Out of interest, why would Acturians name themselves after a star [that's most likely too big/unstable to host a life-bearing planet] rather than the planet they were actually from or their species? We don't call ourselves Solarians, we call ourselves Humans or Earthlings...
Now that we've started to identify distant planets as well as stars, I wonder whether aliens will suddenly start naming themselves after those. It's funny how that happens.
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:47 am
by Mr Hyde
MPathy wrote:
Electric_Head wrote:d-T-r, the problem is that everything you say comes across as drug-fueled, hippy ramblings.
Not that I disagree with many of your viewpoints.
But this imo is why lots of ppl discredit the info.
So many of the msgs get ignored because of the messenger.
If you get my drift.
This is so true. So many times I have watched videos of people talking about such things and I have fully wanted to believe what they are saying but have been held back due to them sporting socks with sandals.
This is my problem. More often than not these discussions only have evidence from peoples dreams, or vague/unsubstantiated sightings, or drug induced states, or people that really want to believe various bad psudo-science of youtube videos that fit their views (cherrypicking) who then go on to make more of those videos themselves. That all seems quite unscientific and un-poroven to me and almost like religious belief rather than the properly peer reviewed science and facts.
I am good friends with a professional astro-physicist that works at Oxford; someone that has spent the last 15 years working on this stuff at a professional level travelling the world and discussing this stuff with other equally intelligent and dedicated people. So I'll trust his views over people that take DMT and see an alien at a festival and then decide that they are experts on the subject and that they have seen undisputable evidence rather than the possibility of it being a product of their mind. As you'd probably guess, my astro-physicist friends views don't include talk of aliens making crop circles (which I've made myself) or lizards running the planet.
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:28 am
by lloydnoise
thanks for the reply d-T-r, that was nice and succinct and I get where you're coming from. 1LUV
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:48 am
by d-T-r
magma wrote:Out of interest, why would Acturians name themselves after a star [that's most likely too big/unstable to host a life-bearing planet] rather than the planet they were actually from or their species? We don't call ourselves Solarians, we call ourselves Humans or Earthlings...
Now that we've started to identify distant planets as well as stars, I wonder whether aliens will suddenly start naming themselves after those. It's funny how that happens.
Magma, Earth was originally "Most likely' too unstable to be a life bearing planet wasn't it?
Planet sizes tend to remain in a fairly consistent ratio with their star. bigger star, bigger planets , lifeforms etc obviously many exceptions including satelitles/moons etc but you know what i'm saying and i'm sure you have recently heard about the various not too distant places capable of sustaining life, life supprting elements etc
I fully agree many people on this kind of tip, chat complete shit and i know many are based in the imaginal, but all i'm saying is that there's a lot we are yet to find out and that's great. Science will help, but people with seemingly bat-shit crazy imagination and Hypothesis and theories will also help too
lloydnoise ....what ever bloats your float.
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:20 pm
by magma
d-T-r wrote:
magma wrote:Out of interest, why would Acturians name themselves after a star [that's most likely too big/unstable to host a life-bearing planet] rather than the planet they were actually from or their species? We don't call ourselves Solarians, we call ourselves Humans or Earthlings...
Now that we've started to identify distant planets as well as stars, I wonder whether aliens will suddenly start naming themselves after those. It's funny how that happens.
Magma, Earth was originally "Most likely' too unstable to be a life bearing planet wasn't it?
Well yes... well, actually no... Earth has harboured life for a fair old chunk of its history, but either way Acturus is a star. And a very big star at that. Life doesn't happen in stars, it happens on planets... which is why we're humans/earthlings not Solarians and why a race from a planet orbiting Acturus would be unlikely to name themselves after the word that humans use for the star they orbit. It's like us naming ourselves after their word for The Sun. It's all just a little bit too anthropic, don't you think?
Planet sizes tend to remain in a fairly consistent ratio with their star. bigger star, bigger planets , lifeforms etc obviously many exceptions including satelitles/moons etc but you know what i'm saying and i'm sure you have recently heard about the various not too distant places capable of sustaining life, life supprting elements etc
Hmm, not necessarily. Our star has all sorts of sized planets around it. It can be argued that Jupiter narrowly missed out on becoming a star itself. There's no reason Arcturus couldn't have planets ranging from the size of Mercury to a fair bit bigger than Jupiter.
The question isn't whether Arcturus can harbour planets though, it's why would those lifeforms name themselves after a star and not their planet?
I fully agree many people on this kind of tip, chat complete shit and i know many are based in the imaginal, but all i'm saying is that there's a lot we are yet to find out and that's great. Science will help, but people with seemingly bat-shit crazy imagination and Hypothesis and theories will also help too
Sure, but until you can devise tests for any of these things (the science bit) you might as well discuss the plot of the latest Iain M. Banks novel. It'll be just as plausible.
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:58 pm
by lloydnoise
just to play devil's advocate, Magma, but perhaps an extra-terrestrial species might not use the same logic as us when naming things..
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:03 pm
by d-T-r
lloydnoise wrote:just to play devil's advocate, Magma, but perhaps an extra-terrestrial species might not use the same logic as us when naming things..
i wholeheartedly agree.
my perspective and experience is that they like to communicate with the most suitable words and images that is suitable to the recipient. Like how people communicate a message through Art or Graphic design or Music. it can sometimes be like that, but a series of images,sounds that form word associations/conecpts etc. or it can be direct words. after all, what Is our language, beyond Mouth-Sounds,semantics and syntax?
and magma, as for the whole 'can you test it' stuff, check the previous replies in this thread and others on the Empiricist world view and the trans-rational view for more of a jist on my perspective on things we are unable to measure and quantify etc , yet still have possibilities And probabilities of existing.
Don't get me wrong though ,i'm all open for a fair share of probability,provability and not simply just 'possibility', but in the exploration of possibility, we find out what is probable ,provable etc.
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:18 pm
by d-T-r
You lot are Big in to music right?
get big in to Art and see what people are creating these days? it's not all just pretty colours and flashbacks and psychological and metaphysical 'noise' now i assure you
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:27 pm
by magma
d-T-r wrote:and magma, as for the whole 'can you test it' stuff, check the previous replies in this thread and others on the Empiricist world view and the trans-rational view for more of a jist on my perspective on things we are unable to measure and quantify etc , yet still have possibilities And probabilities of existing.
Well, sure, but at what point does it stop being constructive and just take up time that everyone could be spending on something with more chance of a positive outcome for the race? Should we include the plot of every single sci-fi book ever in our ponderings because writers are normally pretty careful to make sure their plots are "plausible" (sci-fi geeks are the most efficient plot-hole finders in the world).
For example, I'm pretty happy that the situation described in The Matrix (maybe discount the sequels ) is utterly plausible. It makes sense, the motivations are all there, the tech isn't that far-fetched... but I'm also aware that the story was created in order to be interesting and entertaining rather than scientific... it's not a story built to try and explain an anomalous result like String Theory or Dark Matter, it's a story purely built to excite people.
That's the difference I see between far-fetched ramblings from theoretical physicists like Smolen or Michio Kaku who have studied their subjects for decades and are using all that experience to try and fill in some blanks and from people on the Internet who don't have much experience behind them trying to start their stories from scratch isn't exactly clearly defined, but it is there - however plausible, probable or unlikely the theories they espouse, there's also a level of "trust" that needs to be consulted. You can't spend time on every plausible idea - there are just too many. I could make one up on the spot right now.
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:53 pm
by d-T-r
like i said- middle and common ground. we dont need to take things to excess's but all new theories come from new ideas and ways of thinking don't they. No, sci-fi plots are needed.
science,thought and theory provoking fiction as individual stand alones on the other hand?
Pretty much every Einstein quote sums up the mentality and ethical conduct a scientist should aspire too.
of course there are too many plausible ideas, we don't need to look at all of them at the same time. Just the ones that are most benefical to us at this given time. The mainstream and mass-social influencing side of Science is unfortunately not separate from politics and economics these days despite how we sometimes prefer to sugar coat it and see it as an ideological force that exists independently beyond human thought and feeling etc
d-T-r wrote:
Perhaps the time has come to cease calling it the "environmentalist" view, as though it were a lobbying effort outside the mainstream of human activity, and to start calling it the real-world view.
E. O. Wilson
Biology occupies a position among the sciences both marginal and central. Marginal because, the living world, constituting only a tiny and very 'special' part of the universe, it does not seem likely that the study of living beings will ever uncover general laws applicable outside the biosphere. But if the ultimate aim of the whole of science is indeed, as I believe, to clarify man's relationship to the universe, then biology must be accorded a central position, since of all the disciplines it is the one that endeavours to go most directly to the heart of the problems that must be resolved before that of 'human nature' can even be framed in other than metaphysical terms.
Jacques Monod
Evolution in the biosphere is therefore a necessarily irreversible process defining a direction in time; a direction which is the same as that enjoined by the law of increasing entropy, that is to say, the second law of thermodynamics. This is far more than a mere comparison: the second law is founded upon considerations identical to those which establish the irreversibility of evolution. Indeed, it is legitimate to view the irreversibility of evolution as an expression of the second law in the biosphere.
It's obvious that the key problem facing humanity in the coming century is how to bring a better quality of life - for 8 billion or more people - without wrecking the environment entirely in the attempt.
E. O. Wilson
Now there are some things in the world we can’t change – gravity, entropy, the speed of light, the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics, and our biological nature that requires clean air, clean water, clean soil, clean energy and biodiversity for our health and well being. Protecting the biosphere should be our highest priority or else we sicken and die. Other things, like capitalism, free enterprise, the economy, currency, the market, are not forces of nature, we invented them. They are not immutable and we can change them. It makes no sense to elevate economics above the biosphere, for example.”
- David Suzuki
Biosphere.... Biology.... Bio-
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:30 pm
by d-T-r
if in doubt ask Jehst, brain-tax,task-force and all my cosmic gypsy crew
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:43 pm
by hifi
this dtr guy is always talkin about some weird ass shit
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:14 pm
by nowaysj
lloydnoise wrote:I understand that I could be seen to be 'missing the point' asking that, but an external experience ,shared by more than 1 is, to me, far more important than even the most profound event only experienced by 1 person.
How about shared by 70,000?
And who ever was dissing sandals and socks, I've got a doctorate and will be buried in sandals and socks! So comfy!
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:13 pm
by ezza
agree with the points on how it's all drugged up hippies rambling on about this shit makes it really hard to believe, even if they do have some valid points (which is rarely)
u never see many credible scientists backing it
still a laugh to read though
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:01 pm
by mks
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:06 am
by AxeD
johney wrote:
Did you take this picture?
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:12 am
by d-T-r
AxeD wrote:
johney wrote:
Did you take this picture?
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:25 am
by ezza
AxeD wrote:
johney wrote:
Did you take this picture?
been loads of these photos going round recently
think they're a race called the rama futures
no scientists could actually be bothered to disprove there existence so according to youtube they are 100% real. fact.
here's a pic i took while on dmt
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:45 am
by d-T-r
Agent 47 wrote:
AxeD wrote:
johney wrote:
Did you take this picture?
been loads of these photos going round recently
think they're a race called the rama futures
no scientists could actually be bothered to disprove there existence so according to youtube they are 100% real. fact.
here's a pic i took while on dmt
srry bt thr pixels do seem to look out of match and the shadows don't look like there is enough matching for the ohtre pixels on the photographt parts of it all. Is a good 1 tho yea,
bit keep srchin yea tho,n I bet u will be able to find some amazing fakes if you set your harts to 10s o . O . O . o
gd luck fellow truth seekxer. mybre we need to think of and add 70% more stereotypes to our apoorach ,attitude and style so we have mre luk of being internet fanous for finding 115% real proofz of all our proof idea and exposing all of the -110% real photos that have not real enough for prving it.
gd luck yea, trooth is out there but probably somehwre else so find but i reckon betwen the 3 of u, u cld do it so gd luck yea
sfe 1
Re: The Spacecraft Thread
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:50 am
by ezza
i will mate, so close to the truth now i can almost fabricate it
) is utterly plausible. It makes sense, the motivations are all there, the tech isn't 
