Jump to content

Presidential access to classified material


Recommended Posts

If one was to play a numbers game, the odds get worse has times goes by, not the other way around. Same could be said for finding Bigfoot.

Mine number increases? :D I didn't know 106 is larger than 1022.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Everyone has to remember that under these same circumstances If little green men are looking at our planet. Which I have never had the privilege to see yet, that they are hundreds if not thousands of years more technologically advanced than us. For them to make it to us before we can make it to them is something I don't like to think about.

hhmmm...not necesarrily. I mean sure they obviously would have a higher degree of technology when it comes to space travel, but that doesn't always mean more advanced. It may just be a simple matter of will and resources. What if they, as a species, decided that their main goal was to reach another living planet. They may have decided to throw everything they have into reaching that goal. So they developed that at a much quicker rate then we have. That doesn't mean more advanced in all areas. They also may be from a planet that has resources that our planet does not. There may be a fuel source available that we either don't have or haven't figured out how to use in the same manner.

I'm not saying I believe we've been visited, I don't. But I do think if we have, just because they reached us doesn't mean they are that much more advance than we are. I mean look at that 16 year old kid from Germany that solved Newton's problem of the ballistics of an object with wind resistance (or something to that effect). Couldn't be solved until now when a kid just thought about it and put his mind to doing it. Who's to say the next step in space travel isn't just locked in the mind of some 10 year old somewhere that has to simply look at it and solve it. Our limits are only based on what our limits are today. That says nothing about the discoveries of tomorrow when we might laugh at what we "couldn't do".

Anyway, not sure about the President's "need to know" basis. I'm sure there are some things they never know simply because there is too much for one person to know. It would take them their whole term just to learn it let alone make decisions about everything. I would imagine it's mostly revealed as a need arises.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree. The two basic requirements to gain access are clearance and need to know. I can think of a whole bunch of stuff a president would not need to know, including the aforementioned aliens in a desert vault somewhere. Again, not that I believe they have them....I am just using it as an example. The president is only in government for a short period of time. Even within agencies, there are files that might be closed, the specifics of which are kept secure, unless certain conditions trigger the "need to know" criteria. The really sensitive stuff might be exempt from the normal periodic review and declassification process.

The President doesn't have to justify a "need to know" - that's for lower-ranking people. The President is the head of the national security apparatus, and can even disclose classified information if he wants to, regardless of how much gnashing of teeth occurs at lower levels, and it's actually happened. So the idea that there are secrets so secret that even the President doesn't know them is from the realm of conspiracy theories. The President doesn't know every secret (too granular), but if he asks, he will be briefed. If I were President and asked about something and some government department told me, "Sorry, that's too secret for you" that department would be gone in a flash.

BTW, some very sensitive stuff is exempt from disclosure. But that doesn't make it exempt from disclosure to the President, regardless of whether he's around for only 4 years..

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, not really...

10 Billion Earth-Like Planets May Exist in Our Galaxy - and there are estimated to be more than 170 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Which, put another way, suggests that the chances of Earth being the only Earth-Like planet in the observable universe potentially capable of supporting life as we know it is 1 in 1.7 trillion...which is not great odds if you're a betting man.

Even if only 0.1% of these Earth-Like planets orbit in the Habitable Zone from their local star to support life as we know it, then that's still 1,700,000,000 planets. Of course, given that the universe is estimated to be 13.75 billion years old and that mammal species have an estimated average lifespan of between 1 and 10 million years, the chances are that the number of intelligent, carbon-based mammal species alive at any one point in time is quite small. But who knows what is needed to sustain intelligent life? We used to think that all life depended on light, but then we found species at the bottom of the ocean who never get any light at all.

That's not to say that little green men are visiting us. The Speed of Light is a universal constant and so it would take over 20 years to reach our nearest known potential Earth-Like planet, Gliese 581 g, travelling at the Speed of Light (which is not possible).

Vince

Vince to say or write a planet is habitable and "Earth like" are to entirely separate issues. Really, to say/write Earth like would imply there is as many Minerals on said planet as there is on Earth, Never mind all the other things that constructed Earth. How many of the 3000 or so minerals that are on earth did not come from an outside source to earth, meaning they were always part of the earth in the first place? Not many would be my guess. I find it odd for people to write earth like, when they technically do not mean such a thing.

In ways yes those creatures on the bottom of the ocean do need light, when thinking of light as electromagnetic radiation, which would be part of the planet they live in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine number increases? :D I didn't know 106 is larger than 1022.

Interesting, Lets look at your little numbers as "power" (The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively).

Lets take that power "The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively" and call it earth.

Earth =s Power.

Power stays to the right

1--------------------------------------------------All none power planets "odds against" go to the left.

To date, the right side as not increased over 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To date, the right side as not increased over 1.

The fact that I haven't yet found the keys to the shed does not mean it's not here in the house somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vince to say or write a planet is habitable and "Earth like" are to entirely separate issues.

Indeed. Life on earth developed to adapt to earthlike circumstances, obviously.

Who's to say another species on another planet hasn't perfectly adapted to circumstances that would be lethal for earth life? After all, we have bacteria on this planet that live around underseas volcanoes that thrive at 400 degrees celsius.

Regards,

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vince to say or write a planet is habitable and "Earth like" are to entirely separate issues. Really, to say/write Earth like would imply there is as many Minerals on said planet as there is on Earth, Never mind all the other things that constructed Earth. How many of the 3000 or so minerals that are on earth did not come from an outside source to earth, meaning they were always part of the earth in the first place? Not many would be my guess. I find it odd for people to write earth like, when they technically do not mean such a thing.

In ways yes those creatures on the bottom of the ocean do need light, when thinking of light as electromagnetic radiation, which would be part of the planet they live in.

OK, let's clear a few things up shall we?

'Earth-Like' planet - This means a planet which is terrestrial, telluric or rocky i.e. is a planet that is composed primarily of silicate rocks or metals as opposed to gasses. Examples of 'Earth-Like' planets in our Solar System are Earth, Mars, Venus and Mercury.

'Habitable Zone' - In astronomy and astrobiology, 'Habitable Zone' is the term for the region around a star within which it is theoretically possible for a planet with sufficient atmospheric pressure to maintain liquid water on its surface.

Earth is currently the only known planet that fits both the above and is known to contain life. Therefore the current theory is that, in order to sustain life, a planet needs to be 'Earth-Like' and within the 'Habitable Zone' of its parent star. The Kelper Space Observatory Mission has reported that out of 1235 known extra-solar planets, 54 appear to be in the 'Habitable Zone' of their parent planet. Of that 54, 5 appear to be 'Earth Sized' or 'Super Earth Sized'. It's not yet confirmed whether they are 'Earth-Like' i.e. Terrestrial in nature.

As to your next point - everything that exists on the Earth came from Space. Earth hasn't existed since the Big Bang; it's only about 4.5 billion years old. In essence, the Earth was formed by the remnants of the chemicals used in creating the Sun, and the gravitational pull of the Sun then compacted these chemicals to form planets. Read up on Nebular Hypothesis for a more in-depth look at how planets are formed - but in essence, it is thought that because planets are formed from the debris of stars forming then it is likely that almost all stars have some form of planetary system.

So, to recap;

1) Everything that makes up planet Earth - the chemicals, metals, minerals etc - originally came from the Sun.

2) We know that there are other planets outside of our Solar System which appear to be terrestrial (Earth-Like').

3) We think that at least 5 planets orbiting their parent Star are in the in the 'Habitable Zone'.

4) Therefore, given our understanding of how life developed on Earth, it is possible that if these planets are terrestrial in nauture, then they could have, at some point in their lifespan, an atmosphere sufficient to sustain liquid water which then could lead to the development of life.

But even if we look closer to home, it's possible that Mars was once within the 'Habitable Zone', and with ice at the poles there might still be simple forms of life on Mars - possible even simple Lichen or Moss. And Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, appears to have some form of liquid ocean underneath its frozen ice surface. Given that life thrives at the bottom of our oceans, it's possible that it also does on Europa. Robert T. Pappalardo, an assistant professor in the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, has said that "Europa today, probably, is a habitable environment. We need to confirm this … but Europa, potentially, has all the ingredients for life … and not just four billion years ago … but today".

Vince

Edited by vince14
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Habitable Zone' - In astronomy and astrobiology, 'Habitable Zone' is the term for the region around a star within which it is theoretically possible for a planet with sufficient atmospheric pressure to maintain liquid water on its surface.

But: where is it written in stone that liquid water is a requirement for life?

For *earth-like* life, sure.

Cheers,

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites

But: where is it written in stone that liquid water is a requirement for life?

For *earth-like* life, sure.

Cheers,

Andre

It's not 'written in stone', it's a scientific theory. Currently, the theory states that life needs a source of liquid water to survive because we currently have no evidence of life being sustained without it. Maybe one day we'll find a planet that can sustain life without the need for liquid water, in which cast the scientific theory will be changed.

Don't forget, the scientific theory for life on Earth used to state that it could only exist with sufficient access to sunlight. Then we found creatures living in the deep ocean with absolutely zero access to sunlight, and the theory had to be re-written.

Vince

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, Lets look at your little numbers as "power" (The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively).

Lets take that power "The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively" and call it earth.

Earth =s Power.

Power stays to the right

1--------------------------------------------------All none power planets "odds against" go to the left.

To date, the right side as not increased over 1.

Eh, kay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not 'written in stone', it's a scientific theory. Currently, the theory states that life needs a source of liquid water to survive because we currently have no evidence of life being sustained without it. Maybe one day we'll find a planet that can sustain life without the need for liquid water, in which cast the scientific theory will be changed.

Finding things like http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120203102.html suggests that yeah, our theories are very limited and probably not getting creative enough. If /here on Earth/ we have life based on arsenic instead of phosphorus like everything else, who's to say what we'll find out there...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding things like http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120203102.html suggests that yeah, our theories are very limited and probably not getting creative enough. If /here on Earth/ we have life based on arsenic instead of phosphorus like everything else, who's to say what we'll find out there...

I would not be surprised if we find things closer to our own home "Earth", say traces on mars, the moon etc. from some form of fallout or shower etc.

Tho for it to be universe wide, I find that hard to believe. There is no saying life originated from Earth heck I would find it hard to believe if it did, since Earth did not start out with all the tools needed. Tho it could or should I write would be a past event, we certainly do not know how wide spread that event was/is.

In essence to what my thoughts are anyway, Earth pretty much got hit by multiple Golden BBs, one of them BBs happen to have the ability of life within it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not 'written in stone', it's a scientific theory. Currently, the theory states that life needs a source of liquid water to survive because we currently have no evidence of life being sustained without it. Maybe one day we'll find a planet that can sustain life without the need for liquid water, in which cast the scientific theory will be changed.

Don't forget, the scientific theory for life on Earth used to state that it could only exist with sufficient access to sunlight. Then we found creatures living in the deep ocean with absolutely zero access to sunlight, and the theory had to be re-written.

Vince

Another words they did not understand what sunlight is/was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In essence to what my thoughts are anyway, Earth pretty much got hit by multiple Golden BBs, one of them BBs happen to have the ability of life within it.

I'll agree with this assessment. However, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Earth, out of the entirety of the cosmos, or even just in our galaxy, could be the only one that had the right combination happen to get life going.

I still tend to think people assume life will be infrequent, just because we've so far only found it on one planet. Though indications seem to suggest that there is life on Europa, too... that's what really got me ever thinking in a non sci-fi way about this question, and while I'm not sure sentient life will be as commonplace as in Star Trek, I think we'll find life in general to be much more frequent than most people seem to expect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding things like http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120203102.html suggests that yeah, our theories are very limited and probably not getting creative enough. If /here on Earth/ we have life based on arsenic instead of phosphorus like everything else, who's to say what we'll find out there...

That study was highly questioned as soon as it was published and attempts to reproduce it have failed. The original idea is pretty much dead now.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/this_paper_should_not_have_been_published.html

http://www.nature.com/news/study-challenges-existence-of-arsenic-based-life-1.9861

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree with this assessment. However, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Earth, out of the entirety of the cosmos, or even just in our galaxy, could be the only one that had the right combination happen to get life going.

In ways just do not think combinations think events. One of them being how the moon became to be what it is and how it effected and effects the Earth.

There is gobs of speculation on it tho. Some people speculate Mars and our moon came from the same thing that impacted the Earth.

With your other part about Europa, I guess if Microbes are found, one could speculate there would have been or would be some connection with the Earth, which mind you would fall back into my original post.

Frankly I would find it easier to believe a spec or what have you came from the earth and became a part of another entity/planet then to believe there is another earth like planet or alien life out there. The possibility of alien life without Earths help is beyond a mathematical equation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...