I'm fine with private corporations investing in space, but I wouldn't want them governing things, with them in control, human beings become disposable commodities to be exploited in any way possible, a case in point is the old mining towns before they were abolished, the corporations owned everything and basically set everything up to keep workers in indentured servitude. Not the bright future I would hope for.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
Without the Discipline of the 60's, demonstrated in TOS, the people have become weak.
You mean the same 60's famous for hippies and flower children?
Every era has its disciplined population and its non-disciplined. You can cherry-pick to say whatever you want.
I'm not familiar with the NASA event you described, but I think it would be interesting to know whether it was a group of interns and\or new engineers who were trying to dissect the Saturn V. I also wonder if 60's era engineers could dissect modern designs. I think that's a matter of training. I'm an engineer in my 30's and my boss who is in his 60's scoffs at any new technology and tries to push what he cut his teeth on.
As to the point of the thread, I think as far as Trek technology, it's mostly plausible though probably a millennium or two ahead of reality, at least for the big stuff. But, a lot of it depends on breakthrough discoveries which are by their nature unpredictable. So, there could be some major breakthrough in physics next week that could lead to warp drive or something similar within a decade, but statistically speaking, probably not.
As far as the humanistic aspects of Star Trek, I frankly don't buy it. There will always be unflattering aspects to humanity.
How can we even speak of a united planet when people cannot even tolerate other people's opinions about the possibility of it? Really? We resort to name calling and shutting someone out because they simply see things different, and have a different view of the science that is out there? This is the essence of tolerance, I suppose.
While science and technology has advanced very much in 30 years, society itself is failing, and without a structured society, science and the study of the universe around us will not continue to grow. In fact, we are pretty stagnant right now, even with our little discoveries here and there.
Too many "scientists" have decided to become religious with their work, instead of remaining the neutral observers that they are suppose to be. Our science is corrupted by politics now, and the inability to accept an opposing view. If you do not believe that, just look at the climate change debates. Both sides of this issue are corrupted.
True Scientists should debate and discuss issues, without trying to destroy, humiliate, and mock the opposing thought. However, these things have been going on for centuries. Sadly, it isn't being done by religion or big corporations, like Hollywood tries to make us believe. It is done by politics and scientists who forget their place as the neutral theorists and testers.
I am sorry to say, unless things change drastically soon, there will not be a societal ability to engage in such time consuming matters as science. Until science tries to stop presenting itself as the opposite of religion, it will only be a religion of itself.
I am sorry if this seems so grim. I am actually a pretty upbeat person. The negativity on this thread simply reminded me where science and society is actually at these days. Not a pretty picture to be sure.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else. -Einstein
Im my opinion mostly if not everything good in star trek could happen and will happen. Some of the tech is already in exsistance plus others are on the way plus this ! http://gcn.com/blogs/emerging-tech/2012/12/nasa-thinks-warp-drive-travel-might-be-possible.aspx , http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive so the technology is on the way only a matter of time as for the United Earth hopefully this will happen soon. These days people do get on for the most part. Except for the elderly, some of them and the money grabbing people in the world who only wants to fill there pockets with cash instead of making the world a better place for everyone.
Three things that always come to mind when discussing "utopian futures":
1) Money, while useful, is largely responsible for most of the world's problems.
2) Lots of jobs are being replaced by machines these days.
3) If I could spend my life doing something I enjoy for the benefit of humanity, without having to worry about putting food on my plate, I'd do it.
So why not combine them? Get rid of money altogether, and encourage people to do the jobs they want to do. Make food, housing, and the necessities of life available to all for free. We're approaching the level of technology where we don't really need to worry about dwindling resources: we can create plenty of food for all using genetics/cloning, and we can develop new methods of power and industrial processes that are renewable and don't harm the environment. The "unpleasant" jobs that nobody want to do can be done using robots and other machines.
The only real issue is space, which could be solved by either curbing population growth or creating colonies in the solar system.
We're probably a ways off from being able to do this, but hopefully it can happen soon.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
Want to see a candid view of our future, watch Idiocracy.
Depressingly, Idiocracy is looking more and more like a documentary.
First off, Idiocracy is a comedy film, and anyone who tries to read into it for more than the cheap laughs it provides probably ought to cut back on their recreational drug use.
Second, there is no evidence to suggest that intelligence is hereditary, thus the premise is flawed.
Thirdly, stupid people are far more likely to off themselves a la the Darwin Awards and/or take up dangerous hobbies like BASE-jumping or dirt bike racing, and so balance is always maintained.
And finally, who are you gonna believe, Gene Roddenberry or Mike Judge?
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Three things that always come to mind when discussing "utopian futures":
1) Money, while useful, is largely responsible for most of the world's problems.
2) Lots of jobs are being replaced by machines these days.
3) If I could spend my life doing something I enjoy for the benefit of humanity, without having to worry about putting food on my plate, I'd do it.
So why not combine them? Get rid of money altogether, and encourage people to do the jobs they want to do. Make food, housing, and the necessities of life available to all for free. We're approaching the level of technology where we don't really need to worry about dwindling resources: we can create plenty of food for all using genetics/cloning, and we can develop new methods of power and industrial processes that are renewable and don't harm the environment. The "unpleasant" jobs that nobody want to do can be done using robots and other machines.
The only real issue is space, which could be solved by either curbing population growth or creating colonies in the solar system.
We're probably a ways off from being able to do this, but hopefully it can happen soon.
If the necessities of life are provided for free to everyone, no one would work. I know I sure as hell wouldn't.
Also, I don't eat GMO foods. If you want to drink milk from goats that were spliced with spiders, go ahead.
True Scientists should debate and discuss issues, without trying to destroy, humiliate, and mock the opposing thought.
Let me tell you how True Scientists do things... They're supposed to try to destroy, mock, and humiliate various theories, what you call "opposing thought". That's how we find out if a theory has legs or if it's just nattering nonsense. If it can't be destroyed, mocked, and humiliated, it has to accepted as "true... until better data comes along".
For example: Human-caused climate. Climate scientists are quite unanimous on it because they looked at the data, yelled at each other over it, and finally admitted that the evidence was too strong for it and far too weak for other theories for it to be anything else. Now it's only internet yahoos with tinfoil in their hair, and people who think all the unicorns died in Noah's flood, who are "debating" it.
So no, we won't get to Star Trek because scientists are mean. We won't get to it because the public is scientifically illiterate and susceptible to woo.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
I'm retiring after 22 years of active duty, and while I have complaints, I gnerally enjoyed the military.
But I damn sure wouldn't do it for free. ...and I'm not talking about runnin' and gunnin'. My MOS is primarily technical. I tend to work in office buildings like the NATO School or the Pentagon. For free? Nope.
I enjoy my artwork. I really do. But I wouldn't do it for free for anyone other than myself. I'm pretty sure the waiters at Sisko's dads eatery weren't waiting tables to fulfill themselves.
A lot of people like their jobs. If you any that would do it for free, let me know. They can come work for me.
I'm retiring after 22 years of active duty, and while I have complaints, I gnerally enjoyed the military.
But I damn sure wouldn't do it for free. ...and I'm not talking about runnin' and gunnin'. My MOS is primarily technical. I tend to work in office buildings like the NATO School or the Pentagon. For free? Nope.
I enjoy my artwork. I really do. But I wouldn't do it for free for anyone other than myself. I'm pretty sure the waiters at Sisko's dads eatery weren't waiting tables to fulfill themselves.
A lot of people like their jobs. If you any that would do it for free, let me know. They can come work for me.
Heck, I've been living in Asia for over a decade. I'm done with it as well.
You'd have to be pretty obsessed with something to want to do it forever and ever. As the d saying goes, "No one gets out of life alive. Try new stuff."
In a Star Trek reality, it'll be "Try new species as holographic sexual partners" because in the end humans are still just a bunch of hairless apes.
You'd have to be pretty obsessed with something to want to do it forever and ever. As the d saying goes, "No one gets out of life alive. Try new stuff."
Who says you have to do the same job your whole life? Try new stuff, and do what you like best.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
Let me tell you how True Scientists do things... They're supposed to try to destroy, mock, and humiliate various theories, what you call "opposing thought". That's how we find out if a theory has legs or if it's just nattering nonsense. If it can't be destroyed, mocked, and humiliated, it has to accepted as "true... until better data comes along".
Actually, someone lied to you when they told you what science is.
sci?ence -The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Yes, theories are to be challenged, but not to be ridiculed and fought on a political platform. Just because they do it, does not mean that is how they are suppose to do it. Scientific illiteracy is rampant, on that, you are not only right, but prove your own point.
For example: Human-caused climate. Climate scientists are quite unanimous on it because they looked at the data, yelled at each other over it, and finally admitted that the evidence was too strong for it and far too weak for other theories for it to be anything else. Now it's only internet yahoos with tinfoil in their hair, and people who think all the unicorns died in Noah's flood, who are "debating" it.
So climate change as an example, eh?
"36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies of 2012. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. 17 percent of the respondents diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. They consider climate change to be a smaller public risk than thought before, with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.? - Survey conducted by University of Alberto Canada.
Really, 36 percent is a majority consensus? That is over a thousand surveyed. University of Alberto can hardly be considered a conservative platform, or a bunch of internet yahoos.
Further more, and you can look this up for yourself, many of the models used to detect global warming have been off, in some cases by over 60%. Meaning, according to models used in 2005-2007 we should be much hotter than we are, factoring in man made greenhouse emissions.
Oops. Your own statement was evidence against you, and proves my point of political hacks directing the argument as opposed to the actual scientists. You should get your information from somewhere besides the internet, and CSNBC or FOX News.
All this, and not one unicorn. Wow.
With that said, I do believe man adds to global warming, I do not believe that is in dispute by anyone. However, it is a factor of maybe 1%, if I remember correct. One major volcanic eruption, and we put our last ten years of greenhouse gas contribution into such a miniscule factor that it would hardly measure.
Guess ABC forgot to tell you that. Sorry.
Pollutants from our emissions other than greenhouse are a bigger problem, actually, and causing more sicknesses and deaths than our 1 degree celcius per century that we may or may not be adding. Unfortunately that was already known and would not have made Al Gore millions.
For the record, there is NO SUCH THING as a climate scientist. They all work in different fields of study. That term alone tells me you are getting your info from news channels.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else. -Einstein
The "hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya" aspect of Trek will never happen. It's just not human nature. As much as I love Trek, Roddenberry's vision of a cooperative socialist future was naive. B5 and Firefly are more realistic portrayals of the future of humanity.
As far as faster than light travel goes, the math has been worked out (one of my friends is an engineer for NASA), and it's surprisingly similar to that of Star Trek. The problem is power generation. We don't have anything even close to the tech needed to produce the necessary amount of power to make it work.
I'd do my job for free. Unfortunately my job won't exist when there's world peace. (I test weapons systems for the US Navy.)
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
Actually, someone lied to you when they told you what science is.
Oh, if only the forums ToS was a bit more lenient...
You forgot to add a link to the peer reviewed paper you're citing, by the way. No self-respecting truth seeker would simply quote WUWT or Lord Monckton at me.
The "hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya" aspect of Trek will never happen. It's just not human nature. As much as I love Trek, Roddenberry's vision of a cooperative socialist future was naive.
I agree completely.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else. -Einstein
Well, then you'll be able to test weapons systems for the United Earth Navy.
What's the point when there's nobody to blow up anymore?
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Space might be a nasty place once we're able to explore outside our solar system. So we'll always need a way to blow things up.... just so WE don't get blown up.
*sings* "I like Gammera! He's so neat!!! He is full of turtle meat!!!"
"Hah! You are doomed! You're only armed with that pathetic excuse for a musical instrument!!!" *the Savage Beast moments before Lonnehart the Bard used music to soothe him... then beat him to death with his Fat Lute*
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
Asteroids? Angry aliens? I dunno. Space is a big place, there's a lot we don't know.
This is true.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
As far as faster than light travel goes, the math has been worked out (one of my friends is an engineer for NASA), and it's surprisingly similar to that of Star Trek. The problem is power generation. We don't have anything even close to the tech needed to produce the necessary amount of power to make it work.
Which means we can't do it - right now. So far, we can say that an Alcubierre-White warp is theoretically possible; when NASA gets the testbed done, we'll find out if it's actually possible; once we reach that stage, it's a matter of engineering. One of the scientists working on the testbed is fond of pointing out that the very first atomic fission pile, built by a team led by Enrico Fermi and employing a squash court at the University of Chicago, produced approximately half a watt of power; within a couple of years, the first four-megawatt plant came online. Once the engineers know something can be done, they like to figure out how it will be done.
Actually yes, I am an engineer and I will prove it by describing a RW activation of one of Star Trek's warp cores:
As matter and antimatter fall/ rise towards each other they are supposed to "intermix" through a dilithium assembly. Instead the antimatter reacts with everything not shielded by a magnetic field and blows the engineering hull to bits.
Lets say for the sake of argument that a stable matter antimatter reaction was achieved: The vertical warp core means that the plasma will splay out in a disc pattern from the "intermix" point, highly inefficient and most likely resulting in another lost engineering hull.
Lets say we got that covered somehow (Strong in the engineering I may be, but not that strong) the plasma flows along the ODN conduits until it hits the first bend. Then you have plasma streaming from a hole in the side of your engineering hull :P
OK, pencil whip that: The plasma reaches the warp nacelle and we pencil whip another 90 degree turn and the warp coils generate the warp field. Only problem is the plasma streaming from the backs of the warp nacelles it blew off because there are no exhaust ports.
The described failure of NASA scientists to recreate the Saturn V Rocket occurred recently as the shuttle has reached the end of it's Op life and they were desperate for anything and unable to actually come up with anything.
A wheel space station is merely a continuous suspension bridge and very easy to construct. In the 60's they had an Inflatable one!!! When cornered at a press conference on the issue of no rotation, the NASA scientists in charge of the ISS looked confused for a moment like he didn't think of that and then said, "cost." Too bad for him that shuttles docking could impart rotation energy and spin it up for free.
Also the CERN collider is a very simple toy that if damaged would just not work. It will not explode. It will not open a black hole into another dimension. It accelerates high energy particles and smashes them against a target.
I find it infinitely amusing that all the things they were scared of in the 60's are the things that could save human civilization: Robots taking over and reengineered humans.
Read some Neil Asher, he has this wonderful Polity that is run by AIs because no human can be trusted with all that power.
Comments
You mean the same 60's famous for hippies and flower children?
Every era has its disciplined population and its non-disciplined. You can cherry-pick to say whatever you want.
I'm not familiar with the NASA event you described, but I think it would be interesting to know whether it was a group of interns and\or new engineers who were trying to dissect the Saturn V. I also wonder if 60's era engineers could dissect modern designs. I think that's a matter of training. I'm an engineer in my 30's and my boss who is in his 60's scoffs at any new technology and tries to push what he cut his teeth on.
As to the point of the thread, I think as far as Trek technology, it's mostly plausible though probably a millennium or two ahead of reality, at least for the big stuff. But, a lot of it depends on breakthrough discoveries which are by their nature unpredictable. So, there could be some major breakthrough in physics next week that could lead to warp drive or something similar within a decade, but statistically speaking, probably not.
As far as the humanistic aspects of Star Trek, I frankly don't buy it. There will always be unflattering aspects to humanity.
While science and technology has advanced very much in 30 years, society itself is failing, and without a structured society, science and the study of the universe around us will not continue to grow. In fact, we are pretty stagnant right now, even with our little discoveries here and there.
Too many "scientists" have decided to become religious with their work, instead of remaining the neutral observers that they are suppose to be. Our science is corrupted by politics now, and the inability to accept an opposing view. If you do not believe that, just look at the climate change debates. Both sides of this issue are corrupted.
True Scientists should debate and discuss issues, without trying to destroy, humiliate, and mock the opposing thought. However, these things have been going on for centuries. Sadly, it isn't being done by religion or big corporations, like Hollywood tries to make us believe. It is done by politics and scientists who forget their place as the neutral theorists and testers.
I am sorry to say, unless things change drastically soon, there will not be a societal ability to engage in such time consuming matters as science. Until science tries to stop presenting itself as the opposite of religion, it will only be a religion of itself.
I am sorry if this seems so grim. I am actually a pretty upbeat person. The negativity on this thread simply reminded me where science and society is actually at these days. Not a pretty picture to be sure.
You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else. -Einstein
Depressingly, Idiocracy is looking more and more like a documentary.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
1) Money, while useful, is largely responsible for most of the world's problems.
2) Lots of jobs are being replaced by machines these days.
3) If I could spend my life doing something I enjoy for the benefit of humanity, without having to worry about putting food on my plate, I'd do it.
So why not combine them? Get rid of money altogether, and encourage people to do the jobs they want to do. Make food, housing, and the necessities of life available to all for free. We're approaching the level of technology where we don't really need to worry about dwindling resources: we can create plenty of food for all using genetics/cloning, and we can develop new methods of power and industrial processes that are renewable and don't harm the environment. The "unpleasant" jobs that nobody want to do can be done using robots and other machines.
The only real issue is space, which could be solved by either curbing population growth or creating colonies in the solar system.
We're probably a ways off from being able to do this, but hopefully it can happen soon.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
First off, Idiocracy is a comedy film, and anyone who tries to read into it for more than the cheap laughs it provides probably ought to cut back on their recreational drug use.
Second, there is no evidence to suggest that intelligence is hereditary, thus the premise is flawed.
Thirdly, stupid people are far more likely to off themselves a la the Darwin Awards and/or take up dangerous hobbies like BASE-jumping or dirt bike racing, and so balance is always maintained.
And finally, who are you gonna believe, Gene Roddenberry or Mike Judge?
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
If the necessities of life are provided for free to everyone, no one would work. I know I sure as hell wouldn't.
Also, I don't eat GMO foods. If you want to drink milk from goats that were spliced with spiders, go ahead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357
...and it'll be long after we're all here dry bones in the ground.
Let me tell you how True Scientists do things... They're supposed to try to destroy, mock, and humiliate various theories, what you call "opposing thought". That's how we find out if a theory has legs or if it's just nattering nonsense. If it can't be destroyed, mocked, and humiliated, it has to accepted as "true... until better data comes along".
For example: Human-caused climate. Climate scientists are quite unanimous on it because they looked at the data, yelled at each other over it, and finally admitted that the evidence was too strong for it and far too weak for other theories for it to be anything else. Now it's only internet yahoos with tinfoil in their hair, and people who think all the unicorns died in Noah's flood, who are "debating" it.
So no, we won't get to Star Trek because scientists are mean. We won't get to it because the public is scientifically illiterate and susceptible to woo.
Even if it was a job you genuinely enjoyed doing?
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
I'm retiring after 22 years of active duty, and while I have complaints, I gnerally enjoyed the military.
But I damn sure wouldn't do it for free. ...and I'm not talking about runnin' and gunnin'. My MOS is primarily technical. I tend to work in office buildings like the NATO School or the Pentagon. For free? Nope.
I enjoy my artwork. I really do. But I wouldn't do it for free for anyone other than myself. I'm pretty sure the waiters at Sisko's dads eatery weren't waiting tables to fulfill themselves.
A lot of people like their jobs. If you any that would do it for free, let me know. They can come work for me.
Heck, I've been living in Asia for over a decade. I'm done with it as well.
You'd have to be pretty obsessed with something to want to do it forever and ever. As the d saying goes, "No one gets out of life alive. Try new stuff."
In a Star Trek reality, it'll be "Try new species as holographic sexual partners" because in the end humans are still just a bunch of hairless apes.
Who says you have to do the same job your whole life? Try new stuff, and do what you like best.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Actually, someone lied to you when they told you what science is.
sci?ence -The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Yes, theories are to be challenged, but not to be ridiculed and fought on a political platform. Just because they do it, does not mean that is how they are suppose to do it. Scientific illiteracy is rampant, on that, you are not only right, but prove your own point.
So climate change as an example, eh?
"36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies of 2012. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. 17 percent of the respondents diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. They consider climate change to be a smaller public risk than thought before, with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.? - Survey conducted by University of Alberto Canada.
Really, 36 percent is a majority consensus? That is over a thousand surveyed. University of Alberto can hardly be considered a conservative platform, or a bunch of internet yahoos.
Further more, and you can look this up for yourself, many of the models used to detect global warming have been off, in some cases by over 60%. Meaning, according to models used in 2005-2007 we should be much hotter than we are, factoring in man made greenhouse emissions.
Oops. Your own statement was evidence against you, and proves my point of political hacks directing the argument as opposed to the actual scientists. You should get your information from somewhere besides the internet, and CSNBC or FOX News.
All this, and not one unicorn. Wow.
With that said, I do believe man adds to global warming, I do not believe that is in dispute by anyone. However, it is a factor of maybe 1%, if I remember correct. One major volcanic eruption, and we put our last ten years of greenhouse gas contribution into such a miniscule factor that it would hardly measure.
Guess ABC forgot to tell you that. Sorry.
Pollutants from our emissions other than greenhouse are a bigger problem, actually, and causing more sicknesses and deaths than our 1 degree celcius per century that we may or may not be adding. Unfortunately that was already known and would not have made Al Gore millions.
For the record, there is NO SUCH THING as a climate scientist. They all work in different fields of study. That term alone tells me you are getting your info from news channels.
You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else. -Einstein
As far as faster than light travel goes, the math has been worked out (one of my friends is an engineer for NASA), and it's surprisingly similar to that of Star Trek. The problem is power generation. We don't have anything even close to the tech needed to produce the necessary amount of power to make it work.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Well, then you'll be able to test weapons systems for the United Earth Navy.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Oh, if only the forums ToS was a bit more lenient...
You forgot to add a link to the peer reviewed paper you're citing, by the way. No self-respecting truth seeker would simply quote WUWT or Lord Monckton at me.
I agree completely.
You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else. -Einstein
What's the point when there's nobody to blow up anymore?
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
"Hah! You are doomed! You're only armed with that pathetic excuse for a musical instrument!!!" *the Savage Beast moments before Lonnehart the Bard used music to soothe him... then beat him to death with his Fat Lute*
Asteroids? Angry aliens? I dunno. Space is a big place, there's a lot we don't know.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
This is true.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
As matter and antimatter fall/ rise towards each other they are supposed to "intermix" through a dilithium assembly. Instead the antimatter reacts with everything not shielded by a magnetic field and blows the engineering hull to bits.
Lets say for the sake of argument that a stable matter antimatter reaction was achieved: The vertical warp core means that the plasma will splay out in a disc pattern from the "intermix" point, highly inefficient and most likely resulting in another lost engineering hull.
Lets say we got that covered somehow (Strong in the engineering I may be, but not that strong) the plasma flows along the ODN conduits until it hits the first bend. Then you have plasma streaming from a hole in the side of your engineering hull :P
OK, pencil whip that: The plasma reaches the warp nacelle and we pencil whip another 90 degree turn and the warp coils generate the warp field. Only problem is the plasma streaming from the backs of the warp nacelles it blew off because there are no exhaust ports.
The described failure of NASA scientists to recreate the Saturn V Rocket occurred recently as the shuttle has reached the end of it's Op life and they were desperate for anything and unable to actually come up with anything.
A wheel space station is merely a continuous suspension bridge and very easy to construct. In the 60's they had an Inflatable one!!! When cornered at a press conference on the issue of no rotation, the NASA scientists in charge of the ISS looked confused for a moment like he didn't think of that and then said, "cost." Too bad for him that shuttles docking could impart rotation energy and spin it up for free.
Also the CERN collider is a very simple toy that if damaged would just not work. It will not explode. It will not open a black hole into another dimension. It accelerates high energy particles and smashes them against a target.
I find it infinitely amusing that all the things they were scared of in the 60's are the things that could save human civilization: Robots taking over and reengineered humans.
Read some Neil Asher, he has this wonderful Polity that is run by AIs because no human can be trusted with all that power.
Mad Max here we come!
I honor your nerdness, fellow keeper of the pocket protector. Ours is a noble, if misunderstood profession. We learn Greek the hard way!!