Terraforming Mars

[dcmike]

Modest - you are a refreshing voice, as your name implies.

 

As I said before enlightnment is always preceeded by humility. The human ego is necessary for survival but if it reaches Nietzschean proportians it can cloud the logic.

 

Though I don't doubt their existence, I have never met an Übermensch!

[dcmike]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

"no one has suggested the absoluteness of any of these things but there is evidence for them and in some cases it is more over whelming than the evidence of the cause of gravity."

 

I would beg to disagree, though you have not been as consistently autoritarian as Thunderbird.

 

Also, gravity is well understood now as caused by the warping of time and space and the resultant pushing back by the force that was displaced by the body displacing it. There is no such thing as empty space - there is no vacancy in space. Ninety six percent of all matter is invisible (dark matter and dark energy) but there none the less. When a planet, asteroid, etc gains mass it pushes what was there out of it's way, like when we get into a bath tub - except there is no where for the "water" to go, so force is created. Dark matter and dark energy, though they are not tangible in the way we are familiar with, exert gravitational force.

 

Earth literally "free falls" around the Sun - riding the flange of that warp like a rollercoaster on the down trip. Unlike a rollercoaster, Earth is never slowed down - there is no up or down out there.

 

On the other hand I know of no conclusive proof of where the first microbe here originated from - do you?

 

Forgive me for reciting - I usually like to keep it philosophical.

[freeztar]

Forgive me for reciting - I usually like to keep it philosophical.

 

And therein lies the crux...

 

I agree with you, dcmike, that lack of evidence does not mean unproveable.

If we could place all the evidence for either claim on a scale, the scale would certainly favor a terrestrial abiogenesis model. Nonetheless, this does nothing to discredit the possibility of exogenesis. I personally prefer the terrestrial abiogenesis model, but I can't say that it is "right".

 

This is a philosophical argument.

 

I do hope that this thread can return to the topic of Terraforming Mars. :)

[dcmike]

And therein lies the crux...

 

I agree with you, dcmike, that lack of evidence does not mean unproveable.

If we could place all the evidence for either claim on a scale, the scale would certainly favor a terrestrial abiogenesis model. Nonetheless, this does nothing to discredit the possibility of exogenesis. I personally prefer the terrestrial abiogenesis model, but I can't say that it is "right".

 

This is a philosophical argument.

 

I do hope that this thread can return to the topic of Terraforming Mars. :)

 

I agree with you about the scale - for the moment at least! But, as I said we have no way of knowing which, or all of the above. They may well all have had their moment for all we know. There is a revolution going on and it seems that almost everything is up for grabs now.

 

The Catholic Church, at the demand of Emperor Constantine, solved the debate of "Is Jesus a God, a man or the son of God?" They invented the Holy Trinity - "He's all three at once - problem solved!!" Now that's what I call a solution.

 

And you are only the second to catch that mine was a philosophical debate. This all started with an offhand remark about a couple of interesting theories I heard (a "what if we threw a war and nobody came" kind of thing) and it was met with a flood of authoritarian dogma. Forgive me if I entertained myself with the results. ;-}

[Moontanman]

And therein lies the crux...

 

I agree with you, dcmike, that lack of evidence does not mean unproveable.

If we could place all the evidence for either claim on a scale, the scale would certainly favor a terrestrial abiogenesis model. Nonetheless, this does nothing to discredit the possibility of exogenesis. I personally prefer the terrestrial abiogenesis model, but I can't say that it is "right".

 

This is a philosophical argument.

 

I do hope that this thread can return to the topic of Terraforming Mars. :)

 

Changing the genesis of life to an extraterrestrial source does nothing to solve the problem of whence did life originate and how. It's turtles all the way down......

 

Terra forming mars would best be done by genetic engineering, engineering Terran plants to live on the surface of mars and slowly changing the environment as they do so would be the key. while I'd like to see giant stands of genetically engineered trees it's more likely to bacteria and or at best something like lichen. Of course we could colonize mars and pump the atmosphere full of waste chloro-flouro-carbons:doh:

[Moontanman]

It was indelibly engraved in stone tablets that nothing can go faster than the speed of light - but a German professor proved that wrong by sending and then retreiving data (intact) at nearly five times the speed of light. That opens up the possibility of some sort of time travel - even if only retrieval of information.

 

I'm tired of this discussion, do you have a link to this experiment, I would like to read about this.

[Moontanman]

What evidence do you have in mind?

 

-modest

 

Lately most of the evidence I've read about comes from inside bacterial cells themselves. Lots of theories, lots of evidence no absolute proof, either you see abiogenesis as the way it happened or you believe in a super natural creator. I think the idea of abiogenesis is much more likely given the evidence of the way chemical reactions can be pushed to complexity by surplus energy. So far I see no evidence of a super natural creator, sublime or other wise.

[freeztar]

either you see abiogenesis as the way it happened or you believe in a super natural creator.

 

;) :)

I prefer abiogenesis, but I do not completely discount exogenesis. This does not mean that I believe in a supernatural creator. I prefer exogenesis to panspermia for this reason.

 

I think the idea of abiogenesis is much more likely given the evidence of the way chemical reactions can be pushed to complexity by surplus energy.

 

I wholeheartedly agree! :)

[Moontanman]

;) :)

I prefer abiogenesis, but I do not completely discount exogenesis. This does not mean that I believe in a supernatural creator. I prefer exogenesis to panspermia for this reason.

 

I have to ask, how is exogenesis any different than abiogenesis or panspermia? I really am not clear on these three if there is any real difference.

 

I wholeheartedly agree! :)

 

Me too.

[CraigD]

It was indelibly engraved in stone tablets that nothing can go faster than the speed of light - but a German professor proved that wrong by sending and then retreiving data (intact) at nearly five times the speed of light. That opens up the possibility of some sort of time travel - even if only retrieval of information.

I'm tired of this discussion, do you have a link to this experiment, I would like to read about this.

We’ve discussed the experiment in frustrated total internal reflection and quantum tunneling described in Nimtz and Stahlhofen’s 2007 paper “Macroscopic violation of special relativity” in threads 12558,

12750, and, most in-depth, I think, around post ”A theoretical way to communicate FTL/back in time & an additional Clarke-esque law” of thread “FTL Communication”. The wikipedia article “Günter Nimtz” also has a brief description of the experiment and various responses to it.

 

Assuming, as one may from the paper’s Feynman diagram (Figure 2) that the tunneling time is actually zero, the actual speed of the signal is [math]v = \frac{a+b}{an} c[/math], where [math]a[/math] is the total light path length through the prisms, [math]b[/math] is the gap between them, [math]n[/math] is the refractive index of their material, and [math]c[/math] the speed of light in vacuum.

 

The paper gives [math]n=1.6[/math] and (indirectly) [math]a = 0.2 \,\mbox{m}[/math], from which we can calculate that [math]v > c[/math] when [math]b > 0.24 \,\mbox{m}[/math]. The paper does not describe [math]b[/math], other than indirectly in the Figure 1 illustration, where it appears to be about 0.1 m, a distance that would not result in a signal speed greater than c. The wikipedia article “Günter Nimtz” states

Photons can be detected behind the prisma at the right side until the gap exceeds approx. one meter

, which would.

 

Clearly, an authoritative value for [math]b[/math] is critical for the reader to determining whether the experiment demonstrates actual FTL signaling. I find the lack of such data, and of experimental verification by other scientists, suspicious and disturbing

 

In short, and in my opinion, the FTL effect illustrated and measured in Nimtz and Stahlhofen’s experiment are not prohibited by physical law. The apparent contradiction between special relativity, which prohibits FTL signaling by postulate, and quantum electrodynamic, which does not, is removed by the observation that SR is a classical, not a quantum mechanical, theory. However, QM typically assumes that macroscopic effects are statistically bound to the postulates of relativity, leaving me uncertain of the implications of the described effect.

 

I’ll started a thread “Is Nimtz and Stahlhofen’s FTL signaling for real?”, to discuss these questions, soon. I’ll also split this thread as necessary to keep it on its original topic, while not losing its many off-topic posts.

[Moontanman]

We’ve discussed the experiment in frustrated total internal reflection and quantum tunneling described in Nimtz and Stahlhofen’s 2007 paper “Macroscopic violation of special relativity” in threads 12558,

12750, and, most in-depth, I think, around post ”A theoretical way to communicate FTL/back in time & an additional Clarke-esque law” of thread “FTL Communication”. The wikipedia article “Günter Nimtz” also has a brief description of the experiment and various responses to it.

 

Assuming, as one may from the paper’s Feynman diagram (Figure 2) that the tunneling time is actually zero, the actual speed of the signal is [math]v = frac{a+b}{an} c[/math], where [math]a[/math] is the total light path length through the prisms, [math]b[/math] is the gap between them, [math]n[/math] is the refractive index of their material, and [math]c[/math] the speed of light in vacuum.

 

The paper gives [math]n=1.6[/math] and (indirectly) [math]a = 0.2 ,mbox{m}[/math], from which we can calculate that [math]v > c[/math] when [math]b > 0.24 ,mbox{m}[/math]. The paper does not describe [math]b[/math], other than indirectly in the Figure 1 illustration, where it appears to be about 0.1 m, a distance that would not result in a signal speed greater than c. The wikipedia article “Günter Nimtz” states

Photons can be detected behind the prisma at the right side until the gap exceeds approx. one meter

, which would.

 

Clearly, an authoritative value for [math]b[/math] is critical for the reader to determining whether the experiment demonstrates actual FTL signaling. I find the lack of such data, and of experimental verification by other scientists, suspicious and disturbing

 

In short, and in my opinion, the FTL effect illustrated and measured in Nimtz and Stahlhofen’s experiment are not prohibited by physical law. The apparent contradiction between special relativity, which prohibits FTL signaling by postulate, and quantum electrodynamic, which does not, is removed by the observation that SR is a classical, not a quantum mechanical, theory. However, QM typically assumes that macroscopic effects are statistically bound to the postulates of relativity, leaving me uncertain of the implications of the described effect.

 

I’ll started a thread “Is Nimtz and Stahlhofen’s FTL signaling for real?”, to discuss these questions, soon. I’ll also split this thread as necessary to keep it on its original topic, while not losing its many off-topic posts.

 

Splitting this thread is a good idea, I think it has already been split more than once and I would not want to see many of the thread lost. I would like to follow up on the FTL signaling at some point. It is bad that such claims are often made of violating some premise and then not followed up and the idea is often used far outside it's context with out question.

[dcmike]

"............a German professor proved that wrong by sending and then retreiving data (intact) at nearly five times the speed of light."

 

"....I'm tired of this discussion, do you have a link to this experiment"

 

____________________________________________________

 

I think everybody is tired of this discussion! I provided a link but that is not the point now. At this point it is not a scholarly debate but a game of primordial dominance (like one male dog trying to hump another male dog to retain rank). My original remark was (MOL) "what if we terra formed mars and an organism (very resilient but rendered dormant by formerly extremely harsh conditions) emerged, invigorated by more favorable conditions, to be extremely virulent to humans".

 

The only intelligent answer would be "what a drag - if it happened!!" Since we are not in possession of all knowledge of all variables of all possibilities of all variations of all life forms in the entire universe we can not say with authority what can or can not not possibly occur in the rare incidence.

 

Out of respect to Freeztar (a moderator here) I withdraw from this melee. It was originally relevant (merely as a sidebar) to terra forming Mars, but now all serious contenders (self included) appear to withdraw from further posturing.

 

I only engage in discussions like this to learn, and so far all I have learned from this and other various groups (of varied subject matters) is the majority of posts are made by ego deprived megalomaniacs who are out to show off. I have yet to find a discussion group dominated by "discussers". How boring is monotonous predictability.

 

To all serious, scholorly posters - you are not included in my diatribe

[belovelife]

i just read that some mushrooms are tough in the presence of radiation and actually grow better

 

i also threw up a theory

have you put aluminum foil in the microwave

bad idea right

but why

it creates plasma that can find its way to ground via wires(the energy that causes the plasma)

so if we took a ton of solar pannels, put them in space orbiting mars

shot a highly focused microwave beam

to dishes on the surface

not only would we power any facilities we had there

we wold also warm the atmoshere

 

now as far as getting that magnetic field

remember in elementary school

when you took the magnet and rubbed the scissors

well if we gathered enough material from say the asteroid in N.E.O.

status and other debrit from the asteroid belt and created a moon

then mabe we could induce a magnetic field

thats my lineof thought on the subject

either that or have hundreds of strong solar powered elctro magnets orbiting the planet with the main purpose of creating an artificial magnetic field

[Moontanman]

I’ll started a thread “Is Nimtz and Stahlhofen’s FTL signaling for real?”, to discuss these questions, soon. I’ll also split this thread as necessary to keep it on its original topic, while not losing its many off-topic posts.

 

Craig, did you ever start this thread?

[belovelife]

on the travel to mars thing

with the orion rocket series

there is a plan to send an unmanned one first

with hydrogen onboard

then when it lands

it is sopposed to convert the co2+2(H2) ->CH4+O2

FOR THE RETURN FLIGHT HOME

basically methane rocket fuel

and when the lander comes

they should be able to put the methane production plant in their module

fly home while more fuel is created for the next mission

[belovelife]

although i'm not a chem major

is there more potential energy in hydrogen peroxide

HO+H=H2O

per volumetric ratio?

i'm sure someone has the calculation

[CraigD]

I’ll started a thread “Is Nimtz and Stahlhofen’s FTL signaling for real?”, to discuss these questions, soon. I’ll also split this thread as necessary to keep it on its original topic, while not losing its many off-topic posts.

 

Craig, did you ever start this thread?Craig, did you ever start this thread?

No, so please feel free to start it for us. :evil:

 

I think 12558 has profound implications, which are being under-discussed at hypography, the greater science enthusiast community, and even academic and commercial science. Even if, as at least two papers (Herbert G. Winful’s 'Comment on “Macroscopic violation of special relativity” by Nimtz and Stahlhofen' and Chris Lee’s 'Latest "faster than the speed of light" claims wrong (again)') state, Himitz and Stahlhofen's claims are wrong (or “worse than wrong”), they're still both interesting and, I think, important.