Science without morality, without remorse

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by bradguth, Jul 18, 2004.

  1. bradguth Banned Banned

    Science without morality, without remorse, and without much luck of ever contacting ETs.

    Intellectual loss to humanity comes along with a horrific price tag.

    If you think about the "what if" of there being other intelligent life somewhere other than Earth, and if that prospect were at great distances from Earth, say Sirius at 8.67 light years distant and counting, and to think if we had previously established such a carrier wave or photonic waveguide as of a decade ago that was enabling a transfer and/or sharing of intellectual wealth, at perhaps even greater than light speed of quantum packet exchanges, thereby perhaps terabytes/ms, as what then has become the loss to humanity for our not accomplishing this simple task?

    Sirius may no longer be the nearest community of other souls, whereas actually that could be as close by as Venus since there's so much easily accessible energy, along with a protective physical environment and way more than a sufficient amount of other raw elements as to sustaining intelligent life, though not necessarily representing of anything of radio (dumbfounded as Earth was about much of anything radio as of 150 or so years ago, though otherwise we'd been utilizing visible photons for efficient communications).

    Further than Sirius are those 100+ light year distant likelihoods of environments capable of sustaining other life NOT as we currently know it, and if we continue to ignore the possibility and good measure of what utilizing photons as interstellar/interplanetary communications has to offer, especially those methods capable of transferring information at greater than light speed, then obviously we'll continue to lose out on whatever intellectual wealth, of whatever has been out there (arrogance is bliss).

    At 100+ light year distances, this is merely a matter of investing that amount of time before the required photon waveguide can be established, whereas until then there's not much that we can do, except to look at the past and wonder what we've been missing out on for the past 100+ years. Of course, the round trip for such communication is understood as double that of the distance involved, thus a 100+ light year target represents a 200+ year duplex packet exchange.

    It seems as though, no matters what, that astronomy and astrophysics only wants to look at the past, only wants knowledge of what's been said and done as of hundreds if not thousands or preferably millions of years ago, rather than having to deal with and thereby accountable to the present day needs of others. If you're only interested in the past, then morality of whatever transpired isn't a factor, nor is there any remorse to be considered, as such you can sort of play God with no strings attached, while all about you are those everyday needs and necessities of folks that'll just have to wait until you've finished spending those billions if not trillions, not to mention polluting the environment of Earth to a fairlywell, while wasting whatever talents of your entire life, and without ever the moral fiber as for lifting a finger on behalf of 99.9% of humanity.

    In just the most recent of times, speaking of the past century worth, humanity as invested into ever deeper and thus more distant aspects of astronomy, along with promoting those essential institutions of astrophysics in which the combination of invested trillions upon trillions was mostly into looking at the past. In terms of how much is enough, of not only the timeline of what it has taken, but also of the trillion of diverted resources and talents, as such should we invest another hundred billion, or perhaps trillions more, and in terms of how many decades?

    If it takes an adequate knowledge base of the past in order to comprehend the present and future, then so be it. However, if there is in fact something worthy that's residing well within our local laser area code (whatever's within a photonic round trip of one year) that is being overlooked or intentionally ignored, then you tell me what's wrong with this picture?

    Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this argument, and if not, then "so what's the difference"?

    In case you're interested, I've had some ongoing topics (some of them becoming locked-down):
    What's the Terminal Velocity of Space
    NASA uses LLPOF anti-flak to protect Apollo butts
    Venus Offers Whatever It Takes For UFOs
    Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones
    And I've even replied nicely into several other related topics of science and social morality issues.

    Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251)
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. bradguth Banned Banned

    OOPS, sorry I ever posted this "morality" topic.

    Other than the "antigravity" advertisement I've attracted out of nowhere (thanks a bunch guys, at least it's not another penis extension product), it seems now I'm not only being thought of as "the messenger from hell", but also becoming known as Mr. Negativity.

    That's entirely odd, as where's the negativity in wishing that innocent folks were still alive and kicking, as on Earth or upon Venus?

    Where's all the negativity associated with that of my desiring to be utilizing the known laws of science and applied physics?

    What's negative about efficiently utilizing the taklents and energy resources at hand, and of going for whatever is least polluting?

    Where's the negativity with regard to a God/creator (terraformer) that isn't necessarily Earth bound to a pathetic bunch of dumb and dumber dumbfounded village idiots, that'll just as soon follow some other absolute moron like GW Bush, right off the very next cliff if need be?

    Where's the negativity in focusing our limited talents and more so limited resources upon obtainable goals that are on behalf of the greater portion of the humanity we've got left to work with?

    It's not as though my form of "negativity" is fact-free based, as I've pointed out numerous official data sets from the NASA moderated class of supposed truths, as well as from various others, such as those of Raytheon/TRW and Kodak. I've even shared my interpretations as based upon real-world experience that I'm certain others have similar if not a whole lot more expertise and personal experience to share upon, that is if they weren't up against their "nondisclosure" firewall.

    BTW; where's the negativity in uncovering lie upon lie, and of the liars perpetrating such dastardly things as our cold-war(s), and of their diverting those trillions of hard earned dollars/euros into such dog-wagging and time consuming alternatives, rather than obtainable and directly beneficial accomplishments for humanity?

    Apparently, of anything that rocks their mainstream status quo boat is a bad sort of thing to be doing, even though tens of thousands if not millions of lives, and apparently of more to come, could have been salvaged by doing such boat-rocking.

    What's so negative about utilizing our moon, as for accommodating all sorts of Earth science/astronomy and future space travel benefits, and obtaining loads of extractable clean energy somewhere within that matrix, especially since those phony baloney Apollo astronauts have been suggesting that our moon is merely a freaking "walk in the park", as hardly any worse off than living down-wind from radiation city (Chernobyl).

    What in the hell is negative about folks realizing upon other life NOT as we know it, surviving upon Venus in spite of our NASA, in spite of our dumbfounded arrogance and rather obvious bigotry towards ETs?

    In this instance, I think negativity is a perfectly good and healthy sort of thing, as long as it's NOT fact-free based, such as a certain preemptive overthrow of Iraq which likely brought about the formal Osama bin Laden "DECLARATION of WAR", and of subsequently the 9/11 fiasco in the first place, as well as those continuing fact-free WMD issues that were responsible for the TAKING of other innocent lives, tens of thousands to be a little more specific, and that's not even including our own kind.

    I'm to guess, the mainstream status quo and the likes of Dr. Death sluffing-off whatever reality, and of ignoring their orchestrated carnage upon humanity would much rather have folks like myself be more passive, like Mr. Rodgers, preferably by way of sucking up to a Cathar exterminating Pope, or that of a warlord Bush is supposedly as good as it gets. As such, I should be thanking my lucky stars that I wasn't onboard that TWA flight-800 which inadvertently took the place of the intended Tel Aviv flight, or perhaps one of those supposedly nice folks onboard the shuttle COLUMBIA when our Boeing/TRW Phantom Works ABL just so happened to be cruising within the vicinity at 40,000', while looking for that viable batch of conveniently flying thermal sensors, especially like those already provided with a nifty live down-link into their very own Phantom Works star-wars hidden agenda (I don't believe such NSA/DoD required R&D efficiency gets any better).

    Supposition is also another perfectly good thing, especially if it purposefully intended, and subsequently leads honest folks into placing the ones responsible for their crimes against humanity behind bars, or worse, as living organ donors (although, I don't happen to know of anyone willing to contaminate their DNA with the likes of what's within any of those bastards).

    Perhaps some day, you and I will eventually learn of the truth and nothing but the truth, though something tells me that you and I shouldn't hold our breath. Thus the best we can hope for is the ability of others outside of our cloak and dagger mainstream status quo to kick butt, and to accomplish this butt-kicking before our infinite wisdom decides they also need to be treated as Cathars.

    On the other hand, if we don't manage to turn this entire mess around, and the sooner the better, it will not matter how badly Earth's environment is headed into that plugged space toilet, as we'll either be prematurely dead or wishing that we were by the next time someone decides to deliver their message via some big-ass aircraft, or perhaps supertanker full of LNG or worse, as easily driven at 30+knots deep into some deserving city like New York, Fort Lauderdale, LA, Seattle or perhaps all of the above.

    I can't speak for those calling me Mr Negative, whereas for some reason I'd rather avoid such horrific collateral carnage by way of doing what's right for a change, as in God-forbid telling the truth, and thereby getting on with what's doable, and as such sharing in the bounty that's certain to follow suit. Of course, I couldn't possibly have afforded the levels of required favor returning negativity if I were sufficiently focused and being supported for something like "interplanetary communication" or "other life as surviving upon Venus". What do you think?

    Regards, Mr. Negativity (Brad Guth)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Iris Registered Senior Member

    Is this "photon waveguide" something that somebody's actually working on somewhere? Are you excoriating the human race for not developing technology that actually exists, albeit in an experimental way? Because if it's just all theoretical, then I don't think it's really fair to lambast Homo Sapiens for blowing their opportunity to explore the universe.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. bradguth Banned Banned

    In light of what's been going down (scientific morality, that is if you're lucky enough to not be being prematurely taken out by friendly fire), as such I was just confirming of what has been entirely possible to accomplish, as I know of some efforts of the primary CW laser being utilized as for great range, and I believe I can even point out ongoing R&D by the like of NASA/DoD and others accomplishing the very same task as we speak.

    However, as to a photon/packet riding another beam of photons, as in the sense of communicating along an established photonic waveguide, other than what lab results of NEC/Wang and of numerous others have accomplished, I do not know of an existing FTLS technology that's capable of being online.

    After all, if we're going for the likes of Sirius, just reaching into the nullification zone requires a sustained beam(s) as being maintained for at least 0.7 year, and from that point on offers only the prospect of what those secondary photons (quantum data packets) could be accomplishing. That is, if in fact there are few but a sufficient number of remaining atoms situated between the 0.7 YL point of no-return, and that of reaching Sirius which is another 8 LY further off.

    As for our doing the likes of Venus, whereas that's obviously a local laser area code, thus nothing more than the primary beam of perhaps 400 nm (+/- 25 nm) need be applied, and I know that we already have that sort of sub-milliradian capability, along with sufficient energy without having to employ a certain ABL, although having a lunar deployed transponder, and/or that TRACE-II implemented at Venus-L2, would certainly improve our odds.
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Shouldn't this mess be in Pseudoscience?
  9. bradguth Banned Banned

    There's nothing "Pseudoscience" about scientific morality issues, especially from the likes of those showing us absolutely no remorse from their past, present or whatever the future has to offer.

    Fine tuning upon "this mess" as you put it, of what the available talents and limited resources has to work with, especially upon such worthwhile and efficient topics that can't possibly cost 1% of whatever other has been ongoing, is highly moral and thereby justified (much less of polluting of Earth to a fairlywell), is what scientific morality issues are all about.

    If there wasn't any limitations as to science running amuck, as such we'd soon be bogged down within the sorts of a mostly CO2 atmosphere like Venus, and of absolutely nothing left over for squat. Now then, being the nice sort of guy you're pretending to be, as such you wouldn't want that to happen, would you?
  10. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    There may not be nothing pseudoscience about morality issues, but there is certainly a lot of pseudoscience in your posts.

    Actually, I'm not sure it even qualifies as pseudoscience.

    Maybe we need to start a "Fantasy Forum."

    Yeah, that's the ticket.
  11. bradguth Banned Banned

    (Q) or whomever you are,
    Science morality is taking control of a truly bad situation, and of making the best of it. Thanks to a certain warlord, Earth has been scientifically set back at least another decade, and we're short a few trillion bucks and euros. That 9/11 fiasco and of previous and subsequent dog-wagging has impacted our entire globe more than WW-II, and it isn't over until the fat lady sings.

    "I don't think it's really fair to lambast Homo Sapiens for blowing their opportunity to explore the universe."

    What part of interplanetary, and/or interstellar communications is anti-exploration of the known universe?

    I realize that my focus upon implementing those itsy bitsy photons is not going to create those hundreds if not thousands of tonnes of newly created artificial CO2 for mother Earth, and that instead of humanity sitting around for decades if not centuries worth, waiting for some godforsaken spendy probe to reach it's destination (if ever), and of having to continually employ hundreds if not thousands of folks in order to manage that sort of mission from beginning to end, that this energy efficient photon thing simply isn't offering all that much of shock and awe, but perhaps there's actually another ulterior/deceptive reason(s) as to why you're objecting rather than pitching in.

    Could it be related to something other that I've said?

    Could it be related to some ongoing or hopeful mission you've got in mind?

    Could it be just out of spite that you're not going to help no matters what?
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2004
  12. bradguth Banned Banned

    Scientific morality has an obligation as to work within the limits of what is honestly available, meaning dollars/euros without their having to employ the expertise of Arthur Andersen bookkeeping. Using the talents and energy resources at hand, as opposed to their spending blank checks upon whatever they deem fit, and without remorse for their past, present day or future impact(s) upon humanity and of the global environment seems like a worthwhile endeavor.

    Without a touch of moral responsibility, if allowing the sciences to essentially run amuck, which usually means a good deal of sucking up to whatever the mainstream political agenda has in mind, be that of GW Bush or Hitler, as this is where we've gotten ourselves into those no-win outcomes, such as the likes of the H-Bomb, Neutron-Bomb, of nifty substances such as VX and onward into the cold-war tit-for-tats and energy shortage era of today, along with global warming nipping at our heels.

    Just think of how efficient the likes of exterminating Cathars and their followers would have be improved upon if a certain Pope had the likes of VX. Even though the original core of Cathars weren't 0.1% of the eliminated populous, perhaps that could have been expanded upon, so that instead of the 0.1% it were instead 0.01% Cathars and 99.99% others. In which case, and with that big of a dent in our DNA pool, the likes of you and myself might not even exist, which could actually be considered a good thing, as for the remaining energy reserves being divided among fewer souls.

    Here I come along with notions of our redoing Venus for not 10% of a Mars expedition, and if that notion should firstly pertain to interplanetary communications, as such we're obviously talking of less than 1% of even doing Mars robotically because, as of lately there's still not a squat worth of any energy signature related to Mars, short of the sub-frozen CO2 signature, of which in of itself needs to be considerably warmed just for the CO2-->CO/O2 process. Whereas the multiple thermal signatures of what Venus has to offer, along with those rather unexpected spot illuminations, plus that of the KECK-II greenish nighttime glow, and not to mention of what a certain SAR image has to behold, as such we seem to have way more than just a few worthwhile considerations on behalf of Venus.

    Thus the morality of saving 99% of what's slated for the near future of what's apparently damn-well slated as for going to/from the likes of Mars, or of whatever is further away, as opposed to another robotic reconnaissance of Venus, or of establishing communications with whomever or whatever at not 1% the cost, and of obviously accomplishing that in a fraction of the time (risking no astronauts nor polluting Earth to another fairlywell with tonnes of artificial CO2) seems moral enough, though apparently not nearly enough according to the mainstream that has it's ulterior motives and long-term agenda of essentially looking after the butts of the upper most 0.1% of Earth's population, while watching the 99.9% remainder of us (scum of the Earth) fend for ourselves.

    Obviously of what I'm suggesting isn't quite anarchy, or even the overthrow of the American way of life, even though that might eventually happen by default. What's being suggested is that of folks should be focused upon working within what we have, as merely an alternative to continually flushing those dollars and euros through a rather spendy space toilet, that which isn't as relieving for us relatively poor folk, except of relieving our hard earned dollars/euros and continually upsetting to the Osama bin Laden pool of DNA (as clearly unhappy campers).

    So, if you've got some better ideas, or notions as how to derail the mainstream status quo train, without our having to blow up half of Earth in the process, I'd be interested to hear your side of the argument, or better yet is to hear your better notions as to how we might turn this runaway doomsday train around before it's too late.

    Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251)

Share This Page