Comment

He/she is from another race/planet!

3 days ago on Inside the private push for consumer space travel

Comment

They looked at the decay of radioactive atoms found in the water. It is pretty interesting, there are various different methods to date something using physics. (: you should google it or ask your local physics teacher/science museum teacher or something like that.

7 days ago on Oldest cache of water on Earth may give clues to early life forms 1 reply 1 recommend

Comment

Why would someone be offended by this question?
It is not offensive, it is like asking “Can science prove whether or not Unicorns are real?” or “Can science prove whether or not [insert whatever you want here] is real?”.

“Whether or not god is real” is an objective question about the universe, and any objective question about the universe should be answered, and the answer will be independent of your opinion and your likes.
And if you are ever offended by a fact about the universe, the only thing you can do is move to another universe, where the laws are philosophically more pleasing.

So I don’t see how this question could be offensive, or how an answer to the same question could be offensive.
Maybe you could explain it better, why and how exactly do you feel offended? So that I could relate to your situation.

11 days ago on Something Josh said on TheVergeCast

Comment

Indeed.

17 days ago on 90 Seconds on The Verge: Adobe, Xbox, and Star Wars games

Comment

I think what he meant is “But expanding the zone would still increase the chances (in our charts) of life existing elsewhere in the universe.”

I think he is referring to our official estimates of “how probable life is”, not to the actual chances.

21 days ago on Life on Venus? Scientists rethink the idea of 'habitable' planets 1 recommend

Comment

Jarvis_,

Carbon is the most abundant thing that can bond and form physical life in the universe, and it can bond with pretty much everything it wants, and more: It’s bonds are not permanent, which allows for lots of experiments, which are fundamental for the evolutionary process.

Life could, physically, be made of other stuff, but we look for carbon based life because it would be easier, more probable. And as it would be our first time finding life, we’re going for the easiest possible path.

As we all know, probability is not law, it’s probability. Even if I have a chance of 1/6 of getting a 3 in a dice, I can still get seven 3s consecutively. But if we have to bet, we’ll go for the most probable, which is carbon.

And about water, well, we have one sample of life, and in our sample water is extremely helpful to unbound things and to make all sorts of “experiments” easier. So water would always be useful for evolution.
There could be, of course, highly specialized forms of life, as there are here at our planet, who don’t need water, and are not carbon based, but as we understand chemistry, it would be less probable, so money is best invested looking for water+carbon.

As a side note, I should say that, liquid water, and heat, don’t exist only near stars also because friction can cause heat (it is, actually, from a particle physics perspective, what always causes heat), and it is possible to find liquid water in moons, such as Europa.
(But it would be a lot harder to look for moons than planets).

And that there could be water and life in caves, in planets like Mars, for example, because it is hotter in there. But then again, it would be very hard to look for water and life underground, from Earth at least.

TL;DR Version
We’re going for what is more probable and cheaper. We know it IS (physically) possible to have lots of forms of life, and we’re sure Nature is a hell of a lot more creative than us. But money is not infinite, and it is our first time, so we’re going for the highest probability based on the information we have, what else could we do?
(Thanks for reading (: )

21 days ago on Life on Venus? Scientists rethink the idea of 'habitable' planets 1 reply 6 recommends

Comment

Bravo, Paul. Bravo!

Thank you very much for this, and for all your pieces throughout the year. I learned a lot! (:

23 days ago on I’m still here: back online after a year without the internet

Comment

Before that we need to take a look at Martian caves, because we don’t yet know if there is life there. We know there is liquid water (or at least liquid something) underground, and here at our caves there are pretty creepy crazy living beings, who breathe CO2 and produce H2SO4 (Sulfuric acid), and who don’t get any sunlight at all.
And if there is liquid water deep inside mars, there could be what we today call “extremophiles” there.
(I say “what we today call” because we are actually the extremophiles, because the early inhabitants of the Earth lived in conditions we call extreme, and that was normal for them, so for them our conditions are the extreme ones, and if you look at it chronologically, they’re the normal ones and we’re the extreme ones.)

So we would have to check it out, because nobody wants to be the guy who disrupted the amazing “Mars’ ecosystem” if there is one.

Ps.: I’m most definitely not a biologist, nor am I an exobiologist/astrobiologist, so don’t take my word for it. But I don’t think it would be so simple, or fast, to Terraform Mars.

23 days ago on So...let's talk about going to Mars forever

Comment

Trusting physics is fine, but you’re putting your trust in human engineering when you do something like this.

You forgot the last part of what I said: “because I’d be able to read and make the calculations myself. And physics works.”
I’d be able to check by myself physics calculations involved, but not engineering blueprints, so there you have a point. And there is a history of engineering problems, we know that. But going to mars is something we made a few times, so the “engineering” part of the engineering is safe. The dangerous “engineering” here would be the new physics we would have to apply in order to get a heavier object to safely land, and that I’d be able to check as well (it would be hard and not fun, but I could).

Anyway, I’d probably not doublecheck everything; I don’t think any human being could. It’s a lot of data.
But I’d have to trust all the capable scientists involved. And, I bet there would be a lot more “doublecheking” than there is in building a car. Of course, it could blow up and kill everyone, I just don’t think the chance is high enough, otherwise it would not be allowed to takeoff.

(Ps. I think by ‘engineering’ you mean mechanical stuff, right? I’m not sure because technically any science with a direct objective to “build something” rather than “study something” is Engineering.)

23 days ago on So...let's talk about going to Mars forever

Comment

Why not? Serious question. Can someone find an ethical reason why we shouldn’t bring an extinct animal back?
(A reason other than “They would destroy the environmental balance wherever we put them”.)

And about the problem of ruining an ecosystem, I think there is not way of introducing a new species to an environment without it having a significant impact there, right? Any species we bring back, to a place where there is life already, will disturb that ecosystem, because animals eat and kill other animals, unfortunately it just happens, either directly (by eating or fighting) or indirectly (by eating other animal’s food).

The only right thing to do is to terraform Mars, introduce thousands of new (extinct) species there, and make a reality show! =D
Although, once again, it would be very violent, because some species would probably go extinct even considering the hypothetical scenario of having an empty Earth so populate.

The whole thing is disturbing to me, because no matter what we do, there will be animals dying of starvation, being “murdered” by other animals, etc. Nature is violent, but also beautiful.
I’m not sure what my answer is yet.

26 days ago on Jurassic Park: An Open Discussion of Playing God

Comment

No steaks? Think again.

27 days ago on So...let's talk about going to Mars forever

Comment

It might be that Google bought motorola exactly for its patents. Google could be thinking ahead. Way ahead.

If motorola will pay itself in 3000 years, then in 6000 years Google will have a 100% profit out of thin air! (+ patience, a lot of patience.)

27 days ago on Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola? 2 replies 3 recommends

Comment

I said Hobbes?! I meant Sternberg. Sternberg and Gardner.

29 days ago on Dangerous minds: new research unravels the brains of psychopaths

Comment

As an addition to that, correlation does not imply causation. And it is (from what I’ve heard and read) a very complex area, and many different situations can lead to the same behavior. The brain wiring that causes Synesthesia for example, can also (in subtly different situations) mean you’re a genius, or a very creative person. And being left handed can also be a thin line between various bad conditions or high “intelligence”.

And my favorite example, the one I’ve read more about, is highly “intelligent” people (“intelligence” as defined by Hobbes, Gardner, etc.), such as overendoweds. (Or “gifteds”, “Super Endoweds”, for the lack of a better word to describe thousands of pages of research I’ve read on it…)
The brains of such people work, well, ‘differently’. And that may give the impression that sometimes they are psychopaths because of logical and different approaches to situations (as looking for a solution instead of worrying about a problem, thus suggesting they’re not “computing” their feelings) or that they’re bipolar because of the sensibility of their senses.
(Because of high sensibility about everything, in order to not get hurt they sometimes develop an amazing level of self control, and that + high concentration capabilities = some fascinating cases in which it is very hard to “diagnose” something or even understand their minds). (And the same goes to very intelligent people in general).

It is very nice though, to see that experiments are being conducted nonstop. When it gets to a level where it can be used in the legal system, it’ll be great.
An even more fascinating point are the moral questions that come with advancements in neuroscience.

29 days ago on Dangerous minds: new research unravels the brains of psychopaths 1 reply

Comment

Thanks for the update! (2) (:

30 days ago on Is the "Preview" button on Comments broken? 1 reply

Comment

→ (For TL;DR version, with just the essential, go straight to the seventh paragraph, the one with the “TL;DR Version” on it! (: )

Well, I trust science, and mainly I trust physics, it works. So the “risks” would not be a problem, because I’d be able to read and make the calculations myself. And physics works.

And going to a NEW PLANET, and mainly starting a new civilization, with new rules, would be amazingly perfect. It would be the greatest challenge, I imagine it in long term, corruption, politics, and how things would roll on. Accidents, relationships, the big genetic problems that we’d have due to Population Bottleneck (the greatest problem here if we don’t get a solution from our geneticists), and mainly, being a research scientist in tens of different areas, would be most definitely amazing. It would be a GREAT challenge which I’d love to face. (Imagine starting a population and culture from scratch, without superstitions, without mindless baseless beliefs, with the humbleness of looking back realistically to our story and knowing right away the you and your children are not the center of the universe, and is in a second planet. The question would not be the old religious baseless one of “are we the center of everything” anymore, but “What is next?”.)

That would be really amazing. Despite all the realistic problems and “lack of freedom” (at least for long periods of time) due to the lack of earth-like atmosphere, but there is where creativity starts! And here we’re only limited by our own ignorance, because it IS possible (as far as I looked into it). Saying “meh, there would be problems and it would not be earth-like”, is saying “Meh, airplanes would be heavier than air, it couldn’t fly!”.

I think it would force humanity to look into “interplanetary problem” in a realistic way, instead of saying “going to mars is great” and thinking it is the ultimate frontier. Going to mars is currently a frontier, but the real thing, the bold thing, is living there, that’s where the problems are, that’s the real frontier. We’ve been to the moon, going to mars is similar, it is just about money (yes, I understand there are dificulties, and that new technologies would have to be invented, but the point is that it would not be the first time of something. The real first time of something, would be staying a few years, or a lifetime, in a totally new place, is giving birth to a Martian).

And that gets me excited because I keep wondering, once we move the “frontier” to beyond settling in another planet, once we learn the amazing amount of things we would learn with such experience, where will the next frontier be? By that point, what will the next big thing be? And that is what gives me chills (positive excitement chills).

And I bet you, I bet you if we had an actual person giving birth in Mars, if we had an actual picture of a kid looking (from mars) at earth, that would be enough to make our governments realize that their puny disputes for a a fraction of a dot, for an insignificant fraction of time, are NOT logical. And that THE UNIVERSE is out there, and that they should get out there and explore, and be better, instead of thinking they are something important, because they’re not. And that is for people too, not just governments. It would help Humans understand what a Hubble deep field image really means, and aspire to something more, something meaningful.
→ As they are today (most) humans are like ants, who see the sole of a shoe coming, and think it is going to rain, think it is a dark cloud.
Humans didn’t even got past the problems between themselves, with their own planet. If there is a really important cosmic problem out there, I bet you humans are not working to solve it. I imagine more advanced civilizations trying to solve the “universe weather problem” and collaborating, while we don’t even count as something, because we’re still killing one another, which doesn’t make sense, if you think about it. (And it looks like it does when we’re at war…)

[Sorry, I know I wrote too much].

→ (TL;DR Version)
Summarizing, that would be the best possible thing to make the Human race get things in perspective. It would be a “consciousness rising” agent for humanity, the same way the feminist movement raised our consciousness to jokes about women for example.
So I’d love to help in any way I can.
And I think I’d fit all requisites. Adaptability, empathy, knowledge in international relations and science in general (+ physics), and I’ve read about and studied by myself psychology and (mainly) applied psychology since I was 5. I’m physically fit, etc etc.

BUT (and it’s a big but), I wouldn’t go. Because I know I’m not the only one who can do it, and I’m not the only one who would send them my resume. I know there are others who can do it probably as well as I could, and it would be reasonably safe if we worked out the problems, so capable people would not opt out because of fear (capable people, which means, among other things, not being afraid of going to another planet).
While, what I trained for, what I studied for, what I’ve prepared for since I decided what I want to do with my life, is something I don’t currently trust anyone else to do, which is drastically changing (for better) the Human race here on Earth. That, I think, is a far greater problem, and there is a high death risk because there are people, powerful people, who don’t like change, who don’t like enhancement, who don’t like when humanity progresses. And the problems here on Earth are not just about inventing a new technology, they’re about good people not having the tools to identify and fight corrupt people, there’s then crime, poverty, diseases, greed and problems most people don’t even know about.
The Reason:
So the reason I won’t apply for this Mars mission, is because (1) there are already capable people applying, and (2) my unique characteristics and skills would be better used here, on Earth, on trying to make things better for Humanity, a job for which there are a lot less qualified and willing people available, and a much harder job. But I’d love to go. (:

[Long answers FTW]

about 1 month ago on So...let's talk about going to Mars forever 1 reply 1 recommend