Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

What if you lived in 1969...

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 2:08:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
... and somebody told you that in the next 50 years, we not going to put so much as one more boot-print on another planet or moon, including the Moon itself? What would you have said to such a person?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 9:32:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 2:08:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
... and somebody told you that in the next 50 years, we not going to put so much as one more boot-print on another planet or moon, including the Moon itself? What would you have said to such a person?

I was alive in 1969 but nobody said it to me, so I can't answer your question.

But this does raise the question of which questions we should be asking each other now so that we can sound really cool on internet forums fifty years from now.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 3:14:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 9:32:35 AM, chui wrote:

I was alive in 1969 but nobody said it to me, so I can't answer your question.

I think you can put yourself in that situation and answer it. "If" you lived then and were asked, what would you likely have said?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 3:44:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 2:08:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
... and somebody told you that in the next 50 years, we not going to put so much as one more boot-print on another planet or moon, including the Moon itself? What would you have said to such a person?

I probably would not have believed you. In the aftermath of the moon landing, it was a commonly held belief that man would by the end of the century be cruising through the galaxy. In fact, an episode of Star Trek: The Original Series once showed an "early (spaceborne) freighter vessel from the 1990s". People probably laugh about that now, but with the knowledge they had at their time it wasn't so ridiculous a conclusion.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 1:00:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 2:08:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
... and somebody told you that in the next 50 years, we not going to put so much as one more boot-print on another planet or moon, including the Moon itself? What would you have said to such a person?

I would have laughed at them. But it doesn't seem we will for a long time. Although I believe plans to visit Mars are somewhere in the future.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:44:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would have said "So, The intergalactic aliens have finally put a stop to our fooling around in their territory?"
I was big on SciFi back then.

You hint that it would have been a big surprise, but in reality, not as big a surprise as being told in 1958 that a man would be walking on the moon in 1969.
1958 is when I was watching sputnik make its way across the sky - big deal. A two foot globe orbiting the earth, wonder of wonders.
It is all a matter or money, not technology. We shot our wad.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:44:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 1:00:02 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:08:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I would have laughed at them. But it doesn't seem we will for a long time. Although I believe plans to visit Mars are somewhere in the future.

The only person who's visiting a celestial body other than the Moon is somebody who's not looking to come back to Earth and tell about it -_-

It takes way too much time to get anywhere else. It takes way too much energy to enter a planet's atmosphere and then get back out again. Unless we find some K-Pax way of transferring consciousness without our physical bodies, We are stuck here. And since there doesn't seem to be anywhere else, as of yet, worth going, I doubt that's going to happen either.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:53:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:44:01 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I would have said "So, The intergalactic aliens have finally put a stop to our fooling around in their territory?"
I was big on SciFi back then.

You hint that it would have been a big surprise, but in reality, not as big a surprise as being told in 1958 that a man would be walking on the moon in 1969.

I disagree. Technology was steadily-improving by then, and our hopes for the future were high, not just high but drastically-inflated. Don't believe me? This video is from 1958. Watch it and tell me that people weren't putting nearly limitless expectations on the future: https://www.youtube.com...

1958 is when I was watching sputnik make its way across the sky - big deal. A two foot globe orbiting the earth, wonder of wonders.
It is all a matter or money, not technology. We shot our wad.

Absolutely false. Not money, not even really technology. Energy. We have the technology, theoretically, to shoot something up, keep people alive in space, and do everything we need to do. But there just doesn't exist an energy-source, nor will there ever be an energy source, capable of sustaining humans that long in space with all our needs and still able to blast off again from a planet's surface (followed by another return trip). In theory we could possible get energy from the planet we visit, but what energy is to be had out there? Water can be turned into hydrogen fuel.. perhaps Europa is in the cards... but hydrogen alone to fuel a trip that far? Let's not forget Jupiter's gravity...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:58:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:53:24 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:44:01 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I would have said "So, The intergalactic aliens have finally put a stop to our fooling around in their territory?"
I was big on SciFi back then.

You hint that it would have been a big surprise, but in reality, not as big a surprise as being told in 1958 that a man would be walking on the moon in 1969.

I disagree. Technology was steadily-improving by then, and our hopes for the future were high, not just high but drastically-inflated. Don't believe me? This video is from 1958. Watch it and tell me that people weren't putting nearly limitless expectations on the future: https://www.youtube.com...

Okay, Disneyland to know what the future has in store for us.
Seriously?
I was reading Popular science back them - one notch up from Mickey Mouse.
By 1980 we wouldn't need roads, everyone was going to commute to work in airplanes and helicopters.
Yes. drastically inflated, that is an understatement -for the realistic.

RE - JFKs speech - man on the moon by the end of the decade:
"The United States couldn't afford a Red Moon. Even worse, Kennedy was also feeling the pressure from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which happened about a month earlier. He needed a big announcement like this, even if it was something completely crazy in retrospect.

From that point, NASA had to develop everything from scratch, from the Saturn V rockets and the now iconic lander to entire computers and the method for manned orbital rendezvous. Imagine that. None of that technology existed. None of those procedures were known at the time. While all these things may seem like the most logical thing now, at the time they didn't know much about them. It all was stuff that belonged to science fiction comic books."
http://gizmodo.com...

"Something completely crazy".
"Had to develop everything from scratch"
"none of that technology existed"
"Stuff that belonged to science fiction comic books"

You quote Mickey Mouse, I quote a science blog.

1958 is when I was watching sputnik make its way across the sky - big deal. A two foot globe orbiting the earth, wonder of wonders.
It is all a matter or money, not technology. We shot our wad.

Absolutely false. Not money, not even really technology. Energy. We have the technology, theoretically, to shoot something up, keep people alive in space, and do everything we need to do. But there just doesn't exist an energy-source, nor will there ever be an energy source, capable of sustaining humans that long in space with all our needs and still able to blast off again from a planet's surface (followed by another return trip). In theory we could possible get energy from the planet we visit, but what energy is to be had out there? Water can be turned into hydrogen fuel.. perhaps Europa is in the cards... but hydrogen alone to fuel a trip that far? Let's not forget Jupiter's gravity...

There will NEVER be an energy source to take mankind to another planet and back???
You believe in 1958 a trip to the moon and back was fully expected, even though the technology did not exist, but in 2015 we have enough knowledge to say in 100 years mankind will be not BE ABLE to go to another planet and return, regardless of the resources.
I am speechless.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 9:07:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:58:12 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I disagree. Technology was steadily-improving by then, and our hopes for the future were high, not just high but drastically-inflated. Don't believe me? This video is from 1958. Watch it and tell me that people weren't putting nearly limitless expectations on the future: https://www.youtube.com...

Okay, Disneyland to know what the future has in store for us.
Seriously?
I was reading Popular science back them - one notch up from Mickey Mouse.

Please tell me you're not that naive... Disney is the second-largest media outlet in the world.

By 1980 we wouldn't need roads, everyone was going to commute to work in airplanes and helicopters.
Yes. drastically inflated, that is an understatement -for the realistic.

RE - JFKs speech - man on the moon by the end of the decade:
"The United States couldn't afford a Red Moon. Even worse, Kennedy was also feeling the pressure from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which happened about a month earlier. He needed a big announcement like this, even if it was something completely crazy in retrospect.

From that point, NASA had to develop everything from scratch, from the Saturn V rockets and the now iconic lander to entire computers and the method for manned orbital rendezvous. Imagine that. None of that technology existed. None of those procedures were known at the time. While all these things may seem like the most logical thing now, at the time they didn't know much about them. It all was stuff that belonged to science fiction comic books."
http://gizmodo.com...


"Something completely crazy".

Powerful stuff.

"Had to develop everything from scratch"
"none of that technology existed"

That usually happens when you invent something.

"Stuff that belonged to science fiction comic books"

You quote Mickey Mouse, I quote a science blog.

So, because a science blog thought something was crazy, that means anything is possible?

1958 is when I was watching sputnik make its way across the sky - big deal. A two foot globe orbiting the earth, wonder of wonders.
It is all a matter or money, not technology. We shot our wad.

Absolutely false. Not money, not even really technology. Energy. We have the technology, theoretically, to shoot something up, keep people alive in space, and do everything we need to do. But there just doesn't exist an energy-source, nor will there ever be an energy source, capable of sustaining humans that long in space with all our needs and still able to blast off again from a planet's surface (followed by another return trip). In theory we could possible get energy from the planet we visit, but what energy is to be had out there? Water can be turned into hydrogen fuel.. perhaps Europa is in the cards... but hydrogen alone to fuel a trip that far? Let's not forget Jupiter's gravity...

There will NEVER be an energy source to take mankind to another planet and back???

That is correct. Energy is a fundamental attribute of the universe that can't be manipulated in the way science fiction likes to portray it. Sure, some stuff that's sci-fi becomes reality. Obviously people are going to write about any and everything and something's bound to be true, like a stopped-watch being correct twice a day. But ask yourself: "what percentage of sci-fi becomes true?" The answer is: "almost nothing." Furthermore, at what point do you draw the line? We put a man on the moon, so therefore any and everything we can possibly imagine is going to be invented some day? No matter what I say will never be invented, somebody will point to computers and the moon mission and say "hey, they said we couldn't do that..." There has to be a line somewhere and I'm drawing it. That line is energy.

There is no even theoretical way to harness energy in significantly powerful forms in a way that is safe and stable, sustainable, and portable. Fusion-power is said to be on the horizon, but keeps getting pushed back... do you think you'll have a fusion-powered cellphone some day? To start a fusion reaction you need to push atoms together. So any device that uses it is going to need a catalyst of energy, in terms of heat we're talking many millions of degrees. With all the problems that modern tech suffers from, just how much are we going to trust such devices? Are you going to trust them in your home, on planes, in cars, or on space ships? I can't even bring a nail-clipper on a plane. Every source of energy imaginable suffers from serious limitations, and that isn't because tech hasn't advanced yet it is because energy is inherently unmanageable in the ways we would imagine to use it. You think a Star Trek phaser is ever going to be invented? All that energy in the palm of your hand is going to be either extremely radioactive or unstable, it won't just sit there nice and conveniently in a stable charge.

You believe in 1958 a trip to the moon and back was fully expected, even though the technology did not exist, but in 2015 we have enough knowledge to say in 100 years mankind will be not BE ABLE to go to another planet and return, regardless of the resources.
I am speechless.

In 1958 we had yet to realize the limits of energy, because everything is brand-new. We had yet to fully-grasp what our energy usage does to the environment, the serious physical limitations on batteries and other energy-storage devices, and the tremendous trade-offs of what using a given unit of energy costs us in other ways. In some cases, like in the case of environmental damage, we can simply ignore the consequences and cause externalities. But even this sort of cheating (which is destroying our quality of life here on Earth) can't be pushed beyond a certain limit. I can't use externalities to create a powerful laser/phaser to hold in my hand. I can't charge a battery with limitless energy to take a ship to the moon. I can't load a ship with enough rocket-fuel to get it to mars and then take off again and still have energy to keep a crew alive the whole way over. We will get better, I admit that, perhaps we will push the envelope a little. Maybe we'll get to Mars someday or Europa. But We're already at the very edge or our theoretical abilities here.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:12:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 9:07:17 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/3/2015 7:58:12 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I disagree. Technology was steadily-improving by then, and our hopes for the future were high, not just high but drastically-inflated. Don't believe me? This video is from 1958. Watch it and tell me that people weren't putting nearly limitless expectations on the future: https://www.youtube.com...

Okay, Disneyland to know what the future has in store for us.
Seriously?
I was reading Popular science back them - one notch up from Mickey Mouse.

Please tell me you're not that naive... Disney is the second-largest media outlet in the world.

By 1980 we wouldn't need roads, everyone was going to commute to work in airplanes and helicopters.
Yes. drastically inflated, that is an understatement -for the realistic.

RE - JFKs speech - man on the moon by the end of the decade:
"The United States couldn't afford a Red Moon. Even worse, Kennedy was also feeling the pressure from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which happened about a month earlier. He needed a big announcement like this, even if it was something completely crazy in retrospect.

From that point, NASA had to develop everything from scratch, from the Saturn V rockets and the now iconic lander to entire computers and the method for manned orbital rendezvous. Imagine that. None of that technology existed. None of those procedures were known at the time. While all these things may seem like the most logical thing now, at the time they didn't know much about them. It all was stuff that belonged to science fiction comic books."
http://gizmodo.com...


"Something completely crazy".

Powerful stuff.

"Had to develop everything from scratch"
"none of that technology existed"

That usually happens when you invent something.

"Stuff that belonged to science fiction comic books"

You quote Mickey Mouse, I quote a science blog.

So, because a science blog thought something was crazy, that means anything is possible?

I quote a science blog to show your understanding of what was happening during and between sputnik and the moon landing is not accurate.
Your understanding of history is not accurate.
You are confused about what has already happened.
This has nothing to do with the future.

1958 is when I was watching sputnik make its way across the sky - big deal. A two foot globe orbiting the earth, wonder of wonders.
It is all a matter or money, not technology. We shot our wad.

Absolutely false. Not money, not even really technology. Energy. We have the technology, theoretically, to shoot something up, keep people alive in space, and do everything we need to do. But there just doesn't exist an energy-source, nor will there ever be an energy source, capable of sustaining humans that long in space with all our needs and still able to blast off again from a planet's surface (followed by another return trip). In theory we could possible get energy from the planet we visit, but what energy is to be had out there? Water can be turned into hydrogen fuel.. perhaps Europa is in the cards... but hydrogen alone to fuel a trip that far? Let's not forget Jupiter's gravity...

There will NEVER be an energy source to take mankind to another planet and back???

That is correct. Energy is a fundamental attribute of the universe that can't be manipulated in the way science fiction likes to portray it. Sure, some stuff that's sci-fi becomes reality. Obviously people are going to write about any and everything and something's bound to be true, like a stopped-watch being correct twice a day. But ask yourself: "what percentage of sci-fi becomes true?" The answer is: "almost nothing." Furthermore, at what point do you draw the line? We put a man on the moon, so therefore any and everything we can possibly imagine is going to be invented some day? No matter what I say will never be invented, somebody will point to computers and the moon mission and say "hey, they said we couldn't do that..." There has to be a line somewhere and I'm drawing it. That line is energy.

There is no even theoretical way to harness energy in significantly powerful forms in a way that is safe and stable, sustainable, and portable. Fusion-power is said to be on the horizon, but keeps getting pushed back... do you think you'll have a fusion-powered cellphone some day? To start a fusion reaction you need to push atoms together. So any device that uses it is going to need a catalyst of energy, in terms of heat we're talking many millions of degrees. With all the problems that modern tech suffers from, just how much are we going to trust such devices? Are you going to trust them in your home, on planes, in cars, or on space ships? I can't even bring a nail-clipper on a plane. Every source of energy imaginable suffers from serious limitations, and that isn't because tech hasn't advanced yet it is because energy is inherently unmanageable in the ways we would imagine to use it. You think a Star Trek phaser is ever going to be invented? All that energy in the palm of your hand is going to be either extremely radioactive or unstable, it won't just sit there nice and conveniently in a stable charge.

You think you have a crystal ball and can see the future, in very specific ways.
My crystal ball is much more general, like it will not be what science fiction writers tell stores about, but equally amazing regardless.

You believe in 1958 a trip to the moon and back was fully expected, even though the technology did not exist, but in 2015 we have enough knowledge to say in 100 years mankind will be not BE ABLE to go to another planet and return, regardless of the resources.
I am speechless.

In 1958 we had yet to realize the limits of energy, because everything is brand-new. We had yet to fully-grasp what our energy usage does to the environment, the serious physical limitations on batteries and other energy-storage devices, and the tremendous trade-offs of what using a given unit of energy costs us in other ways. In some cases, like in the case of environmental damage, we can simply ignore the consequences and cause externalities. But even this sort of cheating (which is destroying our quality of life here on Earth) can't be pushed beyond a certain limit. I can't use externalities to create a powerful laser/phaser to hold in my hand. I can't charge a battery with limitless energy to take a ship to the moon. I can't load a ship with enough rocket-fuel to get it to mars and then take off again and still have energy to keep a crew alive the whole way over. We will get better, I admit that, perhaps we will push the envelope a little. Maybe we'll get to Mars someday or Europa. But We're already at the very edge or our theoretical abilities here.

"can't Load a ship with enough fuel"
Here's an idea I'm sure you have considered, tell me the problems.
How about if we acquire the energy source after leaving earth.
Since we agree that most science fiction never occurs in a specific way, I would suppose it might happen in some novel way, neither of us can imagine.

On a different tack, how about if solar energy is amplified, by technology that is currently unimagined.
No plan, just a 'for instance' thought.

Your crystal ball does not go into science fiction, but "We're already at the very edge or our theoretical abilities here."
So, not fiction, just cold, hard theoretical abilities.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:13:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Tell me why credible scientists consider these possibilities, while you are sure they are not possible:

"According to state-of-the art theory, a warp drive could cut the travel time between stars from tens of thousands of years to weeks or months. Harold G. White, a physicist and advanced propulsion engineer at NASA and other NASA engineers are trying to determine whether faster-than-light travel " warp drive " might someday be possible. The team has attempting to slightly warp the trajectory of a photon, changing the distance it travels in a certain area, and then observing the change with a device called an interferometer."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

From NASA
"New ways to think of inertia and gravity: As mentioned earlier, the ideal interstellar drive would have the ability to manipulate the connection between mass and spacetime. One approach is to look for ways to use electromagnetism, a phenomenon for which we are technologically proficient, to control inertial or gravitational forces. It is known that gravity and electromagnetism are coupled phenomena. In the formalism of general relativity this coupling is described in terms of how mass warps the spacetime against which electromagnetism is measured. In simple terms this has the consequence that gravity appears to bend light, red-shift light and slow time. These observations and the general relativistic formalism that describes them have been confirmed (ref 9, 10). Although gravity's affects on electromagnetism have been confirmed, the possibility of the reverse, of using electromagnetism to affect gravity, is unknown."

Another viewpoint on gravity and spacetime: As mentioned earlier, the ideal interstellar drive must not use propellant. Instead the ideal drive would have to use some means to push against spacetime itself. One of the major objections to this notion is the issue of conservation of momentum (ref 19). In order to satisfy conservation of momentum, something must act as a reaction mass. For rockets it is the expelled propellant; for aircraft it is the air. If one considers propelling against spacetime itself, then one must entertain the possibility that the fields of spacetime have an energy or momentum that can serve as a reaction mass. Although existing physics does not provide this perspective, a recent theory has emerged that might. A news article published in December 94 (ref 6) introduced a theory (ref 20) that is challenging Einstein's general theory of relativity. The theory is generating a bit of controversy because it claims that the Einstein field equations need a slight correction. Without this correction it is claimed that the Einstein equations can only predict the behavior of simple one-body problems (where only one gravitating mass exists whose affect on an inconsequential test particle is described). For two-body or n-body problems, this new theory shows that the Einstein equations are inadequate. The required correction is that another term must be added to the matter tensor, specifically a term for the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field itself. This suggests that gravitational fields have an energy and momentum of their own. This may be a foundation to address the issue of a reaction mass for the ideal space drive.

Like the previously mentioned theories, it is uncertain whether this theory is correct or not, but it is certain that this theory adds yet another research path to search for breakthrough propulsion.
~ ~

But wait, there's more: Another avenue to explore pushing against space is to examine the contents of the vacuum that may be indicative of a reaction mass. In addition to the items mentioned above, consider the following phenomena: Cosmic Background Radiation (ref 21), Virtual Pair Production (ref 22), and Dark Matter (ref 23). Whether any of these may constitute a reaction mass or may be evidence for a reaction mass is uncertain.

In addition to these recent events, there have been occasional surveys by the Air Force and others to examine science that may be applicable to propulsion technology (refs 24-29). The options identified by these studies include assessments of the technological status of many popular ideas, such as light-sails, nuclear rockets, and antimatter rockets, plus they include mention of more speculative work. Many of the more speculative ideas, from alternative theories of gravity and electromagnetism through unconfirmed anomalous effects, would be relativity simple to test. Very few of these possibilities have been rigorously investigated.

As you can see, there are a number of dangling loose ends in physics that may prove to be fruitful paths to the goal of creating the breakthroughs for practical interstellar travel. Pick your favorite idea and let us know what you discover."
http://www.nasa.gov...

So NASA has not thrown their hand up in despair,
Unlike you, they do not believe we have reached the limits of our abilities, concerning interplanetary or interstellar space travel.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 11:32:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 10:12:45 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I quote a science blog to show your understanding of what was happening during and between sputnik and the moon landing is not accurate.
Your understanding of history is not accurate.
You are confused about what has already happened.
This has nothing to do with the future.

Sticks and stones...

You think you have a crystal ball and can see the future, in very specific ways.
My crystal ball is much more general, like it will not be what science fiction writers tell stores about, but equally amazing regardless.

Now that we can agree on. All I'm doing is pointing out the ways we are destined to be wrong about the future. We were wrong in 1958, wrong in 1969, and wrong in 2015. Do you have the wherewithall to try and determine how we are wrong? Or are you going to join the ignorant masses and assume Star Trek is coming some day?

You believe in 1958 a trip to the moon and back was fully expected, even though the technology did not exist, but in 2015 we have enough knowledge to say in 100 years mankind will be not BE ABLE to go to another planet and return, regardless of the resources.
I am speechless.

In 1958 we had yet to realize the limits of energy, because everything is brand-new. We had yet to fully-grasp what our energy usage does to the environment, the serious physical limitations on batteries and other energy-storage devices, and the tremendous trade-offs of what using a given unit of energy costs us in other ways. In some cases, like in the case of environmental damage, we can simply ignore the consequences and cause externalities. But even this sort of cheating (which is destroying our quality of life here on Earth) can't be pushed beyond a certain limit. I can't use externalities to create a powerful laser/phaser to hold in my hand. I can't charge a battery with limitless energy to take a ship to the moon. I can't load a ship with enough rocket-fuel to get it to mars and then take off again and still have energy to keep a crew alive the whole way over. We will get better, I admit that, perhaps we will push the envelope a little. Maybe we'll get to Mars someday or Europa. But We're already at the very edge or our theoretical abilities here.

"can't Load a ship with enough fuel"
Here's an idea I'm sure you have considered, tell me the problems.
How about if we acquire the energy source after leaving earth.
Since we agree that most science fiction never occurs in a specific way, I would suppose it might happen in some novel way, neither of us can imagine.

On a different tack, how about if solar energy is amplified, by technology that is currently unimagined.
No plan, just a 'for instance' thought.

Your crystal ball does not go into science fiction, but "We're already at the very edge or our theoretical abilities here."
So, not fiction, just cold, hard theoretical abilities.

Those are two very good ideas. As I said before, we can split water into hydrogen if we find it, which opens up the possibility of Europa, perhaps Mars. It seems water is more prevalent in our solar system than we once thought. But I still just don't see humans making that trip. We would need enough energy to propel us through space at amazing speeds. Otherwise we are up there for months on end, running out of all types of things. We'd need more energy even to recycle nutrients and to burn for heat (assuming we're not accelerating the whole time and recovering that heat energy). Humans can't last very long away from Earth, I think it would be more stressful than being on a space station if you're millions of miles away without even the ability of real-time communication with everyone else.

Solar energy is vastly overrated. Perhaps we could maintain a bit of electricity, but it wouldn't be enough for propulsion. Not even close.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 5:17:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 11:32:42 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/3/2015 10:12:45 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I quote a science blog to show your understanding of what was happening during and between sputnik and the moon landing is not accurate.
Your understanding of history is not accurate.
You are confused about what has already happened.
This has nothing to do with the future.

Sticks and stones...

That is not 'sticks and stones'.......

You think you have a crystal ball and can see the future, in very specific ways.
My crystal ball is much more general, like it will not be what science fiction writers tell stores about, but equally amazing regardless.

Now that we can agree on. All I'm doing is pointing out the ways we are destined to be wrong about the future. We were wrong in 1958, wrong in 1969, and wrong in 2015. Do you have the wherewithall to try and determine how we are wrong? Or are you going to join the ignorant masses and assume Star Trek is coming some day?
That was sticks was stones.

So is this.....
I'm let the ignorant masses to you. you seem to have the market cornered.

You believe in 1958 a trip to the moon and back was fully expected, even though the technology did not exist, but in 2015 we have enough knowledge to say in 100 years mankind will be not BE ABLE to go to another planet and return, regardless of the resources.
I am speechless.

In 1958 we had yet to realize the limits of energy, because everything is brand-new. We had yet to fully-grasp what our energy usage does to the environment, the serious physical limitations on batteries and other energy-storage devices, and the tremendous trade-offs of what using a given unit of energy costs us in other ways. In some cases, like in the case of environmental damage, we can simply ignore the consequences and cause externalities. But even this sort of cheating (which is destroying our quality of life here on Earth) can't be pushed beyond a certain limit. I can't use externalities to create a powerful laser/phaser to hold in my hand. I can't charge a battery with limitless energy to take a ship to the moon. I can't load a ship with enough rocket-fuel to get it to mars and then take off again and still have energy to keep a crew alive the whole way over. We will get better, I admit that, perhaps we will push the envelope a little. Maybe we'll get to Mars someday or Europa. But We're already at the very edge or our theoretical abilities here.

"can't Load a ship with enough fuel"
Here's an idea I'm sure you have considered, tell me the problems.
How about if we acquire the energy source after leaving earth.
Since we agree that most science fiction never occurs in a specific way, I would suppose it might happen in some novel way, neither of us can imagine.

On a different tack, how about if solar energy is amplified, by technology that is currently unimagined.
No plan, just a 'for instance' thought.

Your crystal ball does not go into science fiction, but "We're already at the very edge or our theoretical abilities here."
So, not fiction, just cold, hard theoretical abilities.

Those are two very good ideas. As I said before, we can split water into hydrogen if we find it, which opens up the possibility of Europa, perhaps Mars. It seems water is more prevalent in our solar system than we once thought. But I still just don't see humans making that trip. We would need enough energy to propel us through space at amazing speeds. Otherwise we are up there for months on end, running out of all types of things. We'd need more energy even to recycle nutrients and to burn for heat (assuming we're not accelerating the whole time and recovering that heat energy). Humans can't last very long away from Earth, I think it would be more stressful than being on a space station if you're millions of miles away without even the ability of real-time communication with everyone else.

Solar energy is vastly overrated. Perhaps we could maintain a bit of electricity, but it wouldn't be enough for propulsion. Not even close.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 6:06:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 2:08:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
... and somebody told you that in the next 50 years, we not going to put so much as one more boot-print on another planet or moon, including the Moon itself? What would you have said to such a person?

I did live in 1969 and I would have told them to take their kook nonsense to somebody who was interested in listening to such inane ideas.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 6:23:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:44:27 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/3/2015 1:00:02 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:08:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I would have laughed at them. But it doesn't seem we will for a long time. Although I believe plans to visit Mars are somewhere in the future.

The only person who's visiting a celestial body other than the Moon is somebody who's not looking to come back to Earth and tell about it -_-

It takes way too much time to get anywhere else. It takes way too much energy to enter a planet's atmosphere and then get back out again. Unless we find some K-Pax way of transferring consciousness without our physical bodies, We are stuck here. And since there doesn't seem to be anywhere else, as of yet, worth going, I doubt that's going to happen either.

Nonsense, most space agencies are currently planning missions to Mars, and most predict manned missions sometime in the 2035 to 2050 range. Current estimates are the length of time necessary is in the 250-500 day range, and almost nobody involved is so lacking in imagination to think it would not be a worthwhile endeavor.

Sure there are challenges, but that's what scientific/technological progress is about, overcoming challenges.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 6:33:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 11:32:42 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/3/2015 10:12:45 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I quote a science blog to show your understanding of what was happening during and between sputnik and the moon landing is not accurate.
Your understanding of history is not accurate.
You are confused about what has already happened.
This has nothing to do with the future.

Sticks and stones...

You think you have a crystal ball and can see the future, in very specific ways.
My crystal ball is much more general, like it will not be what science fiction writers tell stores about, but equally amazing regardless.

Now that we can agree on. All I'm doing is pointing out the ways we are destined to be wrong about the future. We were wrong in 1958, wrong in 1969, and wrong in 2015. Do you have the wherewithall to try and determine how we are wrong? Or are you going to join the ignorant masses and assume Star Trek is coming some day?

You point out the fact that historically, we have always been wrong about what the future will bring, to support your contention that you are not wrong about what the future will bring, seriously?

You think logic can change abruptly, but you don't think technology can change over time?

Interesting, that development sure wasn't predictable.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 7:37:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 6:33:04 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 11:32:42 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/3/2015 10:12:45 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I quote a science blog to show your understanding of what was happening during and between sputnik and the moon landing is not accurate.
Your understanding of history is not accurate.
You are confused about what has already happened.
This has nothing to do with the future.

Sticks and stones...

You think you have a crystal ball and can see the future, in very specific ways.
My crystal ball is much more general, like it will not be what science fiction writers tell stores about, but equally amazing regardless.

Now that we can agree on. All I'm doing is pointing out the ways we are destined to be wrong about the future. We were wrong in 1958, wrong in 1969, and wrong in 2015. Do you have the wherewithall to try and determine how we are wrong? Or are you going to join the ignorant masses and assume Star Trek is coming some day?

You point out the fact that historically, we have always been wrong about what the future will bring, to support your contention that you are not wrong about what the future will bring, seriously?

You think logic can change abruptly, but you don't think technology can change over time?

Interesting, that development sure wasn't predictable.

Please pay attention.: RE: "more general, like it will not be what science fiction writers tell stores about, but equally amazing regardless"
Wrong on the fine points, correct on the general points.
Life on other planets (general point) will not be discovered with flying saucers over the White House (fine point).
We will travel to other planets (general point), but not by solid or liquid rocket fuel (fine point).
We will fabricate human limbs and organs from spare parts (general point), but not by stitching together cadavers from the graveyard.
Any questions?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 11:52:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 6:33:04 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Finally, a worthy challenger has arrived!

Nonsense, most space agencies are currently planning missions to Mars, and most predict manned missions sometime in the 2035 to 2050 range. Current estimates are the length of time necessary is in the 250-500 day range, and almost nobody involved is so lacking in imagination to think it would not be a worthwhile endeavor.

Sure there are challenges, but that's what scientific/technological progress is about, overcoming challenges.

You just admitted that you would not have believed me in 1969 if I said further space travel shall elude us. Now I am telling you in 2015 it will continue to elude us. Do you honestly think we can keep people alive and sane in space for that long while they are millions of miles away from Earth? At least on a space station they can see Earth, can enjoy real-time communication, and home is just a rocket-ride away if something goes wrong. How long can people survive, recycling their own excrement and depending on computers that have a way of failing? What is going to happen when our astronauts start dying out there? Even if they somehow miraculously make it back alive, they are probably headed for an asylum. I don't see that person reintegrating back into society and their bodies will be physically frail as well. Are we going to hide such ethical concerns from our children?

The only way it can work is with tremendous energy to propel us faster than we can using current methods. But energy doesn't provide us with a solution, because the amount of energy we'd need is impossible to control.

Now that we can agree on. All I'm doing is pointing out the ways we are destined to be wrong about the future. We were wrong in 1958, wrong in 1969, and wrong in 2015. Do you have the wherewithall to try and determine how we are wrong? Or are you going to join the ignorant masses and assume Star Trek is coming some day?

You point out the fact that historically, we have always been wrong about what the future will bring, to support your contention that you are not wrong about what the future will bring, seriously?

I think the general notion is that we are going to continue advancing indefinitely. I am showing that is wrong. It was wrong in 1958, it was wrong in 1969, it was wrong in the 80s and 90s when flying cars were being promised, and it is wrong now in 2015. The populace refuses to acknowledge that technology cannot fulfill the promises we are assuming it is making and I am the gadfly buzzing in your ear that you are wrong for expecting Star Trek to be realized.

You think logic can change abruptly, but you don't think technology can change over time?

Technology will change. But it will change in fantastically-different ways than we can predict. Our physical bodies are tied to this planet and there is nothing we can do about it. Perhaps we can utilize technology that affects consciousness as opposed to physics, K-Pax as opposed to Star Trek, to explore the galaxy. Even if we did have a source of power infinitely strong and safe to use, physics still denies us. The speed of light cannot be breached, yet that speed is painfully slow to explore even our own solar neighborhood. Even approaching c is not really possible, assuming we had an energetic way to do it, because our bodies are too frail to withstand the acceleration. No, the key to exploring the universe, if it is possible, is to manipulate consciousness, not physics. And that is even assuming manipulating consciousness is possible, as well as assuming there's somewhere for our consciousness to go in this universe of ours.

Interesting, that development sure wasn't predictable.

There are two constants throughout the last half-century:
1) Technology continues to advance in fantastic ways
2) Our expectations of how it will advance are completely useless. Just look at the science fiction in the last century. Of the 1,000,000 predictions it has made, how many have come out right? 1 or 2? Sci-fi's greatest technological prediction was the hypospray.

Flying cars and spaceships aren't coming. Phasers, transporters, warp drive, and time-travel aren't coming. Something great will come, but predicting it now will be like asking you in 1969 to predict Facebook. You wouldn't have been able to comprehend Facebook, but you'd have thought we'd be finishing our second or third Lunar city by now, perhaps just starting our first on Mars. And you would have been very conservative with those predictions! Most people would have assumed we would have been colonizing the entire terrestrial zone by now, with trade routes being carved out by fleets of cargo ships.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 12:01:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 7:37:50 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Please pay attention.: RE: "more general, like it will not be what science fiction writers tell stores about, but equally amazing regardless"
Wrong on the fine points, correct on the general points.
Life on other planets (general point) will not be discovered with flying saucers over the White House (fine point).
We will travel to other planets (general point), but not by solid or liquid rocket fuel (fine point).
We will fabricate human limbs and organs from spare parts (general point), but not by stitching together cadavers from the graveyard.
Any questions?

You make good arguments, but are still hiding behind general points which are unsupported. Again I must ask you to put yourself in the shoes of an excited intellectual from 1969. The general point they would make would be that we will colonize the terrestrial inner planets by 2020. Now if I was to make my argument, to them, your retorts would have seemed perfectly logical and I would have been dismissed as ridiculously ignorant. Further more, the fantastic advances we have made - things like social networking, for instance - would have been completely out of the realm of prediction in 1969. I am simply saying for us to remain consistent with that observation. That is mainly that:
1) Our Star Trek-inspired dreams are not coming true and
2) tech will advance in fantastic ways that are different than Star Trek (in fact they consistently change the nature of said program as they are developed) and unimaginable to us now. You couldn't explain Facebook to a 1969er and you can't explain the greatness of 2050 to us now. We'll just make the same old assumptions, that we're simply going to learn to be more powerful. Which just isn't so.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 2:05:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 12:01:10 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/4/2015 7:37:50 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Please pay attention.: RE: "more general, like it will not be what science fiction writers tell stores about, but equally amazing regardless"
Wrong on the fine points, correct on the general points.
Life on other planets (general point) will not be discovered with flying saucers over the White House (fine point).
We will travel to other planets (general point), but not by solid or liquid rocket fuel (fine point).
We will fabricate human limbs and organs from spare parts (general point), but not by stitching together cadavers from the graveyard.
Any questions?

You make good arguments, but are still hiding behind general points which are unsupported.

Your only support was a Disneyland promotional video, from 1958, a time when Disney was far from " the second-largest media outlet in the world."

I provided three hyperlinks and lifted quotes from a science blog, and NASA.
I call that support from my end, your end, unsupported.

Again I must ask you to put yourself in the shoes of an excited intellectual from 1969.
"Put myself in the shoes of....."
I was a college sophomore in 1969, who was a fan of Assimov, Bradbury, Burroughs, and had read dozens of their books before age 16. I had read dozens of other similar books from less well known authors. I had my astronomy merit badge in boy scouts by age 14.
I do not have to put myself in the shoes of....
Those were my shoes for Pete's sake.
You want me to imagine me to be myself - not a hard thing to do.
I did it.
You did not like my observations.
Sputnik was a big deal. I remember the toy I played with (a marble in a balloon, spin the balloon and the marble orbits, just like sputnik). I remember looking up in night sky and seeing Sputnik crossing through the constellations.
If you would have told me that we would have a man on the moon by 1969 I would have told you were too much of a dreamer.
So when JFK made his speech, the people at NASA were thinking WTF, how are we going to do that - with our budget.
So there was a huge increase in their budget - like 85% I believe I read. A whole pile of money.
In 1958 that was 'mission impossible'.

Yes, to be told in 1969 that over the next 50 years we would not put even more on the moon, or go to other planets, would have been a surprise.
Here is what I said:
"You hint that it would have been a big surprise, but in reality, not as big a surprise as being told in 1958 that a man would be walking on the moon in 1969."

I stand by my statement.
In 1958, with the Russians winning the space race, it seemed impossible that the U.S. would land a man on the moon, before 1970.

The general point they would make would be that we will colonize the :terrestrial :inner planets by 2020. Now if I was to make my argument, to them, :your retorts would have seemed perfectly logical and I would have been :dismissed as ridiculously ignorant. Further more, the fantastic advances we :have made - things like social networking, for instance - would have been :completely out of the realm of prediction in 1969. I am simply saying for us to :remain consistent with that observation. That is mainly that:
1) Our Star Trek-inspired dreams are not coming true and
2) tech will advance in fantastic ways that are different than Star Trek (in fact they consistently change the nature of said program as they are developed) and unimaginable to us now. You couldn't explain Facebook to a 1969er and you can't explain the greatness of 2050 to us now. We'll just make the same old assumptions, that we're simply going to learn to be more powerful. Which just isn't so.

In the 1950s there was a very large group of people who said life on other planets was not possible. You may be one of them today. You sound like them in many ways.
You may think human kind are doomed to live out there existence on planet earth, for the next how ever many million years that ends up being.
Myself, the people at NASA, and a few million other people would not agree.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 4:49:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is the really big surprise from that era.
Bigger than the U.S. putting a man on the moon in 1969.
Bigger than waiting another 50 years, and not another of ours up there .
How about this:
The Russians never did land a man on the moon.
The odds in Vegas on that in 1958 would have been astronomical.