Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:Life seems pretty sustainable here. That might be a plus.

Then again, would life here be sustainable to alien life? Maybe after a few changes.

Yes, but there are considerable downsides to using a planetary mass; living at the bottom of a gravity well isn't always the best way to support a population at the technology level where interstellar transportation is possible.

Even before interstellar transporation, the idea of chucking the gravity well model of habitation would be a logical one. This was the primary goal of the old L5 society. Why settle for a rare rock with all the necessary conditions when you can build this ...

[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Internal_view_of_the_Stanford_torus.jpg[/bigimg]

Or even this ...

[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Spacecolony3edit.jpeg[/bigimg]

That doesn't even consider one of the biggest obstacles to interstellar transportation; assuming you can get to speeds fast enough to reasonably cover light years, you have to get to that speed first. That requires massive acceleration and accereration is indistinguishable from gravity. Solve that problem and you have solved all artificial gravity problems. Building colonies inside large high gravity gas giants themselves would also not be a problem and they would be a better source of raw materials than small rock core inner planets.

I just have to remind everyone that some parts of the Universe are like 100 billion times as old as Earth. Intelligent Alien Life could have 100 billion times as long as us already to have developed these technologies.

Is the problem of germs solvable though?

@ tzor,
Where did you get those nifty watercolors from ?

We shouldn't presume that alien life would be constrained by the limits of our technology or understanding of physics..

Juan_Bottom wrote:I just have to remind everyone that some parts of the Universe are like 100 billion times as old as Earth. Intelligent Alien Life could have 100 billion times as long as us already to have developed these technologies.

Is the problem of germs solvable though?

This is true, but you need to have a series of supernovae in order to generate the heavy elements (anything heavier than oxygen) that are vital to a variety of odd functions within living organisms. The Swift orbiting observatory spotted the oldest observable supernova at 13 billion years ago. (Article here).

Still, that is a long time ago. It is believed that the supernova that triggered our own solar formation occured 4.5 billion years ago. But once you factor in the two vastely different scales of the universe (astronomical time vs inteligent life progression time) a billion years here or there could be a vast difference in technology difference.

I don't think germs or even viriuses would be a problem. I don't think alien life would even remotely have the DNA/RNA construction sequence that those similiar systems use to fake out living cells. It would sort of be like a computer virus for an IMB PC trying to infect an old IBM 360 mainframe.

porkenbeans wrote:@ tzor,
Where did you get those nifty watercolors from ?

Wiki

.

GabonX wrote:All of this seems like common sense to me. I would have considered it under Hawking's level..

.. My guess is that he feels the need to accentuate these points for the misguided and the skeptics.

I read this article the other day. I think the guy just uses his fame to make a buck off of the English, who seem fascinated by him.

I was thinking the same thing... Didnt we have movies like 50 years ago about spaceships coming down and ZAPPIng earthlings. lol. Maybe he jsut dumbed it down for television.


I love this quote btw "To my mathematical mind" ... I mean what does that frigging mean? That only a mathmatician can understand that the universe borders on the infinite and that there probably are other life forms?

The rest of us non "mathematical mind" people just need to relax and trust what the mathematical minds tell us. lol.

.

Lionz wrote:Isaiah 24:21

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/isa24.htm

You have anything in there about dark matter? Steve wouldnt mind a hand with that I bet.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I hear atmospheres are particurarly useful. Why build the glass tube when it's safer to build behind the protection of a self-sustaining and completely free system like atmospheres similar to Earth's?

Atmospheres are useful, the question is: how do you contain one? The use of a “gravity well” is very ineffective. In the first place you have the inconvenience of that gravity well every time you want to enter and leave the colony. The second problem is that the system is prone to leaks. The later limits options to those planets that are actively outsourcing enough gasses to replace the gasses lost to space. In addition you are limited to a practical size, unless you want to design hollow worlds and in which case it’s a whole lot easier to contain atmospheres by physical containment than by gravity or centrifugal force.

Once you get into real vast distance interstellar travelling civilizations you are probably into the ring world structures with populations in the tens of trillions, making planetary habitation only suitable for quaint tourist destinations.

I think that most of your concerns regarding gravity can be addressed by the advent of a space elevator..

.. which they are working on.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

army of nobunaga wrote:

GabonX wrote:All of this seems like common sense to me. I would have considered it under Hawking's level..

.. My guess is that he feels the need to accentuate these points for the misguided and the skeptics.

I love this quote btw "To my mathematical mind" ... I mean what does that frigging mean? That only a mathmatician can understand that the universe borders on the infinite and that there probably are other life forms?

The rest of us non "mathematical mind" people just need to relax and trust what the mathematical minds tell us. lol.

Keep in mind it's an excerpt from an interview or perhaps a writing of his, so it's hard to determine the underlying meaning in such a phrase.

To me that just means he's reinforcing the view onto the public that this is just the way he thinks--in a very mathematical manner. It serves to remind the reader where he's coming from, and how such a view may limit but also enable certain points of view on the topic.

He in no way stated that a suberb knowledge of math beats down anyone's opinions on this matter; you just imposed your opinions onto his.

No dude... I just think when one puts a qualifying statement or a validating statement before they make their opinion ,in the same sentence, based on fact it looks and sounds dumb.
I have never read a picasso interview where he is talking about one of his latest trends say something like "Im my fluid art mind, I believe this trend of adding congruent colors to the oposition of the theme will be appreciated" .... No he didnt, because it sounds dumb.

He has television gigs, BECAUSE he has a mathamatical mind and ppl want to hear his opinion. Not because he is pretty or has great acting skills. Making validating statements in the same sentence, just kind of, well makes me smile.