The Stupidity Barrier

I knew there was something fighting against me. Thanks for the warning / heads up.

Unfortunately if fights against all of us

I have to admit I am thankful that barrier is there.

I am not thankful about the stupidity part ;)

I wish I did not have to agree with you on the first part, Heidi, but I do

This is a brilliant explanation. Thank god for your and our imagination!

Actually thank god for the barrier.

So, you're imagining that everyone can become unstupid and at one time? What if they stupid down after the barrier is lifted?

Great write.

I'm an optimist on that part, Pam. I think once humanity realizes we are all one part of a bigger whole, then there is no going back, but there is going forward much faster.

Great response to the prompt, Richard. I like Jerry Pournelle's idea of the Alderson drive which transcends the light speed barrier.
Featured at the Triple Name Club.

Sounds like mind reading may be alive and well, John, because I did not even know there was a prompt. This post was written after a morning discussion with my son in law where I just had to vent. I am away from my computer for a few days and for some reason I am not getting any gather e mails on my I pad. thanks, and i'm sorry for missing the prompt. Sounds like a good one.

Richard,

If you ever read my posting, I am sure that by now you know that I am very generously using he word "stupid" and its derivative... However in this particular case, I would be careful with it...

"When I was a kid, I was sure that by the turn of the century we would have colonized the moon and Mars"

The first time, the idea of a voyage to the Moon through a semi predictable method was probably Jules Verne's, "De la Terre à la Lune", which was published in 1865. We were busing fighting each other at the time... literally...

Of course Verne's methods are laughable today, however they were acceptable, at least in imagination at the time, given the technology and the thinking of the times.

It took mankind about one hundred years to understand the Physical phenomenon involved in breaking the Gravity barrier, and the unknown of the Outer-space.

Given your age, at the time you were dreaming, the world only had a theoretical idea about the Quantum Physics, and we were taught that the Atom was the last part of the matter that could be divided...

So, give at least one hundred years since your dreams, and you may be thinking about colonizing Space...

I don't think that the "teleportation" is too far away either. The first steps were made already. Through the MRI machines, they are able to work at sub-molecular levels to move the electrical elements of the atoms, so I am sure that with a better control of the Quantum Physics, they will be able to take the ions in our body, separate them, and transfer them to another location for re-assembling.

Now, of course if we don't waste the time and energy in useless wars, stupid politics, and the rest of activities, unbecoming a human being, the process would have taken a shorter time, but then again, we are only humans, so we need time and suffering to get wise...

If they don't have a colony at least on the Moon, in thirty some years when you will turn 100, you may be disappointed...

My disappointment came early, I thought we would at least have a moon colony, Crin. but actually, my piece was not a complete joke, because I don't remember if it was the drake equation or not but I always remember the conclusion that the reason we have not been visited by beings from another world is that beings who develop advanced technology wipe themselves out before they become smart enought to solve interstellar travel.

Scientists have been and continue to look into space for a place that may be suitable for human survival. Telescopes like the “Keppler” constantly search for such a place. Keppler has so far found 2000 possible locations, although to exist on any of them, much would have to be done to sustain life on any of them. The one constant with all of these locations is that they are very, very, very far away, as much as 1000 to 1500 light years away, and would make going to the moon seem like a trip to the store.

Because of the distance factor, it is imperative that we find a planet that is much closer, mainly because the longer people are on the space capsules, the more problems that may take place. The “Goldilocks Zone” refers to a zone around the star where the temperature is just right for liquid water at the surface of the planet. Since water is an essential piece of biology and the chemistry of life, itself. You have to also consider the composition of the atmosphere. The presence of oxygen and methane in the atmosphere on a planet would certainly suggest the possibility of life on that planet because both molecules together are interactive. For the presence of oxygen and methane to continue to exist, the presence of living organisms must be present to replenish them.

It goes much farther than to find a planet that will sustain life based on the availability of oxygen or an acceptable gravity level because there are other factors that could prevent human life to be sustained on the planet. Wind speed is a very strong consideration in this area. We have trouble functioning with 50 mph winds, while some of the distant planets could have winds of up to 200 mph all the time. Without truly knowing the composition of the planet, we could later discover that poisonous gasses were being gradually released that would kill human life with time. The discovered factors of the planet could vary much more than we could possibly know, so what we may have perceived as a stable environment could easily shift to an opposite conclusion at a rapid rate. These uncertainties create much doubt and are factors that will always create doubt and even hesitance with any future ventures. In other words, we may not know much of what is needed to know prior to being in such a position.

Then, after considering all of the above comes the real problem. That is how to get there, what we will take with us, and if we could even survive the trip. I may return to give my thoughts on that part of the situation. There are many scientists who are constantly looking for answers, and even though I would not blame our lack of knowledge so far as being related to stupidity, I will say that it would be stupid to make that first trip based on our existing knowledge.

understand and agree with a lot, Vic, but from Robert Goddard to Armstrong was thirty or forty years, and now fifty years later we can't even do a manned landing. my piece was meant to be part humorous but also serious in that I actually do wonder if there is a self regulating aspect of the universe that limits expansion of life forms like ours, until they learn more about the true nature of reality. When I look at the earths response to mankind right now, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the earth itself will regulate human existence. science would say that global climate change is a result of mans actions, I am coming to believe it should be phrased that global climate change is a response to mans actions, similar to an immune response

Richard,

"Now most scientists will tell you that some of these things are impossible, but we all know that is not true and that the passage of time will prove them wrong, and that is simply because the universe really works under the principal that if you can think it, then you can do it."

Where did you get this idea that "the universe really works under the principal that if you can think it, then you can do it"? And where did you get the idea that "we all know the universe really works under" that principle? Why would the universe work like that? . . and if it did, why would "most scientists" not have noticed it "really works under" such a principle?

It looks like magical thinking to me . . a form of sympathetic magic . .

you are of course correct, John that not only many, but very many would disagree with that statement, but then I would say to you that I can not find a single example in my mind of where the thought did not come before the discovery. I'm sure you will give examples where you feel that is wrong, but you would also have to agree with me that neither of us could prove the other wrong.
The question I would ask you is did man discover the Higgs boson, or did man create it? The older I get and the more I observe, I feel increasingly sure that consciousness creates reality, and not reality creates consciousness. So many things that were called impossible even in my early adulthood have become real, that I personally don't question the concept that nothing is impossible.

Richard,

"So many things that were called impossible even in my early adulthood have become real . .

Very many have not, too, right? . . The proposal here is not that some things we can think, we can do, but that all the things we can think, we can do. You're not answering my questions about that idea . . Why would "the universe really work under the principal that if you can think it, then you can do it"?

Why? . . Because you can think it does? , , seems rather circular in the reasoning department . . What stops everyone from thinking of anything that is not possible to do? Some sort of mind-limiting god that keeps us from imagining/thinking of anything that is not possible to do? . .

What stops some kid from thinking they could drive to the moon in the family car, unless they actually could do that? If the answer is nothing (which seems rather obviously true to me), then there is no such "principle" at work in the universe . . No particular reason that same kid could not imagine other things that are not really possible to do when they get older . . and perhaps write science fiction stories . . the "principle" would require some form of mental limiting be in operation that really does not seem (to me) to be in operation in reality, or that "kid" could not think they could drive to the moon in the family car, right?

PS~

Now, if you were to say something less comprehensive than what you did, like maybe; *Some of the things generally thought of as impossible by most scientists, may not be*, that makes far more sense to me, and can be substantiated by what has occurred in reality along those lines . . but to go so far as to say "If we can think it, we can do it", seems like magical thinking to me . . Something a zealous "witch doctor" who believed in sympathetic magic might think/say . .

since I love this type of conversation, I want to keep it going, John. using an I pad with clumsy fingers makes it harder to answer each point, but I will hit the main ones. I could of course place qualifiers in my statement to cover thing like a child saying "I can take our car to the moon," but you know my essential meaning is not that all things are possible with today's technology, but that all things are possible when a conscious entity sets a goal to solve the problem. So you asked why would the universe work that way, and my not completely scientific answer would be that in a quantum world, all possible outcomes exist as a finite probability. So if all possibile outcomes exist, then there must be a mechanism by which the actual outcome we experience is determined. To my level of understanding, and my belief, it is a quantum level event that determines the outcome. my simple example would be the two slit experiment.
Here is probably where you will think my extrapolation is bogus, but a conscious thought is a quantum event, and I believe that each thought about a particular event has a finite effect on changing the probability of its eventual outcome. I come to the conclusion that if I think about an event, I change the probability of that event occurring, and therefore anything I can think about is possible. I would love to keep writing here, but answering on an I pad is maddening. Thanks for the discussion

Richard,

" . . but you know my essential meaning is not that all things are possible with today's technology, but that all things are possible when a conscious entity sets a goal to solve the problem."

So the kid (a conscious entity) "sets a goal" to "solve the problem" of driving to the moon in that car? . . still ain't gonna be able to do it, right? My point is not about current verses future technology, but just that real people (conscious entities) can really think of things that they cannot do.

Your proposed "way the universe works" (if you can think it, you can do it), essentially says that it is not possible for anyone to think of a thing that is not possible to do. Well, I just did, didn't I? Didn't you, in the sense that you thought of driving to the moon in a car, and you don't actually believe it is possible, right? The universe can't "work that way", if you can think it, and you can't do it.


"So you asked why would the universe work that way, and my not completely scientific answer would be that in a quantum world, all possible outcomes exist as a finite probability. So if all possible outcomes exist, then there must be a mechanism by which the actual outcome we experience is determined. To my level of understanding, and my belief, it is a quantum level event that determines the outcome. my simple example would be the two slit experiment."

Well, all possible outcomes does not include all conceivable (thinkable) outcomes . . It seems to me you are confusing the idea of all conceivable, for the idea of all possible, outcomes.

The results of "the two slit experiment" are extremely consistent and predictable, regardless of what anyone conceives/thinks. It is not possible (as far as quantum physicists have been able to determine) for any other outcome to occur . . Even though one can think of doing it and the result coming out differently, one cannot actually do it with any other outcome occurring (and they have tried really hard for about a hundred years). It is not possible (according to what we call quantum theory) to "do it" with a different outcome, even though it is certainly possible for for people to think of doing it with a different outcome.

The "problem" quantum physics theory addresses is not that everything is possible, but that certain things are (apparently) impossible, despite them making perfect sense (being readily conceivable/thinkable by us conscious entities). The "way the universe works" according to quantum physics, requires that some things be quite conceivable, even sensible and rational to us, but still not be possible to do in the time-space continuum. If you "eliminate" all impossibility, quantum physics has no basis in science, the theory literally depends on certain things being literally impossible to do.

If those things were somehow found to be possible, the theory is proven invalid. One cannot therefor use quantum physics theory to justify speaking of all things we can think of being possible, since that contradicts the theory itself. For the theory to be valid, at least some things we can think of doing, we cannot do . .

John: I really appreciate all the effort you have put into these posts, and unfortunately I am Internet challenged right now in being able to respond. I get a few sentences into a response on the iPad and something stops working. I can't argue that we can think of impossibilities, but it would be fun to argue the boy driving to the moon in a car with you. Unfortunately it will have to wait until I return home in a few days. thanks for the interchange, much appreciated.

Richard, I am not convinced that the colonies beyond Earth will ever exist, but I obviously have always wondered about it, and have always been a strong supporter of NASA and the space missions. I just never get a chance to discuss this issue.

If we found a planet that may sustain human life, how would we get there, especially with the fact that it would be a much longer trip than we have attempted so far with our space adventure? The most likely scenario would be to build an environment, much like what we have done with the International Space Station.

Most people think of space travel as being simply launching a spacecraft that is assembled and will dismiss portions of the craft as needed, as we have seen with past space missions. This is not going to be the way to go if we have to travel distances that at this point have not been considered by most people. More than likely this type of travel will consist of many components being transferred in parts and pieces and then assembled in space. Some of the components will not be needed until a certain point, so pre-assembly is not necessary with the initial launch and will actually hinder the earlier stages of flight. With the beginning of the flight from Earth, you must consider the gravitation pull, atmospheric pressure, and wind dynamics that must be dealt with in order to get beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. Once beyond the Earth’s atmosphere, you do not have to fight the gravitational pull or other factors with the initial launch, so you no longer need a vessel that is assembled for dealing with both the forces working against leaving Earth’s atmosphere and that beyond it. You then only need a craft that will be able to simply remain in movement in space without the components needed to escape the initial forces of Earth’s atmosphere. The initial mass and energy level of propulsion is simply not needed at that point in order to remain in a constant motion.

If you look at what we have done with the International Space Station, you see that we have already accomplished a small-scale version of space assembly. Components have been constructed here in America, Russia, Japan, and Europe and launched on different rockets, getting them into the same orbit to come together for assembling the components in space. The pieces, parts, modules that would make up the final space stations would number in the billions when you consider the size of the finished product compared to the International Space Station, since the actual goal would be to prepare a secondary place for human life. This could never be accomplished without a joint effort from around the world that would combine all technology known to man, and even with that, it is merely a dream at this point.

Ok, first of all to let you know of where we are right now. We have had successful space ventures whereas the initial launch carried a load of up to 130 tons, so obviously we could carry large amounts of what is needed with each rocket that would be launched. You would have to consider that hundreds, even thousands of rockets are to be launched into space to deliver what is needed to the final destination. There is another consideration with all of the many launches that would be necessary to complete such a mission. With each launch, as with all of our past space missions, once the initial rocket passes through the Earth’s atmosphere, parts of the original craft will be released into space as they are no longer needed beyond our atmosphere. You now have many pieces of space debris that are traveling as fast as several miles per second through space and when you multiply that by the many launches involved in this mission, space becomes an obstacle course and very dangerous. The actual assembly can be accomplished by mostly robotic technology, but human assistance is going to be required in many situations. Assembling something of this magnitude in space under these conditions is going to be quite a task. This mission will take many years to accomplish if it was to even be attempted.

Vic, thanks for your response. I spent more than thirty years in the space industry, so I understand every point you are making. I think our technical limits today in space exploration are primarily defined by our propulsion technology. I have my own doubts if we can go much further using the technology we currently have, and I keep waiting for a major breakthrough. As I indicated above, I feel sure that it all is possible, but not using high velocity mass ejection as the propulsion mechanism. I think the answer lies in gaining further understanding of the nature of space it self, including the theorized other dimensions. Solved in my lifetime, probably not, and by the current state of some human thinking that is probably a blessing as I have alluded to above. But I do believe it is possible for us to eventually explore far beyond the near earth realm.

I'll say this much, if somebody had told me back then it would be some 40 years since the last astronauts would walk on the Moon (and no real plans of going back), I would have said they were crazy. I'm still pretty surprised we haven't been back.
I still remember Apollo 11 and the wonder I felt going outside to look up at the Moon after seeing those first steps on the TV...

I share that disappointment, John.

Satire at its finest, Richard. Thanks for sharing with Gather's Luminous Writers and Artists. Featured.

The real barrier, of course, is amount of effort required to keep humans alive in an environment to which they are not adapted. I myself am happy to let robots do the work and send back nice images.

Not me, Ann. I want to walk on the red sands of Mars, and look down on another planet not my own. I hope the barrier gets lifted in my lifetime, but if not I'll come around again when it does

Cool. I've always been a child of the earth. I'm not even comfortable in or on the water! And my circadian rhythm goes haywire without earthen sunlight.

The issue that makes this space colony existence even a possibility, especially with a location much farther away than the surrounding planet will be determined by our ability to actually travel those distances based on the chosen method of propulsion. That part of the mission will certainly require a different approach than used for other space missions.

What is needed are types of propulsion in space that can continually accelerate a spacecraft on its journey, that will allow the craft keeps gaining velocity, rather than to lose speed due to the gravitational pull. The ION engine has been used and a more powerful one is being tested for possible uses.

An ion engine does not rely on tons of propellant to produce acceleration, but can reduce the amount to mere ounces. This means the thrust of an ion engine is very low—also mere ounces. The ION engine used with Deep Space 1 in 2001 produced only 0.02 lbs of thrust but it produced an incredibly high exhaust velocity, which resulted in speeds of up to 25 miles per second. With an ION engine, the exhaust velocity is unlimited, and this is determined by the amount of electrical power used to generate the ions. An ion engine uses xenon as fuel, which is stripped of its electrons by a high electric charge to create ions, and then the ions are then accelerated by an electric field as exhaust.

Then, there is also the choice of using a Variable Specific Impulse engine, or a plasma engine. With the plasma engine, hydrogen is used as a fuel, which has been ionized. Heat from very high frequency radio waves, much like a microwave are used to create plasma. The plasma is contained by magnetic fields within the engine and directs it out the nozzle to produce low levels of thrust. This type of engine is going to be tested with the space station sometime within 2013 to 2014.

The plasma engine consists of three major magnetic cells. First a neutral gas (usually hydrogen) is injected into cell 1 and will be ionized by a Helicon antenna. Then, this charged gas is heated to reach the desired density in the engine’s central cell by electromagnetic waves. (Again, much like a microwave oven) The plasma is trapped by the magnetic field and can be heated to 10 million degrees K. The plasma is trapped by the magnetic field that is generated by the magnetic coils. It can be heated to 10 million degrees K. The plasma is then moved to the next cell where it detaches from the magnetic field and is expelled as exhaust to produce thrust.

What I believe will never be used as a source of power for space missions.

There are other considerations present as it relates to future propulsion engines that I consider somewhere between scary, unclear, and impossible as a use for safe space travel, especially as it relates to transporting human life. The use of basically small nuclear bombs as a source of power just seems to be unthinkable, and who knows what impact that would have on the atmosphere, or space, in general? Then there is the issue of using “antimatter” which to me is just a disaster waiting to happen, since the very concept of the antimatter meeting with actual matter guarantees that disaster.

I think due to our actual ability to get where we may wish to go into space, as it relates to the choice of propulsion is going to the main component of this eventual space travel as being a wish or a reality. But it is fun to think about.

Vic: I agree that any near term attempts at unmanned interstellar travel will most likely use the types of advanced propulsion systems that are currently being tested, but I don't think interstellar travel with human participants will ever be done with propulsions technologies that depend on ejection of mass, even extremely high specific impulse systems such as ion or plasma systems. What is the technology that will allow us to travel to other stars, I of course do not know, but I really do believe in the concept that what conscious thought can imagine can eventually be done. the last time I looked, even NASA was investigating the possibility of propulsion concepts right out of science fiction.
When I started working on the Galileo probe program in the early 1980's there were still a few people who felt it was impossible to build a probe to survive the radiative heating it would be exposed to during entry into the hydrogen/helium atmosphere. it is but a small example but we proved them wrong and the probe survived and then descended through the atmosphere on a parachute. I really hope I see in my lifetime the development of the technology that enables humans to explore in person everything within the boundary of our sun's influence, and I hope my children see the first human journey to an EarthLike planet around another star. Again, thanks for reading and commenting. Much appreciated

Hi, Richard...I pretty much feel as you do with the possibilities of seeing this sort of thing in our lifetimes. If we knew the precise proven manner to accomplish the voyage and to set up a colony such as a giant scale International Space Station, we would not live to see it, as it would take as much as twenty years to complete the actual project, if we started tomorrow. But, like I said earlier, it is fun to think about.

If we did not have to first focus on the massive power, which represents so much weight to get out of our Earth's atmosphere, the job certainly would be easier. The source of power is so great to get through our gravitational pull, yet once we get beyond it, we merely need to keep a forward thrust going to continue moving in space, with much less energy needed to reach massive speeds.

Also, other than our current propulsion method that has been used so far, the Ion engine is the only other source that I even come close to trusting, and even then, the use of hydrogen sounds too close to "hydrogen bomb" to allow too much comfort. I do suspect that we, and other nations have made more progress than we have been told. We may brag about what we accomplish in this field, but rarely do we speak of what we actually plan to do, or to give details of the plan, anyway.

Who knows what we will see in our time? I will continue to watch, my friend...