It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

At a certain distance from Earth in space no living being can not survive ,even in a spaceship.

page: 24
23
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 



Moon was a protoplanet drawing Life energy off of the Earth. Which may be right
That is very right,I think there are some things that we shouldn't know or tell.




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 



A terrestrial environment is Gravity, Oxygen-Nitrogen atmosphere with all its trace gases at one atmosphere of barometric pressure, with an electromagnetic field to shield you from the solar radiation.

No. We're not sending "terrestrial environments" into Space. We don't have the technology.


Yet. In the mean time, we can substitute other forms of radiation shielding, such as thick foam walls, or ice. In any event, radiation hazards and micro-gravity bone and muscle deterioration are cumulative. The ten days it takes to get to the Moon and back have a negligible effect on the human organism. You have proven nothing but your own pessimistic view of human capability.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Don't be ignorant. Human beings can mitigate environmental hazards.


Oxymoron. Heh....

Humans CREATE environmental hazards. Humans underestimate Nature. Humans overestimate their adaptive capabilities.

Humans don't seem to realize that Space is unlike any terrestrial environment, except maybe the inside of a microwave oven in a laboratory deep freeze.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 



Oxymoron. Heh....


Are you saying that human beings aren't a product of nature? Nature produced human beings. They are a natural phenomenon. Everything they do is natural. If they do something maladaptive, they will suffer until they correct their error, but it would be a natural mistake.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 





We may be food for the Moon, you know.


Ok beyond the obvious jokes one could make off this,
how do you propose a body of lesser mass "feed" off of a body of much greater mass in space?

Any science?
edit on 2/1/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 


Using your logic, living creatures can't survive inside a submarine...

Or inside an airplane flying at 30,000 feet...

Once you escape earths gravity, these things are pretty much like being in space.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


So, OP...maybe we're like Cylons. Earth being our homeworld, as long as we die here, we are resurrected. If we die too far from home, we just die. Simple solution: build resurrection ships...let's get off this fracking rock!



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I think the poster is talking about the Van Allen Belts. Radiation.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ugmold
 


We already disproved that aspect.

Several times.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
See, this is the problem with Human Science... And I say this with a science background... Humans don't think things through to the ultimate conclusion.

When we harnessed Electricity, back in the late 19th Century, we did not THINK about the repercussions of stringing METAL WIRES all over the country, 30 feet off the ground. We just DID it it. We're STILL doing it. Do you know that the incomprehensibly intricate WIRING of the globe is a major FAIL, inasmuch as a top-end solar flare could FRY OUT the grid, just because WE DIDN"T THINK about the consequences of electrically illuminating the world?

Thinking about consequences is called FORETHOUGHT. It's the ultimate Human characteristic. Forethought begets intent, and intent begets action.

So WHY does Science always STOP half-way in the thought process? Science gives us RESULTS that bring in PROFIT, and that's where the thinking diverges. As long as it makes money, it's good Science. These guys get settled in with government funding, and they want it to go on forever. It's a career. Good Science is showcased by the governments that PAY for it. So Science supports the Government and the Government supports Science.

When we invented the internal combustion engine, we didn't think about the consequences of pollution and traffic and tearing down the rainforests with giant machines.

That's why I maintain that Human Science is half-baked at best.

We have to give serious thought to streamlining our operation, to use an archaic expression.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
You mean no living being CAN survive.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan
See, this is the problem with Human Science... And I say this with a science background... Humans don't think things through to the ultimate conclusion.

When we harnessed Electricity, back in the late 19th Century, we did not THINK about the repercussions of stringing METAL WIRES all over the country, 30 feet off the ground. We just DID it it. We're STILL doing it. Do you know that the incomprehensibly intricate WIRING of the globe is a major FAIL, inasmuch as a top-end solar flare could FRY OUT the grid, just because WE DIDN"T THINK about the consequences of electrically illuminating the world?

Thinking about consequences is called FORETHOUGHT. It's the ultimate Human characteristic. Forethought begets intent, and intent begets action.

So WHY does Science always STOP half-way in the thought process? Science gives us RESULTS that bring in PROFIT, and that's where the thinking diverges. As long as it makes money, it's good Science. These guys get settled in with government funding, and they want it to go on forever. It's a career. Good Science is showcased by the governments that PAY for it. So Science supports the Government and the Government supports Science.

When we invented the internal combustion engine, we didn't think about the consequences of pollution and traffic and tearing down the rainforests with giant machines.

That's why I maintain that Human Science is half-baked at best.

We have to give serious thought to streamlining our operation, to use an archaic expression.


You can't think something through to the ultimate conclusion until you know what it is. Back when we discovered electricity we didn't know that solar flares could cause such disruption to an electrical grid. Why do we continue to lay cabling without protecting against solar flares? Well I think that's a matter of cost. How often have solar flares knocked out electrical grids? It's rare and the cost of insulating the whole electrical grid would far outweigh the cost of repairing it if and when it gets knocked out. Besides if top end solar flare did hit us we'd probably have bigger things to worry about like what factor sunscreen you should apply.
I'd like to know what you would have done differently back in the late 19th century using the knowledge of that time?

Science isn't to blame. It's money and greed.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 



See, this is the problem with Human Science... And I say this with a science background... Humans don't think things through to the ultimate conclusion.


What does any of your rant have to do with the actual topic of this thread? Human beings act upon the best of their knowledge. When they started stringing wires, they didn't fully understand the Sun's electromagnetic activity. So what? What does that have to do with going to the Moon?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by cainey

I'd like to know what you would have done differently back in the late 19th century using the knowledge of that time?


He obviously would have done things differently, if you go to Zesko's blog you can clearly see that guy is a "clairvoyant".



edit on 1-2-2012 by SolidGoal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by cainey
I'd like to know what you would have done differently back in the late 19th century using the knowledge of that time?


Hell, brother, if I were inserted into that block of history (c.1870s to 1890s), I would've made straight for Nikola Tesla and warned him not to get into a power war with Thomas Edison, and I would advise Tesla to sell his Alternating Current patents to Westinghouse for a MILLION dollars, not a trifling $50,000, then take the fortune and put it into WIRELESS energy, as Tesla envisioned.

This would be a whole different world, my friend.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Delete please, unable to properly post link.
edit on 1-2-2012 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan

Originally posted by cainey
I'd like to know what you would have done differently back in the late 19th century using the knowledge of that time?


Hell, brother, if I were inserted into that block of history (c.1870s to 1890s), I would've made straight for Nikola Tesla and warned him not to get into a power war with Thomas Edison, and I would advise Tesla to sell his Alternating Current patents to Westinghouse for a MILLION dollars, not a trifling $50,000, then take the fortune and put it into WIRELESS energy, as Tesla envisioned.

This would be a whole different world, my friend.


Ah but you're using the knowledge you have now, we'd have all backed Tesla. Back in 1870-90 you'd have been clueless as to who was right or wrong.
Imagine if wireless power transfer was used instead, how do you know that it would have been totally safe and impervious to solar flares. For all you know the Tunguska event could have been caused by Tesla running an everyday wireless power transfer that was amplified by a solar flare (I think I may have discovered another theory there).

Anyway we're digressing way off this already flimsy topic.
edit on 1-2-2012 by cainey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
how do you propose a body of lesser mass "feed" off of a body of much greater mass in space?

Any science?


Well, P.D. Ouspensky, the consummate Russian mathematician, thought that smaller things evolved into greater things, that asteroids evolved into moons and moons evolved into planets and planets ultimately evolved into stars.

Which may sound quite idiotic at first, until you back up and read your stellar accretion theory.

Ouspensky's suggestion was that LIFE was sort of a catalyst for planetary evolution, that Life energy was passed from planets to moons in the course of their evolution.

Hence the euphemism "food for the moon"...



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SolidGoal
He obviously would have done things differently, if you go to Zesko's blog you can clearly see that guy is a "clairvoyant".


And your point is?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join