Printable View
Was watching a video with my wife a few days ago and an interesting but silly question surfaced...
If someone offered you two free options...
A) A magic plane ticket to travel anywhere in the world for the rest of your life or...
B) A one week trip into space (maybe orbiting the earth)...
Which one would you choose?
CC
I'm sick of flying................and all the extra "security". Bags are now being checked going on the metro here in Shanghai. I'm ready to move.
Probably take the space trip...........bummer would be coming back to earth.
Because there are still lots of places I haven't been to, I'd like to see our planet more. It'll be even nicer if I can just go without all the 'security' checks!
L
Exploding into space is where it's at! :thumbsup:
The earth can be out of this world too but I'd rather be riding my motorcycle when I see it. :riding:
CC
gotta be the free ticket to fly anywhere. i want to orbit the earth but that will be available around 2020 or so for regular travel. as the new planes are going to be flying just inside the earths atmosphere kinda like the u2, blackbird and this mig-25!
looks like in outer space. but still has air to run the engines.
in addition to the private space travel industry trying to improve on an inefficient government model.
looks to be sooner rather than later.
http://www.xcor.com/press-releases/2...l_vehicle.html
i want to float around in 0 gravity though. that’s where it's at!
I'd go for the life long plane ticket.
For me a life long exploration of human culture and civilization would be more fulfilling than a week long trip isolated in space in either a space suit or shuttle with nothing to really interact with. Although a trip orbiting the earth would be incredible, the only sense aside from anti gravity (which would be great fun even confined in a tiny ship) would be visual. You don't find fruits you can't identify or hear languages you can't speak in space and the innumberable forms of life and activity on earth make it more interesting to me. Earth is an explosion of life and organic activity whereas space is defined by its lack of these phenomena.
No doubt the Earth is beautiful but the universe is probably the largest single living organic thing there is - it IS the phenomena.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
I hear the Aurora Borrealis is nice this time of year.
- Photo taken from the Int'l Space Station -
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1..._aurora_lg.jpg
:gerg:
CC
As far as we can see (very close to the ends of the universe), earth is the only planet with life. Using special equipment on the Hubble cosmologists have detected organic molecules in comets which are made of carbon, building block of life on earth, but even the detection of these molecules doesn't mean that life exists there yet or ever will. Even if organic material exists on a molecular level it doesn't affect my point that there's nothing to interact with in space.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCarl
Earth is the phenomena. Cosmologists predict that there could be other planets which have similar conditions to earth but the chance of intelligent life is 0.01 percent in each instance (we have found 100+ extra solar planets). Our orbit is in the Goldilocks zone - not too hot, not too cold, just right - plus naturally occurring liquid water. The combination of these elements is stunningly uncommon.
We can observe conditions within the universe and discuss those celestial events with context, but no such context on how the universe fits into whatever larger pieces there are exists.
Sweet...the nitty gritty. Lets bust out some ontology! :thumbsup:
As far as we can see, or know? I don't think any serious cosmologist would ever say their knowledge of the universe (much less our own oceans) is anything near exhaustive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
At the very "ends" of the universe the data people gather are not only billions of years old but fuzzy at best...usually analysing shifts in extremely faint radio signals and then magically extrapolating data out to wildly unsure, but interesting nonetheless, conclusions.
So what you're saying is that even though our planet and even ourselves are made of much that same material, that we're still somehow different? This likely boils down to what an individual believes, values, and the circles they choose to draw...which is the whole point of the original question actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
...except for space itself. Not sure what experienced astronauts would say to your remark and looking at the impact craters on the moon...I'm not sure it would agree with you either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
http://photos.imageevent.com/comrade...Kashmir083.jpg
It seems to me, the Earth is a phenomena which exits in relation to other greater and smaller phenomena...much like everything else we perceive. The idea of phenomena itself is a matter of perspective and consciousness, as is world and being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
I'm not trying to belittle the magnificence and unlikelyness of our planet but am trying to stress it's (and our) interconnectedness to/with the perceived universe/world. Some people call it science while others call it religion...I call it riding a motorcycle. :riding:
Hahah...I think you been in China too long and it's effecting your grammar. :icon10: Could you re-render that last statement with clearer context?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
CC
I'm not approaching this from an ontological perspective, but just trying to make some clear distinctions between earth and the observable universe which help me reach a conclusion to the question of the thread. Ontological questions like "what is existence" are really a lot to get caught up in.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCarl
Whether or not there's life on the far reaches of the universe (we don't know) is a matter outside of the scope of this topic, since I was establishing without doubt that you won't be encountering any life on an expedition into space - much less on a week long trip which wouldn't take you far at all speaking in universal terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCarl
Absolutely - we are different from the rest of the observable universe. While unanswered questions remain, as they do in all fields of science, our knowledge of the composition of the universe is substantial as you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCarl
Interact with space? How does that work? In space, you're either 1: confined to a tiny ship, 2: floating aimlessly, or 3: walking on the surface of the moon (if you're lucky). Don't get me wrong, it offers a beautiful view and a unique chance that very few people have. Even with these significant virtues, does that compare to the countless experiences there are to be had on earth to flood every sense that humans have?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCarl
I don't understand what impact craters on the moon have to do with this. They were created billions of years ago - the moon is a large dead rock.
You're approaching this from a philosophical perspective and defining some of these ideas in abstract terms which I am not, so I think there is some misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCarl
Since we're being grammar nazis I think you mean affecting my grammar! hahah what I meant is:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCarl
We can observe conditions within the universe and discuss those celestial events with context, but no such context on how the universe fits into larger pieces exists. We can discuss events within our universe by observation, but a discussion on what happens outside the universe (which you alluded to by comparison) is without factual basis.
Also the universe is not alive or organic. The idea that the universe has biological qualities (theoretical physicist Lee Smolin writes about this) is a fringe belief not accepted by cosmologists and Smolin himself says that the universe is not actually alive but might exhibit life-like qualities like heredity.
OH YEAH! Let's turn it on man! :lol8:
That's all good and well as long as it's purely from your POV. Some people like to draw distinctions, while other like to erase them. :icon10:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
[quote=Just Charlie;2245]Whether or not there's life on the far reaches of the universe (we don't know) is a matter outside of the scope of this topic, since I was establishing without doubt that you won't be encountering any life on an expedition into space...[quote]
That's a hasty assumption based on a personal believe or definition of what "life" and "living" is. The individual meaning we're applying to this massive word is likely at the root of our misunderstanding.
As a purely personal statement, to me, anything that changes is "alive" and certainly contributes to how I can "love" my motorcycle. Maybe it doesn't "see" in visible light or write books, but it exists as a necessary part of a greater dynamic making a forest as important to the Earth's ecology as a kidney in your body. Likewise, the fine collection of planets, suns, solar systems, galaxies and even the great "void" that keeps all things together which we NEED to survive (not getting very far without sun-light) are also in a sense "alive" as they constantly change states themselves and even relative "physical" position through "time".
In universal terms no, but in Earth terms it's more than you'd likely travel by airplane in one life time. 1orbit cycle = ~30mins x 24"hrs" per Earth day = 48 cycles/day x 7days = 336 times around this great globe of ours. Ick...I hate math. :naughty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
That's where I'll have to disagree. We still get excited about finding interesting rock samples on Mars and have many mysteries left here on Earth. I see a Bumble Bee fly from flower to flower and then think that scientifically it shouldn't be able to makes me not sure how we could have "substantial" knowledge of something we only have miniscule access to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
The ranges of our finest sensing instruments is still limited, although capabilities seem to grow as more countries work together and technology marches on. For all this expensive equipment and cooperation, much of the knowledge of our universe is still speculation based on data which runs through heavy extrapolation and pointed (often politically) examination. Extrapolation itself is a highly fallible practice in science but is necessary because if our inability to test and measure hypothesis to infinitely finite degrees so is widely accepted.
Although I never have, maybe you've heard someone discuss how drawing a line on a graph to an imaginary point to create a new imaginary data point that has never been (and often can not be) tested contributes to the empirical value of science. If so, I'd honestly like to know more about it.
I see the point you are trying to make and I'm not saying it's false...just that it's personal. Suffice it to say that our experiences on, and attitude towards this planet (and the universe) are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
..see previous comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
Sounds about right to me! :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
I'm not sure when I talked about anything outside our universe and there's been a huge question in the philosophy of Science (which yes, does have pertinence on the beliefs science generates) whether science has any factual basis at all beyond causal association and popular belief. This issue of pulling extrapolated imaginary data out of a hat and making it factual and "real" is only on minor example of this. I was talking about the limitations of understanding our world from within our own universes and how we perceive, deal with and evaluate life from within those limitations on an individual basis...at least that's what I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
Again, semantics and one man's contemporary opinion. There are probably hundreds of thousands of years of religion/science/philosophy which might not agree with that...and let's not forget that in their respective times they were lauded by many as "true" then, only to be replaced or "superseded" later by the "theory du jour."Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Charlie
The reason why philosophy has so much import in discussion of scientific knowledge and belief is because the modern western scientific method (and belief) is borne from ancient Western philosophy (Aristotelian logic) and belief in reason and causal association (largely influenced by Socratic discourse).
The point is, if knowledge is necessarily temporarily and spatially limited (our "horizons", if you will) and put so much faith in only maybe 2000 years of accumulated knowledge (which has been heavily impacted by religion, politics and economy that entire time) it still totals to no more than a drop in the proverbial "bucket" as All Things Go.
Now to not fall in to complete solupsism, the trick is, what do we choose/want to believe is true? The line between belief and fact is very unclear.
Maybe the moon is a "large dead-rock", but only in as much as you want it to be. Again, others may think differently and don't necessarily live an intellectually impoverished life because of it: a little bit of magic does wonders for both the intellect and soul....at least to me. :deal:
CC
Gimme the plane ticket... Don't get me wrong - I would love the shot into space, but a lifetime of free travel anywhere I want to go? Can't turn that down!
If the parameters were different, like 2 years of free plane tickets vs. 1 week in space, then my answer would be very different.
I think I'm on Carl's side with this one, thats not to say I wouldn't love to see tons of the Earth, I just highly doubt that commercial airline travel is anywhere on my list of how I'd like to accomplish that.
:confused1::deal:
a trip into outer space to see the stars as they are, the earth and be able to say we really are'nt causing damage to the ozone , Because God is in control allways was allways will be . that would be the beauty of an outer space flight .
you can allways fly around the world , not in space, just have to watch for foam coming off the shuttle during re-entry :eekers:
Hey Mark, welcome to the forum :riding:
Also welcome to the board Mark!
I think plummeting back into the Earth's atmosphere would be a wild experience.
Foamy-Shuttle-Re-entry-Goodness! :icon10: :eek2: :eekers:
:riding:
CC
http://www.randomuseless.info/shuttl...103/sts103.jpg
i'll pack some extra hd's and marshmello's
hey thanx for the welcome
some really good post's going here