why pass on all that potential knowledge? just because it may not be there when we can get there, doesnt mean we should ignore it, and the possible knowledge gained from observing it.
why pass on all that potential knowledge? just because it may not be there when we can get there, doesnt mean we should ignore it, and the possible knowledge gained from observing it.
I would argue we are to busy looking on now and the past, not the future...
"We're in the apathy/dependancy part of the pride cycle as a nation." Any links on information about this topic?
If it is at the sacrifice of stagnating our potential to move out into our larger solar system I say there are huge losses to it versus the potential knowledge gain. Losses that can lead to our own destruction.
Besides I think we can learn more in comparison by moving out into our own solar system and learning one on one just how it was formed instead oa makeing guesswork of images beamed back from cameras. Only by being on the ground can specific information and discoveres really receive the full amount of comprehension and understanding they truely deserve.
Actually, it's more to say "IN YOUR FACE!!" to all the religious nutjobs than anything.
EDIT TO ADD: Seriously, do you have ANY idea how much faster progress we could make if one could conclusively prove that organized religion to date is hopelessly incorrect about everything?
If, instead of going to churches and praying to some gods, people spent time going to school and getting an education? Instead of learning to hate those who are different, people learned to improve humanity themselves since nobody is going to magically do it for them?
Conclusively proving religion wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt would do some very good things for the human race.
how about the expansion of the universe? if we didnt peer beyond our neighborhood, we would still think the universe was expanding at a slower rate, and would eventually stop. we know know that the expansion is actually speeding up. i find it hard to believe that doesnt benefit us in some way in our current tasks.
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: gutharius
I did the math and that is what started this whole discussion. By me determining that the nearest galaxy is over 169,000 years away at the speed of light. Not that there is much math involved in that.
Actually I don't think you get it. In this case we need to invent the airplane before the hot air balloon (or at least at the same time) in order to do any real good.
That is my point tho, as I see it exploring and colonizing our solar system would be the hot air ballon. Going beyond that would be the first airplane. Landing on a planet on another syolar system would be akin to the first jet airplane and so on... Did I misspeak to cause some confusion with you? My apologies if so.
We cross posted. Again discovery does not necassarily take a progressive path. You are saying why explore deep space because we haven't invented the hot air balloon yet even though it provides the potentially greater benefit.
What greater benefit can their be than being able to colonize mars and in the process discover its riches. What greater benefit can there be than overcoming the challenges in our own solar system? Why peer billions of years into the past at a tiwinkling light we will never be able to send anything to, let alone make any direct use of?
Why spend billions developing a hot air balloons when jets are the future?
When you say colonize mars I don't think that you understand terraforming would be necassary to process its "riches". Also if the challenges of interstellar travel are met then most likely those of the solar system are met,
Your idea that staring billions of years into the past only to have our expectations squashed when we get there is somewhat flawed. It is our view of varying places in universal history that will allow us to predict where we want to go among those "past" planets/ solar systems.
Once again I don't think exploration of our own solar system is wrong but the idea that we shouldn't be focused beyond that is (to be disrespectful) retarded.
If you want a solar system goal concentrate on H3 and look no farther than the moon. That is more likely to extend our stay here more than anything.
you could also say not knowing could be dangerous. we could run out of time to fully digest and apply what knowledge it does bring.
the earth is done in 4 billion years. it could take us 3 billion just to figure out how to get out of here, which leaves us 1 billion to apply that knowledge practically do that. why waste time? wouldnt it be better to be prepared and have it solved befoe then, if possible?
The problem is the things you mention were determined to be pointless long ago with the exception of keeping interest up.
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 34,889
- 2,049
- 126
Well, I haven't done a whole lot of studying on the economics of the situation, but would a Mars base provide price access to the mineral rich asteroid belt? It may be cheaper to mine them, refine the materials on Mars, and ship them back to Earth than to do everything on Earth.
Well as a person of faith in something greater, I would have to disagree with your edit. Religion is a philosophy. Philosophies cannot be disproven, especially so with religion simply because of its nature. People will always need something to believe in. The problem is what path they take to find that something to believe in and what values the pick up along the way. But this is not the topic of this thread. Perhaps you would be willing to post a thread of this for further discussion. Chaotic42, posted a great articel I would love to discuss further that relates to your topic is a way.
I assume you mean due to the sun. The fact is we collide with andromeda in ~3 billion years if we survive any periodic ELEs. With the thoughts of the OP we will certainly run out of time especially with our tendancy to destroy the planet. The seemingly impossible needs to be investigated now not after we make the perceived steps.
Only after Earth's recources were nearing completion. The only hope for profitable mining would be H3 on the moon.
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: gutharius
I did the math and that is what started this whole discussion. By me determining that the nearest galaxy is over 169,000 years away at the speed of light. Not that there is much math involved in that.
Actually I don't think you get it. In this case we need to invent the airplane before the hot air balloon (or at least at the same time) in order to do any real good.
That is my point tho, as I see it exploring and colonizing our solar system would be the hot air ballon. Going beyond that would be the first airplane. Landing on a planet on another syolar system would be akin to the first jet airplane and so on... Did I misspeak to cause some confusion with you? My apologies if so.
We cross posted. Again discovery does not necassarily take a progressive path. You are saying why explore deep space because we haven't invented the hot air balloon yet even though it provides the potentially greater benefit.
What greater benefit can their be than being able to colonize mars and in the process discover its riches. What greater benefit can there be than overcoming the challenges in our own solar system? Why peer billions of years into the past at a tiwinkling light we will never be able to send anything to, let alone make any direct use of?
Why spend billions developing a hot air balloons when jets are the future?
When you say colonize mars I don't think that you understand terraforming would be necassary to process its "riches". Also if the challenges of interstellar travel are met then most likely those of the solar system are met,
Your idea that staring billions of years into the past only to have our expectations squashed when we get there is somewhat flawed. It is our view of varying places in universal history that will allow us to predict where we want to go among those "past" planets/ solar systems.
Once again I don't think exploration of our own solar system is wrong but the idea that we shouldn't be focused beyond that is (to be disrespectful) retarded.
If you want a solar system goal concentrate on H3 and look no farther than the moon. That is more likely to extend our stay here more than anything.
You can't build a jet unless you know the fundamental dynamics of flight.
Yes I do know terraforming would be involved and many others things would be needed as well. I expect it to be involved as it would be pointless from a technological standpoint to colonize a planet that presented us with no opportunity to expand our technological base.
I will accept a limitation that as long as our peering into the past does not affect our ability to move as strongly and quickly into our future then I am ok with it.
If it takes us 3 billion years just to move off this planet I think we deserve our own destruction...
I do think it is a great idea to wax philosophic about. Looking at a far off star to realize that it could be gone and we wouldnt know for millions of years more.
Economically speaking thar ouls be better for mars colinization as it would provide colonists on mars with an economic activity to further spurn development of the planet.
We don't know that, technology has been one of the cheif reasons for making things that were not profitable suddenly very profitable.
i agree.
i was just throwing numbers around as an example of why we need to know all we can as soon as possible. andromeda coming furthers the point that we need to know all we can, as fast as we can.
also, speaking to the original question, once that data is gone, its gone and we cant reap any benefit from it. what sense does it make to ignore it even if we may never observe the original source first hand.
Personally it buggers the hell out of me. For all we know we could be the only galaxy left in the universe and won't know for another 169,113 years if this is still false. That is the time it takes for light to travel from the Large Magellanic Cloud, closest galaxylike object, to Earth.
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: gutharius
I did the math and that is what started this whole discussion. By me determining that the nearest galaxy is over 169,000 years away at the speed of light. Not that there is much math involved in that.
Actually I don't think you get it. In this case we need to invent the airplane before the hot air balloon (or at least at the same time) in order to do any real good.
That is my point tho, as I see it exploring and colonizing our solar system would be the hot air ballon. Going beyond that would be the first airplane. Landing on a planet on another syolar system would be akin to the first jet airplane and so on... Did I misspeak to cause some confusion with you? My apologies if so.
We cross posted. Again discovery does not necassarily take a progressive path. You are saying why explore deep space because we haven't invented the hot air balloon yet even though it provides the potentially greater benefit.
What greater benefit can their be than being able to colonize mars and in the process discover its riches. What greater benefit can there be than overcoming the challenges in our own solar system? Why peer billions of years into the past at a tiwinkling light we will never be able to send anything to, let alone make any direct use of?
Why spend billions developing a hot air balloons when jets are the future?
When you say colonize mars I don't think that you understand terraforming would be necassary to process its "riches". Also if the challenges of interstellar travel are met then most likely those of the solar system are met,
Your idea that staring billions of years into the past only to have our expectations squashed when we get there is somewhat flawed. It is our view of varying places in universal history that will allow us to predict where we want to go among those "past" planets/ solar systems.
Once again I don't think exploration of our own solar system is wrong but the idea that we shouldn't be focused beyond that is (to be disrespectful) retarded.
If you want a solar system goal concentrate on H3 and look no farther than the moon. That is more likely to extend our stay here more than anything.
You can't build a jet unless you know the fundamental dynamics of flight.
Yes I do know terraforming would be involved and many others things would be needed as well. I expect it to be involved as it would be pointless from a technological standpoint to colonize a planet that presented us with no opportunity to expand our technological base.
I will accept a limitation that as long as our peering into the past does not affect our ability to move as strongly and quickly into our future then I am ok with it.
See that is where you don't get it. The hot air ballon is fundamentally different than the jet and neither has to be invented before the other in order to come into existance. Only the idea of flight has to be there.
You keep saying that you want to see goals that would be accomplished in three generations. I have news for you the terraforming of Mars would take thousands of millennia and for what? So we could find oi, gold, diamonds?
honestly, i cant answer that. im sure a physicist could. im just a guy who likes read about this stuff.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter