Trump to NASA: We're going back to the Moon - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14879655
Rugoz wrote:We have a billion years until Earth becomes as inhospitable as the rest of the solar system.
Oh we do, do we? You know when an asteroid is going to hit or not hit earth do you? :roll: Any other predictions oh Great Swami?
#14879657
Rugoz wrote:We have a billion years until Earth becomes as inhospitable as the rest of the solar system.

Actually, it's worse than that. We only have about 600 million years before the Earth becomes uninhabitable, due to the fact that the Sun's output of light and heat is steadily increasing by about 10% every billion years or so.

Future of Earth
#14879768
Godstud wrote:Oh we do, do we? You know when an asteroid is going to hit or not hit earth do you? :roll: Any other predictions oh Great Swami?


An impact event that renders Earth less habitable than Mars is basically impossible given the age of our solar system. It would have to be some freak planet from outside the solar system. The threat actually comes from smaller Asteroids (up to a few 100m), since they're difficult to detect.

Potemkin wrote:Actually, it's worse than that. We only have about 600 million years before the Earth becomes uninhabitable, due to the fact that the Sun's output of light and heat is steadily increasing by about 10% every billion years or so.


You're right, that makes all the difference. :roll:
#14879798
Potemkin wrote:Actually, it's worse than that. We only have about 600 million years before the Earth becomes uninhabitable, due to the fact that the Sun's output of light and heat is steadily increasing by about 10% every billion years or so.



I'd assume that long before that happens humanity or its successors will build orbiting sunshades or something of that nature. If the concept is feasible it could buy a lot of time.
#14879806
Truth To Power wrote:Funding a crazy who thought he could get to India by sailing west from Spain was not the economically sensible thing to do, either. But it turned a poor, war-torn trading nation into a rich and powerful empire.

Completely untrue. The chances of discovering unknown lands was high enough to justify the relatively modest investment in the Columbus' three ships. However its questionable if Columbus' discovery actually helped Spain long term and it certainly didn't help Europe's development as a whole. That's a lie put out by Marxists to try and give the credit for the amazing achievements of White people to non White people.

Spain's early American empire was only profitable because of Silver and Gold. This didn't increase the real productivity of the Spanish economy. The America's were going to be discovered anyway. Some claim that fishing vessels may have already sighted New Found-land. before 1492. New fishing grounds were the real positive contribution of the Americas in the early 16th century and they didn't need that idiot Columbus to find them. The great hope was that Columbus would never come back. Now if we could punt that Elon Musk off into space never to return that would be an investment we should consider.
#14879977
Rich wrote:Completely untrue.

Of course it's true. Don't be ridiculous.
The chances of discovering unknown lands was high enough to justify the relatively modest investment in the Columbus' three ships.

The three ships, supplies and crew for the expedition were a fraction of Spain's GDP comparable to the Apollo program.
However its questionable if Columbus' discovery actually helped Spain long term and it certainly didn't help Europe's development as a whole.

Ridiculous.
That's a lie put out by Marxists to try and give the credit for the amazing achievements of White people to non White people.

Like I said...
Spain's early American empire was only profitable because of Silver and Gold.

It was profitable because of silver and gold, but it made Spain a permanent global cultural power anyway.
This didn't increase the real productivity of the Spanish economy. The America's were going to be discovered anyway.

They already had been, by the Vikings, but they didn't follow through.
Some claim that fishing vessels may have already sighted New Found-land. before 1492.

But they didn't make the difference.
New fishing grounds were the real positive contribution of the Americas in the early 16th century and they didn't need that idiot Columbus to find them.

Silliness.
The great hope was that Columbus would never come back.

Whose?
Now if we could punt that Elon Musk off into space never to return that would be an investment we should consider.

Whatevs...
#14880054
Actually, it's worse than that. We only have about 600 million years before the Earth becomes uninhabitable, due to the fact that the Sun's output of light and heat is steadily increasing by about 10% every billion years or so.


Well why the fuck then am I wasting all of this time on jogging and vitamins?
#14880067
Truth To Power wrote:The three ships, supplies and crew for the expedition were a fraction of Spain's GDP comparable to the Apollo program.


Looking forward to a source on this one. Columbus' ships were standard trading vessels at the time, not even particularly big ones.
#14880108
Drlee wrote:Well why the fuck then am I wasting all of this time on jogging and vitamins?

Beats the hell outta me. Personally, overwhelmed by a sense of the transience and meaninglessness of all things, I gave up long ago. Jogging is merely a futile gesture of defiance against the approaching oblivion of non-being, an attempt to inscribe our sense of self on the sands of an empty shore, which the tide will inevitably erase. Plus, it's bad for the knees. :)
#14880575
Potemkin wrote:Personally, overwhelmed by a sense of the transience and meaninglessness of all things,

If the universe lacks any inherent meaning, then how are you a part of the universe able to judge it as meaningless? Does your being contain this meaningfulness that the rest of the universe lacks?

In Mahayana Buddhism the realisation of emptiness is seen as liberation, not the curse of Nietzsche. However some while practising experience "empty emptiness" more akin to the western experience of emptiness. Some say the problem with "empty emptiness" is that its not really empty.
#14880587
If the universe lacks any inherent meaning, then how are you a part of the universe able to judge it as meaningless? Does your being contain this meaningfulness that the rest of the universe lacks?

Meaning clearly exists. For example, this paragraph I am typing now has a meaning and a purpose. The problem only arises when we try to apply the concept of 'meaning' to the universe as a whole. The 'meaning' of something is based on its relation to other things. For example, this paragraph only has a 'meaning' in relation to things outside itself - its words refer to objects outside the string of words themselves, and the purpose of the paragraph (to persuade you of something) presupposes both my own existence (as the writer of the paragraph) and your existence (as the reader of the paragraph). This same logic applies to all other examples of things which have a 'meaning' or a 'purpose'. But it cannot apply to the universe as a whole, since there is, by definition, nothing outside the universe to which it could relate in order to acquire a 'meaning' or a 'purpose'. The universe therefore does not have, and cannot have, any meaning or any purpose in and of itself. It just is.

In Mahayana Buddhism the realisation of emptiness is seen as liberation, not the curse of Nietzsche. However some while practising experience "empty emptiness" more akin to the western experience of emptiness. Some say the problem with "empty emptiness" is that its not really empty.

The concept of 'emptiness' implies the concept of 'fullness', as its dialectical opposite, just as the concept of 'darkness' implies the concept of 'light' (and vice versa, of course). If there were no such thing as light, then we would have no conception of either 'light' or 'darkness'. Likewise, if everything were empty, then we would have no conception of 'emptiness'. To see all things as being 'empty' is therefore nonsensical and, if your aim is to achieve enlightenment, self-defeating. After all, to think of emptiness is to think of something.
#14880881
Potemkin wrote:But it cannot apply to the universe as a whole, since there is, by definition, nothing outside the universe to which it could relate in order to acquire a 'meaning' or a 'purpose'.


There may be a vast multitude of other Universes. The planck barrier may make them irrelevant. But Kaku speculated this may not be the case.
#14881014
There may be a vast multitude of other Universes. The planck barrier may make them irrelevant. But Kaku speculated this may not be the case.

But then what is the 'meaning' or 'purpose' of that array of parallel universes? It's rather like the issue of "if God created the universe, who created God?" It just pushes the problem farther back rather than resolving it.
#14881287
Potemkin wrote:But then what is the 'meaning' or 'purpose' of that array of parallel universes? It's rather like the issue of "if God created the universe, who created God?" It just pushes the problem farther back rather than resolving it.



I've seen works which say the Universe could've arisen spontaneously without any external cause, such as "god." But a multitude of Universes may also explain why ours is habitable. Just like Earth, it may just happen to be that way due to sheer luck, while a multitude of other Universes are lifeless. The author of The Fallacy of Fine Tuning may not prefer that idea but it's possible.
#14881320
colliric wrote:http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/us-president-donald-trump-directs-nasa-to-send-astronauts-to-the-moon-for-first-time-in-decades/news-story/73ec349a0308b07e3da24c3df98a31eb

Sweet yeah! Can't wait to see the return on live TV!

Now Mr "we've been there already" Obama has been retired, the moon is back in the picture. Another President George Bush Jr promise that President Donald Trump looks set to deliver.

We are finally going to see more Americans going back to the Moon after too long a wait. The moon is going to feature in the Mars mission too. Obama's legacy looks set to be totally trashed. Now he looks like "the one that got in NASA's way".


What's the point? It's like the wall, it cost lots of money that could go to other things, but makes the President look good for no reason. Except he won't be president when it happens anyway.
#14881469
starman2003 wrote:I doubt real progress in space will happen under any President. The masses prefer "leaders" who'll just fulfill their own personal desires, not a great cause.



If there is any “real progress” (whatever the hell that means) in Space, someone will be President at that time so your statement makes little sense. As for the “masses” preferring leaders who fulfill their desires; pretty obvious. However the “masses” can be swayed into believing in great causes; be it space travel, building that stupid wall or anything else.
#14881583
4cal wrote:If there is any “real progress” (whatever the hell that means) in Space,


A situation where civilization is becoming established elsewhere in the solar system, and the first probes are en route to exoplanet(s).

someone will be President at that time so your statement makes little sense.


:lol: One shouldn't assume US democracy will last indefinitely. A number of things call into question its workability hence its survivability. Rome also had a strong anti-authoritarian tradition yet we all know what became of the republic. :)


As for the “masses” preferring leaders who fulfill their desires; pretty obvious. However the “masses” can be swayed into believing in great causes; be it space travel, building that stupid wall or anything else.


Sure but the history of the space program since the '70s suggests adequate public support can't be relied upon.
#14881665
[quote=“starman2003”]
A situation where civilization is becoming established elsewhere in the solar system, and the first probes are en route to exoplanet(s).
[/quote]
Oh.

[quote=“starman2003"]
:lol: One shouldn't assume US democracy will last indefinitely. A number of things call into question its workability hence its survivability. Rome also had a strong anti-authoritarian tradition yet we all know what became of the republic. :)
[/quote]
If we do become a multi planet species, I’d lay money that the nationality of the first human there will be an American.




[quote=“starman2003"]
Sure but the history of the space program since the ‘70s suggests adequate public support can't be relied upon.[/quote]

Okay…what was the grandiose promise that was made to rally public support in the 1970’s? The ‘60s not only suggests but proves that the massed can be fired up about something. Reagan understood this and turned the Soviet Union into the devil at the door and we had numerous instances in pop culture, in government, and in our foreign policy that followed.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

What exactly is wrong? We know how many rockets w[…]

Leslie woman gets to the point. Lol. https:[…]

I'm surprised to see the genocide supporters (lik[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]