Outer Space

Human beings have always been interested in space. In the oceans too, but why should the oceans be more valid than space?

And I agree that sending humans to other planets is a dumb idea, at least for a long time. The money would be better spent, in my opinion, making computers and robots smart enough to do the exploration.

 

I gotta just cringe when people say "We will colonize Mars" and "mine the asteroid belts"...

Many people don't realize the space program, including Hubbel, is in place primarily for reasons beneficial to the Department of defense.
think about it

ZW

 

it just amazes me the number of people who are all gung-ho about a mission to mars.

At one time, I maybe thought it was a "cool" idea... but then when you take a hard look on how much better the money could be spent else where...don't make any sense at all.

In fact it's really a very foolish endeavor.

 

The Children of Poseidon


Hotwater

 

in fact the Space Shovel... I mean Shuttle was originally suppose to have been turned over to the DOD in the 90's

 

It is difficult to deny the vast amount of knowledge the space program has given us...Man always benefits from knowledge, right?
At what cost?

Quick fact..
"NASA will eventually spend more than $100 billion (yes, billion) to boldly go by 2018 where we've already gone — the geologically dead, inhospitable moon."

P.S. Then again it doesn't sound like much when you consider we are burnin' up at least $11,000,000 per hour in Iraq...

ZW

 

"the holograhic universe" is a pretty good book.

 

that's true, i've been starting to think about this kind of stuff more and more and i'm still in high school.


although i don't get as deep into it as i could. but every so often it can all be pretty fascinating to just sit and think about.

 

From wiki..
The Holographic Universe is a book by Michael Talbot exploring the idea that the universe is a hologram. After examining the work of physicist David Bohm and neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, both of whom independently arrived at holographic theories or models of the universe, the book argues that a holographic model could explain various paranormal and anomalous phenomena, and provide a basis for mystical experience.


When ya start talkin' bout psuedo-scientific paranormal shit, We gotta part ways...Caliente?

ZW

 

I used to make holograms ... well i used to help my friend make holograms would be more correct.

They are interference patterns from the same laser light coming in at different directions.

Not sure how the would relate to the universe being a hologram

and ZW... yeah we have gotten some benefits ... I kind of feel that we have tapped out and will not get much more..certainly not from going to the moon again or mars

 

I didn't start talking about it ... you did.

 

No, kinulpture did when he brought up that book. I just thought you were interested in that kind of thing...


ZW

 

one doesn`t have to believe everything in a book. it`s only a book. experience is far better than that. it`s called subject & objective points of view. most of what we know @moment is prettymuch pseudo. this, simply cuz of the fact that much hasn`t been proven yet. for one thing, "we" can only "see" just a small part of the color spectrum. we can`t see into infrared &/or ultraviolet. @ some point in our past, people only theorized about these. & possibly, these may have encroached into visible colors from time, like heat waves or mirages. some church may have said these were only the work of the devil. so, someone invented a device to detect them. & that`s just the color spectrum, but many things were derived from that. these are called spin-offs. because of infrared or maybe ultraviolet, i`m not sure which, we can now & have been for a long time able to detect the human aura. this once may have been a myth. we can also see @ night, now. we tend to take a great many things for granted in our current development.

 

sorry i get kinda relentless sometimes, here`s the 2 guys from the book, doesn`t look pseudo to me. but i`ve been studying this a long time, like 30 years:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pribram's holonomic model of brain processing states that, in addition to the circuitry accomplished by the large fiber tracts in the brain, processing also occurs in webs of fine fiber branches (for instance, dendrites) that form webs. This type of processing is properly described by Gabor quanta of information, wavelets that are used in quantum holography, the basis of fMRI, PET scans and other image processing procedures.
Gabor wavelets are windowed Fourier transforms that convert complex spatial (and temporal) patterns into component waves whose amplitudes at their intersections become reinforced or diminished. Fourier processes are the basis of holography. Holograms can correlate and store a huge amount of information - and have the advantage that the inverse transform returns the results of correlation into the spatial and temporal patterns that guide us in navigating our universe.
David Bohm had suggested that were we to view the cosmos without the lenses that outfit our telescopes, the universe would appear to us as a hologram. Pribram extended this insight by noting that were we deprived of the lenses of our eyes and the lens like processes of our other sensory receptors, we would be immersed in holographic experiences.

Bohm was alarmed by what he considered an increasing imbalance of not only 'man' and nature, but among peoples, as well as people, themselves. Bohm: "So one begins to wonder what is going to happen to the human race. Technology keeps on advancing with greater and greater power, either for good or for destruction." He goes on to ask:

What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%.
​

In Bohm's view:

...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us. Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence".
​

Bohm thus proposes in his book, Thought as a System, a pervasive, systematic nature of thought:

What I mean by "thought" is the whole thing - thought, felt, the body, the whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process. It is essential for me not to break that up, because it's all one process; somebody else's thoughts becomes my thoughts, and vice versa. Therefore it would be wrong and misleading to break it up into my thoughts, your thoughts, my feelings, these feelings, those feelings... I would say that thought makes what is often called in modern language a system. A system means a set of connected things or parts. But the way people commonly use the word nowadays it means something all of whose parts are mutually interdependent - not only for their mutual action, but for their meaning and for their existence. A corporation is organized as a system - it has this department, that department, that department. They don't have any meaning separately; they only can function together. And also the body is a system. Society is a system in some sense. And so on. Similarly, thought is a system. That system not only includes thoughts, "felts" and feelings, but it includes the state of the body; it includes the whole of society - as thought is passing back and forth between people in a process by which thought evolved from ancient times. A system is constantly engaged in a process of development, change, evolution and structure changes...although there are certain features of the system which become relatively fixed. We call this the structure.... Thought has been constantly evolving and we can't say when that structure began. But with the growth of civilization it has developed a great deal. It was probably very simple thought before civilization, and now it has become very complex and ramified and has much more incoherence than before. Now, I say that this system has a fault in it - a "systematic fault". It is not a fault here, there or here, but it is a fault that is all throughout the system. Can you picture that? It is everywhere and nowhere. You may say "I see a problem here, so I will bring my thoughts to bear on this problem". But "my" thought is part of the system. It has the same fault as the fault I'm trying to look at, or a similar fault. Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates.
​

 

I've always been fascinated with astrophysics, and the whole idea of us being on a tiny speck in an infinite ocean of black; as for oceanography and exploring the depths of consciousness explore on. New discoveries in each of them should newer discoveries in other areas in science. Ocean floor is amazing and atleast visiting atleast some parts of the ocean is much easier than space.

 

i understand fully where most folks come from about the spending aspect of aerospace. but, oftimes the reality ain`t wot ya think. actually very little is spent on aerospace. i happen to have been on a website for many years called space.com. & unfortunately we had a server crash a few years ago, so much of mine & other writings are lost forever. it actually took me a couple of years & much grappling on there to earn respect because i have no college degrees. but i learned & taught quite a bit on there. another thing i`ve learned is that space exploration is easier than. & i was informed of this by different oceanographers themselves on several occasions. for one thing, the water pressure is harder to deal with than a less pressure the higher up you go. there are other factors, but i can`t remember them now. & actually going to Mars is easier than a MoonReturn. one factor is the Atmosphere of Mars allows one to AeroBrake, rather than RetroRocket. & one must change many more orbits for the Moon. I may go into this later, but once this has gotten past, Returning to the Moon is better than going to Mars @ this time. & i think because of our arguments on space.com, some have decided to return to the Moon rather than mars. the server crash happened @ about that time. i didn`t wanna go into all this now, but i`m kinda in the mood as it were.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I don't think it has to be either-or with space exploration and undersea exploration. Human beings have always been infinitely curious about their world, as well as beyond it. To give up space exploration would be to give up part of what makes us human.

The issue in my mind is how you go about that exploration. Sending a manned expedition to Mars would be orders of magnitude more expensive than the smartest robot, and only incrementally more useful. To me, therefore, it seems much more cost-effective to put the money into developing genius robots, which would presumably also have more immediate benefits on earth as well.

 

i`m quite interested in Ocean Exploration too, actually perhaps i shoulda mentioned this earlier. By the way, Cali, may i pm you?

 

There are interesting connections between the Ocean & Space. Though this is in fresh water, most all artifacts(suits,vehicles,stations,etc.) bound for Space are tested in water.
& i`ve been thinking the last few years what the difference would be between testing in fresh & salt. if i`m`nt mistaken, saltwater is more bouyant than fresh. & most all underwater testing is for microG(there is no known natural zeroG, by the way) applications. i`m wondering if saltwater would equate to 1/6(Moon), or 1/3G`s(Mars). If this were true, then underwater vehicles could be sold to the public, based on something that would eventually be used in Space. It would be great marketing strategy. Of course this would hafta be something w/o wheels of course. In other words, not a "rover". Most ocean bottoms don`t take to treads or wheels very well. Although it has been done.

 

Sure.