On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:20:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/26/2024 6:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:18:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/26/2024 6:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:20:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/26/2024 3:08 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:10:55 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri Apr 26 09:16:27 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>>>> <https://ktla.com/news/local-news/suv-overturns-at-end-of-violent-pursuit-crash-in-los-angeles/>
>>>>>>>> <https://ktla.com/news/local-news/colombian-man-identified-as-cyclist-killed-by-fleeing-driver-in-los-angeles/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>> The page you are looking for can
>>>>>>> The story, page, or video you were trying to access may have been moved.
>>>>>>> There might have been a typo in the link you used to get here.
>>>>>>> 404
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PAGE NOT FOUND
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like this?
>>>>>> <https://ktla.com/junk.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some possible causes:
>>>>>> 1. You typed on the keyboard the long URL instead of clicking on it.
>>>>>> Don't do that. Use the mouse.
>>>>>> 2. The long link got word-wrapped by whatever browser you're using
>>>>>> for a news reader. Browsers don't like it when you add a CR and/or LF
>>>>>> in the middle of a URL.
>>>>>> 3. Your computer is infected with malware. Specifically, a browser
>>>>>> hijacker that redirects some (not all) of your URL's to a scam or fake
>>>>>> web side. Unlikely since you successfully displayed the KTLA error
>>>>>> page, but worth checking anyway. I suggest Malwarebytes (free).
>>>>>> <https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/browser-hijacker>
>>>>>> 4. The KTLA web server does not like your political activities.
>>>>>> Apologize to the KTLA web server and perhaps they'll let you look at
>>>>>> their web pages.
>>>>>> 5. The aliens have landed and are in the process of taking over
>>>>>> starting with your computer. Surrender now and they might let you
>>>>>> live.
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe but it looks like they've had enough of Oakland for
>>>>> the moment.
>>>>
>>>> KTLA is not in Oakland, CA. Their studios are on the Sunset Strip in
>>>> Smog Angeles and their transmitters is on top of Mt Wilson.
>>>>
>>>>> They're in New York this week:
>>>>> https://truenews.media/2024/04/26/woman-films-ufo-flying-over-new-york-city/
>>>>> and Da Gummit is covering up, "she has not heard back from
>>>>> the Federal Aviation Administration".
>>>>
>>>> That's a camera with an amazing depth of field. It can focus on
>>>> everything that is on the ground, which might as well be infinity and
>>>> the very close window frame:
>>>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=218>
>>>> It can also focus on something yellow attached to the airplane, which
>>>> seems to be a few feet away:
>>>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=30>
>>>> However, the UFO in between the window and the ground is out of focus.
>>>>
>>>> Equally amazing is how they managed to make a stable and well framed
>>>> video when the nearest window is not very close to where they were
>>>> sitting. The airplane is flying at fairly low altitude and slow
>>>> enough to be landing. Unfortunately, I can't see if they are wearing
>>>> seat belts. To take a photo out the nearest window, they would need
>>>> to remove their seat belts.
>>>>
>>>> Their UFO expert (Ben Hanson) mentions that the UFO was flying at 200
>>>> mph. He also mentioned that it was visible for 1/7th of a second in 5
>>>> video frames going in the direction opposite the aircraft. Yet, there
>>>> was no visible turbulence as it passed. Commercial jets fly at about
>>>> 150 to 160 mph on approach. If the UFO was flying at 200 mph in the
>>>> opposite direction, the jet would need to be landing at 40 mph to
>>>> appear to by flying at 200 mph. That's not likely.
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally, the National UFO Recording Center logs a fairly large
>>>> number of sightings every month:
>>>> <https://nuforc.org/map/>
>>>> Looking at their reports, it will take another month to have the
>>>> sighting appear on their web pages.
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally, I say something like a UFO in the early 1970's. I was
>>>> on a mountain top radio site at about 4,000 ft altitude. In the
>>>> distance, I could see something moving at the same altitude. It was
>>>> moving very slowly, which gave me enough time to find where I had
>>>> buried the binoculars in the company service truck. As the UFO came
>>>> closer, it was still difficult to recognize what it was. Flying
>>>> before me was the majestic sight of an inverted camping tent.
>>>> Something like this:
>>>> <https://www.coleman.com/tents-canopies/collections/skydome-tents/>
>>>> No, I didn't report it. I later asked the park ranger in the nearby
>>>> fire lookout if this was a common event. He said it happens a few
>>>> times each year during camping season:
>>>> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11362033/Upside-flying-tent-launched-hundreds-feet-Florida-sky-delights-social-media.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course it was out of focus. As are Nessie, Bigfoot,
>>> zombies and ghosts.
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that if "aliens" can figure out how to get here from
>> many light years away, they can figure out how to keep us from
>> spotting them.
>
>They were good at deceiving airport radar but not one woman
>out of a few hundred passengers on that airliner? Right.

I'm amazed that so many people are gullible enough to believe the BS.
I see the talking head morons report it on TV news along with their
other nonsense.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:44:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:58:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 4/26/2024 7:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:20:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They're in New York this week:
>>>> https://truenews.media/2024/04/26/woman-films-ufo-flying-over-new-york-city/
>>>> and Da Gummit is covering up, "she has not heard back from
>>>> the Federal Aviation Administration".
>>>
>>> That's a camera with an amazing depth of field. It can focus on
>>> everything that is on the ground, which might as well be infinity and
>>> the very close window frame:
>>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=218>
>>> It can also focus on something yellow attached to the airplane, which
>>> seems to be a few feet away:
>>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=30>
>>> However, the UFO in between the window and the ground is out of focus.
>>
>>They're talking about the object moving very fast. Have they considered
>>that the plane is moving very fast, and the object may be nearby and
>>nearly stationary? Something akin to a helium balloon?
>
>In order to achieve zero relative motions, the airplane and the UFO
>must be moving in the same direction. In this UFO case, they are
>moving in opposite directions, which makes it impossible for the
>relative motion to equal zero (stationary) unless both UFO and
>airplane were not moving.
>
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> Incidentally, I say something like a UFO in the early 1970's. I was
>>> on a mountain top radio site at about 4,000 ft altitude. In the
>>> distance, I could see something moving at the same altitude. It was
>>> moving very slowly, which gave me enough time to find where I had
>>> buried the binoculars in the company service truck. As the UFO came
>>> closer, it was still difficult to recognize what it was. Flying
>>> before me was the majestic sight of an inverted camping tent.
>
>>My one true UFO sort-of sighting occurred at night in my back yard. I
>>say "sort of" because what I actually saw was a very large dark shape
>>obscuring the stars at it silently moved west.
>
>That would make a good opening scene for a science fiction movie.
>
>>My best guess is that it was a blimp (Goodyear has them about 60 miles
>>west of here) that for some reason was proceeding homeward in stealth
>>mode at that moment.
>
>Never mind on the sci-fi movie. Nobody would believe that aliens
>arrived on earth in lighter than air UFO's.

I think you greatly underestimate the gullibility of the vast majority
of humans. Just look at the staged garbage people watch on TV that's
purported to be "reality."

On 4/26/2024 11:44 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:58:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/2024 7:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:20:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They're in New York this week:
>>>> https://truenews.media/2024/04/26/woman-films-ufo-flying-over-new-york-city/
>>>> and Da Gummit is covering up, "she has not heard back from
>>>> the Federal Aviation Administration".
>>>
>>> That's a camera with an amazing depth of field. It can focus on
>>> everything that is on the ground, which might as well be infinity and
>>> the very close window frame:
>>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=218>
>>> It can also focus on something yellow attached to the airplane, which
>>> seems to be a few feet away:
>>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=30>
>>> However, the UFO in between the window and the ground is out of focus.
>>
>> They're talking about the object moving very fast. Have they considered
>> that the plane is moving very fast, and the object may be nearby and
>> nearly stationary? Something akin to a helium balloon?
>
> In order to achieve zero relative motions, the airplane and the UFO
> must be moving in the same direction. In this UFO case, they are
> moving in opposite directions, which makes it impossible for the
> relative motion to equal zero (stationary) unless both UFO and
> airplane were not moving.
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Incidentally, I say something like a UFO in the early 1970's. I was
>>> on a mountain top radio site at about 4,000 ft altitude. In the
>>> distance, I could see something moving at the same altitude. It was
>>> moving very slowly, which gave me enough time to find where I had
>>> buried the binoculars in the company service truck. As the UFO came
>>> closer, it was still difficult to recognize what it was. Flying
>>> before me was the majestic sight of an inverted camping tent.
>
>> My one true UFO sort-of sighting occurred at night in my back yard. I
>> say "sort of" because what I actually saw was a very large dark shape
>> obscuring the stars at it silently moved west.
>
> That would make a good opening scene for a science fiction movie.
>
>> My best guess is that it was a blimp (Goodyear has them about 60 miles
>> west of here) that for some reason was proceeding homeward in stealth
>> mode at that moment.
>
> Never mind on the sci-fi movie. Nobody would believe that aliens
> arrived on earth in lighter than air UFO's.
>
>> Unfortunately I don't remember the wind direction
>> that day.
>
> That's the problem with most unexplained UFO sightings. If the
> observers were better educated in making observations, there would be
> more numbers and physics to work with, which would then make it easier
> to prove or disprove the sighting. It's the little things, like the
> yellow tag on the outside of the airplane that are lost in most
> sightings and reports.
>
> Conventional wisdom suggests that if we ever meet extra-terrestrials
> with superior knowledge and technology, they will try to kill and eat
> us. That's wrong. They will probably try to sell us things that are
> eventually found to be a scam.

https://archive.org/details/galaxymagazine-1950-11/page/n91/mode/2up?view=theater

>
>

On 4/26/2024 10:44 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:58:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/2024 7:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:20:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They're in New York this week:
>>>> https://truenews.media/2024/04/26/woman-films-ufo-flying-over-new-york-city/
>>>> and Da Gummit is covering up, "she has not heard back from
>>>> the Federal Aviation Administration".
>>>
>>> That's a camera with an amazing depth of field. It can focus on
>>> everything that is on the ground, which might as well be infinity and
>>> the very close window frame:
>>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=218>
>>> It can also focus on something yellow attached to the airplane, which
>>> seems to be a few feet away:
>>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=30>
>>> However, the UFO in between the window and the ground is out of focus.
>>
>> They're talking about the object moving very fast. Have they considered
>> that the plane is moving very fast, and the object may be nearby and
>> nearly stationary? Something akin to a helium balloon?
>
> In order to achieve zero relative motions, the airplane and the UFO
> must be moving in the same direction. In this UFO case, they are
> moving in opposite directions, which makes it impossible for the
> relative motion to equal zero (stationary) unless both UFO and
> airplane were not moving.
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Incidentally, I say something like a UFO in the early 1970's. I was
>>> on a mountain top radio site at about 4,000 ft altitude. In the
>>> distance, I could see something moving at the same altitude. It was
>>> moving very slowly, which gave me enough time to find where I had
>>> buried the binoculars in the company service truck. As the UFO came
>>> closer, it was still difficult to recognize what it was. Flying
>>> before me was the majestic sight of an inverted camping tent.
>
>> My one true UFO sort-of sighting occurred at night in my back yard. I
>> say "sort of" because what I actually saw was a very large dark shape
>> obscuring the stars at it silently moved west.
>
> That would make a good opening scene for a science fiction movie.
>
>> My best guess is that it was a blimp (Goodyear has them about 60 miles
>> west of here) that for some reason was proceeding homeward in stealth
>> mode at that moment.
>
> Never mind on the sci-fi movie. Nobody would believe that aliens
> arrived on earth in lighter than air UFO's.
>
>> Unfortunately I don't remember the wind direction
>> that day.
>
> That's the problem with most unexplained UFO sightings. If the
> observers were better educated in making observations, there would be
> more numbers and physics to work with, which would then make it easier
> to prove or disprove the sighting. It's the little things, like the
> yellow tag on the outside of the airplane that are lost in most
> sightings and reports.
>
> Conventional wisdom suggests that if we ever meet extra-terrestrials
> with superior knowledge and technology, they will try to kill and eat
> us. That's wrong. They will probably try to sell us things that are
> eventually found to be a scam.
>
>

So you think they're well established here already.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri Apr 26 15:58:58 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/26/2024 2:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 4/26/2024 1:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> On Fri Apr 26 09:16:27 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:26:54 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I can read the article but my antivirus blocks that video.
> >>>
> >>> Neither URL posted by Andrew contains a video:
> >>> <https://ktla.com/news/local-news/suv-overturns-at-end-of-violent-pursuit-crash-in-los-angeles/ " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://ktla.com/news/local-news/suv-overturns-at-end-of-violent-pursuit-crash-in-los-angeles/>
> >>> <https://ktla.com/news/local-news/colombian-man-identified-as-cyclist-killed-by-fleeing-driver-in-los-angeles/>
> >>> The caption on the first photo claims that it was taken from a "video
> >>> obtained by KTLA", but the image is a JPG.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
> >>> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> >>> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> >>> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Were sorry!
> >> The page you are looking for cant be found.
> >> The story, page, or video you were trying to access may have been moved.
> >> There might have been a typo in the link you used to get here.
> >>
> >>
> >> 404
> >>
> >> PAGE NOT FOUND
> >
> > Displayed for me yesterday, two hours ago ( from Mr Liebermann's
> > comment) and again just now:
> >
> > https://ktla.com/news/local-news/suv-overturns-at-end-of-violent-pursuit-crash-in-los-angeles/
>
> Me too.
>
> Tom has so many problems!

Yeah, I just can't figure out how to spend all of the money I have, while you have nothing more than a teachers retirement.. And I know what that is like since my wife is on a teacher's retirement. If her father, who was a preacher, didn't buy a lot of property when it was cheap and the kids could rent it out, she would be broke. So, Franky baby - there you are riding a 30 year old 7 speed freewheel bike telling everytone what problems I have. Do you HAVE to prove yourself a nitwit with EVERY posting. In person if you said something like that to me I would break both of your arms and your jaw. Why don't you tell us all that you have a medical friend that said I couldn't do that? Or maybe refer us to a Wikipedia article that isn't accepted in any college on research papers because they are writeen by people like you?

I have SOOO many problems but your life is heaven on Earth. I wonder that you don't have the slightest idea what you sound like.

On Sat Apr 27 03:46:33 2024 Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:44:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:58:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> ><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On 4/26/2024 7:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:20:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> They're in New York this week:
> >>>> https://truenews.media/2024/04/26/woman-films-ufo-flying-over-new-york-city/
> >>>> and Da Gummit is covering up, "she has not heard back from
> >>>> the Federal Aviation Administration".
> >>>
> >>> That's a camera with an amazing depth of field. It can focus on
> >>> everything that is on the ground, which might as well be infinity and
> >>> the very close window frame:
> >>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=218>
> >>> It can also focus on something yellow attached to the airplane, which
> >>> seems to be a few feet away:
> >>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=30>
> >>> However, the UFO in between the window and the ground is out of focus.
> >>
> >>They're talking about the object moving very fast. Have they considered
> >>that the plane is moving very fast, and the object may be nearby and
> >>nearly stationary? Something akin to a helium balloon?
> >
> >In order to achieve zero relative motions, the airplane and the UFO
> >must be moving in the same direction. In this UFO case, they are
> >moving in opposite directions, which makes it impossible for the
> >relative motion to equal zero (stationary) unless both UFO and
> >airplane were not moving.
> >
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>> Incidentally, I say something like a UFO in the early 1970's. I was
> >>> on a mountain top radio site at about 4,000 ft altitude. In the
> >>> distance, I could see something moving at the same altitude. It was
> >>> moving very slowly, which gave me enough time to find where I had
> >>> buried the binoculars in the company service truck. As the UFO came
> >>> closer, it was still difficult to recognize what it was. Flying
> >>> before me was the majestic sight of an inverted camping tent.
> >
> >>My one true UFO sort-of sighting occurred at night in my back yard. I
> >>say "sort of" because what I actually saw was a very large dark shape
> >>obscuring the stars at it silently moved west.
> >
> >That would make a good opening scene for a science fiction movie.
> >
> >>My best guess is that it was a blimp (Goodyear has them about 60 miles
> >>west of here) that for some reason was proceeding homeward in stealth
> >>mode at that moment.
> >
> >Never mind on the sci-fi movie. Nobody would believe that aliens
> >arrived on earth in lighter than air UFO's.
>
> I think you greatly underestimate the gullibility of the vast majority
> of humans. Just look at the staged garbage people watch on TV that's
> purported to be "reality."

You are far overestimating the gullibility of people. Uneducated youths fed on the pablum of comic books can be exoected to believe anying. And the news media is more than willing to sensationalize that merely for profit.

On Sat Apr 27 07:07:56 2024 AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/26/2024 10:44 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:58:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/26/2024 7:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:20:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> They're in New York this week:
> >>>> https://truenews.media/2024/04/26/woman-films-ufo-flying-over-new-york-city/
> >>>> and Da Gummit is covering up, "she has not heard back from
> >>>> the Federal Aviation Administration".
> >>>
> >>> That's a camera with an amazing depth of field. It can focus on
> >>> everything that is on the ground, which might as well be infinity and
> >>> the very close window frame:
> >>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=218>
> >>> It can also focus on something yellow attached to the airplane, which
> >>> seems to be a few feet away:
> >>> <https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?t=30>
> >>> However, the UFO in between the window and the ground is out of focus.
> >>
> >> They're talking about the object moving very fast. Have they considered
> >> that the plane is moving very fast, and the object may be nearby and
> >> nearly stationary? Something akin to a helium balloon?
> >
> > In order to achieve zero relative motions, the airplane and the UFO
> > must be moving in the same direction. In this UFO case, they are
> > moving in opposite directions, which makes it impossible for the
> > relative motion to equal zero (stationary) unless both UFO and
> > airplane were not moving.
> >
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> Incidentally, I say something like a UFO in the early 1970's. I was
> >>> on a mountain top radio site at about 4,000 ft altitude. In the
> >>> distance, I could see something moving at the same altitude. It was
> >>> moving very slowly, which gave me enough time to find where I had
> >>> buried the binoculars in the company service truck. As the UFO came
> >>> closer, it was still difficult to recognize what it was. Flying
> >>> before me was the majestic sight of an inverted camping tent.
> >
> >> My one true UFO sort-of sighting occurred at night in my back yard. I
> >> say "sort of" because what I actually saw was a very large dark shape
> >> obscuring the stars at it silently moved west.
> >
> > That would make a good opening scene for a science fiction movie.
> >
> >> My best guess is that it was a blimp (Goodyear has them about 60 miles
> >> west of here) that for some reason was proceeding homeward in stealth
> >> mode at that moment.
> >
> > Never mind on the sci-fi movie. Nobody would believe that aliens
> > arrived on earth in lighter than air UFO's.
> >
> >> Unfortunately I don't remember the wind direction
> >> that day.
> >
> > That's the problem with most unexplained UFO sightings. If the
> > observers were better educated in making observations, there would be
> > more numbers and physics to work with, which would then make it easier
> > to prove or disprove the sighting. It's the little things, like the
> > yellow tag on the outside of the airplane that are lost in most
> > sightings and reports.
> >
> > Conventional wisdom suggests that if we ever meet extra-terrestrials
> > with superior knowledge and technology, they will try to kill and eat
> > us. That's wrong. They will probably try to sell us things that are
> > eventually found to be a scam.
> >
> >
>
> So you think they're well established here already.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> am@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>

I have always wondered what would be a driving force for intellgent life (were there any) to not only spend their entiire lives on a trip for which they could never see any result but several generations of their progeny as well, on the spectacularlyslim chance that there would even be an inhabitable planet at the end of a several thousand year journey.

It would also be impossible to carry the provisions not to mention the taste of recycled pee on the 25th generation.

The entire fiction hinges on the supposition that the speed of light could be exceeded not by one or two times but a hundred or more. There is NO sciece that even hints that the speed of light can be exceeded even marginally.

So like the Lock Ness Monster this is a belief only of the intensely gullible.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 03:32:27 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>I'm amazed that so many people are gullible enough to believe the BS.
>I see the talking head morons report it on TV news along with their
>other nonsense.

Don't blame the messenger. The TV news regurgitators are paid to
deliver whatever message their management finds profitable. For TV,
it would be whatever the audience wants to see, such a death, doom,
destruction, disaster embellished with a little science fiction. If
there's any time left, it goes to promoting the sponsors products. The
only attribute required from the TV personality is to deliver the
message in a convincing manner. This is not easy and only a few
announcers and commentators are able to do it effectively. That's why
Walter Cronkite was called "the most trusted man in America":
<https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/opinion/brinkley-walter-cronkite/index.html>
In many cases, the announcer or commentator has no knowledge of the
material he's delivering. All that's important is that he delivers it
in a convincing manner. As a group, announcers are not unintelligent
morons. If they were, some of their lack of intelligence would
eventually leak through to the viewers. Think of them as actors, who
are paid to present a fanciful tale in a believable manner.

For myself, absence of (UFO) evidence does not constitute evidence of
absence. Show me some believable proof, and I will magically
transform into a believer. I can wait.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 03:46:33 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>I think you greatly underestimate the gullibility of the vast majority
>of humans. Just look at the staged garbage people watch on TV that's
>purported to be "reality."

Look again. Reality TV has a large and growing audience.
"Must-Know Reality Shows Statistics"
<https://gitnux.org/reality-shows-statistics/>
If you watch enough Reality TV, you might notice a pattern.

The contrived plots in Reality TV are about as real as the situation
comedies of the 1960's. The formula is to put some people in a weird
and entertaining situation, present them with multiple problems to
solve and see how they react. That's been the plot line since the
Greeks and the Hero's Journey:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey>
Adjust the characters and plot for today's environment, and you have
modern Reality TV. Predictably, even the Greek Chorus:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_chorus>
is present in Reality TV by the mob of extras crammed into the
situation. Sometimes, we call them "cheerleaders".

Note that even the TV documentaries, which are suppose to be accurate,
honest and truthful, are tweaked to accommodate today's norms,
politics, fads, and sponsors. Be careful for what you wish for. If
TV was required to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, it would
likely be as unbelievable as Reality TV. People don't want to see the
truth. They prefer to keep and see their illusions.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 08:07:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Conventional wisdom suggests that if we ever meet extra-terrestrials
>> with superior knowledge and technology, they will try to kill and eat
>> us. That's wrong. They will probably try to sell us things that are
>> eventually found to be a scam.
>
>https://archive.org/details/galaxymagazine-1950-11/page/n91/mode/2up?view=theater

Yep. I read that classic Sci-Fi story long ago. It's very
appropriate. It's also the reason that I emphasize knowing the
motivations of those I deal with. Not so much "why are they doing
this" but rather "what problem are they trying to solve". In the
colloquial "what makes them tick". The picture becomes much clearer
(or more transparent) once that's determined. We have behind us an
unpleasant history of dealing with dissimilar races, tribes,
ideologies and political parties. The genocides and "ethnic
cleansing" of our past should serve as a good indication of things to
come should we ever meet. I can't predict how it will transpire but
using our history as a guide, I do know that it will be far worse than
anything we can predict.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/27/2024 12:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 08:07:27 -0400, zen cycle
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Conventional wisdom suggests that if we ever meet extra-terrestrials
>>> with superior knowledge and technology, they will try to kill and eat
>>> us. That's wrong. They will probably try to sell us things that are
>>> eventually found to be a scam.
>>
>> https://archive.org/details/galaxymagazine-1950-11/page/n91/mode/2up?view=theater
>
> Yep. I read that classic Sci-Fi story long ago. It's very
> appropriate. It's also the reason that I emphasize knowing the
> motivations of those I deal with. Not so much "why are they doing
> this" but rather "what problem are they trying to solve". In the
> colloquial "what makes them tick". The picture becomes much clearer
> (or more transparent) once that's determined. We have behind us an
> unpleasant history of dealing with dissimilar races, tribes,
> ideologies and political parties. The genocides and "ethnic
> cleansing" of our past should serve as a good indication of things to
> come should we ever meet. I can't predict how it will transpire but
> using our history as a guide, I do know that it will be far worse than
> anything we can predict.
>
>
>

Probably. Or they may turn out to be docile, numerous and
taste like chicken...
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 07:07:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/26/2024 10:44 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Conventional wisdom suggests that if we ever meet extra-terrestrials
>> with superior knowledge and technology, they will try to kill and eat
>> us. That's wrong. They will probably try to sell us things that are
>> eventually found to be a scam.

>So you think they're well established here already.

If you believe in panspermia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia>
then yes, they're already here. Personally, I don't think we'll need
to wait for the aliens to emerge. We are already trying to create
them with eugenics, gene splicing, GMO's etc and will likely create
our own replacements. Whether it will be human, insect, microbes,
cyborgs, AI or other sci-fi horror is unknown.

So, what problem are we trying to solve? Running out of food might be
a good start. However, we can start mining hydrocarbons (instead of
burning them) which should delay that disaster. Would you care for a
coal tar burger? I think the big problem will be global
overpopulation. Advancing technology has saved our collective
posteriors for many centuries, but I don't believe that it will
continue to do so. Eventually, we will need to limit out population
by means unknown. It won't be pleasant and "having you for dinner"
might become a commonly used phrase. Also, notice that overpopulation
is rarely discussed in the popular media. Nobody wants to hear about
impending doom, especially when there's no immediate solution. I
suppose the aliens might save us, but more likely, they'll take the
easiest path and just eat us.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/27/2024 11:00 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Fri Apr 26 15:58:58 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/26/2024 2:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> Displayed for me yesterday, two hours ago ( from Mr Liebermann's
>>> comment) and again just now:
>>>
>>> https://ktla.com/news/local-news/suv-overturns-at-end-of-violent-pursuit-crash-in-los-angeles/
>>
>> Me too.
>>
>> Tom has so many problems!
>
> Yeah, I just can't figure out how to spend all of the money I have...

One suggestion is to use it to move out of that hellhole you're always
complaining about.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/27/2024 1:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 07:07:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/2024 10:44 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> Conventional wisdom suggests that if we ever meet extra-terrestrials
>>> with superior knowledge and technology, they will try to kill and eat
>>> us. That's wrong. They will probably try to sell us things that are
>>> eventually found to be a scam.
>
>> So you think they're well established here already.
>
> If you believe in panspermia:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia>
> then yes, they're already here. Personally, I don't think we'll need
> to wait for the aliens to emerge. We are already trying to create
> them with eugenics, gene splicing, GMO's etc and will likely create
> our own replacements. Whether it will be human, insect, microbes,
> cyborgs, AI or other sci-fi horror is unknown.
>
> So, what problem are we trying to solve? Running out of food might be
> a good start. However, we can start mining hydrocarbons (instead of
> burning them) which should delay that disaster. Would you care for a
> coal tar burger? I think the big problem will be global
> overpopulation. Advancing technology has saved our collective
> posteriors for many centuries, but I don't believe that it will
> continue to do so. Eventually, we will need to limit out population
> by means unknown. It won't be pleasant and "having you for dinner"
> might become a commonly used phrase. Also, notice that overpopulation
> is rarely discussed in the popular media. Nobody wants to hear about
> impending doom, especially when there's no immediate solution. I
> suppose the aliens might save us, but more likely, they'll take the
> easiest path and just eat us.
>
>

My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
have a lot of those here!

Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
production rises every year on less land with less labor.
Human innovation rocks.

Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
badly.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:12:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 03:32:27 -0400, Catrike Ryder
><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>>I'm amazed that so many people are gullible enough to believe the BS.
>>I see the talking head morons report it on TV news along with their
>>other nonsense.
>
>Don't blame the messenger. The TV news regurgitators are paid to
>deliver whatever message their management finds profitable. For TV,
>it would be whatever the audience wants to see, such a death, doom,
>destruction, disaster embellished with a little science fiction. If
>there's any time left, it goes to promoting the sponsors products. The
>only attribute required from the TV personality is to deliver the
>message in a convincing manner. This is not easy and only a few
>announcers and commentators are able to do it effectively. That's why
>Walter Cronkite was called "the most trusted man in America":
><https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/opinion/brinkley-walter-cronkite/index.html>
>In many cases, the announcer or commentator has no knowledge of the
>material he's delivering. All that's important is that he delivers it
>in a convincing manner. As a group, announcers are not unintelligent
>morons. If they were, some of their lack of intelligence would
>eventually leak through to the viewers.

It does leak through.... regularly...

> Think of them as actors, who
>are paid to present a fanciful tale in a believable manner.
>
>For myself, absence of (UFO) evidence does not constitute evidence of
>absence. Show me some believable proof, and I will magically
>transform into a believer. I can wait.

I don't claim they don't exist, it's just that there's been no
evidence that that they do.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:31:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 03:46:33 -0400, Catrike Ryder
><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>>I think you greatly underestimate the gullibility of the vast majority
>>of humans. Just look at the staged garbage people watch on TV that's
>>purported to be "reality."
>
>Look again. Reality TV has a large and growing audience.
>"Must-Know Reality Shows Statistics"
><https://gitnux.org/reality-shows-statistics/>
>If you watch enough Reality TV, you might notice a pattern.
>
>The contrived plots in Reality TV are about as real as the situation
>comedies of the 1960's. The formula is to put some people in a weird
>and entertaining situation, present them with multiple problems to
>solve and see how they react. That's been the plot line since the
>Greeks and the Hero's Journey:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey>
>Adjust the characters and plot for today's environment, and you have
>modern Reality TV. Predictably, even the Greek Chorus:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_chorus>
>is present in Reality TV by the mob of extras crammed into the
>situation. Sometimes, we call them "cheerleaders".
>
>Note that even the TV documentaries, which are suppose to be accurate,
>honest and truthful, are tweaked to accommodate today's norms,
>politics, fads, and sponsors. Be careful for what you wish for. If
>TV was required to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, it would
>likely be as unbelievable as Reality TV. People don't want to see the
>truth. They prefer to keep and see their illusions.

I could do quite well without "reality TV, in fact I could do quite
well if TV was nothing but old movies, preferably black and white. I
just watched Double Indemnity again a few days ago.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
>sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
>have a lot of those here!

Yep. Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
to the tourists.

>Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
>production rises every year on less land with less labor.
>Human innovation rocks.
>
>Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
>great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
>declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
>Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
>results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
>badly.

Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
more digestible.
"The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q> (21:52)
The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting. Note
that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
even propose a short term trend. When there were benefits to having
many children, birth rate and fertility increase. When the benefits
are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
and fertility decrease. What happens when the aliens arrive is
unknown. If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens. If
they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids. Or, they might
decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
raising kids. Toss a coin on that one.

Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
the manner initially intended. What it actually did was produce a
radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise. It didn't
change China's political system in the slightest. The result was a
spectacular increase in the standard of living. The birth rate is now
decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
raise large families. It took a while longer than Mao would have
predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
what he indirectly accomplished.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
>> sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
>> have a lot of those here!
>
> Yep. Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
> to the tourists.
>
>> Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
>> production rises every year on less land with less labor.
>> Human innovation rocks.
>>
>> Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
>> great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
>> declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
>> Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
>> results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
>> badly.
>
> Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
> more digestible.
> "The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q> (21:52)
> The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting. Note
> that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
> even propose a short term trend. When there were benefits to having
> many children, birth rate and fertility increase. When the benefits
> are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
> and fertility decrease. What happens when the aliens arrive is
> unknown. If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
> traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens. If
> they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
> it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids. Or, they might
> decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
> raising kids. Toss a coin on that one.
>
> Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
> the manner initially intended. What it actually did was produce a
> radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
> commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise. It didn't
> change China's political system in the slightest. The result was a
> spectacular increase in the standard of living. The birth rate is now
> decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
> raise large families. It took a while longer than Mao would have
> predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
> what he indirectly accomplished.
>
>
>

Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long
drive here early today.

IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life
beyond Earth. But, given the immense distances, highly
unlikely that any two civilizations capable of leaving their
own planet would ever encounter one another.

Add in the time constraint and it's virtually impossible. By
time constraint, I'm thinking of civilization durability
over galactic time periods. If one posits a couple of very
successful life forms which each develop over say 50,000
years in different parts of this or another galaxy or
galaxies, it's unlikely they would be contemporaries. This
is again on top of the geography problem, so multiplying
probabilities you start to approach zero here.

And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment
in NASA press releases about exoplanets which 'could support
life'. pfffft, how parochial and narrow minded. There's no
reason to limit a 'life form' to compatibility with human
respiration of our atmosphere, our operating temperature
range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life
outside of carbon chemistry.

All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and
one man's opinion.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:29:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
>>> sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
>>> have a lot of those here!
>>
>> Yep. Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
>> to the tourists.
>>
>>> Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
>>> production rises every year on less land with less labor.
>>> Human innovation rocks.
>>>
>>> Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
>>> great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
>>> declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
>>> Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
>>> results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
>>> badly.
>>
>> Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
>> more digestible.
>> "The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q> (21:52)
>> The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting. Note
>> that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
>> even propose a short term trend. When there were benefits to having
>> many children, birth rate and fertility increase. When the benefits
>> are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
>> and fertility decrease. What happens when the aliens arrive is
>> unknown. If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
>> traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens. If
>> they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
>> it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids. Or, they might
>> decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
>> raising kids. Toss a coin on that one.
>>
>> Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
>> the manner initially intended. What it actually did was produce a
>> radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
>> commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise. It didn't
>> change China's political system in the slightest. The result was a
>> spectacular increase in the standard of living. The birth rate is now
>> decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
>> raise large families. It took a while longer than Mao would have
>> predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
>> what he indirectly accomplished.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long
>drive here early today.
>
>IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life
>beyond Earth. But, given the immense distances, highly
>unlikely that any two civilizations capable of leaving their
>own planet would ever encounter one another.
>
>Add in the time constraint and it's virtually impossible. By
>time constraint, I'm thinking of civilization durability
>over galactic time periods. If one posits a couple of very
>successful life forms which each develop over say 50,000
>years in different parts of this or another galaxy or
>galaxies, it's unlikely they would be contemporaries. This
>is again on top of the geography problem, so multiplying
>probabilities you start to approach zero here.
>
>And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment
>in NASA press releases about exoplanets which 'could support
>life'. pfffft, how parochial and narrow minded. There's no
>reason to limit a 'life form' to compatibility with human
>respiration of our atmosphere, our operating temperature
>range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
>unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life
>outside of carbon chemistry.
>
>All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and
>one man's opinion.

Well said

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:29:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
>>> sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
>>> have a lot of those here!
>>
>> Yep. Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
>> to the tourists.
>>
>>> Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
>>> production rises every year on less land with less labor.
>>> Human innovation rocks.
>>>
>>> Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
>>> great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
>>> declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
>>> Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
>>> results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
>>> badly.
>>
>> Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
>> more digestible.
>> "The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q> (21:52)
>> The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting. Note
>> that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
>> even propose a short term trend. When there were benefits to having
>> many children, birth rate and fertility increase. When the benefits
>> are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
>> and fertility decrease. What happens when the aliens arrive is
>> unknown. If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
>> traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens. If
>> they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
>> it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids. Or, they might
>> decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
>> raising kids. Toss a coin on that one.
>>
>> Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
>> the manner initially intended. What it actually did was produce a
>> radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
>> commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise. It didn't
>> change China's political system in the slightest. The result was a
>> spectacular increase in the standard of living. The birth rate is now
>> decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
>> raise large families. It took a while longer than Mao would have
>> predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
>> what he indirectly accomplished.

>Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long
>drive here early today.

Guilty as charged and thank you for the credit.

>IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life
>beyond Earth. But, given the immense distances, highly
>unlikely that any two civilizations capable of leaving their
>own planet would ever encounter one another.

True. However, there are plenty of other things in our environment
and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities. For example, the
numerical values of the physical constants control so many things that
are responsible for making our universe and ourselves that suggest
intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets their
values:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
Change any of these even slightly and our universe will fall apart.

>Add in the time constraint and it's virtually impossible. By
>time constraint, I'm thinking of civilization durability
>over galactic time periods. If one posits a couple of very
>successful life forms which each develop over say 50,000
>years in different parts of this or another galaxy or
>galaxies, it's unlikely they would be contemporaries. This
>is again on top of the geography problem, so multiplying
>probabilities you start to approach zero here.

Good thinking. I didn't realize that a notable scientist lived in the
area. Frank Drake, of SETI and the Drake Equation fame, was somehow
convinced to give a talk to our radio club. He was burned out from
giving essentially the same talk to so many clueless audiences that he
just hated talking to our club. Despite this, he gave an excellent
talk on the likelihood of communicating with other civilizations in
the Milky Way. I wish I had made a video:
<https://www.seti.org/drake-equation-index>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=drake+equation>
I'm not going to try an explain how it works, but what you mention is
a part of the puzzle. At this time, the first 4 terms of the equation
have been established or estimated within reasonable limits. However,
the remaining 4 terms are currently just guesses.

>And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment
>in NASA press releases about exoplanets which 'could support
>life'. pfffft, how parochial and narrow minded. There's no
>reason to limit a 'life form' to compatibility with human
>respiration of our atmosphere, our operating temperature
>range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
>unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life
>outside of carbon chemistry.

I beg to partially differ. If we assume that all the known elements
are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
built using the same elements as on planet Earth. "Carbon atoms are
unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
contain thousands of carbon atoms."
<https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.

>All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and
>one man's opinion.

Today's science is no long built on truths, facts and certainty. It's
built on probability. There have been many major discoveries that
were built on guesses, hunches, low probabilities, thought
experiments, casual observation, wishful thinking, etc. It's no
longer possible to judge something as being right or wrong. There is
a huge gray area between right and wrong that is currently the source
material for what we call science. Throw relativity into the puzzle
and everything becomes a probability. There's no need to apologize.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/28/2024 3:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
>>> sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
>>> have a lot of those here!
>>
>> Yep.  Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
>> to the tourists.
>>
>>> Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
>>> production rises every year on less land with less labor.
>>> Human innovation rocks.
>>>
>>> Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
>>> great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
>>> declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
>>> Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
>>> results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
>>> badly.
>>
>> Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
>> more digestible.
>> "The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q>  (21:52)
>> The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting.  Note
>> that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
>> even propose a short term trend.  When there were benefits to having
>> many children, birth rate and fertility increase.  When the benefits
>> are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
>> and fertility decrease.  What happens when the aliens arrive is
>> unknown.  If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
>> traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens.  If
>> they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
>> it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids.  Or, they might
>> decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
>> raising kids.  Toss a coin on that one.
>>
>> Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
>> the manner initially intended.  What it actually did was produce a
>> radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
>> commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise.  It didn't
>> change China's political system in the slightest.  The result was a
>> spectacular increase in the standard of living.  The birth rate is now
>> decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
>> raise large families.  It took a while longer than Mao would have
>> predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
>> what he indirectly accomplished.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long drive here
> early today.
>
> IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life beyond Earth.
> But, given the immense distances, highly unlikely that any two
> civilizations capable of leaving their own planet would ever encounter
> one another.
>
> Add in the time constraint and it's virtually impossible. By time
> constraint, I'm thinking of civilization durability over galactic time
> periods. If one posits a couple of very successful life forms which each
> develop over say 50,000 years in different parts of this or another
> galaxy or galaxies, it's unlikely they would be contemporaries. This is
> again on top of the geography problem, so multiplying probabilities you
> start to approach zero here.
>
> And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment in NASA press
> releases about exoplanets which 'could support life'. pfffft, how
> parochial and narrow minded.  There's no reason to limit a 'life form'
> to compatibility with human respiration of our atmosphere, our operating
> temperature range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
> unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life outside of
> carbon chemistry.
>
> All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and one man's
> opinion.

I wouldn't go so far as 'fact-free', just that you have an
interpretation that others might not have - a compellingly valid position.

WRT exoplanets that could support life, I've always interpreted "as we
know it" was implied. I don't think you'll find a serious cosmologist
who isn't open to the interpretation that life could exist in other
forms, obviously the definition of "life" notwithstanding.
--
Add xx to reply

On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:29:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
>>>> sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
>>>> have a lot of those here!
>>>
>>> Yep. Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
>>> to the tourists.
>>>
>>>> Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
>>>> production rises every year on less land with less labor.
>>>> Human innovation rocks.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
>>>> great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
>>>> declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
>>>> Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
>>>> results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
>>>> badly.
>>>
>>> Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
>>> more digestible.
>>> "The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q> (21:52)
>>> The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting. Note
>>> that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
>>> even propose a short term trend. When there were benefits to having
>>> many children, birth rate and fertility increase. When the benefits
>>> are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
>>> and fertility decrease. What happens when the aliens arrive is
>>> unknown. If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
>>> traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens. If
>>> they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
>>> it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids. Or, they might
>>> decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
>>> raising kids. Toss a coin on that one.
>>>
>>> Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
>>> the manner initially intended. What it actually did was produce a
>>> radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
>>> commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise. It didn't
>>> change China's political system in the slightest. The result was a
>>> spectacular increase in the standard of living. The birth rate is now
>>> decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
>>> raise large families. It took a while longer than Mao would have
>>> predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
>>> what he indirectly accomplished.
>
>> Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long
>> drive here early today.
>
> Guilty as charged and thank you for the credit.
>
>> IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life
>> beyond Earth. But, given the immense distances, highly
>> unlikely that any two civilizations capable of leaving their
>> own planet would ever encounter one another.
>
> True. However, there are plenty of other things in our environment
> and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities. For example, the
> numerical values of the physical constants control so many things that
> are responsible for making our universe and ourselves that suggest
> intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets their
> values:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
> Change any of these even slightly and our universe will fall apart.

AKA the "fine Tuning" argument - generally used as a justification for
"Intelligent Design" arguments

<snip>

>> And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment
>> in NASA press releases about exoplanets which 'could support
>> life'. pfffft, how parochial and narrow minded. There's no
>> reason to limit a 'life form' to compatibility with human
>> respiration of our atmosphere, our operating temperature
>> range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
>> unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life
>> outside of carbon chemistry.
>
> I beg to partially differ. If we assume that all the known elements
> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
> built using the same elements as on planet Earth. "Carbon atoms are
> unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.

That's from our extremely biased perspective. To limit the possibility
to life as we know it simply due t the fact that that's what we know is
- as Andrew notes - myopic at best.

>
>> All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and
>> one man's opinion.
>
> Today's science is no long built on truths, facts and certainty. It's
> built on probability. There have been many major discoveries that
> were built on guesses, hunches, low probabilities, thought
> experiments, casual observation, wishful thinking, etc. It's no
> longer possible to judge something as being right or wrong. There is
> a huge gray area between right and wrong that is currently the source
> material for what we call science. Throw relativity into the puzzle
> and everything becomes a probability. There's no need to apologize.

"In an infinite universe, infinite things are possible" - Carl Sagan

vs

"I suppose the probability exists that the apples could rise back up to
the tress tomorrow, but the possibility doesn't warrant much discussion
time in the science class" - Stephen Jay Gould

>

--
Add xx to reply

On 4/29/2024 10:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:29:37 -0500, AMuzi
>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi
>>>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably
>>>>> try to
>>>>> sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
>>>>> have a lot of those here!
>>>>
>>>> Yep.  Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what
>>>> the locals do
>>>> to the tourists.
>>>>
>>>>> Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World
>>>>> grain
>>>>> production rises every year on less land with less labor.
>>>>> Human innovation rocks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
>>>>> great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
>>>>> declining birth rates, many including USA below
>>>>> replacement.
>>>>> Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look
>>>>> at the
>>>>> results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out
>>>>> very
>>>>> badly.
>>>>
>>>> Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll
>>>> find this video
>>>> more digestible.
>>>> "The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q>  (21:52)
>>>> The part on the changing demographics is rather
>>>> interesting.  Note
>>>> that the author of the video made no attempt to predict
>>>> the future or
>>>> even propose a short term trend.  When there were
>>>> benefits to having
>>>> many children, birth rate and fertility increase.  When
>>>> the benefits
>>>> are less valuable or useful, as is currently the
>>>> situation, birth rate
>>>> and fertility decrease.  What happens when the aliens
>>>> arrive is
>>>> unknown.  If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate
>>>> is what
>>>> traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the
>>>> aliens.  If
>>>> they are friendly and help solve our problems, people
>>>> might think that
>>>> it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids.
>>>> Or, they might
>>>> decide to have a good time and not want to deal with
>>>> difficulties of
>>>> raising kids.  Toss a coin on that one.
>>>>
>>>> Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding
>>>> success, but not in
>>>> the manner initially intended.  What it actually did was
>>>> produce a
>>>> radical change in China's economic policies and opened
>>>> China to trade,
>>>> commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise.
>>>> It didn't
>>>> change China's political system in the slightest.  The
>>>> result was a
>>>> spectacular increase in the standard of living.  The
>>>> birth rate is now
>>>> decreasing because the population have found better
>>>> things to do than
>>>> raise large families.  It took a while longer than Mao
>>>> would have
>>>> predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would
>>>> be proud of
>>>> what he indirectly accomplished.
>>
>>> Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long
>>> drive here early today.
>>
>> Guilty as charged and thank you for the credit.
>>
>>> IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life
>>> beyond Earth. But, given the immense distances, highly
>>> unlikely that any two civilizations capable of leaving their
>>> own planet would ever encounter one another.
>>
>> True.  However, there are plenty of other things in our
>> environment
>> and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities.  For
>> example, the
>> numerical values of the physical constants control so many
>> things that
>> are responsible for making our universe and ourselves that
>> suggest
>> intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets
>> their
>> values:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
>> Change any of these even slightly and our universe will
>> fall apart.
>
> AKA the "fine Tuning" argument - generally used as a
> justification for "Intelligent Design" arguments
>
> <snip>
>
>>> And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment
>>> in NASA press releases about exoplanets which 'could support
>>> life'. pfffft, how parochial and narrow minded.  There's no
>>> reason to limit a 'life form' to compatibility with human
>>> respiration of our atmosphere, our operating temperature
>>> range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
>>> unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life
>>> outside of carbon chemistry.
>>
>> I beg to partially differ.  If we assume that all the
>> known elements
>> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout
>> the universe,
>> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes
>> will be
>> built using the same elements as on planet Earth.  "Carbon
>> atoms are
>> unique because they can bond together to form very long,
>> durable
>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes
>> and often
>> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
>> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively
>> inferior elements
>> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable
>> atom that
>> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other
>> atoms.
>
> That's from our extremely biased perspective. To limit the
> possibility to life as we know it simply due t the fact that
> that's what we know is - as Andrew notes - myopic at best.
>
>>
>>> All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and
>>> one man's opinion.
>>
>> Today's science is no long built on truths, facts and
>> certainty.  It's
>> built on probability.  There have been many major
>> discoveries that
>> were built on guesses, hunches, low probabilities, thought
>> experiments, casual observation, wishful thinking, etc.
>> It's no
>> longer possible to judge something as being right or
>> wrong.  There is
>> a huge gray area between right and wrong that is currently
>> the source
>> material for what we call science.  Throw relativity into
>> the puzzle
>> and everything becomes a probability.  There's no need to
>> apologize.
>
> "In an infinite universe, infinite things are possible" -
> Carl Sagan
>
> vs
>
> "I suppose the probability exists that the apples could rise
> back up to the tress tomorrow, but the possibility doesn't
> warrant much discussion time in the science class" - Stephen
> Jay Gould
>
>>
>

Mixing metaphors the Deity (or Head Bookie) may indeed be
playing dice with the universe as well as rigging the game.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/29/2024 11:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 10:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:29:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
>>>>>> sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
>>>>>> have a lot of those here!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.  Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
>>>>> to the tourists.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
>>>>>> production rises every year on less land with less labor.
>>>>>> Human innovation rocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
>>>>>> great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
>>>>>> declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
>>>>>> Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
>>>>>> results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
>>>>>> badly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
>>>>> more digestible.
>>>>> "The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q>  (21:52)
>>>>> The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting.  Note
>>>>> that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
>>>>> even propose a short term trend.  When there were benefits to having
>>>>> many children, birth rate and fertility increase.  When the benefits
>>>>> are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
>>>>> and fertility decrease.  What happens when the aliens arrive is
>>>>> unknown.  If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
>>>>> traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens.  If
>>>>> they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
>>>>> it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids. Or, they might
>>>>> decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
>>>>> raising kids.  Toss a coin on that one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
>>>>> the manner initially intended.  What it actually did was produce a
>>>>> radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
>>>>> commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise. It didn't
>>>>> change China's political system in the slightest.  The result was a
>>>>> spectacular increase in the standard of living.  The birth rate is now
>>>>> decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
>>>>> raise large families.  It took a while longer than Mao would have
>>>>> predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
>>>>> what he indirectly accomplished.
>>>
>>>> Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long
>>>> drive here early today.
>>>
>>> Guilty as charged and thank you for the credit.
>>>
>>>> IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life
>>>> beyond Earth. But, given the immense distances, highly
>>>> unlikely that any two civilizations capable of leaving their
>>>> own planet would ever encounter one another.
>>>
>>> True.  However, there are plenty of other things in our environment
>>> and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities.  For example, the
>>> numerical values of the physical constants control so many things that
>>> are responsible for making our universe and ourselves that suggest
>>> intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets their
>>> values:
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
>>> Change any of these even slightly and our universe will fall apart.
>>
>> AKA the "fine Tuning" argument - generally used as a justification for
>> "Intelligent Design" arguments
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment
>>>> in NASA press releases about exoplanets which 'could support
>>>> life'. pfffft, how parochial and narrow minded.  There's no
>>>> reason to limit a 'life form' to compatibility with human
>>>> respiration of our atmosphere, our operating temperature
>>>> range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
>>>> unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life
>>>> outside of carbon chemistry.
>>>
>>> I beg to partially differ.  If we assume that all the known elements
>>> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
>>> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
>>> built using the same elements as on planet Earth.  "Carbon atoms are
>>> unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
>>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
>>> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
>>> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
>>> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
>>> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.
>>
>> That's from our extremely biased perspective. To limit the possibility
>> to life as we know it simply due t the fact that that's what we know
>> is - as Andrew notes - myopic at best.
>>
>>>
>>>> All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and
>>>> one man's opinion.
>>>
>>> Today's science is no long built on truths, facts and certainty.  It's
>>> built on probability.  There have been many major discoveries that
>>> were built on guesses, hunches, low probabilities, thought
>>> experiments, casual observation, wishful thinking, etc. It's no
>>> longer possible to judge something as being right or wrong.  There is
>>> a huge gray area between right and wrong that is currently the source
>>> material for what we call science.  Throw relativity into the puzzle
>>> and everything becomes a probability.  There's no need to apologize.
>>
>> "In an infinite universe, infinite things are possible" - Carl Sagan
>>
>> vs
>>
>> "I suppose the probability exists that the apples could rise back up
>> to the tress tomorrow, but the possibility doesn't warrant much
>> discussion time in the science class" - Stephen Jay Gould
>>
>>>
>>
>
> Mixing metaphors the Deity (or Head Bookie) may indeed be playing dice
> with the universe as well as rigging the game.

"I refuse to believe God plays dice with the universe" - Einstein

vs

"who are you to say what god does and does not do with the universe?" -
Niels Bohr

--
Add xx to reply

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:49:44 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/29/2024 11:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/29/2024 10:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:29:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
>>>>>>> sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
>>>>>>> have a lot of those here!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.  Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
>>>>>> to the tourists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
>>>>>>> production rises every year on less land with less labor.
>>>>>>> Human innovation rocks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
>>>>>>> great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
>>>>>>> declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
>>>>>>> Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
>>>>>>> results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
>>>>>>> badly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
>>>>>> more digestible.
>>>>>> "The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q>  (21:52)
>>>>>> The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting.  Note
>>>>>> that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
>>>>>> even propose a short term trend.  When there were benefits to having
>>>>>> many children, birth rate and fertility increase.  When the benefits
>>>>>> are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
>>>>>> and fertility decrease.  What happens when the aliens arrive is
>>>>>> unknown.  If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
>>>>>> traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens.  If
>>>>>> they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
>>>>>> it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids. Or, they might
>>>>>> decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
>>>>>> raising kids.  Toss a coin on that one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
>>>>>> the manner initially intended.  What it actually did was produce a
>>>>>> radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
>>>>>> commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise. It didn't
>>>>>> change China's political system in the slightest.  The result was a
>>>>>> spectacular increase in the standard of living.  The birth rate is now
>>>>>> decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
>>>>>> raise large families.  It took a while longer than Mao would have
>>>>>> predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
>>>>>> what he indirectly accomplished.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long
>>>>> drive here early today.
>>>>
>>>> Guilty as charged and thank you for the credit.
>>>>
>>>>> IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life
>>>>> beyond Earth. But, given the immense distances, highly
>>>>> unlikely that any two civilizations capable of leaving their
>>>>> own planet would ever encounter one another.
>>>>
>>>> True.  However, there are plenty of other things in our environment
>>>> and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities.  For example, the
>>>> numerical values of the physical constants control so many things that
>>>> are responsible for making our universe and ourselves that suggest
>>>> intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets their
>>>> values:
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
>>>> Change any of these even slightly and our universe will fall apart.
>>>
>>> AKA the "fine Tuning" argument - generally used as a justification for
>>> "Intelligent Design" arguments
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment
>>>>> in NASA press releases about exoplanets which 'could support
>>>>> life'. pfffft, how parochial and narrow minded.  There's no
>>>>> reason to limit a 'life form' to compatibility with human
>>>>> respiration of our atmosphere, our operating temperature
>>>>> range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
>>>>> unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life
>>>>> outside of carbon chemistry.
>>>>
>>>> I beg to partially differ.  If we assume that all the known elements
>>>> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
>>>> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
>>>> built using the same elements as on planet Earth.  "Carbon atoms are
>>>> unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
>>>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
>>>> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>>>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
>>>> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
>>>> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
>>>> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.
>>>
>>> That's from our extremely biased perspective. To limit the possibility
>>> to life as we know it simply due t the fact that that's what we know
>>> is - as Andrew notes - myopic at best.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and
>>>>> one man's opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Today's science is no long built on truths, facts and certainty.  It's
>>>> built on probability.  There have been many major discoveries that
>>>> were built on guesses, hunches, low probabilities, thought
>>>> experiments, casual observation, wishful thinking, etc. It's no
>>>> longer possible to judge something as being right or wrong.  There is
>>>> a huge gray area between right and wrong that is currently the source
>>>> material for what we call science.  Throw relativity into the puzzle
>>>> and everything becomes a probability.  There's no need to apologize.
>>>
>>> "In an infinite universe, infinite things are possible" - Carl Sagan
>>>
>>> vs
>>>
>>> "I suppose the probability exists that the apples could rise back up
>>> to the tress tomorrow, but the possibility doesn't warrant much
>>> discussion time in the science class" - Stephen Jay Gould
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Mixing metaphors the Deity (or Head Bookie) may indeed be playing dice
>> with the universe as well as rigging the game.
>
>"I refuse to believe God plays dice with the universe" - Einstein
>
>vs
>
>"who are you to say what god does and does not do with the universe?" -
>Niels Bohr

vs

que sera, sera -- Doris Day