| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/18/2008 09:22:24 PM · #776 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I only think this is amusing because I thought we haven't proved one way or the other of life on other planets and that's a strange thing to call 'clearly false.' |
Even if.... A. intelligent aliens exist (probable) AND B. they are relatively close (unlikely-there are only a few hundred stars within 25 light years) AND C. it were physically possible for them to travel here (basically impossible- the closest star would take 4 years to reach at the speed of light), the resources required to mount such an effort guarantee that they wouldn't just show up in a isolated trailer park or draw circles in a cornfield in the night and then turn around and go home. Their visit would be obvious enough to leave no doubt whatsoever!
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 21:24:04. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 10:03:49 PM · #777 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I only think this is amusing because I thought we haven't proved one way or the other of life on other planets and that's a strange thing to call 'clearly false.' |
Even if.... A. intelligent aliens exist (probable) AND B. they are relatively close (unlikely-there are only a few hundred stars within 25 light years) AND C. it were physically possible for them to travel here (basically impossible- the closest star would take 4 years to reach at the speed of light), the resources required to mount such an effort guarantee that they wouldn't just show up in a isolated trailer park or draw circles in a cornfield in the night and then turn around and go home. Their visit would be obvious enough to leave no doubt whatsoever! |
"If a certain belief makes sense out of an otherwise senseless event, then it must be true, right? "
Premise: Intelligent aliens have NOT visited earth
Senseless event: Crop Circles
Belief: It's interesting, but was NOT caused by aliens. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 10:16:28 PM · #778 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I only think this is amusing because I thought we haven't proved one way or the other of life on other planets and that's a strange thing to call 'clearly false.' |
Even if.... A. intelligent aliens exist (probable) AND B. they are relatively close (unlikely-there are only a few hundred stars within 25 light years) AND C. it were physically possible for them to travel here (basically impossible- the closest star would take 4 years to reach at the speed of light), the resources required to mount such an effort guarantee that they wouldn't just show up in a isolated trailer park or draw circles in a cornfield in the night and then turn around and go home. Their visit would be obvious enough to leave no doubt whatsoever! |
This is, of course, based on assumptions about our current understanding of nature (i.e., the speed of light is absolute and unbreakable, etc.,). I choose to maintain the same belief about aliens as I do about god -- thoroughly agnostic. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 12:00:23 AM · #779 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
This is, of course, based on assumptions about our current understanding of nature (i.e., the speed of light is absolute and unbreakable, etc.,). |
That's true to an extent (note that I didn't say the speed of light couldn't be broken). However, we DO know that the energy required to accelerate an object as massive as a spaceship to the speed of light is enormous, and you would HAVE to at least approach the speed of light to make the trip viable from even the closest star (a 4 year trip at the speed of light). No matter how you cut it, it's going to be a time and resource-intensive endeavor, and nobody's going to go to all that trouble without waving and asking to use the bathroom. Moreover, think about what makes this planet interesting enough to visit in the first place. Aliens simply aren't going to waste time buzzing around some trailer park when there are brightly illuminated cities to explore!
Message edited by author 2008-09-19 00:26:44. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 09:01:39 AM · #780 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eqsite:
This is, of course, based on assumptions about our current understanding of nature (i.e., the speed of light is absolute and unbreakable, etc.,). |
That's true to an extent (note that I didn't say the speed of light couldn't be broken). However, we DO know that the energy required to accelerate an object as massive as a spaceship to the speed of light is enormous, and you would HAVE to at least approach the speed of light to make the trip viable from even the closest star (a 4 year trip at the speed of light). No matter how you cut it, it's going to be a time and resource-intensive endeavor, and nobody's going to go to all that trouble without waving and asking to use the bathroom. Moreover, think about what makes this planet interesting enough to visit in the first place. Aliens simply aren't going to waste time buzzing around some trailer park when there are brightly illuminated cities to explore! |
Not to belabor the point, because I agree with you for the most part, but again, this is based on an assumption that interstellar travel would require accelerating an object and then traveling through the interstellar void. There are theories that could avoid the acceleration (i.e., suspension of inertia), theories that wouldn't require nearly so great a distance to travel (i.e., wormholes), theories that could provide near-limitless energy (i.e., zero-point energy) etc.
As for the resources involved, that is also an assumption based upon our society. Yes, those types of resources measured against what we know are immense and unattainable. But to a society that is thousands, millions, or billions of years more advanced (if such a thing is even possible) who knows how such resources would be viewed. It might be akin to us walking past the bushes in our back yard.
This is one of the things that has always bothered me about the SETI program. It is based on the assumption that alien societies are using wavelengths of light for communication. We have only had that technology for a very short time. Why assume that any advanced civilization is also using that technology. Surely there must be better ways to communicate. The point being that we have no frame of reference for understanding what an alien technology may consist of, other than the laws of physics, and those we are only just beginning to understand. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 09:39:53 AM · #781 |
Originally posted by RonB:
"If a certain belief makes sense out of an otherwise senseless event, then it must be true, right? " |
Ironically, that's exactly how many people think... just not as you intended it (religion is a prime example). An unexplained event does NOT make all possibilities valid. If you hear a noise in a dark forest, you probably don't assume it's a stegosaurus or fire breathing dragon. Could it be? No. Likewise, if someone sneezes for no apparent reason, is it a demon being forced out of their body? No (even if you still offer a sincere, "Bless you!"). Could it be? No. If a mineral has red spots that resemble blood, is it reasonable to assume it has magical healing properties or could be used to stop a nosebleed (aside from being used as a cork)? No. Yet people have believed all of the above with firm conviction. Are crop circles created by aliens from another planet? No. There's probably a greater likelihood they were created by the aforementioned stegosaurus doing an elaborate mating dance, but it does make a good story. :-/ |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 09:46:56 AM · #782 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
... If there were two sisters in front of you, one of whom was compassionate and altruistic, and the other was self-centred and greedy, all other things being equal which one would you want to marry? |
Hey, I know that joke. I think the punchline is "The one with the biggest t**s." |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 10:01:32 AM · #783 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Matthew:
... If there were two sisters in front of you, one of whom was compassionate and altruistic, and the other was self-centred and greedy, all other things being equal which one would you want to marry? |
Hey, I know that joke. I think the punchline is "The one with the biggest t**s." |
lmao! |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 10:14:33 AM · #784 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
...this is based on an assumption that interstellar travel would require accelerating an object and then traveling through the interstellar void. There are theories that could avoid the acceleration (i.e., suspension of inertia), theories that wouldn't require nearly so great a distance to travel (i.e., wormholes), theories that could provide near-limitless energy (i.e., zero-point energy) etc. |
E=MC^2 It should be obvious from the equation that in order for an object to reach the speed of light it must have no mass... thus requiring one heck of a diet plan for any prospective travelers! Even with something like a wormhole, the resources required to create one are (literally) astronomical, and zero-point energy is only limitless over the vast area of the entire universe. Locally, you'd get more power from a AA battery. Anything that would allow a traveler to move from one star to another light years away (including folded space) would require more than the potential energy of an entire planet- a reality that technology cannot avoid.
Originally posted by eqsite:
This is one of the things that has always bothered me about the SETI program. It is based on the assumption that alien societies are using wavelengths of light for communication. We have only had that technology for a very short time. Why assume that any advanced civilization is also using that technology. |
Until/unless we find something faster than the speed of light, what else would SETI use? |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 10:36:35 AM · #785 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
E=MC^2 It should be obvious from the equation that in order for an object to reach the speed of light it must have no mass... thus requiring one heck of a diet plan for any prospective travelers! Even with something like a wormhole, the resources required to create one are (literally) astronomical, and zero-point energy is only limitless over the vast area of the entire universe. Locally, you'd get more power from a AA battery. Anything that would allow a traveler to move from one star to another light years away (including folded space) would require more than the potential energy of an entire planet- a reality that technology cannot avoid. |
Again, we don't know that E=MC^2 is the limiting factor we assume it is. It is for us for now, because that's the best we've got. 500 years ago, could anyone have envisioned a cell phone? If you wanted to communicate with someone on the other side of the world, you had to travel for months or years. Think of the vast amounts of energy involved in doing that. Now think of the energy involved in telecommunications. There are satellites in orbit to transmit the signal. What nation, 500 years ago, would have had the economy to support that kind of endeavor even if such a crazy technology could have been created. It's extreme hubris to assume that what we know today is even appropriate in assessing what might be possible millenia from now.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Until/unless we find something faster than the speed of light, what else would SETI use? |
We are just beginning to understand the possibilities of quantum-entanglement as one instance. Obviously we can't listen for technology that we can't even imagine, but that's really my point. We might just as well be looking for cave paintings as radio signals.
Message edited by author 2008-09-19 10:36:53. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 11:02:55 AM · #786 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I only think this is amusing because I thought we haven't proved one way or the other of life on other planets and that's a strange thing to call 'clearly false.' |
Even if.... A. intelligent aliens exist (probable) AND B. they are relatively close (unlikely-there are only a few hundred stars within 25 light years) AND C. it were physically possible for them to travel here (basically impossible- the closest star would take 4 years to reach at the speed of light), the resources required to mount such an effort guarantee that they wouldn't just show up in a isolated trailer park or draw circles in a cornfield in the night and then turn around and go home. Their visit would be obvious enough to leave no doubt whatsoever! |
I again hold that it is strange to be considered clearly false. This statement does not require that the life visiting visited trailer parks, nor that it happened in our lifetime, nor that it happened in the last 2000 years.
The comment also makes no reference to intelligence, only aliens. You are additionally making the assumption that the visit had to be intentional. And, why would it "be obvious enough?" If it happened 10000 years ago in China, why would anyone believe it now, let alone promote the idea? |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 11:06:13 AM · #787 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eqsite:
...this is based on an assumption that interstellar travel would require accelerating an object and then traveling through the interstellar void. There are theories that could avoid the acceleration (i.e., suspension of inertia), theories that wouldn't require nearly so great a distance to travel (i.e., wormholes), theories that could provide near-limitless energy (i.e., zero-point energy) etc. |
E=MC^2 It should be obvious from the equation that in order for an object to reach the speed of light it must have no mass... thus requiring one heck of a diet plan for any prospective travelers! |
But it is NOT obvious that a planet 400 light-years away is really 400 years away ( as we currently measure time ) traveling at the speed of light ( as we currently compute it to be ). That planet would be physically closer if the speed of light was faster in the past than it is now. And that is a real possibility - ref this article on SPACE.COM
|
|
|
|
09/19/2008 11:09:43 AM · #788 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Again, we don't know that E=MC^2 is the limiting factor we assume it is. |
Thus far, Einstein's equations have been confirmed by every test thrown at them. We might indeed find a new theory that fits observation better than relativity or quantum physics someday, but it's far more likely to address small inconsistencies than present major paradigm shifts. Cell phones are impressive marvels of technology, but they don't defy physics. The energies required to bridge stars in a lifetime are not comparable to intercontinental travel, and if those enrgies exceed entire star systems they become a circular impossibility since you couldn't reach another star system to harness the energy you'd need to reach another star system- a paradox that technology cannot overcome.
Quantum entanglement is interesting, but it doesn't trump the property of relativity that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. Even quantum teleportation (using entangled objects to transmit data) is limited to the speed of light.
Message edited by author 2008-09-19 11:40:48. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 11:23:49 AM · #789 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
The comment also makes no reference to intelligence, only aliens. You are additionally making the assumption that the visit had to be intentional. |
The story you referenced was about aliens visiting from another planet. Unintelligent aliens don't build spaceships, and the chances of reaching this planet by accident are almost infinitely remote, so both assumptions are probably safe.
Originally posted by dahkota:
If it happened 10000 years ago in China, why would anyone believe it now, let alone promote the idea? |
A long span of time would increase the chances of a visit, but I think the question is generally understood to refer to contemporary visits (or modern evidence of the same). It's interesting that I hadn't read the article until now, but the author makes exactly the same point I did about aliens making the effort to reach us without making their presence as plainly obvious as waving hello. It wouldn't make sense. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 11:32:22 AM · #790 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Again, we don't know that E=MC^2 is the limiting factor we assume it is. |
Thus far, Einstein's equations have been confirmed by every test thrown at them. We might indeed find a new theory that fits observation better than relativity or quantum physics someday, but it's far more likely to address small inconsistencies than present major paradigm shifts. Cell phones are impressive marvels of technology, but they don't defy physics. The energies required to bridge stars in a lifetime are not comparable to intercontinental travel, and if those enrgies exceed entire star systems they become a circular impossibility since you couldn't reach another star system to harness the energy you'd need to reach another star system- a paradox that technology cannot overcome. |
Einstein's equations don't need to be wrong to be incomplete. And I'll leave it there. We can pick this conversation up in 10,000 years to see which of us was right :) |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 11:36:00 AM · #791 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Cell phones are impressive marvels of technology, but they don't defy physics. |
Ok, I'll add one more thing, because this statement bugs me. Cell phones defy just about every piece of physics known 500 years ago (aside from the obvious). What marvelous technologies might we have in 10,000 years that defy everything we currently know about physics? |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 11:47:52 AM · #792 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Cell phones defy just about every piece of physics known 500 years ago (aside from the obvious). What marvelous technologies might we have in 10,000 years that defy everything we currently know about physics? |
We really DIDN'T know physics 500 years ago- a situation that's not likely to be repeated given current models that so accurately predict even unknown phenomona. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 11:55:48 AM · #793 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dahkota:
The comment also makes no reference to intelligence, only aliens. You are additionally making the assumption that the visit had to be intentional. |
The story you referenced was about aliens visiting from another planet. Unintelligent aliens don't build spaceships, and the chances of reaching this planet by accident are almost infinitely remote, so both assumptions are probably safe. |
I didn't comment on the story, I commented on the quote. I said I found the quote amusing.
And yes, the chances of reaching this planet by accident are remote; just as remote as life forming on this planet at all. Honestly, I just find absolute statements of any form to be amusing. As far as I'm concerned, unless you prove it one way or the other, its up for debate and conjecture. And so this doesn't get reduced to drivel, yes, I fully believe evolution has been proven and I believe the current laws of physics are proven. Neither God nor intelligent alien life has been proven to me one way or another. So I'll leave it open.
Originally posted by dahkota:
If it happened 10000 years ago in China, why would anyone believe it now, let alone promote the idea? |
A long span of time would increase the chances of a visit, but I think the question is generally understood to refer to contemporary visits (or modern evidence of the same). It's interesting that I hadn't read the article until now, but the author makes exactly the same point I did about aliens making the effort to reach us without making their presence as plainly obvious as waving hello. It wouldn't make sense. [/quote]
You are reading more into the quote than is there. But anyway, my point was about generalities and absolutes in statements. Happens in both Science and Theology and when it does, it amuses me.
forgot a very important qualifier.
Message edited by author 2008-09-19 11:57:10. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 11:56:07 AM · #794 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Cell phones defy just about every piece of physics known 500 years ago (aside from the obvious). What marvelous technologies might we have in 10,000 years that defy everything we currently know about physics? |
We really DIDN'T know physics 500 years ago- a situation that's not likely to be repeated given current models that so accurately predict even unknown phenomona. |
We really DIDN'T know physics 100 years ago. My point is that to think that what we've learned about physics so far is the culmination of what we are going to learn (or close to it), lacks foresight and ignores the history of science. Science continues to build upon itself and open new frontiers. There's no reason to think that this will end anytime soon. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 11:57:40 AM · #795 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
But anyway, my point was about generalities and absolutes in statements. Happens in both Science and Theology and when it does, it amuses me. |
Amen :) |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 12:35:09 PM · #796 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Science continues to build upon itself and open new frontiers. |
Therein lies my point. We've only recently poured the foundation. We will no doubt build upon that with future discoveries, but apples will not suddenly fall upwards. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 12:50:41 PM · #797 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Science continues to build upon itself and open new frontiers. |
Therein lies my point. We've only recently poured the foundation. We will no doubt build upon that with future discoveries, but apples will not suddenly fall upwards. |
No, but someday, we may pour a new foundation. The apples will still fall, put perhaps then we'll understand why. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 12:51:26 PM · #798 |
| I thought we already knew why apples fall? |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 12:52:05 PM · #799 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I thought we already knew why apples fall? |
If you can explain how gravity works, I'm sure there are a lot of physicists anxious to hear about it.
Message edited by author 2008-09-19 12:52:27. |
|
|
|
09/19/2008 01:01:45 PM · #800 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Louis:
I thought we already knew why apples fall? |
If you can explain how gravity works, I'm sure there are a lot of physicists anxious to hear about it. |
Oh, I know nothing of such things. I'm quite ignorant of them. But I assumed that apples fell due to gravity, which seemed to answer your question. Anyway, I was certain that there was some understanding of why bodies are attracted to one another. Doesn't it have something to do with the expansion of the universe. Again, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to physics. |
|
