Discussion:
Einstein thought Mars was inhabited
(too old to reply)
angelofdeath
2015-01-20 07:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Einstein’s Thoughts on SETI

“Why should earth be the only planet supporting human life?” asked the
physicist in 1920.

By Tony Reichhardt

airspacemag.com
December 17, 2014

The release this month of a digital edition of Albert Einstein’s papers
had me hunting through the great man’s works for any mention of space
travel. True, Einstein died two years before the launch of Sputnik 1 in
1957, but people had been theorizing about rocket flight for decades by
then, including some, like Hermann Oberth, in the physicist’s native
Germany.

Unfortunately, this first digital release only covers Einstein’s life up
until 1923, around the time Oberth started writing about spaceflight. So
not a single hit turned up for the search terms “rocket” or “space
travel.” Guess we’ll have to wait for the later volumes.

There was, however, an intriguing item from January 1920, a reference to
an article in the London Daily Mail, whose correspondent had asked the
soon-to-be Nobel laureate his opinions about extraterrestrial life.
Radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi had recently told the same paper about
mysterious signals he speculated may have come from Mars. What did
Einstein think?

“There is every reason to believe that Mars and other planets are
inhabited,” answered the professor. “Why should the earth be the only
planet supporting human life? It is not singular in any other respect.
But if intelligent creatures do exist, as we may assume they do
elsewhere in the universe, I should not expect them to try to
communicate with the earth by wireless [radio]. Light rays, the
direction of which can be controlled much more easily, would more
probably be the first method attempted.”

Einstein’s dismissal of what we now know as radio SETI (Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence) may sound surprising, considering that’s
exactly the region of the spectrum where most searches have been
conducted to date. But in 1920, Einstein lacked a key bit of
information. The reason radio searches are favored for modern SETI is
that long radio waves more easily penetrate the pervasive dust in
interstellar space that blocks shorter-wavelength light from reaching
us. In 1920, astronomers didn’t yet understand the nature of
interstellar dust.

The father of relativity theory may in fact have been right. Optical
SETI searches by teams at Harvard and other places are enjoying a kind
of revival, even though they have the disadvantage of searching only for
light beams that would have to be aimed deliberately in our direction,
as opposed to radio signals that spread out like ripples in a pond.

By the way, searching for the word “Mars” in Einstein’s digital papers
also turned up this perhaps uncharacteristically misanthropic line from
a letter sent in February 1917: “It is a pity that we do not live on
Mars and just observe man’s nasty antics by telescope.”


http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/einsteins-thoughts-seti-180953666/#ixzz3PLHfE6Br

Brings home the argument I've had with some dope from tumblrweed that
current science knowledge cannot be wholly relied upon.

There are things about our reality we may not know at this point like
Einstein didn't know decades ago.

Is or was Mars inhabited? Well, it was a damned popular notion in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, as evidenced by Einstein's nod to
the possibility. The notion continued to gather force and by the 1950s,
it had still not been generally discounted. A famous respected
astronomer, Percival Lowell, in the early 1900s, advanced the notion
with what appeared to be observations of canals on the surface. Later,
it was found these lines were optical illusions. When the Mariner crafts
arrived in the early-mid 60s, no sign of canals were noted in photos. I
was deflated as a young teen by the photos, thinking that popular
cultural beliefs might be verified by science. Naivete in youth is
legend! LOL!

It is still possible, however, that Mars may have been inhabited. Maybe
not by intelligent beings, however. Lower forms of life maybe. Still, it
would be thrilling to find any kind of life had or is existing there. I
would think only an extensive series of human expeditions covering
significant land areas would be needed to answer that question.

:))~~
JTEM
2015-01-20 09:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Brings home the argument I've had with some dope
from tumblrweed that current science knowledge
cannot be wholly relied upon.
You're rationalizing. You're comparing Apples &
Oranges in order to justify a pre determined outcome.

There are no parallels here. Nothing in the story
parallels your misunderstanding of science. Nothing
in the story increases the likelihood of intelligent
life ever arising anyone in the universe other than
here.

Nothing in the story supports a damn thing you've
ever said.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/108628070609
angelofdeath
2015-01-21 01:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Brings home the argument I've had with some dope
from tumblrweed that current science knowledge
cannot be wholly relied upon.
You're rationalizing. You're comparing Apples &
Oranges in order to justify a pre determined outcome.
There are no parallels here. Nothing in the story
parallels your misunderstanding of science. Nothing
in the story increases the likelihood of intelligent
life ever arising anyone in the universe other than
here.
Nothing in the story supports a damn thing you've
ever said.
One of our greatest minds of science did not know of a later discovery
in radio wave technology would make his statement erroneous.

That is what I meant by current science knowledge being amendable by new
data which can greatly change the reality we formerly accepted as
seemingly sacrosanct, like you foolishly do.

The concept of a highly evolved intelligent species finding solutions to
light-year travel is a plausible one, for the rational, unbiased,
intelligent thinker that encompasses the viable possibilities. Something
you've never allowed yourself to do, since you're really not a
scientific skeptic, but an impish science hack.

:))~ lol~!
JTEM
2015-01-21 02:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
One of our greatest minds of science did not know of a later discovery
in radio wave technology would make his statement erroneous.
Your reading comprehension SUCKS!

His statement was always erroneous on some level, just
as it was always correct on some level.

Einstein was right in that light, not radio, was a
better mode of communication. But even in Einstein's
time it was known that the other part has to be
deliberately trying to communicate with you, else
radio is vastly better...

Yes, yes, there is also the interference problem,
but it's not so much of an issue AS YOUR STORY
MAKES CLEAR. They even state that some have taken
up the search for Einstein's signals...
Post by angelofdeath
That is what I meant by current science knowledge being amendable by new
data which can greatly change the reality we formerly accepted as
seemingly sacrosanct, like you foolishly do.
But you're wrong. The laws of nature are unchanged.
Einstein's mistake was NOT -- as you suggest -- due
to any ignorance of or misunderstanding of the laws
of nature. But your UFO view is entirely based on
your fantasy that science is wrong about everything...
Post by angelofdeath
The concept of a highly evolved intelligent species finding solutions to
light-year travel is a plausible one
No it's not.

There is no basis for such a claim. The story has
no parallels. You're misunderstanding it, as you
do the issues involved here...



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/108685679743
angelofdeath
2015-01-21 03:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
One of our greatest minds of science did not know of a later discovery
in radio wave technology would make his statement erroneous.
Your reading comprehension SUCKS!
His statement was always erroneous on some level, just
as it was always correct on some level.
No, definitely not "always erroneous" since the discovery of
interstellar dust inhibiting light waves was not made until long after
his statement in 1920. Up till that point of discovery, his concept and
everyone else that was holding to that THEORY, were proved wrong by new
data. Quote:

But in 1920, Einstein lacked a key bit of information. The reason radio
searches are favored for modern SETI is that long radio waves more
easily penetrate the pervasive dust in interstellar space that blocks
shorter-wavelength light from reaching us. In 1920, astronomers didn’t
yet understand the nature of interstellar dust. (unquote)


http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/einsteins-thoughts-seti-180953666/#ixzz3PQAZXgfc


And please stop stupidly arguing a well known fact - that widely
accepted scientific theories have fallen or been altered by new
discoveries, you moron.

You hold to a popular theory that aliens cannot have traversed such
enormous distances because of the limits of the speed of light, and the
complexity of having living organisms survive the expedition.

Well, there's another popular theory that they can and have found a way.
And that is underlined with the example of Einstein's confidence in
light waves over long radio waves being the most likely technology for
communication with aliens. In 1920 and years after, many subscribed to
that theory, but a new astrophysical discovery shot it down.

That was a matter of a few decades. I'm talking about thousands or
millions of years of the evolution of scientific knowledge that any
alien species could well have over our evolutionary stage.

And that is not what you keep foolishly, childishly proposing is
"fantasy" "irrational" or any of a number of other adjectives and nouns
you've spewed to argue what is a rational possibility.

What you are is an irrational foolish imp that likes to play with people
like a fucking rabid mangy cat with a mouse.

:))~ rofl!
Post by JTEM
Einstein was right in that light, not radio, was a
better mode of communication. But even in Einstein's
time it was known that the other part has to be
deliberately trying to communicate with you, else
radio is vastly better...
Yes, yes, there is also the interference problem,
but it's not so much of an issue AS YOUR STORY
MAKES CLEAR. They even state that some have taken
up the search for Einstein's signals...
Post by angelofdeath
That is what I meant by current science knowledge being amendable by new
data which can greatly change the reality we formerly accepted as
seemingly sacrosanct, like you foolishly do.
But you're wrong. The laws of nature are unchanged.
Einstein's mistake was NOT -- as you suggest -- due
to any ignorance of or misunderstanding of the laws
of nature. But your UFO view is entirely based on
your fantasy that science is wrong about everything...
Post by angelofdeath
The concept of a highly evolved intelligent species finding solutions to
light-year travel is a plausible one
No it's not.
There is no basis for such a claim. The story has
no parallels. You're misunderstanding it, as you
do the issues involved here...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/108685679743
JTEM
2015-01-21 12:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
No, definitely not "always erroneous" since the discovery of
interstellar dust inhibiting light waves was not made until long after
his statement in 1920.
Using light REQUIRES that they be sending signals
to us, specifically. Radio waves, on the other hand,
don't have to be aimed at us in order to detect them.
Post by angelofdeath
Up till that point of discovery, his concept and
everyone else that was holding to that THEORY, were proved wrong by new
"Optical SETI searches by teams at Harvard and other
places are enjoying a kind of revival, even though
they have the disadvantage of searching only for
light beams that would have to be aimed deliberately
in our direction, as opposed to radio signals that
spread out like ripples in a pond."

Again, if you merely read your own cite for content
you would see that it refutes your claims.
Post by angelofdeath
And please stop stupidly arguing a well known fact
Your own cite disproves you.
Post by angelofdeath
You hold to a popular theory that aliens cannot have traversed such
enormous distances because of the limits of the speed of light
It's not a theory. It's a conclusion drawn from a
genuine, falsifiable scientific "Theory." The only
"Theory" involved is Einstein's special relativity.
Post by angelofdeath
Well, there's another popular theory that they can and have found a way.
That is NOT a theory. It is a religious belief.

You hold this belief DESPITE all the science,
despite all the evidence. This belief of yours,
like all religious beliefs, can not be falsified.
Post by angelofdeath
That was a matter of a few decades. I'm talking about thousands or
millions of years of the evolution of scientific knowledge that any
alien species could well have over our evolutionary stage.
This is perfectly baseless. You know of no alien
intelligences -- none what so ever -- and yet you're
pretending to have established some (plural) millions
of years more advanced than us...






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/108674625318
Mike
2015-01-21 13:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
This is perfectly baseless. You know of no alien
intelligences -- none what so ever -- and yet you're
pretending to have established some (plural) millions
of years more advanced than us...
Yet nature still allowed us the possibility to wonder about them. How do you explain that?
D
2015-01-20 16:29:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:13:51 -0800, angelofdeath <***@aol.com> wrote:
snip
Post by angelofdeath
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/einsteins-thoughts-seti-180953666/#ixzz3PLHfE6Br
Brings home the argument I've had with some dope from tumblrweed that
current science knowledge cannot be wholly relied upon.
There are things about our reality we may not know at this point like
Einstein didn't know decades ago.
Is or was Mars inhabited? Well, it was a damned popular notion in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, as evidenced by Einstein's nod to
the possibility. The notion continued to gather force and by the 1950s,
it had still not been generally discounted. A famous respected
astronomer, Percival Lowell, in the early 1900s, advanced the notion
with what appeared to be observations of canals on the surface. Later,
it was found these lines were optical illusions. When the Mariner crafts
arrived in the early-mid 60s, no sign of canals were noted in photos. I
was deflated as a young teen by the photos, thinking that popular
cultural beliefs might be verified by science. Naivete in youth is
legend! LOL!
It is still possible, however, that Mars may have been inhabited. Maybe
not by intelligent beings, however. Lower forms of life maybe. Still, it
would be thrilling to find any kind of life had or is existing there. I
would think only an extensive series of human expeditions covering
significant land areas would be needed to answer that question.
The Cydonia complex with its monuments are proof enough
that Mars was once inhabited by humans or other sapient
builders of such megalithic structures, but as has been
apparent in a.p.n. and in so many other groups over the
years, irrational skepticism is promoted and supported
by the fox that's so desperately guarding the henhouse.
Anything to confuse and obfuscate, that's what they do.

If Mars really was inhabited by intelligent life, then
the first question that comes to mind is What happened
on Mars to make its surface look like a global thermo-
nuclear holocaust laid waste to everything in its path?

Of course there are many other related curiosities such
as the plainly catastrophic origin of the asteroid belt
which might've been a great planet prior to breaking up
into so many bits and pieces. If that's what it is then
what caused that planet's universal devastation?
angelofdeath
2015-01-21 01:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
snip
Post by angelofdeath
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/einsteins-thoughts-seti-180953666/#ixzz3PLHfE6Br
Brings home the argument I've had with some dope from tumblrweed that
current science knowledge cannot be wholly relied upon.
There are things about our reality we may not know at this point like
Einstein didn't know decades ago.
Is or was Mars inhabited? Well, it was a damned popular notion in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, as evidenced by Einstein's nod to
the possibility. The notion continued to gather force and by the 1950s,
it had still not been generally discounted. A famous respected
astronomer, Percival Lowell, in the early 1900s, advanced the notion
with what appeared to be observations of canals on the surface. Later,
it was found these lines were optical illusions. When the Mariner crafts
arrived in the early-mid 60s, no sign of canals were noted in photos. I
was deflated as a young teen by the photos, thinking that popular
cultural beliefs might be verified by science. Naivete in youth is
legend! LOL!
It is still possible, however, that Mars may have been inhabited. Maybe
not by intelligent beings, however. Lower forms of life maybe. Still, it
would be thrilling to find any kind of life had or is existing there. I
would think only an extensive series of human expeditions covering
significant land areas would be needed to answer that question.
The Cydonia complex with its monuments are proof enough
that Mars was once inhabited by humans or other sapient
builders of such megalithic structures, but as has been
apparent in a.p.n. and in so many other groups over the
years, irrational skepticism is promoted and supported
by the fox that's so desperately guarding the henhouse.
Anything to confuse and obfuscate, that's what they do.
If Mars really was inhabited by intelligent life, then
the first question that comes to mind is What happened
on Mars to make its surface look like a global thermo-
nuclear holocaust laid waste to everything in its path?
Of course there are many other related curiosities such
as the plainly catastrophic origin of the asteroid belt
which might've been a great planet prior to breaking up
into so many bits and pieces. If that's what it is then
what caused that planet's universal devastation?
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.

Yet, the possibility cannot be discounted at this point of research. I'd
surely love to have more substantial evidence than what has thus far
been presented that curious surface features were (are) the work of
Martians.

I'd be happy to simply see evidence of an insect, perhaps fossilized,
imprinted on a rock.

The mystery of the asteroid belt gives rise to speculation that
intelligent (or otherwise) life may have existed on the planet that
inexplicably broke apart into many pieces. Many believe it was struck by
a huge meteor or a swarm of them. Others believe the orbits of planets
got screwed up.

It's been creepy looking at the HD photos of Mars - I often have a
feeling Earth will one day look like that seemingly lifeless place.
Perhaps, as you suggest about Mars' possible inhabitants, that humans
could destroy all the ecosystem by WMD weaponry. I would add humans
could add to the global disaster by polluting the hell out of it in its
insane obsession with recreating the natural world into an artificial
one to satiate its material and narcissistic addictions.

:))~
Mike
2015-01-21 02:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Post by D
snip
Post by angelofdeath
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/einsteins-thoughts-seti-180953666/#ixzz3PLHfE6Br
Brings home the argument I've had with some dope from tumblrweed that
current science knowledge cannot be wholly relied upon.
There are things about our reality we may not know at this point like
Einstein didn't know decades ago.
Is or was Mars inhabited? Well, it was a damned popular notion in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, as evidenced by Einstein's nod to
the possibility. The notion continued to gather force and by the 1950s,
it had still not been generally discounted. A famous respected
astronomer, Percival Lowell, in the early 1900s, advanced the notion
with what appeared to be observations of canals on the surface. Later,
it was found these lines were optical illusions. When the Mariner crafts
arrived in the early-mid 60s, no sign of canals were noted in photos. I
was deflated as a young teen by the photos, thinking that popular
cultural beliefs might be verified by science. Naivete in youth is
legend! LOL!
It is still possible, however, that Mars may have been inhabited. Maybe
not by intelligent beings, however. Lower forms of life maybe. Still, it
would be thrilling to find any kind of life had or is existing there. I
would think only an extensive series of human expeditions covering
significant land areas would be needed to answer that question.
The Cydonia complex with its monuments are proof enough
that Mars was once inhabited by humans or other sapient
builders of such megalithic structures, but as has been
apparent in a.p.n. and in so many other groups over the
years, irrational skepticism is promoted and supported
by the fox that's so desperately guarding the henhouse.
Anything to confuse and obfuscate, that's what they do.
If Mars really was inhabited by intelligent life, then
the first question that comes to mind is What happened
on Mars to make its surface look like a global thermo-
nuclear holocaust laid waste to everything in its path?
Of course there are many other related curiosities such
as the plainly catastrophic origin of the asteroid belt
which might've been a great planet prior to breaking up
into so many bits and pieces. If that's what it is then
what caused that planet's universal devastation?
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.
Yet, the possibility cannot be discounted at this point of research. I'd
surely love to have more substantial evidence than what has thus far
been presented that curious surface features were (are) the work of
Martians.
I'd be happy to simply see evidence of an insect, perhaps fossilized,
imprinted on a rock.
The mystery of the asteroid belt gives rise to speculation that
intelligent (or otherwise) life may have existed on the planet that
inexplicably broke apart into many pieces. Many believe it was struck by
a huge meteor or a swarm of them. Others believe the orbits of planets
got screwed up.
It's been creepy looking at the HD photos of Mars - I often have a
feeling Earth will one day look like that seemingly lifeless place.
Perhaps, as you suggest about Mars' possible inhabitants, that humans
could destroy all the ecosystem by WMD weaponry. I would add humans
could add to the global disaster by polluting the hell out of it in its
insane obsession with recreating the natural world into an artificial
one to satiate its material and narcissistic addictions.
It's an inter-dimensional Universe and there are inter-dimensional beings. Mars is teaming with life. They could have moved underground. Mars itself is a being. Even the Moon, we're rethinking, there might be vast reservoirs of water there. We're just not sure yet if it's clean water, or if it needs to be processed. But we know there's lots of weather there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
Post by angelofdeath
:))~
angelofdeath
2015-01-21 03:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by angelofdeath
Post by D
snip
Post by angelofdeath
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/einsteins-thoughts-seti-180953666/#ixzz3PLHfE6Br
Brings home the argument I've had with some dope from tumblrweed that
current science knowledge cannot be wholly relied upon.
There are things about our reality we may not know at this point like
Einstein didn't know decades ago.
Is or was Mars inhabited? Well, it was a damned popular notion in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, as evidenced by Einstein's nod to
the possibility. The notion continued to gather force and by the 1950s,
it had still not been generally discounted. A famous respected
astronomer, Percival Lowell, in the early 1900s, advanced the notion
with what appeared to be observations of canals on the surface. Later,
it was found these lines were optical illusions. When the Mariner crafts
arrived in the early-mid 60s, no sign of canals were noted in photos. I
was deflated as a young teen by the photos, thinking that popular
cultural beliefs might be verified by science. Naivete in youth is
legend! LOL!
It is still possible, however, that Mars may have been inhabited. Maybe
not by intelligent beings, however. Lower forms of life maybe. Still, it
would be thrilling to find any kind of life had or is existing there. I
would think only an extensive series of human expeditions covering
significant land areas would be needed to answer that question.
The Cydonia complex with its monuments are proof enough
that Mars was once inhabited by humans or other sapient
builders of such megalithic structures, but as has been
apparent in a.p.n. and in so many other groups over the
years, irrational skepticism is promoted and supported
by the fox that's so desperately guarding the henhouse.
Anything to confuse and obfuscate, that's what they do.
If Mars really was inhabited by intelligent life, then
the first question that comes to mind is What happened
on Mars to make its surface look like a global thermo-
nuclear holocaust laid waste to everything in its path?
Of course there are many other related curiosities such
as the plainly catastrophic origin of the asteroid belt
which might've been a great planet prior to breaking up
into so many bits and pieces. If that's what it is then
what caused that planet's universal devastation?
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.
Yet, the possibility cannot be discounted at this point of research. I'd
surely love to have more substantial evidence than what has thus far
been presented that curious surface features were (are) the work of
Martians.
I'd be happy to simply see evidence of an insect, perhaps fossilized,
imprinted on a rock.
The mystery of the asteroid belt gives rise to speculation that
intelligent (or otherwise) life may have existed on the planet that
inexplicably broke apart into many pieces. Many believe it was struck by
a huge meteor or a swarm of them. Others believe the orbits of planets
got screwed up.
It's been creepy looking at the HD photos of Mars - I often have a
feeling Earth will one day look like that seemingly lifeless place.
Perhaps, as you suggest about Mars' possible inhabitants, that humans
could destroy all the ecosystem by WMD weaponry. I would add humans
could add to the global disaster by polluting the hell out of it in its
insane obsession with recreating the natural world into an artificial
one to satiate its material and narcissistic addictions.
It's an inter-dimensional Universe and there are inter-dimensional beings.
Mars is teaming with life. They could have moved underground. Mars
itself

is a being. Even the Moon, we're rethinking, there might be vast
reservoirs of

water there. We're just not sure yet if it's clean water, or if it
needs to

be processed. But we know there's lots of weather there.
Post by Mike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
Oh, well, yes, the earth is a living thing, alright. No argument there.
Curiously, paganism has most often echoed that existential observation.
That it goes further, of course, into some believing the Earth has an
intelligence, a "nervous system," reactive to pain and joy, expressing
itself as humans and animals do emotionally, and protective of itself in
its fight to survive what humans do negatively to its ecosystem.

Mother Earth according to the crop of "new age" thinkers, is very angry
about what damage homo sapiens have inflicted on it. And it won't take
the abuse forever without punishing humans for being out of whack with
all things natural.

Now, some, like JTEM, would scoff at the notion Earth is a thinking and
feeling entity, since the planet's alleged intelligence would horridly
challenge his homocentric mindset.

:))~
Mike
2015-01-21 04:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by angelofdeath
Post by D
snip
Post by angelofdeath
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/einsteins-thoughts-seti-180953666/#ixzz3PLHfE6Br
Brings home the argument I've had with some dope from tumblrweed that
current science knowledge cannot be wholly relied upon.
There are things about our reality we may not know at this point like
Einstein didn't know decades ago.
Is or was Mars inhabited? Well, it was a damned popular notion in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, as evidenced by Einstein's nod to
the possibility. The notion continued to gather force and by the 1950s,
it had still not been generally discounted. A famous respected
astronomer, Percival Lowell, in the early 1900s, advanced the notion
with what appeared to be observations of canals on the surface. Later,
it was found these lines were optical illusions. When the Mariner crafts
arrived in the early-mid 60s, no sign of canals were noted in photos. I
was deflated as a young teen by the photos, thinking that popular
cultural beliefs might be verified by science. Naivete in youth is
legend! LOL!
It is still possible, however, that Mars may have been inhabited. Maybe
not by intelligent beings, however. Lower forms of life maybe. Still, it
would be thrilling to find any kind of life had or is existing there. I
would think only an extensive series of human expeditions covering
significant land areas would be needed to answer that question.
The Cydonia complex with its monuments are proof enough
that Mars was once inhabited by humans or other sapient
builders of such megalithic structures, but as has been
apparent in a.p.n. and in so many other groups over the
years, irrational skepticism is promoted and supported
by the fox that's so desperately guarding the henhouse.
Anything to confuse and obfuscate, that's what they do.
If Mars really was inhabited by intelligent life, then
the first question that comes to mind is What happened
on Mars to make its surface look like a global thermo-
nuclear holocaust laid waste to everything in its path?
Of course there are many other related curiosities such
as the plainly catastrophic origin of the asteroid belt
which might've been a great planet prior to breaking up
into so many bits and pieces. If that's what it is then
what caused that planet's universal devastation?
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.
Yet, the possibility cannot be discounted at this point of research. I'd
surely love to have more substantial evidence than what has thus far
been presented that curious surface features were (are) the work of
Martians.
I'd be happy to simply see evidence of an insect, perhaps fossilized,
imprinted on a rock.
The mystery of the asteroid belt gives rise to speculation that
intelligent (or otherwise) life may have existed on the planet that
inexplicably broke apart into many pieces. Many believe it was struck by
a huge meteor or a swarm of them. Others believe the orbits of planets
got screwed up.
It's been creepy looking at the HD photos of Mars - I often have a
feeling Earth will one day look like that seemingly lifeless place.
Perhaps, as you suggest about Mars' possible inhabitants, that humans
could destroy all the ecosystem by WMD weaponry. I would add humans
could add to the global disaster by polluting the hell out of it in its
insane obsession with recreating the natural world into an artificial
one to satiate its material and narcissistic addictions.
It's an inter-dimensional Universe and there are inter-dimensional beings.
Mars is teaming with life. They could have moved underground. Mars
itself
is a being. Even the Moon, we're rethinking, there might be vast
reservoirs of
water there. We're just not sure yet if it's clean water, or if it
needs to
be processed. But we know there's lots of weather there.
Post by Mike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
Oh, well, yes, the earth is a living thing, alright. No argument there.
Curiously, paganism has most often echoed that existential observation.
That it goes further, of course, into some believing the Earth has an
intelligence, a "nervous system," reactive to pain and joy, expressing
itself as humans and animals do emotionally, and protective of itself in
its fight to survive what humans do negatively to its ecosystem.
Mother Earth according to the crop of "new age" thinkers, is very angry
about what damage homo sapiens have inflicted on it. And it won't take
the abuse forever without punishing humans for being out of whack with
all things natural.
Now, some, like JTEM, would scoff at the notion Earth is a thinking and
feeling entity, since the planet's alleged intelligence would horridly
challenge his homocentric mindset.
A living Earth doesn't necessarily mean it's anything like us, or even has the same sense apparatus, or experience emotions. The planets could be living in a different Universe altogether, or time dimension altogether. It might experience other things, other than emotions, and it might know about it's own particular Universe through processes that we are unable to senses and far beyond what we can even imagine. Computer simulations offer us the opportunity to explore these dimensions that we were unable to see before.
Post by Mike
:))~
angelofdeath
2015-01-21 05:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by angelofdeath
Post by D
snip
Post by angelofdeath
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/einsteins-thoughts-seti-180953666/#ixzz3PLHfE6Br
Brings home the argument I've had with some dope from tumblrweed that
current science knowledge cannot be wholly relied upon.
There are things about our reality we may not know at this point like
Einstein didn't know decades ago.
Is or was Mars inhabited? Well, it was a damned popular notion in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, as evidenced by Einstein's nod to
the possibility. The notion continued to gather force and by the 1950s,
it had still not been generally discounted. A famous respected
astronomer, Percival Lowell, in the early 1900s, advanced the notion
with what appeared to be observations of canals on the surface. Later,
it was found these lines were optical illusions. When the Mariner crafts
arrived in the early-mid 60s, no sign of canals were noted in photos. I
was deflated as a young teen by the photos, thinking that popular
cultural beliefs might be verified by science. Naivete in youth is
legend! LOL!
It is still possible, however, that Mars may have been inhabited. Maybe
not by intelligent beings, however. Lower forms of life maybe. Still, it
would be thrilling to find any kind of life had or is existing there. I
would think only an extensive series of human expeditions covering
significant land areas would be needed to answer that question.
The Cydonia complex with its monuments are proof enough
that Mars was once inhabited by humans or other sapient
builders of such megalithic structures, but as has been
apparent in a.p.n. and in so many other groups over the
years, irrational skepticism is promoted and supported
by the fox that's so desperately guarding the henhouse.
Anything to confuse and obfuscate, that's what they do.
If Mars really was inhabited by intelligent life, then
the first question that comes to mind is What happened
on Mars to make its surface look like a global thermo-
nuclear holocaust laid waste to everything in its path?
Of course there are many other related curiosities such
as the plainly catastrophic origin of the asteroid belt
which might've been a great planet prior to breaking up
into so many bits and pieces. If that's what it is then
what caused that planet's universal devastation?
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.
Yet, the possibility cannot be discounted at this point of research. I'd
surely love to have more substantial evidence than what has thus far
been presented that curious surface features were (are) the work of
Martians.
I'd be happy to simply see evidence of an insect, perhaps fossilized,
imprinted on a rock.
The mystery of the asteroid belt gives rise to speculation that
intelligent (or otherwise) life may have existed on the planet that
inexplicably broke apart into many pieces. Many believe it was struck by
a huge meteor or a swarm of them. Others believe the orbits of planets
got screwed up.
It's been creepy looking at the HD photos of Mars - I often have a
feeling Earth will one day look like that seemingly lifeless place.
Perhaps, as you suggest about Mars' possible inhabitants, that humans
could destroy all the ecosystem by WMD weaponry. I would add humans
could add to the global disaster by polluting the hell out of it in its
insane obsession with recreating the natural world into an artificial
one to satiate its material and narcissistic addictions.
It's an inter-dimensional Universe and there are inter-dimensional beings.
Mars is teaming with life. They could have moved underground. Mars
itself
is a being. Even the Moon, we're rethinking, there might be vast
reservoirs of
water there. We're just not sure yet if it's clean water, or if it
needs to
be processed. But we know there's lots of weather there.
Post by Mike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
Oh, well, yes, the earth is a living thing, alright. No argument there.
Curiously, paganism has most often echoed that existential observation.
That it goes further, of course, into some believing the Earth has an
intelligence, a "nervous system," reactive to pain and joy, expressing
itself as humans and animals do emotionally, and protective of itself in
its fight to survive what humans do negatively to its ecosystem.
Mother Earth according to the crop of "new age" thinkers, is very angry
about what damage homo sapiens have inflicted on it. And it won't take
the abuse forever without punishing humans for being out of whack with
all things natural.
Now, some, like JTEM, would scoff at the notion Earth is a thinking and
feeling entity, since the planet's alleged intelligence would horridly
challenge his homocentric mindset.
A living Earth doesn't necessarily mean it's anything like us, or even has
the same sense apparatus, or experience emotions. The planets could be
living

in a different Universe altogether, or time dimension altogether. It
might

experience other things, other than emotions, and it might know about
it's own

particular Universe through processes that we are unable to senses and
far beyond

what we can even imagine. Computer simulations offer us the
opportunity to explore

these dimensions that we were unable to see before.
It was here first, and we've come along quite late as tenants. To many,
even today in our rationalistic world, it's the damned landlord.

When you consider humankind is some 200,000 years old, and that only in
the last 150 years or so, have we been able to sock the landlord with an
unprecedented level of carbon dioxide, I would guess that is something
any higher level of hosting intelligence wouldn't at all be pleased with.

Maybe as you suggest, Earth's intelligence might see our presence as a
brief invasion of cockroaches or termites, doing something that only
we've been created to do in a unique manner. And that the result of it
would be like stern instruction for what replaces us, if anything. EH?

:))~
Mike
2015-01-21 11:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Maybe as you suggest, Earth's intelligence might see our presence as a
brief invasion of cockroaches or termites, doing something that only
we've been created to do in a unique manner. And that the result of it
would be like stern instruction for what replaces us, if anything. EH?
I was thinking more like the sensation of a need to sneeze. That should get rid of most of the vermin here.
Post by angelofdeath
:))~
manfromu.f.o
2015-01-24 21:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by angelofdeath
Maybe as you suggest, Earth's intelligence might see our presence as a
brief invasion of cockroaches or termites, doing something that only
we've been created to do in a unique manner. And that the result of it
would be like stern instruction for what replaces us, if anything. EH?
I was thinking more like the sensation of a need to sneeze. That should get rid of most of the vermin here.
...requiring a "decongestant" -- rising seas to drown the coastal
dwellers, drought, pestilence, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
violent storms for the remainder.

;)~
Mike
2015-01-24 22:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by manfromu.f.o
Post by Mike
Post by angelofdeath
Maybe as you suggest, Earth's intelligence might see our presence as a
brief invasion of cockroaches or termites, doing something that only
we've been created to do in a unique manner. And that the result of it
would be like stern instruction for what replaces us, if anything. EH?
I was thinking more like the sensation of a need to sneeze. That should get rid of most of the vermin here.
...requiring a "decongestant" -- rising seas to drown the coastal
dwellers, drought, pestilence, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
violent storms for the remainder.
If Earth wanted to, I'm sure it could also arrange an asteroid to finish us off, there could be a 'society of planets' that might engage in these kinds of operations, sort of like injections or inoculations, a flew shot, so to speak.
Post by manfromu.f.o
;)~
D
2015-01-21 18:04:49 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by angelofdeath
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.
Yet, the possibility cannot be discounted at this point of research. I'd
surely love to have more substantial evidence than what has thus far
been presented that curious surface features were (are) the work of
Martians.
I'd be happy to simply see evidence of an insect, perhaps fossilized,
imprinted on a rock.
The mystery of the asteroid belt gives rise to speculation that
intelligent (or otherwise) life may have existed on the planet that
inexplicably broke apart into many pieces. Many believe it was struck by
a huge meteor or a swarm of them. Others believe the orbits of planets
got screwed up.
It's been creepy looking at the HD photos of Mars - I often have a
feeling Earth will one day look like that seemingly lifeless place.
Perhaps, as you suggest about Mars' possible inhabitants, that humans
could destroy all the ecosystem by WMD weaponry. I would add humans
could add to the global disaster by polluting the hell out of it in its
insane obsession with recreating the natural world into an artificial
one to satiate its material and narcissistic addictions.
It's an inter-dimensional Universe and there are inter-dimensional beings.
Mars is teaming with life. They could have moved underground. Mars
itself
is a being. Even the Moon, we're rethinking, there might be vast
reservoirs of
water there. We're just not sure yet if it's clean water, or if it
needs to
be processed. But we know there's lots of weather there.
Post by Mike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
Oh, well, yes, the earth is a living thing, alright. No argument there.
Curiously, paganism has most often echoed that existential observation.
That it goes further, of course, into some believing the Earth has an
intelligence, a "nervous system," reactive to pain and joy, expressing
itself as humans and animals do emotionally, and protective of itself in
its fight to survive what humans do negatively to its ecosystem.
Mother Earth according to the crop of "new age" thinkers, is very angry
about what damage homo sapiens have inflicted on it. And it won't take
the abuse forever without punishing humans for being out of whack with
all things natural.
Now, some, like JTEM, would scoff at the notion Earth is a thinking and
feeling entity, since the planet's alleged intelligence would horridly
challenge his homocentric mindset.
When astronomers (re)discovered the planet Uranus, and
subsequently Neptune, then Pluto, it was Druid priests
who were consulted as to what names these outer planets
ought to be given in keeping with classical Greco-Roman
mythology and popular convention long-since established.

Shortly before the extinction of the Hopi elders, they
spoke of several signs to look for as the world enters
the "fifth hoop". Many of these opportune events have
already occurred or are still occurring. The two most
ominous warnings were the Latin cross on the petroglyph
which is the symbol of "white eyes", this global Roman
Empire, and that the straw which will ultimately break
the camel's back of this Empire of the Antichrist will
be their insatiable stabbing and bleeding Earth of oil
and other fossil fuels. These Hopi prophets even warned
that taking rock and soil samples from the Moon (during
those unmanned Russian & US missions of the early 1970s)
back to the Earth was an incredibly unwise thing to do.

The economies of the evildoers are linked predominantly
to exhaustible energy resources, especially oil. Their
usury-based banking cartels, money-changers, brokerage
agents, investors, mammon-worshippers, etc., depend on
the flow of oil to sustain their cupidity and rabidity.

These antichrists cannot possibly repent or undo any of
the injustices they've already caused or contributed to.
This is why as Nostradamus wrote "the most big mastiff
(i.e. the great dog of war, the U.S. Military) will do
destruction of all, even of that which previously will
have been perpetrated". The systematic militarization
of their occupied lands is becoming more widespread in
the United States, and their manifest destiny policies
are threatening other major powers, e.g. Russia, China,
and other nations that are working overtime to devalue
the petrodollar, into a showdown. Many prophets of old
and latter days, including those of the Hopi clans, saw
this coming. Even the book of Revelation is clear that
it will take less than _one hour of one day_ to finish
the war that truly will end all wars, a global war that
has been going on for some ~200,000 tropical years. But
that won't happen until pandemic pestilence depopulates
major cities to the point where there will be no humans
around to round up and bury or burn the cadavers. They
were warned that Jehovah (a.k.a. Zeus, Jupiter), is the
last Deity in the Universe that they want to challenge,
but people who become addicted to sin simply can't help
themselves...so who's really to blame? Sin-addiction is
the most subtle, malignant, and insidious disease that
a human can ever be afflicted with; in their demented
minds they think "I must! I must!" sin for the love of
money, the very root of all evil. They cannot be saved.

Thus the movers and shakers of the world are oblivious
to the ineffable intelligence of the Universe i.e. the
Deities. And because their auras are so darkened, and
their vibrations so coarse, they are incompatible with
heaven ergo Dark Limbo is the familiar and inescapable
prison that awaits their return. We've all been there
a thousand times, but not all of us can remember what
it's like. The most terrifying aspect of Limbo is the
brilliant white Light afar off on the far side of the
impassable abyss. All of this occurs in the near-earth
perimeter. It is called "excruciating" because of the
horrible feeling of guilt and shame which plagues many
of its inmates, each uniquely according to their works.
This is called "double", because in the Light they can
see their future judgment awaiting them in the gravity
of time; thus even Almighty God is said to respect the
Fates & Furies, so much so that ancient Greeks omitted
the Sagittarian's sacred letter TZ from their alphabet.
Arc Michael
2015-01-24 23:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
snip
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by angelofdeath
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.
Yet, the possibility cannot be discounted at this point of research. I'd
surely love to have more substantial evidence than what has thus far
been presented that curious surface features were (are) the work of
Martians.
I'd be happy to simply see evidence of an insect, perhaps fossilized,
imprinted on a rock.
The mystery of the asteroid belt gives rise to speculation that
intelligent (or otherwise) life may have existed on the planet that
inexplicably broke apart into many pieces. Many believe it was struck by
a huge meteor or a swarm of them. Others believe the orbits of planets
got screwed up.
It's been creepy looking at the HD photos of Mars - I often have a
feeling Earth will one day look like that seemingly lifeless place.
Perhaps, as you suggest about Mars' possible inhabitants, that humans
could destroy all the ecosystem by WMD weaponry. I would add humans
could add to the global disaster by polluting the hell out of it in its
insane obsession with recreating the natural world into an artificial
one to satiate its material and narcissistic addictions.
It's an inter-dimensional Universe and there are inter-dimensional beings.
Mars is teaming with life. They could have moved underground. Mars
itself
is a being. Even the Moon, we're rethinking, there might be vast
reservoirs of
water there. We're just not sure yet if it's clean water, or if it
needs to
be processed. But we know there's lots of weather there.
Post by Mike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
Oh, well, yes, the earth is a living thing, alright. No argument there.
Curiously, paganism has most often echoed that existential observation.
That it goes further, of course, into some believing the Earth has an
intelligence, a "nervous system," reactive to pain and joy, expressing
itself as humans and animals do emotionally, and protective of itself in
its fight to survive what humans do negatively to its ecosystem.
Mother Earth according to the crop of "new age" thinkers, is very angry
about what damage homo sapiens have inflicted on it. And it won't take
the abuse forever without punishing humans for being out of whack with
all things natural.
Now, some, like JTEM, would scoff at the notion Earth is a thinking and
feeling entity, since the planet's alleged intelligence would horridly
challenge his homocentric mindset.
When astronomers (re)discovered the planet Uranus, and
subsequently Neptune, then Pluto, it was Druid priests
who were consulted as to what names these outer planets
ought to be given in keeping with classical Greco-Roman
mythology and popular convention long-since established.
Shortly before the extinction of the Hopi elders, they
spoke of several signs to look for as the world enters
the "fifth hoop". Many of these opportune events have
already occurred or are still occurring. The two most
ominous warnings were the Latin cross on the petroglyph
which is the symbol of "white eyes", this global Roman
Empire, and that the straw which will ultimately break
the camel's back of this Empire of the Antichrist will
be their insatiable stabbing and bleeding Earth of oil
and other fossil fuels. These Hopi prophets even warned
that taking rock and soil samples from the Moon (during
those unmanned Russian & US missions of the early 1970s)
back to the Earth was an incredibly unwise thing to do.
The economies of the evildoers are linked predominantly
to exhaustible energy resources, especially oil. Their
usury-based banking cartels, money-changers, brokerage
agents, investors, mammon-worshippers, etc., depend on
the flow of oil to sustain their cupidity and rabidity.
These antichrists cannot possibly repent or undo any of
the injustices they've already caused or contributed to.
This is why as Nostradamus wrote "the most big mastiff
(i.e. the great dog of war, the U.S. Military) will do
destruction of all, even of that which previously will
have been perpetrated". The systematic militarization
of their occupied lands is becoming more widespread in
the United States, and their manifest destiny policies
are threatening other major powers, e.g. Russia, China,
and other nations that are working overtime to devalue
the petrodollar, into a showdown. Many prophets of old
and latter days, including those of the Hopi clans, saw
this coming. Even the book of Revelation is clear that
it will take less than _one hour of one day_ to finish
the war that truly will end all wars, a global war that
has been going on for some ~200,000 tropical years. But
that won't happen until pandemic pestilence depopulates
major cities to the point where there will be no humans
around to round up and bury or burn the cadavers. They
were warned that Jehovah (a.k.a. Zeus, Jupiter), is the
last Deity in the Universe that they want to challenge,
but people who become addicted to sin simply can't help
themselves...so who's really to blame? Sin-addiction is
the most subtle, malignant, and insidious disease that
a human can ever be afflicted with; in their demented
minds they think "I must! I must!" sin for the love of
money, the very root of all evil. They cannot be saved.
Thus the movers and shakers of the world are oblivious
to the ineffable intelligence of the Universe i.e. the
Deities. And because their auras are so darkened, and
their vibrations so coarse, they are incompatible with
heaven ergo Dark Limbo is the familiar and inescapable
prison that awaits their return. We've all been there
a thousand times, but not all of us can remember what
it's like. The most terrifying aspect of Limbo is the
brilliant white Light afar off on the far side of the
impassable abyss. All of this occurs in the near-earth
perimeter. It is called "excruciating" because of the
horrible feeling of guilt and shame which plagues many
of its inmates, each uniquely according to their works.
This is called "double", because in the Light they can
see their future judgment awaiting them in the gravity
of time; thus even Almighty God is said to respect the
Fates & Furies, so much so that ancient Greeks omitted
the Sagittarian's sacred letter TZ from their alphabet.
just found out the NOVA A/B 1987 had a *blue light signature, the most spectacular recorded, we got five locations on earth trapping neutrinos from this event -- still viable and studied.

now shove that into your hopi grab-bag. The prophecy rock of the American Hopis was admitted to being created not by Hopis but Christians so the blue kachina has christian co-origins.
JTEM
2015-01-25 12:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.
Very true, but if they ever confirm the existence
of so much as bacteria on Mars it'll be the greatest
scientific achievement in centuries!

Oddly though, it will NOT confirm abiogenesis OR
the theory that life developed on other planets...

There is a theory -- perhaps "Hypothesis" is a
better word here -- that states that life can
jump from planet to planet, that there can be a
"Cross contamination" of life. What these means
is that life could have developed on Mars (or
even in another solar system) then jumped on
over to earth. But, it also means that life
could have developed on earth and then jumped
over to Mars!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001

I am NOT saying that the above is compelling
evidence for this cross contamination, let
alone "Proof." At this point I'm actually willing
to go out on the limb and say that it is NOT
life. Oh, I believed it was for the longest
time, but I no longer do. I'll explain why if
you want to know, but the point right now is
that this "Cross contamination" of life is a
viable theory/hypothesis, and it works BOTH
WAYS!

As a matter of fact, as we know life does exist
on the earth, and we have no clear evidence
that it ever existed on Mars, the safest, more
conservative, most logical, most reasonable
position would be that, if there IS or was
life on Mars, life started here and then landed
on Mars later...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109094494453
Mike
2015-01-25 18:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.
Very true, but if they ever confirm the existence
of so much as bacteria on Mars it'll be the greatest
scientific achievement in centuries!
Oddly though, it will NOT confirm abiogenesis OR
the theory that life developed on other planets...
There is a theory -- perhaps "Hypothesis" is a
better word here -- that states that life can
jump from planet to planet, that there can be a
"Cross contamination" of life. What these means
is that life could have developed on Mars (or
even in another solar system) then jumped on
over to earth. But, it also means that life
could have developed on earth and then jumped
over to Mars!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001
I am NOT saying that the above is compelling
evidence for this cross contamination, let
alone "Proof." At this point I'm actually willing
to go out on the limb and say that it is NOT
life. Oh, I believed it was for the longest
time, but I no longer do. I'll explain why if
you want to know, but the point right now is
that this "Cross contamination" of life is a
viable theory/hypothesis, and it works BOTH
WAYS!
As a matter of fact, as we know life does exist
on the earth, and we have no clear evidence
that it ever existed on Mars, the safest, more
conservative, most logical, most reasonable
position would be that, if there IS or was
life on Mars, life started here and then landed
on Mars later...
If we end up just speculating anyhow, I find it far more enjoyable to speculate about going to heaven, or perhaps other dimension after I die. The trip will be quicker and probably more enjoyable anyhow. Why stop at something so mundane as 'UFO's when death offers a more likely opportunity of going somewhere. The the thought of a craft to go on a long voyage somewhere seems kind of primitive to me. We are all beings ('soul travels') and that a good enough fantasy, there should no need to fantasize for anything more.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109094494453
JTEM
2015-01-25 22:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
If we end up just speculating anyhow, I find it
far more enjoyable to speculate about going to
heaven, or perhaps other dimension after I die.
The trip will be quicker and probably more
enjoyable anyhow.
The problem there is that you're passing linear
attributes on a nonlinear model.

There is no before & after from the perspective
of energy.
Post by Mike
Why stop at something so mundane as 'UFO's
I wasn't talking about UFOs. I was discussing
bacterial life and a specific theory on the
origins of life (at least locally).




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109120682192
Mike
2015-01-25 22:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Mike
If we end up just speculating anyhow, I find it
far more enjoyable to speculate about going to
heaven, or perhaps other dimension after I die.
The trip will be quicker and probably more
enjoyable anyhow.
The problem there is that you're passing linear
attributes on a nonlinear model.
There is no before & after from the perspective
of energy.
Time starts when you come in as a being; time stop when you cease to exist. People speculate allot, but that's all that really be certain to happens. All other notions of it are just man made ideas and conventions.
Post by JTEM
Post by Mike
Why stop at something so mundane as 'UFO's
I wasn't talking about UFOs. I was discussing
bacterial life and a specific theory on the
origins of life (at least locally).
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109120682192
JTEM
2015-01-26 02:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Time starts when you come in as a being; time stop
when you cease to exist.
No. From the perspective of energy, there is no
time. From the perspective of a photon, everything
happens at once. Modern physics even claim that
they exist everywhere. Which kind of makes sense,
because they have an infinity by our perspective
to muck about, which gives them plenty of time to
be absolutely everywhere.

...and several experiments appear to show that
this timelessness is real. For instance, that two
photons can be quantum entangled even though from
our perspective they don't exist at the same time.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109120682192
angelofdeath
2015-01-26 10:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Mike
Time starts when you come in as a being; time stop
when you cease to exist.
No. From the perspective of energy, there is no
time. From the perspective of a photon, everything
happens at once. Modern physics even claim that
they exist everywhere. Which kind of makes sense,
because they have an infinity by our perspective
to muck about, which gives them plenty of time to
be absolutely everywhere.
...and several experiments appear to show that
this timelessness is real. For instance, that two
photons can be quantum entangled even though from
our perspective they don't exist at the same time.
Watch your hair turn gradually gray and fall out, skin wrinkles appear,
and your energy wane, and you are certain there is existence of time and
passage of time, whether it be measured in any form, or regarded as
theoretical or interpretive.

Bury your loved ones, and you know, too, time exists and that it will
end for you as it ends for every living thing.

:))~
JTEM
2015-01-26 14:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Watch your hair turn gradually gray and fall out, skin wrinkles appear,
and your energy wane, and you are certain there is existence of time and
passage of time, whether it be measured in any form, or regarded as
theoretical or interpretive.
And yet it doesn't exist. There is no one "Now."
It's all just a matter of perspective.
Post by angelofdeath
Bury your loved ones, and you know, too, time exists and that it will
end for you as it ends for every living thing.
Again, it's just a perspective. Stand in some places
in the universe right now -- Inside a singularity, for
example -- and you are already long dead. You're also
alive, yes, but you're long dead.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109120682192
angelofdeath
2015-01-27 07:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Watch your hair turn gradually gray and fall out, skin wrinkles appear,
and your energy wane, and you are certain there is existence of time and
passage of time, whether it be measured in any form, or regarded as
theoretical or interpretive.
And yet it doesn't exist. There is no one "Now."
It's all just a matter of perspective.
What is causing the progression of deteriorating human physiology then?
If there is no wearing down because of time's passage, what is causing
the aging?
Problem with discussing theories and ideas, is that some people lose
track of the observable testable reality of being mortal, and mortality
is all about the existence of time, as limited as it is for so many who
wish it were not.
People fear death, fear aging. Both are proof of time, for us and every
living thing.
The rings of a tree is proof of time. The rings do not appear without
the passage of it.
:))~
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Bury your loved ones, and you know, too, time exists and that it will
end for you as it ends for every living thing.
Again, it's just a perspective. Stand in some places
in the universe right now -- Inside a singularity, for
example -- and you are already long dead. You're also
alive, yes, but you're long dead.
Well, you've been dead from the neck up since puberty, I'd suspect.

:))~
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109120682192
JTEM
2015-01-27 12:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
What is causing the progression of deteriorating human physiology then?
There isn't one. It's a matter of perspective.
Post by angelofdeath
If there is no wearing down because of time's passage, what is causing
the aging?
You're asking linear questions about non linear
time.

Can't you see how wrong that is?

From a photon's perspective, you've never been
born and you're already dead and turned to dust.
You exist in every possible state at once.

This is real. This is how you would see things
from a singularity or riding atop a photon.

This is how you would see things if you stepped
outside the universe...

Quite frankly, you don't even exist, not from
a point of view outside the universe...
Post by angelofdeath
The rings of a tree is proof of time.
No. They are "Proof" of a change of state. However,
the separation of those different states into their
own unique "Time" is purely a matter of perspective.
Post by angelofdeath
The rings do not appear without
the passage of it.
Of course they do. The tree merely exists in every
possible state at once.

This is actually how it is from another perspective.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109120682192
angelofdeath
2015-01-28 02:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
What is causing the progression of deteriorating human physiology then?
There isn't one. It's a matter of perspective.
Post by angelofdeath
If there is no wearing down because of time's passage, what is causing
the aging?
You're asking linear questions about non linear
time.
Can't you see how wrong that is?
From a photon's perspective, you've never been
born and you're already dead and turned to dust.
You exist in every possible state at once.
This is real. This is how you would see things
from a singularity or riding atop a photon.
This is how you would see things if you stepped
outside the universe...
Quite frankly, you don't even exist, not from
a point of view outside the universe...
Post by angelofdeath
The rings of a tree is proof of time.
No. They are "Proof" of a change of state. However,
the separation of those different states into their
own unique "Time" is purely a matter of perspective.
Post by angelofdeath
The rings do not appear without
the passage of it.
Of course they do. The tree merely exists in every
possible state at once.
This is actually how it is from another perspective.
Pseudo-intellectual jack-in-the-box.

;))~
JTEM
2015-01-28 13:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Pseudo-intellectual
Wrong. Of course.

Google it. I've already posted cites demonstrating
that this peculiarity has been scientific confirmed,
in a way, by experimentation.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109327313459
angelofdeath
2015-01-29 07:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Pseudo-intellectual
Wrong. Of course.
Google it. I've already posted cites demonstrating
that this peculiarity has been scientific confirmed,
in a way, by experimentation.
Have you ever had to learn the Dewey Decimal Point system libraries
commonly used before the advent of computer databases?

Pull a long narrow drawer out of index cards and search for titles of
books and subject headers in magazines?

Well, my generation and those before, had to navigate the voluminous
material for research in that slow, painstaking manner.

Today, for younger folks, like yourself, it's "Google it" - as if
research in the past didn't require considerably more dedication.

Your version of research is to "google it" but you don't even have
enough patience to read beyond the first few paragraphs of a site page,
like you laughably did at skepticalscience.com, quoting to support your
anti-AGW view with a quote that was thoroughly dissected and dismissed -
that is, had you proceeded to the next paragraph on the first page you
linked.

I'd suggest you develop your "research skills" further before
instructing a long-time researcher to reference material that is highly
speculative.

It's not that referencing your favorite speculation is worthless, no,
not to you, but is simply nothing more than forgettable creative
opining and imaginative guesswork to others.

Your reference proves nothing but that opinions vary.

:))~
JTEM
2015-01-29 14:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Today, for younger folks, like yourself, it's "Google it" - as if
research in the past didn't require considerably more dedication.
Doesn't matter. It's not about how you find the
cite, it's about finding the cite.

Wait. That's wrong.

It's about how you would have & could have found
the cite with minimal time & effort, if you cared.

So the real point is that you don't care. You're
arguing for the sake of arguing, and nothing more.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109485661943
Mike
2015-01-26 17:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Post by JTEM
Post by Mike
Time starts when you come in as a being; time stop
when you cease to exist.
No. From the perspective of energy, there is no
time. From the perspective of a photon, everything
happens at once. Modern physics even claim that
they exist everywhere. Which kind of makes sense,
because they have an infinity by our perspective
to muck about, which gives them plenty of time to
be absolutely everywhere.
...and several experiments appear to show that
this timelessness is real. For instance, that two
photons can be quantum entangled even though from
our perspective they don't exist at the same time.
Watch your hair turn gradually gray and fall out, skin wrinkles appear,
and your energy wane, and you are certain there is existence of time and
passage of time, whether it be measured in any form, or regarded as
theoretical or interpretive.
But what if you get Alzheimer's? How will you experience time then? How does it feel when the brain looses the function to coordinate and sequence events? Time according to the clock is one thing, but time according to perception is a different thing. In some cases (philosophy is one of them) it makes more sense to think of time as a perception rather than going by the clock.
Post by angelofdeath
Bury your loved ones, and you know, too, time exists and that it will
end for you as it ends for every living thing.
But those people you leave behind (as real as they seem), they might only be holographic illusions. Ever since a kid I wonders, is there a test, an experiment... anything at all... is it real, or just a kind of simulation?
Post by angelofdeath
:))~
angelofdeath
2015-01-27 07:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by angelofdeath
Post by JTEM
Post by Mike
Time starts when you come in as a being; time stop
when you cease to exist.
No. From the perspective of energy, there is no
time. From the perspective of a photon, everything
happens at once. Modern physics even claim that
they exist everywhere. Which kind of makes sense,
because they have an infinity by our perspective
to muck about, which gives them plenty of time to
be absolutely everywhere.
...and several experiments appear to show that
this timelessness is real. For instance, that two
photons can be quantum entangled even though from
our perspective they don't exist at the same time.
Watch your hair turn gradually gray and fall out, skin wrinkles appear,
and your energy wane, and you are certain there is existence of time and
passage of time, whether it be measured in any form, or regarded as
theoretical or interpretive.
But what if you get Alzheimer's? How will you experience time then? How does it feel when the brain looses the function to coordinate and sequence events? Time according to the clock is one thing, but time according to perception is a different thing. In some cases (philosophy is one of them) it makes more sense to think of time as a perception rather than going by the clock.
Post by angelofdeath
Bury your loved ones, and you know, too, time exists and that it will
end for you as it ends for every living thing.
But those people you leave behind (as real as they seem), they might only be holographic illusions. Ever since a kid I wonders, is there a test, an experiment... anything at all... is it real, or just a kind of simulation?
Alzheimer's sufferers can lose all their memories and much of their IQ,
and their self-awareness, but I've yet to hear of an old one looking in
a mirror and not seeing their old wrinkled tired gray-haired faces!

My mother suffered from dementia near her end, but was definitely aware
that decades of time had been etched into her face, and it was no longer
the face she had when young. It took many earth rotations and orbits
around the Sun to get her face and body to that point.

If there were no clocks, no rotation of the planet, or orbit of it, and
it sat suspended neutrally in space (and somehow we kept from floating
outward!), we'd still see ourselves age, and measure our time by the
skin lines and gray hairs (and a whole lot more!).

No calendars or clocks needed. Living life every day (whatever length
and however measured), and having a lot of those days expended, is the
proof time exists.

:))~
Mike
2015-01-27 08:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Post by Mike
Post by angelofdeath
Post by JTEM
Post by Mike
Time starts when you come in as a being; time stop
when you cease to exist.
No. From the perspective of energy, there is no
time. From the perspective of a photon, everything
happens at once. Modern physics even claim that
they exist everywhere. Which kind of makes sense,
because they have an infinity by our perspective
to muck about, which gives them plenty of time to
be absolutely everywhere.
...and several experiments appear to show that
this timelessness is real. For instance, that two
photons can be quantum entangled even though from
our perspective they don't exist at the same time.
Watch your hair turn gradually gray and fall out, skin wrinkles appear,
and your energy wane, and you are certain there is existence of time and
passage of time, whether it be measured in any form, or regarded as
theoretical or interpretive.
But what if you get Alzheimer's? How will you experience time then? How does it feel when the brain looses the function to coordinate and sequence events? Time according to the clock is one thing, but time according to perception is a different thing. In some cases (philosophy is one of them) it makes more sense to think of time as a perception rather than going by the clock.
Post by angelofdeath
Bury your loved ones, and you know, too, time exists and that it will
end for you as it ends for every living thing.
But those people you leave behind (as real as they seem), they might only be holographic illusions. Ever since a kid I wonders, is there a test, an experiment... anything at all... is it real, or just a kind of simulation?
Alzheimer's sufferers can lose all their memories and much of their IQ,
and their self-awareness, but I've yet to hear of an old one looking in
a mirror and not seeing their old wrinkled tired gray-haired faces!
My mother suffered from dementia near her end, but was definitely aware
that decades of time had been etched into her face, and it was no longer
the face she had when young. It took many earth rotations and orbits
around the Sun to get her face and body to that point.
If there were no clocks, no rotation of the planet, or orbit of it, and
it sat suspended neutrally in space (and somehow we kept from floating
outward!), we'd still see ourselves age, and measure our time by the
skin lines and gray hairs (and a whole lot more!).
No calendars or clocks needed. Living life every day (whatever length
and however measured), and having a lot of those days expended, is the
proof time exists.
Aging is not necessarily a one way clock for all beings. I heard if you visualize your double helex DNA being upgraded to 12 strands you can reverse the aging process.
Post by angelofdeath
:))~
angelofdeath
2015-01-26 10:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.
Very true, but if they ever confirm the existence
of so much as bacteria on Mars it'll be the greatest
scientific achievement in centuries!
Oddly though, it will NOT confirm abiogenesis OR
the theory that life developed on other planets...
There is a theory -- perhaps "Hypothesis" is a
better word here -- that states that life can
jump from planet to planet, that there can be a
"Cross contamination" of life. What these means
is that life could have developed on Mars (or
even in another solar system) then jumped on
over to earth. But, it also means that life
could have developed on earth and then jumped
over to Mars!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001
I am NOT saying that the above is compelling
evidence for this cross contamination, let
alone "Proof." At this point I'm actually willing
to go out on the limb and say that it is NOT
life. Oh, I believed it was for the longest
time, but I no longer do. I'll explain why if
you want to know, but the point right now is
that this "Cross contamination" of life is a
viable theory/hypothesis, and it works BOTH
WAYS!
As a matter of fact, as we know life does exist
on the earth, and we have no clear evidence
that it ever existed on Mars, the safest, more
conservative, most logical, most reasonable
position would be that, if there IS or was
life on Mars, life started here and then landed
on Mars later...
If we end up just speculating anyhow, I find it far more enjoyable to speculate about going to heaven, or perhaps other dimension after I die. The trip will be quicker and probably more enjoyable anyhow. Why stop at something so mundane as 'UFO's when death offers a more likely opportunity of going somewhere. The the thought of a craft to go on a long voyage somewhere seems kind of primitive to me. We are all beings ('soul travels') and that a good enough fantasy, there should no need to fantasize for anything more.
I've never wanted to travel to another planet nor live there. I find the
bunny-eyed enthusiasm of young people signing up for SpaceX's Mars
colonization project to be a socio-psychological aberration created by
imaginative novelists and screenwriters' dramatic fictional works.

Is it really that exciting to be the first colonists of a planet that is
so hostile to human life, and that frankly looks much like parts of Utah
and Arizona - minus the oxygen, water, vegetation, and any critters? I'd
expect it'd grow damned boring and even maddening damned fast.

References to Star Wars/Star Trek are common, of course, and that
they'll have their place in history books.

I would guess that most of these middle-to-upper class Mars kids
wouldn't be interested in going to Antarctica or the Gobi Desert to live
in confining "pods" for years - or maybe forever, since SpaceX says the
trips may, early on, have no round trip tickets.

:))~
angelofdeath
2015-01-26 10:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Well, nothing photographic from the various Mars landers has gone far in
swaying me to consider seriously any thing "anomalous" (that is
dismissed by NASA as unusual natural formations) in surface features is
evidence of a former (or current) civilization is present.
Very true, but if they ever confirm the existence
of so much as bacteria on Mars it'll be the greatest
scientific achievement in centuries!
Oddly though, it will NOT confirm abiogenesis OR
the theory that life developed on other planets...
There is a theory -- perhaps "Hypothesis" is a
better word here -- that states that life can
jump from planet to planet, that there can be a
"Cross contamination" of life. What these means
is that life could have developed on Mars (or
even in another solar system) then jumped on
over to earth. But, it also means that life
could have developed on earth and then jumped
over to Mars!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001
I am NOT saying that the above is compelling
evidence for this cross contamination, let
alone "Proof." At this point I'm actually willing
to go out on the limb and say that it is NOT
life. Oh, I believed it was for the longest
time, but I no longer do. I'll explain why if
you want to know, but the point right now is
that this "Cross contamination" of life is a
viable theory/hypothesis, and it works BOTH
WAYS!
As a matter of fact, as we know life does exist
on the earth, and we have no clear evidence
that it ever existed on Mars, the safest, more
conservative, most logical, most reasonable
position would be that, if there IS or was
life on Mars, life started here and then landed
on Mars later...
Well, LOL, there's the small matter of explaining how life came to Earth.

Aside from a magical creation by a god, the concept that interstellar
seeds of life arrived on or in space rocks has a lot of steam behind it.

I don't think we bipeds are unique or rare - far from it, in fact. I
expect that intelligent beings permeate the universe.

We're not the crowning achievement of evolution or godly construction.

If I were to accept that homo sapiens are on top of the tool-user pile,
I'd be dismayed if not downright depressed.

:))~
JTEM
2015-01-27 02:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Well, LOL, there's the small matter of explaining how life
came to Earth.
Very true. And I did address this by stating that
the discovery of life on Mars would NOT confirm
abiogenesis...
Post by angelofdeath
Aside from a magical creation by a god, the concept that interstellar
seeds of life arrived on or in space rocks has a lot of steam behind it.
"Hot air," you mean. It seems the least likely to
me. Why? Because it would be so easy to confirm!
If life was an interstellar creation raining down
on planets, would should be able to find it today.

Localized abiogenesis is by far the more popular
idea.
Post by angelofdeath
I don't think we bipeds are unique or rare - far from it, in fact. I
expect that intelligent beings permeate the universe.
Yes you do. And that belief, and the fact that
nobody is willing to call you wrong, is what
fuels the UFO fantasy. You "Know" they're out
there, after all...

But it's really two very different problems.
There are as many obstacles stopping us from
visiting them as there are for them visiting
us. And quite to the contrary of you fiction,
the issue isn't technology but the laws of
nature itself.
Post by angelofdeath
We're not the crowning achievement of evolution or godly construction.
That's just fantasy. You have no idea what's
out there. To the best of your knowledge, we
ARE the crowing achievement!
Post by angelofdeath
If I were to accept that homo sapiens are on top of the tool-user pile,
I'd be dismayed if not downright depressed.
So, out of emotional necessity, you have decided
that you have knowledge where you have none.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109056553343
Post by angelofdeath
:))~
Mike
2015-01-27 03:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Well, LOL, there's the small matter of explaining how life
came to Earth.
Very true. And I did address this by stating that
the discovery of life on Mars would NOT confirm
abiogenesis...
Post by angelofdeath
Aside from a magical creation by a god, the concept that interstellar
seeds of life arrived on or in space rocks has a lot of steam behind it.
"Hot air," you mean. It seems the least likely to
me. Why? Because it would be so easy to confirm!
If life was an interstellar creation raining down
on planets, would should be able to find it today.
Localized abiogenesis is by far the more popular
There are as many obstacles stopping us from
visiting them as there are for them visiting
us.
How could you assume they have obstacles, unless you assume first they exist?
JTEM
2015-01-27 04:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
How could you assume they have obstacles, unless you assume first they exist?
I made no assumptions. I pointed out that the laws
of nature are the obstacles. And they are.

Back in the 1930s we did not know how to travel
faster than the speed of sound. But, there was
nothing in the laws of nature saying we couldn't.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109120682192
Mike
2015-01-27 04:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Mike
How could you assume they have obstacles, unless you assume first they exist?
I made no assumptions. I pointed out that the laws
of nature are the obstacles. And they are.
Back in the 1930s we did not know how to travel
faster than the speed of sound. But, there was
nothing in the laws of nature saying we couldn't.
But we knew even back then that sound could be modulated unto radio waves through frequency and amputated modulation, in essence transferring sound at the speed of light. Other things can be modulated into the electromagnetic spectrum, achieving essentially the same effect, light speed travel of information which is the essence of all things physical. A being could modulate and transmit itself as a genetic code on light, essentially achieving the same effect as light speed travel. If you limit yourself by your imagination, you might not look for or detect the right frequency or vibration.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109120682192
JTEM
2015-01-28 13:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
But we knew even back then that sound could be modulated
unto radio waves through frequency and amputated
modulation, in essence transferring sound at the speed
of light.
Apples & oranges. In this case, apples & Buicks you're
so off base...

The sound isn't traveling. You can easily prove this
to yourself with some simple experiments on the
Doppler Effect. This is the noticeable change in sound
as it moves in relation to the observer/listener.

A siren -- police, fire -- has a different sound when
it's moving TOWARDS you than it does when it's moving
AWAY from you...

You can't detect this with radio because they're
not transmitting sound, they're transmitting radio
waves. So, even with the simplest experiment we
can falsify your claim about sending sound at the
speed of light.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109327313459
Mike
2015-01-28 14:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Mike
But we knew even back then that sound could be modulated
unto radio waves through frequency and amputated
modulation, in essence transferring sound at the speed
of light.
Apples & oranges. In this case, apples & Buicks you're
so off base...
The sound isn't traveling. You can easily prove this
to yourself with some simple experiments on the
Doppler Effect. This is the noticeable change in sound
as it moves in relation to the observer/listener.
A siren -- police, fire -- has a different sound when
it's moving TOWARDS you than it does when it's moving
AWAY from you...
Everyone learns about the Doppler effect in kindergarten dude. The electron-magnetic equivalent is called the 'Red Shift'
Post by JTEM
You can't detect this with radio because they're
not transmitting sound, they're transmitting radio
waves. So, even with the simplest experiment we
can falsify your claim about sending sound at the
speed of light.
Let a life looser. You're just a total bullshitter.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109327313459
JTEM
2015-01-28 18:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Everyone learns about the Doppler effect in kindergarten dude.
And yet you had to be told about it on usenet.

Amazing!

So no, honey bunches of oats, sound isn't traveling
at the speed of light. You're welcome. Again.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109390401658
angelofdeath
2015-01-29 08:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Mike
Everyone learns about the Doppler effect in kindergarten dude.
And yet you had to be told about it on usenet.
Amazing!
So no, honey bunches of oats, sound isn't traveling
at the speed of light. You're welcome. Again.
Here's your favorite daily cereal regimen:

Loading Image...

That's the morning.

At night, it's this:

Loading Image...

:))~
angelofdeath
2015-01-27 07:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Well, LOL, there's the small matter of explaining how life
came to Earth.
Very true. And I did address this by stating that
the discovery of life on Mars would NOT confirm
abiogenesis...
Post by angelofdeath
Aside from a magical creation by a god, the concept that interstellar
seeds of life arrived on or in space rocks has a lot of steam behind it.
"Hot air," you mean. It seems the least likely to
me. Why? Because it would be so easy to confirm!
If life was an interstellar creation raining down
on planets, would should be able to find it today.
Localized abiogenesis is by far the more popular
idea.
Why would "should" we find it today? We might find it tomorrow or the
next day. Here's what you wrote earlier this month about what you now
discount, panspermia: (quote)


It's a very old claim, and it has NOTHING to do
with intelligent life in the universe, and
EVERYTHING to do with the origins of life...

Google "panspermia."

In it's purest form, panspermia is little different
than "The universe is alive." But one or more
variations on it is definitely plausible, and of
course they involve life traveling across space...

One variation has planets being cross contaminated
by life -- it jumps from Mars to the earth, say.
Another has life originating in space and then
falling on planets everywhere. Most planets, of
course, can't support it, but those that can...

*Bam*!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/ZlZIXOCJb1Y/YYwnUc7-irYJ

Yeah, you fucker, "bam!" You then said it's plausible, and of course
comets and asteroids may be carriers. Why wouldn't they be? There have
been two main theories on life creation on our planet: its' been
incubated here exclusively or its arrived from outer space. In a new
post today, I reference a SETI scientist who thinks both theories can be
merged - in subject header, "Panspermia very much alive theoretically."
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
I don't think we bipeds are unique or rare - far from it, in fact. I
expect that intelligent beings permeate the universe.
Yes you do. And that belief, and the fact that
nobody is willing to call you wrong, is what
fuels the UFO fantasy. You "Know" they're out
there, after all...
Since you admitted panspermia was plausible, why limit the evolution on
other planets to less than intelligent life? Just how many planets are
able to incubate life as we know it? Do you have a number you can rely
on? LOL!
Certainly you've trained your lil' mind to tune out the rational
possibilities, even as you contradict yourself on your stance on
panspermia. Your previous silly claim is that panspermia has "NOTHING"
to do with intelligent life propagating.
How have you come to this knowledge? Have you cosmic knowledge of all
planetary environments? Please inform the National Academy of Sciences
of your astounding knowledge.
Because the evidence has not yet been scientifically verified, despite
intriguing discoveries and studies on both possible panspermia evidence
in meteor fragments and visiting Earth without the space rock hitching.
It may be just a matter of time until that verification occurs.
Which theory is more "popular" doesn't pivot on either one having more
validity, since neither theory, abiogenesis nor panspermia, have enough
scientific evidence to move them beyond theory, popular or not.
Many examples of popular theories going down in flames from new
scientific discoveries.
Post by JTEM
But it's really two very different problems.
There are as many obstacles stopping us from
visiting them as there are for them visiting
us. And quite to the contrary of you fiction,
the issue isn't technology but the laws of
nature itself.
My "fiction" is countered by your theorizing. LOLOL! Oh, that theorizing
habit of yours utterly destroys my "fiction" which is simply the
encompassing of all rational possibilities. I don't expect that of all
the possible inhabited planets, somehow evolution was limited to lower
forms of life on all of them. Since we've got a LONG way to go in our
search for Goldilocks candidates out there, and we have no IDEA how many
there are, or even how many fucking planets there are! We'd have to know
the limits of our physical universe to know that. We're forced, too, to
acknowledge a simple sensible observation: if we're fucking here, it's
likely others something like us are elsewhere.
Again, the ol' tired skeptics' chestnut of maintaining the interstellar
distances prohibit aliens' visitations to earth, is dependent on a
constricted sense of the likely differences in evolution of each alien
species, their capabilities intellectual and technological, their
accumulated collective experience, and how much "distance" in IQ there
would be between their brains and ours.

The mathematical probabilities for their existence are good. That sets
into motion consideration of how far evolutionarily aliens have advanced
beyond our species. We know from our only bar standard, homo sapiens,
that only in the last two centuries, technological achievement and
science knowledge have exponentially increased. What two millenniums
could bring to our species in such advancement, is enough to rationally
consider an alien species finding solutions to interstellar travel
distances.

:)~
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
We're not the crowning achievement of evolution or godly construction.
That's just fantasy. You have no idea what's
out there. To the best of your knowledge, we
ARE the crowing achievement!
"Crowing", yes, but crowning, no.
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
If I were to accept that homo sapiens are on top of the tool-user pile,
I'd be dismayed if not downright depressed.
So, out of emotional necessity, you have decided
that you have knowledge where you have none.
You have scientific knowledge that there are no alien intelligences, then?

Please cough it up, don't keep gargling.

I don't know, anymore than you fucking do. We're discussing supposedly
theories and possibilities.

:))~ Try to follow along, please.
JTEM
2015-01-28 18:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Why would "should" we find it today? We might find
it tomorrow or
Great. That's not science. Again, it's RELIGION that
can never be falsified...
Post by angelofdeath
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/ZlZIXOCJb1Y/YYwnUc7-irYJ
This doesn't say what you think it says. No
surprise there...
Post by angelofdeath
Yeah, you fucker, "bam!" You then said it's plausible
No, you idiot, *Bam* meaning it hits them. It falls
on them. That's the theory. I make no statement
regarding plausibility. In fact, elsewhere I talked
about how I was convinced that this already happened
to an extent: The famous "Mars Rock" that supposedly
contained fossilized life.
Post by angelofdeath
and of course comets and asteroids may be carriers.
Even THIS should be easy enough to prove, and we
haven't.
Post by angelofdeath
Why wouldn't they be?
You're way outside of science here.
Post by angelofdeath
There have been two main theories on life creation
on our planet: its' been incubated here exclusively
or its arrived from outer space.
There's three actually:

It spontaneously formed here.
It spontaneously formed elsewhere then came here.
It is part of the universe, forming in or soon
after the big bang.

You can call religious creation the fourth popular
theory, but to be honest it's little different from
the third.
Post by angelofdeath
Since you admitted panspermia was plausible,
Possible. There is a difference. It has failed
to survive testing. Period.
Post by angelofdeath
why limit the evolution on other planets to
less than intelligent life?
You have yet to show life on any other planet.
Post by angelofdeath
Just how many planets are
able to incubate life as we know it?
One. The earth. There is not a lick of evidence
to support any other claim.
Post by angelofdeath
Do you have a number you can rely on?
Yes. One.
Post by angelofdeath
How have you come to this knowledge? Have you cosmic knowledge of all
planetary environments? Please inform the National Academy of Sciences
of your astounding knowledge.
This is a classic argument from ignorance. Again, you
would be thrown off of any high school debating team
with such nonsense...

"You don't know, so there could be giant ice skating
pickles on other planets, all singing 'Happy Birthday'
because they like to sing and they know the words to that
one!"
Post by angelofdeath
Because the evidence has not yet been scientifically verified
Going by science, there is no evidence to verify.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109390401658
angelofdeath
2015-01-29 07:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Why would "should" we find it today? We might find
it tomorrow or
Great. That's not science. Again, it's RELIGION that
can never be falsified...
Post by angelofdeath
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/ZlZIXOCJb1Y/YYwnUc7-irYJ
This doesn't say what you think it says. No
surprise there...
Post by angelofdeath
Yeah, you fucker, "bam!" You then said it's plausible
No, you idiot, *Bam* meaning it hits them. It falls
on them. That's the theory. I make no statement
regarding plausibility. In fact, elsewhere I talked
about how I was convinced that this already happened
to an extent: The famous "Mars Rock" that supposedly
contained fossilized life.
Post by angelofdeath
and of course comets and asteroids may be carriers.
Even THIS should be easy enough to prove, and we
haven't.
Post by angelofdeath
Why wouldn't they be?
You're way outside of science here.
Post by angelofdeath
There have been two main theories on life creation
on our planet: its' been incubated here exclusively
or its arrived from outer space.
It spontaneously formed here.
It spontaneously formed elsewhere then came here.
It is part of the universe, forming in or soon
after the big bang.
No, stupid. There are two. The last one is simply a variation on
panspermia.

I quote:

Panspermia is a Greek word that translates literally as "seeds
everywhere". The panspermia hypothesis states that the "seeds" of life
exist all over the Universe and can be propagated through space from one
location to another. Some believe that life on Earth may have originated
through these "seeds".

Mechanisms for panspermia include the deflection of interstellar dust by
solar radiation pressure and extremophile microorganisms traveling
through space within an asteroid, meteorite or comet.
http://www.panspermia-theory.com/
Post by JTEM
You can call religious creation the fourth popular
theory, but to be honest it's little different from
the third.
Post by angelofdeath
Since you admitted panspermia was plausible,
Possible. There is a difference. It has failed
to survive testing. Period.
Post by angelofdeath
why limit the evolution on other planets to
less than intelligent life?
You have yet to show life on any other planet.
Post by angelofdeath
Just how many planets are
able to incubate life as we know it?
One. The earth. There is not a lick of evidence
to support any other claim.
Post by angelofdeath
Do you have a number you can rely on?
Yes. One.
Yep, that's exactly right. ONE. LOLOL! And only ONE came to have this
revolting destructive insane species. Only ONE to base all your
objections to having more than ONE.

"Hey, I found ONE ancient fish every scientist said was long extinct, a
prehistoric fossil. But there just can't be another one out there! No,
it's really impossible, no scientific proof to show there are TWO!!"

I quote:

For a while, the reputation of the Coelacanth was debated by those
researchers who accepted it as an extant organism, and skeptics who did
not believe the creature still existed. Despite local legends and
stories from fishermen, until a few decades ago there still wasn’t
enough proof to convince mainstream science that the fish was still alive.

Fishermen along the coast of South Africa had been catching the
occasional Coelacanth for years. Known to them as the Gombessa, it has
no value as food and is seen as bycatch rather than something they
intentionally fish for. But back in 1938, when a museum official
happened upon a recently caught specimen brought in by a South African
fishing trawler, the fossil fish came back to life.

The original discovery was not without controversy. Because the specimen
was not properly preserved many academics dismissed the findings,
claiming a case of mistaken identity. It took until 1952 for the next
specimen to surface before modern science fully embraced the idea that
this fish was still around. Another species of Coelacanth was discovered
in 1998, this time in the waters of Indonesia.

There are presently two species of extant Coelacanth, the West Indian
and Indonesian, although some researchers speculate there could be more
to be found. For now, it’s considered an endangered species, with an
estimated thousand or so wild specimens out there.
http://cryptid.hubpages.com/hub/Coelacanth-Fish-Tops-List-Prehistoric-Animals-Found-Alive

If this planet gave birth to us, another planet did the same to an
intelligent species. Just makes common sense to a normal intelligent mind.

The chances that humans were the only tool-builders created in the
universe is probably one of the most insular, foolish, constricted
mindsets around.

Is there something about assholes like us being on another planet that
has you repulsed or scared?

LOL! :))~
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
How have you come to this knowledge? Have you cosmic knowledge of all
planetary environments? Please inform the National Academy of Sciences
of your astounding knowledge.
This is a classic argument from ignorance. Again, you
would be thrown off of any high school debating team
with such nonsense...
"You don't know, so there could be giant ice skating
pickles on other planets, all singing 'Happy Birthday'
because they like to sing and they know the words to that
one!"
Post by angelofdeath
Because the evidence has not yet been scientifically verified
Going by science, there is no evidence to verify.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109390401658
JTEM
2015-01-29 14:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelofdeath
Post by JTEM
It spontaneously formed here.
It spontaneously formed elsewhere then came here.
It is part of the universe, forming in or soon
after the big bang.
No, stupid. There are two. The last one is simply a variation on
panspermia.
No. The last one _Is_ panspermia. It was how the
"Theory" was conceived. Life exists. It just is. It
formed with the universe. AND THEN is landed on
planets. *That* was panspermia.

True, original "Panspermia" is indistinguishable
from religious creation.
Post by angelofdeath
Panspermia is a Greek word that translates literally as "seeds
everywhere". The panspermia hypothesis states that the "seeds" of life
exist all over the Universe and can be propagated through space from one
location to another. Some believe that life on Earth may have originated
through these "seeds".
Which is totally different from life forming on
another world than being ejected into space,
eventually landing here. It's also different from
life forming in a nebula and eventually falling
here. It IS, as conceived, the thought that this
life, these "Seeds" formed with the universe and
are hence "Everywhere."
Post by angelofdeath
"Hey, I found ONE ancient fish every scientist said
was long extinct, a prehistoric fossil. But there
just can't be another one out there!
That's idiocy, as this "Prehistoric Fossil" in your
metaphor represents alien life, and nobody anywhere
has found any.

Thus, your argument here is that FINDING a living
example of a species is exactly the same as NOT
finding one. They both provide you with as much
reason to extrapolate great populations...

Again, it's idiocy.
Post by angelofdeath
For a while, the reputation of the Coelacanth
So what you're saying is that WE FOUND the
Coelacanth and that's exactly equivalent to
NOT finding aliens...

Third time: Idiocy!
Post by angelofdeath
If this planet gave birth to us, another planet did the same to an
intelligent species.
This is a non sequitur.

Science doesn't say, "If it happened once, it had
to happen a million times." What science requires
is that if it happened once, IF and WHEN those exact
same conditions are met it will happen again. But,
as you have not the faintest clue as to WHAT those
conditions may be, it is impossible to speculate on
their prevalence.

Also...

Even YOUR VERY OWN MODEL requires that there be a
first. An oldest. A smartest. A most advanced. And
without any data what so ever on the prevalence of
such life forms, with ZERO means for determining a
start, you have earth life as way younger and less
advanced than any number of other UNSUPPORTED life
forms...
Post by angelofdeath
The chances that humans were the only tool-builders created in the
universe is probably one of the most insular, foolish, constricted
mindsets around.
Science doesn't give a rats ass about chance. Where &
when water will boil, it will boil. It will always
boil. You can alter the temperature in which it will
boil by changing certain parameters, but the same
truth applies: Water will always boil at the new
temperature. There is no "Percentage Chance" at all.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109441604733

angelofdeath
2015-01-29 08:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
Why would "should" we find it today? We might find
it tomorrow or
Great. That's not science. Again, it's RELIGION that
can never be falsified...
Post by angelofdeath
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/ZlZIXOCJb1Y/YYwnUc7-irYJ
This doesn't say what you think it says. No
surprise there...
Post by angelofdeath
Yeah, you fucker, "bam!" You then said it's plausible
No, you idiot, *Bam* meaning it hits them. It falls
on them. That's the theory. I make no statement
regarding plausibility. In fact, elsewhere I talked
about how I was convinced that this already happened
to an extent: The famous "Mars Rock" that supposedly
contained fossilized life.
Post by angelofdeath
and of course comets and asteroids may be carriers.
Even THIS should be easy enough to prove, and we
haven't.
Post by angelofdeath
Why wouldn't they be?
You're way outside of science here.
I never said I was within "science" but science involves consideration
of rational possibilities, that first become hypotheses. And the ETH is
a rational proposal.
What is irrational is your unfortunate psychotic aversion to considering
that possibility as hypothesis.
If one is to consider life being created in a universe sans the
planetary incubators - as per your "third" theory which is nothing more
than a variation of panspermia - then you're obviously considering the
possibility that life somehow was created without the environment that
creates life as we know it.
So therefore, you are proposing yet one more argument FOR alien life to
exist and to evolve to our stage. How did this life without the
necessary environments ever come to be? EH?
Does your third theory posit that microorganisms don't need planetary
environments to propagate? Well, shit, yes, it does!
Yes, thank you, stupid, for another theory in support of exo-life
propagating on planets - which rationally includes the possibility it
evolved to our fucking level.
You ingrate.
:))~
Post by JTEM
Post by angelofdeath
There have been two main theories on life creation
on our planet: its' been incubated here exclusively
or its arrived from outer space.
It spontaneously formed here.
It spontaneously formed elsewhere then came here.
It is part of the universe, forming in or soon
after the big bang.
You can call religious creation the fourth popular
theory, but to be honest it's little different from
the third.
Post by angelofdeath
Since you admitted panspermia was plausible,
Possible.
No plausible is the word you used. Plausible is different from possible.

You can define something possible in mathematical terms as having a non
null probability of being true.

As for plausible, the concept does not draw on mathematics but rather on
mere common sense. The etymology is the same as applause. Something is
plausible it it's acceptable (loosely: if it deserves applause). That is
to say if its probability is reasonable.

If you add probable and likely in the equation, you can order theses
adjectives by ascending probability as follows:

possible => plausible => probable = likely.

So, moron, what is it that you're now asserting? It's "possible" or
"plausible" - make up your confused mind, please.



There is a difference. It has failed
Post by JTEM
to survive testing. Period.
Post by angelofdeath
why limit the evolution on other planets to
less than intelligent life?
You have yet to show life on any other planet.
Post by angelofdeath
Just how many planets are
able to incubate life as we know it?
One. The earth. There is not a lick of evidence
to support any other claim.
Post by angelofdeath
Do you have a number you can rely on?
Yes. One.
Post by angelofdeath
How have you come to this knowledge? Have you cosmic knowledge of all
planetary environments? Please inform the National Academy of Sciences
of your astounding knowledge.
This is a classic argument from ignorance. Again, you
would be thrown off of any high school debating team
with such nonsense...
"You don't know, so there could be giant ice skating
pickles on other planets, all singing 'Happy Birthday'
because they like to sing and they know the words to that
one!"
Post by angelofdeath
Because the evidence has not yet been scientifically verified
Going by science, there is no evidence to verify.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/109390401658
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...