Interplanetary Migration Is Based On Fantacy And Is Completely Unscientific. Options

Someone commented on this article;

Scientists find most Earth-like exoplanet ever

This discourse is really getting old. these scientists need to change tact otherwise I will lose all respect in them. the whole idea that there can be a planet out there that is habitable by humans is a product of a culture that revels in fantasy, and attempts to live out the fantasy believing if you can imagine it, it is scientific reality, which is a bunch of bull ... an accident waiting to happen.

human beings are stuck with this one earth, and that's it. nothing else out here will do ... this is because we are products of our environment. everything about us corresponds in design to our surroundings ... the air we breathe, the weight of the atmosphere above us, the position of the earth in this solar system and the greater whole, the influence of earthly bodies around the earth on the earth itself and on us, etc. remove just one of these elements and we would have to change, evolve into a completely different species. change specifically those heavenly bodies around the earth that impact most on our environment, for example the moon, and we might even become extinct as our vital bodily rhythms are ruled by its influences, a good example being the female menstrual cycle.

change the size of the earth by a significant percentage, which would start from maybe 0.1 % and our bodies would respond by, for example, increasing or lowering blood pressure to cope with increased or decreased air pressure, so we do not bulge or implode, change the tensile strength of our tissue and the overall strength of our muscular system, etc. so that we can still function in the locomotive sense. if this change happens faster than we can adapt then we go extinct.

there is an infinite universe out there, it is true, and the basic elements it comprises of are the same, but this just means there is an infinite number of combinations of environments, meaning there can be no replica earth circumstances anywhere in the known or unknown universe. this is a mathematical fact. we could find a planet that is just the same size as ours, removed by the same distance from an equally sized sun, NOT. something is always going to be different, the extent of which will affect our survivability, starting with adaptability in that environment. let me rephrase what I have just said: there is no place out there where we can be viable in our current form and design, no place that would allow us the time to adapt. just one more corporeal entity too much and that's it. for example, an abundance of a frequency or lack of it, a compound, too much of an element or lack of it in the air, different emanations from the nearest sun, different gravitational forces ... something's gotta give, eventually but most likely immediately.

it is good to dream, and foster a dreamer mentality on the masses, for the sake of scientific advancement, but scientists should try to strike a balance between fantasy and reality, try to make people come down to earth ... lol ... at least that way they inculcate in people a sense of responsibility for the only home they have. true that ... and quite sad or unfortunate to realize we can only survive on earth. but then even the fact we find it surprising we can only survive here is a result of the brainwashing the scientific direction has caused on our minds. we find it hard to deal with the reality this is the only home we can ever have, and the rest is mere exploration. we find it easier to believe everything is possible, all you have to do is dream/fantasize.

that's how you get all them characters manufactured in Hollywood capable of feats that are impossible in real life, those super heroes we been reading in comics and on the big screen. take superman ... how does a man shaped like a man jump over buildings in one single bound? it is physically impossible to leap higher than a skyscraper with human legs for the simple reason they are not designed for such feats. you can put all the strength in the world in them, but they will not leap as much because of design limitations. you want to leap over buildings, then you gonna need longer and differently shaped legs. grasshoppers do not have legs that are disproportionately large compared to their overall size for nothing.

then there is the hulk and that feat of growing larger than the original size. how the f.k is it possible to increase size and mass without consuming anything. judging by the feats they make that thing do, the power it has, it must be heavier than a tank when fully blown. where does that mass come from? science tells us you cannot get something from nothing, so what is happening with this hulk thing? and we let our kids watch that stuff, hell! most of us were brought up on comic books with more of such characters in them, so we are watching those fantasy movies too ... lol...

it is good to dream, but keeping stuff a bit more quiet and down to earth doesn't do us a lot of harm. in fact it helps keep our youguns thinking thoughts that are safe for their environment ...

Well said in my opinion.

Peace
.M.

This post has been edited by Mchawi: Apr 24 2009, 08:46 AM

never fails that when one speaks of ancient knowledge, there is always talk of physical treasure - museums are filled with a treasure of knowledge, but all some can see is gold and maps to more physical treasure - the cathars spoke of hiding a book of love, and of course the treasure-seekers are looking for it, but for its physical value only - the pyramids of giza are a non-physical library, and omm seti used to sleep in them with her newborn baby to allow both him and her to access that library, but the society said she was endangering her child and put a stop to such foolishness, and those looking for the library only see ancient scrolls and tombs filled with gold

the grass is always greener elsewhere, so when folks look beyond earth they see huge piles of resources, gold and other planetary systems to exploit - pitiful

so what do you get when you find another earth, and wouldn't it be sweet that you could only see it and not be able to ever reach it, as your nest crumbles away underfoot since you fouled it up so badly and for so long?...sweet sweet irony and twisted logic for looking, instead of fixing the one you have already

This post has been edited by esoterica: Apr 26 2009, 06:41 AM

Exactly.

Islam has the brilliant principles of the dunya and the ahkira.
Dunya the material segment of existance and has a negative connotation, and is said to be the distant element, a carrot on a stick.
Material satisfaction is ever fleeting and separates one from the heavenly or divine aspect of existance which is the ahkira.
The ahkira is simple and eternally accessable spiritual life that requires only basic merits for the journey and an ability to face and deal with reality.

The wisdom of the principle of dunya has a direct correlation with the consideration of greed as a deadly sin in christianity.
As dunya takes people from the ahkira, greed is an identical weapon of subversion. No matter how stupid the 'victim' or clever the 'tricks' the only way to rip someone off is through greed induction, it is otherwise not possible. Fantasy and greed is what sweetens the deal for the mark, their greed is the potential and the catalyst of the transaction. This the meaning of the inclusion of that principle, the consideration of greed is not about when and where to put ones hand in the cookie jar or be a 'goodie twoshoes'. Greed is a longstanding avenue of exploitation and loss of ones right way.

Here interplanetary migration is an illusiory second mountain of gold to devalue what the greedy already possess but can't appreciate.

This post has been edited by Rightjack: Apr 26 2009, 01:49 PM

I'm not sure I agree that interplanetary migration is total fantasy. Obviously it is a long way off, and I think we have some more important domestic problems to deal with now, but should we at some point find a planet with a suitable template, and develop an exploration/migration plan properly, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to colonize a new world.

We can collect soil and atmosphere samples, flora and fauna samples, figure out what the new planet has and doesn't have, learn about the microbes there, and begin with a small controlled environment for colonization which grows from there as we terraform, create innoculations against native bacteria and viruses, and explore what resources are there to survive on.

Things like the frequency of the magnetic field, the gravitational pulls and cycles of other local heavenly bodies, etc, are things we can adapt to over time as long as we keep ourselves healthy, and anyone born in those conditions is going to develop a more natural adaptation to those 'subtle' conditions.

My point is just that this person has a good logical viewpoint, but isn't taking into account the fact that with the right technological know-how, all the conditions don't have to start out perfect. Not enough nitrogen? Harvest it from a comet. O2 - CO2 balance not quite right? Different flora. We may be able to look at the genetic disposition of local plants and animals by that point (and in all this we're realistically talking hundreds of years from now, assuming we make it that far) which gives us greater insight to the fundamental differences between life there and life here, and how we can better prepare ourselves for landfall.

The point of dreaming and exploration is in part to inspire and discover the ingenuity and creativity that allows these 'impossible' things to become possible. And we certainly need to confront the following generation(s) with the practical issues both here on earth and in the stars, rather than giving them a fantastical set of expectations for the future, but we also have to foster that dreaming so that someone will try to solve those problems and make those advancements. Our potential really is unlimited, as long as we continue to develop intellectually, spiritually, and creatively.

peace

Hmmmm... yeah, still agree with most of what was said, he's basically saying that the seven planets and surrounding influences IS what makes us human, remove or change any one of those in any way and we would have to adapt to suit or die out completely. On that premise travelling physically to another planet would cause such a change in those migrating that they would cease to be human almost (if not completely) entirely, its on a par with time travel and changes made to the past influencing the future that and we'd basically loose the ability to relate to them well enough for it to be benificial all unless we can somehow duplicate those influences in their entirety which in my opinion is nigh on impossible... of course none of this takes from understanding that we are where we are and that with little practice one can travel interdimensionally from behind their computer if they so wished be that via astral travel or otherwise but to completely colonize another planet would involve duplicating every single factor that makes us who we are on earth..... all that being said I agree with Vilhjamirs point on the universe being infinite and so there having to be another or a few other ''earths'' out there, same with the debate on alien life forms, if the universe is infinite there has to be other life forms residing within it other than what we know and share here in Gia.

This post has been edited by Mchawi: Apr 27 2009, 10:53 AM

And what I am saying is only that sufficient technology can decrease the demand for adaptation. The influence of the planets on earth does not extend to such a degree as to require physical adaptations to the point that the settlers would no longer be human should they adapt efficiently enough to survive. The major change that might be caused between one environ and the other would be adaptation to a different magnetic field harmonic. This is under the assumption that the planets affect the magnetic field of the earth, which if they do is a very minimal interference. The most daunting side effect of living close to a magnetic field strong enough to override the influence of the earth's field is typically temporary headaches, light flashes in the vision, and loss of sleep, but the same thing happens when you leave that field - it's the body adapting to the new environment and it hardly reduces your humanity in any genetic way.

The biggest physical thing I can think to wonder about in terms of species adaptation or evolution would be what if any is the effect of the earth's magnetic field on our development from the fetal stage. As in, what role does that field play on the formation of the theoretical morphogenic field - will simply being in that new environment somehow have a significant effect on how our genes translate into fully formed physical bodies?

There are of course other more esoteric aspects to consider as well - whether or not different planetary cousins will affect the psychology of those living on the new World; whether the tiny variations in wavelength ratios in the light shed by the new core star will affect them either physically or otherwise; whether the native consciousness of the new planet will accept the new foreign consciousness of the settlers; etc.

It is our biology, and to some less absolute degree, our culture and psychology, that makes us human. The fact that human beings can live in almost all climates on earth, be so wildly different in terms of physical adaptations, but still all be genetically human, says to me that we can adapt to other environs with similar effect. People growing up on a slightly lower gravity planet might be a little taller, a little less muscular, have lower blood pressure, etc., but they would still be human. The people who land on that planet would adapt physically the same way astronauts do, and were they to come back to earth for whatever reason (the first several generations more than likely wouldn't) they would probably need some kind of transition stage (kind of like coming up from a deep sea scuba dive without getting the benz).

Personally I cannot think of any good reason why the planets, our sun, etc., are what make us human. Those may be the conditions that we evolved under, but there is really no way to determine to what extent those conditions have affected us on the biological level. All we can test for now, and only to a limited degree, are what happens when we change those conditions in some way on the small scale (light deprivation, EM field exposure, low gravity, low atmosphere, etc.) Although the argument made in this comment is well reasoned, it's not based on any solid data, and it makes assumptions that can't be proven (or disproved) from where we are right now. So from the 'human standpoint' of "where do we go from here?" We have to consider the venture in terms of what we can do to maximize our chances of successful colonization, based on the problems that we know we will have, but which are solvable. There are a range of things that we could theoretically change or control about a planet, and those are the challenges we have to consider first. When we consider unsolvable challenges, we have to move on to either picking another place, or at some point determining if they really are unsolvable.

When it comes to things like the influence of the planets on us as human beings, and the possible necessity of extreme adaptations based on factors that we can't possibly determine at the moment, we have to look past them and focus on solvable problems first. If we just accept assumptions like those made in this comment blindly, then we are defeated before we have the chance to find out for sure.

peace

p.s. Additionally, the universe is not infinite. It may be infinite in the relative sense that it is so much bigger than earth, and it may be that we will never fully explore all of it, but it has an edge dimensionally - whether what is past that edge is livable is a question for our descendants to answer. Now the multiverse, or Omniverse (multiple multiverses), may very well be infinite.

This post has been edited by Vagrant Dreamer: Apr 28 2009, 03:08 PM