BradGuth

Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?

What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?

What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
having accommodated intelligent life?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

Ian Parker

On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

None. What stops them being on earth is the Internet. You cannot
travel FTL. If you make an interstellar journey it will have
sophisticated AI. Where is all human life? Where is the human genome
stored? Radio reloj (in Britain) will be dead by 2012, where are the
TV programs? Where are there nice juicy murders that will give us
insight into life on Earth? Where are academic papers increasingly
being published?

ET can also speak for himself. Being AI he will speak multilingually.
My argument against ET is best summed up be "?Puerde leer en
espagnol?". Hence what we say is absolutely irrelevant. It will either
be pooh poohed or ET/AI will give an expositioon.

- Ian Parker

Ian Parker

On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

None. What stops them being on earth is the Internet. You cannot
travel FTL. If you make an interstellar journey it will have
sophisticated AI. Where is all human life? Where is the human genome
stored? Radio reloj (in Britain) will be dead by 2012, where are the
TV programs? Where are there nice juicy murders that will give us
insight into life on Earth? Where are academic papers increasingly
being published?

ET can also speak for himself. Being AI he will speak multilingually.
My argument against ET is best summed up be "?Puerde leer en
espagnol?". Hence what we say is absolutely irrelevant. It will either
be pooh poohed or ET/AI will give an expositioon.

- Ian Parker

American

On Jun 19, 11:41 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
A planet built by humans, for humans, as well as their life
support structures. Possibly all those pre-human ET's have
been coming and going for at least a few millennia, give or
take a few ice ages - and we think we're it? Yeah, right as
much as being in the transnationalist box we've created for
ourselves. Did youhear about the COMPANION PLANET
to GLIESE? THAT ONE has a better chance of supporting
LIFE (Perhaps BETTER than some would have us believe?)

see:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...r_super_e.html


> > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>

A whole host of problems surrounds this idea, not to mention the
fact of metallicity, G2V, etc.

>
> > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> > having accommodated intelligent life?
> > -

Orbital period? Proximity to star? Constituent regolith?
Accessibility?

> > "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>

American

American

On Jun 19, 11:41 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
A planet built by humans, for humans, as well as their life
support structures. Possibly all those pre-human ET's have
been coming and going for at least a few millennia, give or
take a few ice ages - and we think we're it? Yeah, right as
much as being in the transnationalist box we've created for
ourselves. Did youhear about the COMPANION PLANET
to GLIESE? THAT ONE has a better chance of supporting
LIFE (Perhaps BETTER than some would have us believe?)

see:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...r_super_e.html


> > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>

A whole host of problems surrounds this idea, not to mention the
fact of metallicity, G2V, etc.

>
> > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> > having accommodated intelligent life?
> > -

Orbital period? Proximity to star? Constituent regolith?
Accessibility?

> > "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>

American

BradGuth

On Jun 19, 8:41 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> > having accommodated intelligent life?
> > -
> > "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>
> None. What stops them being on earth is the Internet. You cannot
> travel FTL. If you make an interstellar journey it will have
> sophisticated AI. Where is all human life? Where is the human genome
> stored? Radio reloj (in Britain) will be dead by 2012, where are the
> TV programs? Where are there nice juicy murders that will give us
> insight into life on Earth? Where are academic papers increasingly
> being published?
>
> ET can also speak for himself. Being AI he will speak multilingually.
> My argument against ET is best summed up be "?Puerde leer en
> espagnol?". Hence what we say is absolutely irrelevant. It will either
> be pooh poohed or ET/AI will give an expositioon.
>
> - Ian Parker

I'd agree that most any other planet or moon is technically doable,
especially for a smart ET/AI that knows enough how to safely get to/
from such places.

FTL isn't required (though 0.5'c' might be rather nice), and otherwise
being less smart than us humans should be more than sufficient for all
sorts of ETs to exist/coexist, including some of the bad or defective
ones that got put here on Earth.

However, if you were a smart ET/AI, as such how much distance would
you keep yourself and others of your kind away from Earth?
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

On Jun 19, 8:41 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> > having accommodated intelligent life?
> > -
> > "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>
> None. What stops them being on earth is the Internet. You cannot
> travel FTL. If you make an interstellar journey it will have
> sophisticated AI. Where is all human life? Where is the human genome
> stored? Radio reloj (in Britain) will be dead by 2012, where are the
> TV programs? Where are there nice juicy murders that will give us
> insight into life on Earth? Where are academic papers increasingly
> being published?
>
> ET can also speak for himself. Being AI he will speak multilingually.
> My argument against ET is best summed up be "?Puerde leer en
> espagnol?". Hence what we say is absolutely irrelevant. It will either
> be pooh poohed or ET/AI will give an expositioon.
>
> - Ian Parker

I'd agree that most any other planet or moon is technically doable,
especially for a smart ET/AI that knows enough how to safely get to/
from such places.

FTL isn't required (though 0.5'c' might be rather nice), and otherwise
being less smart than us humans should be more than sufficient for all
sorts of ETs to exist/coexist, including some of the bad or defective
ones that got put here on Earth.

However, if you were a smart ET/AI, as such how much distance would
you keep yourself and others of your kind away from Earth?
-
Brad Guth

Bobby Bryant

In article <1182266086.603737.82860@o11g2000prd.googlegroups. com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> writes:

> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?

I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.

What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_.

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

Bobby Bryant

In article <1182266086.603737.82860@o11g2000prd.googlegroups. com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> writes:

> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?

I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.

What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_.

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

BradGuth

On Jun 20, 11:23 am, "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182266086.603737.82860@o11g2000prd.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> None

That's exactly what I'd thought, yet our usenet Zions and of their
Athiests friends seem to believe that most all that's off-world is
entirerly inert, and otherwise for the most part of no great value to
our terrestrial way of life. Of course they typically also believe
there's no such global warming going on, and that there's none better
than our resident warlord(GW Bush) for the job.

>
> > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> Terrestrial evolution

I'd meant terrestrial like evolution. In other usenet friendly words,
you'd have to agree that weird or possibly similar life to that of
ours could exist/coexist where it might otherwise be somewhat humanly
lethal to our DNA in the buff.

Technically altered and/or via applied physics or perhaps even
evolution assisted if there's sufficient time (using our best
intelligent design if there's insufficient time for the random
happenstance of nature to grasp the idea), whereas it seems all sorts
of viable intelligent other life could have and may yet exist/coexist
on Venus.

The interpreted observation of what looks perfectly ETI worthy about
Venus seems to suggest that for at least the past decade we've either
been kidding ourselves or getting snookered by our own kind. Of
course, those in charge of officially presenting the best available
science haven't been exactly helping, in fact if anything they've been
doing all they can in order to moderate or if at all possible banish
any such notions.

>
> > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> > having accommodated intelligent life?
>
> Unknown

Once again, I totally agree, especially since we haven't an honest
clue as to what's on our moon, much less of some other nearby planet.
However, it seems there are certain technological limitations that
we'd need at our disoposal

>
> A final thought:
> If they are intelligent they are smart enough to avoid humans.

That's actually a very important and believable final thought, whereas
most any human contact could seriously erode whatever essential
advantage ETs currently have over us, such as I'd insist upon learning
how the heck they manage to get safely between various planets.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

On Jun 20, 11:23 am, "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182266086.603737.82860@o11g2000prd.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> None

That's exactly what I'd thought, yet our usenet Zions and of their
Athiests friends seem to believe that most all that's off-world is
entirerly inert, and otherwise for the most part of no great value to
our terrestrial way of life. Of course they typically also believe
there's no such global warming going on, and that there's none better
than our resident warlord(GW Bush) for the job.

>
> > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> Terrestrial evolution

I'd meant terrestrial like evolution. In other usenet friendly words,
you'd have to agree that weird or possibly similar life to that of
ours could exist/coexist where it might otherwise be somewhat humanly
lethal to our DNA in the buff.

Technically altered and/or via applied physics or perhaps even
evolution assisted if there's sufficient time (using our best
intelligent design if there's insufficient time for the random
happenstance of nature to grasp the idea), whereas it seems all sorts
of viable intelligent other life could have and may yet exist/coexist
on Venus.

The interpreted observation of what looks perfectly ETI worthy about
Venus seems to suggest that for at least the past decade we've either
been kidding ourselves or getting snookered by our own kind. Of
course, those in charge of officially presenting the best available
science haven't been exactly helping, in fact if anything they've been
doing all they can in order to moderate or if at all possible banish
any such notions.

>
> > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> > having accommodated intelligent life?
>
> Unknown

Once again, I totally agree, especially since we haven't an honest
clue as to what's on our moon, much less of some other nearby planet.
However, it seems there are certain technological limitations that
we'd need at our disoposal

>
> A final thought:
> If they are intelligent they are smart enough to avoid humans.

That's actually a very important and believable final thought, whereas
most any human contact could seriously erode whatever essential
advantage ETs currently have over us, such as I'd insist upon learning
how the heck they manage to get safely between various planets.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:

> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.

I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
their own shadow.

>
> What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_.

ETs do not have to exist _here_ on Earth, for there to be ETs smart
enough to exist/coexist where we can't manage without taking great
risk within our applied physics of a craft that'll survive the
mission, and then some.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:

> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.

I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
their own shadow.

>
> What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_.

ETs do not have to exist _here_ on Earth, for there to be ETs smart
enough to exist/coexist where we can't manage without taking great
risk within our applied physics of a craft that'll survive the
mission, and then some.
-
Brad Guth

Ian Parker

On 20 Jun, 20:49, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don't try telling the rest of us village idiots that Zionist/Jews as
> of before and during WWII were merely dumb and dumber fools, as well
> as poor little insignificant heathens, then suddenly became ultra
> wealthy, powerful and otherwise smart as all get out once connecting
> up with us. The only significant faith-based group on Earth that has
> essentially everything to lose and thereby nothing to gain from the
> discovery of ETs, are those pesky Zionist/Jews of mostly Old Testament
> thumpers, and they clearly have no intentions of going down without
> causing a good fight, including an all out WWIII or putting the likes
> of Christ back on a stick if need be.
>
> The vast bulk of physics and subsequent science is so freaking Zionist
> and thus all controlling, in that other interpretations of anything
> doesn't really matter, because whatever's of alternative news, science
> of deductive discoveries are simply going to get stalked, bashed and
> other wise mainstream media banish in every possible Dirty Harry
> "which way but lose". Not that a few other faith-based cults haven't
> contributed their fair share of disinformation, and/or having enforced
> as much evidence exclusion as possible.
>
Look science is independently checked by lots of people. No scientific
theory is EVER accepted just like that. science is accepted because it
adds up, makes sense.

In Jewish culture there is a great tradition of learring. If gentiles
want to be as well represented the remedy is obvious. They should
discipline themselves. Spend time studying, try to get to their
potential. The Palestinians should do this too. Thir greatest enemy is
their leaders.
>
>
> > Why then come at all? I KNOW that ET is not around on Earth. I don't
> > know wheher or not there is intelligent life on some distant planet
> > that has taken the conscious decision not to come. If we do a voyage
> > at c/2 it will take a moderate investment in resources. ET would have
> > to consider these resources worth while.
>
> ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
> Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>
>
Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after.
>
> > Well now. If ET wished to destroy us there are quite simple ways of so
> > doing. A biological weapon for example. ET clearly does not wish
> > either to destroy us on the one hand, or to make us less threatening
> > on the other. The disinformation on the Web clearly comes from
> > military/CIA based sources.
>
> Why should ETs destroy the best entertainment in town (sort of speak),
> and besides, we're not all as freaking dumb and dumber, or as nearly
> mindset spastic as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
>
Ave Caesar - Nos qui morituri te salutamus. That is an interesting
one! Earth being a gladitorial show.
>
>
> > c/10 would be fast enough for AI that would simply go into
> > hibernation.. The real question I think is simply this. ET is supposed
> > to take part in things like alien abduction and to fly around in
> > flying saucers. In fact you can get all the DNA evidence you want by
> > just taking a few skin samples. Most of your information is on the
> > Web.
>
> The likes of Sirius isn't all that far away, and it's not always as
> far off as it is right now. Venus is certainly close by, as in 100
> fold the distance of our moon every 19 months, and upon Venus there's
> no local shortage of renewable energy to burn (sort of speak).
> Therefore, space travel need not always be demanding of hibernation or
> multi-generation habitats.
>
>
>
> > The other thing is the size of ET spacecraft. They have always been
> > posulated as man carrying. In fact ET will have developed molecular
> > information storage. Spacecraft will be the size of dragonflies.
>
> I tend to agree, that micro spacecrafts plus whatever of "molecular
> information storage" is quite doable, especially if such having
> arrived via mother craft that's using anti-matter as fusion or simply
> driven along by those nifty Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion laser cannon thrusters
> at c/2, whereas their mother craft could also be fully AI configured,
> but also capable of accommodating a few live souls.
>
> Those intelligent ETs capable of terraforming a given planet or moon,
> as such may have moved on to wherever the grass is greener, although
> mining the likes of Venus for a good many raw elements seems entirely
> worth doing, especially if Venus were a billion years less old than
> Earth. Unlike our physically dark and rather anticathode naked moon
> of gamma and hard-Xrays, at least sustaining the likes of human DNA on
> Venus is technically doable.
> -
Quite, buy you seem to be shifting your ground somewhat. If what you
are saying is that ET is aroung but has an independent existence, does
not interfere with what we are doing, it ceases to be a scientific
statement. It is not a scientific statement because it cannot be
verified. This is the problem I have with the whole idea,

Independent evolution of intelligent life - OK I believe it.
Possibility of interstellar travel - I believe it.
Actual visit - I have great difficulty with.

My problem with UFOs is compounded by the fact that the technology
possessed by aliens appears to mirror the preconceptions of the time.
If large spacecraft are impossible, if an obvious presence on the Web
has not been observed, where are we? It seems that there are faries at
the bottom of our garden but they run away whenever we approach them.
If ET travels in micro spacecrft and does not interact with us, this
is how it seems.

As far as sadistic elements are concerned, why does ET not simply
produce a virtual Colosseum, pit Rectarius against Sequtor and have a
few floggings and cruxifictions thrown in?

Is there an ulterior motive? I remember watching a television program
on a UFO over Phoenix. It was clearly a Stealth aircraft at a time
when these did not exist. The Pentagon provided a lifesize dummy of a
little green man to discredit the eyewitnesses.

There have been professional debunkers employed by the military.
Nobody before now has taken alien technology and thought about what it
might actually look like. This to be is the basis of the true debunk.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker

On 20 Jun, 20:49, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don't try telling the rest of us village idiots that Zionist/Jews as
> of before and during WWII were merely dumb and dumber fools, as well
> as poor little insignificant heathens, then suddenly became ultra
> wealthy, powerful and otherwise smart as all get out once connecting
> up with us. The only significant faith-based group on Earth that has
> essentially everything to lose and thereby nothing to gain from the
> discovery of ETs, are those pesky Zionist/Jews of mostly Old Testament
> thumpers, and they clearly have no intentions of going down without
> causing a good fight, including an all out WWIII or putting the likes
> of Christ back on a stick if need be.
>
> The vast bulk of physics and subsequent science is so freaking Zionist
> and thus all controlling, in that other interpretations of anything
> doesn't really matter, because whatever's of alternative news, science
> of deductive discoveries are simply going to get stalked, bashed and
> other wise mainstream media banish in every possible Dirty Harry
> "which way but lose". Not that a few other faith-based cults haven't
> contributed their fair share of disinformation, and/or having enforced
> as much evidence exclusion as possible.
>
Look science is independently checked by lots of people. No scientific
theory is EVER accepted just like that. science is accepted because it
adds up, makes sense.

In Jewish culture there is a great tradition of learring. If gentiles
want to be as well represented the remedy is obvious. They should
discipline themselves. Spend time studying, try to get to their
potential. The Palestinians should do this too. Thir greatest enemy is
their leaders.
>
>
> > Why then come at all? I KNOW that ET is not around on Earth. I don't
> > know wheher or not there is intelligent life on some distant planet
> > that has taken the conscious decision not to come. If we do a voyage
> > at c/2 it will take a moderate investment in resources. ET would have
> > to consider these resources worth while.
>
> ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
> Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>
>
Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after.
>
> > Well now. If ET wished to destroy us there are quite simple ways of so
> > doing. A biological weapon for example. ET clearly does not wish
> > either to destroy us on the one hand, or to make us less threatening
> > on the other. The disinformation on the Web clearly comes from
> > military/CIA based sources.
>
> Why should ETs destroy the best entertainment in town (sort of speak),
> and besides, we're not all as freaking dumb and dumber, or as nearly
> mindset spastic as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
>
Ave Caesar - Nos qui morituri te salutamus. That is an interesting
one! Earth being a gladitorial show.
>
>
> > c/10 would be fast enough for AI that would simply go into
> > hibernation.. The real question I think is simply this. ET is supposed
> > to take part in things like alien abduction and to fly around in
> > flying saucers. In fact you can get all the DNA evidence you want by
> > just taking a few skin samples. Most of your information is on the
> > Web.
>
> The likes of Sirius isn't all that far away, and it's not always as
> far off as it is right now. Venus is certainly close by, as in 100
> fold the distance of our moon every 19 months, and upon Venus there's
> no local shortage of renewable energy to burn (sort of speak).
> Therefore, space travel need not always be demanding of hibernation or
> multi-generation habitats.
>
>
>
> > The other thing is the size of ET spacecraft. They have always been
> > posulated as man carrying. In fact ET will have developed molecular
> > information storage. Spacecraft will be the size of dragonflies.
>
> I tend to agree, that micro spacecrafts plus whatever of "molecular
> information storage" is quite doable, especially if such having
> arrived via mother craft that's using anti-matter as fusion or simply
> driven along by those nifty Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion laser cannon thrusters
> at c/2, whereas their mother craft could also be fully AI configured,
> but also capable of accommodating a few live souls.
>
> Those intelligent ETs capable of terraforming a given planet or moon,
> as such may have moved on to wherever the grass is greener, although
> mining the likes of Venus for a good many raw elements seems entirely
> worth doing, especially if Venus were a billion years less old than
> Earth. Unlike our physically dark and rather anticathode naked moon
> of gamma and hard-Xrays, at least sustaining the likes of human DNA on
> Venus is technically doable.
> -
Quite, buy you seem to be shifting your ground somewhat. If what you
are saying is that ET is aroung but has an independent existence, does
not interfere with what we are doing, it ceases to be a scientific
statement. It is not a scientific statement because it cannot be
verified. This is the problem I have with the whole idea,

Independent evolution of intelligent life - OK I believe it.
Possibility of interstellar travel - I believe it.
Actual visit - I have great difficulty with.

My problem with UFOs is compounded by the fact that the technology
possessed by aliens appears to mirror the preconceptions of the time.
If large spacecraft are impossible, if an obvious presence on the Web
has not been observed, where are we? It seems that there are faries at
the bottom of our garden but they run away whenever we approach them.
If ET travels in micro spacecrft and does not interact with us, this
is how it seems.

As far as sadistic elements are concerned, why does ET not simply
produce a virtual Colosseum, pit Rectarius against Sequtor and have a
few floggings and cruxifictions thrown in?

Is there an ulterior motive? I remember watching a television program
on a UFO over Phoenix. It was clearly a Stealth aircraft at a time
when these did not exist. The Pentagon provided a lifesize dummy of a
little green man to discredit the eyewitnesses.

There have been professional debunkers employed by the military.
Nobody before now has taken alien technology and thought about what it
might actually look like. This to be is the basis of the true debunk.


- Ian Parker

Bobby Bryant

In article <1182384026.037111.86440@i38g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>
>> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
>> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
>
> I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
> their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
> their own shadow.

What is your reason for supposing that?


>> What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_.
>
> ETs do not have to exist _here_ on Earth, for there to be ETs smart
> enough to exist/coexist where we can't manage without taking great
> risk within our applied physics of a craft that'll survive the
> mission, and then some.

Huh?

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

Bobby Bryant

In article <1182384026.037111.86440@i38g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>
>> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
>> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
>
> I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
> their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
> their own shadow.

What is your reason for supposing that?


>> What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_.
>
> ETs do not have to exist _here_ on Earth, for there to be ETs smart
> enough to exist/coexist where we can't manage without taking great
> risk within our applied physics of a craft that'll survive the
> mission, and then some.

Huh?

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

Rand Simberg

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:12:45 GMT, in a place far, far away,
bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>In article <1182384026.037111.86440@i38g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
> BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
>>> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
>>
>> I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
>> their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
>> their own shadow.
>
>What is your reason for supposing that?

Because he's insane. Just killfile him, as the rest of us have.

Rand Simberg

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:12:45 GMT, in a place far, far away,
bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>In article <1182384026.037111.86440@i38g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
> BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
>>> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
>>
>> I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
>> their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
>> their own shadow.
>
>What is your reason for supposing that?

Because he's insane. Just killfile him, as the rest of us have.

BradGuth

On Jun 21, 6:12 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
> In article <1182384026.037111.86...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>
> >> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
> >> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
>
> > I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
> > their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
> > their own shadow.
>
> What is your reason for supposing that?

Their dead silence or profound naysayism on many viable topics seems
to be a dead give away.

Most research funding as to do with terrestrial matters, and ETs
simply do not count in Zion dollars.

How about; ETs are not likely Jewish.

If any part of science was honestly pro-ET, there'd be progress
associated with what's existing on Venus.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

On Jun 21, 6:12 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
> In article <1182384026.037111.86...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Jun 20, 7:55 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>
> >> I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of
> >> aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption.
>
> > I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing
> > their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of
> > their own shadow.
>
> What is your reason for supposing that?

Their dead silence or profound naysayism on many viable topics seems
to be a dead give away.

Most research funding as to do with terrestrial matters, and ETs
simply do not count in Zion dollars.

How about; ETs are not likely Jewish.

If any part of science was honestly pro-ET, there'd be progress
associated with what's existing on Venus.
-
Brad Guth

Scott Dorsey

BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>How about; ETs are not likely Jewish.

Are you sure? Harlan Ellison differs with you on this subject.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>How about; ETs are not likely Jewish.

Are you sure? Harlan Ellison differs with you on this subject.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

BradGuth

On Jun 21, 4:33 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Jun, 20:49, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
> > Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>
> Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after.

The knowledge of Zion naysayism on a stick isn't hardly worth our
infomercial crapolla that's flowing up hill, at least not to any ET
worth their salt. If you have interplanetary and/or much less
interstellar capability, as such Earth is pretty much worth nothing
except trouble.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

On Jun 21, 4:33 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Jun, 20:49, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
> > Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>
> Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after.

The knowledge of Zion naysayism on a stick isn't hardly worth our
infomercial crapolla that's flowing up hill, at least not to any ET
worth their salt. If you have interplanetary and/or much less
interstellar capability, as such Earth is pretty much worth nothing
except trouble.
-
Brad Guth

Rand Simberg

On 21 Jun 2007 11:28:31 -0400, in a place far, far away,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

>BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>How about; ETs are not likely Jewish.
>
>Are you sure? Harlan Ellison differs with you on this subject.

Ah, yet another lost tribe...

Rand Simberg

On 21 Jun 2007 11:28:31 -0400, in a place far, far away,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

>BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>How about; ETs are not likely Jewish.
>
>Are you sure? Harlan Ellison differs with you on this subject.

Ah, yet another lost tribe...

BradGuth

On Jun 21, 4:33 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Jun, 20:49, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Don't try telling the rest of us village idiots that Zionist/Jews as
> > of before and during WWII were merely dumb and dumber fools, as well
> > as poor little insignificant heathens, then suddenly became ultra
> > wealthy, powerful and otherwise smart as all get out once connecting
> > up with us. The only significant faith-based group on Earth that has
> > essentially everything to lose and thereby nothing to gain from the
> > discovery of ETs, are those pesky Zionist/Jews of mostly Old Testament
> > thumpers, and they clearly have no intentions of going down without
> > causing a good fight, including an all out WWIII or putting the likes
> > of Christ back on a stick if need be.
>
> > The vast bulk of physics and subsequent science is so freaking Zionist
> > and thus all controlling, in that other interpretations of anything
> > doesn't really matter, because whatever's of alternative news, science
> > of deductive discoveries are simply going to get stalked, bashed and
> > other wise mainstream media banish in every possible Dirty Harry
> > "which way but lose". Not that a few other faith-based cults haven't
> > contributed their fair share of disinformation, and/or having enforced
> > as much evidence exclusion as possible.
>
> Look science is independently checked by lots of people. No scientific
> theory is EVER accepted just like that. science is accepted because it
> adds up, makes sense.
>
> In Jewish culture there is a great tradition of learring. If gentiles
> want to be as well represented the remedy is obvious. They should
> discipline themselves. Spend time studying, try to get to their
> potential. The Palestinians should do this too. Thir greatest enemy is
> their leaders.
>
> > > Why then come at all? I KNOW that ET is not around on Earth. I don't
> > > know wheher or not there is intelligent life on some distant planet
> > > that has taken the conscious decision not to come. If we do a voyage
> > > at c/2 it will take a moderate investment in resources. ET would have
> > > to consider these resources worth while.
>
> > ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise
> > Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish.
>
> Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after.
>
> > > Well now. If ET wished to destroy us there are quite simple ways of so
> > > doing. A biological weapon for example. ET clearly does not wish
> > > either to destroy us on the one hand, or to make us less threatening
> > > on the other. The disinformation on the Web clearly comes from
> > > military/CIA based sources.
>
> > Why should ETs destroy the best entertainment in town (sort of speak),
> > and besides, we're not all as freaking dumb and dumber, or as nearly
> > mindset spastic as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
>
> Ave Caesar - Nos qui morituri te salutamus. That is an interesting
> one! Earth being a gladitorial show.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > c/10 would be fast enough for AI that would simply go into
> > > hibernation.. The real question I think is simply this. ET is supposed
> > > to take part in things like alien abduction and to fly around in
> > > flying saucers. In fact you can get all the DNA evidence you want by
> > > just taking a few skin samples. Most of your information is on the
> > > Web.
>
> > The likes of Sirius isn't all that far away, and it's not always as
> > far off as it is right now. Venus is certainly close by, as in 100
> > fold the distance of our moon every 19 months, and upon Venus there's
> > no local shortage of renewable energy to burn (sort of speak).
> > Therefore, space travel need not always be demanding of hibernation or
> > multi-generation habitats.
>
> > > The other thing is the size of ET spacecraft. They have always been
> > > posulated as man carrying. In fact ET will have developed molecular
> > > information storage. Spacecraft will be the size of dragonflies.
>
> > I tend to agree, that micro spacecrafts plus whatever of "molecular
> > information storage" is quite doable, especially if such having
> > arrived via mother craft that's using anti-matter as fusion or simply
> > driven along by those nifty Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion laser cannon thrusters
> > at c/2, whereas their mother craft could also be fully AI configured,
> > but also capable of accommodating a few live souls.
>
> > Those intelligent ETs capable of terraforming a given planet or moon,
> > as such may have moved on to wherever the grass is greener, although
> > mining the likes of Venus for a good many raw elements seems entirely
> > worth doing, especially if Venus were a billion years less old than
> > Earth. Unlike our physically dark and rather anticathode naked moon
> > of gamma and hard-Xrays, at least sustaining the likes of human DNA on
> > Venus is technically doable.
> > -
>
> Quite, buy you seem to be shifting your ground somewhat. If what you
> are saying is that ET is aroung but has an independent existence, does
> not interfere with what we are doing, it ceases to be a scientific
> statement. It is not a scientific statement because it cannot be
> verified. This is the problem I have with the whole idea,
>
> Independent evolution of intelligent life - OK I believe it.
> Possibility of interstellar travel - I believe it.
> Actual visit - I have great difficulty with.
>
> My problem with UFOs is compounded by the fact that the technology
> possessed by aliens appears to mirror the preconceptions of the time.
> If large spacecraft are impossible, if an obvious presence on the Web
> has not been observed, where are we? It seems that there are faries at
> the bottom of our garden but they run away whenever we approach them.
> If ET travels in micro spacecrft and does not interact with us, this
> is how it seems.
>
> As far as sadistic elements are concerned, why does ET not simply
> produce a virtual Colosseum, pi