"I've come from the future...

[Furterfan]

Give me a goal, and a deep pocket, and I will prove man an accomplisher.

Some things would take a long time, a lot of money, and a lot of intelligence. Some things which you may have in short supply.
What, I guess, you're saying, is that if someone were to supply you with money, and someone were to supply the intelligence needed, you could make a start on managing a long term project. Well woop-de-doo.
Does Mr Gates know you're available?
FF

 

[King of the Americas]

And YOU...

...sat there ignorantly smug and held to the false contention that Man was only finitely capable...until PROVEN wrong, and then you turn around and say my being right was 'nothing big'.

 

[Tricky]

Are you suggesting that there was never a time when Man believed it was impossible to fly?

Probably there was never such a time. Even ancient legends speak of Icarus an other "heavier than air" flyers. Undoubtedly SOME humans at various points in time thought it was impossible, but I suspect that the majority of them looked at birds and said, "I can do that". The drawings of Leonardo da Vinci and others indicat that Man has even had plans to do so for a very long time. To suggest that everybody thought it was impossible until the Wright brothers is just plain wrong.

If I can show you 'on paper' how I can build a craft that could propel man into the stars, you can't just write off the possibility simply because it would require more capital than any sum every imagined!

Nobody here is suggesting that flight to the stars is impossible. We are suggesting that it has incredibly large (and expensive) problems to solve. We are also suggesting that YOU don't have those solutions, either on paper or anywhere else. Not to say that nobody ever will, though.

Similarly, while it is not outside the range of possibility that someone could develop a machine or program that could predict the lottery (at least better than humans), the difficulties of doing so are enormous that it would probably cost more than even a lottery win could provide. You have suggested that it is so easy that you could do it if you had time and money. That is what we don't buy.
But you are right to have faith in the resourcefulness of man.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Tricky

I must wholey disagree with you, upon what I do and do not know.

Given sufficient time and resources 'I' could provide to you just such a craft.

That you would call me a liar, is hardly a surprise.

"Men are only limited by the amount of support they can garner for their endeavors."

 

[Tricky]

Re: To Tricky

I must wholey disagree with you, upon what I do and do not know.

Given sufficient time and resources 'I' could provide to you just such a craft.

That you would call me a liar, is hardly a surprise.

"Men are only limited by the amount of support they can garner for their endeavors."

I do not call you a liar. I believe you are mistaken, although well intentioned. If you are telling me that you have enough time in your life to acquire all the necessary training to do what thousands of scientists, engineers and doctors (at NASA and other places) have not been able to do, then you must understand why I doubt you. If you are saying that given an indefinately extended lifetime in which to do so, then perhaps, but then you have to solve the problem of aging first.

If you are saying you could assemble a team of people who could do this, again, perhaps, but that would not be just "you".

But it sounds to me as if you are saying that you, all alone, have enough knowledge right now to do such a thing, if you only had the time and money. I find that claim highly improbable.

For example, how would you solve the problem of keeping humans alive for an interstellar trip that would last many generations? You are aware, of course, that nobody has been able to put a human in suspended animation for even a period of weeks. You need to do so for centuries, or else find a way to generate energy in the vast reaches of interstellar space where you won't get enough starlight to run a pocket calculator.

Or perhaps you plan to find some way to accelerate the craft to nearly lightspeed (and of course, slow it down again which requires about the same amount of energy). Again, I do not believe you will be capable of such engineering feats within a normal lifespan.

Do you recall a Monty Python sketch where on of the characters was planning to jump over the English Channel? Ring any bells?

 

[Crossbow]

My sister made pastries the other day and she ate all of them!

Wow, what a bummer.

Oh well, at least my cats still like me.

 

[King of the Americas]

There is nothing worse than a self assured, short sighted scientist...

The PROBLEM with today's Space program is simple that it is NOT forward thinking enough.

I engage in coffee talk with a cousin of mine who just happens to be systems engineer at NASA, and he claims that the whole of the program goals have been designed with maximum conservative agendas. Then again, these days it is hardly surpising that the government would be so short with handing out capital/ability.

The main reason for our crawl into space is that GOVERNMENT refuses to release the 'space patents' out, to allow the private sector to leap into space, at ANY speed.

Of course, in these Days of Terrorism, it is not shocking WHY they hold back such technology.

What we could do, what we are doing, what we daily do, not knowing what we do.

 

[c4ts]

...to save us from ourselves!"

--

If you're all they've got in the future then we're all screwed.

 

[King of the Americas]

c4ts

...If you refuse to heed the warnings of those who know more than yourself, you are going to find yourself a few miles SOUTH of just screwed.

 

[crapmike]

Re: Re: "I've come from the future...

If you're all they've got in the future then we're all screwed.

 

[Tricky]

There is nothing worse than a self assured, short sighted scientist...

The PROBLEM with today's Space program is simple that it is NOT forward thinking enough.

I engage in coffee talk with a cousin of mine who just happens to be systems engineer at NASA, and he claims that the whole of the program goals have been designed with maximum conservative agendas. Then again, these days it is hardly surpising that the government would be so short with handing out capital/ability.

The main reason for our crawl into space is that GOVERNMENT refuses to release the 'space patents' out, to allow the private sector to leap into space, at ANY speed.

Of course, in these Days of Terrorism, it is not shocking WHY they hold back such technology.

What we could do, what we are doing, what we daily do, not knowing what we do.

Could you do your cousin's job? You'd have to do it and all the other jobs as well.

Now we have a government conspiracy to throw in the mix. I know that NASA budgets have been trimmed (I do live in Houston, after all) but none of my NASA buddies think there is any conspiracy other than to save money. Though there have been wonderful discoveries made through the space program, their "bang for the buck" factor is very low. Other ways of supporting technology have proved much cheaper. I personally consider that a shame, but I do understand that our country is into deficit spending (again) and we need to get more out of our 'investment' than space exploration is currently giving.

In any case, this does nothing to support your contention that you could design an interstellar space ship. How about this. Just give us a list of the problems that would have to be solved to do this. I'm not even asking you to solve them.

 

[CFLarsen]

...are you just pissed because I didn't give you the same kind of glowing report as I did "Flatworm"!?

Of course not. Unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around any attention I can get from any poster here.

I am not pissed at all. I am merely pointing out the gap between your claimed knowledge of myths and what (little) you really know.

Geez, you are awful harsh this morning. Okay, so you got me, I have NOT read any of those books you mentioned, and I only briefly remember 'a' story from either Greek or Roman mythology about a woman who's first name started with a "C" who could foretell the future, but that people didn't believe her. It is not like I claimed to be an 'expert' or even well-read in Greek & Roman Mythology...

No, that's not what you said. You never mentioned any first letter, until you were informed of Cassandra. You also claimed that she came from the future. Wrong on both accounts.

I don't understand how you can now say that you don't know much about Greek and Roman myths. If you are not an "expert" or even well-read in Greek & Roman mythology, how come you use myths as basis for some of your claims? Shouldn't you at least study as many myths as possible before you come up with your silly theories? Wouldn't Greek and Roman mythology be a very good place to start?

Or do you merely go off on a tangent every time you see something that fits your silly ideas, without taking the time to actually study?

Besides, naming the character and noting historical details was hardly the point of focus in my post.

No, you merely used a half-assed example to make your point.

Would you be willing to re-read the original post, and render a response to what is and is not 'prophesy'?

A prophesy is "the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose" and "a prediction of something to come", according to good old Webster. Your idea (and you may excuse me if I have misunderstood any of your ideas - they are rarely, if ever, examples of shining clarity) tries to incorporate scientific concepts and historical events is plain silly. Neither scientific progress or historical events can be foretold.

There is nothing worse than a self assured, short sighted scientist...

Yes, there is: A self assured, near sighted half-educated boron...

The PROBLEM with today's Space program is simple that it is NOT forward thinking enough.

I engage in coffee talk with a cousin of mine who just happens to be systems engineer at NASA, and he claims that the whole of the program goals have been designed with maximum conservative agendas. Then again, these days it is hardly surpising that the government would be so short with handing out capital/ability.

The main reason for our crawl into space is that GOVERNMENT refuses to release the 'space patents' out, to allow the private sector to leap into space, at ANY speed.

Once again, you display an immense lack of knowledge. We don't merely begin sending ships out into space. We need to build a solid foundation on which space programs can evolve and develop. You think we haven't done enough? Do you have any idea how risky the moon landings were? Remember Challenger?

To "leap" into space, we need someone to pay the bill. That's why Europe and Asia have space programs as well. As well as a quest for knowledge, space exploration is also very much a question of business: What do we put into the programs, what do we get out of them.

Of course, in these Days of Terrorism, it is not shocking WHY they hold back such technology.

Nobody is holding anything back. The space program is dependent of congress money, and those money fluctuates. There has not been a cut in NASAs budget specifically because of 9/11.

What we could do, what we are doing, what we daily do, not knowing what we do.

Start with learning a lot more about the things you speak about first.

 

[Sanamas]

Well KoA, if I am reading your posts correctly, you are claiming to have knowledge from the future and the knowledge to create a spaceship that can take humans to the stars. The reason we aren't at your feet in awe and reverence is because you have yet to put up anything that would distinguish you from the large crowd of crazy people that also claim these things.

 

[King of the Americas]

You are right about...

..." I know that NASA budgets have been trimmed (I do live in Houston, after all) but none of my NASA buddies think there is any conspiracy other than to save money."

And THIS is the only thing holding man to Earth. That the government can't/won't fund more far reaching projects. There is NO 'conspiracy' keeping the space patents under lock and key, they outwardly announce that doing so repreents a clear and present danger to national security.

Meanwhile, you have the private sector fumbling around in the stone age, while the government has not the resourse to take the next step.

---

You asked could I do my cousin's job?

My response is, "No, but I COULD do his boss's job." My coisin is one of a team of 8 up to 24 engaged in the development of different systems for different projects There are LOTS of such teams all working on independent, sometimes interlocking projects. My knowledge upon any specific system would be VERY limitied, but the vision needed to take what we have and apply it in a larger further reaching goal is not beyond comprehension.

That we can NOW easily send Lego-style pieces it no space to join others is small potatos to what we COULD do with what we presently have...IF the finacial resources were available.

---

My contention is still sound, given a goal and a bottomless pocket, I WOULD prove man to be an accomplisher.

 

[King of the Americas]

You know CLF,

I am not sure what is worse, YOUR attempt to make me look stupid, or my attempt to look more intelligent...

Indeed, I have engaged in brief studied of both Greek and Roman mythology, but I am in no way an expert in the study. I didn't mention a name or a "C", but that was the initial memory of the story. Although I didn't offer a name. But then WHO gives a ◊◊◊◊!?!?

You are right, I was wrong, what ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ more do you what!?

Okay, so space travel is risky...big deal! ANY far reaching exploration has always been dangerous. That we once reached for the moon with man's hand, and that now were are reduced to only orbital exchanges with him, is MY POINT. We (our government) AREN'T using all of our tools and ability to set far reaching goals in the near future, and those with the financial ability are allowed to compete.

You misunderstood my contention about these Days of Terrorism. I didn't say they were holding back funding for technological development in lou of Terrorism, but rather they are willing to allow the general public access to the technologies that CAN put men on the moon.

..."things I know"...

Well I know that those who work in and around our space program believe that we aren't being limited by our abilility, but rather our initiative.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Sanamas:

That was a quote I got from a television show.

What I ACTUALLY said was that at present, we aren't doing all that we are capable of, and that given any goal and an endless supply of wealth, anything is possible.

 

[Aoidoi]

My response is, "No, but I COULD do his boss's job."

Have you ever been a manager? Have you ever been in charge of a project? Just curious on what basis you're making this claim.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: You know CLF,

I am not sure what is worse, YOUR attempt to make me look stupid, or my attempt to look more intelligent...

It's easy to tell the difference: The former is easy, the latter is impossible!

Indeed, I have engaged in brief studied of both Greek and Roman mythology, but I am in no way an expert in the study. I didn't mention a name or a "C", but that was the initial memory of the story. Although I didn't offer a name. But then WHO gives a ◊◊◊◊!?!?

You are right, I was wrong, what ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ more do you what!?

Temper, temper. Who is pissed now?

You obviously give a ◊◊◊◊, since you brought Cassandra up. But I can understand why you don't want to discuss it anymore.

Okay, so space travel is risky...big deal! ANY far reaching exploration has always been dangerous. That we once reached for the moon with man's hand, and that now were are reduced to only orbital exchanges with him, is MY POINT. We (our government) AREN'T using all of our tools and ability to set far reaching goals in the near future, and those with the financial ability are allowed to compete.

Sure, far reaching exploration has always been dangerous. Do you know how many people died during Cook's trip to Australia? During Hanno's exploration of Western Africa? Remember Apollo 1?

We are not reckless with peoples' lives anymore, KOA. You may be comfortable with sending people off to their possible deaths with a dismissive wave of your hand, but NASA is not. That's why we take cautious steps in the space program.

Big deal? Tell that to the families of the dead astronauts.

You misunderstood my contention about these Days of Terrorism. I didn't say they were holding back funding for technological development in lou of Terrorism, but rather they are willing to allow the general public access to the technologies that CAN put men on the moon.

You were not very clear, then.

..."things I know"...

Well I know that those who work in and around our space program believe that we aren't being limited by our abilility, but rather our initiative.

If money's the problem, then I suggest you send NASA more money. How much are you willing to sacrifice to see your dreams fulfilled?

 

[Furterfan]

KoA wrote:

And you. sat there ignorantly smug and held to the false contention that Man was only finitely capable...until PROVEN wrong, and then you turn around and say my being right was 'nothing big'.

You must have not read my posts properly. I have placed no absolute limits on Human ingenuity. Only yours.

KoA wrote:

If I can show you 'on paper' how I can build a craft that could propel man into the stars, you can't just write off the possibility simply because it would require more capital than any sum every imagined!

Semantic drivel from a flake. You have nothing concrete, just daydreams and ego.

Tricky wrote;

Nobody here is suggesting that flight to the stars is impossible. We are suggesting that it has incredibly large (and expensive) problems to solve. We are also suggesting that YOU don't have those solutions, either on paper or anywhere else. Not to say that nobody ever will, though.

KoA wrote:

I must wholly disagree with you, upon what I do and do not know.
Given sufficient time and resources 'I' could provide to you just such a craft.

So, are you suggesting that you have the education to account for all the disciplines to allow you to build such a craft. How many degrees do you have? Or, where did you get your vast knowledge from? Do you even understand all the different disciplines required to start designing a project that might lead to an interstellar spacecraft?

No. You’re just engaging in semantical word play. Your whole argument boils down to:

You asked could I do my cousin's job?
My response is, "No, but I COULD do his boss's job."

How many times have we heard a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ low-grade worker say that?
You haven’t got the wit or wisdom to achieve any sort of scientific accomplishment, but you think you could manage some people who may be able to start along the road to such a plan. And why would clever, educated people respect a flake enough to follow him as a manager?
I’ve seen enough of your past posts to know that you have no new ideas, you just have word games.
FF

 

[Flatworm]

Re: Indeed...

"Flatworm", first and foremost, I would like to take the opportunity to offer you an ernest "Thank You" for your time, consideration, and rational responses to my work. Your responses are almost never personal attacks, and have been among the most challenging to answer. Given THAT, you are going to have to qualify a term for me, because I am not sure we agree on something. Exactly, what does this mean "making testable predictions that require knowledge of the future, and cannot be made as educated guesses based on today's data"...?

Well, lottery numbers would be an excellent start. If you're talking strictly about climactic data, you could predict the mean temperature of a given city on a given day. We know something about the mean and variance of those measurements so we would be able to tell what kind of a prediction would be unlikely to be correct due to chance.

But, isn't one exactly the same as the other? I mean, I see and event, I note the outcome. Then I see a similar event, and I summize that IF process-A continues as it did before, then it will RESULT as it did before. I thought 'Prophesy' was foretelling the future by using one's collected knowledge and ability...?

No, generally Prophecy refers to telling the future through divine/supernatural inspiration. Dictionary.com says:

proph·e·cy Pronunciation Key (prf-s)
n. pl. proph·e·cies (-sz)

An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will.
A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration.
Such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally or in writing.
The vocation or condition of a prophet.
A prediction.

Science's Failure is man's unwillingness to accept each other's findings in lou of their own.

Scientists accept each other's findings all the time. Of course, that's just out of necessity. In an ideal world everyone would have the time to replicate every experiment themselves. This is not a weakness of science, but one of its greatest strengths.

In order for findings to be accepted in the scientific community, there must be strong evidence. All I ask is that you provide this evidence for your predictive ability.

Science Succeeds when MEN work together to accurately predict and ACT upon their findings to move toward a more positive outcome.

Science is a combination of both competition and collaboration. In that spirit, work with us here and please provide us with verifiable evidence of your predictive abilities.

You also use the term, "when you actually can make verifiable predictions".

Well, I say THAT is easy. Test me in any way you see fit.

Excellent. Could you reveal some winning lottery numbers before they're called?

You also offer up an absolute falacy when you gave the plane landing scenerio. Theorizing the plane would land, based upon your previous knowledge and experience, you summize that the plane SHOULD be landing. Now, if it were ME, I would take into account many more variables to include: whether or not i kNEW there was an airport nereby,

That was implicitly taken into account when I mentioned the nearby airport.

if I had ever witnessed a similar landing from this angle, at this time, and if indeed the same kind of plane was landing.

I think you're missing the point of the example. The idea is that this is a mundane occurence, and I assumed that most people had seen planes landing before. Extensive detail would be superfluous.

None of this explains in any way how my example is 'fallacious'. A person observes a plane with gear down approaching a nearby airport. Based on previous knowledge and experience, it would be reasonable to predict that the plane will be landing shortly.

I'd say that your scenerio was far too general to even be relivent in this discussion.

It's meant to be general. The point is that there are certain predictions that anyone can make without recourse to supernatural ability. Under those circumstances, "prophecy" is not an uncertain science.

I haven't read Asmv., but I'll look for it on my next trip to the library. Can you give me any insight before-hand?

A major thread of the Foundation series is the invention of a mathematical method for predicting the future, called "psychohistory".