Which is Scarier? Aliens or No Aliens

[EL02]

21 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

star trek encyclopaedia

lmaoo xd

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You can teach both with an English PGCE in the UK. You don't even need a degree in English just one that relates to the same skillset to study for the PGCE

So there are English lit teachers that have never studied English lit?  That’s bizarre.  Smells like some sort of rules oversight.

[whm1974]

Top be clear I can see American English Teachers teaching Mark Twain but not Shakespeare... 

[Bombastinator]

26 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

Top be clear I can see American English Teachers teaching Mark Twain but not Shakespeare... 

Nope. They teach Shakespeare too. Or taught it anyway.  I understand American public school has slipped even further than it had when I was going which was already an major slip from the 60’s. Twain was pretty rare when I was in school

[whm1974]

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Nope. They teach Shakespeare too. Or taught it anyway.  I understand American public school has slipped even further than it had when I was going which was already an major slip from the 60’s. Twain was pretty rare when I was in school

It varies but since I am an American I think the Focus in the US should be on American Authors. 

[Bombastinator]

31 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

It varies but since I am an American I think the Focus in the US should be on American Authors. 

I don’t know what it is right now.  I haven’t been in school in many years.

 

I suppose it’s a question of jingoism vs. actually teaching the subject. I believe the reason Shakespeare was taught is it’s the origin of many of the tropes in the English language and it actually created a lot of it.  Twain was a humorist living in pre and post civil war america.  As such he has a great value talking about that period.  Even he spends a great deal of time referencing Shakespeare though. One of his most famous pieces is “a Connecticut yankee in king Arthur’s court” which literally requires a knowledge of Shakespeare for it to make any sense.

[whm1974]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t know what it is right now.  I haven’t been in school in many years.

 

I suppose it’s a question of jingoism vs. actually teaching the subject. I believe the reason Shakespeare was taught is it’s the origin of many of the tropes in the English language and it actually created a lot of it.  Twain was a humorist living in pre and post civil war america.  As such he has a great value talking about that period.  Even he spends a great deal of time referencing Shakespeare though. One of his most famous pieces is “a Connecticut yankee in king Arthur’s court” which literally requires a knowledge of Shakespeare for it to make any sense.

You do have a point... But this isn't Jingoism at all. It it would be really odd for an American Citizen not to know who the Founding Fathers are or what they fought for...

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, whm1974 said:

You do have a point... But this isn't Jingoism at all. It it would be really odd for an American Citizen not to know who the Founding Fathers are or what they fought for...

Jingoism as a term has become specifically aggressive foreign policy in the name of patriotism.  It applies to domestic policy too though.  Which that would be.

[Lord Vile]

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

So there are English lit teachers that have never studied English lit?  That’s bizarre.  Smells like some sort of rules oversight.

Probably smells like not enough teachers tbh. But you don't really do English lit at GCSE, you can but language is the only one required. Lit is mainly a college and university thing.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

Probably smells like not enough teachers tbh. But you don't really do English lit at GCSE, you can but language is the only one required. Lit is mainly a college and university thing.

I don’t know what GCSE is.  Elementary and junior high teachers I understand do education degrees which would be a different thing.  I don’t know what high school teaching requirements are.

[RasmusDC]

i feel that it is a illogical model, that there are no life in other areas of the galaxy. 

 

if there is any means of transportation possible that would ever bring us closed together, that is maybe a more open question for me.. hopefully we will find a way, but to be honest, i think distance will be the main element, that might ensure that we will never meet eachother..

 

nearly all science fiction is also based in some sort of "obscure" way of travelling, to make it possible to actually create this possibility..

 

either of bending space, or just special engines..

 

The Alien term might be a bit ... "wierd" but would rather just explain it as presence of life in some sort of definable way

[The Torrent]

10 hours ago, Praesi said:

Abracadabra.

 

You should stop "teach" others when all you come up with is SiFi Fantasy.

 

then my guy shouldn't say its never gonna be possible

 

fantasy or not, its a method and ways of doing it can be found out from the next few million or even billion (possibly trillion if we manage to escape the sun or more) years. we've only been doing this a few thousand really so far and thats including a lot of super basics. (what we think is degree level will probably be taught in primary schools in a few thousand years).

[The Torrent]

10 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Again source please. Unless you can't find one... I mean I've found one that contradicts what you've said but that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 

As before, I have passed exams on quantum mechanics at degree level, I have a piece of paper saying I have passed. To learn physics to the level required to understand the basic concepts of relativity and Quantum mechanics isn't hard. They're fairly simple concepts which you just don't seem to grasp, you're trying to advocate for wormholes at best and SciFi at worst. 

im not gonna give u a source because its such a basic thing and the fact that you have tried to google shows me that you dont even know how to word stuff in the search bar.

 

Go ask ur 'professor' then, im sure hes gonna laugh at you.

 

You keep making up crap to attack me about my concepts but you are in no place. You cant have a degree or not from any wothwile university anyway due to you not knowing basics.

 

[Master Disaster]

On 10/2/2020 at 7:28 AM, UnfinishedBizz said:

Right, but UFOS =/= Aliens. They will admit there are objects that are unidentified they have seen flying through. A UFO can be many things.

Technically but but lets be real here, if NASA are admitting to it then it means one of two things. Either our own governments have some very advanced tech they're not telling us about (stuff that, even to modern science defies all known laws of physics) or there are Aliens flying around. The third alternative is that these things exist for no reason. I realise that most of the amateur stuff you see or hear about is 99.9% going to misidentified normal phenomenon from people who don't really know any better but when NASA says it you can bet your ass they know what they're saying is correct. 

 

On the actual topic. I 100% believe there is other life out there somewhere. IMO microbial life is pretty much everywhere, we just haven't found it yet. Heck if bacteria can survive in the sulphur jets at the very bottom of the ocean it can survive on other planets.

 

There also has to be intelligent life out there, IMO the question isn't whether or not it exists, its whether or not we will ever encounter them.

[Vishera]

Quote

Which is Scarier? Aliens or No Aliens

It depends,the biggest fear of man kind is the unknown.

And since "Aliens" don't mess with our daily lives we don't fear them.

But if we were to meet one,we could fear it since we know nothing about it (It's the same as meeting a stranger).

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Vishera said:

It depends,the biggest fear of man kind is the unknown.

And since "Aliens" don't mess with our daily lives we don't fear them.

But if we were to meet one,we could fear it since we know nothing about it (It's the same as meeting a stranger).

Tell that to the people who get anal probed....

[Praesi]

34 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

fantasy or not, its a method and ways of doing it can be found out from the next few million or even billion (possibly trillion if we manage to escape the sun or more) years. 

What are you talking about?

 

[Master Disaster]

11 hours ago, The Torrent said:

you dont understand once again.

 

The space between objects at many points is expanding many tirmes faster than the speed of light.

 

This is true.

 

Hence all we need to do is probably in a substantial amount of time find a way to artificially make space expand in single directions.

 

I'm just giving random examples of how it could be possible and this is one such way.

photons are faster, but they dont make it back quicker. Actually read what im saying? This is literally high school science. If you have done degree level im sorry but that online degree wasn't real.

What?

 

First of all a very basic Google search shows that we have measured the speed of the expansion of the universe, its a constant rate of 74KM/S. The speed of light is almost exactly 300,000KM/S. Primary school maths should tell you that one of those numbers is much bigger than the other.

 

Second, if the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light then everything would be in perpetual darkness. If the universe is moving away from the light source faster than the light from the source is moving then there can be no light.

 

Anecdote: You have a garage with 2 cars in it. Car A is the universe expanding and can do 200KM/H, car B is light and can only do 100KM/H, for the purpose of this we will say they can both do zero to full speed instantly. You open the garage door and let both cars go at the exact same time, what happens?

 

Car A instantly pulls ahead and keeps getting further ahead the longer they run. The expansion of the universe out runs the light and keeps pulling away from it, light never reaches anything in the universe, everything is dead and we never exist.

 

Photons are faster than what? I mean Photons are faster than EVERYTHING, they're literally the fastest things we know to exist (ignoring quantum stuff that we can observe but cannot explain). Saying Photons are faster is like saying water makes things wetter.

[Lord Vile]

53 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

I'm not gonna give u a source because its such a basic thing and the fact that you have tried to google shows me that you don't even know how to word stuff in the search bar.

I'm not doing your work for you. Back up your claim of GTFO

53 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

Go ask ur 'professor' then, im sure hes gonna laugh at you.

 

You keep making up crap to attack me about my concepts but you are in no place. You cant have a degree or not from any wothwile university anyway due to you not knowing basics.

 

You don't even know what the basics are...

 

And nope I don't have a degree I lost interest and left after second year, decided to do electronics instead but I still passed the courses in quantum mechanics and relativity is scattered across various other elements so I read into it. Might go back and finish the degree, might not I'm undecided. 

[Praesi]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

What?

 

First of all a very basic Google search shows that we have measured the speed of the expansion of the universe, its a constant rate of 74KMps. The speed of light is almost exactly 300,000KMps. Primary school maths should tell you that one of those numbers is much bigger than the other.

 

Second, if the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light then everything would be in perpetual darkness. If the universe is moving away from the light source faster than the light from the source is moving then there can be no light.

 

Photons are faster than what? I mean Photons are faster than EVERYTHING, they're literally the fastest things we know to exist (ignoring quantum stuff that we can observe but cannot explain). Saying Photons are faster is like saying water makes things wetter.

The Speed gets higher the farther a Galaxy is away from the center. Your Infos are outdated. 

 

[The Torrent]

14 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

What?

 

First of all a very basic Google search shows that we have measured the speed of the expansion of the universe, its a constant rate of 74KM/S. The speed of light is almost exactly 300,000KM/S. Primary school maths should tell you that one of those numbers is much bigger than the other.

 

Second, if the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light then everything would be in perpetual darkness. If the universe is moving away from the light source faster than the light from the source is moving then there can be no light.

 

Anecdote: You have a garage with 2 cars in it. Car A is the universe expanding and can do 200KM/H, car B is light and can only do 100KM/H, for the purpose of this we will say they can both do zero to full speed instantly. You open the garage door and let both cars go at the exact same time, what happens?

 

Car A instantly pulls ahead and keeps getting further ahead the longer they run. The expansion of the universe out runs the light and keeps pulling away from it, light never reaches anything in the universe, everything is dead and we never exist.

 

Photons are faster than what? I mean Photons are faster than EVERYTHING, they're literally the fastest things we know to exist (ignoring quantum stuff that we can observe but cannot explain). Saying Photons are faster is like saying water makes things wetter.

your first line tells me ur a clown.

 

 

i haven't seen this video myself but watch it specifically whenever it talks about universe expansion and theres ur answer.

 

You dont understand, its expanding like a spring does. Drop a slinkey.

 

It is expanding faster than the speed of light, and the out most parts which are, we will never be able to see because the light isn't fast enough to get back here.

 

Which is why we call what we can see the 'observable universe'. (among other reasons).

 

im not gonna read/reply to the rest because you are another who doesn't understand fundementals.

 

 

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Praesi said:

The Speed gets higher the farther a Galaxy is away from the center. Your Infos are outdated. 

 

Not outdated, I missed a measurement. Its 74KM/S per parsec.

[Lord Vile]

15 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Photons are faster than what? I mean Photons are faster than EVERYTHING, they're literally the fastest things we know to exist (ignoring quantum stuff that we can observe but cannot explain). Saying Photons are faster is like saying water makes things wetter.

TBF there are tachyons but they're purely hypothetical and may not exist. Also gravitational waves travel at the same speed as light. Common theme is something has to have 0 mass to achieve light speed. Neutrinos come close but are still under lightspeed.

[The Torrent]

4 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

I'm not doing your work for you. Back up your claim of GTFO

You don't even know what the basics are...

What you dont understand is there is no proper sources because its such a basic thing.

This whole thing doesn't even have anything to do with faster than light travel, its just been me proving how much of a clown you are.

Here, have the first result of a 5 second google search lmao.

https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/11/supernova-signals

[The Torrent]

Just now, Lord Vile said:

TBF there are tachyons but they're purely hypothetical and may not exist. Also gravitational waves travel at the same speed as light. Common theme is something has to have 0 mass to achieve light speed. Neutrinos come close but are still under lightspeed.

You say may not exist, then you say 'it will NEVER be possible to go faster than light'. You are basically saying that you know the answers of the universe and know tachyons dont exist at one point and then saying they may exist and you dont know.....