|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Jun 30, 2016 20:49:37 GMT
We have World News, but we don't have a place (and if we do, I apologize as I was not able to find one) for news that happens outside our world: Now we do! This is a pretty cool story/occurance I think Aurora spotted on Jupiter as Juno probe nears |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 1, 2016 16:27:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 1, 2016 16:30:30 GMT
Cassini sent some nice video of Satruns Aurora back in 2008.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 10, 2016 11:47:54 GMT
I don't know. Someone to call for help if we get in over our heads? Nice thought, but I think we're going to have to help ourselves on that one. Personally, I don't believe we're ever going to find other intelligent beings in the cosmos before we have the technology to leave our solar system. And I don't believe that technology will come before we really desperately NEED to leave. I don't see us throwing enough resources at that problem until there are no other options left. As a collective species, we're too focused on the day to day business of life here on Earth to care about getting out amongst the stars. Sure, there are a few thousand people around the world who care enough about it to pursue it right now, but as a global species we're too busy squabbling over patches of land and the limited resources on this planet for us to focus on giving those few thousand people the support they need to get us out there. Which is too bad, because if we left now, knowing that Earth was still perfectly habitable, we might behave a little more ethically in our encounters with extraterrestrial life than we would if we knew we could never go back. mrfatso's scenario of us meeting another intelligent species, only to find that they're not all that peaceful is not at all inconceivable. I just have this idea that if we don't get out there while Earth is still habitable and worth fighting to preserve, then that war-mongering species of science fiction that destroys everything and everyone in their way will end up being us. the one thing humans seem constitutionally incapable of doing is being proactive. we won't invest in interstellar travel until conditions reach what they were in interstellar. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 10, 2016 13:48:24 GMT
Intergalactic space travel could be just one scientific breakthrough away. Will it ever happen? Probably not. But the people that are capable of making that breakthrough are already working on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 10, 2016 15:26:46 GMT
Unless that one scientific breakthrough is figuring out how to open a wormhole, keep it stable and predict where you come out, intergalactic travel won't be happening any time soon. Even if we break light speed, it would still take us about 25,000 years just to get to the outer edge of the Milky Way on our own side. Theoretically, it would take around 75,000 years to get straight across to the far side, but that's if you cut straight past the supermassive black hole at the center, which you probably don't want to do.
The only other alternative we can currently think of is warp drive, but as far I understand the theories proposed to make that work, we need immense amounts of something called negative energy, the existence of which has yet to be definitively proven.
Interstellar travel within our own galaxy is much more likely and yes, someone is working on that, but they're not nearly well enough funded to do serious, large scale experiments that could lead to quick breakthroughs.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 10, 2016 16:08:34 GMT
Unless that one scientific breakthrough is figuring out how to open a wormhole, keep it stable and predict where you come out, intergalactic travel won't be happening any time soon. Even if we break light speed, it would still take us about 25,000 years just to get to the outer edge of the Milky Way on our own side. Theoretically, it would take around 75,000 years to get straight across to the far side, but that's if you cut straight past the supermassive black hole at the center, which you probably don't want to do. The only other alternative we can currently think of is warp drive, but as far I understand the theories proposed to make that work, we need immense amounts of something called negative energy, the existence of which has yet to be definitively proven. Interstellar travel within our own galaxy is much more likely and yes, someone is working on that, but they're not nearly well enough funded to do serious, large scale experiments that could lead to quick breakthroughs. Like I said, it's not likely, but you never know. And it could come completely out of left field like some major breakthrough in quantum entanglement or multiverse theory. That's really the only way we'll ever see interstellar travel. Even traveling at the speed of light is too slow to get us anywhere out of our own small solar system. And we already know there's no good vacation destinations there. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 10, 2016 16:24:56 GMT
Unless that one scientific breakthrough is figuring out how to open a wormhole, keep it stable and predict where you come out, intergalactic travel won't be happening any time soon. Even if we break light speed, it would still take us about 25,000 years just to get to the outer edge of the Milky Way on our own side. Theoretically, it would take around 75,000 years to get straight across to the far side, but that's if you cut straight past the supermassive black hole at the center, which you probably don't want to do. The only other alternative we can currently think of is warp drive, but as far I understand the theories proposed to make that work, we need immense amounts of something called negative energy, the existence of which has yet to be definitively proven. Interstellar travel within our own galaxy is much more likely and yes, someone is working on that, but they're not nearly well enough funded to do serious, large scale experiments that could lead to quick breakthroughs. Like I said, it's not likely, but you never know. And it could come completely out of left field like some major breakthrough in quantum entanglement or multiverse theory. That's really the only way we'll ever see interstellar travel. Even traveling at the speed of light is too slow to get us anywhere out of our own small solar system. And we already know there's no good vacation destinations there. Well, with light speed we could reach the nearest star in 4 years and that would by definition make us an interstellar species. Improbable, yes. But not impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 10, 2016 17:00:01 GMT
Best theory I've seen for likely first interstellar exploration is shotgunned self-reproducing nanotech across the universe at relativistic speeds. The launching actually doesn't present the problem--the nanotech does.
Given the rapid advances in that science, it's possible we'll have the technology in the next generation.
Of course, even with it, it will probably take a long time to get information back.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 10, 2016 23:21:01 GMT
Best theory I've seen for likely first interstellar exploration is shotgunned self-reproducing nanotech across the universe at relativistic speeds. The launching actually doesn't present the problem--the nanotech does. Given the rapid advances in that science, it's possible we'll have the technology in the next generation. Of course, even with it, it will probably take a long time to get information back. As in shooting nanotech out into the universe, as opposed to shooting humans out there? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 11, 2016 1:47:19 GMT
Best theory I've seen for likely first interstellar exploration is shotgunned self-reproducing nanotech across the universe at relativistic speeds. The launching actually doesn't present the problem--the nanotech does. Given the rapid advances in that science, it's possible we'll have the technology in the next generation. Of course, even with it, it will probably take a long time to get information back. As in shooting nanotech out into the universe, as opposed to shooting humans out there? as I recall, the idea is to shoot the nanotech out; if it finds a habitable planet out there, it builds itself into something that shoots a message back, and then begins building basic infrastructure, so when the humans are shot out, there will be something for them to come to. or in the last resort survival-of-species mindset, I believe they intend to have the nanotech breed human life in situ. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 11, 2016 4:10:56 GMT
As in shooting nanotech out into the universe, as opposed to shooting humans out there? as I recall, the idea is to shoot the nanotech out; if it finds a habitable planet out there, it builds itself into something that shoots a message back, and then begins building basic infrastructure, so when the humans are shot out, there will be something for them to come to. or in the last resort survival-of-species mindset, I believe they intend to have the nanotech breed human life in situ. Bingo. With sufficiently advanced technology, they could build biologic humans, one atom at a time. Of course, when you look at it, perhaps the theory of panspermia means this has already happened, and we are the result. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 11, 2016 4:44:37 GMT
as I recall, the idea is to shoot the nanotech out; if it finds a habitable planet out there, it builds itself into something that shoots a message back, and then begins building basic infrastructure, so when the humans are shot out, there will be something for them to come to. or in the last resort survival-of-species mindset, I believe they intend to have the nanotech breed human life in situ. Bingo. With sufficiently advanced technology, they could build biologic humans, one atom at a time. Of course, when you look at it, perhaps the theory of panspermia means this has already happened, and we are the result. at which point it becomes an exercise in vanity. it has gone from saving our culture to producing carbon copies of it. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 11, 2016 6:16:16 GMT
as I recall, the idea is to shoot the nanotech out; if it finds a habitable planet out there, it builds itself into something that shoots a message back, and then begins building basic infrastructure, so when the humans are shot out, there will be something for them to come to. or in the last resort survival-of-species mindset, I believe they intend to have the nanotech breed human life in situ. Bingo. With sufficiently advanced technology, they could build biologic humans, one atom at a time. Of course, when you look at it, perhaps the theory of panspermia means this has already happened, and we are the result. Well, that explains all the alien visitations and abductions over the years, not to mention all the historic evidence of alien intervention in human life. We're their descendants! *Takes off tinfoil hat* Ow... My poor brain... It hurts to think like that! |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 11, 2016 6:48:06 GMT
Really? Seems a lot easier to believe than some creation myths, myself. Seed the universe with fundamental DNA variants, give it a chance to take hold, wait for the results to say "Howdy!" Of course, development might take a few billion years to take root, and evolution will not necessarily produce a carbon copy of you, but that might not be the point--any life might be welcome. Maybe it's part of their religion--their version of "Be fruitful and multiply"? Panspermia is a serious and long held hypothesis. How long held? Try 5 B.C.  Of course, there's still the question of abiogenesis vs. intelligent design...  |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 11, 2016 7:53:36 GMT
Really? Seems a lot easier to believe than some creation myths, myself. Seed the universe with fundamental DNA variants, give it a chance to take hold, wait for the results to say "Howdy!" Of course, development might take a few billion years to take root, and evolution will not necessarily produce a carbon copy of you, but that might not be the point--any life might be welcome. Maybe it's part of their religion--their version of "Be fruitful and multiply"? Panspermia is a serious and long held hypothesis. How long held? Try 5 B.C. Of course, there's still the question of abiogenesis vs. intelligent design... I was making fun of the "ancient aliens" conspiracy theorists, not the general idea of panspermia. Which, by the way isn't generally thought of as "someone purposely sent life out into the greater universe", but rather "something smashed into a planet with life on it and flung rocks with bacteria into deep space". Not saying the former couldn't happen, just that it's not usually what scientists refer to when they use the word panspermia. And I must say, I find the idea of tiny nanobots constructing fully functioning humans on site a little weird. Maybe even disconcerting. Seed a planet with primitive bacterial life from Earth and let evolution do what it does best, sure. But building humans? Modern day humans, evovled for life on Earth over millions of years? I see just a couple of potential problems there... For one thing, unless the gravity and atmosphere are exactly like on Earth, those humans won't fare very well from the beginning. A slight difference might not do that much, but twice the gravity? Half? Double the amount of oxygen? 30% less nitrogen? They wouldn't be able to survive. Their muscles, bones, respiratory and circulatory systems wouldn't be able to adapt fast enough. And then there's food. As we are now, humans wouldn't be able to live off just anything. We've spent millenia cultivating our food and our bodies have evolved with it. We need certain proteins, fats, vitamins and so on. If those don't exist on whatever planet these nanobots decide to reconstruct 21st century humans, those humans are going to be in trouble from day one. Our immune system could be a problem too. It's designed for Earth bacteria and viruses, not whatever might be crawling around on another planet. Even if there isn't bacterial life on that planet, just drinking water with a sufficiently different concentration of minerals and metals in it than what we're designed for could present a significant health risk. ADDENDUM: Actually, a planet with no life at all would be a huge problem for us. We can't exist if no other life does, because we depend on organic material for sustenance. If there are no other lifeforms, what are we supposed to eat? Rocks? All of this could be something we'd be able to find solutions for if we traveled there ourselves with our technological knowhow, but completely newly constructed human beings - born naked and ignorant as we all are - would have more than just a little trouble adapting to such a radical change in environment. I would find it highly unethical to essentially throw naked babies onto an alien planet and then just stand back and see what happens. Most of us would consider it animal cruelty if we did that to a dog. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 11, 2016 8:18:49 GMT
That's why you don't just build the humans first--you build the entire ecosystem.
Naked babies? Build them fully formed with brains wired with whatever knowledge you want. It's all just chemistry, right? And if you can control them down to the molecular level, you can build any brain, complete with memories.
Trigger your nanobots only on reasonably compatible planets in terms of gravity/temperature/etc. Something in the Goldilocks range, for example. They're not that uncommon, per NASA.
You could even restrict the bots so they don't build on top of existing life--that would be a bit rude, no?
For the rest of them, let them float through the galaxy, waiting to find the right environment.
Of course, your bots could also harvest any planet they find and reconfigure it to be compatible (or, redesign the humans to make them compatible).
To be honest, the problem I have with the Panspermia hypothesis is the same I have with aliens: time and distance. Is there enough time for life to develop in some other solar system, for said life to be carried out via comet to this solar system, and for life to develop here? How does that happen without FTL comets?
I read a novel once that addressed the issues of nanobot exploration: Assemblers of Infinity. It's available online, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 11, 2016 8:51:06 GMT
That's why you don't just build the humans first--you build the entire ecosystem. I know digital storage is getting smaller and smaller, but storing the information for the entire ecosystem of Earth in tiny nanobots? I think that's a little more than a generation away... Naked babies? Build them fully formed with brains wired with whatever knowledge you want. It's all just chemistry, right? And if you can control them down to the molecular level, you can build any brain, complete with memories. Seeing as we don't fully understand how the human brain works yet, that would be a little further off than a single generation as well. The idea is solid, but there's a lot of legwork to be done before it's even remotely possible. Trigger your nanobots only on reasonably compatible planets in terms of gravity/temperature/etc. Something in the Goldilocks range, for example. They're not that uncommon, per NASA. You could even restrict the bots so they don't build on top of existing life--that would be a bit rude, no? For the rest of them, let them float through the galaxy, waiting to find the right environment. Of course, your bots could also harvest any planet they find and reconfigure it to be compatible (or, redesign the humans to make them compatible). Again, cramming the amount of sensors and advanced programming needed to do that into something small enough to work on the atomic level isn't likely to happen in the next 30 years. Of course you could cram a lot of nanobots into something the size of a football and have that shell hold the sensors etc., acting as sort of an egg, but I still don't see that happening in the next 30-50 years. To be honest, the problem I have with the Panspermia hypothesis is the same I have with aliens: time and distance. Is there enough time for life to develop in some other solar system, for said life to be carried out via comet to this solar system, and for life to develop here? How does that happen without FTL comets? I read a novel once that addressed the issues of nanobot exploration: Assemblers of Infinity. It's available online, I think. The latest theory I heard on this was that someone figured out the basic building blocks of life (lipids, amino acids and base nucleotides required to form basic cells) don't require a planet to form. They can emerge in the accretion disc of a forming star, seeding the planets as they form later on. Apparently, all that's needed is the right elements in the cloud and some high voltage electricity. It's nothing but a theory, but it's based on the fact that many forms of bacteria can survive in outer space for prolonged periods of time (why would they have evolved to do that if they had no need for it? - that question has been begging for an answer for years) and the "primordial soup" experiments done some decades ago that showed you could create amino acids essential to life from nothing but chemistry and electrical energy in the form of lightning. As far as I understand, lightning-like flashes have been observed in accretion discs around forming stars that haven't yet formed planets, so it's not unlikely that those amino acids could be forming in the stellar cloud, binding to small particles of dust. If evidence is ever found to support this theory, the time and distance problem would be solved. Life wouldn't need to jump from one solar system to the next, making journeys of thousands of light years. It could form as the individual solar system forms. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Jul 11, 2016 15:00:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 11, 2016 15:57:55 GMT
Sorry, of course you're likely right re: nanobots. The idea that's possibly a generation away is sending the simple bot that might build a transmitter or launcher when it reaches its destination. There's even the possibility that a nanobot network could be formed, so there would be an ever expanding cloud of communication extending from the Earth outward. And yes, power is just one of the hurdles to overcome. Building life on demand is quite a few generations away, if at all possible. Then again--there's always the possibility of a Technological Singularity outpacing our normal development, but that's real science fiction--for now. My personal opinion (based on absolutely no real data and displaying my own ignorance) is that abiogenesis in the accretion disk is a little less likely than inside the Earth's atmosphere, simply because the environment is so much more hostile. If life were possibly formed there, shouldn't we have found some evidence on Mars or the Moon as well? Instead, they appear to be sterile. In short, if extremophile life formed in the radiation/vacuum/really mean environment of the disk, what killed it off when the planets formed? From what I understand, at least one panspermia idea says it would have had to happen 13.8 billion years ago. How big was the universe then? Would that mean transmission of life was easier? |
|
