businessinsider.com/colony-o … f24082ff87
I like the idea of having floating cities on Mars, seems doable, of the sorts of having floating cities on the ocean (NASA should seriously practice that first).
I got one question. What do they do when it comes time to leave? Like as in, return to earth?
Can you launch a space shuttle off a balloon?
If they can launch from a space station , they will figure out how to do it from one of those things.
Like these self driving cars , I would wait a number of years before even thinking of buying one or going to such a colony… Wait for the actual problems to arise and then get fixed before jumping in.
Stand a load of airships on end [upright] and you’d have a floating city. - could also do that on this planet.
For the moon I’d go with building underground, say a domed structure where the surface is connected to the surface of another dome on the surface, by way of fibre-optic cable. Such that you would get light from the surface dome to the base dome in periscopic fashion. Then it would be like living on the surface but not getting bombarded by meteors and what have you.
Mars probably needs a graphene sphere around it, as if the whole thing is inside an airship. But it would also need some powerful cannons to blast meteors etc away. then use nano-filters to convert some of its particles into the other elements of air, and make more until it has a large enough atmosphere to be warm and breathable.
In fact the main obstacle to colonising the galaxy is that there are rocks all over the place. If you hit one of them at 1.2 light-speed, its equivalent to a gun firing a projectile at that speed. Go through a cloud of them and I doubt there would be a lot left. I mean, I don’t know if impact at such speeds immediately particlises an object? Maybe you could have guns which shoot everything in the spaceships path, but that’s probably impossible at such speeds?
How do you get off Venus, if it has the same air pressure at this altitude, and roughly the same gravity, without a surface to launch from?
Best I could find was a image of a blimp launching a missle going horizontally then curving vertical… if you can do it on Venus, why not Earth? Why don’t we launch from Blimps too?
I don’t think we should send people to a planet unless we can get them back… even if they want to stay. Cabin Fever happens… we really don’t want crazy psychotics destroying their fucking stupid blimp city after it sinking in they are living in a Goodyear blimp they can’t make the materials for, or grow their own food, or make their own clothes, or see a wild animal again… any children they gave will really fucking hate them once they hit puberty, and everyone will take notice if they Fuck up just a little bit, they are going to sink, being crushed to death in a firey furnace.
And sending the old only isn’t any wiser… they are going to start having elderly complications after a short while, no matter how healthy they are. Imagine being on Venus, and discovering your kidneys are going to start failing.
Honestly, float one on the ocean for a decade and trap scientists in them, no option on leaving or even opening it up for a wiff of fresh air. Watch how cranky they get.
“Honestly , float one on the ocean for a decade and trap scientists in them, no option on leaving or even opening it up for a wiff of fresh air. Watch how cranky they get.”
this would work even for leaders in government. Lock them all in slums for a few months.
If man will succeed in setting up on Mars, I dont even want to think about the horrors of bone evolution due to reduced gravity. People will be born with bones growing through their organs and all, for thousands of years. Im not going.
tf
Launch from one of the airships, say with the rocket launch structure being suspended between two or more airships [so as to not burn or pop them lol]. There is a far simpler way [to do all of this], but i’ve already given away to much of my invention for nothing and just got insulted because people don’t understand the maths of bee swarms, so they will have to figure it all out themselves. …they do know the maths, but don’t like it when some guys like us arrives at the answers they have been missing all this time, because they are so utterly stupid. Don’t they know Leicester wont the premiership lol. I mean there isn’t really any difference between them and us, that’'s all just a fallacy.
Well you could indeed. You just take the space going vessel up on an airship ~ not using a ton of energy just get get a few miles up, then launch it off that somehow. I expect they have already thought of that, but there will be impracticalities because they have to re-think the whole thing, and reinvent virtually every aspect of the equation.
wow its not America in the 15th century, If you can get them to an earth-like planet, they just need some mining etc equipment such to get back. My issue is more that it is unethical to go to a planet with life which ‘may’ arrive at intelligent life, then plunder its resources so they never get out the stone age. There will be plenty of planets on the way, which do have resources and aren’t earth-like though.
I agree that you can’t just leave people stranded, but you just have to take the equipment you need to do everything with, a kind of core tech.
fc
If you let that happen and don’t make new robotic bodies, or move people around or invent graviton emmitters, sure.
Does your theory of bee swarms use entropy and decoherence as the guiding principle for neurochemical modulation, explaining why the bees even care to stick around and not wander off? Your like a modern version of Charles Butler, with his insights in The Monarchy of the Bees.
m.scmp.com/business/markets/arti … s-election
I figure it would given your interest in quantum mechanics and unintentionally parallel interest in Stoic physics and psychology (to a point at least, your more concerned with what we roughly label ontological than concerned with epistemology, but in Stoicism there wasn’t much a division, either direction lead to a virtue in substance or thinking, wasn’t even a “or” involved.
Old English book on statecraft you might be interested in
…
I can’t recall the damn name. Its called something like On The Polity of the Bees, or The Ordering of the Bees… only read a bit of it, paperback blue book, was from the Renaissance. Searched all over the net just now. He compares the movements of human society to bees.
This isn’t that book, but it touches on some aspects.
“bee hiue” george gilpin
Really pissing me off I can’t recall, it is in the San Francisco main library. Pretty sure, third floor, on statecraft, written just after Machiavelli.
Gonna try searching a bit more for it.
Might be it, some of the text looks familiar. Remember it was a blue paperback, with a black and white picture of a beehive’s honeycomb. 3rd floor of library in SF.
My apologies, I was referring to my flying car invention…
physicsforums.com/threads/m … ar.835510/
…I think they gain an advantage by flying in a cluster, not just as a presence to ward of attackers. Like a bee in a box may benefit from the air bouncing off the sides and manifesting cycles of air conducive to the patterns it is making, so bees in the swarm are all helping each other fly.
I am unsure what that means. Is it like one person have +/- virtues as do all others?
If you take a machine and use it to build the parts of a superior machine, then isn’t it better? So there would be a level playing field to begin with, but some people perhaps with a more fortunate causality, rise above the original machine [though we can all do that]?
The pre-modern theories thought formed matter sorta was willed into being through practice. I said that wrong, I gotta thing a bit more about the words to use for English, gotta realize I’m yanking the explanation from over a hundred pages of a muddled paraphrase (Arius Didymus).
Think of it this way… you have a city, and a city is mappable. It has a determined causality, like the rest… linked together. Yet it has a deposition, and from this a character. You get a mix of good and bad aspects in it. A society responds with good and bad laws to it, and to other cities (city states, or dependent cities, they really didn’t specify the realities of the actual proto-national Greek nation state building efforts, or Rome/Alexandrian empire).
All of this stems from it’s matter (not matter, I gotta figure out a better term for it)… I never actually saw the word monad so don’t want to say monad. The presumption was everything physical had a root in a kind of matter from vices… that everything was a a mixture… person to person, object to object, city to city. The whole goal fell into a Platonic theory of how physics worked in the universe, it was the starting point. My book by Arius Didymus is no more (thank you cats) so I can’t quote it.
The basic presumption a classical Stoic would have once arriving in our time, if told about the idea of satellite surveillance, and spectral imaging, is that the constitute patterns of vices and virtues could be mapped everywhere, and upon hearing of chemistry, it could be tested. They would be deeply stumped to hear that physics doesn’t work quite that way, that atoms do exist.
Would they be completely lost? No… their theories did predict a lot, they would fit rather smoothly into neurology, even their most archaic theories resemble cutting edge theories of how the mind works. They had a basic idea for hormone and behavioral modification. While they could be admittedly off in physics at times, they would assert the addage “You are what you eat” and even with a Epicurian emphasis of atoms, they could point out form and matter combined still has virtues… a form if a human (statue, corpse) can’t reproduce, but a human living can. We still haven’t come close to explaining form… stoic theory of all classical theories (short of Zeno’s paradoxes, I’m working on a very, very complicated math problem combining Zeno’s space paradox with it’s inverse, he appears to of had the solution to many questions about time and causality well ahead of the limiting presumptions of quantum mechanics, didn’t occur to me till I wrote it down and started looking at it carefully) come closest to explaining relativity, and effecting objects at a distance. In many ways, their philosophy most closely resembles cutting edge physics. However… it lead to stupid presumptions too. We get our basic concepts of astrology from them… with fate tied into it. It is indeed a science, but the most useless science ever devised. They complicated the hell out of it, as only a Stoic could. They really did believe in a virtuous elite who could interprete the signs of nature… this lead to scientific insight often, but far more often than that some asshole was observing the flight of birds or twists in the intestines to figure out prognostic evidence to questions… maybe in a few thousand years, a computer will exist that can zero in on matter and understand matter so damn well and how it can relate to the rest of the universe, but they honestly were just bullshitting themselves otherwise.
These elites came in two forms. The elites of a city, growing organically out of the city scape (they didn’t think rustics could do this as well, as they were not versed in city ways) or the Cynic Sage, who never really became virtuous out of choice, but quickly learned in a tantric manner how to live in accordance with virtue… a Stoic sage (presumptuous twat) modelled himself after a Cynic sage, but with the refinement of city culture.
If I was transported back in time, I would just walk around with a metal detector, having it beep over the objects of a city, and ask Stoics “Is this spot more virtuous, is this a more virtuous floral arrangement, is the epicenter of a city as traced from the city walls it’s most virtuous location, should I sit here or there?” They would quickly grasp this insult, because it docked around with their physical presumptions of geography, but their psychological presumptions would be men are mostly indifferent… neither good or evil IN PREFERENCE. You would have platonists and pythagorians laughing at my antics, I would be ripping their Feng Shui presumptions, the Cynics would take turns kicking them.
Yet… ideas like matter and antimatter, good foods and bad foods, good chemicals and bad chemicals, good urban planning and bad urban planning, good leadership and household management and bad, health and unhealthy lifestyles would fit in the physics rather well. No Stouc would bat an eye at the revelation of Einstein that all physics is based on relativity, with a odd quantum underbelly. They would completely be enthusiastic about NASA. Dissapointed as fuck augury went bust… honestly, Jerome Cardan was when the shift in philosophy broke with the past… think they would be thunderstruck with his insights. The world generally was, it made us the civilization we are today. They could definitely strengthen our ethical theories, their theory if virtues wasn’t inherently wrong, they just inherited a shitty mechanical presumption of how it worked from Plato… like I said, their theories conceptually would be closer of all ancient philosophies to cutting edge presumptions in quantum mechanics.
Anyway, I’m not a Stoic in as far as physics is concern. I’m more into the Ethics. Doesn’t mean I didn’t investigate it. Has a lot if the problems scientific presumptions had even up to Nietzsche’s time with Will to Power… the Stoics were of course immune to the deficiencies in Nietzsche’s WTP presumption, as their Categories (as well as Aristotle’s) throw a lot of light, as a sort if commentary, on how Nietzsche was trying to build a new categories & physics out of it… the arguments between the Stoics and Aristotelians on the nature of the categories, how they logically work, ripped Nietzsche’s presumptions to awkward shreds… he didn’t really evolve or advance their arguments, stuck to the old physics largely, advanced the Stoic arguments of Indifference between GOOD and Evil to saying no good or evil, but didn’t scrap any of the underlining presumptions, it is still all there… very awkward, very messy, why it likely was never published. It didn’t pull it off. But I am impressed with his desire to outdo them, I take WTP as his sequal to his Pre-Platonic philosophers. Applying Stoic presumptions to modern science is exactly that hard. It comes out nasty and backwards if your too conservative, modern science doesn’t always mesh with ancient.
I applaud Nietzsche for the attempt, seems the entire fucking planet other than me, his modern critic here, even noticed what he was trying to do with these two books. It was very interesting, if not at all successful. Complete failure to be honest. He died early though, hard to say what a 70 year old Nietzsche would if said on the matter once modern physics took root, and had to address his celebrity status and answer his presumptions to living critics. I’m presuming he would of abandoned it as modern chemistry began to more firmly solidify.
Why I advocate reason and balance science with ideas, than blind conservatism to old ideals. No modern Stouc holds to the old Stoic ideals, as described above. If they did, I want to do the metal detector routine on them… with the “beep beep beep” looks like I found a little patch if virtue here routine. Sit here and absorb it through osmosis, through my ass.
Oh, I can’t even begin to tell you how fascinated Stoics would be with Doppler Radar and Meteorology. They would just watch the weather channel all day, stumped why they were not getting as good results reading the entrails of small animals as the weatherman was getting, but otherwise largely compatible in terms of presumptions. Your local weatherman would be raised to the level of a Stoic Sage, something undoubtedly disputed by weatherman’s ex wife.
I don’t think you could pry them from NASA, anymore than a fat man from a buffet line. But they held the line between physics and ethics and biology as very blurry. In a sense, we do too, for the exact same presumptions of relativity and material determinism, but they lacked slot of our insights. I don’t think they would be offended at all though to learn we know more, evolution of cities are a natural outgrowth of Stoic thought, was the whole reason they bothered to advance their cities and individuals. Unfortunately child rape was used as a means for this advancement as much as the scientific build of reason. It was the best of times, it was the worst if times… a very Stoic concept, could be retroactively asserted on them.
Thanks for the info, interesting read, gave me much to think about.
Whereas I would consider that a conflation, and always look for the simplest thing rather than convoluted ones.
Wow, that sounds as conflated as hell. If there is no perception of scale ~ as like we know of atoms [not to mention universe] but they didn’t, then one would take the observers eye through all things without difference, so to say. As if reality only has one scale – the observable [which isn’t of course the same as scale within that in terms of large/small].
Mostly I find the ancients – all of them, irrational. So someone like Nietzsche comes from an unclear time, before we really new much beyond Newtonian physics, and seems, was still tying to employ out of date thinking. Backwards, as we’d say here.
_
We still don’t know much about physics. Can you explain the interrelation between time and size? Seems so very easy, but time and size isn’t as interchangeable and as constant as it seems if we consider Schrodinger’s Cat. I believe the old order of physics, with Zeno’s paradoxes, was much better placed to grasp this than we are. Were stuck on issues like Time’s Arrow, they never would of been.