|
On May 01 2012 05:58 Heh_ wrote:
The argument was good until you started talking about breaking down a human. There's more to a human than just DNA. If you exclude random mutations (that occur ~3 times per cell division), then there's no way that these so-called nanobots can distinguish between a 2 year old child and an 80 year old man. Then there's environmental factors, memory (no one really knows how the brain works), and a host of other factors. You're stuck with trying to transport the whole human. The best thing you can do is to make the person go on a diet =D
Then the acceleration turns said human into pulp.
Edit: typo
lol, you don't reconstruct existing people using DNA. You grow new ones. Some people want humans to be a two planet species at the minimum so we don't go extinct. I myself think it's fine for humans to go extinct? Why not? No one was worried about us not being there before we evolved.
I think it is also kind of cruel to force some people to grow up as the first generation on some planet far far away from earth. They didn't have the choice in the matter at all.
But anyway, some people are going to want to do this anyway and this will be the way it will be done if it ever happens.
The humans you grow from the DNA after it arrives do need some education of course otherwise they will be mentally impaired. So you need to supply that as well. But information is either near weightless (internet is guessed to be 50 grammes) or you can just send it with the speed of light if you have a receiver.
So no, no interstellar space tourism ever. Unless we discover crazy technology that can break all the laws and basically teleport us by turning off our mass or act like a warp drive or worm hole.
|
On May 01 2012 06:22 Miyoshino wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 05:58 Heh_ wrote:
The argument was good until you started talking about breaking down a human. There's more to a human than just DNA. If you exclude random mutations (that occur ~3 times per cell division), then there's no way that these so-called nanobots can distinguish between a 2 year old child and an 80 year old man. Then there's environmental factors, memory (no one really knows how the brain works), and a host of other factors. You're stuck with trying to transport the whole human. The best thing you can do is to make the person go on a diet =D
Then the acceleration turns said human into pulp.
Edit: typo lol, you don't reconstruct existing people using DNA. You grow new ones. Some people want humans to be a two planet species at the minimum so we don't go extinct. I myself think it's fine for humans to go extinct? Why not? No one was worried about us not being there before we evolved. I think it is also kind of cruel to force some people to grow up as the first generation on some planet far far away from earth. They didn't have the choice in the matter at all. But anyway, some people are going to want to do this anyway and this will be the way it will be done if it ever happens. The humans you grow from the DNA after it arrives do need some education of course otherwise they will be mentally impaired. So you need to supply that as well. But information is either near weightless (internet is guessed to be 50 grammes) or you can just send it with the speed of light if you have a receiver. So no, no interstellar space tourism ever. Unless we discover crazy technology that can break all the laws and basically teleport us by turning off our mass or act like a warp drive or worm hole.
I lost you in the first paragraph. So you're suggesting cloning humans (slightly different from the normal idea) to colonize new plats? If you can get something there in the first place, why don't send people there..
Anyway I thought the discussion was about life on other planets, not moving to other planets?
|
You realize that we discover around 40 new planets each month, that can support life, right?
|
Just say there was another earth exact same as ours with the equivalent of us humans on it. I wonder how different they would have evolved to us. Like how much different they would look, talk and behave. kinda interesting.
|
On May 01 2012 06:17 Diks wrote:
We are aliens.
Life could never ever have been there since the begining of earth formation.
Dusts and space debris gathering around the core during millions of years could not have permitted life,
But the multitude of meteorites impacts on our earth could have permitted some organism trapped into ice to smash the earth and somehow managed to survive (unicellular organisms are extremely robust life forms).
Exactly like how pollen works on earth. If you see a flower in a field, it's hard to imagine that there is no other nearby.
and why would it be more possible for life to have been developt anywhere els in the univers?
I mean, it all comes down to the same principle?
|
On May 01 2012 05:12 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:50 hugman wrote:On May 01 2012 00:44 ChosenSC2 wrote:
It doesn't matter cuz we'll never be able to get there? Especially in any sort of mass travel form ^^ You can get there. Relativity doesn't actually prevent you from travelling anywhere in a reasonable amount of time, because as you speed up the universe appears to shrink. At 1/sqrt(2) * c m/s you're effectively travelling at the speed of light, if you measure time in the traveller's reference frame and distance in the rest frame of your departure point. You could travel to Alpha Centauri and only age a few years, but people back on Earth would've aged millions of years. Here's a graph I made to depict what you're talking about.
Nice graph :D
|
and anyway, lets say that we must escape from earth, the sun is soon dead and a superearth is in our reach, but the superearth is like 3 times bigger and therefore got maybe 3 times the gravety then earth? so we all would be 3 times more heavier? sux Oo
Fuck... if those things where to attack earth they would be super strong ^^
jumping high as fuck and shit.
|
On May 01 2012 06:22 Miyoshino wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 05:58 Heh_ wrote:
The argument was good until you started talking about breaking down a human. There's more to a human than just DNA. If you exclude random mutations (that occur ~3 times per cell division), then there's no way that these so-called nanobots can distinguish between a 2 year old child and an 80 year old man. Then there's environmental factors, memory (no one really knows how the brain works), and a host of other factors. You're stuck with trying to transport the whole human. The best thing you can do is to make the person go on a diet =D
Then the acceleration turns said human into pulp.
Edit: typo lol, you don't reconstruct existing people using DNA. You grow new ones. Some people want humans to be a two planet species at the minimum so we don't go extinct. I myself think it's fine for humans to go extinct? Why not? No one was worried about us not being there before we evolved. I think it is also kind of cruel to force some people to grow up as the first generation on some planet far far away from earth. They didn't have the choice in the matter at all. But anyway, some people are going to want to do this anyway and this will be the way it will be done if it ever happens. The humans you grow from the DNA after it arrives do need some education of course otherwise they will be mentally impaired. So you need to supply that as well. But information is either near weightless (internet is guessed to be 50 grammes) or you can just send it with the speed of light if you have a receiver. So no, no interstellar space tourism ever. Unless we discover crazy technology that can break all the laws and basically teleport us by turning off our mass or act like a warp drive or worm hole.
Sounds like some sort of horrifying sci fi invader story. Aliens shoot DNA onto the planet, they grow in number and multiply, eventually they destroy the planet and shoot DNA onto a new planet.
I never figured us to be the monsters. So many new movie ideas!
|
On May 01 2012 07:19 Heh_ wrote:
I lost you in the first paragraph. So you're suggesting cloning humans (slightly different from the normal idea) to colonize new plats? If you can get something there in the first place, why don't send people there..
Anyway I thought the discussion was about life on other planets, not moving to other planets?
Did you do the math?
Do the math with fusion fuel for a 10 gram payload and a 1,000,000 ton payload and see how big the difference is.
|
On May 01 2012 08:31 Miyoshino wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 07:19 Heh_ wrote:
I lost you in the first paragraph. So you're suggesting cloning humans (slightly different from the normal idea) to colonize new plats? If you can get something there in the first place, why don't send people there..
Anyway I thought the discussion was about life on other planets, not moving to other planets? Did you do the math? Do the math with fusion fuel for a 10 gram payload and a 1,000,000 ton payload and see how big the difference is.
Define "fusion" as a means of transportation.
|
On May 01 2012 08:31 Miyoshino wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 07:19 Heh_ wrote:
I lost you in the first paragraph. So you're suggesting cloning humans (slightly different from the normal idea) to colonize new plats? If you can get something there in the first place, why don't send people there..
Anyway I thought the discussion was about life on other planets, not moving to other planets? Did you do the math? Do the math with fusion fuel for a 10 gram payload and a 1,000,000 ton payload and see how big the difference is.
Duh. I don't dispute your physics. I'm disputing your understanding of biology. To put it simply, life ain't that simple. You can't create an exact replica of a person, and transfer the memories, knowledge etc to the clone. That clone WILL be a different person. A real world example is this: identical twins don't share the same consciousness and memories; they are separate individuals despite being genetically identical. If you want to "transport" humans to the new planet while maximizing payload, you might as well transport a bunch of zygotes to save on mass. Then again, you need tons (literally) of support equipment in order to raise and sustain them.
And if you want to talk about fuel, you might as use matter-antimatter reactions. 100% energy yield, fyi.
|
Been hearing a lot of news like this lately. Wonder if humans will ever transfer over to another planet one day or if all of the information and discoveries that have been made are meaningless.
|
On May 01 2012 03:36 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 03:21 summerloud wrote:[ On May 01 2012 02:45 heroyi wrote:
We understand our realm on earth very well i.e chemistry,biology, and physics. But again all of these things pertain to us and what we have experienced/perceive. For us to to say that only life can be created by water and carbon is ignorant. The periodic table is not finished and I am sure there are way more elements to be discovered not only on Earth but also out there somewhere. We haven't experienced/learned about everything that is possible out "there." no no no no no no no no... to 'be sure' of something you should first have at least a BASIC understanding of that topic... if you had any clue about physics at all you would be rather sure of the opposite you said... its too bad that the certainty of peoples beliefs always seems to be inverserly proportional to how much people know about a given topic please try not to be sure of anything, okay? we wont discover any more elements outside of high-energy physics laboratories, this i am ALMOST sure of, since it would violate pretty much everything we know about physics. and even if we did heavier elements wouldnt matter in any way for organic chemistry... No... it would not violate physics. Physics and chemistry say they should be more elements that we know of. With the conditions from star collapses and supernovae we should find traces of these higher elements. For someone that's complaining about everyone not having a basic understanding of the topic you must've not gotten a C yourself... read up, lots of active research is in this field. Here's a starter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability
argh! islands of stability have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE to have anything to do with organic chemistry. sorry dude, your just arguing from a standpoint of complete ignorance. and like i said, if these elements ever exist, it will be in high-energy laboratories. you wont find new elements in space period...
On May 01 2012 09:48 SeungHwan wrote:
Been hearing a lot of news like this lately. Wonder if humans will ever transfer over to another planet one day or if all of the information and discoveries that have been made are meaningless.
why would that render everything meaningless? with current theories about the universe life will not be able to exist forever anyways, so even if we spread we will eventually die out, thus only delaying the inevitable. how exactly does delaying our extinction give our existence more meaning? if you want meaning at all, you have to turn away from science towards religion...
also it depends on your view on time and the universe. if you subscribe to a kind of 'block universe' view where four dimensional space time exists timelessly then in a way all events that ever happened or will happen have the same value no matter wether or not they seem to be in the past or future from your point of view...
btw, since its kinda relevant: new propulsion system for rockets
|
Most of you talk about going to those places only when the sun gets close to dying. You realise those stars will get old too right? Sun is a red dwarf and it has arround 5 billion years to go, it doesn't seem possible but lets say if we wait that long to go Gliese 581d or Gliese 667Cc in 5 billion years their stars will be very close to dying or already dead too.
|
On May 01 2012 09:35 Heh_ wrote:
Duh. I don't dispute your physics. I'm disputing your understanding of biology. To put it simply, life ain't that simple. You can't create an exact replica of a person, and transfer the memories, knowledge etc to the clone. That clone WILL be a different person. A real world example is this: identical twins don't share the same consciousness and memories; they are separate individuals despite being genetically identical. If you want to "transport" humans to the new planet while maximizing payload, you might as well transport a bunch of zygotes to save on mass. Then again, you need tons (literally) of support equipment in order to raise and sustain them.
And if you want to talk about fuel, you might as use matter-antimatter reactions. 100% energy yield, fyi.
People are grown from DNA everyday. Is there another way to get a person? As a biologist I have never heard of another way.
You don't need to send tons of equipment. Copper, silicon, whatever element you need, it can all be found on the destination planet. So why bother transporting what is already on the destination planet if transporting mass is so so expensive?
|
On May 01 2012 17:29 Miyoshino wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 09:35 Heh_ wrote:
Duh. I don't dispute your physics. I'm disputing your understanding of biology. To put it simply, life ain't that simple. You can't create an exact replica of a person, and transfer the memories, knowledge etc to the clone. That clone WILL be a different person. A real world example is this: identical twins don't share the same consciousness and memories; they are separate individuals despite being genetically identical. If you want to "transport" humans to the new planet while maximizing payload, you might as well transport a bunch of zygotes to save on mass. Then again, you need tons (literally) of support equipment in order to raise and sustain them.
And if you want to talk about fuel, you might as use matter-antimatter reactions. 100% energy yield, fyi. People are grown from DNA everyday. Is there another way to get a person? As a biologist I have never heard of another way. You don't need to send tons of equipment. Copper, silicon, whatever element you need, it can all be found on the destination planet. So why bother transporting what is already on the destination planet if transporting mass is so so expensive?
and who will raise your humans? and all the equipment you need will just auto-assemble itself from what you have on the destination planet? your not making much sense tbh
|
Well you are scientifically illiterate. Can't do much about that tbh.
|
On May 01 2012 18:26 Miyoshino wrote:
Well you are scientifically illiterate. Can't do much about that tbh.
Throwing insults does not help you in any way.
|
Its not an insult. He doesn't know what nanobots are. He doesn't know what evolution is. He believes the universe is designed, etc etc. Also if this is an insult, he insulted me first and second and my comment came third.
|
On May 01 2012 18:45 Miyoshino wrote:
Its not an insult. He doesn't know what nanobots are. He doesn't know what evolution is. He believes the universe is designed, etc etc. Also if this is an insult, he insulted me first and second and my comment came third.
sigh. if self-reproducing nanobots ie von-neumann machines are your solution to everything then maybe you should at least mention them? i guess your solution to raising humans would be equally esoteric science-fiction? maybe you would at least try to enlighten us about your concepts instead of throwing random insults and calling people stupid? i dont know where i insulted you but please try to argue like an adult mkay? if my views on evolution and a fine-tuned universe insult you per se then i guess thereis not much i can do about that...
edit: i just saw you mentioned nanobots further up, i didnt read that part of the thread before. so basically you want to send out self-assembling probes that carry the information of how to build a human from organic material and assemble all the infrastructure needed to raise and support a human population
i think if that level of technology is ever reached mankind will be very different from now, maybe obsolete... or killed off by the von-neumann machines (grey goo scenario)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
