robert <rlmunoz at mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3795A66B.F7E80AB1 at mediaone.net...
>> Oliver Sparrow wrote:
>> > "Steven Mix" <stevenmix at prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Life is out there. Somewhere.
> >
> > Off-topic, but what the hell? No doubt it is out there. I noted Vinge's
> > hierarchy of explanations as to 'where are they'? Someone replied that
> > getting about would be difficult. Doubtless, unless we understand what
> > constitutes separation better than we do at present. Assuming the
problem
> > is intractable, and that there are reasons to explore (itself an
> > assumption) then how would one go about it?
> >
> > The answer has to be very small objects, hugely replicated, that can (a)
> > unwrap themselves when they find a chunk of suitable matter and (b)
produce
> > more of themselves. A bacterium-sized nanomachine could be boosted to
near
> > light speed with relative ease - light or microwave pressure, for
example -
>> Ya know Oliver, i was with up to about here. Then i go my doubts. What is
> microwave pressure?
> Are you referring to digitization? We're getting into a field which i know
> just a little bit about.
> But you know what THEY ; a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous.
>> >
> > and teratonnes of these could be made and sprayed about at random (in
the
> > galactic plane) in decades by anyone with the technology. If these are
> > programmed to repeat the process, the galaxy would be fully populated by
a
> > generation of such machinery in a time not much longer than its diameter
> > measured in light years. This offers a fairly tight test: either (a)
this
> > cannot be done or (b) there is nobody to do it or (c) it has been done,
> > because it only has to be done once.
> >
> > If it has been done, then the logical extension is to spray the local
> > system with recording-transmitting nanomachines.
I believe Kirt Vonnegut came up with the idea in "The Giant Space Fuck"
(sorry, that was it's name as best I remember it.) The idea currently
goes under the name "panspermia." Some have talked about the martian
rocks on Earth as a proof in concept. I hope they look for Earth rocks
on Mars. I'd suspect the process could be two way. Of corse these
machines aren't engineered.
> > Who knows, you may have
> > just such a thing nesting in your cortex, transmitting your thoughts in
> > polarized sneutrinoes, or whatever, to a database in the Oort cloud and
> > thence to day time TV, somewhere far, far away. Paranoia starts here.
>> I wouldn't say "paranoia". Hell, if you had thought about this
> any longer, you could write a terrific sci-fi drama. If you do, i'd like
to
> talk to you about directing it.
I'm remined of a recent Movie, however in this case the viewing was from
outside the person. I believe the concept of cameras in the eyes can be
traced back to The Outer Limits or The Twilightzone. I don't know if
Phillip
Farmer created or stole the idea (or if I'm remembering the right sci-fi
author.
I'm not thinking of the Riverworld series, though it has overtones of
such viewing.)
> I'm really intrigued with the Oort cloud, is that a term from star trek,
or
> maybe deep space 9.
It's the band of debris from whince comets come. It is outside the orbit
of Pluto.
> You can tell, i'm not much of a tv fan. As a matter of fact, i loathe the
> thing.
Tools have their uses.
> Off the subject that's off the subject. TV , Now there's a culprit. Care
to
> discuss that some time? I could liven it up.
I don't think many of these groups would appreciate the discussion.
