I'm Futurist Dr. Stan Schatt --Ask Me Anything!

What exactly does it mean to bend space?

How does that effect the space around the bent space?

Is anything actually moving when you bend space?

This concept is hard for me to wrap my head around because I keep thinking something like that should throw solar systems and such out of alignment or cause other problems.

Thanks in advanced! And welcome to ATS.

a reply to: StanSchatt

Appreciate your time Stan. Do you believe that technology will eventually put an end to the human species?

I am asking this because as I look around at other people, almost every single one of them has their faces stuck in their phone. People are no longer aware of their surroundings. Families are at the dinner table, yet all occupied with their phones. They barely speak to one another.

I am even guilty of this, but I am trying to prevent it from cutting me off from the natural world. We are all fortunate to exist on this beautiful planet to explore, experience and enjoy it, yet I see people more interested in a fake, digital World. I am all for human progress, but I just don't see this ending well for us. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: ZetaRediculian
The hot technologies for the immediate future include artificial intelligence, the "internet of everything", nanotechnology, and work being done on genetic cures. I also would throw in the research in developing 3D printers that can " print" organs. I have no idea about whether Big Foot is real, and that's after wasting an hour of my life watching a show that hyped that it would show an actual encounter with Big Foot. Simply showing tree branches blowing with a howling in the background doesn't count.

originally posted by: StanSchatt
a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous
If beings existed outside our spectrum, we couldn't see them, but we probably would see some signs of them via our instruments if they were made of matter like we are.

I believe that everything that's alive vibrates at certain frequencies. All this talk about auras is probably based on that concept. While we are generally not aware of this except for the few "spiritual" folks who apparently can see auras, what if aliens vibrated in different frequency ranges. If that's the case, we might visit a planet and not really be able to see them even though our instruments might record something.

Molecules vibrating at different frequencies lead to different states of matter. (Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma) So when someone talks about aliens vibrating at a higher frequency what they're actually saying is they are made up of a gas or plasma.

Both of which as you said are detectable.

a reply to: SheopleNation

I think we'll wind up as hybrids with technology "built-in". So, if that means the end of us as mere biological units, you're probably right. The real question is at what point do we stop being human. If the Singularity includes a human brain, are we still human?

what is your opinion on the ancient alien discussion , specifically Puma Punku a reply to: StanSchatt

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The way it has been explained to me is that if you visualize a piece of paper with two points far apart and then bend the paper, the two points line up for virtually instant travel. We would do so using wormholes. Michio Kaku discusses this idea in his book, Physics of the Impossible.

a reply to: jed001
Punka Punku (around 600 CE I believe) is just one of several structures that appear to be beyond the skill of natives to have constructed. I don't know. I've read theories about how several of these monolithic structures were constructed, and I'm still not convinced that they were built using thousands of natives or that they were built using unknown technology. Having said all that, I am fascinated about some of the ancient Indian Vedas that describe what sounds an awful lot like a version of Star Wars. So, I want to believe, but I'm looking for a smoking gun. I think In Search of ... does more harm than good because it kind of cheapens any real find.

a reply to: StanSchatt

Hi there Stan... You wrote in a very matter of fact sort of way in this reply below:

"to an attempt to deal with the aliens on the Moon. I honestly don't know. There have been rumors for years about a treaty with aliens that wasn't renewed. I tend to sympathize with the alien race that promised us all kinds of spiritual benefits if we did away with nuclear weapons. Of course, we declined. "

Can you give more insight into any of this? Even if it's second hand information that made you more sure of any of this (treaties, spiritual benefits, aliens on moon) we'd love more info/insight.

Thank you

RS

originally posted by: router404
Thanks Dr.Schatt and Jade Star. I hadn't actually considered the resolving power of current telescopes so take that on board. If only future tech and money could be driven in more peaceful directions like building better apparatus to enable scientists to at least try and observe these types of events or other solar or galactic engineering projects then we might find the evidence we're looking for if visitors aren't ever forthcoming.

You're welcome. You might be interested in this article Forget Space Travel: Build This Telescope.

In it the author outlines a way we could build a massive telescope array in space in the future to see objects down to the size of a Honda Accord on other planets around other stars.

Might someone else out there already have built such an array and pointed it at the Earth? If they did they'd know all about our growth of a species and our rise of cities and technology.

Could someone have reached that stage somewhere else in our galaxy? Probably. We're a young species. Our Earth and Solar System have only been around 4.5 Billion years while our Galaxy is 12 billion years old.

If the history of the universe were a calendar year the first planetary systems formed in our galaxy in early April while our Sun, Earth and the rest of the Solar System formed in August.

That's plenty of months for other beings to have reached our level long before our planet and Sun even existed.

Unless you think we are incredibly lucky. We're probably not the first nor the most advanced species in the galaxy just based on stellar evolution and math.

a reply to: StanSchatt

Sorry I forgot to add this to my first question...

Can you list all of the info/evidence you'd consider 'nearly' a smoking gun to support the existence of alien life, alien tech, alien artifacts, alien contact, alien treaties, alien+human cooperation?

I'm not searching for personal validation but rather hope to awaken or inspire any members searching for more that are visiting this thread. I'm personally grateful that you're sharing this insight from life experience you've gained in these areas of interest.

originally posted by: StanSchatt
a reply to: gosseyn
I think I understand your position. I know Star Trek postulated a world where there was no need for money and where everyone seemed to have enough to eat and a roof over their heads. Of course, it never showed how people evolved to that point. I think you're saying it is the system and not human nature that's the problem. I have a few questions you might want to consider because I don't know the answers. Have we ever had a social system that was totally equitable? If not, how could we "push" people with entrenched interests toward such a system? Humans evolution included a pretty bloody past. We either butchered or assimilated other branches of humanity. In part it has been our natural aggressiveness that has pushed us forward. How or why would that change now so that altruism rather than enlightened self-interest dominates?

This is a good question, but I would formulate it like this : have we ever had a human society which was not subject to scarcity ? My answer is no. As lifeforms we have needs, and if these needs are not met, survival instinct kicks in and it's where it becomes ugly. But it is at that exact point where ideology trumps science : we cannot say what "human nature" is, because we cannot separate humans from their environment : humans can be greedy if the circumstances, the environment forces them to, but they become altruists if the environment allows them to. We cannot separate the people from the circumstances of their time, we cannot observe people of let's say the 14th century in the middle of a war and say "look, this is human nature", or we cannot observe 3 guys in a shipwreck lost in the middle of the ocean fighting for the last can of food and say "look, this is the greedy human nature in action".

The difference today, is that we can change the circumstances, we can automate so many processes, produce so many goods, solve so many shortages and problems, that we can envisage a post-scarcity civilisation. It will happen anyway, because like someone said "robots will steal your job, but that's ok". It's ok because it will force us to rethink the way we socially function.

You said you wrote a book about 3D printing if I am not mistaken, how do you see 3d printing evolving and how do you see it impacting the way we function ? Because I think this is something which is going to play a big role in the incoming change of social paradigm.

a reply to: StanSchatt

Since we took a political stand on future things.. Do you ever think the general public will ever awaken to the aspect that our political system is more than broken, but a shell game. The true power to govern at least in the USA lies in corporate america, and our news channels have the general public pointing fingers. I hope that someday we can move out of our current cycle, but fear it will never happen.

a reply to: Aazadan That's a very interesting observation. I've known people I worked with who considered their jobs as merely a way to earn money and couldn't wait to leave work so their real life could begin. On the other hand, I've known people who loved their work and needed their work in order to have an identity. So, what happens when there is a minimum safety net that is high enough so that people don't ever have to work--call it a bonus for being a citizen of Planet Earth.

I think one way to channel people's need to feel needed and wanted would be to colonize other planets. People will need to reinvent themselves every few years. I've kind of done that myself, but I know others who would hate the idea. If people live longer and don't have work to fill their hours, they'll need something else. What I fear is that leisure time could wind up being used for very realistic simulation games. In other words, people would live in never never land and indulge their fantasies. That would seem to be a huge waste of human potential.

a reply to: mzinga
I'm not optimistic. Every time I invest in a stock, I feel that the "big boys" are deciding whether I'm ultimately successful or not. I think the combination of very wealthy individuals controlling news channels and politicians is very dangerous. I'm often appalled at how gullible the public is and how often they vote against their own self interest.

a reply to: robbystarbuck
I don't have the links handy, but if you do some Google research, you'll find that there have been rumors for years, including some people who claim to have seen the documents, that a secret agreement was signed, I believe with some grays. I know it sounds like science fiction, but one variation of that rumor is that there is a day in President Eisenhower's calendar when supposedly he went for emergency dental treatment but in reality went for a meeting with extraterrestrials. As far as the Moon rumors, you can find statements by all kinds of people including some who worked for NASA if you look online. Key photos seem to be "missing" or only available in low resolution. I know it sounds nuts, but there is so very much chatter out there that I think it's well worth checking out.

a reply to: gosseyn As far as 3D printing goes, I have a timeline in the book. My experience has always been that it takes far longer for a technology to mature than most people think. People who invested in companies like 3D Print and Stsratasys have lost money. Eventually the market will mature. I think HP's entry will really spur businesses to start using 3D printing. One limitation right now is that companies like 3D and HP want to control the media used for printing and force customers to only buy from them much the say way HP wants only HP ink used in its printers. That kind of approach will slow the market.

The problem with a post scarcity world is how to get there when the gap between the haves and have-nots keeps widening. Even if we wound up with a bloody revolution, I'm not sure the have-nots would win, and then things would get even worse.

Let's assume someone comes up with a new technology for virtually free energy and makes it available to everyone. Something like that would shake corporations to their core and start to close the gap between rich and poor. Similarly, what if people could use 3D printers to "print" their own foodstuffs as well as medicine?

a reply to: robbystarbuck
Nearly a smoking gun? I'd start with the first-hand reports the first day from Roswell. They were uniform and unambiguous. I would add John Podesta's recent remark that he wanted to see full disclosure on the topic of aliens. The fact he used the word "disclosure" implies there is something there. I wonder if Ronald Reagan's remark about how it would take aliens to unite the world wasn't a bit of a Freudian slip, revealing something he might have been told. I find the Indian Vedas very interesting because they read like Star Wars. A few years ago a meteor fell to Earth that apparently once had been a part of Mars --scientists claimed they saw fossils embedded in it. The story died and nothing was said after that. Finally, some remarks by astronauts suggest they saw UFOs but were told not to talk about them.

a reply to: JadeStar

There have been a lot of modifications to the Drake Equation over the years. Many of the more recent additions have been social aspects such as what percentage of planets with intelligent life would evolve to the point that they no longer would care about meeting other races.

The more conservative the forecaster, the lower probabilities plugged in and hence the lower overall probability. I suppose I should modify my position slightly and say that the SETI people I have read (Vakoch, Shostak, etc.) are agnostic in the sense that they argue they haven't seen any signs of life but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist out there. They have been very negative about reported UFO sightings, ancient aliens, etc.

a reply to: StanSchatt

Thank you - loved the insight.