Life on Mars?

[Lhyet]

Takedown, your ideals sound very naive. How can you even begin to classify what's good and peaceful without bad and war? The world has more shades of grey than white and black. And those shades of grey are different for each person.
As much as I'd love for peace and harmony, the problems with sentience and being self aware is that there will always be evil.

As for the subject of the derail, I completely agree with those who said that it's not the govenment that'll take us fully into space. I just worry how long it'll take corporations to find real returns from such ventures.

At the very least I expect there will cheap earth orbit tourism by the time I'm an old man. That's what's on my bucket list and I'll hope for more, but I know better than to get my hopes up.

[Max™]

Kaylia: I like the concept behind GUT theories, it is much simpler to have a single explanation for various similar phenomena, than arbitrarily having two or three.

Spoiler: show

The math doesn't really matter, if there is a quagma phase, not Quark Gluon Plasma phase, then that changes the manners in which it could condense into baryons. A quagma is a nearly perfect fluid of quarks, gluons, and electrons. It is already in what is technically a pauli violated condition.

If you shaped the phase change by controlling the way the quagma cools, you should be able to produce edges where the cooling from multiple regions within the lump converge.

It COULD turn out that it simply explodes when this is done, but there are models which suggest it should leave stray quarks and electrons that couldn't condense properly into hadrons, and get frozen into a super degenerate state after releasing their heat in a burst of radiation. It could also be that it has to be specifically designed under controlled conditions, or any domain walls would explode in something similar to a matter/antimatter annihilation, explaining why they haven't been found.

It isn't specifically limited to GUT models, though I don't think the standard model goes too far into quagma type state possibilities, beyond that it is not prevented by any part of the model.

Business is the only way we will get into space, but you guys neglect that even if we move beyond fighting each other, there are still two big foes to unite humanity.

1. Hard Vacuum, life is still hard, we still need to work together, but unlike the Earth, if we don't work together, we get the air ripped from our lungs and die as our eyeballs freeze.

2. The Heat Death, entropy increases to a maximum, if we don't fix it or move to another Universe, then everything we do will amount to a sigh at the end of a movie... and the camera fades out.

[Demosthenes11]

takedown has been reading waaaaay too much marx/lenin

[Kaylia]

Kaylia: I like the concept behind GUT theories, it is much simpler to have a single explanation for various similar phenomena, than arbitrarily having two or three.

Spoiler: show

The math doesn't really matter, if there is a quagma phase, not Quark Gluon Plasma phase, then that changes the manners in which it could condense into baryons. A quagma is a nearly perfect fluid of quarks, gluons, and electrons. It is already in what is technically a pauli violated condition.

If you shaped the phase change by controlling the way the quagma cools, you should be able to produce edges where the cooling from multiple regions within the lump converge.

It COULD turn out that it simply explodes when this is done, but there are models which suggest it should leave stray quarks and electrons that couldn't condense properly into hadrons, and get frozen into a super degenerate state after releasing their heat in a burst of radiation. It could also be that it has to be specifically designed under controlled conditions, or any domain walls would explode in something similar to a matter/antimatter annihilation, explaining why they haven't been found.

It isn't specifically limited to GUT models, though I don't think the standard model goes too far into quagma type state possibilities, beyond that it is not prevented by any part of the model.

Business is the only way we will get into space, but you guys neglect that even if we move beyond fighting each other, there are still two big foes to unite humanity.

1. Hard Vacuum, life is still hard, we still need to work together, but unlike the Earth, if we don't work together, we get the air ripped from our lungs and die as our eyeballs freeze.

2. The Heat Death, entropy increases to a maximum, if we don't fix it or move to another Universe, then everything we do will amount to a sigh at the end of a movie... and the camera fades out.

My money on the universe. No way we outlive it.



Back to the GUT topic, maths are important, because it's easy to postulate "magical particles" that behaves the way you want. You're saying you can "cut through matter", which implies it interact with it in a traditional way. If they can intereact with electromagnetics, weak and strong forces, the opposite should also be true, and stability in a normal environment would be incredibly harder to imagine.

It's not a coincidence if the universe "froze" this way. It was probably the most stable alternative. If you want to propose something "more" stable, you should at least have mathematics to support your claim, because the universe is telling us the opposite.

[Rothbardian]

richard branson(sp)?

i dont know i'm kind of stuck in between my belief that one day we wont need to have wars or have any famine, disease, hatred. if what we have now is the peak of our human culture then what is the point of going to space? sure i'm thinking star trek mythos here, no money, just do things to benefit others as well as ourselves.

if the tip of our mighty human race is capitalism please kill me now so you guys can get on with killing yourselves slowly with poisons and bombs.

how can anyone not think that we will get past this current phase of our growth/development? this is certainly not the end all be all of what we are to become, sure maybe for the next several hundred years and who knows mebbe even thousands of years. you have to remember that with science and math discovery and idea comes social discovery and idea. we just haven't figured it all out yet.

and we will. just not in our lifetime.

Yes, who needs this silly thing called the Free-Markets and Laissez-Faire (Note: There are no Capitalist countries in the world), when you have NASA and the State! Surely, people with no incentivization to create something of value will achieve these laudable goals!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/cooper/cooper23.1.html

So, again, people don't understand human action, and human nature. When you do not have to provide anything of value to receive funding, or to keep a business afloat, you will as always produce nothing of value. Moreover, one must have a product or service to market in order to run a successful company. NASA fulfills neither criteria. It is the Broken Window Fallacy. You are taking billions of dollars out of the productive sector to waste, and produce nothing of value, instead what you are actually doing (The unseen), is in what would otherwise be something of value, create a negative; both sucking capital out of productive sectors and then squandering it whereas say if that capital went to an entreprenuer a successful business and innovator could be creating goods and services for instance: The next Henry Ford. It's a double whammy. Those billions could have went to some new innovative product that could change modernity. Instead, we get a hapless, non-productive, Quasi-Government entity that drags on, saps capital, and is a total waste.

Indeed, entreprenuers have been launching satellites, cameras, and other gadgets into space at a far faster rate, and at a far cheaper price. They don't have the luxury of having an endless amount of funds that you can point the gun at people and extort (Vis a vis taxation). Neither, will you ever change human nature. Marxists and Socialists of the early 20th Century thought they had created a new man. A collectivized man! For the greater good! Who needs freedom, liberty, private property, and laissez-faire that's all antiquated notions, like it is a hard science comparable to astronomy. No, indeed, much of human progress is marked by the zig-zag, ups and downs, back and forths. The 19th Century was progress forward, the 20th progress backwards.

What happened was it all collapsed. Mises concluded this much would happen in the 1920s through the 1940s when he had rigorous debates and intellectual fights with the Marxists and Socialists/Keynesians of his day. Stagflation destroys the notion of Keynes (Not to mention among a myriad of other diagnosis), and the collapse and the agorist market of the USSR destroys the notion of Marxism. Indeed, what you presuppose has been tried, and failed.

Mercantilism (Currently what most of the world has today), was tried for hundreds of years and failed. Monarchical States were, mercantilist. There is no wonder then, that the laissez-faire liberals were victorious (Bastiat, Locke, Jefferson, School of Salamanca, Jean-Baptiste Say, Turgot, etc.), and brought about the rise of the proleteriat. Poverty rapidly declined, purchasing power increased, industrial revolution, standard of living raised, innovation flourished, men were largely free (liberty), prices were low and kept lowering, etc. It was a great time, relative to the prior years.

One must be studious and astute of history. Read Murray Rothbard's:

http://www.amazon.com/Austrian-Persp...576189&sr=8-10



It goes from the 1500s and School of Salamanca to the present day. Very very good book. Again, science and math can never change human behavior. Man will always yearn to be free, it is in our nature.

[Demosthenes11]

christ you are annoying. Do you by any chance wear a bike helmet and suit and knock on people's doors all day?

[Rothbardian]

christ you are annoying. Do you by any chance wear a bike helmet and suit and knock on people's doors all day?

There is an ignore function. You can close your hears and eyes if you want.

[Demosthenes11]

i swear your name is rothbard because I literally copy/pasted a few different sentences of what you said into google and apart from this thread, the first thing that came up every time was quotations from rothbard's writings

edit: so either you are the dude, or you are regurgitating every word he says almost word for word. Surely you are aware how stupid that is. History has seen a group of people do the exact same thing...

[Max™]

My money on the universe. No way we outlive it.



Back to the GUT topic, maths are important, because it's easy to postulate "magical particles" that behaves the way you want. You're saying you can "cut through matter", which implies it interact with it in a traditional way. If they can intereact with electromagnetics, weak and strong forces, the opposite should also be true, and stability in a normal environment would be incredibly harder to imagine.

It's not a coincidence if the universe "froze" this way. It was probably the most stable alternative. If you want to propose something "more" stable, you should at least have mathematics to support your claim, because the universe is telling us the opposite.

Quagma isn't my postulate. It is suggested by more than just GUT models, you can get the standard model to suggest it with the right QCD poking. Scientists were actually surprised to find a QGP instead of a Quagma state of quark matter from the RHIC, waiting on the LHC for more input.

Spoiler: show

The ONLY way you could produce this stuff is with the domain wall type defects, surely you know about those. Same sort of concept as cosmic strings. When false vacuum regions meet asymmetrically, models suggest you should produce a domain wall.

When cooling material meets asymmetrically in forged metal, you produce veins with different properties, this isn't exactly an odd thing to expect.

The question is merely if it would explode or collapse into a bosonic type ground state for mass. If it collapsed into a bosonic state, it would be pauli violated super degenerate matter, and it would not interact chemically (no electron shells, valence electrons, etc), electromagnetically (which is actually what chemical interactions are), weak decay is where the energy shed during production should come from, as well as a significant amount of strong force bonding energy.

It would only interact by literally sliding in between molecular bonds (edge on), which would sever them, or by applying pressure on electron shells by reducing their degrees of freedom (face on), which would support it enough to prevent it overlapping, but wouldn't provide much, if any, friction.

[Rothbardian]

i swear your name is rothbard because I literally copy/pasted a few different sentences of what you said into google and apart from this thread, the first thing that came up every time was quotations from rothbard's writings

edit: so either you are the dude, or you are regurgitating every word he says almost word for word. Surely you are aware how stupid that is. History has seen a group of people do the exact same thing...

I only wish I was a genius like Murray Rothbard. Secondly, what I write is in my own words based on my own understanding, through reading, studying, and putting to practice. Of course, there are going to be cross-overs, we are afterall of the same ideology just like Sirrus and I am. I however, write in a more, professor/book oriented fashion. Something that I've taken ahold of after reading literally, 30,000+ pages of Austro-libertarian works. Between Block, Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Rockwell, Kirzner, Ruwart, Menger, Bohm-Bewark, Bastiat, Sennholz, Fetter, Hans-Hoppe, LeFevre, Konkin, Woods, and pre Austrians of the laissez-faire liberal variety like: J.B. Say, Turgot, School of Salamanca, etc.

Just read any of his books and what I write. It is not word for word, and if it was I'd quote him. Secondly, what phrases did you pull out? Just curious.

[Demosthenes11]

the last 2 paragraphs

[Rothbardian]

the last 2 paragraphs

Really? I searched through various sentences and in varying degrees and found nothing to corraborate your accusations. Anyways, aside from the obvious attempt to change the topic, would you mind to actually try and refute my premises?

[Demosthenes11]

google:
What happened was it all collapsed. Mises concluded this much would happen in the 1920s through the 1940s when he had rigorous debates and intellectual fights with the Marxists and Socialists/Keynesians of his day.

or


Mercantilism (Currently what most of the world has today), was tried for hundreds of years and failed. Monarchical States were, mercantilist. There is no wonder then, that the laissez-faire liberals were victorious (Bastiat, Locke, Jefferson, School of Salamanca, Jean-Baptiste Say, Turgot, etc.), and brought about the rise of the proleteriat. Poverty rapidly declined, purchasing power increased, industrial revolution, standard of living raised, innovation flourished, men were largely free (liberty), prices were low and kept lowering, etc. It was a great time, relative to the prior years.


and no, I'm not going to waste my time refuting claims that come before evidence. You, and most libertarians, have formed a premise (free market solves every problem ever) way before you gathered the necessary logic sets or data. That's retarded.

实事求是　- "seek truth from the facts" not the other way around

[Rothbardian]

google:
What happened was it all collapsed. Mises concluded this much would happen in the 1920s through the 1940s when he had rigorous debates and intellectual fights with the Marxists and Socialists/Keynesians of his day.

or


Mercantilism (Currently what most of the world has today), was tried for hundreds of years and failed. Monarchical States were, mercantilist. There is no wonder then, that the laissez-faire liberals were victorious (Bastiat, Locke, Jefferson, School of Salamanca, Jean-Baptiste Say, Turgot, etc.), and brought about the rise of the proleteriat. Poverty rapidly declined, purchasing power increased, industrial revolution, standard of living raised, innovation flourished, men were largely free (liberty), prices were low and kept lowering, etc. It was a great time, relative to the prior years.


and no, I'm not going to waste my time refuting claims that come before evidence. You, and most libertarians, have formed a premise (free market solves every problem ever) way before you gathered the necessary logic sets or data. That's retarded.

实事求是　- "seek truth from the facts" not the other way around

Coming from someone who has no idea of praxeology or a priori. You cannot come to "facts" or conclusions from statistics without theory.

Secondly, I googled both and both came up empty. The only one that even had Rothbard in it, was about the Federal Reserve and had nothing to do with what I was saying. Of course being disingenious is something that I have to routinely shrug off. Are you going to debate on the merits, or not? Simply put, if we don't know what the hell we are talking about how come we have predicted every large economic collapse? Mises and the fall of the central bank/inflation (Refused to take a job there because he saw what was coming). Schiff, Paul, Rothbard, etc. predicted Stagflation, Tech Bubble, Housing Bubble, coming Dollar crisis, saw ramifications from the Federal Reserve and Bretton Woods in 71', etc. It would seem that being 100% right on our predictions based on theory would at least give some pause for thought. I guess not.

I guess you believe that humans need no incentivization to work, to produce, or to innovate. That we are altruistic beings. (Lastly, libertarians and especially Austro-libertarians are the most logical and have our foundations in reason.)

[Max™]

You don't have a monopoly on logic, take it from an anarchist.

If we were all purely logical, we would not NEED to be ruled, we would simply deduce the best course of action for one and all, then pursue it.


Now, in space, there is a different need.

You MUST act to preserve your life and those who work with you, at least until we learn to get by in raw vacuum.

[Rothbardian]

[Max™]

I do enjoy people who get a public stage and point out exactly how stupid the people in power are acting, Richard Feynman asking who the hell would use the shuttle insulation material that caused the Challenger disaster was a great one.

Business IS what will get us into space, and that WILL solve the vast majority of our problems on Earth right now. Doesn't mean business is good, but it's certainly less evil than government.

Closed economic system, limited resources, limited space, political ideologies not meshing well, religious ideologies stirring the pot with arbitrary excuses to distinguish people further into us vs them type conflicts.

Mars will not solve any of that, ever. It is a gross waste of funding that could be used to bootstrap us into the solar system.

[Sho]

We gonna be living like Gundam SEED in 30 years. >.>

[Khamsin]

If we did manage to survive until the heat death of the universe, hopefully we'll have figured out how to time travel or something. Then we could just go back in time to now, and settle down some place far enough away that our light and radio waves won't reach Earth before the end (if that's possible). And when heat death is imminent again, go back in time again and go some place that far from both worlds, and so forth. Then we won't need extra universes.

[Takedown3]

you see everything you guys are saying about my ideals and me being naive etc is based on the ideals of our current culture, everything you know and hold dear is being put down on paper(read internet ffxi forum). what you don't realize is that what we know now, in fact what we ARE now is something completely different then what we will become.

i'm not talkin blue glowies here, in all honesty i don't know what is really going to happen but if you all think that our negative tendancies will be with us for the entire history of human civilization if we manage to survive for thousands or even tens of thousands of years then you are just as bad as the people who said "fly! never thats for the birds alone!" or "the moon? are you crazy get outta town"

you are stuck in a mindset that we are dependent on our greed and need for competition. i agree that these things are what have driven our technological advances for centuries. but you have to realize that our race is still young and even for all our great advances we are barely scratching the surface

just look at the science that max and others are talking about in this thread or the hadron thread, think about what is actually being discovered right now by actual smart people that dont gather on a video game forum to discuss these things. not just science discovery but social discovery.

there will be science in the future(perhaps near?) that will significantly improve not just our lives, but the lives of everyone in the world.

if we found some magic way to feed everyone in the world, or to power equipment(read tv's to toasters to rockets to birth control) without expending any kind of fuel like oil, hydrogen, or even solar. there would be incredibly widespread celebration around the world. which i would hope would lead to a global revolution that, not instanly of course, would make me drop there weapons and go home to be with there families or friends or maybe just there people to rejoice with the new era of man

sounds pretty fantastical the more i think about it, something completely radical that would change the face of humanity forever.

who knows what kind of change that would represent, but certainly no one now could write a book about it and have people on the internet regurgitate it to others.

i hope im close to right anyway, everyone else seems to think we will just continue our current path. which will almost certainly lead to oblivion and none of us will be going to space let alone to the local corner store.