Cool Science

[libby]

I'm with .....
Explanation Group 2: Type II and III intelligent civilizations are out there -- and there are logical reasons why we might not have heard from them.


I think these are the most likely possibilities in this group ....

Possibility 6) There's plenty of activity and noise out there, but our technology is too primitive and we're listening for the wrong things.

Possibility 9) Higher civilizations are here, all around us. But we're too primitive to perceive them.

Possibility 10) We're completely wrong about our reality.

I would lean toward #6 and 9 (they're really essentially the same.) But I see the merits of #10.

I tend to agree with you there.  The sheer enormity of the Universe tends to belie the idea that we're alone (albeit we might be until proven otherwise).

As to your specific points, I would agree that we don't know what we don't know.  If we're listening for the wrong things, maybe we're sending gibberish out into the Universe as well, so others may not hear us either.  IF there are carbon, oxygen, and water based organisms out there (the building blocks of life as we know them) like us, there are no guarantees that they've evolved in the same manner that we have insofar as intelligence and communications are concerned. 

But, it was an interesting read nonetheless. 

I also agree with BoD's choices; they make the most sense to me, as judged by what we know now, with strong consideration of Possibility 10: "We're completely wrong about our reality."  Why? Because of quantum observership, a mind-boggling concept. 

"When it comes to a frontier science like cosmology, where the scope of inquiry stretches out to the distant  galaxies and down to the subatomic jitterbug from which they emerged, conservatism is not decidedly a virtue nor imagination a vice. The universe is cleverer than we are, and to investigate it we need to be creative as well as critical. It may seem crazy to imagine that most of the matter in our universe is composed of exotic subatomic particles of varieties never yet observed, or that there are billions of universes each subject to a different set of laws, or that the mind may be said to bring the universe into existence. But quite possibly such hypotheses are, as Niels Bohr often used to say in exploring the atom, "not crazy enough." 

The Whole Shebang, a State-of-the-Universe(s) Report, by Timothy Ferris

[Locutus]

I don't know how many of you noticed this link at the bottom of the Fermi Paradox article, but it's a good read too about time.     I know; I'm a geek. 

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html

[The Troll]

I don't know how many of you noticed this link at the bottom of the Fermi Paradox article, but it's a good read too about time.     I know; I'm a geek. 

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html

  C'mon Locutus, just were do you come up with this stuff, you know damn well the earth is only 4 to 6 million years old.  Depending on what preacher says the age is.   

  But something from medical science, butter is good for you and fat is good for you and fat and butter fat does not cause heart attacks.   

[libby]

  C'mon Locutus, just were do you come up with this stuff, you know damn well the earth is only 4 to 6 million years old.  Depending on what preacher says the age is.   

  But something from medical science, butter is good for you and fat is good for you and fat and butter fat does not cause heart attacks.   

Now don't be beatin' up on Locutus. Some of my favorite people are nerds. 

[Locutus]

I think he's just joking.

[The Troll]

I think he's just joking.

  Yes I was joking and Locutus knows it.  We believe in science and the vast mysteries of the Universe.    And we arn't pussies about it.

[Locutus]

[libby]

  I was joking also, but certain language really turns me off. Lesson learned.

[The Troll]

I was joking also, but certain language really turns me off. Lesson learned.

   What language turns you off, "*****" or in other words that might bother you like sissies, or big fuzz balls.  If that bothers you that's your problem, I might say, "Just grow up a little and join the real world.   

[libby]

"When it comes to a frontier science like cosmology, where the scope of inquiry stretches out to the distant  galaxies and down to the subatomic jitterbug from which they emerged, conservatism is not decidedly a virtue nor imagination a vice. The universe is cleverer than we are, and to investigate it we need to be creative as well as critical. It may seem crazy to imagine that most of the matter in our universe is composed of exotic subatomic particles of varieties never yet observed, or that there are billions of universes each subject to a different set of laws, or that the mind may be said to bring the universe into existence. But quite possibly such hypotheses are, as Niels Bohr often used to say in exploring the atom, "not crazy enough." 

The Whole Shebang, a State-of-the-Universe(s) Report, by Timothy Ferris

The following is also by the above scientist, Cosmologist Timothy Ferris, from the same book, page 351 "Notes":

"When  giving public lectures on cosmology I am often asked about my own religious convictions. On such occasions I sometimes tell the story about a theologian who is asked by an old friend, "Do you believe in God?"

The theologian replies, "I can answer you, but I promise that you won't understand my answer. Do you want me to go ahead?"

"Sure."

OK, the answer is "Yes.' "

The point of the story has to do, of course, with the preposterous ambiguity of such terms as "believe" and "God."  And that is one reason I try to avoid answering such questions. Nor do I see that a statement of my personal beliefs would do much to illuminate the  issues under discussion in this book.

But, if only to avoid being coy about it, let me say that I'm an agnostic.  The term is derived from the Greek agnostos, "unknowable." ....

There are two varieties of agnosticism.
"Weak" agnosticism consists of suspending one's opinion as to the existence of God---pending, I suppose, the introduction of further  evidence. This stance seems wishy-washy and probably deserves its dismissal, by a contemptuous  Friedrich Engels, as shame-faced atheism.

My position is "strong" agnosticism. It denies that God's existence can ever be disproved. There are many definitions of God, some of which seem to say nothing at all about God except that he exists. I hold that it is impossible to disprove all these definitions. If, to take an extreme example, science were one day to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the universe was created by a mad scientist in a basement laboratory, it would still be possible to posit that the prior universe in which that scientist lived was created by God. Moreover, that scientist, regardless of his inhuman brilliance, would be unable, in principle, to prove that God does not exist -- or so I maintain. I might add that this view is not just a matter of logic chopping, or a sly way of skirting theological issues. It is offered in good faith with an honest appreciation of the merits of religion, science, and reason. It's not just that I don't know, I assert that we cannot know. "

[The Troll]

  My opinion is, there is no god.     No god that is the creation of the Christian religion.     No god that is in the bible.    The god in the religions of the world is the product of many false believers and leaders who have use their god to control the masses of sheeple people.      Let us  

  If there is a creator of the universe the entity is so far beyond the human brain or intelligence that  we as mere humans is inconceivable.  And he doesn't give a damn about the people on this mere speck of matter in the inconceivable universe.   

[Bo D]

Maybe I should start a new thread "Weird Science" because this is truly bizarre.

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2014/07/muscle-powered-bio-bots-walk-command?et_cid=4025373&et_rid=54725525&location=top

Muscle-powered Bio-bots Walk on Command

[libby]

 

Maybe I should start a new thread "Weird Science" because this is truly bizarre.

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2014/07/muscle-powered-bio-bots-walk-command?et_cid=4025373&et_rid=54725525&location=top

Muscle-powered Bio-bots Walk on Command

 

[libby]

Just when I was beginning to think I understood a little of what quantum physics is all about, some scientists announced they'd found a flaw in Einstein's theory. But then I found this delightful article in the Washington Post. Meant to post it here, but got caught up in real life, real time speed, and forgot. 

The Washington Post

By Alexandra Petri, Published: February 23

A Saner World Than We Thought


It turns out those faster-than-light neutrinos at Europe's CERN lab might have been, well, not.

While the neutrinos appeared to arrive 60 nanoseconds faster than it would have taken to make the trip at light speed, Science magazine reported Wednesday that a bad fiber-optic cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit could account for the results.

But, wait! The scientists at CERN also noted in their news release that, in addition to the problem with the cable, another potential source of error "could have led to an overestimate of the neutrino's time of flight."

Perhaps there's still hope for the speedy neutrinos. But in general, as BlogPost writer Elizabeth Flock notes, when you think you are right and Albert Einstein is wrong, you are wrong.

It's all a bit disappointing. I was really counting on those subatomic particles. I invested heavily in hyperdrives. I bought a Groupon for spinning class on Kepler 22b. This is just another reason I should never purchase Groupons (and never mind those 581 cupcakes that are lurking uneaten in my refrigerator).

So much for improbability.

So much for all those jokes about bartenders saying, "Hey, we don't serve faster-than-light particles here," and then a neutrino walks into a bar.

So much for space travel. After all this time boasting that we violated the laws of nature, we may owe them some sort of apology card.

But, for the moment, that the world is saner than we thought it was might actually be the biggest news there is.

We're waiting for more confirmation, and maybe the follow-up tests will prove the neutrinos are still exceeding the speed limit.

But, for once, someone's pronouncement that the World Has Been Turned Upside Down And Everything We Know Is Incorrect could actually be proved wrong. This so seldom happens. We might as well savor it.

— Alexandra Petri


© The Washington Post Company

[Bo D]

Who doesn't remember this?

Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

Dave Bowman: What's the problem?

HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.


Is this the first step towards something like that?

Does your Computer Know How You're Feeling?

Researchers in Bangladesh have designed a computer program that can accurately recognize users' emotional states as much as 87 percent of the time, depending on the emotion. Writing in the journal Behaviour & Information Technology, A.F.M. Nazmul Haque Nahin and his colleagues describe how their study combined — for the first time — two established ways of detecting user emotions: keystroke dynamics and text-pattern analysis.

While much work remains to be done, this research is an important step in making 'emotionally intelligent' systems that recognize users' emotional states to adapt their music, graphics, content or approach to learning a reality.

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2014/08/does-your-computer-know-how-you%E2%80%99re-feeling?et_cid=4117380&et_rid=54725525&location=top