# The mysterious monuments of Kazakhstan



## Brian G Turner (Nov 3, 2015)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...stan-that-resemble-ancient-crop-a6717766.html




> Nasa has released pictures of huge patterns drawn on the ground in Kazakhstan, in an attempt to solve the mystery behind how they got there.
> 
> The huge formations are known as the Steppe Geoglyphs. Scientists have little idea how they were formed — but think that solving the mystery could lead to a huge change in how we understand early humans.
> 
> ...


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 3, 2015)

Its the Sectoids Brian!

I always find ancient structures that are visible from space to be really interesting. Especially those like the ones above that have some geometric significance.


----------



## svalbard (Nov 3, 2015)

Fascinating. It is a mind boggling exercise to imagine what sort of life our ancestors led in those ancient times, what the landscape looked like, what it meant to the people who lived there.

Interestingly Kazakhstan has thrown up some oddities over the years. The Kurgan burial sites that hold the corpses of what seems like warrior women. It lends some sort of validity to Herodotus's tales of the Amazons.


----------



## J Riff (Nov 3, 2015)

Clearly it only meant much to people who lived in the air.


----------



## PartialMitch (Nov 3, 2015)

J Riff said:


> Clearly it only meant much to people who lived in the air.



Eh, for me such thoughts are too much of a reach. Medieval cathedrals were often designed to be shaped like a cross if viewed from above for the symbolic purposes of the church, not because anyone was flying overhead. Constructs like this are far more likely, in my mind, to serve such purposes than they would be to really require airborne viewing.

There's also the question of whether they can be seen from nearby hills. The Nazca lines, for example, are often pointed to in a similar manner by UFO-enthusiasts ("You can only see them from above.") ... but they are visible from nearby hilltops and rises. That fact is usually left out of accounts, particularly in works and programs that seek to hype the "alien" connection.

I'm continually impressed by the genius and creative potential of our ancestors. It gives me hope for the future to think that thousands of years ago we could come together to create such wonders as this or Gobekli Tepe or even the comparatively tiny Harhoog (my favorite name in all of archaeology). Every time friends talk about how people are savage, brutal, selfish monsters (usually when discussing the Walking Dead, lol), I think back to the cooperation, creativity and willpower shown so often in history. There are definitely rotten aspects to humanity, but overall, we're  pretty good, and we're only getting better.


----------



## Nick B (Nov 3, 2015)

I'm not saying its aliens, but...


----------



## J Riff (Nov 4, 2015)

I'm not sure I like the 'we' word... looking around at this neighborhood.... but fine, it was meant to be viewed from.... balloons. During the Golden Age of Ballooning.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 5, 2015)

A parking lot for flying saucers ?


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 8, 2015)

PartialMitch said:


> Eh, for me such thoughts are too much of a reach. Medieval cathedrals were often designed to be shaped like a cross if viewed from above for the symbolic purposes of the church, not because anyone was flying overhead. Constructs like this are far more likely, in my mind, to serve such purposes than they would be to really require airborne viewing.
> 
> There's also the question of whether they can be seen from nearby hills. The Nazca lines, for example, are often pointed to in a similar manner by UFO-enthusiasts ("You can only see them from above.") ... but they are visible from nearby hilltops and rises. That fact is usually left out of accounts, particularly in works and programs that seek to hype the "alien" connection.
> 
> I'm continually impressed by the genius and creative potential of our ancestors. It gives me hope for the future to think that thousands of years ago we could come together to create such wonders as this or Gobekli Tepe or even the comparatively tiny Harhoog (my favorite name in all of archaeology). Every time friends talk about how people are savage, brutal, selfish monsters (usually when discussing the Walking Dead, lol), I think back to the cooperation, creativity and willpower shown so often in history. There are definitely rotten aspects to humanity, but overall, we're  pretty good, and we're only getting better.




Unless we find a way to fix the environmental damage that were doing , we're going cause our own extinction and there will be no one to admire whatever monuments we leave behind.


----------



## PartialMitch (Nov 9, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Unless we find a way to fix the environmental damage that were doing , we're going cause our own extinction and there will be no one to admire whatever monuments we leave behind.



You know, we're so clever that I'm not particularly worried about extinction through environmental damage ... not of _our_ species, anyway. Sure, we'll probably end up suffering greatly due to our negligence, but we (as a species, definitely not as individuals) will survive, possibly in ways that folks here and now can't even imagine. Oh, societies may collapse, and millions may die from starvation, but humans are smart and adaptable. Some of us will live.

It's the death of the natural world that troubles me. In part because I view all life as worthy of respect, so our casual extermination of the biosphere strikes me as a kind of blasphemy. All living things are children of evolution, inheritors of the billions of years of Earth's life history; I hesitate to kill even flies, out of respect for that heritage. More than that though, all life is tied together in the tangle of complex food webs, energy exchange and environmental cycles. We risk a lot of pain for our descendants by messing around with complicated systems that are beyond our understanding. Humanity is likely to survive for a long time, but our nasty habits will hurt us. They already are.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 9, 2015)

PartialMitch said:


> You know, we're so clever that I'm not particularly worried about extinction through environmental damage ... not of _our_ species, anyway. Sure, we'll probably end up suffering greatly due to our negligence, but we (as a species, definitely not as individuals) will survive, possibly in ways that folks here and now can't even imagine. Oh, societies may collapse, and millions may die from starvation, but humans are smart and adaptable. Some of us will live.
> 
> It's the death of the natural world that troubles me. In part because I view all life as worthy of respect, so our casual extermination of the biosphere strikes me as a kind of blasphemy. All living things are children of evolution, inheritors of the billions of years of Earth's life history; I hesitate to kill even flies, out of respect for that heritage. More than that though, all life is tied together in the tangle of complex food webs, energy exchange and environmental cycles. We risk a lot of pain for our descendants by messing around with complicated systems that are beyond our understanding. Humanity is likely to survive for a long time, but our nasty habits will hurt us. They already are.



The rate at which were wiping out species  is very troubling. The Black Rhino is gone , it Sumatran Rhino and poachers in the congo are killing off the elephants. Many other species  are on the edge . If we wipe out all the animals. how long can we survive? 

Then there is destruction of the Rain Forests in South America .  In Brazil they are destroying an area about the size of Rhode Island even year for farming and cattle grazing and charcoal manufacturing . They think the forest will grow back. It won't.  As for the land they've cleared, it's exhausted soil . It might produce crops for one or two season but that it,  and the grass that does grow is ill-suited to cattle. 

In Equador farmers are given forested land land with the provision that they clear away the forest. The government in the country is run by by a bunch of short sighted idiots  who don't care about the long term consequences of what they are doing.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 10, 2015)

Exhausted soil and the ability to produce food are going to be the things that kill us most likely - or a supervolcane, or a planetary impact, solar flair etc etc - I think it most likely to be a natural cause (of which I consider Global Warming a natural cycle - albeit one we have sped up)

I mean in the UK we already dig out tonnes and tonnes of seabed material to use as fertilizer - as a natural resource good soil is not a renewable (at least not in terms of a human timeline).

I have absolutely no doubt we will die on this rocky planet at some time in the future. I always like remembering that the Dinosaurs ruled this planet for millions of years and we have been on here a tiny time compared to them.


----------



## Nick B (Nov 10, 2015)

Pessimism is a beautiful thing to watch. Personally, I dont subscribe to the doomfuture club.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 10, 2015)

Hey Quellist,

I don't think its a case of subscribing to anything - just seems like the logical conclusion for any planet based species - we are totally and utterly dependant on our environment, so much so that a change of a couple of degrees is disastrous on a global scale.

For me it can be brought down to three basic questions:

Given known scientific constraints and given human history as a precursor - can we look after this Earth and not destroy it? (by destroy I mean make it uninhabitable for humankind).

Assuming we can tackle or own destructive nature do you not think a planetary scale E.L.E is preventable?

Long term survival requires we leave our meagre little planet and spread to the stars - do you really think this is feasible?

I suppose I could be considered pessimistic - its not like I don't think we can try and its not like I don't think we are morally obligated to look after the world for our future generations. I just think long term it makes no difference. Much like the animal fighting for its last gasp of life I expect humans to fight to the very end - conflict is life and all that!


----------



## Nick B (Nov 10, 2015)

Yes, I think leaving our tiny blue rock is feasable. I also believe that in order to survive as a species, it is crucial. One day an ELE WILL destroy the planet utterly. Wether it will be a moon sized comet next year, or in 4 billion years when the sun engulfs it, it WILL be destroyed. 

I just dont do the whole 'mankind will inevitably destroy itself' thing. We will, however, die out if we dont bother planning long term survival.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 10, 2015)

Hey Quellist,

Thanks - I appreciate your answer but it seems dependant on humans being able to survive away from the Earth

How do you envision we are going to survive outside of the Earth and without the Earths biosphere? I think we could probably live on moons/asteroids and they might have the chemical requirements but I imagine that food resources would need to be shipped from a functioning biosphere.

If we assume that Alpha Centauri has a habitable planet then it still takes us almost 4 years to get there assuming near to C speeds and assuming unproven technology and that's out nearest option. It may be that Earth like inhabitable planets are plentiful in the cosmos - but I personally think it very unlikely we would ever get there.

It leaves the terraforming option - again I think the best bet here would be to fire some hydrogen and nitrogen rich asteroids into Mars and seed it with extremophile life forms - unfortunately you then have to wait a few billion years!

Personally I just don't ever see us having the requisite technology - not because I believe we are incapable but because I firmly believe all technology has a plateau and that humans will reach the peak whereby we understand almost all physical limitations (with the exception of infinite mathematics which I don't think we will ever understand - because I don't think it can be understood by 3 dimensional beings.)

None of this is an attack on your viewpoint - I am just interested in how you see humanity developing.


----------



## J Riff (Nov 10, 2015)

Grrr... growl.... squeeek.... arfarf.... oops wait, I switch to human talk...


----------



## J Riff (Nov 10, 2015)

The loss of contact with the aminals... is the worst bit. That needs to be fixed before advanced aliens will have anything to do with us. Imagine ET coming here - and seeing what we have done to Elephants and the other big critters... they would not be impressed with the swarming human concrete hives.... Too many two-leggers down there...


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2015)

Quellist said:


> Yes, I think leaving our tiny blue rock is feasable. I also believe that in order to survive as a species, it is crucial. One day an ELE WILL destroy the planet utterly. Wether it will be a moon sized comet next year, or in 4 billion years when the sun engulfs it, it WILL be destroyed.
> 
> I just dont do the whole 'mankind will inevitably destroy itself' thing. We will, however, die out if we dont bother planning long term survival.




They project The earth will be uninhabitable in 1 billion years because the Sun at that stage will be  about 20 percent hotter.


----------



## Nick B (Nov 11, 2015)

Our initial expansion into the galaxy will be slow, colonisation of the moon, mars etc and space stations. As long as we can take these baby steps succesfully there is no reason we cant expand into the greater galaxy. The solar system is resource rich, advanced robotic syrstems can do the gathering. Food production ista hurdle but can be done.

3 dimensional beings? Are we? I would say we are 4 dimensional, just including time. Anything more is beyond our knowledge for now. We may (and probably do) inhabit more (if they exist). We are limited only by our _current _understanding and knowledge.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 11, 2015)

Quellist said:


> Our initial expansion into the galaxy will be slow, colonisation of the moon, mars etc and space stations. As long as we can take these baby steps succesfully there is no reason we cant expand into the greater galaxy. The solar system is resource rich, advanced robotic syrstems can do the gathering. Food production ista hurdle but can be done.
> 
> 3 dimensional beings? Are we? I would say we are 4 dimensional, just including time. Anything more is beyond our knowledge for now. We may (and probably do) inhabit more (if they exist). We are limited only by our _current _understanding and knowledge.



With the expected destruction of our biosphere where would any food production come from? The complexity of life dictates an evolving biosphere over millions of years - I don't think we are ever going to be able to reproduce any useful life cycles off planet - our only hope would be a human compatible biosphere on another planet where the germs didn't immediately kill us and the flora and fauna was compatible with our biology.

Essentially a human being as we understand them would not continue to exist unchanged - do we know the log term effects of a species changing gravitational environment? I'm with you in your belief we will get to the moon and we will get to Mars. There is a reason we can't take greater steps into the galaxy - its the fundamental restricting factor, the speed of light. While the speed of light is a constraint any realistic endeavours need to be made using generational ships which are a long way from scientific plausibility.

Our current understanding is the best it has ever been and we are rapidly approaching understanding our fundamental limits, many of the worlds space organisations have reoriented there goal over the previous decades. The problem is to get any further is not about new science, it is about completely breaking scientific models. Whatever you say about Relativity it is experimentally proven. C is a fundamental limit and I don't believe it can ever be broken - faster than C isn't just some arbitrary speed, it is an informational transfer limit.

No I still think we are 3 dimensional beings embedded in 4 dimensional space. The x, y, z coordinates can be changed for us but t always moves in the same direction. Time is not a dimension we can move in or around and arguably has no recourse without the first 3 dimensions.


----------



## Droflet (Nov 11, 2015)

Erich von Däniken would get three books out of this lot.


----------



## Nick B (Nov 11, 2015)

We move in time constantly. And time dilation (since you bring up relativity) means we experience and move in time diffrerently dependent upon subjective conditions. So time itself (and therefore values such as C are maleable, since it relies upon time) is maleable. To be frank, we simply dont understand it enough in order to make predictions about future technologies.

The destruction of our biosphere is not 'expected'. Eventualy, yes, but imminent? No. Possible, but not expected.

Generational starshis are a valid idea, if they are large enough. We can grow things in space.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 11, 2015)

Quellist said:


> We move in time constantly. And time dilation (since you bring up relativity) means we experience and move in time diffrerently dependent upon subjective conditions. So time itself (and therefore values such as C are maleable, since it relies upon time) is maleable. To be frank, we simply dont understand it enough in order to make predictions about future technologies.
> 
> The destruction of our biosphere is not 'expected'. Eventualy, yes, but imminent? No. Possible, but not expected.
> 
> Generational starshis are a valid idea, if they are large enough. We can grow things in space.



C is not malleable (or I prefer not variant) - one of the fundamental posits of relativity is that the speed of light is invariant from all reference frames. There may be observer bias but this is only ever experienced by the observer. If I travel at .9C and then I shine a light in front of me the light does not travel at .1C it travels at C, irrespective of my speed.

The sort of differences in time you are talking about are fairly irrelevant in terms of human spatial awareness - they only become apparent at relativistic speeds.

The destruction of the Biosphere is expected - it may be a long time in the future but it is definitely going to happen because of the life cycle of our sun.

Generational Starships are a valid idea I will grant that but what are we growing in space? Generational ships are essentially cities in space - you need a populace, a manufacturing base, food production (energy for this food which will disippate further from the sun - how would photosynthesis work?), waste management - were not even talking about the technical hurdles at the moment. A friend of mine over on PhysicsForums is an astrobiologist and we have discussed this at some length. In terms of growing things: The problem is this:

Plant A needs Germ B to grow properly.
Germ B requires Insect F as part of its lifecycle.
Insect F requires Plant CFD....

ad infinitum. Then there's the fuel, then there's the cosial aspect - how long will it take and compare that with the longest stable governments on earth? 

We can make predictions about future technologies - its called Science Fiction!

I appreciate your optimism I just think it is misplaced.


----------



## Nick B (Nov 11, 2015)

I prefer it to the alternative


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 11, 2015)

Quellist said:


> I prefer it to the alternative



That's a fair point. 

I have spoken to my wife about this quite a bit and she always says "If you really believe that then how can you live day to day with such a gloomy outlook" and my response is invariably "just because the universe is cold and uncaring it doesn't mean we should be, nor should it mean we despair - there is still beauty in life and life is only for living".

Thanks for the discussions Quellist - Brians thread led us from ancient monuments to generational starships - I feel this was a logical progression!


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2015)

Droflet said:


> Erich von Däniken would get three books out of this lot.



He can get at least an ongoing  television series out of it. 

Does anyone know when they will be doing a movie reboot of Chariots of the Gods?


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 11, 2015)

Hey Quellist,

I am thinking about a blogpost relating to generation ships and their feasibility (or lackof IMO) and would be interested to use some quotes from this thread - I would of course attribute them appropriately.

Do you have any objection to this? If so its not a problem I am still dong the article I just won't reference you specifically.

No pressure either way.

Cheers


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 11, 2015)

Generation ships only have two real problems:
1) Cost (massive for any big enough)
2) Shielding (massive cost)

The tech to do it has existed maybe since 1960s. Considerably less fraught. Nuclear subs are small closed systems supplied less often than ISS and like a Generation ship rely on a reactor for power (not enough light on the journey for solar panels). 



BAYLOR said:


> Chariots of the Gods


It's garbage, with faked and misrepresented evidence.


----------



## Nick B (Nov 11, 2015)

Feel free @SilentRoamer, post a link or pm me please, I'd like to read it


----------



## SilentRoamer (Nov 11, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Generation ships only have two real problems:
> 1) Cost (massive for any big enough)
> 2) Shielding (massive cost)
> 
> The tech to do it has existed maybe since 1960s. Considerably less fraught. Nuclear subs are small closed systems supplied less often than ISS and like a Generation ship rely on a reactor for power (not enough light on the journey for solar panels).



The technology to do it does not exist - I have discussed this with some of the guys over at Physics forums who were attached to the Orion Project and did a lot of research on shielding - the technology to shield a ship travelling at relativistic speeds just does not exist - at close to C a dust particle hits like a Nuke and while sure dust is fairly sparse in space it does exist. One of the major obstacles for any generational ship is environmental - where is all of the oxygen coming from? The food? The water? The repair and replacement of failed parts?

I would argue that the biosphere is a non trivial problem - we struggle to create stable ecosystems on earth and our understanding of our own ecosystems are actually limited - see my comments above regarding a functioning biosphere. Until you can create a stable environment all the other points are fairly moot.

Another major issue is fuel - especially if we want to stop. Remember fuel is needed to decelerate as well as accelerate as there is no friction in space so momentum is compound. Some of the analysis I have seen show the ship needs to be predominantly fuel, you also need more fuel for that fuel as well.

Comparisons to nuclear subs only go so far - nuclear subs can and do surface for refuelling and resupply. Generation ships are completely separate from any resource or resupply - once you set off you are effectively on your own.

I don't think the technology exists yet in a refined state - it is like saying that once we invente fireworks we had the required rocketry technology to get to the moon.

If you are interested and you have no problem with it could I quote you on the blogpost I am going to do - see upthread. 



Quellist said:


> Feel free @SilentRoamer, post a link or pm me please, I'd like to read it



Thanks Quellist - it might be a while in the making but I post something.


----------



## Droflet (Nov 11, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Generation ships only have two real problems:
> 1) Cost (massive for any big enough)
> 2) Shielding (massive cost)
> 
> ...



Yes Ray, I was being flippant.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 11, 2015)

Droflet said:


> Yes Ray, I was being flippant.


Passed me by ...
I've read a few SF with Gen ships and always been fascinated by the fact it's probably possible. But what would be the motivation for such astronomic cost (today)? At any time in the future using spaceships to evacuate Earth (other than the Cities in flight scenario) is impossible when you do the sums.
So when the people paying the bills don't know if the ship will ever reach anywhere habitable nor ever live to see success if it happened, why would they do it?

Would it be done to save an elite or by lottery to save "qualifying" people in event of some near future tragedy that was going to wipe out all life? The interesting SF story to my mind isn't so much the journey or arrival (typical topics), but the politics of creating one.

We could pick plausible destinations with better space based telescopes (planned right now) doing spectroscopic analysis of atmosphere and better determination of size and orbit. Current information isn't good enough.


----------



## Tulius Hostilius (Jan 10, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-puzzled-by-huge-8000-year-old-mystery-structures-in-kazakhstan-that-resemble-ancient-crop-a6717766.html


Good post Brian. I was completely unaware of this. I had no idea. The discovery is also quite recent (in historical terms). You make some posts that in some ways are brainstormers!


PartialMitch said:


> You know, we're so clever that I'm not particularly worried about extinction through environmental damage ... not of _our_ species, anyway. Sure, we'll probably end up suffering greatly due to our negligence, but we (as a species, definitely not as individuals) will survive, possibly in ways that folks here and now can't even imagine. Oh, societies may collapse, and millions may die from starvation, but humans are smart and adaptable. Some of us will live.


I agree with this perspective. It is not necessarily the human specie that can be in danger, but the live in the planet as we see it today.
And in that, if we are pessimist, we are being realistic.


----------



## PartialMitch (Jan 11, 2016)

Tulius Hostilius said:


> It is not necessarily the human specie that can be in danger, but the live in the planet as we see it today.
> And in that, if we are pessimist, we are being realistic.



Precisely! I fear more for the rest of the biosphere than for our species. Our creativity will protect us from most dangers, but very little is being done to protect the rest of our earthbound neighbors.


----------

