• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Aw what a pretty planet.

diego

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Jeremy
Humbled? To the contrary. Things in the universe happened millions and billions of years ago. These changes also take millions of years.

We as humans have made probably the fastest change the universe has ever see. In a meer few thousand years look how we have evolved and how we changed the planet we inhabit. In the greater scheme of things maybe the majority of these are not positives but none the less look what we have done.

We are now beginning to really forge our way into the greater universe. Its only a matter of time til we are travelling at and beyond the speed of light. Just a hundred years ago we were still on horses. Now we travel at a rate of thousand of times the speed of one horse. We are no longer bound to the ground or the surface of the water. We can go up, we can go down, we can even put things up that go over and around the planet without coming down. We have the technogology to live away from the surface of the earth.

I think its a humbling balance. We have managed to do so much in so little a time. However that is diminished with the thoughts that we at this time are alone, we are incapable of finding or communication with others if they are out there. And to think that this will happen soon is foolish. The universe progresses at its own slower timeless pace.

jeremy -amazed and humbled- jive

I understand what your saying but I have to kinda of disagree. What we have in done in these 6000 or so years is basiclly gone from birth to puberty. We have not fully grown up yet. Were more like the teenager that keeps trying to convince people that were adults and can make adult decisions yet we don't reconize the skills that are needed to leave home(earth). To think about all we have accomplished is it nothing more then the path we are suppose to go down.

Our minds are a amazing tool that is open to knowledge but what we have invented or discovered is simply the steps needed to further ourselfs in the universe. We all start out in jk. and work our way through university each year building on the things we learned in the past.
 

Evil Dynovac

TRIBE Member
If a wookie can fix a hyperdrive with nothing more than a monkeywrench holding a sparkplug then we will all be capable of warp speed in no time.
 

Jeremy Jive

TRIBE Member
Recently I watched an amazind documentary on the history of the universe and the search for the centre. A theory is that the universe has a centre, and at that centre is a black hole. Larger than any to be found (they have been found) in the universe. The black hole is the exact point in which the universe was created. The universe revolves around this black hole in a very slow orbit that will eventually draw everything into it. At the heart of that black hole is a spec of dust. Barely visible. It is denser than the entire mass of the milky way and visible universe combined and multiplied over and over again. This black hole will gain in strength and swallow everything hole.

When the universe is completely desimmated back into the centre. It will implode again, no longer able to contains its own mass. The universe will start again.

They are trying to find this centreby calculating the slow greater rotation of whole galaxies. If you can plot out the orbit of a number of galaxies, then by taking those and finding the common direction to their centres you have found the direction in which we should be looking.

jeremy -its an amazing place- jive
 

smack

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Evil Dynovac
If a wookie can fix a hyperdrive with nothing more than a monkeywrench holding a sparkplug then we will all be capable of warp speed in no time.
LOL
Star Wars doesn't lie
 

diego

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Jeremy
? How long before we have destroyed our planet and have to look elsewhere for a place to live? What if we don't have the technology go get there in time?

jeremy -pondering- jive

Maybe were not learning so fast?
 

lok

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Evil Dynovac
If a wookie can fix a hyperdrive with nothing more than a monkeywrench holding a sparkplug then we will all be capable of warp speed in no time.
A variation on the Johnny Cochrane defense.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Evil Dynovac
If a wookie can fix a hyperdrive with nothing more than a monkeywrench holding a sparkplug then we will all be capable of warp speed in no time.
back in the 50's american scientists tested a really cool open nuclear reactor that would have been the basis of an engine that could have started our travels.

Nobody much liked the idea of launching it into orbit though
 

lok

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
back in the 50's american scientists tested a really cool open nuclear reactor that would have been the basis of an engine that could have started our travels.

Nobody much liked the idea of launching it into orbit though
Wasnt that British scientists?

I get Orion and Daedalus confused all the time.
 

Jeremy Jive

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by DJ_Science
I think its time your reviewed your first year physics.
I don't think its impossible. We just haven't figure out how yet.

Take the worm hole theory. If some of the theories are correct we could possible travel from set points in the universe to another without relevant time or space. From A to B in an instant.

Hundreds of years ago, we thought the world was flat. Then we thought it was impossible to fly.

Everything is just a matter of time. If we took a pesimistic approach to everything as we just can't do it, its impossible then we would be where we are today. Humans are amazing in their ability to think outside the box and create innovations that lead to great inventions.

What about nanotechnology? Should we not bother trying because some people thing its physicaly impossible?

jeremy -possibilities- jive
 

lok

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Jeremy
I don't think its impossible. We just haven't figure out how yet.

Take the worm hole theory. If some of the theories are correct we could possible travel from set points in the universe to another without relevant time or space. From A to B in an instant.

Hundreds of years ago, we thought the world was flat. Then we thought it was impossible to fly.

Everything is just a matter of time. If we took a pesimistic approach to everything as we just can't do it, its impossible then we would be where we are today. Humans are amazing in their ability to think outside the box and create innovations that lead to great inventions.

What about nanotechnology? Should we not bother trying because some people thing its physicaly impossible?

jeremy -possibilities- jive
Its still impossible to travel at lightspeed. However, to traverse distance in speeds exceeding lightspeed may be possible.. ie wormholes and various other time paradoxes.

Mind you, its gonna be sleeper ships for a long time. A very long time.
 

diego

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Jeremy

Hundreds of years ago, we thought the world was flat. Then we thought it was impossible to fly.

jeremy -possibilities- jive
28 years ago I thought my mothers bosoms was the be all and end all. Then I craweld, now I walk.
 

smack

TRIBE Member
COL. SANDURZ: Prepare the ship for light speed.
DARK HELMET: No. No. No. Light speed is too slow. .... We're going to have to go right to .. LUDICROUS speed.
 

Evil Dynovac

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by lok
A variation on the Johnny Cochrane defense.
THAT DOES NOT. MAKE. SENSE!

I have always firmly believed that we as species MUST put every available resource into space travel. We must find a means of travelling to other places and living there because we are going to USE this planet up.

The human race needs to perpetually write cosmic cheques that our collective asses cannot cash. We need to go, camp out, and then go again, leaving planet-sized apple cores in our wake.

There is nothing ethically wrong with pealing the earth like an orange provided we can find another one. Enviromentalism goes out the window once we perfect space travel and are able to go anywhere we please.
 

lok

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Evil Dynovac
THAT DOES NOT. MAKE. SENSE!

I have always firmly believed that we as species MUST put every available resource into space travel. We must find a means of travelling to other places and living there because we are going to USE this planet up.

The human race needs to perpetually write cosmic cheques that our collective asses cannot cash. We need to go, camp out, and then go again, leaving planet-sized apple cores in our wake.

There is nothing ethically wrong with pealing the earth like an orange provided we can find another one. Enviromentalism goes out the window once we perfect space travel and are able to go anywhere we please.
Ie, we finish the virus paradox and are able to jump hosts.

Yeah. Thats the future alright.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by DJ_Science
I think its time your reviewed your first year physics.
We've already experimentally transmitted information at faster-than-light speeds. Relativity and the constant "c" is old science (that still holds well) except when we're dealing with quantum particles.

And to think you call yourself "DJ Science". ;)


Originally posted by diego
I'm not buying into this insignificant bullshit.
Ok, but it's my opinion. ;)

Originally posted by diego
Becaue the universe is so huge and seemingly endless this means that our planet and ourselfs are insignificant?
How do we define insignificant? Perhaps we should define insignficant quantitatively to mean that thing which, relative to another thing, is proportional in a certain feature on a scale of 1:1000.

If that's the case, then we humans are insignficant, physically, to the universe. If we would like to talk about the signficance of our conceptual capacity, then we are not insignficant relative to the universe. Etc...

Originally posted by diego
there's reason for everything and action cause's reaction.
Our plant, ourselfs are in constant action meaning we are by some standards causing a reaction to the universe around us and there for effecting the great scheme of things in some kinda of nature.
Gaia has been getting upset for a while now. I understand the theory, and I buy into the concept as an idealistic way of looking at the universe. Chaos theory tells us a lot about insignificant changes in initial conditions. Perhaps we're all intertwined in an 11-dimensional web of reflecting, mathematical superstrings, and vibrations of our mere existence operate like a soliton travelling down the river.


Have a nice day. :)
 

Evil Dynovac

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by lok
Ie, we finish the virus paradox and are able to jump hosts.

Yeah. Thats the future alright.
It's bleak and I'll never get on David Suzuki's Christmas Card list but it is the simple facts of the human race.

Humanity has never lived in harmony with nature. Hunter gatherer societies had to move around all the time. Why? Because they depleted the food sources in the area. That's not harmony. From there it got only worse.

The ultimate expression for our race's desperate need to evacute this place is represented in the sun. In ten billion years it will burn out and this solar system will collapse as we know it. A ridiculous notion given that it's so far away? Do you conceive or entertain the idea that the human race will go on. That we will live forever? If you entertain that idea for even a second then one must accept that space travel is our only salvation.

In truth we will need to leave long before that. I honestly don't believe we will ever be capable of this challenge. Our global society is far to confrontational to tackle something as monumental as deep space travel. No one country could afford it and still protect their borders.
 

lok

TRIBE Member
In 10 billion years, the existance of the sun wont even matter. Seriously thats not even a concern :)

Im worried about making it past 2100.

The trick is true harmony with nature, supplementing what we take with human intervention and technology.

Ie tree planting. Its as simple as they. Give what you take.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Evil Dynovac
It's bleak and I'll never get on David Suzuki's Christmas Card list but it is the simple facts of the human race.

The odds are with you on this one.

But I'm wondering if the reason we are such virucidal agents of the universe is due not so much because we are inherently selfish, but because the infrastructure of our society (government, economy, etc) encourages this kind of behaviour.

It's just a theory... ;)
 

Evil Dynovac

TRIBE Member
lok, of course you're right. We will face extinction level obsticals long before the sun burns out, but I like to bring it up because I've spoken with people who are so obstinate against the need for space travel. They see the world and our universe as a static model when clearly it isn't.

atp, I think we are viral entities simply because it's easier. There is much less effort in using without though of replacement, of settling for creating waste rather than conceiving of a waste-less society. It is said the path of least resistance will seldom lead you out of one's home. In this case humanities path probably won't lead us off this planet.
 

lok

TRIBE Member
We're gonna run out of resources here long long before we come up with reliable, conceivable mass interstellar travel. Interplanetary travel will still be hampered by the same problems, but its not like we have any great destinations.

In short, we'll be forced to adapt to a cyclical environment, or perish.
 

diego

TRIBE Member
Until these problems are fixed we ain't going nowhere.

WASHINGTON (AP) - NASA's overconfident management and loss of focus on safety "were as much a cause" of the Columbia accident as the chunk of foam that dealt a deadly blow to the space shuttle's left wing, investigators concluded Tuesday, warning that without drastic changes another disaster is likely.

In a scathing 248-page report coming almost seven months to the day after the spacecraft disintegrated over Texas, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board said the shuttle was not "inherently unsafe," but issued a series of recommendations that it insisted must be implemented for a safe return to flight.

"The board strongly believes that if these persistent, systemic flaws are not resolved, the scene is set for another accident," the investigators wrote.

They added: "NASA's blind spot is it believes it has a strong safety culture."

The board said the space agency lacks "effective checks and balances, does not have an independent safety program and has not demonstrated the characteristics of a learning organization."


Board member John Barry put it this way: "NASA had conflicting goals of cost, schedule and safety. Unfortunately, safety lost out."

NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, prepared in advance for the sharp criticism, pledged to make the necessary changes.

And President George W. Bush declared, "Our journey in space will go on."

The board concluded that safety engineers used "sleight of hand" tactics even before the Feb. 1 Columbia tragedy to play down the frequency of strikes by fuel-tank foam insulation and managers pressed ahead because of intense pressure from high up to stay on schedule. Even shuttle managers said their rationale for continuing to launch in the face of foam strikes was "lousy."

The mission managers missed numerous opportunities to check Columbia's wing for damage, the report noted, and didn't even bother asking the astronauts if they had any extra camera views of the fuel tank as it peeled away following liftoff - which the board feels sure the astronauts had.

In all, the Columbia investigators issued 29 recommendations to NASA, six of them focusing on organizational change.

O'Keefe told space agency employees in a TV broadcast that a group already has been established to change the NASA culture, another to monitor the technical aspects of return to flight.

"We must go forward and resolve to follow this blueprint and strive to make this a much stronger organization," O'Keefe said. "We are, all of us at NASA, a part of the solution."

Dr. Jonathan Clark, a NASA flight surgeon whose wife was Columbia astronaut Dr. Laurel Clark, said the report "hit right on the money" and noted that changing the space agency's culture will be "the real challenge."

The board agreed. "The changes we recommend will be difficult to accomplish and will be internally resisted," the report said.

"We know how hard it is for big organizations to change," said retired navy Admiral Harold Gehman, the board's chairman.

NASA's vigilance after the 1986 Challenger explosion lessened as the years went by, and the recommendations by those investigators were forgotten or overlooked. So the Columbia investigators sought a deeper, broader analysis.

Observed board member Sheila Widnall, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology aeronautics professor: "The board set a rather high target for itself. Certainly from my point of view, I wanted to make sure that we were not just the second report on a shelf to be joined by a third report."

Some of the changes urged by the Columbia board - eliminate as much fuel-tank foam shedding as possible, toughen the vulnerable thermal shielding on the wings, give astronauts inspection capabilities and repair kits - need to be done immediately before shuttle flights resume, Gehman said. The culture issues will take longer, he said.

There was total agreement among the board members on the fact that the chunk of foam insulation, weighing just over half a kilogram, that broke off the external fuel tank just over a minute into Columbia's mid-January launch created the breach in the left wing that led to the ship's destruction on Feb. 1 and the deaths of all seven astronauts.

"In four simple words, the foam did it," said NASA's Scott Hubbard, a board member who co-ordinated an incriminating series of foam-impact tests by researchers in San Antonio.

The investigators determined that the acceleration levels experienced by the crew cabin just before its catastrophic breakup were not lethal, but rather the astronauts died of blunt trauma and lack of oxygen. The exact time of death could not be determined; the destruction of the crew module took place over a period of 24 seconds. About half the module was recovered.

"Given the current design of the orbiter, there was no possibility for the crew to survive," the report said.

The cause of the Challenger accident, in which all seven astronauts were killed, also was attributed in part to management failures. The technical cause was different, however. In the case of Challenger, O-ring seals on the booster rockets failed in the bitter cold.

NASA's space shuttle fleet, now reduced to three, has proven difficult and expensive to operate - and more dangerous than expected, the report stated. "It is the board's view that, in retrospect, the increased complexity of a shuttle designed to be all things to all people created inherently greater risks than if more realistic technical goals had been set at the start."

At the time of Columbia's doomed launch, the board said, NASA retained too many negative aspects of its traditional culture: "flawed decision-making, self-deception, introversion and a diminished curiosity about the world outside the perfect place."

Shuttle managers had become conditioned over time not to regard the loss of fuel-tank foam insulation as a safety issue, the board stated, and were facing intense pressure to complete the U.S. portion of the international space station by February 2004.

A significant piece of foam came off Atlantis' fuel tank during liftoff in October and struck one of the booster rockets, but it was not classified as an in-flight anomaly and, as a result, did not attract the same amount of attention. Shuttle managers proceeded with the launch of Endeavour on a space station delivery mission in November and then with Columbia's scientific mission in January.

Five days after Columbia's liftoff, the head of the mission management team, Linda Ham, wrote in an e-mail to shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore: "Rationale was lousy then and still is." Nonetheless, neither objected to the quick back-to-back launches following Atlantis' flight. The board said both - and many others at NASA - were influenced by the space agency's push to wrap up work on the American segment of the space station in February 2004.

The board refused in its report to blame any one individual for the tragedy, a view it has maintained since the beginning.

Gehman said the report should now be the basis "for what we hope will be a very vigorous public policy debate about what do we do now? How soon do we replace the shuttle? What is the United States' vision for human spaceflight? Once you answer the question 'What is our vision?', you have to answer the next question, 'Are you willing to resource that vision,' because this stuff is not cheap."
 
Top