Cyro Xero : there is also the genetic gold to be found within life forms not developed on earth. It could give who new insight into many areas of evolution, how life forms. A scientist ready to look at E.T. DNA is a scientist about ready to blow a gasget.

Cyro Xero : The big picture is, how does studying little microbes or whatever advance the human race? This planet is in danger if you haven't noticed. I would much rather have us pour our money into ways to make more efficient technology that would not release as much Carbon into the atmosphere. Would you rather study little organisms that may not even be there or save the planet?

Besides, NASA knows better now. They're not sending humans into space anymore. It would take at least 8 months to get to Mars and about the same time to get back. There are ethical reasons like that as to why we don't just send people into space.

"But there are plenty of conditions on Earth that micro-organisms survive in that match heavenly bodies in the Solar System."

No, there's more to it than just extreme climate conditions. Look back at the things I said in one of my earlier posts. Earth is more special than you give it credit for.

Earth is special only in that conditions here are unique to it. My point is that if microbes here can survive, why would it not be possible for some to survive on a different planet or moon with it's own setup? The fact of the matter is that the same chemicals and conditions here exist elsewhere within the solar system. All the planets were made from the same materials. What made them different was their location from the sun and the amount of matter collected, among other things. As special as Earth might be, it isn't a lot different from the rest of the bodies. If something lives in a certain environment here then something should be able to live in the same environment elsewhere, whether it has the same or different DNA.

Studying other E.T. life was never meant to advance humans. The very sole purpose was to answer the question of whether we are alone. That's it. After that, then who knows? NASA had to pause their progress because of money. Ever since their funds were cut last year they had to to stop their plans for sending people back to the moon. Going to Mars is something to do sometime after that. They already knew how long it would take to get there decades ago. It isn't really a matter of ethics in that case. Without funding , they can't do much, which is why the market for private space operations is growing. And NASA isn't a significant contributor to environmental clean up, if at all. They focus on the dreams of space exploration, not so much "going green". And personally, I rather would search or other life. I find it more interesting. Other people are doing something for the planet anyway. But that's just me.

Cyro Xero : Yes, that is a definition of special. I never said that they could not survive elsewhere. Earth isn't a lot different? It has life. Even if you believe other planets have life as well, there is no proof.

Whether we're alone or not? That's the biggest reason that you think we are doing this? That's just a waste of time. If that is all NASA cares about instead of the advancement of our race, then just end it.

And yes, ethics do have something to do with this. How many people would want to risk their lives and spend 2 years in space? If we really wanted to find another Earth, and we had the technology, we would send astronauts into space, somehow keep them in suspended animation, and just let them drift in space until they reach a place like Gliese (which would take over 200 years to get to with our current technology).

"And personally, I rather would search or other life. I find it more interesting. Other people are doing something for the planet anyway. But that's just me."

Finding little dots that we currently can't travel to just to say "ah, algae, it can be found elsewhere" is more important than saving the lives of millions of people? Everyone has to do something for the planet. I can't even tell you how ignorant this is and how mad this gets me.

@ geeogree


Space exploration does 2 things for us. First, it helps satisfy the human urge to explore and discover. We are pretty much done with the moon and have only the deepest trenches of the oceans left on earth, while knowing very little about anything else. Second, space travel is an investment. We will eventually come to a point where we lack the resources we need, even assuming we attain perfect 100% efficient recycling systems, and we will have to look to other celestial bodies for these resources. Better to find them well before we run out than risk it being too late.

Lagslayer : I don't think you understand how much money it would take to go and retrieve such resources. The money it would take to make a big ship, send it into space, and the time it would take to make it to actually go to a celestial body and return back. One of the moons (either of Jupiter or Saturn) has oil on the surface. And guess what? We can't get it here cheaply, and that's right in our solar system. Our technology is not anywhere advanced enough to make use of the universe around us.

It's gotta start somewhere. There are experiments being done with making objects hover. Basically, everything vibrates at a particular energy frequency, and if it's matched up perfectly, it could float. It's already documented that you can make something float by running an electric current through it. The US government has taken a very keen interest in the concept.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO-1l0lXR_U

I don't necessarily believe it's distorting space/time or creating "free" energy, but clearly you can make things float on electricity alone. I believe we have better technology than you are giving us credit for.

Lagslayer : How about we combat climate change and then spend our time exploring the universe? I'd rather be alive more than satisfying my curiosity.

Sorry, was adding to my previous comment while you posted.

Anyways, climate change is barely affected by human activity at all. The Climategate scandal was all about how the scientists were caught doctoring the numbers to make it seem like it's an emergency and we are destroying the planet. I'm not saying we should just plow down trees for the hell of it, that's just poor resource management. If pollution gets so bad it's killing off everything, we would feel the effects too and sensibly stop it. We don't like breathing that crap in, either.

Lagslayer : The Climategate scandal as you say has already been settled. The information was taken out of context and exaggerated by the media.

"Climate change is barely affected by human activity at all."

Wow, that is ignorant. What makes you think that? Human activity affects the climate more than you know. The burning of fossil fuels is where it has been coming from. We're the only creatures on the planet that do that. There hasn't been as much Carbon Dioxide as there is now in the atmosphere in at least 600,000 years.

http://www2.heartland.org/apps/images/imgPics/Figure%201.JPG

Coincidence? Carbon Dioxide traps radiation from the sun on the planet longer than it normally would and causes more heat for the planet. Let me tell you what's wrong with that. This causes the ice sheets to melt. Let me tell you what's wrong with that. The ice on the planet (as well as other bright things such as clouds) reflect the waves back into space; pretty much keep the Earth cool enough. If they were to disappear, well sea level would rise, hurricanes would be much more frequent and stronger, it would be hotter, many people would die, etc. It's not very good. We can't just change it whenever we want, this is the nature, we have no control over it.

The effects of global warming have been covered up by global dimming (particulates that when in clouds, causes them to shine brighter and reflect more sun waves; opposite effect of global warming). For many years, global dimming masked the effects of global warming. Since the late 70s when aerosols that caused global dimming were banned, it has become more and more clear that global warming is getting out of hand and if we don't act withing the next decade it will be too late. And we have no sense.

Also, the Hutchison Effect is a fraud. Hutchison himself could not replicate it or prove that it existed outside of fiction. Also "clearly" those are strings. If you can't challenge a theory, it's not science.

Lagslayer : some news for you, running an electric current through things to make them float or have magnetic qualities, been around since the 1950's or 60's, even with superconductors they are having difficulties making it cost effective.

I think science is very key here, look at the last 100 years, they were living like what we might call "cave men". Now look at me telecommunicate with thousands instantaneously (or the 6 who read this). So right now it takes us 8 months to get to mars, what about in 50 years how long? A 10 hr flight to get there in another 50 or so years, I don't see how anybody could refute that (unless you can see into the future), in which case we are going to Vegas. And if it only took that long to get to mars, how hard would it be to colonize?

NotJon : Whether we are alone or not IS the main reason. What other reason is there? That is the point of this thread after all, isn't? You forget that the possibility of life has been one of the biggest questions of science for ages. Mars happens to be a planet that possibly had/has life. And it's extremely close in terms of space travel. That's why we've sent probes there to study the soil. Was life ever there, and could it still be around?
And as for NASA, the point of that organization is space travel and exploration. that's the main purpose it was created for. That in itself is a form of "advancement".

And no, ethics has nothing to do with this. It would only be that way if someone was forced to make the trip there. "How many people would want to risk their lives and spend 2 years in space?"
A lot more than you think. There are plenty of people who dream of going to another planet. Very few think about the risks involved, but that still wouldn't stop them from wanting to go to Mars. Myself included. With or without suspended animation. How many sailors do you think died the first time Europeans came to America? There were risks involved with taking a ship for months across the ocean but they gathered the needed supplies, took precautions and went anyway. Ethics weren't involved with that because they were explorers (with the exception of slaves, if any). That's what some people are today. Explorers.

Regardless, ethics of space travel isn't the subject here, only what may or may not be on Mars. So that ends here.

These first two videos have a guy talking about using opposing magnetic forces to reduce the effect of gravity on things. He delves into some government cover-up conspiracy stuff though, so take it with a grain of salt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57ZKTA7nx8U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeNesaRUoJo&NR=1



This next video is is a lifter made as a science project. With enough voltage put through it, the aluminum pushes up against gravity. He needs strings to hold it down and keep it from flying away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgcSdabSb2w&NR=1



And now, a video demonstrating diamagnetic levitation. The video only shows a small part of the inside of the machine, which is a large, high-powered electrical cylinder. The small tube in which the objects are floating is the center of the magnetic field, in which anything that moves slightly off-center is pushed back toward it. This can make even non-metallic items float.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Al7GAnH8Q

On Mars? No, we've done a billion experiments about life on Mars and just about all of them failed. On other planets we've never been to before and never will get to because they're trillions of lightyears away? Definitely. Who could honestly believe that Earth is the only planet in this entire universe that has life?

jmc1097 : Thank you. This is what I've been saying. In our lifetimes we will most likely not be able to reach other planets. I'm sure within the next 50 years or so we'll find something, however, we would have no easy way of getting there. I'm not saying that it's not possible, nor do I find other life boring, but, in the grand scheme of things, what's the point? Preserve the blue marble we have.

The Climategate investigation was launched from it's own inner circle; of course they will claim they were telling the truth. You can't trust one side or the other on their data alone. That graph was their data, and if they are fudging the numbers, then that was a lie too. I'm not doubting that humans contribute a disproportionately large amount of "greenhouse gasses" in relation to our biomass (because of our machines), but the mass of all the life on earth far outweighs all of us and our machines. All of these life forms produce "greenhouse gasses" as waste (plants included, though they utilize more CO2 than they produce), and living things do not turn off. The amount of these gasses has always risen and fallen with the amount of life on earth.

The issue has become heavily entwined with money and politics. It didn't have to be climate change, but it was an easy target. It didn't have to be CO2 either, but that was also an easy target. CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas compared to methane or water vapor (which is also the most abundant greenhouse gas). I'm not saying ignore the issue completely, but we shouldn't grind to a halt and cripple ourselves so heavily over this issue.

Also, I've found another chart saying our effect is negligible once the effect of water vapor is added to the numbers. Unless you don't trust them. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


edit: spelling

jmc1097 : It takes about a year to get to Mars. To that effect, it'd take so much longer to get to other planets in completly different solar systems. So I think I get what you're saying.

Lagslayer : First off, that article was last revised 7 years ago. A lot of this stuff that we now know about climate change is relatively newly discovered. Also, were you just trying to look for an article that goes against what the majority of scientists are saying? Fred Singer is not someone that I would solely listen to. Find many legitimate articles and hear opinions from many scientists that explicitly state that water vapor is the leading contributor to the warming of the planet (which is not as influential as you think) or that global warming is a hoax. I have 99% of scientists on my side, I'm more inclined to trust in what they researched. Also, just by seeing that he said part of CFCs are naturally occurring should be a sign right there that he is full of crap. CFCs were man made and do not occur in nature.

It's good to be skeptical, however, you must remember, most scientists are not very rich people. Many of them spend years and years focusing on one thing. Talk to some of these guys, learn about what they do, before you blame it all on conspiracy. I've heard from quite a few and they're very nice people a good portion of them.

Methane actually does not last long in its current state in the atmosphere, instead, it breaks down rather quickly and releases a lot of CO2 which exacerbates warming effect. Water vapor alone doesn't really do anything. It really only contributes to climate warming if there is an abundance of carbon dioxide with it. Look, it really isn't that hard. The atmosphere protects us from harmful radiation from the sun. 70% is absorbed while 30% is reflected back into space. Know why it is those numbers? About 70% of the planet is covered by ocean (which is dark, thus absorbing sunlight) while the clouds, icecaps, deserts, etc. are bright and reflect sunlight. Ever wear black on a hot day? Doesn't that make you feel hotter? This process is good, it keeps the Earth at a relatively stable temperature. However, when more carbon dioxide is added, it traps the light (which causes the heat) on the surface longer and that's how this all started.

You are correct in that animals release carbon one way or another, however, it is all in balance. Nature is a very balanced entity on this planet. The vast and vast amount of plant life absorb the carbon dioxide and releases oxygen that nearly every living organism needs to survive. However, what we are experiencing is very rapid climate change. The CO2 is reaching levels that it hasn't reached in hundreds of thousands of years. Most of it has been released within the last 100 years. Things have occurred on Earth that caused rapid heating, however, those had to do with a change in the rotation of the planet, a rock from space, volcanism, etc. The rising level of carbon dioxide now is from the burning of fossil fuels. Last I checked, we're the only ones that do that. Nature just can't keep up with the rate that this is happening.

I don't know how politicians have gained anything with this issue. If anything, it's harder for most people to bear (like you I'm guessing). Many people just write it off or assume that scientists will magically solve it. That's not the case (at least right now). The universe is a violent place, Earth is no different. No one wants to have to do all of the hard work to undo this problem (even though much of it really isn't that hard).

Let me tell you one more thing, this isn't about protecting the Earth. The Earth will be fine, it's the 6.8 billion or so of us that are in danger. If you don't want to believe that CO2 has a huge impact on climate, then fine. However, if you look at satellite images of the ice sheets or just go to the Arctic and visit one, you will see that they are melting at a very high rate that even the new snowfall each Winter can't recover. It's been decreasing for years now. There's enough ice in the Arctic alone to raise global sea levels about 23 feet if it all melted away. Millions of peoples' lives would be in danger. If the Antarctic melted, well, it would be much worse. You can literally see the ice melt away in Greenland. It's not a big secret.

How about we call this a draw? We both believe different people and figures and neither of us is going to back down. Both of our arguments are based on the information gathered by other people, and neither of us can really gather the information on our own, so we can't really confirm any of it independently.

Lagslayer : Well, I have actually seen many films and clips of the ice in the Arctic melting and breaking away into the ocean. I have seen photographs of the same location from the past to the present and the changes are scary. I have heard some glaciologists talk about their research and see what they used to reach their conclusions (in person). I mean, I suppose that one could argue that everything has been photoshopped and everything is a lie unless we see it. You could also argue that even our own eyes lie to us. Some people suspect that we are living in a virtual universe because the chance of there being a real universe is so low that it's ridiculously lucky that we're all living and talking about it. The point is, we can't prove anything, even the things that we think we know. There are many things that we think that we know when in reality, we have no idea about how or why these things happen. This is called the Dunning–Kruger effect. Many people suffer from this.

Open your mind. Just because a truth is inconvenient, that does not make it any less than the truth. Most importantly, science changes. We can safely say that we learn more and more about the universe around us. You can't just listen to one side and ignore everyone else. Listen to both sides, see which arguments hold up, then make an unbiased decision regarding whether or not you think that they came to a good conclusion or they're full of crap. I often hear what everyone says and the beauty of science is that you can challenge it.