"jmsa...{at}aol.com"  wrote:
>
> Starting mid-July into August and possibly September, I'm going to be
> traveling quite a lot in researching a new movie project that I
> cannot, for the moment, announce.

Woo who!

> (Not Lensman, this is a different
> project, and I've already started on Lensman.)

Double woo who!

> The main emphasis is on advanced technology. =A0If someone who can do
> the math were to look down the road a million years and see what
> advances might be there, based on what we know now, what would that
> look like? =A0Advanced tech here covers warfare, living, toys,
> environment, health, media, space travel, you name it. =A0Everything
> that a civilization a million years more advanced than we are might
> use or encounter.

One feature of history is it has both exponential grow curves
and sine waves and flat spots.  Recall from Lensmen the
principle that civilizations rise and fall but each time the top
is higher than the previous top and bottom is also higher than
the previouos bottom.  The point is if all you have is exponential
growth curves when you go a million years out you end up with
humanity not just dominating the universe but pretty much
being the universe.  But we do have more than exponential
growth curves.

Humanity (well sorta) in the form of homo erectus invented
the hand axe around 3-4 million years ago and then technology
stablized for a long time.  Then invented fire around 2 million
years ago and again a long plateau.  Stablity can happen,
even in turbulent times.  For a millenium after Rome fell,
Europe was a mess if you had to be there but it was an
example of overall stability with local chaos.  One baron
battled another but no nations emerged for centuries.

So you don't have to have humanity dominate the universe.
You just have to have a good reason stuff stabilized.

> Secondarily to this would be information on planetary physics and
> alien biology.

About 5-10 years ago there was a Scientific American article
that speculated what would happen if even one species
developed interstellar colonization using sub-light ships that
can go 10% of the speed of light.  The home planet settles
several worlds around 10 light years away.  A few centuries
later there's another wave.  The total expansion ends up
about 0.5% of the speed of light.  It takes 5-10 million years
to cover the entire 100,000 light year galaxy.  So your new
humanity without FTL can occupy a large chunk of the galaxy
but be so big no one can exchange radio signals with the
edges.  That's getting close to long enough that humanity is
no longer a single species.  But with genetic engineering
there are definitely many species.

Now factor in longevity to increase stability.  In a million
years why shouldn't people live several thousand years?
That would stabilize a lot.

> To that effect, my intent is to visit as many of the following places
> as possible: NASA Florida, the Wright-Paterson Air Force Base High
> Technology Labs, MIT, CalTech, and any other places that seem like
> good prospects.

MIT and Caltech are universities.  You can walk in and
ask to find the book store.  Buy a catalog and start
wandering around looking for the professors of planetary
science.  Having been a Caltech student when I was a
kid I can assure you professors *love* calls in person
from big Hollywood types.  I remember when I started
my career a movie scriptwriter had done that and gotten
a JPL phone book at the Caltech library and started
calling folks that sounded like they were doing planetary
sciences.  When he called my boss who worked in
stellar atmospheres the whole group ended up on the
call having a blast.  Where you can walk onto a college
campus, you can't do that at NASA places like JPL.
Work the phones for an invitation or just work the
phones like that scriptwriter back in the late 1970s.

> (If there's anything missing from that list, feel
> free to add it.) =A0I'm going to listen, ask questions, and try to keep
> up.

I think you should be more tinterested in limits of knowledge
than in speculated technology.  Note there is a huge
difference between science and technology - Science
defines that which is possible, technology does that which
is possible.  So a species with more science can do the
impossible compared to a species with less science no
matter their technologies.  In a modern example vacuum
tubes can only get so far no matter what but semiconductor
chips are impossible to vacuum tube science.

> And no, there's no money involved, though if anyone proves to be
> insanely helpful, I can try to work out a consulting credit. =A0No
> promises.

Given my recolleciton from the start of my career, tehy
will love the coversations.  Pay is in the form of pizzas
and Schezchuan food, though!

> The studio is going to help with some of the legwork here, they say
> they can get me into Wright-Pat, but we'll see...even so, the ways of
> studios grind very slowly. =A0So I turn to you lot for assistance since
> a number of you either are, or know someone who is, directly involved
> with this stuff.
>
> So...let the games begin.

College bookstore for a catalog is your starting move.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32