10^17joules is compared to 91,819kg mass of the shuttle.
Now, as an example lets approximate how much anti-matter is needed to accelerate the space shuttle to 0.999c.
First of all, lets address the relativity of mass.
For most any other inter-stellar engine, the relativity of mass quickly becomes a huge problem starting around 0.5c.
However, in an anti-matter engine, the effects of relativity of mass totally cancel themselves out.
Remember out equation?
E=mc^2
Well, the faster the ship moves, the more massive it becomes. However, the remaining anti-matter and matter fuels onboard the ship also become more massive by a proportional amount, thus, the next time an anti-matter/matter particle pair annihilate, they release more energy than the previous pair, etc.
Neat, its not magic, just think about it. The mass of the anti-matter/matter particle pairs is the power source, therefore relaivity of mass is irrelevant. Ship increases in mass by such and such a ratio, but so does the fuel, which converts entirely into energy, etc.
The reverse happens when you are "slowing down".
This means that for all practicall purposes, an anti-matter engine can accelerate a ship approximately linearly (though it still obeys relativity.)
This means that even with a 2.5% efficient engine, we only need an amount of anti-matter needed to accelerate the ship to the target velocity almost as though relativity didn't exist at all! (if anyone wants an exhaustive proof of this, I can give it.)
For a target velocity of 0.999c we need to accelerate at 10m/s for about 29970000 seconds (exactly 346 days 21 hours.)
In order to do this, we need to start the journey having only 0.000153kg of antimatter to annihilate. The other half the energy comes from the matter. Friends, that is not a joke. That is less than 15 percent of a gram of anti-matter for each stage, positive and negative burn, to take the space shuttle to any place within 1000ly well within the lifetime of the people on board the ship.
travelling at 0.999c, a space ship can reach a star that we on earth observe to be 100ly distant, this ship can reach that star in an amount of time equal to:
4 years 173 days 13 hours 50 minutes 50 seconds(as observed from inside the ship, and neglecting relativistic effects due to acceleration, also here neglecting acceleration time itself).
To the people on earth, over 100 years will have passed.
Now, that time period is not all that much longer than the amount of time Astronauts have spent in the ISS, nor is it even significantly longer than would be needed to make a round trip mission to mars using modern conventional rockets.
====
Anyway, as stated, this suggest anti-matter engines are far, far better than I had ever previously imagined. With only about 6 years total needed for the crews survival, a ship far smaller than previously realized could complete the journey.
Making the same 100ly trip on the "Super Orion" space craft powered by thermonuclear warheads would require ~995years (almost negligible length contraction) at 0.1c.
It is highly likely that the Super Orion spacecraft would experience some sort of heat death or entropy related failure long before reaching its destination at 100ly. However, that idea could be used to try to populate much closer planets if the anti-matter thing never works out.
===
Still, even after all this, the costs are so high a round trip for an actual organic being is almost certainly out of question in anything other than at LEAST the equivalent of a type 2 civilization, of which we are nowhere near being. Even then, the people would liekly be intelligent enough to realize travelling backa nd forth would be a completely insane waste of resources.
I have just finished reading "Space" by James Michener.
Interesting read. Actually the best bits were in the closing chapter where Mott's ,(a key Character) analysis of the likelihood of life in the universe. Just looking at the distances quoted here makes a sobering read.
'Inside our galaxy'
Proxima Centauri At light speed = 4.2 years (Wikipedia)
Altair 93,850,000,000,000 miles / at light speed = 16 years ...At 25,000 miles per hour = 428,544 years.
At that point the options for us being able to send or receive communications are considered . Of the billions of years that our solar system has existed, we have only been capable of sending or receiving information for about 70 - 80 years.
To send and receive to outside our galaxy takes 20,000,000 years (at light speed to NGC_4565)....= 40,000,000 for a round trip At the speed of light. So if there is no life in our galaxy.....don't wait by the phone.....
Added to that is at what stage of development the other culture is. Have they achieved culture yet or have they peaked a billion or so years ago ? a culture may well be at the same stage as us , but may have been extinct for millions of years by the time we send and receive information.
Really. What it means is that even achieving light speed travel is unlikely to mean we would be able to travel to a distant galaxy and return to talk about it, because the earth will no longer be here in anything like the form we left it in.
Like wise for a visitor from another culture. We shouldn't expect to "go to the neighbors for "coffee and alien tarts" . A visit from an alien planet is probably a one time event for them as well as us (if it were to happen)
I am not placing much in the accuracy of the actual distances, but thought the sentiments to be relevant when posters talk about "popping off into space" or "traveling at the speed of light".......light speed doesn't mean much unless everybody does it with you, cause there ain't much sense in turning back.
Cheers
Iseason
Of course.
Which is why space aliens have never visited the earth, or if they have, it was by probe.
Nobody with any remotely imaginable realistic technology would ever spend the amount of energy and resources necessary to travel to a distant world for any reason other than colonization.
I will concede that if someone did somehow succeed in harnessing so-called "zero point energy" as in Stargate-SG1, then costs and energy would become irrelevant. However, it is highly unlikely that is physically possible, and even it were possible, actually doing it would be another matter entirely.
As for anti-matter, I have considered this extensively in the past. It turns out anti-matter is far, far more powerful as a fuel source in propulsion than I ever realized, and by almost six orders of magnitude.
Apparantly a single kilogram of antimatter annihilating with a single kilogram of matter is slightly MORE energy (~50 megatons of TNT worth,) larger than Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated.
In order to accelerate a craft having the mass of the Space Shuttle orbiter (~91, 819kg) "arbitrarily close to" the speed of light requres far less than one kilogram of anti-matter and the same amount of matter. For the sake of argument I will assume only 2.5% of the energy produced by the explosion can be harnessed for thrust.
E = mc^2
So with any given mass of anti-matter, since the matter also annihilates, we end up having.
energy = 2mc^2 = 1.8*10^17 joules
About half of this is theorized to get lost to neutrinos, but the other half is theorized to be "available to do work".
Notice how big 1.8*10^17joules is compared to 91,819kg mass of the shuttle.
Now, as an example lets approximate how much anti-matter is needed to accelerate the space shuttle to 0.999c.
First of all, lets address the relativity of mass.
For most any other inter-stellar engine, the relativity of mass quickly becomes a huge problem starting around 0.5c.
However, in an anti-matter engine, the effects of relativity of mass totally cancel themselves out.
Remember out equation?
E=mc^2
Well, the faster the ship moves, the more massive it becomes. However, the remaining anti-matter and matter fuels onboard the ship also become more massive by a proportional amount, thus, the next time an anti-matter/matter particle pair annihilate, they release more energy than the previous pair, etc.
Neat, its not magic, just think about it. The mass of the anti-matter/matter particle pairs is the power source, therefore relaivity of mass is irrelevant. Ship increases in mass by such and such a ratio, but so does the fuel, which converts entirely into energy, etc.
The reverse happens when you are "slowing down".
This means that for all practicall purposes, an anti-matter engine can accelerate a ship approximately linearly (though it still obeys relativity.)
This means that even with a 2.5% efficient engine, we only need an amount of anti-matter needed to accelerate the ship to the target velocity almost as though relativity didn't exist at all! (if anyone wants an exhaustive proof of this, I can give it.)
For a target velocity of 0.999c we need to accelerate at 10m/s for about 29970000 seconds (exactly 346 days 21 hours.)
In order to do this, we need to start the journey having only 0.000153kg of antimatter to annihilate. The other half the energy comes from the matter. Friends, that is not a joke. That is less than 15 percent of a gram of anti-matter for each stage, positive and negative burn, to take the space shuttle to any place within 1000ly well within the lifetime of the people on board the ship.
travelling at 0.999c, a space ship can reach a star that we on earth observe to be 100ly distant, this ship can reach that star in an amount of time equal to:
4 years 173 days 13 hours 50 minutes 50 seconds(as observed from inside the ship, and neglecting relativistic effects due to acceleration, also here neglecting acceleration time itself).
To the people on earth, over 100 years will have passed.
Now, that time period is not all that much longer than the amount of time Astronauts have spent in the ISS, nor is it even significantly longer than would be needed to make a round trip mission to mars using modern conventional rockets.
====
Anyway, as stated, this suggest anti-matter engines are far, far better than I had ever previously imagined. With only about 6 years total needed for the crews survival, a ship far smaller than previously realized could complete the journey.
Making the same 100ly trip on the "Super Orion" space craft powered by thermonuclear warheads would require ~995years (almost negligible length contraction) at 0.1c.
It is highly likely that the Super Orion spacecraft would experience some sort of heat death or entropy related failure long before reaching its destination at 100ly. However, that idea could be used to try to populate much closer planets if the anti-matter thing never works out.
===
Still, even after all this, the costs are so high a round trip for an actual organic being is almost certainly out of question in anything other than at LEAST the equivalent of a type 2 civilization, of which we are nowhere near being. Even then, the people would liekly be intelligent enough to realize travelling backa nd forth would be a completely insane waste of resources.
Hibernation would be necessary. We're still along way from being able to successfully slow down our metabolic cells to a level that they can survive for long periods.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Sounds interesting to me.
How can we tell that some is even trying to communicate?
Can those minute radio be washed by other CMB and other local radiation.
In other words, our radio waves been washed out by the Sun's EMR?
Sounds interesting to me.
How can we tell that some is even trying to communicate?
Can those minute radio be washed by other CMB and other local radiation.
In other words, our radio waves been washed out by the Sun's EMR?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 4 2009, 07:04 AM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Sounds interesting to me.
How can we tell that some is even trying to communicate?
Can those minute radio be washed by other CMB and other local radiation.
In other words, our radio waves been washed out by the Sun's EMR?
According to an article I saw on the internet somewhere recently (maybe even this website, but I'm not entirely sure,) Radio signals have recently been calculated to degrade after about 1 to 2 light years.
So in order to actually communicate over interstellar distances, you MUST have a relay of multiple space probes/space stations along the way between most stars, unless you are talking about literally a binary star system where the stars are right on top of one another.
Sounds interesting to me.
How can we tell that some is even trying to communicate?
Can those minute radio be washed by other CMB and other local radiation.
In other words, our radio waves been washed out by the Sun's EMR?
According to an article I saw on the internet somewhere recently (maybe even this website, but I'm not entirely sure,) Radio signals have recently been calculated to degrade after about 1 to 2 light years.
So in order to actually communicate over interstellar distances, you MUST have a relay of multiple space probes/space stations along the way between most stars, unless you are talking about literally a binary star system where the stars are right on top of one another.
I doubt that report, since radio astronomy is a useful tool out to gigaparsecs, and the radio absorption physics of plasmas like the ISM is basically well-understood. (Thanks, Prof. Sally Ride!)
Do you have any basis to trust your recollection of the article?
Do you have any basis to trust your recollection of the article?
You can't communicate at those distances period. At least not with current EM wave technology.
The equation for Free Space Path Loss (FSPL) in a vacuum is ((4*π*d)/λ)^2, where:
The only possibility I see for communication at great distances is with quantum entanglement. But please note that quantum entanglement is not "instant". The message will still be as slow as light.
EDIT:
rpenner, I posted before I saw your response. I believe radio astronomy is a useful tool over said large distances because the source of the signal is a star. Even so, the vast majority of the light that a star radiates does not make it to earth. Many stars appear so faint to us that they are barely detectable, even with the most detailed instruments. Now consider how much less powerful even the best radio transmitter is than a star.
In addition, while stars are detectable at great distances, that doesn't mean that minute details about the star are preserved in the signal that reaches us. For instance, with distant stars, sun spots are lost and all but the largest solar flares are lost. The signal may reach us, but much of the detail is lost. In the same way, you might get some sort of signal from a very powerful transmitter, but it would be completely meaningless in terms of contents of the message.
The equation for Free Space Path Loss (FSPL) in a vacuum is ((4*π*d)/λ)^2, where:
- π is pi (not sure if the font is clear enough)
- d is the distance of the transmission in meters, and
- λ is the wavelength in meters
The only possibility I see for communication at great distances is with quantum entanglement. But please note that quantum entanglement is not "instant". The message will still be as slow as light.
EDIT:
rpenner, I posted before I saw your response. I believe radio astronomy is a useful tool over said large distances because the source of the signal is a star. Even so, the vast majority of the light that a star radiates does not make it to earth. Many stars appear so faint to us that they are barely detectable, even with the most detailed instruments. Now consider how much less powerful even the best radio transmitter is than a star.
In addition, while stars are detectable at great distances, that doesn't mean that minute details about the star are preserved in the signal that reaches us. For instance, with distant stars, sun spots are lost and all but the largest solar flares are lost. The signal may reach us, but much of the detail is lost. In the same way, you might get some sort of signal from a very powerful transmitter, but it would be completely meaningless in terms of contents of the message.
Well, you are neglecting antenna gain, which for a dish on both sides of the link means another 80-100 dB of gain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friis_transmission_equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friis_transmission_equation
Just heard of a promotion where they're going to 'text' millions of ppls mesagge's into space. Is this nothing more than a promotional marketing scam or is there any scientific benefit for it?
Long distance communication will always be limited by the speed of light unless super-luminal communication is possible via entanglement.
Without entanglement, inter-stellar communication would be facilitated by making a "smoke signal" style chain of probes which hold position in space relative to two stars(the ones holding the communicating civilizations.) These probes simply pass the message along between one another "boosting" it over and over again, thus making an fireman's chain. Without entanglement, this is the only known way to send long distance messages, and even once this system is in place it is limited by the speed of light, and must also eventually be maintained.
In order to minimize maintenance requirements and minimize "downtime", all probes are designed with the absolute maximum redundancy: Multiple recievers and transmitters, multiple processors, multiple power supplies, etc. This way, a web of relay probes exist between all stars.
Example:
A, B and C are stars which host human civilizations. "_" represents one light year of space. "R" is a relay probe. "->" and "<-" represent information flow.
->->->->->->->->->->->->->
A_R_R_R_R_R_R_R_B_R_R_C
<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-
This exact same method would eventually be used by a Type 3.x civilization to communicate between galaxies. However, the scale of that operation is far beyond anything humanity will have the resources to attempt within the next 100,000 years. Suffice it to say, one must make stellar engines and move a line of entire stars to form a chain of Dyson Spheres between galaxies, relaying messages along this chain. The reason a "probe" wouldn't work between galaxies is that the distance is so great that the life-span of the probe would not be high enough to survive the journey, much less be in place long enough to be useful. Thus a type 3.x civilization would need to place an entire Dyson Sphere every 1 to 2 lightyears between galaxies in order to communicate between those galaxies, as a Dyson Sphere is the only thing with a long enough lifespan to be useful IN addition, you would need something that large just to handle the possible bandwidth of communications between potentially billions of billions of billions of billions of beings: Billions per star system, Billions of star systems per galaxy, and Billions of galaxies.
If FTL communication is possible, the above would not be necessary once discovered.
===
Now IF entanglement is possible to be used for FTL communication, there is a very simple, modular way to created instant speed computer networks which function across any distance.
If you have a transmitter and a reciever which are constructed in such a manner that they are entangled(that is, a change in one instantly represents a corresponding, predictable change in another,) then these can be created in such manner that they can simply "plug in" to a system of hubs connected to computers in an extended star networkd. (when planning long colony missions, maximum redundancy is assured so that they have multiple hubs which have entangle channels with multiple hubs on the parent civilization.)
With this setup, all that would be needed for civilization A to communicate with Civlization B is for each to have the transmitter and reciever. Every colony started by Earth would have multiple transmitters and recievers entangled with transmitters and recievers on the earth. All of these connect to a hub. Every colony started by other colonies is not directly connected to the earth, but is entangled wtih transmitters and recievers on tis parent colony. In this way, the entire civilization can communicate with one another at near-instant speed across any distance, even if two individual colonies have no members which ever had direct contact with one another.
If a hub breaks down, the engtangled transmitter is still useful and can simply be moved to another hub. If a transmitter breaks down, hopefully, you have enough backups. For maximum redundancy, you may have several dozen or even several hundred channels between earth and just one colony. In addition, during the early stages of this, you would give colony ship B entangled transmitters with colony ship C and D and E, etc, up to a certain limit, for maximum redundancy. Redundancy assures no loss of contact, if a group loses their own direct connection to earth, they can simply re-route communications.
Without entanglement, inter-stellar communication would be facilitated by making a "smoke signal" style chain of probes which hold position in space relative to two stars(the ones holding the communicating civilizations.) These probes simply pass the message along between one another "boosting" it over and over again, thus making an fireman's chain. Without entanglement, this is the only known way to send long distance messages, and even once this system is in place it is limited by the speed of light, and must also eventually be maintained.
In order to minimize maintenance requirements and minimize "downtime", all probes are designed with the absolute maximum redundancy: Multiple recievers and transmitters, multiple processors, multiple power supplies, etc. This way, a web of relay probes exist between all stars.
Example:
A, B and C are stars which host human civilizations. "_" represents one light year of space. "R" is a relay probe. "->" and "<-" represent information flow.
->->->->->->->->->->->->->
A_R_R_R_R_R_R_R_B_R_R_C
<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-
This exact same method would eventually be used by a Type 3.x civilization to communicate between galaxies. However, the scale of that operation is far beyond anything humanity will have the resources to attempt within the next 100,000 years. Suffice it to say, one must make stellar engines and move a line of entire stars to form a chain of Dyson Spheres between galaxies, relaying messages along this chain. The reason a "probe" wouldn't work between galaxies is that the distance is so great that the life-span of the probe would not be high enough to survive the journey, much less be in place long enough to be useful. Thus a type 3.x civilization would need to place an entire Dyson Sphere every 1 to 2 lightyears between galaxies in order to communicate between those galaxies, as a Dyson Sphere is the only thing with a long enough lifespan to be useful IN addition, you would need something that large just to handle the possible bandwidth of communications between potentially billions of billions of billions of billions of beings: Billions per star system, Billions of star systems per galaxy, and Billions of galaxies.
If FTL communication is possible, the above would not be necessary once discovered.
===
Now IF entanglement is possible to be used for FTL communication, there is a very simple, modular way to created instant speed computer networks which function across any distance.
If you have a transmitter and a reciever which are constructed in such a manner that they are entangled(that is, a change in one instantly represents a corresponding, predictable change in another,) then these can be created in such manner that they can simply "plug in" to a system of hubs connected to computers in an extended star networkd. (when planning long colony missions, maximum redundancy is assured so that they have multiple hubs which have entangle channels with multiple hubs on the parent civilization.)
With this setup, all that would be needed for civilization A to communicate with Civlization B is for each to have the transmitter and reciever. Every colony started by Earth would have multiple transmitters and recievers entangled with transmitters and recievers on the earth. All of these connect to a hub. Every colony started by other colonies is not directly connected to the earth, but is entangled wtih transmitters and recievers on tis parent colony. In this way, the entire civilization can communicate with one another at near-instant speed across any distance, even if two individual colonies have no members which ever had direct contact with one another.
If a hub breaks down, the engtangled transmitter is still useful and can simply be moved to another hub. If a transmitter breaks down, hopefully, you have enough backups. For maximum redundancy, you may have several dozen or even several hundred channels between earth and just one colony. In addition, during the early stages of this, you would give colony ship B entangled transmitters with colony ship C and D and E, etc, up to a certain limit, for maximum redundancy. Redundancy assures no loss of contact, if a group loses their own direct connection to earth, they can simply re-route communications.
If aliens were to come here they would probably kill us and take our planet for themselves.
I doubt they would come all that way to have brunch and ask us what's on our simple little minds.
I doubt they would come all that way to have brunch and ask us what's on our simple little minds.
QUOTE (bigtonkertoys+Aug 25 2009, 11:10 AM)
If aliens were to come here they would probably kill us and take our planet for themselves.
I doubt they would come all that way to have brunch and ask us what's on our simple little minds.
I sort of prefer the message of "District 9," whereby we see that the aliens are unlikely to be the "bad guys" as human history would suggest that we are a far greater threat to them than vice versa.
I doubt they would come all that way to have brunch and ask us what's on our simple little minds.
I sort of prefer the message of "District 9," whereby we see that the aliens are unlikely to be the "bad guys" as human history would suggest that we are a far greater threat to them than vice versa.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 04:18 PM)
I sort of prefer the message of "District 9," whereby we see that the aliens are unlikely to be the "bad guys" as human history would suggest that we are a far greater threat to them than vice versa.
This is in a large part thanks to...
wait for it...
Religion (Christianity and Islam for the most part)
This is in a large part thanks to...
wait for it...
Religion (Christianity and Islam for the most part)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 03:22 PM)
This is in a large part thanks to...
wait for it...
Religion (Christianity and Islam for the most part)
Uh...Christianity no....Islam, yes, but only back about 1300 years, as it didn't exist before then...
Let us not forget that the Nazis were primarily atheists and pagans(astrologers,) who subscribed to the practice of Eugenics. i.e. supremacy by extermination of all others. In essence, Nazi philosophy is the inescapable "logical" end of anyone who believes in atheism and evolution whole heartedly. That is, once fallacies of atheism and evolution are truly embraced, even a "rational" mind will eventually end at Eugenics, which leads to genocide of all competition.
Let us not forget communist USSR, especially early in its history, which forbade all religion and killed probably more jews than the Nazis, not to mention others.
Let us not forget China, which is also nationally atheist, and oppresses its people as a common practise, particularly hunting down, killing, and arresting Christians both publicly and secretly to this day.
Or what about the Mongols? Who were neither Christian, Jew, nor Islamic, and would raid nations, capture the women and children, and then drive them ahead of their armies as human shields vs the next town or nation they invaded...
Lets not forget ancient greece and rome either. If you think WW2 or the crusades was bad, study a little about greece and rome and the butchery they commited in africa and the middle east for hundreds of years.
Just blame it all on the Christians or "religion"...though...get real...The Nazis, soviets, and chinese are more than enough evidence to show that, the Christian religion, cannot at all be blamed for the violence of humanity.
wait for it...
Religion (Christianity and Islam for the most part)
Uh...Christianity no....Islam, yes, but only back about 1300 years, as it didn't exist before then...
Let us not forget that the Nazis were primarily atheists and pagans(astrologers,) who subscribed to the practice of Eugenics. i.e. supremacy by extermination of all others. In essence, Nazi philosophy is the inescapable "logical" end of anyone who believes in atheism and evolution whole heartedly. That is, once fallacies of atheism and evolution are truly embraced, even a "rational" mind will eventually end at Eugenics, which leads to genocide of all competition.
Let us not forget communist USSR, especially early in its history, which forbade all religion and killed probably more jews than the Nazis, not to mention others.
Let us not forget China, which is also nationally atheist, and oppresses its people as a common practise, particularly hunting down, killing, and arresting Christians both publicly and secretly to this day.
Or what about the Mongols? Who were neither Christian, Jew, nor Islamic, and would raid nations, capture the women and children, and then drive them ahead of their armies as human shields vs the next town or nation they invaded...
Lets not forget ancient greece and rome either. If you think WW2 or the crusades was bad, study a little about greece and rome and the butchery they commited in africa and the middle east for hundreds of years.
Just blame it all on the Christians or "religion"...though...get real...The Nazis, soviets, and chinese are more than enough evidence to show that, the Christian religion, cannot at all be blamed for the violence of humanity.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 05:43 PM)
Uh...Christianity no....
This is the equivalent of denying the Holocaust.
Let's make a list!
Crusades
Spanish Inquisition
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
Spanish conquest of Central America
Do you know what these are? These are atrocities committed by Christians in the name of your god.
Replace "atheism" with "Christian" and "evolution" with "racism" and that statement would be correct.
From wikipedia:
Replace "atheism" with "Christian" and "evolution" with "racism" and that statement would be correct.
From wikipedia:
Hitler for a time advocated for Germans a form of the Christian faith he called "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged of what he objected to in orthodox Christianity, and featuring added racist elements. By 1940 however, it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned advocating for Germans even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianty.[301] Hitler maintained that the "terrorism in religion is, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds."
In addition to not attending Mass or receiving the sacraments, Hitler favored aspects of Protestantism if they were more amenable to his own objectives. At the same time, he adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organization, liturgy and phraseology in his politics.
Hitler was 1st a Christian, and then an Occultist. Again, assigning bad people to religions you don't like doesn't make you seem any less of a lying douchebag.
They did not kill more Jews than the Nazis.
They did not kill more Jews than the Nazis.
Let us not forget China, which is also nationally atheist, and oppresses its people as a common practise, particularly hunting down, killing, and arresting Christians both publicly and secretly to this day.
This would be like me describing David Koresh as a devout Christian.
I didn't blame Christianity for all the violence of humanity.
Matthew 7: 15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 7: 15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Replace "atheism" with "Christian" and "evolution" with "racism" and that statement would be correct.
From wikipedia:
Hitler was 1st a Christian, and then an Occultist. Again, assigning bad people to religions you don't like doesn't make you seem any less of a lying douchebag.
Hitler was not a Christian for the same reason Obama is not a Christian. It is not possible to subscribe to their own stated idealogy and still rightly be classified as a Christian. It is not possible to be an "Occultist"(which implies either being a false prophet/familliar and or consorting with one,) and at the same time call oneself a Christian.
Lets look at what the real CHRISTIAN Bible says about this.
Leviticus 19:31
Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Why do you continue to deny Hitler and the Nazi party's primary motivation in killing Jews and Gypsies was based in Eugenics, which is the end result of Evolutionary theory? This is well documented, as they were attempting to establish the "Arian" race as superior to all others. The conclusion of such a philosophy, which again is simply applied evolutionary theory, is genocide.
According to the History Channel, they did. While I haven't been able to find an article directly substantiating that, I have found several articles by historians which seem in doubt who killed more Jews: Russia/USSR, or Nazis. One this is clear, the Soviet government did in fact commit more total genocides and murders of various sorts than the Germans.
According to the History Channel, they did. While I haven't been able to find an article directly substantiating that, I have found several articles by historians which seem in doubt who killed more Jews: Russia/USSR, or Nazis. One this is clear, the Soviet government did in fact commit more total genocides and murders of various sorts than the Germans.
This would be like me describing David Koresh as a devout Christian.
Hey, why not? You tried to claim Hitler was a devout Christian...
No, but you did blame "religion" and then cited Chrisitanity as oneof your two examples.
This is the equivalent of denying the Holocaust.
Let's make a list!
Crusades
Spanish Inquisition
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
Spanish conquest of Central America
Do you know what these are? These are atrocities committed by Christians in the name of your god.
QUOTE
Let us not forget that the Nazis were primarily atheists and pagans(astrologers,) who subscribed to the practice of Eugenics. i.e. supremacy by extermination of all others. In essence, Nazi philosophy is the inescapable "logical" end of anyone who believes in atheism and evolution whole heartedly. That is, once fallacies of atheism and evolution are truly embraced, even a "rational" mind will eventually end at Eugenics, which leads to genocide of all competition.
Replace "atheism" with "Christian" and "evolution" with "racism" and that statement would be correct.
From wikipedia:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let us not forget that the Nazis were primarily atheists and pagans(astrologers,) who subscribed to the practice of Eugenics. i.e. supremacy by extermination of all others. In essence, Nazi philosophy is the inescapable "logical" end of anyone who believes in atheism and evolution whole heartedly. That is, once fallacies of atheism and evolution are truly embraced, even a "rational" mind will eventually end at Eugenics, which leads to genocide of all competition. |
Replace "atheism" with "Christian" and "evolution" with "racism" and that statement would be correct.
From wikipedia:
Hitler for a time advocated for Germans a form of the Christian faith he called "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged of what he objected to in orthodox Christianity, and featuring added racist elements. By 1940 however, it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned advocating for Germans even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianty.[301] Hitler maintained that the "terrorism in religion is, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds."
In addition to not attending Mass or receiving the sacraments, Hitler favored aspects of Protestantism if they were more amenable to his own objectives. At the same time, he adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organization, liturgy and phraseology in his politics.
Hitler was 1st a Christian, and then an Occultist. Again, assigning bad people to religions you don't like doesn't make you seem any less of a lying douchebag.
QUOTE
Let us not forget communist USSR, especially early in its history, which forbade all religion and killed probably more jews than the Nazis, not to mention others.
They did not kill more Jews than the Nazis.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let us not forget communist USSR, especially early in its history, which forbade all religion and killed probably more jews than the Nazis, not to mention others. |
They did not kill more Jews than the Nazis.
Let us not forget China, which is also nationally atheist, and oppresses its people as a common practise, particularly hunting down, killing, and arresting Christians both publicly and secretly to this day.
This would be like me describing David Koresh as a devout Christian.
QUOTE
Just blame it all on the Christians or "religion"...though...get real...The Nazis, soviets, and chinese are more than enough evidence to show that, the Christian religion, cannot at all be blamed for the violence of humanity.
I didn't blame Christianity for all the violence of humanity.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 05:30 PM)
QUOTE
This is the equivalent of denying the Holocaust.
Let's make a list!
Crusades
Spanish Inquisition
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
Spanish conquest of Central America
Do you know what these are? These are atrocities committed by Christians in the name of your god.
Let's make a list!
Crusades
Spanish Inquisition
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
Spanish conquest of Central America
Do you know what these are? These are atrocities committed by Christians in the name of your god.
Matthew 7: 15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is the equivalent of denying the Holocaust. Let's make a list! Crusades Spanish Inquisition St. Bartholomew's Day massacre Spanish conquest of Central America Do you know what these are? These are atrocities committed by Christians in the name of your god. |
Matthew 7: 15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Replace "atheism" with "Christian" and "evolution" with "racism" and that statement would be correct.
From wikipedia:
Hitler was 1st a Christian, and then an Occultist. Again, assigning bad people to religions you don't like doesn't make you seem any less of a lying douchebag.
Hitler was not a Christian for the same reason Obama is not a Christian. It is not possible to subscribe to their own stated idealogy and still rightly be classified as a Christian. It is not possible to be an "Occultist"(which implies either being a false prophet/familliar and or consorting with one,) and at the same time call oneself a Christian.
Lets look at what the real CHRISTIAN Bible says about this.
Leviticus 19:31
Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Why do you continue to deny Hitler and the Nazi party's primary motivation in killing Jews and Gypsies was based in Eugenics, which is the end result of Evolutionary theory? This is well documented, as they were attempting to establish the "Arian" race as superior to all others. The conclusion of such a philosophy, which again is simply applied evolutionary theory, is genocide.
QUOTE
They did not kill more Jews than the Nazis.
According to the History Channel, they did. While I haven't been able to find an article directly substantiating that, I have found several articles by historians which seem in doubt who killed more Jews: Russia/USSR, or Nazis. One this is clear, the Soviet government did in fact commit more total genocides and murders of various sorts than the Germans.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They did not kill more Jews than the Nazis. |
According to the History Channel, they did. While I haven't been able to find an article directly substantiating that, I have found several articles by historians which seem in doubt who killed more Jews: Russia/USSR, or Nazis. One this is clear, the Soviet government did in fact commit more total genocides and murders of various sorts than the Germans.
This would be like me describing David Koresh as a devout Christian.
Hey, why not? You tried to claim Hitler was a devout Christian...
QUOTE
I didn't blame Christianity for all the violence of humanity.
No, but you did blame "religion" and then cited Chrisitanity as oneof your two examples.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 08:37 PM)
Hitler was not a Christian for the same reason Obama is not a Christian. It is not possible to subscribe to their own stated idealogy and still rightly be classified as a Christian. It is not possible to be an "Occultist"(which implies either being a false prophet/familliar and or consorting with one,) and at the same time call oneself a Christian.
Sorry, you don't make the rules.
It was based on Eugenics, but Eugenics has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.
Evolution and selective breeding are completely different. Emphasize natural selection. There is no good reason why you should confuse the two, so you are probably just a liar.
It was based on Eugenics, but Eugenics has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.
Evolution and selective breeding are completely different. Emphasize natural selection. There is no good reason why you should confuse the two, so you are probably just a liar.
According to the History Channel, they did. While I haven't been able to find an article directly substantiating that, I have found several articles by historians which seem in doubt who killed more Jews: Russia/USSR, or Nazis. One this is clear, the Soviet government did in fact commit more total genocides and murders of various sorts than the Germans.
There is a little truth to that. Stalin's genocide was against the population in Ukraine, not Jews in particular. Stalin was certainly very antisemitic, but he didn't single out Jews in any genocidal campaign.
I didn't say he was devout. He used Christianity as a weapon, but he was "backed up" by almost all the church leaders in Germany. It just goes to show that the religious are easily manipulated.
I didn't say he was devout. He used Christianity as a weapon, but he was "backed up" by almost all the church leaders in Germany. It just goes to show that the religious are easily manipulated.
No, but you did blame "religion" and then cited Chrisitanity as one of your two examples.
I said that religion played a "large" part. Notice how I was purposefully vague. Can you name any other major religions that have a tendency for genocide?
Learn how to spell your own religion. Hint, it's not "Chrisitanity."
No, see, I don't deny the crusades or the inquisition or witch hunts, etc.
While I don't know every detail involved, as I'm sure nobody but God does, most of the Crusades cannot reasonably be justified by anyone with a Christian world view given the historical facts we have. (though facts can be distorted.)
The Inquisition was, among other things, an attempt to force people to join the church through threat of death
Neither Jesus nor any of the disciples did any such thing, nor did they tell anyone to do that. EVerywhere they went, they fed people, healed them, clothed them, etc, in some cases even the people who were persecuting them. This doesn't look anything like the Crusades or the Inquisition.
Do you know what the term "Christian" means?
Do you think it means someone who calls themself a Christian?
Or do you think it means someone who goes to church certain days?
Or owns a Bible?
Or sings a song or two once in a while?
None of that makes a person a Christian. I already told you this several times, and have shown you numerous Bible passages, as well as quotes and links to the teachings and statements of faith of major christian leaders of all major denominations, showing you that I in fact do have the correct, traditional interpretation of the Bible as it regards Christ and salvation.
You are right, I do not get to make the rules. but the BIBLE is the rule as it regards Christianity, and particularly the words of Jesus Christ.
The term "Christian" is given to those who follow the teachings of Jesus and believe that he is the incarnate creator God, the savior, the one and only means of salvation and right relationship with God, as I have shown to you numerous times already.
The self-professing groups you keep talking about do not meet any of the conditions given in the Bible as to what a true follower of Christ believes, looks like, talks like, acts like, etc.
Sorry, you don't make the rules.
QUOTE
Why do you continue to deny Hitler and the Nazi party's primary motivation in killing Jews and Gypsies was based in Eugenics, which is the end result of Evolutionary theory? This is well documented, as they were attempting to establish the "Arian" race as superior to all others. The conclusion of such a philosophy, which again is simply applied evolutionary theory, is genocide.
It was based on Eugenics, but Eugenics has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.
Evolution and selective breeding are completely different. Emphasize natural selection. There is no good reason why you should confuse the two, so you are probably just a liar.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why do you continue to deny Hitler and the Nazi party's primary motivation in killing Jews and Gypsies was based in Eugenics, which is the end result of Evolutionary theory? This is well documented, as they were attempting to establish the "Arian" race as superior to all others. The conclusion of such a philosophy, which again is simply applied evolutionary theory, is genocide. |
It was based on Eugenics, but Eugenics has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.
Evolution and selective breeding are completely different. Emphasize natural selection. There is no good reason why you should confuse the two, so you are probably just a liar.
According to the History Channel, they did. While I haven't been able to find an article directly substantiating that, I have found several articles by historians which seem in doubt who killed more Jews: Russia/USSR, or Nazis. One this is clear, the Soviet government did in fact commit more total genocides and murders of various sorts than the Germans.
There is a little truth to that. Stalin's genocide was against the population in Ukraine, not Jews in particular. Stalin was certainly very antisemitic, but he didn't single out Jews in any genocidal campaign.
QUOTE
Hey, why not? You tried to claim Hitler was a devout Christian...
I didn't say he was devout. He used Christianity as a weapon, but he was "backed up" by almost all the church leaders in Germany. It just goes to show that the religious are easily manipulated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hey, why not? You tried to claim Hitler was a devout Christian... |
I didn't say he was devout. He used Christianity as a weapon, but he was "backed up" by almost all the church leaders in Germany. It just goes to show that the religious are easily manipulated.
No, but you did blame "religion" and then cited Chrisitanity as one of your two examples.
I said that religion played a "large" part. Notice how I was purposefully vague. Can you name any other major religions that have a tendency for genocide?
Learn how to spell your own religion. Hint, it's not "Chrisitanity."
QUOTE
This is the equivalent of denying the Holocaust.
No, see, I don't deny the crusades or the inquisition or witch hunts, etc.
While I don't know every detail involved, as I'm sure nobody but God does, most of the Crusades cannot reasonably be justified by anyone with a Christian world view given the historical facts we have. (though facts can be distorted.)
The Inquisition was, among other things, an attempt to force people to join the church through threat of death
Neither Jesus nor any of the disciples did any such thing, nor did they tell anyone to do that. EVerywhere they went, they fed people, healed them, clothed them, etc, in some cases even the people who were persecuting them. This doesn't look anything like the Crusades or the Inquisition.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 09:17 PM)
No, see, I don't deny the crusades or the inquisition or witch hunts, etc.
While I don't know every detail involved, as I'm sure nobody but God does, most of the Crusades cannot reasonably be justified by anyone with a Christian world view given the historical facts we have. (though facts can be distorted.)
The Inquisition was, among other things, an attempt to force people to join the church through threat of death
Neither Jesus nor any of the disciples did any such thing, nor did they tell anyone to do that. EVerywhere they went, they fed people, healed them, clothed them, etc, in some cases even the people who were persecuting them. This doesn't look anything like the Crusades or the Inquisition.
While I don't know every detail involved, as I'm sure nobody but God does, most of the Crusades cannot reasonably be justified by anyone with a Christian world view given the historical facts we have. (though facts can be distorted.)
The Inquisition was, among other things, an attempt to force people to join the church through threat of death
Neither Jesus nor any of the disciples did any such thing, nor did they tell anyone to do that. EVerywhere they went, they fed people, healed them, clothed them, etc, in some cases even the people who were persecuting them. This doesn't look anything like the Crusades or the Inquisition.
So, True Christians™ can do no wrong? Once they do something wrong, they are no longer Christians?
Every single one of those massacres was "justified" with quotations from your very own bible. You can probably look each of those up and find the verses they used to justify killing innocent people.
Almost every single case where Christian leaders acquire political power, they start using the bible to justify killing.
Every single one of those massacres was "justified" with quotations from your very own bible. You can probably look each of those up and find the verses they used to justify killing innocent people.
Almost every single case where Christian leaders acquire political power, they start using the bible to justify killing.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 08:04 PM)
QUOTE
Sorry, you don't make the rules.
Do you know what the term "Christian" means?
Do you think it means someone who calls themself a Christian?
Or do you think it means someone who goes to church certain days?
Or owns a Bible?
Or sings a song or two once in a while?
None of that makes a person a Christian. I already told you this several times, and have shown you numerous Bible passages, as well as quotes and links to the teachings and statements of faith of major christian leaders of all major denominations, showing you that I in fact do have the correct, traditional interpretation of the Bible as it regards Christ and salvation.
You are right, I do not get to make the rules. but the BIBLE is the rule as it regards Christianity, and particularly the words of Jesus Christ.
The term "Christian" is given to those who follow the teachings of Jesus and believe that he is the incarnate creator God, the savior, the one and only means of salvation and right relationship with God, as I have shown to you numerous times already.
The self-professing groups you keep talking about do not meet any of the conditions given in the Bible as to what a true follower of Christ believes, looks like, talks like, acts like, etc.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 09:26 PM)
Do you know what the term "Christian" means?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
None of that makes a person a Christian. I already told you this several times, and have shown you numerous Bible passages, as well as quotes and links to the teachings and statements of faith of major christian leaders of all major denominations, showing you that I in fact do have the correct, traditional interpretation of the Bible as it regards Christ and salvation.
Instead of looking at it from the inside, try to take an outside perspective.
Would you consider Islamic terrorists to be "True Muslims?" I'm sure most moderate Muslims would disagree.
A Christian is anyone who professes to be Christian. Everything else is just internal squabbling.
As you interpret it.
As you interpret it.
The term "Christian" is given to those who follow the teachings of Jesus and believe that he is the incarnate creator God, the savior, the one and only means of salvation and right relationship with God, as I have shown to you numerous times already.
This definition describes almost everyone who considers themselves to be Christians. Every Christian "follows" the teaching of Jesus according to their own interpretation of what that means.
And neither do you. So either we take your definitions, in which Christians don't actually exist, or we take my definition.
Yes.
QUOTE
Do you think it means someone who calls themself a Christian?
Yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you think it means someone who calls themself a Christian? |
Yes.
None of that makes a person a Christian. I already told you this several times, and have shown you numerous Bible passages, as well as quotes and links to the teachings and statements of faith of major christian leaders of all major denominations, showing you that I in fact do have the correct, traditional interpretation of the Bible as it regards Christ and salvation.
Instead of looking at it from the inside, try to take an outside perspective.
Would you consider Islamic terrorists to be "True Muslims?" I'm sure most moderate Muslims would disagree.
A Christian is anyone who professes to be Christian. Everything else is just internal squabbling.
QUOTE
You are right, I do not get to make the rules. but the BIBLE is the rule as it regards Christianity, and particularly the words of Jesus Christ.
As you interpret it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are right, I do not get to make the rules. but the BIBLE is the rule as it regards Christianity, and particularly the words of Jesus Christ. |
As you interpret it.
The term "Christian" is given to those who follow the teachings of Jesus and believe that he is the incarnate creator God, the savior, the one and only means of salvation and right relationship with God, as I have shown to you numerous times already.
This definition describes almost everyone who considers themselves to be Christians. Every Christian "follows" the teaching of Jesus according to their own interpretation of what that means.
QUOTE
The self-professing groups you keep talking about do not meet any of the conditions given in the Bible as to what a true follower of Christ believes, looks like, talks like, acts like, etc.
And neither do you. So either we take your definitions, in which Christians don't actually exist, or we take my definition.
QUOTE
Do you know what the term "Christian" means?
yesQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you know what the term "Christian" means? |
yes
Do you think it means someone who calls themself a Christian?
Do you think it means someone who calls themself a Christian?
yes
QUOTE
Or do you think it means someone who goes to church certain days?
yesQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Or do you think it means someone who goes to church certain days? |
yes
Or owns a Bible?
Or owns a Bible?
yes
QUOTE
Or sings a song or two once in a while?
yesQUOTE (AlexG+Aug 25 2009, 09:27 PM)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Well, sorry friend, you're just acting like an idiot.
As smart as most of you people are and claim to be, one would think you wouldn't have such a skewed view of the Bible and would have actually checked it out for yourself.
One of the primary topics of the letters to Timothy is addressing the subject of false teachers and false doctrines.
If you would read the words of Jesus, Paul, and others, you would see that being a "Christian" is about something more than just calling one's self a Christian.
What do you think the terms "False prophet", "False brethren" and "wolves in sheeps clothing," or "Angels of light" refer to in the Bible?
It refers to fakes who go around calling themselves Christians, but living a lifestyle which does not match up to what Jesus taught, and teaching doctrines which do not match up to what Jesus taught.
2 Corinthians 11:26
In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
2 Timothy 4:1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 Cor. 11:12But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
In other words, Paul is here telling us that many people pretend to be Christians for their own selfish reasons (usually money,) and they promote doctrines which are not in agreement with the true Gospel. They will call themselves Christian, and even use a lot of the same terminology as a Christian, but they are false Christians and are actually worshipping satan and otherwise are just in it for some percieved personal benefit.
yes
yes
yes
yes
Well, sorry friend, you're just acting like an idiot.
As smart as most of you people are and claim to be, one would think you wouldn't have such a skewed view of the Bible and would have actually checked it out for yourself.
One of the primary topics of the letters to Timothy is addressing the subject of false teachers and false doctrines.
If you would read the words of Jesus, Paul, and others, you would see that being a "Christian" is about something more than just calling one's self a Christian.
What do you think the terms "False prophet", "False brethren" and "wolves in sheeps clothing," or "Angels of light" refer to in the Bible?
It refers to fakes who go around calling themselves Christians, but living a lifestyle which does not match up to what Jesus taught, and teaching doctrines which do not match up to what Jesus taught.
2 Corinthians 11:26
In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
2 Timothy 4:1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 Cor. 11:12But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
In other words, Paul is here telling us that many people pretend to be Christians for their own selfish reasons (usually money,) and they promote doctrines which are not in agreement with the true Gospel. They will call themselves Christian, and even use a lot of the same terminology as a Christian, but they are false Christians and are actually worshipping satan and otherwise are just in it for some percieved personal benefit.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 08:36 PM)
Yes.
Yes.
As you interpret it.
This definition describes almost everyone who considers themselves to be Christians. Every Christian "follows" the teaching of Jesus according to their own interpretation of what that means.
And neither do you. So either we take your definitions, in which Christians don't actually exist, or we take my definition.
If you read the Quran, the "extremists," especially the terrorists, actually follow it far more closely than the "moderates".
If you read the Quran, the "extremists," especially the terrorists, actually follow it far more closely than the "moderates".
A Christian is anyone who professes to be Christian. Everything else is just internal squabbling.
Completely dishonest statement.
Maybe you think anyone who calls themself an American Indian really is one too, eh?
or anyone who calls themself a female is a female huh?
How about anyone who calls themself hispanic is hispanic?
Or like the analogy I used earlier, let me just call myself a car and go stand in a garage. By your idiotic claim I must be a '57 chevrolet just because I decide to call myself one.
Completely stupid and dishonest.
No wonder its so hard to discuss anything with you. As the song says, "You lie so much you believe yourself..."
Yes.
As you interpret it.
This definition describes almost everyone who considers themselves to be Christians. Every Christian "follows" the teaching of Jesus according to their own interpretation of what that means.
And neither do you. So either we take your definitions, in which Christians don't actually exist, or we take my definition.
QUOTE
Instead of looking at it from the inside, try to take an outside perspective.
Would you consider Islamic terrorists to be "True Muslims?" I'm sure most moderate Muslims would disagree.
Would you consider Islamic terrorists to be "True Muslims?" I'm sure most moderate Muslims would disagree.
If you read the Quran, the "extremists," especially the terrorists, actually follow it far more closely than the "moderates".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Instead of looking at it from the inside, try to take an outside perspective. Would you consider Islamic terrorists to be "True Muslims?" I'm sure most moderate Muslims would disagree. |
If you read the Quran, the "extremists," especially the terrorists, actually follow it far more closely than the "moderates".
A Christian is anyone who professes to be Christian. Everything else is just internal squabbling.
Completely dishonest statement.
Maybe you think anyone who calls themself an American Indian really is one too, eh?
or anyone who calls themself a female is a female huh?
How about anyone who calls themself hispanic is hispanic?
Or like the analogy I used earlier, let me just call myself a car and go stand in a garage. By your idiotic claim I must be a '57 chevrolet just because I decide to call myself one.
Completely stupid and dishonest.
No wonder its so hard to discuss anything with you. As the song says, "You lie so much you believe yourself..."
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 26 2009, 11:50 AM)
If you read the Quran, the "extremists," especially the terrorists, actually follow it far more closely than the "moderates".
Racist lie. I'm betting you've never read the Qur'an. You've probably heard your racist pastor preach about how the Qur'an is full of terrorist propaganda. That said, the Qur'an has just about as much violence and incitement to hatred as the bible does; a lot.
Racist lie. I'm betting you've never read the Qur'an. You've probably heard your racist pastor preach about how the Qur'an is full of terrorist propaganda. That said, the Qur'an has just about as much violence and incitement to hatred as the bible does; a lot.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 26 2009, 11:50 AM)
Maybe you think anyone who calls themself an American Indian really is one too, eh?
That's a race, not a religion. The definition of Native American is a scientific one, not one based on your personal opinion.
That's a race, not a religion. The definition of Native American is a scientific one, not one based on your personal opinion.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 26 2009, 11:50 AM)
or anyone who calls themself a female is a female huh?
It's called sexual reassignment surgery. You should try it sometime.
It's called sexual reassignment surgery. You should try it sometime.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 26 2009, 11:50 AM)
How about anyone who calls themself hispanic is hispanic?
Race, not religion.
Race, not religion.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 26 2009, 11:50 AM)
Or like the analogy I used earlier, let me just call myself a car and go stand in a garage. By your idiotic claim I must be a '57 chevrolet just because I decide to call myself one.
Maybe you just have a fetish for a '57 Chevrolet?
Sexual fetishes aside, I think you need to figure out what the difference is between opinion and fact.
Maybe you just have a fetish for a '57 Chevrolet?
Sexual fetishes aside, I think you need to figure out what the difference is between opinion and fact.
Hi all
This was not a religious thread !!
Get the Flock off !!
Cheers
Iseason
This was not a religious thread !!
Get the Flock off !!
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Jul 6 2009, 06:59 PM)
In addition, while stars are detectable at great distances, that doesn't mean that minute details about the star are preserved in the signal that reaches us. For instance, with distant stars, sun spots are lost and all but the largest solar flares are lost. The signal may reach us, but much of the detail is lost. In the same way, you might get some sort of signal from a very powerful transmitter, but it would be completely meaningless in terms of contents of the message.
1) That's why I suggested relay probes. As an inter-stellar civilization grew large enough, you could actually have entire chains of them all over the place, even stations large enough to have human and/or robot maintenance crews. (By the time the first worldships exist.)
Basicly, each station is a super-computer and a couple redundant recievers and transmitters. It pickes up the signal from the civilization, and relays a boosted copy of the signal to the next reciever in the line. If we wanted to communicate with a colony on the nearest star, we would need no more than 3 or 4 of these.
2) A TRUE type 2 Civilization might be capable of sending transmissions with incredibly high energy levels. If nothing else, they could send morse code (long pulse/short pulse) at near-stellar intensity levels using planet-sized transmitters and recievers. In this way, degredation of the amplitude modulation or frequency modulation is irrelevant. It works just like the telegraph: simply detecting a series of pulses of a predictable intensity and duration and then decoding them.
The key problem with option 2 is that such a tranmitter would only be able to send one BIT at a time (maybe 2 or 3 bits or so per pulse if some sort of color-coding scheme were worked out), and would likely never be economically feesible compared to option 1, regardless of the technology level of the civilization.
1) That's why I suggested relay probes. As an inter-stellar civilization grew large enough, you could actually have entire chains of them all over the place, even stations large enough to have human and/or robot maintenance crews. (By the time the first worldships exist.)
Basicly, each station is a super-computer and a couple redundant recievers and transmitters. It pickes up the signal from the civilization, and relays a boosted copy of the signal to the next reciever in the line. If we wanted to communicate with a colony on the nearest star, we would need no more than 3 or 4 of these.
2) A TRUE type 2 Civilization might be capable of sending transmissions with incredibly high energy levels. If nothing else, they could send morse code (long pulse/short pulse) at near-stellar intensity levels using planet-sized transmitters and recievers. In this way, degredation of the amplitude modulation or frequency modulation is irrelevant. It works just like the telegraph: simply detecting a series of pulses of a predictable intensity and duration and then decoding them.
The key problem with option 2 is that such a tranmitter would only be able to send one BIT at a time (maybe 2 or 3 bits or so per pulse if some sort of color-coding scheme were worked out), and would likely never be economically feesible compared to option 1, regardless of the technology level of the civilization.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 28 2009, 12:21 PM)
1) That's why I suggested relay probes. As an inter-stellar civilization grew large enough, you could actually have entire chains of them all over the place, even stations large enough to have human and/or robot maintenance crews. (By the time the first worldships exist.)
Basicly, each station is a super-computer and a couple redundant recievers and transmitters. It pickes up the signal from the civilization, and relays a boosted copy of the signal to the next reciever in the line. If we wanted to communicate with a colony on the nearest star, we would need no more than 3 or 4 of these.
Ever heard of a laser? Apparently not. One powerful laser would be way more effective than having relay stations. The only reason that light from distant stars seem to fade with distance is because that light is not focused; it spreads in all directions. Think of photons as bullets from a gun. If you spin the gun around in a circle while spitting out 10,000 rounds of ammunition, you have an adequate example. The closer you stand to the gun, the greater your chance of being hit by a bullet/photon. As you move further away, the chance decreases. If you anchor the gun and aim it, the distance at which it is effective greatly increases.
Any type 2 civilization that stretches any interstellar distance would have to have a method of FTL travel. Why would you use a light signal that would take up to hundreds of years when you can travel that distance more quickly?
Basicly, each station is a super-computer and a couple redundant recievers and transmitters. It pickes up the signal from the civilization, and relays a boosted copy of the signal to the next reciever in the line. If we wanted to communicate with a colony on the nearest star, we would need no more than 3 or 4 of these.
Ever heard of a laser? Apparently not. One powerful laser would be way more effective than having relay stations. The only reason that light from distant stars seem to fade with distance is because that light is not focused; it spreads in all directions. Think of photons as bullets from a gun. If you spin the gun around in a circle while spitting out 10,000 rounds of ammunition, you have an adequate example. The closer you stand to the gun, the greater your chance of being hit by a bullet/photon. As you move further away, the chance decreases. If you anchor the gun and aim it, the distance at which it is effective greatly increases.
QUOTE
2) A TRUE type 2 Civilization might be capable of sending transmissions with incredibly high energy levels. If nothing else, they could send morse code (long pulse/short pulse) at near-stellar intensity levels using planet-sized transmitters and recievers. In this way, degredation of the amplitude modulation or frequency modulation is irrelevant. It works just like the telegraph: simply detecting a series of pulses of a predictable intensity and duration and then decoding them.
The key problem with option 2 is that such a tranmitter would only be able to send one BIT at a time (maybe 2 or 3 bits or so per pulse if some sort of color-coding scheme were worked out), and would likely never be economically feesible compared to option 1, regardless of the technology level of the civilization.
The key problem with option 2 is that such a tranmitter would only be able to send one BIT at a time (maybe 2 or 3 bits or so per pulse if some sort of color-coding scheme were worked out), and would likely never be economically feesible compared to option 1, regardless of the technology level of the civilization.
Any type 2 civilization that stretches any interstellar distance would have to have a method of FTL travel. Why would you use a light signal that would take up to hundreds of years when you can travel that distance more quickly?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 28 2009, 12:20 PM)
Ever heard of a laser? Apparently not. One powerful laser would be way more effective than having relay stations. The only reason that light from distant stars seem to fade with distance is because that light is not focused; it spreads in all directions. Think of photons as bullets from a gun. If you spin the gun around in a circle while spitting out 10,000 rounds of ammunition, you have an adequate example. The closer you stand to the gun, the greater your chance of being hit by a bullet/photon. As you move further away, the chance decreases. If you anchor the gun and aim it, the distance at which it is effective greatly increases.
Any type 2 civilization that stretches any interstellar distance would have to have a method of FTL travel. Why would you use a light signal that would take up to hundreds of years when you can travel that distance more quickly?
Even a laser would become disassociated over a distance of a few light years.
Until FTL travel and/or communication are actually shown possible, one can't count on them.
Any type 2 civilization that stretches any interstellar distance would have to have a method of FTL travel. Why would you use a light signal that would take up to hundreds of years when you can travel that distance more quickly?
Even a laser would become disassociated over a distance of a few light years.
Until FTL travel and/or communication are actually shown possible, one can't count on them.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 11:51 AM)
Until FTL travel and/or communication are actually shown possible, one can't count on them.
There's absolutely no point in traveling to other star systems without FTL capabilities. No-one would sign up to spend their entire lives on a generation ship.
There's absolutely no point in traveling to other star systems without FTL capabilities. No-one would sign up to spend their entire lives on a generation ship.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 29 2009, 03:55 PM)
There's absolutely no point in traveling to other star systems without FTL capabilities. No-one would sign up to spend their entire lives on a generation ship.
I´d go - but only if Molly Pants came with me
I´d go - but only if Molly Pants came with me
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 29 2009, 10:55 AM)
There's absolutely no point in traveling to other star systems without FTL capabilities. No-one would sign up to spend their entire lives on a generation ship.
I'd go, even if only to get the heck away from nay-sayers like you.
Imagine the incredible accomplishment of traveling to another place with the wife and family, and a community dedicated to one another and the common goal of propagating the human race amongst the stars!
Of course things aren't all so glamourous, but somebody show me where to sign up right now!
Also, you don't need to make a ship that can travel 1000ly. You only need a ship that can travel to the nearest star that has a habitable planet. Civlization simply leap frogs from nearest star to nearest star. This distance averages about 5-10ly throughout the galaxy, which is still quite a long way, but is still only 50-100 years away at .1c, or 100-200 years away at .05c.
I also think it would be interesting to do some sort of poll on the internet to see just how many people share your views when you claim, "noone" would want to do this.
"Nobody" would want to sail to(and hike) and explore the south pole.....oops.
"Nobody" would want to strap a rocket to their butts and land on the moon....oops.
History strongly suggests you are quite wrong.
I'd go, even if only to get the heck away from nay-sayers like you.
Imagine the incredible accomplishment of traveling to another place with the wife and family, and a community dedicated to one another and the common goal of propagating the human race amongst the stars!
Of course things aren't all so glamourous, but somebody show me where to sign up right now!
Also, you don't need to make a ship that can travel 1000ly. You only need a ship that can travel to the nearest star that has a habitable planet. Civlization simply leap frogs from nearest star to nearest star. This distance averages about 5-10ly throughout the galaxy, which is still quite a long way, but is still only 50-100 years away at .1c, or 100-200 years away at .05c.
I also think it would be interesting to do some sort of poll on the internet to see just how many people share your views when you claim, "noone" would want to do this.
"Nobody" would want to sail to(and hike) and explore the south pole.....oops.
"Nobody" would want to strap a rocket to their butts and land on the moon....oops.
History strongly suggests you are quite wrong.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 02:19 PM)
I'd go, even if only to get the heck away from nay-sayers like you.
Please leave now.
Space hillbillies!
Space hillbillies!
Of course things aren't all so glamourous, but somebody show me where to sign up right now!
Imagine spending your entire life within one building. Yeah.
By the time you get from one planet to another, you will be dead and your children will be dead. Not fun.
By the time you get from one planet to another, you will be dead and your children will be dead. Not fun.
I also think it would be interesting to do some sort of poll on the internet to see just how many people share your views when you claim, "noone" would want to do this.
Who wants to live and die in a cold metal box? Not me.
Ask someone if they want to live their whole lives on the south pole.
Ask someone if they want to live their whole lives on the south pole.
"Nobody" would want to strap a rocket to their butts and land on the moon....oops
That's maybe a month if you count the prep time. Bad example
You are a joke.
Please leave now.
QUOTE
Imagine the incredible accomplishment of traveling to another place with the wife and family, and a community dedicated to one another and the common goal of propagating the human race amongst the stars!
Space hillbillies!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Imagine the incredible accomplishment of traveling to another place with the wife and family, and a community dedicated to one another and the common goal of propagating the human race amongst the stars! |
Space hillbillies!
Of course things aren't all so glamourous, but somebody show me where to sign up right now!
Imagine spending your entire life within one building. Yeah.
QUOTE
Also, you don't need to make a ship that can travel 1000ly. You only need a ship that can travel to the nearest star that has a habitable planet. Civlization simply leap frogs from nearest star to nearest star. This distance averages about 5-10ly throughout the galaxy, which is still quite a long way, but is still only 50-100 years away at .1c, or 100-200 years away at .05c.
By the time you get from one planet to another, you will be dead and your children will be dead. Not fun.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also, you don't need to make a ship that can travel 1000ly. You only need a ship that can travel to the nearest star that has a habitable planet. Civlization simply leap frogs from nearest star to nearest star. This distance averages about 5-10ly throughout the galaxy, which is still quite a long way, but is still only 50-100 years away at .1c, or 100-200 years away at .05c. |
By the time you get from one planet to another, you will be dead and your children will be dead. Not fun.
I also think it would be interesting to do some sort of poll on the internet to see just how many people share your views when you claim, "noone" would want to do this.
Who wants to live and die in a cold metal box? Not me.
QUOTE
"Nobody" would want to sail to(and hike) and explore the south pole.....oops
Ask someone if they want to live their whole lives on the south pole.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Nobody" would want to sail to(and hike) and explore the south pole.....oops |
Ask someone if they want to live their whole lives on the south pole.
"Nobody" would want to strap a rocket to their butts and land on the moon....oops
That's maybe a month if you count the prep time. Bad example
You are a joke.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 29 2009, 01:29 PM)
Please leave now.
Space hillbillies!
Proud of it.
If everything you need and want is there, then not much of a problem.
Problem with you is, since you seem to think everything is impossible, you simply cannot concieve of a ship the size of a city constructed in space. If you would use your brain for just half of one moment, you'd realize its an entire civlization in and of itself.
If everything you need and want is there, then not much of a problem.
Problem with you is, since you seem to think everything is impossible, you simply cannot concieve of a ship the size of a city constructed in space. If you would use your brain for just half of one moment, you'd realize its an entire civlization in and of itself.
By the time you get from one planet to another, you will be dead and your children will be dead. Not fun.
Then don't go. Nobody is forcing your hand.
Who said it would be cold?
Space hillbillies!
Proud of it.
QUOTE
Imagine spending your entire life within one building. Yeah.
If everything you need and want is there, then not much of a problem.
Problem with you is, since you seem to think everything is impossible, you simply cannot concieve of a ship the size of a city constructed in space. If you would use your brain for just half of one moment, you'd realize its an entire civlization in and of itself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Imagine spending your entire life within one building. Yeah. |
If everything you need and want is there, then not much of a problem.
Problem with you is, since you seem to think everything is impossible, you simply cannot concieve of a ship the size of a city constructed in space. If you would use your brain for just half of one moment, you'd realize its an entire civlization in and of itself.
By the time you get from one planet to another, you will be dead and your children will be dead. Not fun.
Then don't go. Nobody is forcing your hand.
QUOTE
Who wants to live and die in a cold metal box? Not me.
Who said it would be cold?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 04:35 PM)
Proud of it.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you're from Louisiana.
You're unwilling to wait for things like FTL travel, yet you assume that city-ship tech will be around. You would need non-rotational artificial gravity, 100% efficiency waste management, 100% efficiency air recycling, nuclear fuel for 100-200 years, rocket fuel for 100-200 years and the list goes on.
One thing's for sure, we shouldn't even think about spreading humanity's religious stupidity to other planets.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you're from Louisiana.
QUOTE
If everything you need and want is there, then not much of a problem.
Problem with you is, since you seem to think everything is impossible, you simply cannot concieve of a ship the size of a city constructed in space. If you would use your brain for just half of one moment, you'd realize its an entire civlization in and of itself.
Problem with you is, since you seem to think everything is impossible, you simply cannot concieve of a ship the size of a city constructed in space. If you would use your brain for just half of one moment, you'd realize its an entire civlization in and of itself.
You're unwilling to wait for things like FTL travel, yet you assume that city-ship tech will be around. You would need non-rotational artificial gravity, 100% efficiency waste management, 100% efficiency air recycling, nuclear fuel for 100-200 years, rocket fuel for 100-200 years and the list goes on.
One thing's for sure, we shouldn't even think about spreading humanity's religious stupidity to other planets.
It seems a bit too early in this millennium to rule out FTL drives. I read the other day (no numbers to back it up) that if cars continue on the same trendline, that they'll be able to go the speed of light by the year 3000.
Besides, there are experiments already performed here on earth that show things going faster than the speed of light. Google "evanescent AND transluminal" and have fun rummaging through papers describing various apparatuses ("apparati"?) where signals have arrived before they've left. And, warding off the "signals don't have mass" objections, Google "tunneling AND electron speed" and recognize that everything you've ever touched was the electric field of your electrons repelling the electric fields of the objects' electrons - can't get any more solid than that. Last I heard, electrons tunnel in *zero* time.
Which raises an interesting principle, if true. Things that *can't* happen according to the laws of physics for this universe seem to happen anyway, but in *zero-time*, and are therefore unobservable. It's like when God wants to do something that contradicts the laws of physics, he stops time for the rest of us, then does it (whatever), then resumes time, leaving us observers scratching our heads.
An FTL spacecraft *might* arrive at its destination before completely leaving its point of departure.
Just provided as food for thought...
Almost forgot, in terms of the "panspermia" notion (that life exists almost everywhere), a JPL PhD mentioned to me in passing that one of the problems MIR has is that it has mold growing on its *outside*, exposed to unfiltered sunlight, hard-UV, and the 400F temperature swings on-orbit. Life may be difficult to start, but it's almost impossible to wipe out completely once it's going.
Besides, there are experiments already performed here on earth that show things going faster than the speed of light. Google "evanescent AND transluminal" and have fun rummaging through papers describing various apparatuses ("apparati"?) where signals have arrived before they've left. And, warding off the "signals don't have mass" objections, Google "tunneling AND electron speed" and recognize that everything you've ever touched was the electric field of your electrons repelling the electric fields of the objects' electrons - can't get any more solid than that. Last I heard, electrons tunnel in *zero* time.
Which raises an interesting principle, if true. Things that *can't* happen according to the laws of physics for this universe seem to happen anyway, but in *zero-time*, and are therefore unobservable. It's like when God wants to do something that contradicts the laws of physics, he stops time for the rest of us, then does it (whatever), then resumes time, leaving us observers scratching our heads.
An FTL spacecraft *might* arrive at its destination before completely leaving its point of departure.
Just provided as food for thought...
Almost forgot, in terms of the "panspermia" notion (that life exists almost everywhere), a JPL PhD mentioned to me in passing that one of the problems MIR has is that it has mold growing on its *outside*, exposed to unfiltered sunlight, hard-UV, and the 400F temperature swings on-orbit. Life may be difficult to start, but it's almost impossible to wipe out completely once it's going.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 29 2009, 03:53 PM)
Oh yeah, I forgot, you're from Louisiana.
You're unwilling to wait for things like FTL travel, yet you assume that city-ship tech will be around. You would need non-rotational artificial gravity, 100% efficiency waste management, 100% efficiency air recycling, nuclear fuel for 100-200 years, rocket fuel for 100-200 years and the list goes on.
One thing's for sure, we shouldn't even think about spreading humanity's religious stupidity to other planets.
Have you...read nothing I've written?
What part of "World Ship" don't you understand?
Regardless of the method of construction, a worldship is so large it could support a fully self-sufficient population for centuries, powered by a combination of solar, nuclear, and chemical means. And because it is so large, you do not need "artificial gravity" as the object itself has gravity. For long distance travel, you would most likely use ion propulsion as it has a minimum of recoil and volatility, while a maximum of efficiency of any existing technology.
The basic concept of a World ship or a Dyson Swarm is something large enough to have all the requirements of human life and waste disposal and recycling, as well as maintenance of itself, and some redundancy in each major area of technology and functionality.
If you had a ship the size of Ceres, you could have on-board artificial oceans(giant aquariums), on-board farmland(a.k.a. climate controlled greenhouse), onboard recycling and manufacturing of every type, all powered by Solar when it is close enough to a star; powered by Nuclear while it is in deep space. The mass of the ship itself provides the gravity.
I am not talking about trying to fly to another star in something the size of the Starship Enterprise, as it is evident humanity will almost certainly not have that transportation technology, or the closest possible technology, until it approaches true Type 2 status anyway.
You're unwilling to wait for things like FTL travel, yet you assume that city-ship tech will be around. You would need non-rotational artificial gravity, 100% efficiency waste management, 100% efficiency air recycling, nuclear fuel for 100-200 years, rocket fuel for 100-200 years and the list goes on.
One thing's for sure, we shouldn't even think about spreading humanity's religious stupidity to other planets.
Have you...read nothing I've written?
What part of "World Ship" don't you understand?
Regardless of the method of construction, a worldship is so large it could support a fully self-sufficient population for centuries, powered by a combination of solar, nuclear, and chemical means. And because it is so large, you do not need "artificial gravity" as the object itself has gravity. For long distance travel, you would most likely use ion propulsion as it has a minimum of recoil and volatility, while a maximum of efficiency of any existing technology.
The basic concept of a World ship or a Dyson Swarm is something large enough to have all the requirements of human life and waste disposal and recycling, as well as maintenance of itself, and some redundancy in each major area of technology and functionality.
If you had a ship the size of Ceres, you could have on-board artificial oceans(giant aquariums), on-board farmland(a.k.a. climate controlled greenhouse), onboard recycling and manufacturing of every type, all powered by Solar when it is close enough to a star; powered by Nuclear while it is in deep space. The mass of the ship itself provides the gravity.
I am not talking about trying to fly to another star in something the size of the Starship Enterprise, as it is evident humanity will almost certainly not have that transportation technology, or the closest possible technology, until it approaches true Type 2 status anyway.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 30 2009, 11:34 AM)
Regardless of the method of construction, a worldship is so large it could support a fully self-sufficient population for centuries, powered by a combination of solar, nuclear, and chemical means. And because it is so large, you do not need "artificial gravity" as the object itself has gravity. For long distance travel, you would most likely use ion propulsion as it has a minimum of recoil and volatility, while a maximum of efficiency of any existing technology.
Solar energy in deep space? How will that work? Last time I checked, solar panels don't work at night. Nuclear power might be feasible, but rocket fuel will be extremely limited. A significant fraction of the worldship's mass would be taken up by rocket fuel.
The worst part is your shortsighted ideas about gravity. Let's say by some miracle you could turn Ceres into a worldship. Ceres has a maximum gravity of .028 G's. Even if passengers were able to keep their muscles in shape, that low level of gravity will do very little to prevent bone loss and loss of heart muscle mass. Even if children could survive growing up in microgravity, they could never set foot on a full-sized planet.
Ion drives provide an extremely small amount of thrust. Thousands of them couldn't provide minimum course correction. It would worse than an ant trying to push a bowling ball.
Just because a definition exists doesn't mean that it's possible with current technology.
Just because a definition exists doesn't mean that it's possible with current technology.
If you had a ship the size of Ceres, you could have on-board artificial oceans(giant aquariums), on-board farmland(a.k.a. climate controlled greenhouse), onboard recycling and manufacturing of every type, all powered by Solar when it is close enough to a star; powered by Nuclear while it is in deep space. The mass of the ship itself provides the gravity.
You have completely unrealistic assumptions about what could be accomplished with an object that small. It's doubtful that the moon could support an ocean, let alone an object many times smaller.
Your dreams have no basis in reality, let alone currently available technology.
Ion drives provide an extremely small amount of thrust. Thousands of them couldn't provide minimum course correction. It would worse than an ant trying to push a bowling ball.
Just because a definition exists doesn't mean that it's possible with current technology.
Goodness you need to learn to read. I said, "...all powered by Solar when it is close enough to a star."
Goodness you need to learn to read. I said, "...all powered by Solar when it is close enough to a star."
How will that work? Last time I checked, solar panels don't work at night. Nuclear power might be feasible, but rocket fuel will be extremely limited. A significant fraction of the worldship's mass would be taken up by rocket fuel.
No, conventional rocketry is absolutely useless for inter-stellar spaceflight, except for minor manuevering purposes.
By then we will have Nano-technology for repairing and augmenting bone and muscle.
Think "Moore's Law". At the current rate of advancement in computers and micro-circuitry, realistic nano-machines with the basic function of anything seen in Sci-fi will be possible in anywhere from a few decades to 100 years. With this technology, bone could be augmented with composite materials cheaper than titanium, which have the strength of steel, but are not corroded by biological processes.
Exercise can be done in gravity simulating rotating devices. (nothing new.)
In order to prevent the effect of changing the ship's trajectory, such devices would counter-rotate symetrically.
By then we will have Nano-technology for repairing and augmenting bone and muscle.
Think "Moore's Law". At the current rate of advancement in computers and micro-circuitry, realistic nano-machines with the basic function of anything seen in Sci-fi will be possible in anywhere from a few decades to 100 years. With this technology, bone could be augmented with composite materials cheaper than titanium, which have the strength of steel, but are not corroded by biological processes.
Exercise can be done in gravity simulating rotating devices. (nothing new.)
In order to prevent the effect of changing the ship's trajectory, such devices would counter-rotate symetrically.
You have completely unrealistic assumptions about what could be accomplished with an object that small. It's doubtful that the moon could support an ocean, let alone an object many times smaller.
If the ocean is contained inside an air-tight climate-controlled structure,just like everything and everyone else, then it isn't going to evaporate.
Your dreams have no basis in reality, let alone currently available technology.
Building the structure itself is doable with currently available technology, over a long period of time of course, provided governments could be properly stimulated to do so.
"Can't be done" and "I don't feel like it" are completely different animals.
====
In the greater scheme of things, there is no reason for humans not to do some of the projects I envision.
Example, once again, asteroid mining.
Let us suppose the total cost to earth in terms of energy and material resources to create the first self-sufficient asteroid mine is quantified as the variable "X".
Once fully operational, this station is used to harvest resources from asteroids for use by earth, luna, and martian colonies. Now suppose that, over time (several decades to perhaps a few generations), the colony has harvest 5X worth of energy and materials resources (after considering its own needs and maintenance costs). From this 5x worth of energy, goods, and materials, 2x are shipped back to the earth, 1x to the Lunar colony, 1x to Mars colony, 1x is used to make a copy of itself. Thus "Earth" has profited by a factor of 100% from it's initial investment, AND you now have two permanent mining facilities in space.
Now this is an over-simplistic example(the most efficient thing to do is for the facility to replicate itself first,) but the point is that over time, such a facility can more than pay back its cost to the Earth while at the same time becoming the staging ground for all future mining operations and colonies. Earth would no longer need to "feed and water" the colonies, because they are fully self sufficient.
Solar energy in deep space? How will that work? Last time I checked, solar panels don't work at night. Nuclear power might be feasible, but rocket fuel will be extremely limited. A significant fraction of the worldship's mass would be taken up by rocket fuel.
The worst part is your shortsighted ideas about gravity. Let's say by some miracle you could turn Ceres into a worldship. Ceres has a maximum gravity of .028 G's. Even if passengers were able to keep their muscles in shape, that low level of gravity will do very little to prevent bone loss and loss of heart muscle mass. Even if children could survive growing up in microgravity, they could never set foot on a full-sized planet.
Ion drives provide an extremely small amount of thrust. Thousands of them couldn't provide minimum course correction. It would worse than an ant trying to push a bowling ball.
QUOTE
The basic concept of a World ship or a Dyson Swarm is something large enough to have all the requirements of human life and waste disposal and recycling, as well as maintenance of itself, and some redundancy in each major area of technology and functionality.
Just because a definition exists doesn't mean that it's possible with current technology.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The basic concept of a World ship or a Dyson Swarm is something large enough to have all the requirements of human life and waste disposal and recycling, as well as maintenance of itself, and some redundancy in each major area of technology and functionality. |
Just because a definition exists doesn't mean that it's possible with current technology.
If you had a ship the size of Ceres, you could have on-board artificial oceans(giant aquariums), on-board farmland(a.k.a. climate controlled greenhouse), onboard recycling and manufacturing of every type, all powered by Solar when it is close enough to a star; powered by Nuclear while it is in deep space. The mass of the ship itself provides the gravity.
You have completely unrealistic assumptions about what could be accomplished with an object that small. It's doubtful that the moon could support an ocean, let alone an object many times smaller.
Your dreams have no basis in reality, let alone currently available technology.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 30 2009, 11:38 AM)
Ion drives provide an extremely small amount of thrust. Thousands of them couldn't provide minimum course correction. It would worse than an ant trying to push a bowling ball.
Just because a definition exists doesn't mean that it's possible with current technology.
QUOTE
Solar energy in deep space?
Goodness you need to learn to read. I said, "...all powered by Solar when it is close enough to a star."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Solar energy in deep space? |
Goodness you need to learn to read. I said, "...all powered by Solar when it is close enough to a star."
How will that work? Last time I checked, solar panels don't work at night. Nuclear power might be feasible, but rocket fuel will be extremely limited. A significant fraction of the worldship's mass would be taken up by rocket fuel.
No, conventional rocketry is absolutely useless for inter-stellar spaceflight, except for minor manuevering purposes.
QUOTE
The worst part is your shortsighted ideas about gravity. Let's say by some miracle you could turn Ceres into a worldship. Ceres has a maximum gravity of .028 G's. Even if passengers were able to keep their muscles in shape, that low level of gravity will do very little to prevent bone loss and loss of heart muscle mass. Even if children could survive growing up in microgravity, they could never set foot on a full-sized planet.
By then we will have Nano-technology for repairing and augmenting bone and muscle.
Think "Moore's Law". At the current rate of advancement in computers and micro-circuitry, realistic nano-machines with the basic function of anything seen in Sci-fi will be possible in anywhere from a few decades to 100 years. With this technology, bone could be augmented with composite materials cheaper than titanium, which have the strength of steel, but are not corroded by biological processes.
Exercise can be done in gravity simulating rotating devices. (nothing new.)
In order to prevent the effect of changing the ship's trajectory, such devices would counter-rotate symetrically.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The worst part is your shortsighted ideas about gravity. Let's say by some miracle you could turn Ceres into a worldship. Ceres has a maximum gravity of .028 G's. Even if passengers were able to keep their muscles in shape, that low level of gravity will do very little to prevent bone loss and loss of heart muscle mass. Even if children could survive growing up in microgravity, they could never set foot on a full-sized planet. |
By then we will have Nano-technology for repairing and augmenting bone and muscle.
Think "Moore's Law". At the current rate of advancement in computers and micro-circuitry, realistic nano-machines with the basic function of anything seen in Sci-fi will be possible in anywhere from a few decades to 100 years. With this technology, bone could be augmented with composite materials cheaper than titanium, which have the strength of steel, but are not corroded by biological processes.
Exercise can be done in gravity simulating rotating devices. (nothing new.)
In order to prevent the effect of changing the ship's trajectory, such devices would counter-rotate symetrically.
You have completely unrealistic assumptions about what could be accomplished with an object that small. It's doubtful that the moon could support an ocean, let alone an object many times smaller.
If the ocean is contained inside an air-tight climate-controlled structure,just like everything and everyone else, then it isn't going to evaporate.
QUOTE
Your dreams have no basis in reality, let alone currently available technology.
Building the structure itself is doable with currently available technology, over a long period of time of course, provided governments could be properly stimulated to do so.
"Can't be done" and "I don't feel like it" are completely different animals.
====
In the greater scheme of things, there is no reason for humans not to do some of the projects I envision.
Example, once again, asteroid mining.
Let us suppose the total cost to earth in terms of energy and material resources to create the first self-sufficient asteroid mine is quantified as the variable "X".
Once fully operational, this station is used to harvest resources from asteroids for use by earth, luna, and martian colonies. Now suppose that, over time (several decades to perhaps a few generations), the colony has harvest 5X worth of energy and materials resources (after considering its own needs and maintenance costs). From this 5x worth of energy, goods, and materials, 2x are shipped back to the earth, 1x to the Lunar colony, 1x to Mars colony, 1x is used to make a copy of itself. Thus "Earth" has profited by a factor of 100% from it's initial investment, AND you now have two permanent mining facilities in space.
Now this is an over-simplistic example(the most efficient thing to do is for the facility to replicate itself first,) but the point is that over time, such a facility can more than pay back its cost to the Earth while at the same time becoming the staging ground for all future mining operations and colonies. Earth would no longer need to "feed and water" the colonies, because they are fully self sufficient.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.