Humans Are not made to travel into Space. Its a waste of Money.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity of space. All the money being spent on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!

Nonsense!

Socialists just know that there is other life forms out there, and when they find them, they will infiltrate them, subvert them, and make them pay for real universal health care coverage.

Good grief, are 500 trillion political threads not enough for you people? Come on...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.

I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different. Did he bring up the Firstborn? Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction. While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God. In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools. He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be. There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology. At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child. Well, it's one interpretation.

I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.

Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"

A: "Whats the difference?"

As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.



If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't. They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.

 

[petro]

I've just watched Kubrick's A Space Odyssey. Millions of miles from Earth on the Jupiter mission, and still not at the destination!

I didn't understand the ending. Having read the book some years ago to understand the ending, and then having understood it, I've forgotten what I understood. So I'm back to square one.

There are several more books also. 2010 which was made into a movie. 2061 and now I guess 3001 which I haven't read.
The basic premise is that humanity is and always was being guided by a higher intelligence. The monolith appears at every major evolutionary event for humankind.

 

[rightwinger]

Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
The oceans provide a protective shield

It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet

Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit. The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike. Absolutely none.

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth

Wow, you really are anti science. I suggest you actually do some research before you respond. You are remarkably ignorant.

Nice comeback

Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?

You're not helping yourself, dude. Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second. BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.

Why?

A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster

 

[ABikerSailor]

Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit. The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike. Absolutely none.

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth

Wow, you really are anti science. I suggest you actually do some research before you respond. You are remarkably ignorant.

Nice comeback

Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?

You're not helping yourself, dude. Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second. BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.

Why?

A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster

Unfortunately, you would have to work out the pressure equations, as well as construct something that would be stronger than most things known today, because pressure increases with depth.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/nemo1998/education/pressure.html

If you are at sea level, each square inch of your surface is subjected to a force of 14.6 pounds. The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth. At a depth of 5,000 meters the pressure will be approximately 500 atmospheres or 500 times greater than the pressure at sea level.

 

[Flopper]

Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.

I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different. Did he bring up the Firstborn? Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction. While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God. In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools. He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be. There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology. At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child. Well, it's one interpretation.

I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.

Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"

A: "Whats the difference?"

As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.



If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't. They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.

We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.

I imagine history would look a bit different, if the american Indians had disintegrators.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth

Wow, you really are anti science. I suggest you actually do some research before you respond. You are remarkably ignorant.

Nice comeback

Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?

You're not helping yourself, dude. Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second. BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.

Why?

A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster

Unfortunately, you would have to work out the pressure equations, as well as construct something that would be stronger than most things known today, because pressure increases with depth.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/nemo1998/education/pressure.html

If you are at sea level, each square inch of your surface is subjected to a force of 14.6 pounds. The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth. At a depth of 5,000 meters the pressure will be approximately 500 atmospheres or 500 times greater than the pressure at sea level.

Or else survive on an unreachable planet with wild swings in temperature and weather

At least the ocean is a known

 

[ABikerSailor]

Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.

I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different. Did he bring up the Firstborn? Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction. While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God. In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools. He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be. There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology. At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child. Well, it's one interpretation.

I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.

Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"

A: "Whats the difference?"

As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.



If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't. They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.

We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.

That would be a VERY bad idea. If they have the technology to make it across the stars, they will have a lot of other tech just as advanced, and if it's for defense or warfare, the human race would be screwed. Think about what happened when Cortez (advanced race) landed in Central America. He immediately enslaved the population and had them mine silver for him. And, because Cortez was more advanced than the Aztecs and Inca, they were swallowed up and are no more.

 

[Flopper]

Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.

I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different. Did he bring up the Firstborn? Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction. While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God. In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools. He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be. There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology. At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child. Well, it's one interpretation.

I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.

Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"

A: "Whats the difference?"

As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.



If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't. They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.

We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.

That would be a VERY bad idea. If they have the technology to make it across the stars, they will have a lot of other tech just as advanced, and if it's for defense or warfare, the human race would be screwed. Think about what happened when Cortez (advanced race) landed in Central America. He immediately enslaved the population and had them mine silver for him. And, because Cortez was more advanced than the Aztecs and Inca, they were swallowed up and are no more.

Since we are discussing aliens, they could be so different from us, that the concepts of violence, hate, love, good, evil, or even individuality, would not even exist. Many science fiction writers have theorized that alien beings might be so different from us, that any type understanding or even communication would be impossible.

 

[westwall]

Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit. The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike. Absolutely none.

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth

Wow, you really are anti science. I suggest you actually do some research before you respond. You are remarkably ignorant.

Nice comeback

Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?

You're not helping yourself, dude. Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second. BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.

Why?

A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster

No, it ain't. In the event of a asteroid strike the resulting earthquakes will destroy your happy little underwater colony. You forget, the sea floor is porridge. It will liquify and the next thing you will know is you are buried under a dozen feet of muck, with no way to dig yourself out.

 

[westwall]

I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different. Did he bring up the Firstborn? Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction. While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God. In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools. He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be. There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology. At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child. Well, it's one interpretation.

I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.

Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"

A: "Whats the difference?"

As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.



If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't. They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.

We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.

That would be a VERY bad idea. If they have the technology to make it across the stars, they will have a lot of other tech just as advanced, and if it's for defense or warfare, the human race would be screwed. Think about what happened when Cortez (advanced race) landed in Central America. He immediately enslaved the population and had them mine silver for him. And, because Cortez was more advanced than the Aztecs and Inca, they were swallowed up and are no more.

Since we are discussing aliens, they could be so different from us, that the concepts of violence, hate, love, good, evil, or even individuality, would not even exist. Many science fiction writers have theorized that alien beings might be so different from us, that any type understanding or even communication would be impossible.

And they would be wrong. Any culture, capable of traversing the vast reaches of space, will be able to understand other cultures. It may take a while, but it would happen without fail.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity of space. All the money being spent on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!

The electronics you’re using is made possible by men going into space.

 

[westwall]

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth

Wow, you really are anti science. I suggest you actually do some research before you respond. You are remarkably ignorant.

Nice comeback

Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?

You're not helping yourself, dude. Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second. BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.

Why?

A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster

Unfortunately, you would have to work out the pressure equations, as well as construct something that would be stronger than most things known today, because pressure increases with depth.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/nemo1998/education/pressure.html

If you are at sea level, each square inch of your surface is subjected to a force of 14.6 pounds. The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth. At a depth of 5,000 meters the pressure will be approximately 500 atmospheres or 500 times greater than the pressure at sea level.

There are far more problems. The pressure is only one of them.

 

[westwall]

Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.

I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different. Did he bring up the Firstborn? Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction. While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God. In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools. He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be. There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology. At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child. Well, it's one interpretation.

I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.

Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"

A: "Whats the difference?"

As Arthur C. Clarke himself said..................

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.



If aliens landed on Earth today, we would more than likely regard them as "god like" because they can travel between the stars, we can't. They probably also have some other tech that would simply blow the minds of both our top scientists AND top science fiction writers.

We would do to them exactly what we do to humans that aren't white, Christian, and speak English.

No, they would squash us like the ants we are to them. Hopefully they will take pity on us and leave us alone so we can develop more.

 

[westwall]

Wow, you really are anti science. I suggest you actually do some research before you respond. You are remarkably ignorant.

Nice comeback

Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?

You're not helping yourself, dude. Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second. BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.

Why?

A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster

Unfortunately, you would have to work out the pressure equations, as well as construct something that would be stronger than most things known today, because pressure increases with depth.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/nemo1998/education/pressure.html

If you are at sea level, each square inch of your surface is subjected to a force of 14.6 pounds. The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth. At a depth of 5,000 meters the pressure will be approximately 500 atmospheres or 500 times greater than the pressure at sea level.

Or else survive on an unreachable planet with wild swings in temperature and weather

At least the ocean is a known

Not really. If it were known we would already be down there. Lots of wealth in the oceans if you can only extract it.

The fact that we haven't yet proves the falsity of your claims.

 

[007]

Don't know if this has been mentioned in all the posts so far, but there is a study going on of organisms that are resilient to the radiation of space. If scientists could splice the genes of those organisms with humans, we wouldn't have to worry about space radiation.

 

[007]

We are only bound to earth by our own limitations in imagination. Necessity is the mother of invention. Where there is a will, there is a way.

We will venture into space, and we'll do it and not have to worry about space radiation... someday.

 

[007]

Our sun is collapsing. Someday it will finally implode and then explode, and will wipe out our galaxy. Earth will be gone. We have to be long gone before that. The search for XO planets in the sweet zone is fast and furious at this very moment, and the discovery of those planets is happening as we speak.

Now we just have to have our government reveal the anti matter, anti gravity drive UFO technology to the world so we can all get to work reverse engineering it so we can get off this planet. But we can't travel through space even at light space. Space has to be folded. Time and space has to be warped. Why do you think even Star Trek calls the drive engines on the Enterprise WARP DRIVE? It's got nothing to do with speed. They are warping space.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth

Wow, you really are anti science. I suggest you actually do some research before you respond. You are remarkably ignorant.

Nice comeback

Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?

You're not helping yourself, dude. Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second. BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.

Why?

A colony hundreds of feet down in the ocean is survivable
A colony light years away is much more vulnerable to natural disaster

No, it ain't. In the event of a asteroid strike the resulting earthquakes will destroy your happy little underwater colony. You forget, the sea floor is porridge. It will liquify and the next thing you will know is you are buried under a dozen feet of muck, with no way to dig yourself out.

You don’t need to dig yourself out
Colonies can be made all over the earth
Some would be affected by the strike, others would not