When i pointed out we need a satelite due to Mars rotation you answered with "Mars has a lower gravity", you did, sorry.
Cause this shows you were talking about the colony sending a satellite in orbit, wich is crazy, with all the struggles to survive the satellite would be sent from Earth.

 

From the fact that i have real knowledge, for example during the Opportunity mission, the light input to the solar panel of Opportunity rover was almost completely blocket by a dust storm.
Or we can talk about the months long global storm that at that in 2002 or 2001 clouded the entire planet..
You think dangerous is like some sci-fi movie tearing men apart, sorry but it's dumb, what is really dangerous is a storm blocking entirely your source of energy, for months, that is a deadly problem in case you don't know
This is your problem, people talk seriously and you think about the movie "the Martian", you confuse sci-fi with reallity, sorry but it's childish, you talk like a mission to Mars is like crossing the street, it's not that easy.

We will colonize Mars, but it will take a longer time than you think, sorry but Musk has a vision, that's not a viable plan yet, we are not ready yet, we will by the way.

PS: im still waiting for the krauss book, or do i have to think you made that claim up?

 

Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

Ohh boy. You are full of shit, aren’t you. Again, if you would care to read through what I have wrote so far then you would hopefully see that I never pointed out anything you blabber here especially not the way you put it.
No, this just shows your imbecile way of baseless assumptions. You just elevated yourself to be an even higher ranking official moron.

 

so then, how Mars weaker gravity makes it easier sending a satellite for communication if you dont mean (luckily for you because it was really crazy idea) building and sending the satellite from the colony? reading your answer there is no mention of it.

PS: Please i'm really interested to know when Krauss talked about experince not leaving us after death so i'm still waiting for the book title, thanks!!

 

Oh, so now you have real knowledge on this and you think it is more real then what NASA have to say about it! You are also forgetting the human element in your feeble equation, but I am not surprised since you have real knowledge now. Also, now you are trying very hard like cornered in little rat, to turn the “The Martian” question against me in your miserable attempt to hide your apparent and demonstrated foolishness on the subject knowing damn well that I was correct and you were deeply mistaken. It just shows that you are not only stupid, but also an immoral and weak character. By the way “The Martian” is not one bit of a childish thing as most of it is truly based on our present scientific knowledge except the Martian dust storm. There is a good reason why a science fiction is not simply just fiction. - Okey-dokey! To top it off now you truly have a mindset of the mentally ill who thinks what he knows is the realest thing of all. The most dangerous type of maniac!

You can wait all you want and assume all you want in your mentally retarded way, that is your prerogative as well as your misery.

 

Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

Ironic, the Opportunity mission was exactly a NASA mission and if i know a dust storm blocked the solar panel of the rover it's just because they made it public.
So, sorry but you're not actually convincing, a dust storm blocking your source of energy is still really important to consider, especially in a hostile environnement where having no energy is a deadly situation.

So you claimed Krauss talked about experience rataining after that but you dont want to tell where... suspicious... why?

 

@commositore aside from the prohibitive costs, do you think it is doable from an engineering standpoint?

Seems as though there are a lot of variables, and maybe a lot of unknown or unexpected variables, risks etc...
not to mention SpaceX sized mishaps...

so it's retarded to thoughtfully consider possible obstacles to survivability.. ???

it's even worse to be delusional @onekutcha

and you undermine your own arguments with the personal attacks.. step up your game

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2016

The actual point is that commositore is waiting for something that I have never stated! If you carefully read through what I have wrote exactly then you should be able to understand.
Obviously there are a lot of variables for sure, but to think in a way that is overly sceptical has never helped us evolve and achieve anything. Not to mention when someone is trying to show him/herself smarter by masquerading to be a learned person while not even demonstrating a minuscule hint of capability to think perceptively and/or to be knowledgable on the subject than someone who is actually doing the damn thing surrounded with ultra knowledgable real professional experts. Sorry but I am pro expert and I am siding with them instead of a moron who already have demonstrated his/her vague impression.
As for you Herr Durr, the choice is yours to be on the regressive side of things, but let me have my choice to be progressive instead. Thank you.

As for the so called "personal attacks”. Not listening carefully to someone then later coming up with something that the other person has never stated and trying to make that person indirectly incompetent is an actual personal attack in the first place. Thus honestly when I have to deal with a person of this magnitude I do not care to restrain myself to mention the obvious in my replies to him/her. Conclusively Herr Durr you can have your opinion on this so as anybody else, however it will not change the demonstrated facts ad hominem or not.

 

Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

The cost are not sustainable with our current economy, not even if ESA and NASA join forces, beside that from an engineering standpoint it's "doable" in theory but with a long (and even more expensive preparation)

Preparing and sending the satellites net for communication is just the easiest and fastest thing (and it would still requires years).
The habitat module for the colony woud require multiple trip to send and assemble, and this in a best case scenario with no incidents (very unlikely) and without consider the variability of Mars distance (up to 400 million km). Plus we have to consider that most of the habitat should be underground, and that would requires as you can imagine a lot of time.

So it's "doable" but in a "far fetched" way, developing a better way to shield us safely from radiation for example would make it easier to set up the habitat (we wouldnt need to place part of it underground), but it will require time to develop and test.

Beside that i have no idea of the psychological effects of living stranded in that colony, it's not my field but i can safely assume there will be some..

 

There is nothing out there, we live in a hologram, a virtual reality.
NASA and the top brass that rule the world know this, thats why they maintain the so called space program.People wouldnt be able to handle the truth, mass panic, chaos, suicides, etc.
Watch the vidoes a few times and dont panic.
1.the grid recorded.

2.hologram moon recorded.

 

Yes, theoretically it is also a possibility. However it doesn’t essentially change the fact that says: "I think, therefore I am!"

 

you dont actually sound like one when you say things like:

and when Fukimushi asked you to explain you said:

Sorry but resorting to quantum mechanics to justify irrational claims, and throwing physicists names around (even when they have nothing to do with the topic like Bohr and Krauss) it's exactly what a non pro expert would do.

 

Really? - Can you refute that? - Ever heard of theoretical physics where math and not exactly scientific experience is the main rule already proving multiple dimensions… etc. -Ever heard of Biocentrism that is based on Quantum Physics?
I guess not, otherwise you would have stopped your nonsensical blabbering at the very beginning of this blog.

 

Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

Even the mainstream science acknowledges a code that makes the universe.
We do think, but we are still very limited, our brains are locked.
Imagine a super power quantum computer and what it would be able to handle, you cant even image the magnitude of worlds you could create,smell it,touch it,feel it....

 

sounds you are more aruguing whether you said there was a book about Krauss's "biblical atheism" seems your scintillating
mind would have picked up on this.. is there a language barrier?

sorry but this phrase just sounds plain infantile, I hope there indeed is a language barrier

 

just because mathematics allows it, does not mean reality does...

mathematics also allows manipulation of infinite dimensions..

there is no broad consensus on the correctness of 11 dimensional space nor string theory,
and even worse.. no solid proof..nor even an inkling of such !

 

Sorry but if you claim something you have to provide evidence, the fact i can't refute it it's not evidence for it to be true.

But yes, i can absolutely refute this particular set of claims.
Quantum Mechanics is SCIENCE, your claim is not testable as there is no way to examine the afterlife, therefore it's not science.

I would have no problem with you claim if you didnt try to say Quantum Mechanics supports it, if it was just your opinion or idea, fine, but if you claim QM is evidence for it, then i wanna see the scientifical base for your claim.

And no, theoretical physics is not actually linked to multiple dimensions, you're making a lot of confusion here, true maths provides models of multiple dimesional spaces but physics applies these model like it applies the concept of a sphere, when you provide model maths is not enough as evidence, that's why Strings Theory is considered an hypothesis, and it's the one you were talking about, the revised strings theory has multiple dimensions, some version 13 some even 26, and strings are now named brane and are different in nature from their 80's version, but it's fringe science and even Greene admits it's wrong calling it string theory considering it's an hypothesis, cause as of today we have 0 empirical evidence for it, infact the Standard Model we have adopted and that received crucial evidence with Higgs boson discovery, works perfectly with our classic Minkowsky spacetime.... and what the hell mean math is the main rule? do you think astrophysicists dont use math aswell???


PS: i realized you may think your idea is supported by "conservation of information", i really hope it's not the case because that is actuallity called unitarity principle and it refers to physical information, a wave function is not the same thing as human experiences. Again you may believe or not in afterlife, it's irrelevant, but saying there is a scientifcal evidence from QM that support expeirence surviving in afterlife would undermine the existence of atheism, that's why i really cant believe Krauss ever said anything like that, he is an outspoken athest who doesnt believe in afterlife, how can he say something like this?

 

Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

Language barrier or not. Please carefully point out where have I stated that Krauss specifically talks about conciseness is staying intact after death? I am all ears Mister!

 

Again, can you refute that? I don’t think so! Can you refute Biocentrism? I don’t think so. Can you actually really prove e.g. that there in fact was a Big Bang? I don’t think so.
Than it is still a very logical possibility. These things are the important matters that are driving creativity and not regressive ground locked way of thinking. Pragmatical thinking is although very safe and sounds very scientific, but not very influential not to mention inspirational therefore can be very regressive. For example if Galileo had been this way he would have never used Hans Lippershey's invention the telescope claiming it inefficient and not practical and if it had happened this way we would most probably be a hundred years behind in advancement.

 

where 's the book on this stuff.. he's asking....