why are we so connected to planets???

[Space Bat]

Surely the point is that man created the plane because he/she couldn't fly? perhaps that is the point/achievement....but what is more is that they have bettered it to go faster and to carry more...than the needs of natures requirement....albeit with the huge outlay and resources I have to concede...but mans first stabs were planes that flapped - and that clearly wasn't the answer....so invented a better solution which didn't model nature? Never seen a bird compress air and ignite it - not even sure if birds fart?

Also our trips to the moon are also incredible feats...are they not...Nature has not guided us through that endeavour and whilst we could argue rocket technology has been around for so many years....its not on the same scale as going to the moon and back.

I think the problem is time - as ever its always about time...

In reality man hasn't really been around for long and most of the technological advances have come in spurts...and more in the last hundred years or so. But equally we are getting there with time - who knows what can come of scientific advances given time.

And the answer to travelling within space as have said before is being able to manipulate time....not to go fast or to jump through wormholes or slingshot black holes...but a true understanding of time....Now the kicker is this, if time is space - as mentioned as spacetime - and you can manipulate time you therefore can manipulate space....so you can go any space at anytime.

[nebogipfel]

....Now the kicker is this, if time is space - as mentioned as spacetime - and you can manipulate time you therefore can manipulate space....so you can go any space at anytime.

I suspect they are indeed two sides of the same coin. Master one and you master the other

[ollypenrice]

Hmmm, they are connected but I think time is a far bigger problem than space. Time is the only dimension which seems to have a preferred direction and in which we are not free to move other than with the preferred flow. I've no idea what the truth about time is but I certainly don't think past-present-future is the real (or whole) story. I think past-present-future probably arises only from our perception of time but it is fiendishly difficult to move into a new perception... (I hesitate to say 'impossible' in the light of the present discussion!)

Olly

[nebogipfel]

....I hesitate to say 'impossible' in the light of the present discussion!....

Olly

Very wise Olly

You do seem somewhat pessimistic about the future old chap. FWIW I think if mankind can survive it's "childhood" the future has every chance of being a wonderful place.

We are now beginning to look for the signature of life on other worlds but I can envisage a distant future in which we are spreading out through the galaxy by which time we will truly know if this planet is the only one to spawn life.

The problem with interesting discussions like this is that we are no more likely to be right than the futurologists I scorned earlier. It's somewhat sobering and frustrating that we will never know, by then our atoms will be well and truly recycled.

[Grunthos]

This thread has rapidly meandered and wandered into non sequitur. Olly is struggling to keep some of you from wandering off into fantasy...

I thought the remit of this sub-forum is to "Discuss theory on astronomy, physics and general space science".

Perhaps this thread should have originally been posted in The Astro Lounge forum for "General banter".

[Sam]

This is quite an interesting thread. The desire for space travel I suspect is as deep as our ancient desire to set sail in flimsy boats to cross huge oceans or to walk across vast deserts. This has spread the human species across the planet to every continent including the most inhospitable places such Antarctica. For space travel the desire to go to the moon was in part science but it was sold to the public by sparking the desire to explore. I suspect there's a more deep seated human desire to want to spread our species and ensure its survival - it makes sense then that we would not want to be permanently based on this planet only. The problem we have at the moment is the lack of the technology and our understanding of the universe - but both of these are improving at a alarming rate.

As humans we have a remarkably poor record of predicting the future. Everytime we've said we can't do something we've been proved wrong a few years later. Things that appear to be impossible now may not be so impossible in the future.

[phat tony]

i am loving all this chat, Olly 2 men plus 2 women can turn out to be more than 4 same can be said about a lot of things. also i don't know any bird that has an apple i pod or PC, you could say that our brains are better and i do agree but the fact that we can recreate them and so much more is proof of great creation. some believe that god was the master creator and if we can copy so much of his master work even if badly then i believe we are great.i also don't know any animals to generate electricity like we do , things may be in nature or around but it is truly a wonder that we can learn them but also learn to copy them and even in a lot of cases improve them. i think a lot of what you say is interesting. thank you all for your input.

[ollypenrice]

I think we are on task, more or less. Here was the part of the OP's starter;

''...we are looking for new planets that are habitable with the hope that one day we can travel there and even one day live there, why??.'

My answer is that we are addicted to the fantasy of eternal life and the discussion has also talked about the viability of long term space travel. This has to involve a discussion of spacetime and 'futurology.'

Tony, I'm not a biologist but I believe all animals generate electricity. Brain and computer is an interesting one. I think that some resemblance beween brain and computer is to be expected because our brains created computers to do some of the more menial things that our brains are not that good at. Reverse the comparison, though, and you either do or do not believe that the term 'artificial intelligence' is meaningful. One person who challenged me on this said that I didn't know enough about computers, to which I was able to reply (with certainty) that he didn't know enough about intelligence. I can be certain about that simply because we know very little about intelligence. It remains a mystery. I'd also love to discuss the question of whether God made us or we made God but we must respect the forum's rules on the matter and desist.

I'm not in the least pessimistic. If I thought that our continued survival (by colonizing distant planets) were of great importance to the universe then my view that we are here for the twinkling of an eye would be very bleak. But I don't think the universe has great need of us! Equally, however, I think we should make the most of our brief awakening into consciousness to see and enjoy as much of it as we can, and this most of us on SGL do assiduously.

I don't expect to find the meaning of life by looking through a telescope but looking through a telescope gives my life meaning...

Olly

[nebogipfel]

This thread has rapidly meandered and wandered into non sequitur. Olly is struggling to keep some of you from wandering off into fantasy...

Not at all, Tony asked a perfectly reasonable question and in attempting to give him a meaninful answer it is necessary to point out how difficult it would be using technology available to us even in the forseable future.

Our speculations on what may be feasible in the far future is also reasonable and in my view no more or less valid than futurologists' predictions or indeed those from cosmologists on the possibility of 'branes, the multiverse or any other fantastic possibilities which are as yet purely in the realms of science fiction.

FWIW I have always found this type of discussion stimulating and interesting and it looks as if I'm not alone ......

[Space Bat]

Without going all deep - we seem to think of us us its all about us...

We are only a species that has been given the opportunity to move on our seed through space, hopefully other genetic information from this planet as well.

Not into the whole gaia thing....but somehow, one has to wonder just how interlinked we really are to the planet and how the whole cycle works.

So bear with me on this....

Step back and think what if the planet had a soul a life? possibly some cognitive reasoning that we have yet to understand...like all things it has to procreate to move on genetic material - to live on through its offspring and not to die....this seems to be the true basis of life or what is the point?

How would a planet do it?

The only way is the species that dwell on the planet to be able to move this material on.... Perhaps our desire to head to the stars is a deep deep instinct - after all I can imagine that this instinct has possibly been in man from its progression from primate and possibly was there even before....a line of code in our genetic make up.

Some weird stuff happens in nature! We just say instinct, similar is apparent here...perhaps we are destined for space not because we want to but because this is specifically coded as birds flying south for the winter, We will head to the stars through our natural curiosity and desire to advance as a civilisation through technology...which is the only way we can accomplish this feat....

However there is a stumbling block - and that is time.

We don't posses a lot of it and we are quite short lived. So we would either have to suspend ourselves and hurtle to the stars and hope for the best...

Or we send ourselves with the knowing that not us but several generations of the original travellers end up stepping onto a new planet..

Or we find a way to manipulate time and not have to move at all...

As one poster said - all fantasy O.o Many fantasies have become reality and perhaps should not pour too much scorn

[ollypenrice]

What you are saying above, though seems to imply that genetic codes are written at some kind of outset. I don't think they are. I think they evolved blindly and were selected in. I don't think we are pre-programmed by our genes, though we are limited by them. I also think that 'purpose' or 'meaning' are human constructs which will vanish from the earth when we go. I see the universe as without purpose, just as I see evolution as without direction. I'm just reading Dawkins on the origins of life at the moment.

Olly

[Space Bat]

Olly - I agree with what you said there doesn't seem to be much purpose - but something also suggests there is something a little more....it's like an itch you can not reach, you ask your partner to take a look, is it a bite/spot? ... they tell you there is nothing there....squeeze it anyway hun

Also not a geneticist - but some reading in this shows there isn't a lot of differences out of Africa...where I found my first Stargate....

Sorry threw the Stargate thing in for comedy value - possibly more for oneself than others

[ixalon]

Here's an interesting related question, have we, or will we, reach a point where the rate of scientific and technological advance is so fast we will find it difficult (e.g. to obtain funding) to embark on long-term projects (such as interstellar travel is by nature) because there is always the belief that it would be quicker/easier/cheaper to wait for the numerous advances just over the horizon?

[nebogipfel]

Good Morning Batty

We are just a species within the huge ecosystem of the planet and to break our links with it is going to be a very difficult path. I'm not sure I'm happy with the notion of the earth as a super organism but the links which bind us (life) all together are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution.

Richard Dawkins wrote of "The Selfish Gene" and perhaps some of the human drive to explore, expand and exploit is a manifestation of our genetic programming to survive. This of course has nothing to do with immortality of the individual but survival of the species.

We are likely and in the forseable future, given the huge advances being made in genetics and gene manipulation to be able to modify and perhaps sever some of the evolutionary "baggage" which makes us so dependent on planet earth.

Given the possibility of natural catastrophes (both terrestrial and from space) which may make life on earth difficult or impossible, it is in the interest of the species (the genes?) to have contingency plans. It's a long way down the line but we know that at some point in the far future the sun is likely do be the reason thar our planet can no longer be home. Not fantasy, but astronomical fact. The timescale is large, but how long will humanity survive?

Stephen Hawking has expressed the opinion that mankind must move on at some point and I'm sure he's right.

Going back to Tony and his original desire for interstellar exploration there are no reasons why, given the pace of scientific and technological advancement, ideas which can be conceived now as within the bounds of possibility could not become a reality within a few hundreds of years.

As said earlier the big stumbling blocks which will be difficult to crack remain......

The huge distances involved

The huge energy sources required

The hostile environment of space

The fragility of human bodies

[nebogipfel]

I see the universe as without purpose, just as I see evolution as without direction. I'm just reading Dawkins on the origins of life at the moment.

Olly

Olly

Certainly if you accept the basic principle of Darwinian evolution it cannot have a purpose. It is merely selection over time of adaptations which benefit the organism and hence gene survival.

If you start to look for purpose in the universe or life then we stray into religion which is outside the remit of this forum.

FWIW I think Richard Dawkins is a good source of well argued balanced information.

[Space Bat]

Olly

Certainly if you accept the basic principle of Darwinian evolution it cannot have a purpose. It is merely selection over time of adaptations which benefit the organism and hence gene survival.

If you start to look for purpose in the universe or life then we stray into religion which is outside the remit of this forum.

FWIW I think Richard Dawkins is a good source of well argued balanced information.

Mornin nebo

Not totally convinced Darwinian evolution is totally random....especially if the rules were in place from the start

Rule 1 - evolve and get off this planet..

Rule 2 - see rule 1

[nebogipfel]

Not totally convinced Darwinian evolution is totally random....especially if the rules were in place from the start

Rule 1 - evolve and get off this planet..

Rule 2 - see rule 1

At this point you are straying awfully close to intelligent design which is where I get my coat

It's an interesting notion but I think it more likely that the basic RNA? instructions at the dawn of life were more concerned with basic replication.

Over time the genetic instruction has become more complex in that it codes for many more "features" of the organism but they are all driven by favourable or unfavourable mutations. They are reactive in that "bad" ones make the organism fail as an individual rather than proactive.

If there was a drive to evolve and leave the planet then there would be no stromatolites which have been around for perhaps 3.5 billion years largely unchanged because they too would have had the pressure to evolve to intelligent organisms.

[Space Bat]

ha ha...

Sometimes want to grab my coat as well and not subscribing to ID - as don't think it applicable in what I am trying to convey as why bother with the whole process at all?

But back to the OP's original question - I hope that some of us have given some food for thought....

If only it was night 17 degrees C and a roaring fire in the wilderness and the ale flowed freely - perhaps a few here could solve the riddles of the universe

[ollypenrice]

OK, let's stand the space exploration and planetary colonization hypothesis on its head. We think (being us, and creating all our models in our own likeness) that we, with our wonder-rockets, will be the ones to send our offspring elsewhere in the universe. When we have got bigger and cleverer and more technological we will be able to do it! Hmmm. Meanwhile the wise micro-organism snuggles down in his rock and says to his kids, Don't get too smart little fellas. Dont leave this rock. The planet's done for in the long run but if we bunker down here we've a fighting chance of getting oursleves recycled. Space travel here we come...

Olly

PS The itch? Oh yes, I feel it! To itch is human... But recognize it for what it is. Egotism.

[Space Bat]

OK, let's stand the space exploration and planetary colonization hypothesis on its head. We think (being us, and creating all our models in our own likeness) that we, with our wonder-rockets, will be the ones to send our offspring elsewhere in the universe. When we have got bigger and cleverer and more technological we will be able to do it! Hmmm. Meanwhile the wise micro-organism snuggles down in his rock and says to his kids, Don't get too smart little fellas. Dont leave this rock. The planet's done for in the long run but if we bunker down here we've a fighting chance of getting oursleves recycled. Space travel here we come...

Olly

ha ha Olly - simply excellent

Perhaps a Plan B?

[nebogipfel]

But back to the OP's original question - I hope that some of us have given some food for thought....

If only it was night 17 degrees C and a roaring fire in the wilderness and the ale flowed freely - perhaps a few here could solve the riddles of the universe

Indeed, I'm no Hawking or Dawkins and don't pretend to be but it's enjoyable to at least think about these things and the myriad of possibilities.

And if being human is nothing more than the ability to do that then it's pretty special

[phat tony]

hi, nebo, bat and olly some great stuff to set the mind a wander. as for DNA and pre programed, i feel we have programed our self's with TV but i also see greed being a big factor, ever since we built our first ship and crossed the see we have had a hunger or lust for more. we have explored most of the land above, ignored a lot under the see and brainwashed our self's into the need for another planet to explore. i am a dreamer and proud of it. i always see the impossible and nothing more then a bigger challenge and with that in mind our race will survive and move on in time. i do feel that our need for a home planet might hold us back or at least slow us down. thank you all for your input i am learning how others think about this subject, my wife has no interest so i have no one to bounce my ideas of.

[ollypenrice]

Thanks to you, Tony, for starting it all off. You come from a nation of thinking people.

Olly