DannyStewart.com Forums

DannyStewart.com Forums (https://forums.dannystewart.com/index.php)
-   General Chat (https://forums.dannystewart.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   Man on Mars? (https://forums.dannystewart.com/showthread.php?t=8862)

Ben Dawson January 25, 2008 4:48 AM

Man on Mars?
 
Ok, this has been all over the news, a picture has been taken by a probe on Mars that shows a figure that looks a lot like a humanoid creature...a lot like the supposed "Bigfoot" I suppose.
Here's a link to an ITN news report, and you make your own mind up.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m5lnavfxZWo&feature=related

I say it could be faked, but the photo is from NASA apparently, so why would they fake it?
It does look suprisingly like the creature shown in the "Patterson Bigfoot" video.
Here's a link below, so you can compare them.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OJIMbBcZgwc&feature=related

So what do YOU think? I'm very interested in what people make of this.
I personally think that the thought of it actually being true is intriguing, and so I'm interested in it. But I also think that it could be easily faked.

Jez January 25, 2008 4:03 PM

To me, they're rocks, but we haven't had a half decent story for people to produce 10,000 theories on for ages so I'm going to humour everybody. ;)

Chris Britton January 25, 2008 5:13 PM

I think aliens are out there, but most certainly not on Mars.

The fact is, all these so called pictures of monsters or aliens are almost always grainy, blurred, small and taken at long range with no hope or zooming in.

The other fact is those Mars Rovers have been damaged and battered and a lot of bits are not working, they are hardly in the best condition at all.

Ross Hendrie January 25, 2008 6:26 PM

Apparently, it's "a 2-inch sedimentary rock that has been eroded by the wind".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Britton
I think aliens are out there, but most certainly not on Mars.

If so, we'll never meet them. Not with the size our universe is, and the astronomical chances of ever travelling at or faster than the speed of light.

Recurring Villain January 25, 2008 7:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie (Post 43736)
If so, we'll never meet them. Not with the size our universe is, and the astronomical chances of ever travelling at or faster than the speed of light.

You don't need to travel at the speed of light. Conventional speeds work just fine. The only limit you have to break is that of the human lifespan. Once death is corrected, the amount of time it takes to get from point A to point B is a trivial matter.

Superkid11 January 25, 2008 10:49 PM

RV's solution is best if it turns out Hyperspace doesn't exist.

Then there's that whole "relativity" deal...

Chris Britton January 26, 2008 7:32 AM

RV makes a good point. If humans can perfect the cryo-stasis technique then it's just a matter of time. Right now we can only freeze dead bodies so we can find the technology to revive them later. Perfect that and we can go anywhere.

Ross Hendrie January 26, 2008 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Britton (Post 43751)
Perfect that and we can go anywhere.

Yeah go anywhere and return to a world completely different from the one we left.

Recurring Villain January 26, 2008 7:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Britton (Post 43751)
RV makes a good point. If humans can perfect the cryo-stasis technique then it's just a matter of time. Right now we can only freeze dead bodies so we can find the technology to revive them later. Perfect that and we can go anywhere.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't talking about temporarily stopping death, I was talking about permanently stopping death. There are actually gene sequences that make us age and die. If you modify those so that you only age up to a certain point, you'll live forever.

Ronnie Rowlands January 26, 2008 7:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain (Post 43796)
There are actually gene sequences that make us age and die. If you modify those so that you only age up to a certain point, you'll live forever.

Piece of piss. How hard can it be? :P

Superkid11 January 26, 2008 9:18 PM

I thought age was just entropy, cells can't keep repairing degraded cells. So I thought the way to prevent death would be to refine and perfect the cells' regeneration capacity. I mean, computers and cars age but they don't have any genetic programming to do so. It's just not as visible as on people.

Chris Britton January 27, 2008 8:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain (Post 43796)
I think you missed my point. I wasn't talking about temporarily stopping death, I was talking about permanently stopping death. There are actually gene sequences that make us age and die. If you modify those so that you only age up to a certain point, you'll live forever.

Yes, in hindsight I did. My mistake. <blush>

Recurring Villain January 27, 2008 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superkid11 (Post 43801)
I thought age was just entropy, cells can't keep repairing degraded cells.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Some researchers (specifically biogerontologists) are treating aging as a disease. As genes that have an effect on aging are discovered, aging is increasingly being regarded in a similar fashion to other genetic conditions, potentially "treatable."

Indeed, aging is not an unavoidable property of life. Instead, it is the result of a genetic program. Numerous species show no sign of aging, the best known being perennial plants (e.g. trees) which can live thousands of years and be multiplied by cuttings without limit. Most microbes and some animals, e.g. amphibians and large fish, also seem to be free of aging. In these species, adults constantly reproduce only to destroy their young, usually by eating them. Therefore, "immortal" species evolve more slowly than "mortal" species.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Superkid11 (Post 43801)
I mean, computers and cars age but they don't have any genetic programming to do so.

They also have no genetic programming to repair or replace their parts, unlike we do.

Quote:

Aging is believed to be favoured by natural selection because it accelerates the evolution rate of a species by increasing the number of generations per unit of time. By dying away, the old individuals liberate the resources for their offsprings, thus increasing their chance of survival. Essentially, aging is the result of investing resources in reproduction rather than maintenance of the body, the "Disposable Soma" theory.
Mankind is almost at the point where natural selection will become irrelevant in the face of genetic engineering and technological developments, particularly nanotechnology. Check out this article if you want to know more.

Ben Dawson January 28, 2008 9:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain (Post 43832)
From Wikipedia:





They also have no genetic programming to repair or replace their parts, unlike we do.



Mankind is almost at the point where natural selection will become irrelevant in the face of genetic engineering and technological developments, particularly nanotechnology. Check out this article if you want to know more.

So what you're saying is that it IS a possibility to become pratically immortal, and that that possibility could become a reality very soon.
There are people who would think that was bad, but maybe it isn't. It COULD be deemed as a god send for it would give humans the chance to look at greater potentials than what we are right now.

Chris Britton January 28, 2008 11:51 AM

Does overpopulation come into this discussion at all?

Superkid11 January 28, 2008 12:44 PM

That's true, I think anyone who gains this kind of longevity should be made sterile to prevent that.

Chris Britton January 28, 2008 1:32 PM

Indeed, otherwise with an ever increasing birth rate and no death rate, we would multiply faster then an Australian rabbit on Viagra

Recurring Villain January 28, 2008 4:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson (Post 43834)
So what you're saying is that it IS a possibility to become pratically immortal, and that that possibility could become a reality very soon.

Very soon as in 30-40 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson (Post 43834)
There are people who would think that was bad...

Only because they're delusional and would be scared we're 'playing God'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson (Post 43834)
It COULD be deemed as a god send for it would give humans the chance to look at greater potentials than what we are right now.

Much greater potential.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Britton (Post 43836)
Does overpopulation come into this discussion at all?

Breeding would become centralized or heavily controlled (think China x 9000). We would only breed to replace those killed in accidents or to fill a quota for some kind of expansion into new places. The manner of the breeding, whether it's that we're grown in some kind of tanks or more 'naturally' produced is up in the air.

The best part about immortality is not so much the fact you live forever, but it makes people realize that the problems they create now will effect them in the future. It will also completely negate any need for religion to provide false hope, which is another nice bonus.

Chris Britton January 28, 2008 5:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain (Post 43850)
Breeding would become centralized or heavily controlled (think China x 9000). We would only breed to replace those killed in accidents or to fill a quota for some kind of expansion into new places. The manner of the breeding, whether it's that we're grown in some kind of tanks or more 'naturally' produced is up in the air.

So we would have reached an equilibrium of sustainable development where we are only putting out as much as we are taking in. If you can see what I mean.

Recurring Villain January 28, 2008 5:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Britton (Post 43852)
So we would have reached an equilibrium of sustainable development where we are only putting out as much as we are taking in. If you can see what I mean.

You are correct.

Superkid11 January 28, 2008 5:55 PM

If that's going to be the case I think the creation of babies and sex should become completely seperate processes. Human nature is subject to change but that's one thing that's never going to change, and controlling that would be impossible.

And condoms do break sometimes.

Recurring Villain January 28, 2008 6:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superkid11 (Post 43855)
If that's going to be the case I think the creation of babies and sex should become completely seperate processes.

Which probably wont be difficult at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superkid11 (Post 43855)
Human nature is subject to change but that's one thing that's never going to change, and controlling that would be impossible.

It really depends how far you go. Immortality is one thing, but there are so many things we could change. By the time we're finished, humanity as we know it could cease to exist. Life as we know it could cease to exist.

Like we all know, the most basic form of life is the cells that make up our bodies. If we replace these cells with nanomachines, imagine the kinds of things we could do. These ideas scare a lot of people (see: Cybermen), but I find it fascinating.

The optimal form for life to take is a form of self-replicating nanomachine with a collective intelligence which would then spread across the entire universe until all matter was a single collective intelligence, which would effectively become like a God.

After that point you can spend all week speculating as to what happens. I'm inclined to follow Scott Adam's theory, which is that 'God', having done absolutely everything it could possibly do, destroys itself, creating the Big Bang and starting the Universe over again.

Superkid11 January 28, 2008 6:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain (Post 43856)
The optimal form for life to take is a form of self-replicating nanomachine with a collective intelligence which would then spread across the entire universe until all matter was a single collective intelligence, which would effectively become like a God.

But that raises this question... could such an intelligence already exist? It obviously doesn't give a hoot about us if it does, but it is possible. Regardless of when it appeared, if there is life elsewhere, surely one rose to this level of advancement or was born that way.

Recurring Villain January 28, 2008 7:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superkid11 (Post 43857)
But that raises this question... could such an intelligence already exist? It obviously doesn't give a hoot about us if it does, but it is possible. Regardless of when it appeared, if there is life elsewhere, surely one rose to this level of advancement or was born that way.

If such an intelligence already existed, we wouldn't. The universe and this intelligence can't exist simultaneously, this intelligence becomes the universe.

Ross Hendrie January 29, 2008 9:04 AM

Immortality FTL.

Superkid11 January 29, 2008 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie (Post 43861)
Immortality FTL.

Suit yourself. :P

Ben Dawson January 29, 2008 11:14 AM

So eventually, we could wipe out disease altogether also, and make ourselves indestructible as well as immortal over natural causes.
Yeah, I'm beginning to see how this could be the greatest thing that would ever happen to humanity, and it could all happen in the next 100-200 years by the sounds of it.

Chris Britton January 29, 2008 12:52 PM

Immortality FTW forever then! =D

Recurring Villain January 29, 2008 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie (Post 43861)
Immortality FTL.

Why don't you kill yourself now and see for yourself how mortality suits you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson (Post 43863)
So eventually, we could wipe out disease altogether also, and make ourselves indestructible as well as immortal over natural causes.

Indestructible is impossible, we'd still die if we were sucked into the sun, for example. We just wouldn't age.

We'd become immune to all diseases mostly due to incompatibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson (Post 43863)
Yeah, I'm beginning to see how this could be the greatest thing that would ever happen to humanity, and it could all happen in the next 100-200 years by the sounds of it.

It depends how much say idiots like Ross have in it. It could happen in under 50.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Britton (Post 43864)
Immortality FTW forever then! =D

+1

Danny Stewart January 30, 2008 7:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie (Post 43861)
Immortality FTL.

WTF? I'm with Superkid -- suit yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain (Post 43868)
It could happen in under 50.

I hope so. I'd like to be around to see it happen (and yes, benefit from it).

Chris Britton January 30, 2008 8:47 AM

I think we all could feel the same way

DS.com to last until the end of time maybe? ;)

Superkid11 January 30, 2008 8:53 AM

Wow.

Can you imagine still hanging around here 200 years from now?

Also, on the topic of space travel... you know, if Jet Lag's bad I wonder how bad spaceship lag would be?

Danny Stewart January 30, 2008 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superkid11 (Post 43884)
Wow.

Can you imagine still hanging around here 200 years from now?

Well, if it's any consolation, I'll keep the site going if I am indeed alive 200 years from now. Watch this space.

Ben Dawson January 30, 2008 2:15 PM

I'm thinking we could replace body parts with organic, yet sturdier parts...that are modelled on our actual parts...consider it replacing stock parts with suped up parts on a car.

Recurring Villain January 30, 2008 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superkid11 (Post 43884)
you know, if Jet Lag's bad I wonder how bad spaceship lag would be?

I imagine by then we'd have an accurate enough age for the universe to be able to count time as 'seconds from the big bang'.

Oh, and then there's the whole fact we'd likely no longer need to sleep.

Danny Stewart January 30, 2008 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson (Post 43900)
I'm thinking we could replace body parts with organic, yet sturdier parts...that are modelled on our actual parts...consider it replacing stock parts with suped up parts on a car.

Cybermen...?

Ronnie Rowlands January 31, 2008 3:10 AM

Yeeees, Cyyyyybermen...

Recurring Villain January 31, 2008 3:12 AM

I actually sympathized for Lumic and thought the Doctor was a wanker making unsubstantiated claims about immortality being wrong.

Chris Britton January 31, 2008 3:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain (Post 43922)
I actually sympathized for Lumic and thought the Doctor was a wanker making unsubstantiated claims about immortality being wrong.

Then again Lumic did take the whole concept a bit too far. As much as his idea for immortality was a good one, i think he went overboard on it,

Recurring Villain January 31, 2008 4:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Britton (Post 43925)
Then again Lumic did take the whole concept a bit too far. As much as his idea for immortality was a good one, i think he went overboard on it,

He used technology far too primitive for them to really be called 'human.2' anyway.

More like human 0.0.0.1 combined with bionic limbs 3.0.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2001 - 2020, Danny Stewart