https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/webb-telescope-reaches-major-milestone-all-its-light-is-in-one-place/

Yes, but we want to see Aliens!

On 2/25/22 23:43, StarDust wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/webb-telescope-reaches-major-milestone-all-its-light-is-in-one-place/
>
> Yes, but we want to see Aliens!

Eventually, you may live to witness that, but they are not going to be
what everyone thinks.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:41:32 AM UTC-8, Ace Crysler wrote:
> On 2/25/22 23:43, StarDust wrote:
> > https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/webb-telescope-reaches-major-milestone-all-its-light-is-in-one-place/
> >
> > Yes, but we want to see Aliens!
> Eventually, you may live to witness that, but they are not going to be
> what everyone thinks.

No?
How would they be look like?

On 3/3/22 12:04, StarDust wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:41:32 AM UTC-8, Ace Crysler wrote:
>> On 2/25/22 23:43, StarDust wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/webb-telescope-reaches-major-milestone-all-its-light-is-in-one-place/
>>>
>>> Yes, but we want to see Aliens!
>> Eventually, you may live to witness that, but they are not going to be
>> what everyone thinks.
>
> No?
> How would they be look like?

You and others are going to laugh at this I'm sure, but the answer is:
demons. They're going to show up one day and fool humanity into
thinking they are ET's.

On 03/03/2022 12.26, Ace Crysler wrote:
> On 3/3/22 12:04, StarDust wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:41:32 AM UTC-8, Ace Crysler wrote:
>>> On 2/25/22 23:43, StarDust wrote:
>>>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/webb-telescope-reaches-major-milestone-all-its-light-is-in-one-place/
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but we want to see Aliens!
>>> Eventually, you may live to witness that, but they are not going to be
>>> what everyone thinks.
>>
>> No?
>> How would they be look like?
>
> You and others are going to laugh at this I'm sure, but the answer is: demons.  They're going to show up one day and fool humanity into thinking they are ET's.

Sounds like _Childhood's End_
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End#Earth_and_the_Overlords>

--
Michael F. Stemper
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

On 26/02/2022 04:43, StarDust wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/webb-telescope-reaches-major-milestone-all-its-light-is-in-one-place/
>
> Yes, but we want to see Aliens!

So far so good. Curious that there is a horizontal diffraction spike
that stands out above the noise in addition to the hexagonal symmetry
main spikes that you would expect from the geometry.

No trace of them in the other 4 segments at top and bottom.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 3/4/22 23:26, RichA wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 March 2022 at 13:26:29 UTC-5, Ace Crysler wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 12:04, StarDust wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:41:32 AM UTC-8, Ace Crysler wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/22 23:43, StarDust wrote:
>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/webb-telescope-reaches-major-milestone-all-its-light-is-in-one-place/
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but we want to see Aliens!
>>>> Eventually, you may live to witness that, but they are not going to be
>>>> what everyone thinks.
>>>
>>> No?
>>> How would they be look like?
>> You and others are going to laugh at this I'm sure, but the answer is:
>> demons. They're going to show up one day and fool humanity into
>> thinking they are ET's.
>
> "The creatures we think of as aliens are actually, trans-dimensional beings."
> Phone call called into the Art Bell (nutjob) radio show purportedly by
> a guy "on the run" from Area 51. Turned out to be a hoax.

Being a Christian, I actually do think there are aliens out there, some
a lot like us, others not, but we're never going to make contact with
them because of the physical laws we have. I think our Creator set it
up that way on purpose. I do think that any "aliens" eventually
appearing here will not be aliens at all but, like I said, demonic in
nature.

This space telescope that they are setting up might actually be able to
detect such life, and if not that instrument some others, but as far as
actual communication and interaction, highly doubtful.

On 05/03/2022 12:10, Ace Crysler wrote:
> On 3/4/22 23:26, RichA wrote:
>> On Thursday, 3 March 2022 at 13:26:29 UTC-5, Ace Crysler wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 12:04, StarDust wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:41:32 AM UTC-8, Ace Crysler wrote:
>>>>> On 2/25/22 23:43, StarDust wrote:
>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/webb-telescope-reaches-major-milestone-all-its-light-is-in-one-place/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but we want to see Aliens!
>>>>> Eventually, you may live to witness that, but they are not going to be
>>>>> what everyone thinks.
>>>>
>>>> No?
>>>> How would they be look like?
>>> You and others are going to laugh at this I'm sure, but the answer is:
>>> demons. They're going to show up one day and fool humanity into
>>> thinking they are ET's.
>>
>> "The creatures we think of as aliens are actually, trans-dimensional
>> beings."
>> Phone call called into the Art Bell (nutjob) radio show purportedly by
>> a guy "on the run" from Area 51.  Turned out to be a hoax.
>
> Being a Christian, I actually do think there are aliens out there, some
> a lot like us, others not, but we're never going to make contact with
> them because of the physical laws we have.  I think our Creator set it
> up that way on purpose.  I do think that any "aliens" eventually
> appearing here will not be aliens at all but, like I said, demonic in
> nature.

It is still just possible that very simple life exists on Titan and
maybe more complex life exists on either Europa or Enceladus both ice
skinned ocean worlds. Nothing like us but perhaps more complex than just
coloured photosynthetic slimes in brine. Maybe chemistry around smokers
rather than sunlight which is a lot weaker at Jupiter and Saturn.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/saturn-moons/titan/in-depth/

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/science/enceladus/

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/jupiter-moons/europa/in-depth/

Of these Europa would be my first choice to look for life although any
probe that visited would have to be very carefully sterilised to avoid
contaminating that pristine habitat with terrestrial life.

Finding just one other form of life anywhere would go a long way to
settling various questions about abiogenesis.

> This space telescope that they are setting up might actually be able to
> detect such life, and if not that instrument some others, but as far as
> actual communication and interaction, highly doubtful.

Detecting an atmosphere that is clearly out of chemical equilibrium
would be a fairly reasonable signature of probably life. That was what
made the methane detections in Mars atmosphere so interesting.

It will certainly be a while before we have anything (even a probe)
capable of interstellar travel but we could easily be a few billion
years behind the technology of first generation star populations.

It is just possible that we might get visited. We have been non-thermal
radio bright for about 60 years now - that will attract some attention
from any neighbouring civilisations with comparable radio telescopes.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:02:05 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>It will certainly be a while before we have anything (even a probe)
>capable of interstellar travel but we could easily be a few billion
>years behind the technology of first generation star populations.

It is interesting to consider what that might mean. I think that we
are quite close to understanding all of the physical laws that define
the Universe. The Universe is simple, and I expect that all
technological species come to a full understanding of its laws very
early in their existence. After that, it's all about technology: what
you can do with complete knowledge of physics. I wonder how fast that
advances. Whether it follows the sort of exponential growth we see
with understanding nature, or is more linear, determined by
intelligence and creativity. Maybe all civilizations have essentially
the same technology after just a few thousand years.

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 2:47:12 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:02:05 +0000, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >It will certainly be a while before we have anything (even a probe)
> >capable of interstellar travel but we could easily be a few billion
> >years behind the technology of first generation star populations.
> It is interesting to consider what that might mean. I think that we
> are quite close to understanding all of the physical laws that define
> the Universe. The Universe is simple, and I expect that all
> technological species come to a full understanding of its laws very
> early in their existence. After that, it's all about technology: what
> you can do with complete knowledge of physics. I wonder how fast that
> advances. Whether it follows the sort of exponential growth we see
> with understanding nature, or is more linear, determined by
> intelligence and creativity. Maybe all civilizations have essentially
> the same technology after just a few thousand years.

Who is 'we'?. You mean a bunch of theorists who went on a misadventure with timekeeping a few centuries ago and now can't even interpret a basic observation with real substance to it-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Physics is like an inverted pyramid built of an apex, it is founded on an assumption that you can make sense of the celestial structure at a local and Universal level by projecting the rotational characteristics into space as a substitute for orbital comparisons. Your clockwork solar system physics is giving you 'big bang' because the damn thing is built on RA/Dec-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the centre..Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the centre is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect... that the Earth and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For the Universe will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its centre and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa 15th century

If you like something closer then try Pascal and Allan Poe-

"Hitherto, the Universe of stars has always been considered as coincident with the Universe proper, as I have defined it in the commencement of this Discourse. It has been always either directly or indirectly assumed -- at least since the dawn of intelligible Astronomy -- that, were it possible for us to attain any given point in space, we should still find, on all sides of us, an interminable succession of stars. This was the untenable idea of Pascal when making perhaps the most successful attempt ever made, at periphrasing the conception for which we struggle in the word "Universe." "It is a sphere," he says, "of which the centre is everywhere, the circumference, nowhere." But although this intended definition is, in fact, no definition of the Universe of stars, we may accept it, with some mental reservation, as a definition (rigorous enough for all practical purposes) of the Universe proper -- that is to say, of the Universe of space. This latter, then, let us regard as "a sphere of which the centre is everywhere, the circumference nowhere." In fact, while we find it impossible to fancy an end to space, we have no difficulty in picturing to ourselves any one of an infinity of beginnings." Poe, Eureka

If you want to try something older then Augustine-

"Some of the brethren raise a question concerning the motion of
heaven, whether it is fixed or moved. If it is moved, they say, how is
it a firmament? If it stands still, how do these stars which are held
fixed in it go round from east to west, the more northerly performing
shorter circuits near the pole, so that the heaven (if there is
another pole unknown to us) may seem to revolve upon some axis, or (if
there is no other pole) may be thought to move as a discus? To these
men I reply that it would require many subtle and profound reasonings
to find out which of these things is actually so; but to undertake
this and discuss it is consistent neither with my leisure nor with the
duty of those whom I desire to instruct in essential matters more
directly conducing to their salvation and to the benefit of the holy
Church." St Augustine

Congratulations! , by assigning relevance to daily circumpolar motion of the stars and tying it directly to the Earth's daily motion using RA/Dec, you have your 'big bang' right there. I suspect you won't wear a toothless grin, but you have certainly arrived at the end of physics and the ability to reason properly.

On 05/03/2022 08.47, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:02:05 +0000, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It will certainly be a while before we have anything (even a probe)
>> capable of interstellar travel but we could easily be a few billion
>> years behind the technology of first generation star populations.
>
> It is interesting to consider what that might mean. I think that we
> are quite close to understanding all of the physical laws that define
> the Universe.

<https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_A._Michelson>

<https://xkcd.com/2552/>

--
Michael F. Stemper
If it isn't running programs and it isn't fusing atoms, it's just bending space.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:37:51 PM UTC-7, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 03/03/2022 12.26, Ace Crysler wrote:

> > You and others are going to laugh at this I'm sure, but the answer is: demons. They're going to show up one day and fool humanity into thinking they are ET's.
> Sounds like _Childhood's End_

Except the other way around.

John Savard

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 9:26:44 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

> "The creatures we think of as aliens are actually, trans-dimensional beings."
> Phone call called into the Art Bell (nutjob) radio show purportedly by
> a guy "on the run" from Area 51. Turned out to be a hoax.

And here I thought that it was the creatures that we think of as _white
mice_ that were actually trans-dimensional beings.

John Savard

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:26:29 AM UTC-7, Ace Crysler wrote:

> You and others are going to laugh at this I'm sure, but the answer is:
> demons. They're going to show up one day and fool humanity into
> thinking they are ET's.

_That_ we are going to "laugh at this" may be obvious enough.

But the important question is _why_ would we laugh at it?

The book "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan addresses
the issue.

Some people are not Christians, because they see no evidence
that religion is based on a real encounter with God, instead of
the desire of some humans to control others.

But many Christians have a more moderate and mainstream
faith which doesn't involve expecting the end of the world to
come soon, or considering demons as a real factor in world
affairs.

John Savard

I wouldn't count anyone here remotely close to the research of the first Sun-centred astronomers and frankly, dealing with the unstable narrative inherited from the late 17th century is not as relevant or exciting as it once was. I could probably go over Sir Isaac's definitions of what he called absolute/relative time, space and motion as they refer to the antecedent research methods of Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe and Galileo but only then to undo the damage that was done.

Copernicus had the main concept for a moving Earth in a Sun centred system right by correctly affirming that it takes a faster moving Earth overtaking the slower moving planets to account for their direct/retrograde motion and easily captured to day by sequential imaging-

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

He didn't have the resolution for Venus and Mercury, which is why Brahe had placed those two planets in motion around the Sun but retained an Earth-centred system.

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/8d/53/a9/8d53a9ae498bc475ee557162b47177ed--tycho-brahe-industrial-revolution.jpg

I changed this by getting rid of the background Ptolemaic framework that Copernicus, Brahe and Kepler had to work with and replaced it with a different set of references, most notably the demonstration of the annual change in position of the stars allowing for the Sun to exist as it actually does- a central, stationary reference for the purpose of explaining planetary motions within a solar system structure-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

There is enough there for genuine modellers to work with and especially the incorporation of the solar system's galactic orbital motion and its influences on the orbits of the planets.

If people choose to remain with the Victorian mathematicians and there inability to distinguish time from timekeeping then good on them.

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:47:12 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:02:05 +0000, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > It will certainly be a while before we have anything (even a probe)
> > capable of interstellar travel but we could easily be a few billion
> > years behind the technology of first generation star populations.
>
> It is interesting to consider what that might mean. I think that we
> are quite close to understanding all of the physical laws that define
> the Universe. The Universe is simple, and I expect that all
> technological species come to a full understanding of its laws very
> early in their existence.

“Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we
suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane

> After that, it's all about technology: what
> you can do with complete knowledge of physics. I wonder how fast that
> advances. Whether it follows the sort of exponential growth we see
> with understanding nature, or is more linear, determined by
> intelligence and creativity. Maybe all civilizations have essentially
> the same technology after just a few thousand years.

Even a thousand years is a long, long time at our level of science and
technology. Think what has happened in the last century: relativity,
quantum mechanics, QFT, thermionic emission, superconductivity,
semiconductors, space travel. And there are still unsolved problems
in physics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

Many problems, like sending probes to the nearer stars, are merely
technological, but other problems, like marrying GR with QFT are of
equal or more difficulty.

“Even from the beginning, inflation looked like a kluge to me… I rapidly
formed the opinion that these guys were just making it up as they went
along” -- Neil Turok

It's possible that we're near the point of "complete" understanding, but
this belief has been refuted before:

"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have
all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the
possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries
is exceedingly remote." -- A. A. Michelson

Although Michelson did state that "our future discoveries must be looked for
in the sixth place of decimals" is almost correct, but those minute
disagreements become VERY important over megaparsec distances. And
those niggles show our standard model may very likely be quite wrong.

Sometimes I worry that Haldane had it right :-)

On 3/5/22 14:52, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>
> But many Christians have a more moderate and mainstream
> faith which doesn't involve expecting the end of the world to
> come soon, or considering demons as a real factor in world
> affairs.
>

I don't think the world's going to end soon. I think one has to be
careful when they start touting "evidence" because you can go back to
ancient times when they thought the world was going to end too.
However, I live in the US and I do think some sort of collapse is likely
within my lifetime. Too many uncorrected errors have occurred over many
decades and the price is about to be paid.

I actually lost a nearly lifelong friend a while back whose mother was a
Christian (not sure he was). He stopped talking to me when I wouldn't
take the position that our former President should be back in office. I
think the mess goes way beyond any politician, although they haven't
helped matters any.

So, the US as we know it is likely to end soon, but that doesn't mean
the world will.

Now I do think demons are a factor in this world, especially if you
attempt attracting them. I think it's pretty much common sense to stay
away from the fortune tellers and cookies, weegie boards, and such.
Just my opinion.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 12:24:15 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:47:12 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:02:05 +0000, Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > It will certainly be a while before we have anything (even a probe)
>> > capable of interstellar travel but we could easily be a few billion
>> > years behind the technology of first generation star populations.
>>
>> It is interesting to consider what that might mean. I think that we
>> are quite close to understanding all of the physical laws that define
>> the Universe. The Universe is simple, and I expect that all
>> technological species come to a full understanding of its laws very
>> early in their existence.
>
>“Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we
>suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane
>
>> After that, it's all about technology: what
>> you can do with complete knowledge of physics. I wonder how fast that
>> advances. Whether it follows the sort of exponential growth we see
>> with understanding nature, or is more linear, determined by
>> intelligence and creativity. Maybe all civilizations have essentially
>> the same technology after just a few thousand years.
>
>Even a thousand years is a long, long time at our level of science and
>technology. Think what has happened in the last century: relativity,
>quantum mechanics, QFT, thermionic emission, superconductivity,
>semiconductors, space travel. And there are still unsolved problems
>in physics:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
>
>Many problems, like sending probes to the nearer stars, are merely
>technological, but other problems, like marrying GR with QFT are of
>equal or more difficulty.
>
> “Even from the beginning, inflation looked like a kluge to me… I rapidly
>formed the opinion that these guys were just making it up as they went
>along” -- Neil Turok
>
>It's possible that we're near the point of "complete" understanding, but
>this belief has been refuted before:
>
>"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have
>all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the
>possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries
>is exceedingly remote." -- A. A. Michelson
>
>Although Michelson did state that "our future discoveries must be looked for
>in the sixth place of decimals" is almost correct, but those minute
>disagreements become VERY important over megaparsec distances. And
>those niggles show our standard model may very likely be quite wrong.
>
>Sometimes I worry that Haldane had it right :-)

I think in 100 year we will fully understand all natural law. We are
very close to that now.

We have no examples of complicated natural laws. Everything is
astonishingly simple. The complexity we observe is a consequence of
the infinite number of ways that those laws interact. The rules are
simple. The systems those simple rules can produce are hugely diverse,
and can be hugely complex. That's what technology exploits. And it's
why modern science has entered a new era. Now that most of the
underlying physics is understood, most science is about systems, which
are studied using computer models and simulations.

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 1:20:00 AM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> We have no examples of complicated natural laws. Everything is
> astonishingly simple. The complexity we observe is a consequence of
> the infinite number of ways that those laws interact. The rules are
> simple. The systems those simple rules can produce are hugely diverse,
> and can be hugely complex. That's what technology exploits. And it's
> why modern science has entered a new era. Now that most of the
> underlying physics is understood, most science is about systems, which
> are studied using computer models and simulations.

It is unlikely to strike you that physics went nowhere once they adopted the clockwork solar system (RA/Dec) framework so in a sense you are right, physics has come to an end because it never really began.

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the Sun about the Earth, or) of the Earth about the Sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the Sun...This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the Sun revolves about the Earth, or the Earth about the Sun." Newton *

I am delighted for you and your colleagues so model away with computer simulations all you like as I too model using computer graphics for interpretative purposes with a nod to the predictive side as well-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/overview/

* In terms of orbital dynamics, there is no budget for the Sun around the Earth and the original Sun-centred astronomers would have laughed it out of existence. There was only the annual motion of the Sun through the constellations equating with the Earth's motion through the same. If you truly want to know what Isaac's absolute/relative time, space and motion represents as a rogue notion, then I suggest you start with Huygens-

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passes the 12 signs,or makes an entire revolution in the ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,are of different lengths; as is known to all that are versed in Astronomy" Huygens

https://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Think of that as the Rosetta stone for unraveling Sir Isaac's grand misadventure with solar system research. Then again, you probably lost the most valuable thing you have- your curiosity.

On 05/03/2022 14:47, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:02:05 +0000, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It will certainly be a while before we have anything (even a probe)
>> capable of interstellar travel but we could easily be a few billion
>> years behind the technology of first generation star populations.
>
> It is interesting to consider what that might mean. I think that we
> are quite close to understanding all of the physical laws that define
> the Universe. The Universe is simple, and I expect that all
> technological species come to a full understanding of its laws very
> early in their existence. After that, it's all about technology: what
> you can do with complete knowledge of physics. I wonder how fast that
> advances. Whether it follows the sort of exponential growth we see
> with understanding nature, or is more linear, determined by
> intelligence and creativity. Maybe all civilizations have essentially
> the same technology after just a few thousand years.

I suspect it could end up being heavily resource constrained by the
planet unless someone finds a way to be very much more efficient at
harnessing solar energy and recycling materials than we have been so
far. Dystopian futures R Us doesn't look all that fanciful these days.

We are still a very long way off realistically being able to exploit the
resources of either the moon or Mars (or even mine passing asteroids).

I agree that it is quite possible that beyond a certain point all
civilisations may end up with the same laws of physics and technology
limited then only by available resources (very finite) and imagination.

OTOH every time you think you have solved physics some minor quirk in
the Nth decimal place comes to light requiring new physics to sort it
out. It could be that we can only every hope to make successively ever
more accurate approximations to the reality of the universe.

Fusion power has remained an illusive 50 years away from reality for
about 60 years now and it continues to be very difficult to exploit.

Fermi's paradox if intelligent life was common in the universe seems
reasonable to me. Then again maybe H2G2 really got it right and rich
kids aka Teasers appear in front of drunken yockels in the mid West.

https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Teaser

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 6:20:00 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 12:24:15 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Even a thousand years is a long, long time at our level of science and
> > technology. Think what has happened in the last century: relativity,
> > quantum mechanics, QFT, thermionic emission, superconductivity,
> > semiconductors, space travel. And there are still unsolved problems
> > in physics:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
> >
> > Many problems, like sending probes to the nearer stars, are merely
> > technological, but other problems, like marrying GR with QFT are of
> > equal or more difficulty.
> >
> > “Even from the beginning, inflation looked like a kluge to me… I rapidly
> > formed the opinion that these guys were just making it up as they went
> > along” -- Neil Turok
> >
> > It's possible that we're near the point of "complete" understanding, but
> > this belief has been refuted before:
> >
> > "The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have
> > all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the
> > possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries
> > is exceedingly remote." -- A. A. Michelson
> >
> > Although Michelson did state that "our future discoveries must be looked for
> > in the sixth place of decimals" is almost correct, but those minute
> > disagreements become VERY important over megaparsec distances. And
> > those niggles show our standard model may very likely be quite wrong.
> >
> > Sometimes I worry that Haldane had it right :-)
>
> I think in 100 year we will fully understand all natural law. We are
> very close to that now.

It seems to me that whenever we solve one unsolved problem, one or two
more pop up. Are we on a converging series?

> We have no examples of complicated natural laws. Everything is
> astonishingly simple. The complexity we observe is a consequence of
> the infinite number of ways that those laws interact. The rules are
> simple. The systems those simple rules can produce are hugely diverse,
> and can be hugely complex. That's what technology exploits. And it's
> why modern science has entered a new era. Now that most of the
> underlying physics is understood, most science is about systems, which
> are studied using computer models and simulations.

The zero-point field is hope and despair. Experiments confirm it but there
is sufficient energy there to roll us up into a black hole and send us to the
singularity. OTOH, it may be our salvation:

https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/12/jse_12_2_puthoff.pdf

But that investigation doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

And Alcubierre, etc. metrics? Way beyond our technology to investigate
experimentally. And we are at a loss to explain time itself. SR and GR
treat time and space on an equal footing, but

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2015.0670
"Quantum asymmetry between time and space"

https://newatlas.com/physics/quantum-time-theory-nuclear-reactor/

And we may find out in a couple of years whether or not neutrinos are
tachyons:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06048

The best fit to the preliminary data places the neutrino mass-squared at
-1.0 eV², meaning the neutrino may be a tachyon. By the error bars,
there's only a 10% or less chance that it's mass is positive rather than
imaginary.

That will certainly cause some thinking about ... er ... causality.

Don't you have a discouraging outlook on the future of mankind? Do you
believe we'll even make it to 2122? :-)

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 6:20:00 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 12:24:15 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
> > <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Even a thousand years is a long, long time at our level of science and
> > > technology. Think what has happened in the last century: relativity,
> > > quantum mechanics, QFT, thermionic emission, superconductivity,
> > > semiconductors, space travel. And there are still unsolved problems
> > > in physics:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
> > >
> > > Many problems, like sending probes to the nearer stars, are merely
> > > technological, but other problems, like marrying GR with QFT are of
> > > equal or more difficulty.
> > >
> > > “Even from the beginning, inflation looked like a kluge to me… I rapidly
> > > formed the opinion that these guys were just making it up as they went
> > > along” -- Neil Turok
> > >
> > > It's possible that we're near the point of "complete" understanding, but
> > > this belief has been refuted before:
> > >
> > > "The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have
> > > all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the
> > > possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries
> > > is exceedingly remote." -- A. A. Michelson
> > >
> > > Although Michelson did state that "our future discoveries must be looked for
> > > in the sixth place of decimals" is almost correct, but those minute
> > > disagreements become VERY important over megaparsec distances. And
> > > those niggles show our standard model may very likely be quite wrong.
> > >
> > > Sometimes I worry that Haldane had it right :-)
> >
> > I think in 100 year we will fully understand all natural law. We are
> > very close to that now.

> It seems to me that whenever we solve one unsolved problem, one or two
> more pop up. Are we on a converging series?

It's called the Pandora box!
😪