Is Gene's vision realistic?

[Archived Post]

To many the idea of space ships flying around faster than the speed of light and fighting cyborg zombies sounds very unrealistic. But what seems much more unrealistic to me is the very premise of the entire story of Star Trek, which is that the human race decides to live in harmony upon discovering there are aliens.

Lets say humans really did discover there was intelligent alien life in the universe, and that the first aliens discovered were semi-friendly like the Vulcans. Do you think that discovery would actually motivate the majority of the human race to "come together", or do you think the same problems we have now would continue?

[Archived Post]

The vast majority of humans do live in harmony in Star Trek but not all of them. I think its from cornucopian technologies that alow humans to exsist in peace not the fact that we are not alone or have been visited by aliens for the first time. My 2 cents.

[Archived Post]

We are heading for cyborg zombies on earth at the moment

[Archived Post]

I've always believed that it isn't mankind's introduction to aliens that cause the problems to go away, it is the advent of technology.

How much of your income is spent on transportation, food, and fuel? In an age of transporters, replicators, and anti-matter reactors, most of what we consider an economy is non-existent. Poverty, disease, and war are almost all related to a lack of transportation, clean and healthy food, and fuel and the quests to get them. Remove the need for those and you have pretty much ended the causes of most wars. Even wars based on religious or political purposes have a resource management undertone. Even Bin Laden was a US ally until they quit funding is fight against the Soviets.

So, to me, it is possible for mankind to reach that state of unity. But to quote Quark, "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."

If we ever do reach a state of unity, it'll be because of the technology we develop, not the aliens we meet.

[Archived Post]

I thought the question was gonna be about miniskirts in the future for some reason.

[Archived Post]

Good point about technology; I suppose if everyone could have everything they wanted for free from a replicator people wouldnt have much to fight over. That said, when was replicator technology invented in Trek? Was it supposed to be before or after the human race "came together"?

[Archived Post]

They do not unite just because there are aliens. They unite because the nuclear war devastated the planet and killed "enough people" to make sure it never happens again. Also, in Enterprise you see there are still different states on earth (e.g., the existence of the Royal Navy).

It is also pretty obvious that not everything is so shiny and nice. Terra Nova and Terra Prime are examples from Ent era, the dictator of Cestus III is a TOS-era example, and the maquis are a TNG/DS9/VOY example. Captain Sisko said it best - earth is paradise, but outside it there are struggling colonies and many more shades of grey.

As for FTL speeds, general relativity theory actually provides the theoretical foundation for warp speed. Many of the technological gizmos in ST do rely on solid mathematical/theoretical grounds. I recommend the book "The Physics of Star Trek" by Lawrence M. Krauss on this subject. I found it an interesting reading material for a Trekkie mathematician. :cool:

[Archived Post]

That said, when was replicator technology invented in Trek? Was it supposed to be before or after the human race "came together"?

After, its a byproduct of tractor beams if I recall, same with teleporters.

But keep in mind First Contact was made some time AFTER we nuked ourselves and we were still recovering from it, this might be why humankind adopted the policy it did because they were just recovering after a Nuclear War and were getting help to do that by a Alien race.

Who knows how things would be in First Contact was done before that Nuclear War, perhaps the Federation would never be born.

[Archived Post]

The idea of a better future, that goal where all humans work together without the desire for pesronal gain is the dream. It is the thing we should be working towards. The technology, the aliens, that was all extra fluff around the core message. A utopian Earth, I believe is possible, but not the way humanity is now, and without some major catastrophe. As Wolf said, it was WWIII that caused everyone to come together in ST. The species came to the brink of death, and finally, we realised 'wait a minute, we really need to stop this from happening again. There were no winners from that, we need to make sure no one ever does that again.' I think having discovered there were aliens in the galaxy, so shortly after such a catastrophic event, was the final thing that made everyone come together.


I believe this is realistic, but it will need a world extinction event to occur first.

[Archived Post]

I think the basic concept was sound, but his timeline was majorly optimistic as to how long this would take.

[Archived Post]

I've always believed that it isn't mankind's introduction to aliens that cause the problems to go away, it is the advent of technology. I wish I could "Like" your post!

But to quote Quark, "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."
So true! This is US in a nutshell!

But everyday I believe this as well...
"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. NO one would accept the program. Entire crops /of the humans serving as batteries/ were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.Which is why the Matrix was re-designed to this: the peak of your civilization."
I believe this is also true... It's hard being a realist and trying to have a little hope that humans could work for a common goal if our basic comforts where always met!
The Architect: Humph. Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

[Archived Post]

i think it could be, but we all must eliminate (to quote picard - tng 1x26):
hunger, want, the need for possessions.

so we would need for example the replicator and other technologys i think.

than.. only than i could work.

[Archived Post]

It can happen, whether it is because we discover advanced Technology on our own or through contact with aliens, but once everyone has access to limitless, clean energy, an endless supply of food and raw materials through replicators and the entirety of the universe to expand into, Knowledge, Art and wisdom will likely become the most precious things to strive for.

We humans are kinda hardwired to try and rise above our pears. Maybe being better at sport, better looking, more wealthy, famous, smarter, supporting the better sports team/Franchise/computer company or simply by having better gear in an MMORPG.

If the wealth of the Individual becomes meaningless and we do not need to fear for a neighboring nation to take it from us since they will have enough themselves and can always make more, exploring the vastness of space, making great discoveries, creating works of art and advancing humanity as a whole might be the major way for us to satisfy these urges.

I'm optimistic enough to believe that it could happen, but realist enough to know it won't be in my lifetime and I sorta have my doubts it will be before we manage to bomb us back into the stone age over resources, faith and general worldview.

[Archived Post]

At the rate the basic social skills and diplomacy of humans are devolving, I'm confident in saying that, yes, his vision was unrealistic. There is no way in hell we'll have a United Earth in the 2100s or even the 2200s. Humans are just too stubborn and destructive for that.

[Archived Post]

to sit an think of what it would be like the thought of the billions... after a nuclear war...

i removed a wall of text... a lot of that is fairly personal, maybe i skip this one...

best let philosophers, thinkers, and like minded discuss this, an old soldier who been in bad places should not dwell on such things. Memory is rough enough on this old dog, do not need to add to it.:o

I'll come back and read it later team.

[Archived Post]

There are way too many factors that would have to be addressed and a lot of "growing up" that humanity would have to do first.

1) The gap between when a new technology or invention is perfected and when it is released right now is far too great. I'm not referring to an iphone or anything like that I'm talking the major, life altering stuff.

2) Humans overall would have to do such an extreme amount of growing up that really it's hard to envision Humanity as a whole behaving in the way they do in Star Trek. Even getting a majority of humanity to do away with petty things like greed, jealousy, etc would be an almost impossible task. Utopia societies have been tried and failed so many times throughout history. Small to medium sized colonies of Fanatical devotees maybe.

3) Humanity is much more likely to destroy itself before we even get past our own solar system, and even if we do get that far and find other intelligent life, we're much more likely to automatically assume their hostile and fubar first contact so much that they just wipe our asses out.

4) Bridging back to number 1 and the gap between invention, development and practical useage, over-population, famine, disease, dwindling resources, and war over it all will probably stunt true space exploration to the point where if anything a couple of ships might be sent out to the closest possible M-class planetary systems looking for salvation. However, if I were those people I would abandon Earth and try to completely start over the right way on a new planet. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one, and the survival of the human race outweighs the needs of all.

[Archived Post]

To many the idea of space ships flying around faster than the speed of light and fighting cyborg zombies sounds very unrealistic. But what seems much more unrealistic to me is the very premise of the entire story of Star Trek, which is that the human race decides to live in harmony upon discovering there are aliens.

Lets say humans really did discover there was intelligent alien life in the universe, and that the first aliens discovered were semi-friendly like the Vulcans. Do you think that discovery would actually motivate the majority of the human race to "come together", or do you think the same problems we have now would continue?

Reguardless first contact with any alien race friendly or hostile will result in the world throwing their differences aside. I think hostile alien`s would result in coming together and throwing differences aside more than a friendly alien race. It will be the situation where we all have a common enemy among us and its the hostile alien life forms.



The reality is we dont want alien interaction. The first contact with an alien life form could result in a world wide plague as we are exposed to organisims not native to our planet.

[Archived Post]

'Realistic' is not a term that is know to Hollywood. Remember my friend he was creating a made-for-TV series.

However (Vulcan Voice)

Gene did give us something, a gift if you will. He gave us something to shoot for as a species. We will never have warp capability but there are physicist's working on way to propel us to the infinite reaches of the 'cold black' of space. There are teams of people working on better sources of energy. So, we have a pretty good foundation on which to build the future.

So, realistic you say, maybe not a Trekverse as we see on TV, but is is real enough for my imagination. And sometimes the very thought of what he imagined for mankind chokes me up. I think he has set an example and many of us follow it. You don't have to be a 'real' Starfleet Officer to conduct yourself as one. Just live your life for you and betterment of your fellow man. Be as professional as you want to be. Live by good values and think of others too.

Going to space has been a dream of mine since I was 9 years old and you know what it's not out of reach. Maybe being a Mission Commander or Pilot is but a Mission Specialist, now that is still within reach. Just look up the requirements on NASA's home page. All we have to do is set our mind to purpose.

As far as building an actual Enterprise, i think we can make one however it wouldn't have WARP or an Anti-Matter power source. But the actual structure of it we can build.

[Archived Post]

'Realistic' is not a term that is know to Hollywood. Remember my friend he was creating a made-for-TV series.

However (Vulcan Voice)

Gene did give us something, a gift if you will. He gave us something to shoot for as a species. We will never have warp capability but there are physicist's working on way to propel us to the infinite reaches of the 'cold black' of space. There are teams of people working on better sources of energy. So, we have a pretty good foundation on which to build the future.

So, realistic you say, maybe not a Trekverse as we see on TV, but is is real enough for my imagination. And sometimes the very thought of what he imagined for mankind chokes me up. I think he has set an example and many of us follow it. You don't have to be a 'real' Starfleet Officer to conduct yourself as one. Just live your life for you and betterment of your fellow man. Be as professional as you want to be. Live by good values and think of others too.

Going to space has been a dream of mine since I was 9 years old and you know what it's not out of reach. Maybe being a Mission Commander or Pilot is but a Mission Specialist, now that is still within reach. Just look up the requirements on NASA's home page. All we have to do is set our mind to purpose.

As far as building an actual Enterprise, i think we can make one however it wouldn't have WARP or an Anti-Matter power source. But the actual structure of it we can build.

Who knows, one day we might have a form of anti-mater propulsion. A good number of things shown on Star Trek eventually ended up being created. Like blue tooth head sets, who could forget the communication ear pieces worn on the Enterprise of TOS. Who could forget the tablet computers which was used on the Enterprise of TOS. Or how about the holodeck on the Enterprise TNG, this hasnt happened yet but 3D is being pushed to the point that I wouldnt be suprised if we ended up with a form of a holodeck in the next 25 - 30 years.

Nanites which give the borg healing abilities as well as being assimulated into the collective, well we have nanites which are being created as a way of artifical imune system.

In the end I think a large number of what we see in the Star Trek series will one day eventually come to be reality in some form. Might not be tomorrow or 100 or 200 years from now but I feel it will eventually get to that technological position.

[Archived Post]

In the end I think a large number of what we see in the Star Trek series will one day eventually come to be reality in some form. Might not be tomorrow or 100 or 200 years from now but I feel it will eventually get to that technological position.

Great points indeed. The iPad3 can be considered a Treklike gadget as well. Oh video teleconferencing too! The statement I'm quoting above makes me very sad. I know we have most of the technology to do all of the above you stated however we are hindered by Greed on a global scale. Think of how far we'd be if it were not for greed, especially American greed (ours).

[Archived Post]

Great points indeed. The iPad3 can be considered a Treklike gadget as well. Oh video teleconferencing too! The statement I'm quoting above makes me very sad. I know we have most of the technology to do all of the above you stated however we are hindered by Greed on a global scale. Think of how far we'd be if it were not for greed, especially American greed (ours).

Think of how far along we would be if technological advancements werent associated with witch craft and sorcery.

Hell theres good evidence that we had technology back during the sumerian and egyptian time periods that has been lost. Thats like for example most people dont know during the biblical times in Egypt there were such things as electrical batteries.

In the ultimate end, greed is the ending point of many great technological advancements. Tesla, his advancements were stolen by Edison even though he went to greath lengths to prove Tesla`s a/c current was not the way to go. Then we have Tucker, who in 1948 built a super safe car that had many many features that we see on modern cars today but he was put under by the big three because they couldnt competitively compete with Tucker. That is how it goes, people will steal and scheme to get truckloads of money but they will not do for the betterment of others like Tucker or Tesla was wanting to do, they only want to use them to the advantage of making money for themselves. Once we get away from that then we can truely focus on advancements that will put us more like the trek universe than we are now.

[Archived Post]

Then we have Tucker, who in 1948 built a super safe car that had many many features that we see on modern cars today but he was put under by the big three because they couldn't competitively compete with Tucker. That is how it goes, people will steal and scheme to get truckloads of money but they will not do for the betterment of others like Tucker or Tesla was wanting to do, they only want to use them to the advantage of making money for themselves. Once we get away from that then we can truly focus on advancements that will put us more like the trek universe than we are now.

You need to watch the movie about him. It's really, good to say the least. We need another Revolutionary War for any changes like greed to be eradicated by us for the betterment of our world. Unfortunately war seems to be the answer in this day and age. Want oil, kill for it.

[Archived Post]

You need to watch the movie about him. It's really, good to say the least. We need another Revolutionary War for any changes like greed to be eradicated by us for the betterment of our world. Unfortunately war seems to be the answer in this day and age. Want oil, kill for it.

I actually have the movie in bluray. Been trying to find a kitcar to build a replica of his design as well. In the end most people dont know that his car was designed in a way where if you had engine troubles all you did was go to a tucker dealership they remove four main bolts, drop the whole engine and drive axle assembly and they cart over a loaner that they rent to you while they repair your engine and you never have to rent or drive a loaner vehicle. Then theres the central head light which contary to what the movie said actually did work, it would pivot with the steering wheel of more than 15* turn of the wheels.

I think there would be a civil war before another revolutionary war. I also think there would be another secession before there would be another civil war. But even in the time of when our civil war was fought, it was fought by a tyarrant that wanted to keep those under his thumb and expand government which is why we have government like we do today.



As far as the oil goes, we got enough oil in our own borders that if we didnt bend to the whilms of insane envromentalists we could be just like Chile that last I checked had gas selling for $0.70 a gallon cause their just swimming in the stuff. But nope people buy into the enviromentalists and complete morons like al gore with their scare tactics and then we give money to them and they keep saying what we want to hear after being scared so we keep giving them money. I just hope with the outcry over the damage the tsunami on Japan is doing to the western sea board of the US by those enviromentalists will open up the eyes that these wack jobs complain about anything is destroying the enviroment. But then again enviromentalists have been documented using terroristic tactics to get their way but we turn the blind eye.

This is why I think we would have states leaving the union before we see a civil war or a revolutionary war.

[Archived Post]

As far as the oil goes, we got enough oil in our own borders that if we didn't bend to the whims of insane environmentalists we could be just like Chile that last I checked had gas selling for $0.70 a gallon cause their just swimming in the stuff. But nope people buy into the environmentalists and complete morons like Al gore with their scare tactics and then we give money to them and they keep saying what we want to hear after being scared so we keep giving them money. I just hope with the outcry over the damage the tsunami on Japan is doing to the western sea board of the US by those environmentalists will open up the eyes that these wack jobs complain about anything is destroying the environment. But then again environmentalists have been documented using terrorist tactics to get their way but we turn the blind eye.


Well said sir or ma'am. I really despise people like that who hold us back. I'm all for cleaner, cheaper, better but I'm realistic about it. The EPA should be shut down. They do more harm than good. The environment has been here billions of years and we aren't moving fast enough to destroy it. They should be worried about asteroids hitting us or like you talked about Tsunami's. Mother Nature is far more destructive than we puny humans are.

Oh, as for the headlight Tucker designed, BMW stole that idea and so did Audi and Mercedes.

:D

[Archived Post]

The vast majority of humans do live in harmony in Star Trek but not all of them. I think its from cornucopian technologies that alow humans to exsist in peace not the fact that we are not alone or have been visited by aliens for the first time. My 2 cents.

Sorry Hairyman but I have to totally disagree with you. Technology is just things and lets face it there are lots of wealthy people who want for nothing and have access to all sorts of wonderful doodads that are greedy, hubristic jackholes that make the world a more miserable place for being here. What we need is not better ways to build things or better ways to organize ourselves but better people to build and organize. We need a moral awakening.

To quote a better man than myself
The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles but misguided men.

-- MLK Jr.

I still think we can make a better world but unfortunately it's going to be WAY harder to convince everyone to embrace morals and ethics than to build replicators and warp drives.

[Archived Post]

No. Even if we had near-endless resources, there are too many people who just NEED to tell other people how to live, whether its how to live a lifestyle or what god to follow or whatever. How much anger is there today by people who have plenty but are angry solely because someone else has more? If anything, new tech would make it worse, both because people would have more free time to be obsessive and dedicated to The Cause, and because of the new forms of destruction available with that new tech. How much destruction would be their be if some sect, angry about the Federation giving equality to 'soulless machines,' started ramming cargo freighters into cities at Warp 4? If anything I think the wars would get nastier simply because they'd be about less tangible things. Not fun.

[Archived Post]

I've always believed that it isn't mankind's introduction to aliens that cause the problems to go away, it is the advent of technology.

How much of your income is spent on transportation, food, and fuel? In an age of transporters, replicators, and anti-matter reactors, most of what we consider an economy is non-existent. Poverty, disease, and war are almost all related to a lack of transportation, clean and healthy food, and fuel and the quests to get them. Remove the need for those and you have pretty much ended the causes of most wars. Even wars based on religious or political purposes have a resource management undertone. Even Bin Laden was a US ally until they quit funding is fight against the Soviets.

So, to me, it is possible for mankind to reach that state of unity. But to quote Quark, "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."

If we ever do reach a state of unity, it'll be because of the technology we develop, not the aliens we meet.

This I agree with. Even anthropologists have pointed to our Globalization of capitialism as something that needs to be balanced but are soon finding that it is going to reach its finite cap when the planet can no longer sustain us. SO Technology is going to breach this gap but will it be free? There will be a point that will break this current system not sure when but it will happen.

[Archived Post]

Sorry Hairyman but I have to totally disagree with you. Technology is just things and lets face it there are lots of wealthy people who want for nothing and have access to all sorts of wonderful doodads that are greedy, hubristic jackholes that make the world a more miserable place for being here. What we need is not better ways to build things or better ways to organize ourselves but better people to build and organize. We need a moral awakening.

To quote a better man than myself


I still think we can make a better world but unfortunately it's going to be WAY harder to convince everyone to embrace morals and ethics than to build replicators and warp drives.

I whole heartedly agree with Alien_De_Jour. Morals and ethics are an imperative factor if we as a people are to move on. Greed and powermongering is hampering human progress to a staggering degree. Money is considered power (not all powerfull) but power non the less. The people who have this power WILL NOT give it up without a fight.

From what i've read and seen in this world is that the poeple we put incharge have failed us, our world leaders have failed us, time and time again. Be it from greed or power mongering, corruption, severe lack of moral and ethical guidance and absolutly no regard for life in any form. I'm not saying all have failed because there have been good leaders. The good leaders however seem to be followed up by the morally vacuous next guy that happens to have the backing of equally unmoral, unethical, control hucksters.

I was trying to make the point of: Take away the need for money to buy food, clothes, roof over your head, creature comforts by creating technologies that make acquiring necessities for survival easy to obtain and for all the masses to enjoy. The next step would be to sort out the lazy people from the ones who wish to accomplish something be it a small town house builder to the guy who designes the first ship that will leave our solar system. Do you want to be remembered? HOW do you want to be remembered?

Be ever vigilant for the person who would wontedly destroy your life and the things you love because its fun. Forgive and let go of the blood grudges we have formed with each other over the centuries. We the people as a whole are fractured. We lack world wide unification because our leaders can't let go of their "power".

Power exsist where men and women believe power exsist. Without people there is no power, money has no worth and one man or woman can't control what isn't there. My 2 cents.

[Archived Post]

Well said sir or ma'am. I really despise people like that who hold us back. I'm all for cleaner, cheaper, better but I'm realistic about it. The EPA should be shut down. They do more harm than good. The environment has been here billions of years and we aren't moving fast enough to destroy it. They should be worried about asteroids hitting us or like you talked about Tsunami's. Mother Nature is far more destructive than we puny humans are.

Oh, as for the headlight Tucker designed, BMW stole that idea and so did Audi and Mercedes.

:D

That is the sad thing. The EPA along with the enviromentalists are controling what others do because they want people to agree with them which is now why we have laws on emissions. I mean really we do emisison testing to get rid of smog, ok smog is formed by three byproducts, two of which comes from cars but cars do not emit these two byproducts and havent been since 1969 when emission control systems just started to come out. For instance Nox is one building block of smog, the EGR valve came out in 1969 to combat Nox by lowering the combustion chamber temperature which prevented Nox from being formed. Then you have HC which is unburned few, by 1973 we had catalytic converters out that uses cermaic and platnium cores to store heat from the engine to burn this unburned fuel out of the exhaust system. But yet we still have scare tactics of smog from cars even though weve had emission systems to combat that.

And who might you say got the emission testing started? Yep our good buddies in California, they strongarmed the government by telling them that either they mandate emission testing or they will mandate it for themselves as their state rights and then all vehicles sold in California like vehicles sold in Canada and over seas would have to be built to sastify the "law" California did this because people are ignorant and complain about the air being so thick with smog you could cut it in Hollywood. Funny because there were natives living in that valley and the smoke from their camp fires created a haze in that stagnate valley which prompted spanish explorers to call it the vally of smoke. There is no air circulation but the rest of the country has to suffer from the stupidity of a few.

That is like the government is removing ZDDP also known as Zinc from automotive oils all because they say it causes premature failiure of the catalytic converter. Problem is though Zinc is a very good antiwear additive that protects flat tappet lifters from wear. Given new cars all have roller lifters now, but the older cars that are still on the road need this Zinc to keep the camshaft and valve train from failing prematurely. Well this is nothing but a government tactic to get old cars off the road because they last longer and are easier to maintain not to mention inspection on these vehicles is cheaper as well. I also have proof that the zinc killing catalytic converters is false. I drive a 1978 Mercury every day and has almost 200,000 miles on it without a overhaul. The car still sports the orignal Ford logoed dual catalytic converters from 1978 on it, Zinc reached its peak concentration by 1984/1985 and then started to drop. My vehicle put on a ASM emission test, listed as a 1994 F150 truck with the correct information for my engine and driveline actually allowed my vehicle to pass a stricter emission test with the orignal factory equipment with flying colors.



On the topic of stolen ideas, that happens everywheres. Ford had air ride suspension (what we call today airbag suspension) offered in their vehicles in 1958. Ford took the idea from a inventor that created a small car company that didnt last long that used rubber bags filled with air for suspension back in 1910. Then lets see, oh everyone remembers the cars from the late 90`s early 2000`s bragging about their convertible hard top? Well Ford was there first in 1957 with the Ford Sunliner retractable hard top. Everyone knows about automatic convertible tops that goes up if it starts to rain? Well Ford was there in 1955 with a convertible top that would rise if it started to rain. Everyone says PCV systems came out in 1968, wrong Chevrolet had them as early as 1961 and Ford had them as early as 1955 for those sold in California. Automatic signal seeking radios in cars dates back to around 1960-61. Then there was a inventor that created a kit to modify your production vehicle to have automatic parking assist back in 1957 it was called the "Park Car" which uses the spare tire to make getting in and out of parking spots easy. Push button automatic transmissions were used by Chrysler in the late 1950`s. In the 1930`s they had a feature that you load up your cigaretts in and you push a button and a cigarett would pop out lit ready to go. Then we had what was called traffic viewers which was piece of cut glass in a fancy style that you attached to your dashboard and if you coudlnt see the stop light you could see the glow of the light even in daylight on the traffic viewer. Day/Night mirrors thats 1950`s technology also. Then padded dashboards and seat belts were offered by Ford in 1955.

In the end if a automaker is proclaiming a technology new and orignal odds are its not new or orignal cause it was stolen off optional features from the 1940`s, 1950`s, or the 1960`s.

No. Even if we had near-endless resources, there are too many people who just NEED to tell other people how to live, whether its how to live a lifestyle or what god to follow or whatever. How much anger is there today by people who have plenty but are angry solely because someone else has more? If anything, new tech would make it worse, both because people would have more free time to be obsessive and dedicated to The Cause, and because of the new forms of destruction available with that new tech. How much destruction would be their be if some sect, angry about the Federation giving equality to 'soulless machines,' started ramming cargo freighters into cities at Warp 4? If anything I think the wars would get nastier simply because they'd be about less tangible things. Not fun.

That is it in a nutshell. Its people wanting to control others. Thats why I am just quietly supporting seccession and breaking away because things are getting to bad with the whole do as I say not as I do mentality. I mean hell you cant even find adult stores here anymore so if you need something for your love life with your partner you have to order online. The religious wack jobs ran them all out of town and now their working on strip clubs proclaiming that their children walking past the closed doors of the clubs are being tempted and corrupted by them. One even said the strip club across the street from the church was corrupting their members. I laugh and say well if you didnt have such a boring sermon maybe they wouldnt be inticed to go into the strip club to feel alive. Most sermons are nothing but boredom with the monotone voice and the preaching of how your going to hell if you dont live your life the way I interpert you should.

I just dont buy into all that, I believe in a higher power but I feel that there is too much gray area to lump everything as good or bad. If I take money as a gift from a friend but come to find out that money was stolen by him does that mean I stole the money? In my opinion no. Its like if I find a bag of money on the ground and no one is around if I keep it and tell anyone does that make me in the wrong? In my opinion no, if I turn it in odds are they will pocket the money instead through corruption. Thats like if I am at a store and they ring me up and they scan the items but two high dollar items they missed scanning, am I obligated to tell them? In my opinion no because its not my job to tell them how to do their job. If they skip scanning an item and dont charge me for it I technically did not steal it cause they gave it to me in a check out back after not charging me for it.

Something like this has happened before, I went to lowes and got 6 bags of dirt, the expensive stuff not the cheap, and told the woman running the register we had 6. She scanned one and punched stuff in on the scanner to say I figured it was 6. The price came out cheaper than I expected but I paid and left, by time I got to the car and check the recept I found out I was only charged for one bag of dirt. I could have went back and let them know but hey if I give a customer too much money back that is on me. If I forget to charge a customer for a service that is on me. This is that gray area I am talking about, doing this doesnt make you a bad person and you stole items, but it also doesnt make you a good person either. You are neutral, in the middle between good and bad in that gray area.

[Archived Post]

Good point about technology; I suppose if everyone could have everything they wanted for free from a replicator people wouldnt have much to fight over

not really. people would just find new things to fight over and new reasons to fight. its human nature.

As for FTL speeds, general relativity theory actually provides the theoretical foundation for warp speed

huh? actually its pretty clear on the fact that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light. infinite mass and all that.

Humanity is much more likely to destroy itself before we even get past our own solar system

indeed. its already nearly happened a few times. sooner or later I have no doubt whatsoever that it will happen

and even if we do get that far and find other intelligent life, we're much more likely to automatically assume their hostile and fubar first contact so much that they just wipe our asses out.

yeah thats true. that, or they actually will be hostile. assuming there is other intelligent life, common sense says that not all of it will be friendly. sidenote: ever see that masters of horror episode 'the screwfly solution'? wouldn't be at all surprised if that ended up happening to us

Bridging back to number 1 and the gap between invention, development and practical useage, over-population, famine, disease, dwindling resources, and war over it all will probably stunt true space exploration to the point where if anything a couple of ships might be sent out to the closest possible M-class planetary systems looking for salvation. However, if I were those people I would abandon Earth and try to completely start over the right way on a new planet

I doubt anybody being sent out like that would be provided with the resources to do something like that, for that very reason

Reguardless first contact with any alien race friendly or hostile will result in the world throwing their differences aside. I think hostile alien`s would result in coming together and throwing differences aside more than a friendly alien race. It will be the situation where we all have a common enemy among us and its the hostile alien life forms.

why would we just throw everything aside just because hostile aliens show up? we were united in world war 2 against a common enemy and that didn't stop us from being hostile toward eachother

The reality is we dont want alien interaction. The first contact with an alien life form could result in a world wide plague as we are exposed to organisims not native to our planet.

indeed. just remember what happened when europeans reached north america

Tesla, his advancements were stolen by Edison even though he went to greath lengths to prove Tesla`s

what achievements? he made a bunch of absurd claims about technology he claims to have invented and could never provide any evidence for, nor could he or anyone else reproduce what he claimed to have done

[Archived Post]

Gene Roddenberry describes an Utopia - something that is that we may theoretically see feasible, something to strive for, but very hard to actually implement.

So, can it be done?

Maybe. To some extent. Look at the world today. Yes, there are still plenty of conflicts. But there are also plenty of regions without violent conflict. Europeans seemed to have a new war every few years. But that changed a lot in the past. There are many reasons for it, but I believe one of the most important ones may simply be that many "old" resource conflicts have become less important and instead everyone is dependent on each other.

Startrek technology- even in the TOS age - is fantastic. They may not have replicators yet in Kirk's age, but even then, they already had some kind of "astronaut's rations" that seemed to be created by the ship. So food isn't a big problem. And their energy resources were gigantic, capable of faster than light travel and a single ship being able to devastate a planet. In Archer's era, they had civilian, privately owned freighters. At this point, other material resources become less critical - space flight seems rather "cheap" and allow them to mine metals and other materials from asteroids or other, uninhabited planets.

Ultimately, humans form societies because they are stronger if they work together. They come in conflict and get to violence once they do not have resources to maintain everyone. Startrek's technology seems so far reaching that they may not feel this type of resource limitations as strong.

So yeah, it may be possible - if we had this kind of amazing technology, it could be a global and even an interstellar phenomenon. There is no guarantee such technology is possible, though, but even a lot less maybe enough.

[Archived Post]

what achievements? he made a bunch of absurd claims about technology he claims to have invented and could never provide any evidence for, nor could he or anyone else reproduce what he claimed to have done

So the CIA is still witholding all of Tesla`s research and not relasing all because its a bunch of absurd claims about technology that cant be reproduced. Yea I really believe the CIA would tell the county that Tesla came from that wants his research paperwork to be put in the Tesla musuem is being denied because his claims were absurd.

I guess thats why transmission of electrical power through the natural medium is a bunch of absurd claims even though theres government facilities that are currently experimenting with it not to mention there was many demonstrations of it being done by lighting a light bulb that wasnt attached to anything. Hell you can even do it today if you build a little tesla coil you could light a bulb up without the bulb being wired in.

[Archived Post]

Can't say I've ever read or researched the time line of events, but could something like world peace and all that happen? Not likely.

It would probably need a world war 3 or a major revolution the world over, for anything close to that.

I often wonder if such a thing could start off and whether it'd be worth a small group setting up a community, based on the ideals of the federation.

Sadly you would still have to use money to buy items and services, unless a trade of some kind could be made with companies etc.

There are already Co operative type communities out there, which are like groups that help each other and work for the better good, but they're usually small groups, based on Religion rather than the collective best interest of humanity as their motivation.

Wouldn't it be awesome if a whole bunch of people got together and formed a Federation type community though?

[Archived Post]

So the CIA is still witholding all of Tesla`s research and not relasing all because its a bunch of absurd claims about technology that cant be reproduced..

Is there any proof that the CIA took his research and still holds it? I mean real proof, not some random Geocities type page with a bunch of ludicrous claims/exaggerations lol

[Archived Post]

As far as human society goes, I don't see anything particularly unbelievable in Gene's vision; the biggest problem I have with it is humanity's attitude toward antagonistic alien races.

The more comfortable a person's life is, the more disturbed they can get by the thought of their little world falling apart. In the TNG era, I always found the cold war between the Federation and the Romulans to be a lot more believable than the peace between the Federation and the Klingons. A neighbour you just know would love a chance to beat the stuffing out of you, is not someone you could ever let your guard down around.

One of the reasons I consider ST6 to be one of the best Trek movies, is that I think that it shows Starfleet without the rose tinted filters; and is far more believable for it.

[Archived Post]

I've always believed that it isn't mankind's introduction to aliens that cause the problems to go away, it is the advent of technology.

How much of your income is spent on transportation, food, and fuel? In an age of transporters, replicators, and anti-matter reactors, most of what we consider an economy is non-existent. Poverty, disease, and war are almost all related to a lack of transportation, clean and healthy food, and fuel and the quests to get them. Remove the need for those and you have pretty much ended the causes of most wars. Even wars based on religious or political purposes have a resource management undertone. Even Bin Laden was a US ally until they quit funding is fight against the Soviets.

So, to me, it is possible for mankind to reach that state of unity. But to quote Quark, "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."

If we ever do reach a state of unity, it'll be because of the technology we develop, not the aliens we meet.

This.

The Star Trek universe represents a post-need society, there are some aspects I don't think properly reflect the future but that aspect I do believe he got right.

In a post-need society we won't need to work for our basic needs and our wants will be easily attainable. What this would mean for a society is we would only do what makes us happy (in a non-hedonistic way). Many have heard the argument "if you had holo-deck why would you ever leave it?" That's hedonism, pleasure not pain, in the ST universe people understand the difference (Gene loved Socrates, Artistotle, and Plato) between hedonistic pleasure and the happiness that can only be derived from fulfilling your "function". Function being what you enjoy, being a scientist for the sake of science, an explorer for the sake of exploring. Gene's idea of function diverges from the Greek's but it maintains concept that true happiness comes from internal fulfillment.

The best example is Picard's cousin a man who chose to run a vineyard in a replicator dominated world. He makes wine because it brings him a sense of fulfillment, and people acquire his wines to fulfill a want rather than a need.

If you had all your needs met what would you have in your life?

Friends, family, and your craft.

[Archived Post]

The Star Trek universe represents a post-need society
Friends, family, and your craft.

Indeed

If you no longer needed to "work", just to survive, but worked because you enjoyed/loved it, plus you knew it'd benefit not just yourself, but others, wouldn't that be great?

Would I work doing something I love, for free, if I knew I didn't have to worry about heating, cooking and food on the table? You bet.

[Archived Post]

lots of humans fear, hate, abuse, mistrust and kill other humans. they would do far worse to something not of this world.

while the majority of people are decent and dont want war and could come togther in peace and cooperation, that element of our society that is aggressive, dangerous and evil will probably stay that way forever.

[Archived Post]

Is there any proof that the CIA took his research and still holds it? I mean real proof, not some random Geocities type page with a bunch of ludicrous claims/exaggerations lol

With conspiracy theories, lack of proof is just a sign how good the conspiracy is kept secret. Just ignore it.

Mustrum "3 Tin Foil Hats for the price of 2" Ridcully

[Archived Post]

Is there any proof that the CIA took his research and still holds it? I mean real proof, not some random Geocities type page with a bunch of ludicrous claims/exaggerations lol

With conspiracy theories, lack of proof is just a sign how good the conspiracy is kept secret. Just ignore it.

Mustrum "3 Tin Foil Hats for the price of 2" Ridcully

Ok lets take a look at this, the year is 1943, you are at war with three enemies in a new world war. A man by the name of Tesla with research in many different fields from weapons to defensive systems to even early warning systems has died. You have two choices. Send the paperwork back to his next of kin in Yugoslavia where it can potentially fall into Nazi hands, or do you take and obtain it lock it away and classify it top secret in the name of protecting your country from having those ideas and research fall into the wrong hands.

When you think about this, people that think his research wasnt classified after his death during a world war are a lot crazier than they portray "conspiracy theorists".



Also if you want more proof than from geocity pages, how about you do what I did and get all documents from the government pertaining to Tesla through the Freedom of Information act. Classified parts of documents will be blacked out but you can still obtain copies. This is how I found out that on January 7, 1943 after Tesla`s death all research papers and notes were recovered. After their recovery they were taken to the Manhatten Warehouse and Storage Co. and locked up. They did issue a certificate of ownership to Tesla`s nephew Sava Kosanovic. They were imported to the national defence agency of the time microfilmed and cataloged. Some of the less sensitive information was released and is now found at the Tesla musuem in Belgrade. The problem is though alot of the documents that were sensitive pertaining to research that could be utilized as weapons were kept and classified and basically Sava Kosanovic was told "here is all your uncles possessions". They did not want the Nazi`s to get ahold of this and their fear was well placed considering exactly what the germans were researching and experimenting with.

Furthermore I have filed away in a fireproof safe in my bunker copies of documents I obtained through the Freedom of Information act, one of which is a FBI document talking about the microfilms that were made being made avaliable to the army, airforce, and navy in 1952. Basically research being furthered during the Korean War.

Some would say oh those "classified" documents were released. That is a laugh considering about 5 years ago on the news there was a news report of the Tesla musuem petitioning to get the classified documents from the US government that they wouldnt release. They wanted Tesla`s property but they were denied.



As far as proof goes, how about these few pages from the 254 pages worth of documents I got through the freedom of information act pertaining to Tesla.

Heres one file, its a newspaper clipping from September 11, 1940. This is through an interview Tesla gave talking about the teleforce weapon he could build to defend the US. This technology is actually in use today as riot control. It basically uses a form of "microwaves" that generates heat in what ever it is pointed at. The US military is currently using this technology.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s8/Rusty_S85/Research/FBIfile-9-11-1940.jpg

Heres another file dated September 22, 1940. It is sent to Edgar Hoover by an unknown person pertaining to the Teleforce technology and it being perfected.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s8/Rusty_S85/Research/FBIfile-9-24-1940.jpg

This documeted dated January 9, 1943 after Tesla`s death is talking about Sava Kosanovic, who Tesla disliked very much. It talks about how the government fears that Kosanovic would give his uncles research to the enemy. Like wise it talks about documents being taken from his safe in the New Yorker which contained many important papers, one of which is still classified by it being blacked out.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s8/Rusty_S85/Research/FBIfile-1-09-1943.jpg

And to think I have 251 more pages like the above all pertaining to Tesla all through the government. So you wanted your proof heres just a small tidbit of what the government was doing pertaining to Tesla. I have another document I was going to post up but desided not to since it says pretty much the same about the last one about Kosanovic going to search for a "will" at the New Yorker safe. Only new bit of information is this one talks about where the documents were taken which was to the Manhatten Warehouse and Storage Co. where Tesla had around 30 barrels and bundles owned by Tesla thats been there since 1934.

[Archived Post]

Interesting, I might have to look into it.

I consider myself rather open minded and do believe in things like Roswell, so I'm not closed to the idea that the government is capable of classifying and stealing someone's work.

[Archived Post]

Interesting, I might have to look into it.

I consider myself rather open minded and do believe in things like Roswell, so I'm not closed to the idea that the government is capable of classifying and stealing someone's work.

They did it for fear that they would be giving the germans and the other axis powers the ability to destory the world. The government turned Tesla down on building his "death ray" as it has been called because he was a recluse and kept to himself later in life and most everyone thought he was nuts. But the thing is though if he was nuts and talking out of his mind, why was the government concerned that Tesla`s nephew would give the documents to the enemy ie the Germans, Italians, or the Japanese.

You dont want to know what I believe about Roswell. Most people believe it was an alien UFO crash cover up. I have some evidence that the german research into saucer crafts using antigravity technology thats been in research since 1922 is what really crashed in Roswell. The scientist responsible for the research on these crafts were brought to the US under operation paperclip like Werner Von Braun, and they moved around the US but I have some unverified "rumors" I guess you could call them that they were moved to a new base of research and operations in the El Paso region just a week before the Roswell Crash.

Problem is though this doesnt jive with what first hand eye witneses claimed to have seen that saw the bodies before the MP`s arrived and started cleaning up and packing the bodies in lead lined caskets. Last record of this I found is that the wreckage made a stop over in Dallas then went on to Andrews Airfoce base then after that theres no record filed of the flight but it did leave by plane from Andrews

[Archived Post]

Tesla was a stage magician and a FRAUD

[Archived Post]

Tesla was a stage magician and a FRAUD

Your entitled to your opinion just like anyone else. If you feel he was a magician and a fraud be my guest. But dont take for granted what Tesla came up with, things like Remote Control, A/C current, improved effiecency on electric DC motors, etc.

[Archived Post]

He didn't
Its like the "everything was invented in Russia" line

Tesla was a fraud purely a show man using tech developed by real scientists (Edison being one of them)

Its like claiming David Copperfield invented the space shuttle

[Archived Post]

He didn't
Its like the "everything was invented in Russia" line

Tesla was a fraud purely a show man using tech developed by real scientists (Edison being one of them)

Its like claiming David Copperfield invented the space shuttle

lol. Its obvious your one of the Edison lovers even though Edison was nothing but a con man hiring contractors to do research then slapping his name and pattent on it and making money. If anyone was a real scientist, Edison was not. He used real scientists and then stole their work and claimed it as his own.

Why you think Edison went to such great lengths to disprove Tesla`s A/C electricity by electrocuting animals including dogs in public with A/C and showing how "his" D/C electricity wouldnt kill.

[Archived Post]

so just like Tesla only without the dozen mistresses and the drink problem???

All these historical Zephram Cochranes had faults

Newton was an alchemist and mystic ,
Einstein was a really unpleasant man in private live
Von Raum was a nazi (and so were half of his Nasa team)
And at least Three of the men behind the invention of Television were members of the hellfire club

[Archived Post]

so just like Tesla only without the dozen mistresses and the drink problem???

All these historical Zephram Cochranes had faults

Newton was an alchemist and mystic ,
Einstein was a really unpleasant man in private live
Von Raum was a nazi (and so were half of his Nasa team)
And at least Three of the men behind the invention of Television were members of the hellfire club

Tesla didnt steal other peoples work. So I wouldnt say Edison was just like Tesla.

Werner Von Braun was a nazi and so was the other Nazi rockety scientist that was brought over to the US under operation Paperclip. Hell JPL out in california or what would be JPL once nasa got started, was research for Von Braun and there was swastika`s on the door frame above the entrance.

So I dont see your point really. Just cause someone enjoys to drink or they are not a social person doesnt mean they should be conemed. I still dont see what this has to do with Tesla who was a recluse later in life. Earlier in life he wasnt a real drinker, he went to dinner parties and then brought select people home and showed off new inventions he was working on.

[Archived Post]

Except he wasn't working on them
they were stage props

all for show

[Archived Post]

Except he wasn't working on them
they were stage props

all for show

If thats what you want to believe so be it. I can see from your few posts I can see what your goal is in all this so believe what you want and lets leave it at that.

[Archived Post]

If thats what you want to believe so be it. I can see from your few posts I can see what your goal is in all this so believe what you want and lets leave it at that.

Milner62 that guy may need to read the "Trolling and You" thread before this thread goes any further down the spiral.

Back on the topic:

I think if everyone just stopped expecting payment for something we'd be better off. Me personally I create art or come up with concepts for space flight because I want to, not because someone is paying me to.

Maybe I will post my MARS 1 Mission Engine concept up here one day ;)

[Archived Post]

Milner62 that guy may need to read the "Trolling and You" thread before this thread goes any further down the spiral.

Back on the topic:

I think if everyone just stopped expecting payment for something we'd be better off. Me personally I create art or come up with concepts for space flight because I want to, not because someone is paying me to.

Maybe I will post my MARS 1 Mission Engine concept up here one day ;)

I was working on a NX-01 model years ago never finished it boxed it up and never got back to it. I guess its cause I had high hopes for it and it didnt come out as good as I was wanting to gave up on it. Too bad too cause I had some nice ideas for lighting it up but the stand was too weak to support the weight of the starship let alone the model with electrical stuff inside.

The only thing that I am wanting to do though cause I enjoy it costs too damn much money. Which is why I am partial to the whole "credit" idea that you have it but you dont lose it as you spend it. You have 2,000 credits you can obtain anything you want up to 2,000 credits but you never lose it and have to "save" up again. That would be nice but then who would work. That would be like welfare is now, nothing but a hand out. So I am stuck at desiding if I should finance which would make the $18,000 kit cost me closer to $25,000 and then sink another $15,000 into it, or just save up and drop the money all at once. Or I guess I could always hit up my gf for money she could buy it right now but I am too proud to take money like that or ask for something without working for it.

[Archived Post]

I've always believed that it isn't mankind's introduction to aliens that cause the problems to go away, it is the advent of technology.

How much of your income is spent on transportation, food, and fuel? In an age of transporters, replicators, and anti-matter reactors, most of what we consider an economy is non-existent. Poverty, disease, and war are almost all related to a lack of transportation, clean and healthy food, and fuel and the quests to get them. Remove the need for those and you have pretty much ended the causes of most wars. Even wars based on religious or political purposes have a resource management undertone. Even Bin Laden was a US ally until they quit funding is fight against the Soviets.

So, to me, it is possible for mankind to reach that state of unity. But to quote Quark, "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."

If we ever do reach a state of unity, it'll be because of the technology we develop, not the aliens we meet.

I completely agree with you. This is well said and in my opinion very true. The alien encounter may turn a couple of heads but until we take away the need and greed factor, we are doomed to repeat history's mistakes over and over. I do have some thing to add to what you have said Bob, it is racial and religious tensions that create wars and strife also. In the news you here the white kid this, or the black kid that. Why can't we just say kid and lose the adjectives. Until we realize that we are all cut from the same cloth and or made from the same stuff as the stars, our technological advances will only go so far. Religious differences are also a major factor, take the Christians and the Muslims and the Jews as prime examples. They have all been at each other's throats for thousands of years now. Relieve the tension and learn to respect each other for their character and not what they worship and that too would bring us a lot closer to a Utopian society.

I could go on about this, but I think we're on the same page. So add racial and ethnic harmony to our tech break-throughs, and availability of clean water, food, and health care, and I think we have the makings of Gene's universe. Something I have admired for almost 4 decades. I am still waiting, hoping, and occasionally spreading the word. If it all caught on as fast as trolling and text messaging we would be there.

My 2 cents became more of a dime. I do apologize :)

Tu'Rak

[Archived Post]

I could go on about this, but I think we're on the same page. So add racial and ethnic harmony to our tech break-throughs, and availability of clean water, food, and health care, and I think we have the makings of Gene's universe.

I think we'll have to wait another 100 - 150 years for that to happen. I was stationed in Florida and racism is still being taught to the very young. Even as far up as where I live now in WA state. I know this horse is dead but 'greed' is the main factor in anything.

I do believe if religion didn't exist at all there would be more peace in the world. And as you stated that other religions should respect one and other then the tension will subside. That simply will never happen with people who are brainwashed from birth that the other religions are wrong. It is a form of greed after all, albeit not with currency but with belief. Every religion wants to be the one who is 'right and just' and the only one's who believe they will be granted eternal life.

You can have eternal life by being remembered for your accomplishments and your actions while you are alive. I'm sure Einstein will be talked about for centuries to come. Maybe a future science vessel will be named after him or Michio Kaku.

:)

[Archived Post]

I think we'll have to wait another 100 - 150 years for that to happen. I was stationed in Florida and racism is still being taught to the very young. Even as far up as where I live now in WA state. I know this horse is dead but 'greed' is the main factor in anything.

I do believe if religion didn't exist at all there would be more peace in the world. And as you stated that other religions should respect one and other then the tension will subside. That simply will never happen with people who are brainwashed from birth that the other religions are wrong. It is a form of greed after all, albeit not with currency but with belief. Every religion wants to be the one who is 'right and just' and the only one's who believe they will be granted eternal life.

You can have eternal life by being remembered for your accomplishments and your actions while you are alive. I'm sure Einstein will be talked about for centuries to come. Maybe a future science vessel will be named after him or Michio Kaku.

:)

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but I think you are employing the very stereotypical views of religion that you accuse us of using. Almost all "religious" wars can be traced back to resource management. The unrest in the Middle East (which has been going on for millennia) is about who owns what dirt. Even the Islamic-extremist hatred of America can be traced all the way back to the First Barbary War, when Jefferson basically wiped them out when they kept capturing our merchant vessels and demanding ransom. In our mind they started because they captured our ship and in their mind we started it because we were the first nation unwilling to play ball.

Remove most of the resource problems and most wars would serve no purpose. Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." So if you get rid of the reason to have money through technological means, then most of the evil that goes with it will also go away.


That being said, I will defend my own beliefs.
...
..
.
If you don't want a sermon, then STOP READING NOW.
...
..
.
You've been warned...
...
..
.
Okay then.... Highlight to read it. There is no shame in my beliefs, but I do recognize this is a Star Trek game forum. If you don't want to read it, I have given you every reason not to.
...
..
.
I cannot speak for other beliefs, but Christianity is based on peace. True Christians, I'm not talking about those who claim to be Christians, but true Christians want peace above all else. In fact, if extraterrestrial colonization were to ever become possible, a large number of Christians would probably leave to form their own colony just to be able to live in peace. That is how the United States ended up a "Christian" nation to start with. We came over here to get away from the fighting. Even now, it almost always takes a direct attack on us to get us to fight because we tend to be passivists to a fault.

True believers want nothing more than to live in peace with our neighbors. Star Trek is very popular within the Church because it is that peace and unity we seek. The end of poverty, disease, and war are the very things Jesus preached. And while I'll be more than willing to protect my family using any means necessary, if you left me alone, there would be no need.

What a lot of people don't understand is a lot of us are willing to listen to rational discussion. I'm in a class at church with a theoretical physicist, a mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer, and a department head at NASA. These are not brainwashed rubes. In fact, most of our discussions are approached from the position of "defend your beliefs" instead of "here is the story again for the 100th time". So we welcome those who challenge our beliefs because it is the only way to fully understand our beliefs. That doesn't mean you have a prayer when it comes to changing out mind. But this is the group of guys who I went with to watch the final Discovery launch. We believe in science; we just believe there is a higher power responsible for it.

But it always amazes me when I see someone who demands tolerance from Christians, yet provide none themselves. They claim we are brainwashed rubes and then they spout the party-line. What is destroying humanity is not a religion, it is not a race, and it is not a nation. What is destroying humanity is petty self-absorption and a lack of talking about our differences in a rational way.

But for every Jerry Falwell, there is a Bill Mahar. For every Pat Buchanan, there is a Dan Savage. Do not let the opinions of a few talking heads shape your view of a group of a people as a whole. Do I believe all Atheists behave like Bill Mahar? No. Do I believe all gays behave like Dan Savage? No. So don't hold that same standard to us. You will find most of us are just as quick to tell Pat and Jerry to shut up as you are. Elitism never changes regardless of what label you put on your shirt.

That's my sermon. Like I said, I don't want to turn this into a religious debate. But a lot of people seem to feel that me talking about my faith is bad but they slamming my faith is okay. I posted this at the dead of night so that it may end up buried by the morning light.

[Archived Post]

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but I think you are employing the very stereotypical views of religion that you accuse us of using. Almost all "religious" wars can be traced back to resource management. The unrest in the Middle East (which has been going on for millennia) is about who owns what dirt. Even the Islamic-extremist hatred of America can be traced all the way back to the First Barbary War, when Jefferson basically wiped them out when they kept capturing our merchant vessels and demanding ransom. In our mind they started because they captured our ship and in their mind we started it because we were the first nation unwilling to play ball.

Remove most of the resource problems and most wars would serve no purpose. Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." So if you get rid of the reason to have money through technological means, then most of the evil that goes with it will also go away.[/COLOR]

Well, now you see how wars are sometimes started, missunderstanding. I wasn't attacking anyone and I never said any religion was bad. :confused:

[Archived Post]

To many the idea of space ships flying around faster than the speed of light and fighting cyborg zombies sounds very unrealistic. But what seems much more unrealistic to me is the very premise of the entire story of Star Trek, which is that the human race decides to live in harmony upon discovering there are aliens.

Lets say humans really did discover there was intelligent alien life in the universe, and that the first aliens discovered were semi-friendly like the Vulcans. Do you think that discovery would actually motivate the majority of the human race to "come together", or do you think the same problems we have now would continue?

Yes. I think humanity will come together under the conditions as Gene Roddenberry suggested them. I think he would have preferred to not dwell too much on themes like the Terra Prime terrorists. A story told through Enterprise. Instead, Roddenberry preferred tell stories which keep looking forward as humanity acted upon it's true potential. Despite that, I do think humanity will have to suffer Terra Prime to make the broader future possible. Humanity really can be petty and it will either make it over the hump or be completely smacked down.

[Archived Post]

I think if everyone just stopped expecting payment for something we'd be better off.
And if we do that, no one will ever get greedy...





...oh, wait a minute.

[Archived Post]

Sometimes people do not like other people having a view thats off the official "this is the party line"
they tend to call these people names (like troll)
which actually means that you didn't get the point #
#

If you want people to STOP having views or stop mentioning them then say "Please go away"
and they will

if you call them a Troll that makes YOU in the wrong

[Archived Post]

I think it would even be possible today, with today's technology.

Think about it: We have, as a species, the ability to feed, provide medical care to and entertain everyone on the planet... we just have organized our societies in a way that does not perform sufficiently well at that.

So, all we'd need to do is reorganizing human society to more equal wealth distribution.

[Archived Post]

The earth Could feed and support us all without wars yes

but no cars (you have to walk or ride a bike)
no planes (boats ok)
and definately no space travel

all of those put too much strain on the resources

[Archived Post]

The earth Could feed and support us all without wars yes

but no cars (you have to walk or ride a bike)
no planes (boats ok)
and definately no space travel

all of those put too much strain on the resources

And unchecked, people would reproduce to the point that resources were at (and past) the breaking point.

Again.

I'm pretty sure that "we" will never learn, because often what's good for "us" as a society screws us over as individuals. I seriously doubt that, if it was decided that 2 billion of us had to be wiped off the planet because our population had swelled to 15 billion, we'd let ourselves and our families die without a fight, even if it was good for "us." A dreadful hypothetical scenario, but one that illustrates the entire problem of looking at things from the perspective of "we" the species as opposed to individual level interests.

Any long term solution must incorporate the individual-level interests as well as the collective interest. This is not in the optimal interest of the collective, but we are not genetically or psychologically programmed to act like bees, utterly selfless for the hive. We're programmed to survive as individuals.

[Archived Post]

I think we'll have to wait another 100 - 150 years for that to happen. I was stationed in Florida and racism is still being taught to the very young. Even as far up as where I live now in WA state. I know this horse is dead but 'greed' is the main factor in anything.

I do believe if religion didn't exist at all there would be more peace in the world. And as you stated that other religions should respect one and other then the tension will subside. That simply will never happen with people who are brainwashed from birth that the other religions are wrong. It is a form of greed after all, albeit not with currency but with belief. Every religion wants to be the one who is 'right and just' and the only one's who believe they will be granted eternal life.

You can have eternal life by being remembered for your accomplishments and your actions while you are alive. I'm sure Einstein will be talked about for centuries to come. Maybe a future science vessel will be named after him or Michio Kaku.

:)

I agree with you somewhat, but I guess I am holding out more hope that humanity will see the error of its ways. Believe me, I grew up with redneck racist people, I live in a redneck community, and I know all too well how some people not just rednecks can act towards people that are not like them ( I am indeed the black sheep or should I say the sheep that doesn't quite fit in). Religion may never be a thing of the past, so it is up to the leaders of said factions to make the difference and lead by example. Eventually you may get the right mix that starts teaching tolerance. That is my hope anyway. Anyway, if it is a hundred + years that gives Zephrim plenty of time to get the Phoenix ready for launch. I will still remain hopeful in the meantime and start with my children so that they may teach their's. It starts at home and all we can do is try to give our young ones a good step forward. It will happen. Saying something will not happen, is dooming it to fail.

[Archived Post]

The earth Could feed and support us all without wars yes

but no cars (you have to walk or ride a bike)
no planes (boats ok)
and definately no space travel

all of those put too much strain on the resources

That's actually wrong. All of it.

[Archived Post]

And unchecked, people would reproduce to the point that resources were at (and past) the breaking point.
[...].

That's not what the population dynamics of the industrialized world suggest. In fact, people tend to optimize for a stable population, even slightly stagnant, when they have education and birth control, both of which is, again, a matter of reasonable wealth distribution.

[Archived Post]

one car in one day does more damage than 50 people in a week
Cars = BAD

one shuttle launch = 15,000 cars

Shuttle = hellishly bad

Space is so big that we can't cross it yet

so ANY space program is a negative eco force

[Archived Post]

one car in one day does more damage than 50 people in a week
Cars = BAD

one shuttle launch = 15,000 cars

Shuttle = hellishly bad

Space is so big that we can't cross it yet

so ANY space program is a negative eco force

You do know that the two components used to launch the space shuttle are hydrogen and oxygen. That smoke stack you see is mostly water vapor and a few other chemicals that are eaten up by our planet.

As for cars, gasoline used to be thrown away because it is the crap that's left over. We found a better use for it rather than just dumping it. And 98% of the oil seepage into the ocean is caused by natural cracks.

But you are right... our society was a lot healthier and cleaner when horse crap was everywhere.

[Archived Post]

Sorry, but the only way people are NOT going to be greedy in some capacity is if everyone's level of want/desire is equal to everyone else. And how do you do that, with forced regulations? Genetic tampering? And then who has the right to decide what my level of want/desire is?

The old Soviet Union tried something like that via laws/policy. Everybody gets X amount of this. Everyone can only cook these items at restaurants. Everybody must be 100% loyal to the state. In the end, the people trying to control everyone were showing the most greed via their desire for absolute control.


So yeah, you can try and do away with money and trade for services, but the fact of the matter is there will always be people who want more than what they have for various reasons.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sometimes people do not like other people having a view thats off the official "this is the party line"
they tend to call these people names (like troll)
which actually means that you didn't get the point #
#

If you want people to STOP having views or stop mentioning them then say "Please go away"
and they will

if you call them a Troll that makes YOU in the wrong
I totally agree with this...

[Archived Post]

Much of the Oxygen burned on a shuttle launch is burned OUTSIDE the atmosphere (its gone forever)

Petrol is not so much a resource as a source of Acids that eat buildings and polution that kills people

We can't afford not to walk

[Archived Post]

one car in one day does more damage than 50 people in a week
Cars = BAD

one shuttle launch = 15,000 cars

Shuttle = hellishly bad

Space is so big that we can't cross it yet

so ANY space program is a negative eco force

When I read your first sentence I realized that you have no back ground to know what your talking about and what you are stating is common disinformation spread by the media.

A car doesnt do as much damage as 50 people would in a week. Cars are so clean to the point that you can no longer kill yourself with a car letting it idle in your garage. You would run out of fuel before you would be killed by the fumes. Like wise the products being put out by the exhaust in the cars are HC, Co, Co2, o2 and NOx.

HC is unburned fuel in the exhaust and the typical modern vehicle only releases between 2 and 100 PPM or Parts Per Million.

Co is Carbon Monoxide, which when exposed to the atmosphere converts into Co2 Carbon Dioxide. The typical modern vehicle by law can release no more than 1.00 - 1.10 %.

Co2 is Carbon Dioxide, byproduct of breathing out which is a source of life for plants.

O2 is Oxygen what plants give off as a byproduct which is what Humans need to survive.

NOx, is Nitriades of Oxygen. One building block of smog. This is only formed from extreme heat and pressure. This is pretty much eliminated from cars since 1973 and cars today put out between 1 - 500 PPM.


So to break it down, HC is unburned fuel but is in very low quanity from the exhaust of your vehicles, Co is carbon monoxide which naturally becomes Carbon Dioxide, Co2 is Carbon Dioxide which is used by plants, O2 is oxygen that is used by humans, and NOx is one building block of smog.

So tell me how is one car causing so much pollution considering the state mandeded maxium levels allowed by yearly vehicle emission testing is so tiny.

I mean hell my vehicle from 1978 can pass a strict 1994 emission test with flying colors so to say old cars are the cause is nothing but an excuse.

If anything is causing polution it is the factories and powerplants which has zero, I say again zero emmission standards that they have to meet and be tested on yearly.

But I do have to say it is nice how people instantly blaim the automobile as being the number 1 polluter but then they dont know anything about cars to back up their claims and they totally over look the fact that manufactuering plants as well as power plants dont have any emission regulating required of them.

[Archived Post]

You do know that the two components used to launch the space shuttle are hydrogen and oxygen. That smoke stack you see is mostly water vapor and a few other chemicals that are eaten up by our planet.

As for cars, gasoline used to be thrown away because it is the crap that's left over. We found a better use for it rather than just dumping it. And 98% of the oil seepage into the ocean is caused by natural cracks.

But you are right... our society was a lot healthier and cleaner when horse crap was everywhere.

Most people dont know that. They dont realize that the shuttle uses hydrogen and oxygen as a propellant. They also dont know that as hydrogen is used it leaves nothing but water vapor behind and as oxygen is burned it leaves behind carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. People could throw a hissy fit about the carbon monoxide but then if they were pointed out that carbon monoxide converts to carbon dioxide naturally in the atmosphere then they wouldnt know what to say.

Thats like the orignal alternative fuel source being come up with in the early 1900`s for cars. one was electric, one was hybrid, and the other was steam. Steam powered gave that max torque from rest like an electric or hybrid car but it required gasoline or another fuel source like the hybrid to create steam. The only byproducts of the exhaust on the steam cars of the 1900 - 1920`s was water vapor, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide. You didnt have NOx cause you werent using extreme heat and pressure just extreme heat. You didnt have HC because you were running so hot you burned most of the HC up so NOx coudlnt be created.

The hybrids of 1920 - 1932 just like today still uses internal combustion engines that require fuel to burn but since you are using the expansion of gases from combustion you have HC, CO, CO2, O2, and NOx as byproducts from those cars. It wasnt till the 1950`s through 1973 where cars started getting higher and higher compression ratios which resulted in lower and lower HC levels which resulted in lower NOx levels.

The electric cars of 1900 - 1915 had about 100 miles to a charge and had no emission byproducts released by the vehicle. But they still taxed the power grid which at the time was using coal. This vehicle like the electric cars of today would still tax our power grid resulting in higher pollution than us driving internal combustion engines since as I pointed out in my previous post there is no emission regulation for powerplants and manufacturing companies. They arent tested on a yearly basis for their HC, CO, CO2, O2, and NOx outputs like the automobile is.



But what do I expect, I shouldnt be amazed at the lack of knowledge of people that keep saying cars are bad they are number 1 polluter. They watch the news and buy into what ever the media says and have no idea what is the contributing factors are. Thats why I wouldnt be suprised if we see a carbon tax on Co2 which results in all of us being taxed based off how much Co2 we breathe out and our pets emit all because Co2 is a "green house gas". Yea and the planet doesnt go through natural warming and cooling cycles. I guess thats why we had no less than four ice ages that we know about and we are only warming up now because we are pumping so much Co2 into the air with our cars that we are warming the planet up and it was always cold before humans came along. Its enough to make you laugh at the ignorance of people.

[Archived Post]

When I read your first sentence I realized that you have no back ground to know what your talking about and what you are stating is common disinformation spread by the media.

ah you mean FACTS
My Background is military (engineer) not commercial

A car doesnt do as much damage as 50 people would in a week. Cars are so clean to the point that you can no longer kill yourself with a car letting it idle in your garage. You would run out of fuel before you would be killed by the fumes. Like wise the products being put out by the exhaust in the cars are HC, Co, Co2, o2 and NOx.

Ah you are thinking of damage to PEOPLE
Cars destroy the actual planet not the humans
and incidentally you CAN kill yourself with car fumes
Yeah CO (carbon monoxide) the single biggest cause of Gas related deaths in europe



HC is unburned fuel in the exhaust and the typical modern vehicle only releases between 2 and 100 PPM or Parts Per Million.

or put another way a Lot more than a horse


Co is Carbon Monoxide, which when exposed to the atmosphere converts into Co2 Carbon Dioxide. The typical modern vehicle by law can release no more than 1.00 - 1.10 %.

Except not before it builds up and kills you in a confined space (takes LESS than 20 litres of fuels worth to kill)

Co2 is Carbon Dioxide, byproduct of breathing out which is a source of life for plants.


and poisonous

O2 is Oxygen what plants give off as a byproduct which is what Humans need to survive.

Yeah (some of us did chemistry at school BEFORE science was dumbed down)


NOx, is Nitriades of Oxygen. One building block of smog. This is only formed from extreme heat and pressure. This is pretty much eliminated from cars since 1973 and cars today put out between 1 - 500 PPM.

Except in Europe of course


So to break it down, HC is unburned fuel but is in very low quanity from the exhaust of your vehicles, Co is carbon monoxide which naturally becomes Carbon Dioxide, Co2 is Carbon Dioxide which is used by plants, O2 is oxygen that is used by humans, and NOx is one building block of smog.

So tell me how is one car causing so much pollution considering the state mandeded maxium levels allowed by yearly vehicle emission testing is so tiny.

AH you are AMERICAN???
Right
your fuel has to be low risk or the company gets sued
European fuel is different
Indian and African fuel is different
Chinese fuel is Noxious beyond reason



I mean hell my vehicle from 1978 can pass a strict 1994 emission test with flying colors so to say old cars are the cause is nothing but an excuse.



If anything is causing polution it is the factories and powerplants which has zero, I say again zero emmission standards that they have to meet and be tested on yearly.

Time to shut down a few of those as well#
Remember car manufacture is a HIGH polution industry
as are tyres


But I do have to say it is nice how people instantly blaim the automobile as being the number 1 polluter but then they dont know anything about cars to back up their claims and they totally over look the fact that manufactuering plants as well as power plants dont have any emission regulating required of them.

Clearly I DO know (and more than you might prefer)
Cars are manufactured
Rubber and synthetic replacements are high risk plants

[Archived Post]

more than half the "rocket fuel" ever expended was expended outside the atmosphere (Ie we lost it forever)

Think on that

[Archived Post]

When I read your first sentence I realized that you have no back ground to know what your talking about and what you are stating is common disinformation spread by the media.

ah you mean FACTS
My Background is military (engineer) not commercial

Ok, military engineer is good but not exactly automotive field to know how vehicles work and what their specifications are.


Ah you are thinking of damage to PEOPLE
Cars destroy the actual planet not the humans
and incidentally you CAN kill yourself with car fumes
Yeah CO (carbon monoxide) the single biggest cause of Gas related deaths in europe

I am thinking damage to people and the planet. Which is why I pointed out that CO2 is a byproduct of humans as well as vehicles that plants use to survive. CO2 is deadly to humans but is not to plants. A human cant survive breathing CO2 just like they cant survive breathing CO which becomes CO2 in the atmosphere on its own.

Sure you can kill yourself with car fumes, but the automobile emits such a low level of these fumes you would run your fuel tank empty before it would kill you. Lets use mine as an example.

You said that CO is the single biggest cause of gas related deaths in europe. Ok my results of CO is 0.02%. That means out of the 1,000,000 parts of exhaust coming out of my vehicle just 0.02% at idle is CO. Lets do alittle math on this. This here is just 200 parts per million of CO being emitted.

Ok you might be asking yourself how long at 200 ppm do you have of CO before you get the effects. It will take 2 - 3 hours at 200 PPM oc CO to get a slight headache. Thats a slight headache not major medical complications or death. This means on a newer car getting the same level would roughly burn through 3/4 of a 20 gallon fuel tank idling and you will get just a slight headache. if you have a smaller 15 - 18 gallon fuel tank you would have exhausted the fuel by 2-3 hours with just a slight headache.




or put another way a Lot more than a horse

100 PPM HC is 0.01%, 2 PPM HC is 0.0002% which I have personally seen before on one vehicle. A horse how ever is not healther than this because horse manuere caused a hell of a lot more medical issues in people than the automobile.

Except not before it builds up and kills you in a confined space (takes LESS than 20 litres of fuels worth to kill)

As I pointed out above, at 0.02% or 200 PPM of CO it would take 2 - 3 hours to have symptons of a slight headache and possibly loss of judgement. The same thing as drinking too much alcohol. So do you think idling your vehicle in a enclosed garage at these low levels would result in your car running longer than 2 - 3 hours before exhausting its fuel? Nope because I have personally done this test before along with many other tests to prove how one sided the whole "emission" thing is. Its nothing but a money grab for those in power and not about protecting the enviroment.

Then you are saying less than 20 litres of fuel to kill, as I pointed out wrong, at 0.02% it would take 2 - 3 hours at that level of CO to result in a slight headache. You would not run a car for 2 - 3 hours idling on just 5.3 gallons of fuel. idling a engine results in higher fuel consumption meaning you would burn through that 5.3 gallons in about 25 minutes at best.


and poisonous

Yea just like O2 is poisonous to plants.

Yeah (some of us did chemistry at school BEFORE science was dumbed down)

You could have fool me considering its apparent you dont know that it takes 2 - 3 hours at 0.02% or 200 PPM of CO before you get a slight headache or loss of judgement which is about 4 - 6 beers depending on the person to have the same result.


Except in Europe of course

I am sure europe has simmilar emission requirements. 500 PPM is just 0.05% of NOx and if you dont have super high HC 200 PPM or higher or 0.02% you dont have a problem of smog cause NOx is created through HC, heat, and pressure. With the pressure there but the heat being removed NOx cant be created which is why the max allowed is 0.05% and that is at low speed.


AH you are AMERICAN???
Right
your fuel has to be low risk or the company gets sued
European fuel is different
Indian and African fuel is different
Chinese fuel is Noxious beyond reason

Actually our fuel is not low risk as you put it. Our fuel will ignite from static electricity during pumping as your fuel would. The difference is the blend in our fuel is blended to provide the best performance based off altitude and temperature. That is why where I reside at we have two different blends of fuel. We have a summer blend for the hot weather, and the winter blend for the fall, winter, and spring. The cool weather basically. This here is done so the heat of our summer doesnt turn our fuel into a vapor in our fuel tank. It also prevents vapor lock since our underhood temperatures are higher than the ambient air temperature which would cause the fuel to turn from liquid to vapor in the fuel line resulting in the engine stalling out.

Aside from that we have fuel here that you can obtain from 83 octane all the way up to 118 octane both leaded and unleaded depending on where you go. Leaded fuels are not to be used with cars equipped with catalitic converters as it clogs them up, but the leaded fuel lubricates the engine from within resulting in longer running engines with less wear.




Time to shut down a few of those as well#
Remember car manufacture is a HIGH polution industry
as are tyres

You dont have to shut them down. Just regulate the emissions through required emission testing. Thats what was done with cars all because California threw a hissyfit and wanted to be different and dictated that the government needs to do it. Once they saw the money California was making off it other places followed suit all in the name of saving the enviroment even though its just a money scam. If they wanted to save the enviroment they should focus on emission testing on industries that has excessive pollution.

Clearly I DO know (and more than you might prefer)
Cars are manufactured
Rubber and synthetic replacements are high risk plants

I still am not convinced. Just because you took highschool chemestry doesnt mean you know or that you know enough to convince me. I havent and I wont state my background because my background requires me to know this stuff but I see no point in bringing up my back ground to back up my statements since they are backed up with facts.

[Archived Post]

Firstly im talking damage to the planet (not people)
Secondly the deaths in garages take ABOUT 30 minutes and are caused by exclusion of oxygen from the system
Thirdly Emission tests conducted in Europe (by Fiat) determined that the average car can produce enough to kill you in less than 1 hour even in a ventilated space
Fourthly if your car runs out of fuel in 3 hours of idle you need a better car (mine would run for about 15 hours on one tank)

See low emissions apply only in the USA and one or two other places
Look at eastern europe or China

as to regulating emissions Remind me Who has vetoed ALL the treaties on this ??
Wasn't me I can tell you

The resources we burn today we might actually need tomorrow

A car running at 30mph 50 years ago was no real threat to life or the environment
Modern cars are lethal weapons , a drain on recources and a pain in the bank balance


But yes my area of expertise is Clearance
So While i have dealt with chemical attacks (including CO2 gas used as an anti personel booby trap)
I don't claim to be Doctor Mc Coy OR Scotty

Think of me as the man who clears up After the Artillery makes a bloody great mess

[Archived Post]

Correction

For Fiat not By Fiat

[Archived Post]

Firstly im talking damage to the planet (not people)
Secondly the deaths in garages take ABOUT 30 minutes and are caused by exclusion of oxygen from the system
Thirdly Emission tests conducted in Europe (by Fiat) determined that the average car can produce enough to kill you in less than 1 hour even in a ventilated space
Fourthly if your car runs out of fuel in 3 hours of idle you need a better car (mine would run for about 15 hours on one tank)

See low emissions apply only in the USA and one or two other places
Look at eastern europe or China

as to regulating emissions Remind me Who has vetoed ALL the treaties on this ??
Wasn't me I can tell you

The resources we burn today we might actually need tomorrow

A car running at 30mph 50 years ago was no real threat to life or the environment
Modern cars are lethal weapons , a drain on recources and a pain in the bank balance


But yes my area of expertise is Clearance
So While i have dealt with chemical attacks (including CO2 gas used as an anti personel booby trap)
I don't claim to be Doctor Mc Coy OR Scotty

Think of me as the man who clears up After the Artillery makes a bloody great mess

1) deaths in garages are not from the lack of oxygen but the presence of Carbon monoxide. If there was no oxygen in the garage and that is what killed the person how did the car engine keep running? A engine will not run if there is no oxygen just like a candle flame will not burn without oxygen. The engine would stall out from lack of air at roughly the time the occupant would pass out but since a garage is not a 100% seal the person wouldnt be killed because oxygen would flood back into the garage through cracks in the garage door.

2) You said your car would run 15 hours on a tank of fuel, is that at idle or is that driving? As I stated before at idle a engine uses more fuel than while moving. I bet if you told me the year/make/model of car you drive I could figure up through basic math how long your car would idle on a tank of gas and I bet anything it wouldnt be 15 hours. Not unless you had a 40 gallon fuel tank. If your car could idle for 14 hours on a 15 - 18 gallon fuel tank that means you could drive for 28 hours easily which means you would easily be getting close to 70 - 80 mpg which no car is getting in real world driving conditions.

3) 50 years ago cars were not as big of contributors to smog as california blaimed them for. Thats 1962, and from a science stand point NOx which is one of the required building blocks for smog to form was in very low output from about 1952 - 1973 due to the higher and higher compression for more power on these engines. higher compression ment a more complete fuel burn meaning less HC in the exhaust which couldnt combine to make NOx into the Smog that california was blaiming the automobile for.

It was nothing but the fact that the valley that hollywood is situated in is a big dish with mountains around which results in stagnate air and since air cant circulate around anything that is put into the air in the valley just accumulates and hovers there till it rains to filter the stuff out of the air.



Yep which is why its funny. If country A has emission testing but country B right next doors to country A doesnt all the pollution that is being emitted by country B becomes a threat to national health of country A. "pollution" knows no country boarders.

In the end I prefer older cars not because of their simple nature, or their reliability or even their efficency. I prefer them because they were built to be the last car you would ever need. Everything on them was designed to be unbolted taken apart and rebuilt. The stuff on new cars are designed to be tossed away and replaced with new.



I know your not claiming to be anyone like dr mccoy or anything like that. Its just that I hear too often people putting forth their backgrounds or offering up "reasions" why their right either by saying they took highschool/college chemistry, or that they worked for the government, or their a scientist, etc. When I hear that based off my line of professional work I instantly ignore what they say in the sense that they dont have facts to back up what they say so they use their background like a magician waving his left hand to distract you from realizing what is being done is all a lie.

I had one guy come in give me his life story about how he worked in new york for a fleet company and they figured up through math when certain parts on trucks needed to be replaced so they could be replaced before they broke. Thing is though I have never ever heard of a fleet company that was all about making money that would throw money away replacing a good part just because its aged and it might go out. My vehicle has almost 200,000 miles on it with the same orignal factory water pump as well as the same orignal master cylinder and everything else and its still going. I would be insane to just replace it now cause of its age when it could potentially last another 20,000 or even 40,000 miles.

[Archived Post]

1) deaths in garages are not from the lack of oxygen but the presence of Carbon monoxide. If there was no oxygen in the garage and that is what killed the person how did the car engine keep running? A engine will not run if there is no oxygen just like a candle flame will not burn without oxygen. The engine would stall out from lack of air at roughly the time the occupant would pass out but since a garage is not a 100% seal the person wouldnt be killed because oxygen would flood back into the garage through cracks in the garage door.


Exclusion from the blood stream
Carbon monoxide kills by taking the place of oxygen on the red cell carrier


2) You said your car would run 15 hours on a tank of fuel, is that at idle or is that driving? As I stated before at idle a engine uses more fuel than while moving. I bet if you told me the year/make/model of car you drive I could figure up through basic math how long your car would idle on a tank of gas and I bet anything it wouldnt be 15 hours. Not unless you had a 40 gallon fuel tank. If your car could idle for 14 hours on a 15 - 18 gallon fuel tank that means you could drive for 28 hours easily which means you would easily be getting close to 70 - 80 mpg which no car is getting in real world driving conditions.

Its a Landrover (Crusader) and it Runs about 15 hours without refueling on the road
an Idling engine time i do not know because I am not daft enough to leave it running


3) 50 years ago cars were not as big of contributors to smog as california blaimed them for. Thats 1962, and from a science stand point NOx which is one of the required building blocks for smog to form was in very low output from about 1952 - 1973 due to the higher and higher compression for more power on these engines. higher compression ment a more complete fuel burn meaning less HC in the exhaust which couldnt combine to make NOx into the Smog that california was blaiming the automobile for.

It was nothing but the fact that the valley that hollywood is situated in is a big dish with mountains around which results in stagnate air and since air cant circulate around anything that is put into the air in the valley just accumulates and hovers there till it rains to filter the stuff out of the air.

Yes but the old cars were less trouble all round


Yep which is why its funny. If country A has emission testing but country B right next doors to country A doesnt all the pollution that is being emitted by country B becomes a threat to national health of country A. "pollution" knows no country boarders.

Some countries actually BAN some cars


In the end I prefer older cars not because of their simple nature, or their reliability or even their efficency. I prefer them because they were built to be the last car you would ever need. Everything on them was designed to be unbolted taken apart and rebuilt. The stuff on new cars are designed to be tossed away and replaced with new.



I know your not claiming to be anyone like dr mccoy or anything like that. Its just that I hear too often people putting forth their backgrounds or offering up "reasions" why their right either by saying they took highschool/college chemistry, or that they worked for the government, or their a scientist, etc. When I hear that based off my line of professional work I instantly ignore what they say in the sense that they dont have facts to back up what they say so they use their background like a magician waving his left hand to distract you from realizing what is being done is all a lie.

Well If you ever need advice on defusing a landmine I can help
Or We are REALLY good at digging drainage channels
My own Chemistry is fairly limited
If it doesn't go boom or eat through metal I wasn't interested
But I do know over 30 ways to blow up a fume cupboard



I had one guy come in give me his life story about how he worked in new york for a fleet company and they figured up through math when certain parts on trucks needed to be replaced so they could be replaced before they broke. Thing is though I have never ever heard of a fleet company that was all about making money that would throw money away replacing a good part just because its aged and it might go out. My vehicle has almost 200,000 miles on it with the same orignal factory water pump as well as the same orignal master cylinder and everything else and its still going. I would be insane to just replace it now cause of its age when it could potentially last another 20,000 or even 40,000 miles.

We Army types replace it when it falls off and we can't stick it back on again (Example the Ferret Armoured car we used to use was older than any two of us combined)

[Archived Post]

1) deaths in garages are not from the lack of oxygen but the presence of Carbon monoxide. If there was no oxygen in the garage and that is what killed the person how did the car engine keep running? A engine will not run if there is no oxygen just like a candle flame will not burn without oxygen. The engine would stall out from lack of air at roughly the time the occupant would pass out but since a garage is not a 100% seal the person wouldnt be killed because oxygen would flood back into the garage through cracks in the garage door.


Exclusion from the blood stream
Carbon monoxide kills by taking the place of oxygen on the red cell carrier


2) You said your car would run 15 hours on a tank of fuel, is that at idle or is that driving? As I stated before at idle a engine uses more fuel than while moving. I bet if you told me the year/make/model of car you drive I could figure up through basic math how long your car would idle on a tank of gas and I bet anything it wouldnt be 15 hours. Not unless you had a 40 gallon fuel tank. If your car could idle for 14 hours on a 15 - 18 gallon fuel tank that means you could drive for 28 hours easily which means you would easily be getting close to 70 - 80 mpg which no car is getting in real world driving conditions.

Its a Landrover (Crusader) and it Runs about 15 hours without refueling on the road
an Idling engine time i do not know because I am not daft enough to leave it running


3) 50 years ago cars were not as big of contributors to smog as california blaimed them for. Thats 1962, and from a science stand point NOx which is one of the required building blocks for smog to form was in very low output from about 1952 - 1973 due to the higher and higher compression for more power on these engines. higher compression ment a more complete fuel burn meaning less HC in the exhaust which couldnt combine to make NOx into the Smog that california was blaiming the automobile for.

It was nothing but the fact that the valley that hollywood is situated in is a big dish with mountains around which results in stagnate air and since air cant circulate around anything that is put into the air in the valley just accumulates and hovers there till it rains to filter the stuff out of the air.

Yes but the old cars were less trouble all round


Yep which is why its funny. If country A has emission testing but country B right next doors to country A doesnt all the pollution that is being emitted by country B becomes a threat to national health of country A. "pollution" knows no country boarders.

Some countries actually BAN some cars


In the end I prefer older cars not because of their simple nature, or their reliability or even their efficency. I prefer them because they were built to be the last car you would ever need. Everything on them was designed to be unbolted taken apart and rebuilt. The stuff on new cars are designed to be tossed away and replaced with new.



I know your not claiming to be anyone like dr mccoy or anything like that. Its just that I hear too often people putting forth their backgrounds or offering up "reasions" why their right either by saying they took highschool/college chemistry, or that they worked for the government, or their a scientist, etc. When I hear that based off my line of professional work I instantly ignore what they say in the sense that they dont have facts to back up what they say so they use their background like a magician waving his left hand to distract you from realizing what is being done is all a lie.

Well If you ever need advice on defusing a landmine I can help
Or We are REALLY good at digging drainage channels
My own Chemistry is fairly limited
If it doesn't go boom or eat through metal I wasn't interested
But I do know over 30 ways to blow up a fume cupboard



I had one guy come in give me his life story about how he worked in new york for a fleet company and they figured up through math when certain parts on trucks needed to be replaced so they could be replaced before they broke. Thing is though I have never ever heard of a fleet company that was all about making money that would throw money away replacing a good part just because its aged and it might go out. My vehicle has almost 200,000 miles on it with the same orignal factory water pump as well as the same orignal master cylinder and everything else and its still going. I would be insane to just replace it now cause of its age when it could potentially last another 20,000 or even 40,000 miles.

We Army types replace it when it falls off and we can't stick it back on again (Example the Ferret Armoured car we used to use was older than any two of us combined)

Thats what I figured. On a full tank of gas (20 gallons with the neck filled up) I can drive 450 miles on a full tank of gas at a steady highway speed of 75 mph if I dont have to play with the throttle. I would estimate quickly without doing the math that would be roughly the same time frame you stated for your landrover.

I am working on teaching myself military explosives and tactics for fabricating your own explosives for boobytraps and the like. I also almost joined the military all because I wanted the chance to get to play with C4. But for now I regulate my hobby to collecting military firearms and military surplus ammo. Waiting for gf to pay back the loan I gave her so I can go ahead and get that vietnam era M16-A1 rifle I found or maybe I would build me a replica M16 prototype rifle.

Not to mention those army vehicles are designed to keep going. I am wanting to get a old M35A2 cargo truck but my gf keeps telling me no cause she knows I would cause some mayhem with it. I know it would get ****** gas miliage, but I always wondered if it would be possible to fabricate a more modern diesel tractor truck transmission to replace the standard 4 spd for better effienecy. The one thing I like bout that old cargo truck is its a flex fuel meaning it will run off diesel, gasoline, biodiesel, kerosen, lamp oil, and I heard rumors even peanut oil like the very first diesel engines. But with how I like to spend very little on a vehicle when its old I doubt I would ever track down a M35A2 with very low hours on the engine for my price range. I found a guy selling one privately but he wanted $5,000 for it and thats too high when I could have got a 1998 BMW Z3 roadster convertible with a 5spd standard transmission that just had $8,000 worth of maintance just done on the vehicle.

[Archived Post]

I would say that Gene's vision is very unrealistic. After I did 3 yrs in the Army and 1 yr in Afghanistan i have no faith in humanity other than that we will at some point destroy ourselves. Sorry to burst anyones bubble but the world is hell and no matter how much tech or what ever may or may not come to this planet that will never change.We will continue to have war because there will continue to be people who cannot be dealt with in any other way.

[Archived Post]

I would say its not realistic at all. But then again I don't think it's supposed or should be. What Gene imagined are ideals for us to strive for. And if we just sit back and complain or debate semantics we'll never come close. Honestly I think Babylon 5 is more realistic than Trek, but I'd much rather keep working for a Trek World than that of B5.

[Archived Post]

I feel that for Gene's vision to become even semi realistic, a huge, devastating war needs to happen...... I mean, though both world wars were VERY bad, 99.9% of the action was taking place in Europe... The only attack on our soil was Pearl Harbor..... So when EVERY nation in the world (talking to you, Switzerland) takes part in an atrocious nuclear war that nearly destroys humanity, maybe the human race can finally bond together and put away our painful past....

[Archived Post]

Unrealistic? Gene's vision is straight-up fantasy. Human nature simply will never allow it to happen. It's basic, hardcoded instinct to want more than what you have right now, to seek to be "better" in some way than those around you. To conquer, to dominate, to take as much as you possibly can for yourself and to hell with anyone who gets in your way. Morality is simply an artificial construct that a society invents so they can feel they are better than those without it. The same is true for religion and all forms of wealth acquisition - we only want it so we can flaunt our perceived superiority.

Humans as a species are selfish, arrogant, murderous *******s. We're the most successful apex predator the planet has ever seen. No matter what reasons we invent to feel good about ourselves if and when we finally get around to exploring space, our basic nature will remain the same; we will exhibit the same drive to be superior, to have it all. We will either become the apex predator of our section of the galaxy or be wiped out in the attempt.

[Archived Post]

Here's something to ponder on....... Are we the Mirror Universe???:eek:

[Archived Post]

Here's something to ponder on....... Are we the Mirror Universe???:eek:
So you're saying that the real me is back in the real universe, opposite of me entirely, so he's good-look'n and rich? I hope that [censor] is living it up.

[Archived Post]

I would say that Gene's vision is very unrealistic. After I did 3 yrs in the Army and 1 yr in Afghanistan i have no faith in humanity other than that we will at some point destroy ourselves. Sorry to burst anyones bubble but the world is hell and no matter how much tech or what ever may or may not come to this planet that will never change.We will continue to have war because there will continue to be people who cannot be dealt with in any other way.

Well said brother, I've never been 'in country' as we call in in the Navy however i was privy to photos and videos that aren't available to the crew. You are so right on a lot of levels.

- AC1 (AW/SW/NAC) Chavira, US Navy 1994-2010

[Archived Post]

I'd like to believe the world is what we make of it

So yea, I don't think it's unrealistic to think it's not possible, if it weren't, there wouldn't be as many cooperative communities starting up around the world, the type where groups of people are self sufficient and work not just for themselves, but for their neighbours to.

[Archived Post]

I think it would even be possible today, with today's technology.

Think about it: We have, as a species, the ability to feed, provide medical care to and entertain everyone on the planet... we just have organized our societies in a way that does not perform sufficiently well at that.

So, all we'd need to do is reorganizing human society to more equal wealth distribution.

But there is currently the problem - we cannot guarantee to anyone that he won't lose some of his precious wealth if we distribute things more equal. Or rather, it's more or less guaranteed that some will have to lose something so others can gain. Basically, the success of Gene's vision requires us not to end up distributing wealth, but creating it. Which is, btw, also the idea of Capitalism - the idea that we can generate more wealth.

It seems to oppose certain laws of science that say you can't create nothing from something, but weallth is not the same as energy. It's about converting unused resources and unusuable energy into used resources and useable energy. Oil is an example - it lies around unused and contains unusable energy - until we dig it up and burn it to fuel engines that move vehicles or produce electricity.

Of course, there is still a limit - once we've used up everything there is, we are in trouble. But Gene Roddenberry's Startrek includes the possiblity that, at least for a long time, we can gather sufficient resources so that everyone can feel wealthy. At some point, it is not material needs that will need to drive us - but we wil lstill have needs, and be it the need to see bushes grow and make an excellent vine, or the need to explore the universe and see what's it all about.

There may still be some conflict potential there - something could stand in the way of your exploration (say, Q that says you're not worthy, or the Borg saying that their need to achieve perfection requires your assimilation, making yourself a resource)

[Archived Post]

First a couple comments on what we have now...

There is no such thing as hydrocarbon self sufficiency. It is a non-renewable resource. Burn it and it is gone, the energy released. There are no perpetual motion machines.

Hydrogen based propulsion is not clean. It seems clean because people only look at the byproducts of burning the hydrogen, but no one thinks about the question of where we get the hydrogen. There being no convenient reservoir of free easily collectible hydrogen, we need to separate hydrogen out of existing compounds. That takes energy. Again, there are no perpetual motion machines.

We have limited resources, and considerable waste (meaning constantly diminishing resources). Thus there is a lot to fight over, and more and more to fight over as the pie keeps getting smaller. And we are, for the most part, in denial.

This leads in to Gene's vision.

Between effectively unlimited power and replicator technology, we would be a lot better off. Between the two we would have not just incredibly efficient production and nigh perfect recycling. These would mean huge advantages towards peace.

BUT there are costs. Freedom from resource scarcity means considerable less incentive to innovate. There is a great danger of falling in to decadence.

Also, there will always be scarcities. An original art work will still be the original. Also some resources cannot be replicated or recycled (dilithium being a particularly important one). There will still be territorialism, since everyone cannot live on the same block. There will still be power struggles, since everyone cannot be in charge simultaneously. Managing any system of any significant size is full time work. If everyone tried to manage (pure democracy), no one would have time for anything else.

It is important to note that for all the ideals espoused by the Federation, Gene's vision quietly acknowledged these issues. There is free commerce (as evidenced by Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones). There are territorial disputes, since the Federation has neighbors, and internal struggles (as evidenced by Dagger of the Mind and Decker pulling rank in Doomsday Machine among other episodes).

Dilithium is mined and the conditions are not idyllic.

In summary, we would be a lot better off, but Starfleet propeganda is Starfleet propeganda... to be taken with the usual grain of salt.

[Archived Post]

We have something to strive towards if we look for the high ideals, whether we start off thinking them realistic or unrealistic. If we throw our hands up in the air, and say, "Well, the world is hell, so let's just eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," then no doubt we end up wallowing in our misery. But if we give hope for the future, then we're motivated to search for solutions, no matter how insurmountable they may at first appear.

[Archived Post]

We have limited resources, and considerable waste (meaning constantly diminishing resources). Thus there is a lot to fight over, and more and more to fight over as the pie keeps getting smaller. And we are, for the most part, in denial.

Oil is a renewable resource unlike what people claim. The problem is we are consuming the resources faster than they can replenish themselves.

What we call as non-renewable resources are all in fact renewable in a sense its just that they are being consumed faster than they can replenish.

For instance, crude oil is created from the decay of organic matter. Organic matter is always decaying so oil is constantly being created. The problem is we are consuming it quicker than it can replenish itself.

If we would get away from this plastic craze we could reduce our oil consumption. Problem is though that wont result in more oil for fuel production cause plastic is created from oil byproducts that are not used in the creation of gasoline. Just like Diesel fuel is made out of different part of the crude oil than gasoline. We are not wasting oil cause we are using every bit of the oil its just the consumption rate is too high.

[Archived Post]

Unrealistic? Gene's vision is straight-up fantasy. Human nature simply will never allow it to happen. It's basic, hardcoded instinct to want more than what you have right now, to seek to be "better" in some way than those around you. To conquer, to dominate, to take as much as you possibly can for yourself and to hell with anyone who gets in your way. Morality is simply an artificial construct that a society invents so they can feel they are better than those without it. The same is true for religion and all forms of wealth acquisition - we only want it so we can flaunt our perceived superiority.

Humans as a species are selfish, arrogant, murderous *******s. We're the most successful apex predator the planet has ever seen. No matter what reasons we invent to feel good about ourselves if and when we finally get around to exploring space, our basic nature will remain the same; we will exhibit the same drive to be superior, to have it all. We will either become the apex predator of our section of the galaxy or be wiped out in the attempt.

Humans have been persuaded to stop doing all sorts of stupid and selfish things; through laws and simple peer pressure. During the industrial revolution, there was a lot of resistance to ending child labour; the companies wanted cheap (and small) workers, and the families of the children wanted the extra income. It didn't seem like a winning proposal to anyone. They still did it; and now we find the idea of sending kids down coal mines to be abhorrent.

For that matter, we don't think that much of settling personal disputes with duels to the death these days either.

[Archived Post]

So you're saying that the real me is back in the real universe, opposite of me entirely, so he's good-look'n and rich? I hope that [censor] is living it up.

I meant as the warlike people, who oppress all resistance harshly, who shoot first, question second..... I can even see scientists developing an agony booth...

[Archived Post]

Oil is a renewable resource unlike what people claim. The problem is we are consuming the resources faster than they can replenish themselves.

What we call as non-renewable resources are all in fact renewable in a sense its just that they are being consumed faster than they can replenish.

For instance, crude oil is created from the decay of organic matter. Organic matter is always decaying so oil is constantly being created. The problem is we are consuming it quicker than it can replenish itself.

You are dismissing the fact that energy is lost in the form of heat in every reaction. There are no perpetual motion machines. New organic matter isn't being magically formed out of nothing.

If we would get away from this plastic craze we could reduce our oil consumption. Problem is though that wont result in more oil for fuel production cause plastic is created from oil byproducts that are not used in the creation of gasoline. Just like Diesel fuel is made out of different part of the crude oil than gasoline. We are not wasting oil cause we are using every bit of the oil its just the consumption rate is too high.

To the extent we are using oil faster than we need to, we are wasting it. Just because we use what we pull out of the ground relatively efficiently in terms of the process of oil consumption does not change the fact that we overproduce as a society, and when we hit a down cycle due to industry correcting for overproduction by cutting back, we convince ourselves that the answer is to artificially lower production costs (by pulling non-renewables out of the ground faster), rather than ride out the downturn.

We have gotten caught in believing a falacy that unlimited constant growth is sustainable. It isn't.

And as far as using domestic oil vs foreign, I still don't understand the insistance on using up our reserves faster, just to save a few cents per gallon. The faster we burn domestic oil, the less domestic oil we have, and the *more* dependent on foreign oil we become.

[Archived Post]

Humans have been persuaded to stop doing all sorts of stupid and selfish things; through laws and simple peer pressure. During the industrial revolution, there was a lot of resistance to ending child labour; the companies wanted cheap (and small) workers, and the families of the children wanted the extra income. It didn't seem like a winning proposal to anyone. They still did it; and now we find the idea of sending kids down coal mines to be abhorrent.

For that matter, we don't think that much of settling personal disputes with duels to the death these days either.

Also it isn't all gone in Star Trek. There is still labor unrest, corrupt officials, human trafficking, etc. There is just less of it.

[Archived Post]

You are dismissing the fact that energy is lost in the form of heat in every reaction. There are no perpetual motion machines. New organic matter isn't being magically formed out of nothing.



To the extent we are using oil faster than we need to, we are wasting it. Just because we use what we pull out of the ground relatively efficiently in terms of the process of oil consumption does not change the fact that we overproduce as a society, and when we hit a down cycle due to industry correcting for overproduction by cutting back, we convince ourselves that the answer is to artificially lower production costs (by pulling non-renewables out of the ground faster), rather than ride out the downturn.

We have gotten caught in believing a falacy that unlimited constant growth is sustainable. It isn't.

And as far as using domestic oil vs foreign, I still don't understand the insistance on using up our reserves faster, just to save a few cents per gallon. The faster we burn domestic oil, the less domestic oil we have, and the *more* dependent on foreign oil we become.

Actually perpetual motion machines can be created. I have created one such "machine" myself and you can see many other that built different varirants of the same one I built. The common energy creator is magnets. Placing like pole magnets in a way where the magnetic force can repel one another you can harness this repelling nature and turn it into a rotating force.

I have created one of these and can spin the axle the wheel that contains one set of magnets on at a speed of 5,000 rpm. The problem is though people dont want to think outside the box and come up with ideas that are different. This machine here is a different idea created from the idea of using the repelling force of magnets to create energy. You put no energy physical energy in but you gain physical energy out. Like wise the only way this machine will stop is if you pull the second set of magnets away from the first set breaking the magnetic force that is being used to spin the axle. Aside from that this machine would keep running till the magnets lose their magnetic ability which last time I checked would take a many thousands of years.

Then if you want to hear something amazing, I have had mine hooked up to power a fan and I have had this fan blowing air in my bed room for the past 8 months straight without it stopping. So please dont keep this whole perpetural machine doesnt exsist going on when there are ideas that prove it can be done but people wont think outside the box to come up with new ideas. Hell I even got an idea for building a car that is fully electric but you only need an electric battery the size of a car battery (a single 12v battery) and you could drive in theory based off this idea and vehicle design across the country without charging or adding to the system. I wont go into details on this idea till I finalize the patent on my idea but the tests Ive done on this are very promising.



As far as domestic oil goes, we have enough oil in our national reserves to run our country for the next 300 years and that is taking into account the increase in oil consumption over time. Hell we have a huge oil reserve off the eastern seaboard that if we were to drill it we could be pumping out thousands upon thousands of gallons of oil per day and maintaining that rate it would take 500 years for that oil reserve to be pumped dry. So your lack of comprehension of using domestic oil doesnt mean we are using our oil up faster, because frankly the oil we have stocked up in reserves would be enough to out last our lives, our kids lives, and will start to run out in our grand kids lives. The thing is though thats not accounting for oil reserves we could drill to supplement that would last for five generations increasing our total sustainable oil reserves for for eight generations. In this time we would come up with better ways to power our combustion vehicles and with any luck have less reliance on crude oil. We dont have to have crude oil for creating motor oil since we have synthetic lubricants now. We are currently working on synthetic man made fuel to replace gasoline which once that happens the only thing we would be using crude oil for would be for plastic and rubber products basically.

[Archived Post]

Actually perpetual motion machines can be created. I have created one such "machine" myself and you can see many other that built different varirants of the same one I built.
<snips>
Then if you want to hear something amazing, I have had mine hooked up to power a fan and I have had this fan blowing air in my bed room for the past 8 months straight without it stopping.

Hahahahahh. HAHAHAH!! Ohhhh I love it. :D

[Archived Post]

Hahahahahh. HAHAHAH!! Ohhhh I love it. :D

Not sure if you believe or not doesnt really matter cause I have nothing to gain from this. Just stating facts. Some people just dont realize placing magnets in a percise position around a wheel and place magnets of alike poles in a cylinder that fits real close to the wheel. All it takes is getting it to start spinning and the magnets will take over and keep spinning. But since mine uses four rows of magnets positioned percisely all is required is closing the two piece cylinder and the rotating will start on its own.

Heres a link to one that I have been thinking about building, one that generates electricity instead of one that uses mechanical energy to spin something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBB8puMtwJM&feature=related

The only thing that would stop a device like this would be mechanical failiure. But with some fore thought and proper design you can actually design it where it would take years before it would need to be stopped to be serviced.

[Archived Post]

When I was 5 years old, I sat down with a wheel on an axle, 2 magnets, and some tape. I concluded from my extensive experiment that magnets couldn't keep the wheel moving.

That video is probably using a battery powered electromagnet to keep it spinning. Some people will make fake demonstration videos of impossible technologies like that to make money.

If you really made a perpetual motion machine, take it to any physics lab. You will win a the Nobel Prize instantly, having disproven hundreds of laws of electrodynamics. Trying to do work with a magnet is like trying to stand in a bucket and lift it so you'll float.

[Archived Post]

The only thing that would stop a device like this would be mechanical failiure. But with some fore thought and proper design you can actually design it where it would take years before it would need to be stopped to be serviced.

Even if it was self powered, which is almost certainly not the case, 'years before it would need to be stopped' does not equal 'perpetual motion.' Perpetual motion means no waste, no wear.

[Archived Post]

By definition perpetual motion is ALWAYS a fraud

[Archived Post]

To many the idea of space ships flying around faster than the speed of light and fighting cyborg zombies sounds very unrealistic. But what seems much more unrealistic to me is the very premise of the entire story of Star Trek, which is that the human race decides to live in harmony upon discovering there are aliens.

Lets say humans really did discover there was intelligent alien life in the universe, and that the first aliens discovered were semi-friendly like the Vulcans. Do you think that discovery would actually motivate the majority of the human race to "come together", or do you think the same problems we have now would continue?

This is why it was his dream; dreams are dreams something to look up to and get your mind of the fact of reality. Rodenberry’s dream is something that I would very much enjoy to see come true. Although the fact is that if aliens did come to earth publicly like the Vulcans I would see many humans try to take advantage of the situation for power or greed. All of Earth does not come into harmony, until the TNG era, where people stop the accumulation of wealth as a driving factor in society. If you watch ENT you find out that at that they are still being paid money. I think I remember hearing in some episode of TOS one of the crew men say something in the back ground about being paid to be in Starfleet. In TNG we find out that all of earth is in harmony and people do things to better humanity instead of using wealth to strive for power. I think his vision is amazing, with the fact of reality it will most likely never happen, but it was just a dream; a dream that I find to be amazing.

[Archived Post]

To be honest though, if a small number of people can make a self sufficient community of their own, without having anything to do with the Gene Roddenberry's vision of humanity, then a similiar small amount of people could do the same, following his vision.

[Archived Post]

Even if it was self powered, which is almost certainly not the case, 'years before it would need to be stopped' does not equal 'perpetual motion.' Perpetual motion means no waste, no wear.

By definition perpetual means it keeps going on its own and it wont stop on its own. It doesnt mean no waste and no wear. It means the device what ever it is will keep doing what it does without stopping on its own. It would require you to stop it.

As far as wear goes, mine doesnt have wear from the design of the system. All "metal to metal" contact surfaces are lubricated automatically through a auto oiler. Its nothing more than a container that you put a couple shot glasses worth of oil in and it soaks the natrual cotton fiber strips that then slowly drips oil down onto the bearing surfaces. The oil reservior only has to be topped off once a year. Without someone around to top it off, it will still run without the lubrication but it will cut the life span of the bearing and or shaft in half.



hort_wort, thats the problem, when you are using just two magnets its harder to keep the object going. The more magnets you have it relies on each other positioned percisely to keep the movement going. Like the video I posted, those are plain magnets spinning a small motor to generate electricity to show that it could produce electrical energy and while some videos out there are hoaxes, it doesnt mean all are. The video I posted is not a hoax because it shows that there was no external mechanical source spinning the device and keeping it going. I cant say how many magnets his is using, but I can say the one I made that is even at this moment still spinning is made up of 30 magnets per wheel. That means out of the four wheels with magnets placed upon it staggered to keep the force being applied in the same direction the rotor has 120 magnets by itself. Then theres another equal number of magnets in the two piece hinged cylinder, which puts mine at 240 magnets. So to condem magnets not being able to keep going cause you played around with just a couple magents doesnt mean when you throw more magnets in that it wouldnt be able to sustain itself. The idea I got this from was a desk "toy" I used to have that had two sets of tri bar spinners with magnets on the ends. You spin one and they will speed up and slow down and reverse direction on their own. The reason for this was the huge gap between one set of magnets and the next. I realized that placing more magnets would provide for a smoother steadier speed and there will be less chance of the rotating force being stopped cause theres more magnets keeping the spinning going.

[Archived Post]

What are you still doing here? You don't want the 10 million $? :confused:

[Archived Post]

What are you still doing here? You don't want the 10 million $? :confused:

Money doesnt interest me. The woman I am in a relationship with has a hell of a lot of money in the bank and I have never once asked for money. I am not motiviated by having money given to me, I work for it.

[Archived Post]

By definition perpetual means it keeps going on its own and it wont stop on its own. It doesnt mean no waste and no wear. It means the device what ever it is will keep doing what it does without stopping on its own. It would require you to stop it.

If there is waste and/or wear, it will eventually stop on its own. Unless you are suggesting it is self-repairing too?

As far as wear goes, mine doesnt have wear from the design of the system. All "metal to metal" contact surfaces are lubricated automatically through a auto oiler. Its nothing more than a container that you put a couple shot glasses worth of oil in and it soaks the natrual cotton fiber strips that then slowly drips oil down onto the bearing surfaces. The oil reservior only has to be topped off once a year. Without someone around to top it off, it will still run without the lubrication but it will cut the life span of the bearing and or shaft in half.

An auto-oilier suggests it needs an infinite oil supply. Which of course is impossible. If you have to top up the oil supply it is not running without your help... well no more than any other system requiring a supply of outside resources. By your definition, a car is a perpetual motion machine, since once started, it can idle without your help.

And of course you are conveniently ignoring the fact that there is no oil that exists which is a perfect lubricant, not to mention air friction in the system.....



hort_wort, thats the problem, when you are using just two magnets its harder to keep the object going.

Have you succeeded yet? As mentioned there is a prize.... Since you are ignoring things like friction, I am guessing you have done absolutely no math modelling on this at all....

Money doesnt interest me. The woman I am in a relationship with has a hell of a lot of money in the bank and I have never once asked for money. I am not motiviated by having money given to me, I work for it.

And you figure there is absolutely no work involved in proving your theory.... no wonder you believe in perpetual motion machines....

[Archived Post]

I am not motiviated by having money given to me, I work for it.

Now just if the rest of the world thought like this.

[Archived Post]

If there is waste and/or wear, it will eventually stop on its own. Unless you are suggesting it is self-repairing too?



An auto-oilier suggests it needs an infinite oil supply. Which of course is impossible. If you have to top up the oil supply it is not running without your help... well no more than any other system requiring a supply of outside resources. By your definition, a car is a perpetual motion machine, since once started, it can idle without your help.

And of course you are conveniently ignoring the fact that there is no oil that exists which is a perfect lubricant, not to mention air friction in the system.....



hort_wort, thats the problem, when you are using just two magnets its harder to keep the object going.

Have you succeeded yet? As mentioned there is a prize.... Since you are ignoring things like friction, I am guessing you have done absolutely no math modelling on this at all....



And you figure there is absolutely no work involved in proving your theory.... no wonder you believe in perpetual motion machines....[/QUOTE]

You obviously read but not comprehend what is said. I stated that the machine I have will run without oil. The oil is just a lubricant used to prolong the bearing life. Since the bearing is designed for loads 500x harsher than what it is, this deveice will not wear out in my life time even without oiling. So by definition it is a perpetual machine. If you would crack open a dictionary you would see that the definition of perpetual is "continuing for ever" or "occuring continually". By webster`s definition the act the machine is doing is perpetual. It`s action is being repeated constantly and it is not using any fuel source to repeat this action.

So topping off the auto oiler or not does not change the fact that the machine does not need my help to keep running.

Friction, that is an amazing topic, but sadly I take it you dont know enough about friction to know that you can lower it to the point where it provides no wear when under zero load. My machine has no load cause there is not extreme forces being applied to the bearings which would cause wear. Not to mention the oil im using is my own formulation, its a mixture of synthetic 0w5 oil and Zinc dialkyldithiophosphates. For those that do know know what Zinc dialkyldithophosphate or ZDDP is it is a very good antiwear additive preventing wear on metal on metal surfaces under high shear situations. The bearings being used in my setup even without the auto oiler is under zero load other than the weight of the rotor which is minescule compared to the load the bearings are designed for.



On the very first part you posted I have to make this comment. You say if there is waste and/or wear it will eventually stop on its own. I just have to know how is waste going to stop a motor from spinning when it doesnt consume anything? Like wise wear can be reduced to the point where it will last to the point that it wont have to be replaced. Like wise if I wanted to design a different system I could have designed a bearing surface that the bearing is fully submerged in oil and you never add oil to the system and it would keep on running and not wear out. Oil as a lubricant will last a very long time in high shear, high temperature, and high stress systems but when you put it into a system that has no high shears, no high temperatures, and no high stress lubrication you now take that long lasting lubricant and make it last twenty times longer.

[Archived Post]

Now just if the rest of the world thought like this.

Yep, it would be nice. I know money makes the world go round, but I do not see the need to have more money than I can use.

It might seem out of place but come to my place of business and you will see I typically give services away for nothing just cause it gives me something to do in some cases.

I dont mind taking money as a gift for a special occasion but I will not take money if I didnt earn it in the sense that I worked for it. For me that makes me feel like a begger and I rather work 8 hours a day for $40 than to sit on my *** for 4 hours a day and get paid $80.

[Archived Post]

So now the topic has moved from laws-of-the-universe-defying machines to thinking the nobel prize is something handed out to people for doing nothing and withholding technology that could revolutionize the planet just because of disinterest?

With trolls like these, no, Gene's vision will never happen.

[Archived Post]

So now the topic has moved from laws-of-the-universe-defying machines to thinking the nobel prize is something handed out to people for doing nothing and withholding technology that could revolutionize the planet just because of disinterest?

With trolls like these, no, Gene's vision will never happen.

Funny that you sling insults calling someone a troll when their not. Is that how it works? label someone a troll when you dont agree with what they have to say?

As far as the nobel piece prize being handed out for doing nothing, I think that about sums it up considering Obama got one himself and he hasnt really done anything to warrant that honor.

[Archived Post]

You obviously read but not comprehend what is said. I stated that the machine I have will run without oil. The oil is just a lubricant used to prolong the bearing life. Since the bearing is designed for loads 500x harsher than what it is, this deveice will not wear out in my life time even without oiling. So by definition it is a perpetual machine. If you would crack open a dictionary you would see that the definition of perpetual is "continuing for ever" or "occuring continually". By webster`s definition the act the machine is doing is perpetual. It`s action is being repeated constantly and it is not using any fuel source to repeat this action.

So topping off the auto oiler or not does not change the fact that the machine does not need my help to keep running.

But it is not continuing forever nor occurring continually. The bearings eventually wear out without outside intervention. (Actually they will cease up before that). The fact that there is a bearing life proves it is not perpetual.

Friction, that is an amazing topic, but sadly I take it you dont know enough about friction to know that you can lower it to the point where it provides no wear when under zero load. My machine has no load cause there is not extreme forces being applied to the bearings which would cause wear. Not to mention the oil im using is my own formulation, its a mixture of synthetic 0w5 oil and Zinc dialkyldithiophosphates. For those that do know know what Zinc dialkyldithophosphate or ZDDP is it is a very good antiwear additive preventing wear on metal on metal surfaces under high shear situations. The bearings being used in my setup even without the auto oiler is under zero load other than the weight of the rotor which is minescule compared to the load the bearings are designed for.

There don't have to be 'extreme' forces. Normal forces are sufficient. And there are no friction-less surfaces. Oil is not a perfect lubricant. If it was a perfect lubricant, it wouldn't need replacing.

On the very first part you posted I have to make this comment. You say if there is waste and/or wear it will eventually stop on its own. I just have to know how is waste going to stop a motor from spinning when it doesnt consume anything?

Even assuming it really does otherwise run on its own, wear means it is consuming the parts. At the very least you have admitted it is consuming oil.

Oil as a lubricant will last a very long time in high shear, high temperature, and high stress systems but when you put it into a system that has no high shears, no high temperatures, and no high stress lubrication you now take that long lasting lubricant and make it last twenty times longer.

Twenty times longer reveals a set life time. There doesn't have to be high stress. There is constant low stress. By the way, even the magnets themselves eventually wear out, albeit over a very long process.

[Archived Post]

Funny that you sling insults calling someone a troll when their not. Is that how it works? label someone a troll when you dont agree with what they have to say?

More a matter of the thread getting rather off topic.... which is fair comment.

[Archived Post]

perpetual motion would only be possible if the universe had no friction , gravity or entropy
Sorry

[Archived Post]

But it is not continuing forever nor occurring continually. The bearings eventually wear out without outside intervention. (Actually they will cease up before that). The fact that there is a bearing life proves it is not perpetual.



There don't have to be 'extreme' forces. Normal forces are sufficient. And there are no friction-less surfaces. Oil is not a perfect lubricant. If it was a perfect lubricant, it wouldn't need replacing.



Even assuming it really does otherwise run on its own, wear means it is consuming the parts. At the very least you have admitted it is consuming oil.



Twenty times longer reveals a set life time. There doesn't have to be high stress. There is constant low stress. By the way, even the magnets themselves eventually wear out, albeit over a very long process.

Bearings wont seize up without being heated up. Like wise bearings wont wear out without outside intervention. It depends on the type of bearing you use. If you use needle bearings they have a different life span than roller bearings. Needle bearings can last 40 years with an intial lubrication before they finally fail. But they typically 9 times out of 10 fail due to the seal becoming broken allowing the needle rollers to start to rust which results in them being ground into powder. Roller bearings last longer than needle bearings because they are built out of a stainless steel composition on the rollers which means even if moisture got on them they wouldnt rust creating a rough rolling surface resulting in friction.

On the topic of oil, its obvious you dont know much about oil. Oil is a good lubricant, the reason why it needs replacing? Do you know why it needs to be replaced?

I bet you dont so I will tell you why. In a vehicle your oil needs to be replaced because it becomes contanimated from combustion blowby. This is why your motor oil turns black and eventually needs to be replaced is it becomes so contanimated by the combustion process that it becomes diliuted by fuel. Then if you let your car sit and dont run the engine enough the hot-cot-hot temperature fluxuations results in your aluminum or cast iron block sweating putting moisture in your oil, if you dont run the engine at operating temperatures enough you now have your oil contanimated by water which turns it acidic.

In the end convential motor oils dont have to be replaced that often. There are diesel trucks running 40,000 miles on the same oil easily. The problem is people change their oil even if it doesnt need to be changed. If you take an oil sample and send it to an oil test facility they can tell you if your oil is still good or if it needs to be replaced. For mine the factory calls for 8,000 mile oil changes on convential motor oil and the oil test facility told me I could go 15,000 miles on convential motor oil before it needs to be replaced. Synthetic motor oil is recomended by the factory to be changed at 10,000 miles, I've seen it still lubricate like it was when it was new at 50,000 miles.

So please dont try to pin a misconception about oil change intervals as a example to oil being a bad lubricant.

But heres the thing the materials that the machine is made out of require extreme pressures to result in wear. If you take two kitchen knives and just rub the blades together with about 1 lb of pressure would you wear a groove into those knives? The answer is maybe since those knives are most likely stainless china. Now you try that with stainless steel which is harder than stainless china, you now got something that can handle the 1 lb of pressure with less chance of wear. If you select the right materials for the job you have a better product. Thats like Polyurethane bushings are better than Rubber cause not only do they last longer but they are self lubricating unlike rubber.

You fail to comprehend what is ment by consuming. The machine isnt consuming oil to run, it is consuming oil to lubricate bearing surfaces but the thing is though it doesnt need the oil to run. So it is not consuming anything to work. If you take and put oil in your engine to lubricate it, is it consuming that oil to run? No cause if it was consuming that lubrication it would require you to add oil constantly as the engine runs. The consumption of a fluid to power something and the consumption of a fluid to either cool or lubricate are not the same thing.

The magnets will wear out, but the point is the magnets wont wear out in our life time or even our grandkids life time. That is why we label them permanet magnets even though they dont last forever.

[Archived Post]

More a matter of the thread getting rather off topic.... which is fair comment.

Oh so its ok to sling insults and call someone names just cause they are holding a conversation which is basically on topic. The topic of this is about Gene's vision being realistic and technology was discussed so how is discussion of technology off topic just cause someone doesnt agree with it but yet its perfectly on topic when you point out how something cant exsist.

The end of the matter is we are constantly learning and constantly changing our ideas and views of the universe. That is why Einsteins views are being questioned now as we have satellites orbiting and doing things that dont follow what Einstein proclaimed.

[Archived Post]

Oil being a good or even excellent lubricant is not identical to oil being a perfect lubricant.

Whether the magnets (or any other part) wears out in our lifetimes doesn't change the fact they wear out, and therefore the system is not perpetual. 'A very long time' does not equal 'forever,' not in this context.

Playing semantics with the term 'consuming' doesn't change the system. The oil is part of the system. Without the oil providing lubrication, the system fails.

And this is still off topic (unless maybe as an example of how far we are from Gene's dream, by way of showing the level of disagreement in our current system)

[Archived Post]

Oil being a good or even excellent lubricant is not identical to oil being a perfect lubricant.

Whether the magnets (or any other part) wears out in our lifetimes doesn't change the fact they wear out, and therefore the system is not perpetual. 'A very long time' does not equal 'forever,' not in this context.

Playing semantics with the term 'consuming' doesn't change the system. The oil is part of the system. Without the oil providing lubrication, the system fails.

And this is still off topic (unless maybe as an example of how far we are from Gene's dream, by way of showing the level of disagreement in our current system)

But you just said oil is a bad lubricant cause it has to be changed and I pointed out that oil isnt a bad lubricant cause the reason it has to be chanced is not related to the oil wearing out. Dont try to change what you mean to get around the facts I pointed out.

lol Ive done said what is it now four times or is it five, I dont have to use the oil system, the system wont fail without oil its just a added feature I put on cause I wanted it on there.

As far as being off topic, if its so off topic why do you keep replying to off topic posts then if you feel it is so off topic? Just a logical question considering that if you complain about something being done you dont keep humoring what you are complaining about. So it is obvious to me that you are looking for things to argue about and that I wouldnt be suprised if youd try to argue with me telling me the sun isnt white but yellow.

[Archived Post]

As far as being off topic, if its so off topic why do you keep replying to off topic posts then if you feel it is so off topic?.

Because I have a nigh uncontrollable urge to correct confusion of the level you are presenting. You are correct, though. I'll stop replying past this post. Good luck with your theories.

[Archived Post]

Because I have a nigh uncontrollable urge to correct confusion of the level you are presenting. You are correct, though. I'll stop replying past this post. Good luck with your theories.

Yea I had the same problem with correcting people. Now I just tell myself that their just stupid and let them remain stupid. Which is probably why I shouldnt have put so much effort in explaining about oil and other fields that most people here wouldnt know anything about.

[Archived Post]

Yea I had the same problem with correcting people. Now I just tell myself that their just stupid and let them remain stupid. Which is probably why I shouldnt have put so much effort in explaining about oil and other fields that most people here wouldnt know anything about.
I found your information to be most interesting.

:)

[Archived Post]

We have something to strive towards if we look for the high ideals, whether we start off thinking them realistic or unrealistic. If we throw our hands up in the air, and say, "Well, the world is hell, so let's just eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," then no doubt we end up wallowing in our misery. But if we give hope for the future, then we're motivated to search for solutions, no matter how insurmountable they may at first appear.

That's it exactly. We have to keep trying to make a utopian future, regardless of whether it's possible or not. Otherwise, there's basically no reason for humanity to exist.