Skylight for a moon colony.

[Ursa major]

To be fair, Dusty, it's very difficult to prove a negative (even where belief is not involved).

 

[Sparrow]

dustinzgirl ~Prove it.

And where do you have your cosmology degree from? Or astronomy degree? Physics degree?

The School of Hard Knocks.
And the burden of proof is shared. If you believe we're all part of a grand scheme of some sort, than the Author of that scheme either exists or at one time existed. If something exists you should be able to prove it. If something does not exist I can only offer probabilities.
Read The Blind Watchmaker, you'll see what I mean.

Hawking says: “As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences and so should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that the big bang was the beginning of time."

I call ********.
This is the clever way your "mega-genius" dodges a sticky subject; any theory that houses the Big Bang at it's primal center, must also consider what went on before the "beginning of time", and what exactly caused the explosion-- as opposed to a non-explosion, and what threshold was realized to set off such an explosion, and on and on... You also need to ask yourself if all these questions might be inherently flawed in ways we cannot comprehend. I would prefer a honest "I don't know" as opposed to "stupid question".

Hawking formulates: “The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe…our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe…if we discover a complete theory…then we shall all…be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist”.

You would only ask why we exist if you already sorta kinda know the answer. If it turns out there is no grand scheme, or intelligence behind creation, then how important is the why of it?

 

[dustinzgirl]

To be fair, Dusty, it's very difficult to prove a negative (even where belief is not involved).

The School of Hard Knocks.
And the burden of proof is shared. If it turns out there is no grand scheme, or intelligence behind creation, then how important is the why of it?

So since neither of us can be proven, since its difficult to prove either side without well, a TARDIS, then I can't take your statements as absolute.

I also do not think Hawking is a fraud as he poses theories, not creates laws, there is a differece between a theory and a law.

I often theorize that God is a multidimensionaltimetravellingsupraintelligentmultiuniversal being, which I believe is completely and totally possible.

I also often theorize that there are things in the universe we can not possibly begin to understand, as it is impossbile to define the entire universe from our singular fixed physical point in time and space.

I do not see why the Universe itself can't be an intelligent being, as it was born and it grows and it will one day die.

I think its utterly arrogant to define life and intelligence simply from the planet earth, when we can't even figure out how to travel outside our solar system, and based on your other statements even if we could, we shouldn't.

So I read your collective statements as being ones of human fact--there are no facts other than what can be proven from our single point on earth, and there is no logic other than what humans can define.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I believe the Universe is full of things we couldn't even begin to describe, let alone define.

I have read many of your replies in many areas, Sparrow, and I have not once agreed with anything you have to say, as the majority of your statements have no scientific foundation and really seem to be extremely conservative, to the point of constricting invention and knowledge, things I find extremely sad.

Hawking is not a fraud. A fraud is a person who intentionally deceives others. Hawking states his theories based on his education. Other scientists disagree with these theories based on their own education and their own theories.

That, my dear, is called science.

The WHY is always important.

 

[HareBrain]

Non-scientist here, about to get his coat ...

Why can't people leave the moon alone? Part of what makes it beautiful when I see it in the night sky is knowing that only a handful of humans have set foot there, that mankind hasn't yet exploited it and turned it into some shoddy commercial materials-grabbing venture.

Gah, I say. Gah!

 

[dustinzgirl]

Non-scientist here, about to get his coat ...

Why can't people leave the moon alone? Part of what makes it beautiful when I see it in the night sky is knowing that only a handful of humans have set foot there, that mankind hasn't yet exploited it and turned it into some shoddy commercial materials-grabbing venture.

Gah, I say. Gah!

But it will be so much prettier when it glows green and red!!

Also---its in our human nature to exploit resources, and has been ever since we figured out how to make fire.

 

[Sparrow]

I have to agree with you Hare.

Leave the Moon as a pristine ornament circling Earth until the end of time.
Thus far we've only defiled the Moon by sticking an American flag in it, which says more about us humans than we would like. And I guess just recently NASA bombed the Moon to find out if there might be water under the surface... which again doesn't really speak well of us.

For all we know it was the Moon that helped propagate life on our planet?

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

The human race is going to die anyway no matter what happens.


For those of you who think that a moon colony is going to be our savior? Um, hello!!! What do you think all those giant bowl-shaped holes were created by? Hungry giant aliens who use them as cereal bowls?


There's also something I recall from The History Channel about how the moon is slowly drifting away from the planet, and therefore from the sun. No matter what technology we make, can we really survive another thousand thousand years if there's no properly-sized star in sight to provide us with natural heat and light? If we did create a moon colony, what would happen if, say, the moon was drifting away from us in a random direction and it just happened to bump into the orbit of a star that's the size of, say, Betelgeuse, which is said to be about four times the size of our sun. What then? There would be far too much heat and radiation for living creatures from Earth to cope.


Temporary mining expeditions and such like that? It seems to be far more likely than a permanent, birth-to-death life on the satellite. Not to mention the fact that humans breed and an exponential rate, especially if you eliminate a lot of the Earthly causes of death, and the fact that the moon is only a fraction the size of our planet, and our planet is groaning and creaking terribly under the strain of our influence on her......

 

[skeptical]

Manarion

First : the moon is not humankind's salvation. It is just a stepping stone. As I keep saying, it is all a matter of time scale. It will take hundreds of years, possibly a thousand, before the first human trip to another star. Theoretically, it is possible to use an extension of today's physics to build a craft that can accelerate to 0.1c. Of course, that will require a lot of development and we will not be able to do it for hundreds of years.

However, if we look far enough ahead, we can envisage craft exploring other star systems. Such craft would need to be enormous, and capable of supporting life indefinitely. It is a small extension of this idea to imagine them mining ice and minerals from moons, asteroids, or planetary rings, and building more such craft. Once humanity gets going, the expansion can quickly become exponential. You just have to think in terms of thousands of years.

Second : the moon is definitely moving further from Earth, but it will remain in orbit. It will, on average, move no further from the sun than it is now.

There is no reason why a moon colony should not be pretty much self sustaining. However, it is probable that such a colony would be underground. It would need its own source of energy. Hopefully, by then, we will have access to nuclear fusion, which would be almost unlimited. Within 100 years, that should be possible.

Ditto for a Mars colony. Humans can turn troglodyte when needed, and Mars may end up with a network of human inhabited tunnels lit by artificial light, and kept at a balmy 22 C.

Of course, if you are going underground, and generating heat and light by nuclear fusion, there is nothing to stop us colonising the moons of Jupiter, or Saturn, as well.

When we get to Alpha Centauri, I am sure there will be assorted orbiting debris to colonise and exploit also.

 

[Sparrow]

skeptical ~There is no reason why a moon colony should not be pretty much self sustaining. However, it is probable that such a colony would be underground. It would need its own source of energy. Hopefully, by then, we will have access to nuclear fusion, which would be almost unlimited. Within 100 years, that should be possible.

What?
They've yet to create a self-sustaining (under glass) environment here on Earth much less the Moon. Biosphere2 broke down within a few months, and even that was after some cheating by the participants.


And Alpha Centauri is over four light years away and is not believed to be a good candidate for supporting life. It's thought that with binary star systems it may be much trickier for a planet to develop and retain a heavy atmosphere. Also, I wish folks would stop assuming that mining operations will be the salvation of every deep space voyage. Once you've extracted god knows what from god knows where, you then have to refine and process the raw material! These are massive undertakings on Earth and are often dangerous under the best conditions. To think we're actually going to plop down on some asteriod, or moon, or planet, and start mining away is absolutely absurd. Mining has been a favorite trope of science fiction tales almost from the begining, but like most things fictional it works better on paper than in real life.

 

[dustinzgirl]

What?
They've yet to create a self-sustaining (under glass) environment here on Earth much less the Moon. Biosphere2 broke down within a few months, and even that was after some cheating by the participants.


And Alpha Centauri is over four light years away and is not believed to be a good candidate for supporting life. It's thought that with binary star systems it may be much trickier for a planet to develop and retain a heavy atmosphere. Also, I wish folks would stop assuming that mining operations will be the salvation of every deep space voyage. Once you've extracted god knows what from god knows where, you then have to refine and process the raw material! These are massive undertakings on Earth and are often dangerous under the best conditions. To think we're actually going to plop down on some asteriod, or moon, or planet, and start mining away is absolutely absurd. Mining has been a favorite trope of science fiction tales almost from the begining, but like most things fictional it works better on paper than in real life.

Yes, and before they made a cure for polio there was no working cure for polio.

So, I kind of fail to understand.

I think it can work in real life, I really don't see why its so absurd. We've already landed on another planet.

Within the next hundred years, as long as we are devoted to scientific discovery, then I don't see why not.

 

[skeptical]

Sparrow

Again you ignore the time factor. I am talking of a minimum time of 100 years hence. Think of technology 100 years ago. What we can do now that we could not then.

If something is impossible in theory (eg faster than light travel) I will agree with you. We aint gonna do it. However, if something is theoretically possible with today's physics, then it is reasonable to assume we will achieve it, even if it takes 100 years.

Setting up a working biosphere is entirely possible in theory. The fact that the first attempt failed means absolutely nothing. Each failure teaches us more, and eventually we get it.

About Alpha Centauri. It is 4.3 light years away. However, we are not going to travel at anything like light speed. Assuming the theoretically possible speed of 0.1c and a time to accelerate to that speed of ten years, and a time to decelerate of another ten years, then the trip to Alpha Centauri will take 55 years.

Can a space vessel travel 55 years? Obviously not with today's technology. However, we are talking at least 500 years, and more likely 1000 years in the future. So I would have to say, yes!

Could such a vessel find sustenance at Alpha Centauri. If it was pre-prepared, yes. We cannot expect an Earth like planet. However, as long as Alpha Centauri has moons, asteroids, planetary rings, comets etc., there will be water and minerals. Water will be the most important item, but that is abundant in our own solar system, and there is no reason to believe it will be less so at Alpha Centauri.

I used to work for a company that had a number of industrial processes going. One was to use electric arc furnace to melt basalt rock, and blow it into fibres for fire-proof insulation. Sold under the brand name Rokwool. They had to extract the iron from the basalt first, since it was an impurity that stuffed up the fibre forming process. Each year, they produced thousands of tonnes of pig iron, which they sold. The point here is that rocks and minerals contain vital materials that can be extracted and used if enough energy is available. Fusion power will give ample energy.

In addition, 500 to 1000 years in the future will see enormous advances in artificiial intelligence and robotics. With that resource, it would probably be possible to send an unmanned vessel, loaded with robot equipment first, and get it to build a habitat for humans before they even leave Earth.

 

[Sparrow]

skeptical ~Could such a vessel find sustenance at Alpha Centauri. If it was pre-prepared, yes. We cannot expect an Earth like planet. However, as long as Alpha Centauri has moons, asteroids, planetary rings, comets etc., there will be water and minerals. Water will be the most important item, but that is abundant in our own solar system, and there is no reason to believe it will be less so at Alpha Centauri.

No matter how advanced the spaceship the occupants will at some point need to come in from the cold. A terrestrial planet with exploitable resources will need to be at the other end of a journey. As I said before, the thinking is that binary star systems are not nearly as stable as our own solar experience so we don't at all know what Alpha Centauri has to offer. Our solar system is lucky enough to have four "gas giant" planets which probably had something to do with attracting nearby comets and such into the inner planetary orbits where they sometimes collided with Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury. It doesn't appear Alpha Centauri can support gas giants.

But who knows.

 

[skeptical]

Sparrow

You asked : "Who knows?"

It is rather likely to be Homo sapiens who knows, long before we ever send any person to Alpha Centauri. There are already tentative plans for enormous space telescopes that will be able, not only to image planets around Alpha Centauri, but to carry out spectroscopic analyses of their surface composition.

In addition, robot probes will be sent to Alpha Centauri probably 100 years or more before the first people. The robot reports will tell us pretty much exactly what is there.

I do not believe that humans have to live on planets. Lots of our people already live in seriously artificial habitats now - air conditioned high rise buildings, where food comes out of a freezer or a tin can, or McDonalds. I have met people who show no interest at all in ever leaving the confines of the big cities, and who find happiness in shopping malls.

Is it such a stretch of the imagination to suggest that people in future might live in giant, city size, habitats in space? These can be cylindrical shapes to spin for gravity. Store their water supplies outside the hull as a two metre thick shell, so that it doubles as a radiation shield. And have a very long axis around which it rotates that is also a linear accelerator, as its star drive engine.

Once we have communities of such people, it is no stretch to suggest they might build more habitats in space, using the debris of stellar systems as raw materials. These habitats will be equipped for mobility - capable of travelling vast distances through space.

Given enough time (1000 years plus), and no catastrophes in the mean time, I suspect that these developments will be almost inevitable.