• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
30,860
I've always thought there was a lot in the theory that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. One of them even admitted it in a book. It would explain why there are two distinct forms of logic in the world. Male and female.
Oh wait.
Thats what that saying is?

I thought it was men are from Mars and women have no penis.

Now I understand the awkward stares
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,666
Twitter
No
Less of that, this is a catholic country.
It is quite possible that there is nothing more catholic than the panspermia theory. It is basically impregnating a whole planet at a time. No johnny.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
14,993
I've always thought there was a lot in the theory that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. One of them even admitted it in a book. It would explain why there are two distinct forms of logic in the world. Male and female.
I always thought we came from Uranus.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,666
Twitter
No
It is actually feasible, however mathematically improbable. We all exploded out of a star nursery hurling carbon across the universe anyway so it is entirely possible that the millions of other earthlings now have a tiny remainder of carbon in their system that effectively went through my anus, yes. Enjoy your dinner.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
13,518
When I first heard about this on the radio, I thought it was phosgene and wondered whether WWI German scientists had made their way to the planet.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
26,366

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,666
Twitter
No
Mind you, with the amount of methane our planet is likely to give off like guinnessy sunflares over the next few decades it'll probably turn out we'll have had a nice long chat with some alien amoeba and they don't know why we insist on setting fire to our communications in the atmosphere before the methane reaches space.

It'll turn out we've both been desperately trying to swap each other's Reality TV over to the other.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
54,858
Enough of the cloacal jokes. Let's keep it nerdy. :geek:

With thanks to Tyler Cowen's website ...

An interesting paper co-authored by Carl Sagan in 1967 speculating on life in the Venus' atmospheric clouds, though not on the surface. Unfortunately, only the Abstract is not pay-walled.


If small amounts of minerals are stirred up to the clouds from the surface, it is by no means difficult to imagine an indigenous biology in the clouds of Venus.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
54,858
And, a company ready to send a rocket to Venus ... in fact, already planning to do so ...


“This mission is to go and see if we can find life,” said Peter Beck, Rocket Lab’s founder and chief executive. “Obviously, this discovery of phosphine really adds strength to that possibility. So I think we need to go and have a look there.”
to space, putting small satellites into orbit for private companies, NASA and the U.S. military. It also has a mission to the moon in the works with NASA, called CAPSTONE, scheduled to launch in early 2021.
It should be easier to bring back samples of a planet's atmosphere than that of its surface. Personally, I would rather they did not bring an alien microbe back to the Earth, though. I saw The Andromeda Strain. Maybe keep it in Spacelab?
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
4,138
Personally, I would rather they did not bring an alien microbe back to the Earth, though. I saw The Andromeda Strain. Maybe keep it in Spacelab?
Also the flip side of that is that they will find life on Venus, but they will have brought it there themselves, as a contaminant.

Anyway, I'm sure they'll say they are taking all the necessary precautions (just like the boys in the Wuhan virology lab did)
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,666
Twitter
No
Interesting to watch the private sector finding ways into the space race. Musk is obvious of course, but Bezos at Amazon founded a company as far back as 2000 to develop VTVL (Vertical Take-Off and Vertical Landing) craft, a new moon-lander for the Artemis programme at NASA and other projects in space exploration. They only came out from the secrecy shelter after developing projects at remote sites in Texas.

Blue Origin is Bezos's personal baby. He was a National Merit Scholar who went to Princeton and he spent his time as a valedictorian outlining his view that in the future there should be two to three billion humans living in orbital constructs while the planet below was given over to becoming a sort of global national park. He was 18 at the time.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,666
Twitter
No
'Blue Origin' is so named because it refers to our blue origin- the earth.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
54,858
Interesting to watch the private sector finding ways into the space race. Musk is obvious of course, but Bezos at Amazon founded a company as far back as 2000 to develop VTVL (Vertical Take-Off and Vertical Landing) craft, a new moon-lander for the Artemis programme at NASA and other projects in space exploration. They only came out from the secrecy shelter after developing projects at remote sites in Texas.

Blue Origin is Bezos's personal baby. He was a National Merit Scholar who went to Princeton and he spent his time as a valedictorian outlining his view that in the future there should be two to three billion humans living in orbital constructs while the planet below was given over to becoming a sort of global national park. He was 18 at the time.
I would be closer to Bezos' vision than Musks, while not being an admirer of either. Rather than orbiting constructs, better urban-exurban conglomerations, more foods produced in factories from basic materials, more concentrated natural farming, and most of the earth re-wilded.

Personally, I still think the human technological challenge of the 21st century is still to manage climate change on a human scale. Not airy space projects, which are interesting but lower priority. Thales, the first Greek philosopher-astronomer was so intent on the stars that he fell down a well, according to legend*.

*There was a bit of Bezos about Thales, too. Challenged by the question "If you are so smart, why are you not rich?", he forecast a bumper olive yield that year, bought up all the olive presses he could, and made a fortune when the harvest came in.
 

The Irish RM

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2020
Messages
66
...
Given that bacteria is found near undersea volcanoes on Earth, in theory bacterial life could exist there in the atmosphere. It would mean that basic forms of life may be commoner than was thought.
Very true - but not alone undersea volcanoes. In fact, in a great number and diversity of habitats once thought utterly hostile to life.

Extremophiles

It's highly possible, and maybe even probable that such life may also exist elsewhere in the Solar system.

In relation to studying it - I wouldn't be in favour of bringing any samples Earth-side. Time to start kitting out the ISS for the reception and study of extra terrestrial biological samples now, to be ready. If not from Venus, then Mars, or Europa, Enceladus or others ...
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,666
Twitter
No
Bezos is a far more interesting person than the usual demented Bond-villain/robber baron model would suggest. He's become a political figure by default because of the runaway train of Amazon, a phenomenal growth story.

He did a few pivotal things in the early critical days of achieving momentum which does suggest to me a genuine leader and innovative thinker rather than someone who was in the right place at the right time with the right info as sometimes happens. Can't really knock anyone for analysing dynamics in original ways and coming up with an answer first before everyone else.

The political side is awkward because he now has wealth in advance of many small nations, his company is a massive employment statistic and an ongoing race to the bottom operation it seems in terms of pay and standards of respect for employees.

No doubt he is a visionary but I'm content enough to say that he Bezos is one of the more interesting of the tech geek billionaires and does need to improve his and his company's image if he doesn't want to spend a lot of time being dragged into cut-rate sociology debates which will divert his attention from more useful pursuits.

I think if I had $204 billion (as at last month) I'd give serious consideration to doing a Warren Buffet long term shocker by actually foregoing a lot of wealth above $100 billion (space hobbies are expensive) and give serious thought to raising the bar internally and making my businesses an employer of choice rather than need.
 

yobosayo

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
3,314
we'll have to have a fundamental re-boot on our perception of the Universe somewhat akin to the realisation that the earth wasn't the centre of the cosmos.
The center of the observable universe is the observer and since only the earth has known observers, earth is the center of the universe. Such is by definition. As concerns the not observable universe, well, no reason to care as not observable literally means out of sight, in every sense and respect, so out of mind.

Or you might say, as someone wrote:

If the universe is defined as that which is directly observed in consciousness (e.g., the 'universe of experience'), then it obviously exists only in consciousness, and it needs consciousness to exist.

If, on the other hand, the universe is defined as something that exists outside and independent of consciousness (e.g., an 'objectively existing universe'), then it, by definition, does not need a conscious observer to exist.

Imagining such an objective universe to exist independent of observation, however, is a hypothesis that can never be experimentally tested, because we can only directly know what is observed. So, positing existence that is, in principle, not observable, is not empirically falsifiable. One is free to do so, but it is pure metaphysical speculation, and should be clearly distinguished from science per se. Science tests that which is empirically observable, and it is thus limited to the universe that is observable. In that sense, the scientific universe is necessarily dependent upon observation. It is a universe that is invariant to observers, but not independent of them.


Lastly, no, I do not think that something akin to bacteria in the Venusian atmosphere is observing the universe and so the earth is still the center. So maybe you might say, the center never changed, just the observation.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom