Which is Scarier? Aliens or No Aliens

[Master Disaster]

8 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

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.

 

 

Oh boy, you really couldn't be more wrong (and wrong is an absolute statement).

 

The reason we can't see beyond a certain point has nothing to do with the speed of light, at all. Its because, as light moves through a vacuum it expands and given the vast distances involved (almost 19 billion light years) the light that far away is outside of our detectable range. This is why our furthest image of space is taken in the IR bandwidth (or it might be microwave).

 

At least I can spell fundamentals.

[Praesi]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Not outdated, I missed a measurement.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

The Speed gets faster by 500km/s every 3.7 Lightyears. Outer Galaxies "moving" much faster than Lightspeed.

[The Torrent]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Oh boy, you really couldn't be more wrong (and wrong is an absolute statement).

 

The reason we can't see beyond a certain point has nothing to do with the speed of light, at all. Its because, as light moves through a vacuum it expands and given the vast distances involved (almost 19 billion light years) the light that far away is outside of our detectable range. This is why our furthest image of space is taken in the IR bandwidth.

 

At least I can spell fundamentals.

before speaking waffle go watch that video. i just skimmed through i see pictures of the universe after about 7 minutes ill watch it later.

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, Praesi said:

The Speed gets faster by 500km/s every 3.7 Lightyears. Outer Galaxies "moving" much faster than Lightspeed.

Remember, this is only a theory and I'm with the camp who believes this isn't actually what is happening. There must be some other explanation that we simply don't understand yet. To imagine that stuff, with actual mass, is travelling beyond the speed of light is going to far.

 

The beauty of science is that its OK to disagree.

[Lord Vile]

2 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

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

Have you read the article? Neutrinos just are less likely to collide with matter therefore have a headstart on light. As they travel at like 99.99% anyway the light can't catch up in the distance. If the supernova was further away light would overtake them. This flat out disproves your claim that they take a "shortcut". They don't they travel the full distance they just aren't hindered as much as light is, for if you didn't know light travels slower through matter than it does in a vacuum.

Just now, The Torrent said:

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..... 

For us yes, tachyons are widely believed to not exist based on the laws of physics which have been verified. For them to exist physics would have to be drastically altered. It also deals with imaginary mass and all that BS. Travelling faster than light would also mean you'd be travelling back in time.

[Praesi]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Remember, this is only a theory and I'm with the camp who believes this isn't actually what is happening. There must be some other explanation that we simply don't understand yet. To imagine that stuff, with actual mass, is travelling beyond the speed of light is going to far.

 

The beauty of science is that its OK to disagree.

The Galaxies arent traveling like a ship or comet would. The Universe itself is expending. Thats completly different.

[Master Disaster]

5 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

before speaking waffle go watch that video. i just skimmed through i see pictures of the universe after about 7 minutes ill watch it later.

Yeah, coming from the guy who posted a video on a theory that, in all likeliness will never be proven, as proof that they are correct.

 

Our current best guess is that this is what's happening, that doesn't mean its true.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Praesi said:

The Galaxies arent traveling like a ship or comet would. The Universe itself is expending. Thats completly different.

Oh I know, but Space is still technically stuff (or matter I suppose) and it has mass.

[Lord Vile]

5 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Remember, this is only a theory and I'm with the camp who believes this isn't actually what is happening. There must be some other explanation that we simply don't understand yet. To imagine that stuff, with actual mass, is travelling beyond the speed of light is going to far.

 

The beauty of science is that its OK to disagree.

Dude he's posting links to articles that disprove his point, honestly he's probably just read the titles and thought YUP NEUTRINOS CAN TELEPORT. Rather than actually reading the article. 

 

Thing is with stuff like this with Quantum etc you have to remember most of it is hypothetical, a lot is just wrong and because you can't test it you can't disprove it. So a lot of stuff is just in limbo and will likely be there forever.

[Vishera]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

The reason we can't see beyond a certain point has nothing to do with the speed of light, at all. Its because, as light moves through a vacuum it expands and given the vast distances involved (almost 19 billion light years) the light that far away is outside of our detectable range. This is why our furthest image of space is taken in the IR bandwidth.

 

At least I can spell fundamentals.

 

2 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

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

Answer from Wikipedia:

Quote

Metric expansion and speed of light

At the end of the early universe's inflationary period, all the matter and energy in the universe was set on an inertial trajectory consistent with the equivalence principle and Einstein's general theory of relativity and this is when the precise and regular form of the universe's expansion had its origin (that is, matter in the universe is separating because it was separating in the past due to the inflaton field)^{[citation needed]}.

While special relativity prohibits objects from moving faster than light with respect to a local reference frame where spacetime can be treated as flat and unchanging, it does not apply to situations where spacetime curvature or evolution in time become important. These situations are described by general relativity, which allows the separation between two distant objects to increase faster than the speed of light, although the definition of "distance" here is somewhat different from that used in an inertial frame. The definition of distance used here is the summation or integration of local comoving distances, all done at constant local proper time.

For example, galaxies that are more than the Hubble radius, approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs or 14.7 billion light-years, away from us have a recession speed that is faster than the speed of light. Visibility of these objects depends on the exact expansion history of the universe. Light that is emitted today from galaxies beyond the cosmological event horizon, about 5 gigaparsecs or 16 billion light-years, will never reach us, although we can still see the light that these galaxies emitted in the past.

 

[The Torrent]

8 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Have you read the article? Neutrinos just are less likely to collide with matter therefore have a headstart on light. As they travel at like 99.99% anyway the light can't catch up in the distance. If the supernova was further away light would overtake them. This flat out disproves your claim that they take a "shortcut". They don't they travel the full distance they just aren't hindered as much as light is, for if you didn't know light travels slower through matter than it does in a vacuum.

For us yes, tachyons are widely believed to not exist based on the laws of physics which have been verified. For them to exist physics would have to be drastically altered. It also deals with imaginary mass and all that BS. Travelling faster than light would also mean you'd be travelling back in time.

DIDNT say they take a shortcut. Go back and read my stuff. I said they cover distance quicker.

[The Torrent]

6 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Yeah, coming from the guy who posted a video on a theory that, in all likeliness will never be proven, as proof that they are correct.

 

Our current best guess is that this is what's happening, that doesn't mean its true.

Did they think 200 years ago quantum entanglement would be real?

 

did they think 100 years ago we could go to the moon and now we are talking about intergalactic travel rn.

 

u r gonna be surprised. Never say never lol.

[Lord Vile]

26 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

DIDNT say they take a shortcut. Go back and read my stuff. I said they cover distance quicker.

Maybe you should go back and read your posts. 

 

"To travel at the speed of light, we move faster than light, we just cover distance faster than light." 

 

You're not travelling faster than the speed of light. The point was nothing can move faster than the speed of light and your example proves nothing does. it's travelling the same distance at a slower speed but has a headstart on light. So light covers the distance faster it just is released later.

[Master Disaster]

55 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Maybe you should go back and read your posts. 

 

"To travel at the speed of light, we move faster than light, we just cover distance faster than light." 

 

You're not travelling faster than the speed of light. The point was nothing can move faster than the speed of light and your example proves nothing does. it's travelling the same distance at a slower speed but has a headstart on light. So light covers the distance faster it just is released later.

This. For someone who calls others clowns and says they don't understand the fundamentals he has a huge cognitive bias going on.

 

For example folding space would theoretically allows us to travel anywhere we wanted instantly but we still didn't travel faster than light, we cheated.

 

1 hour ago, The Torrent said:

DIDNT say they take a shortcut. Go back and read my stuff. I said they cover distance quicker.

I've read all your stuff, you did say what you claim but provided nothing to back it up. If its covering the same distance but faster then its either moving faster or it took a shortcut (gravitational well or other unknown phenomenon). Unless you can name a third way?

 

You must also account for special relativity which says that its possible for speed to affect the passage of time so while something might look to us like its moving super fast it might only be relative to our own speed and in reality its not moving very fast at all.

1 hour ago, The Torrent said:

Did they think 200 years ago quantum entanglement would be real?

 

did they think 100 years ago we could go to the moon and now we are talking about intergalactic travel rn.

 

u r gonna be surprised. Never say never lol.

I didn't say never but in respect to travelling beyond (or even at) the speed of light for anything with mass, yeah that's a never. I mean you do realise even light doesn't travel at the speed of light unless its in a vacuum, right?

 

Also lets be clear about this, we're talking about space itself moving here. The actual matter it contains doesn't move at all and at this point in time we're not even 100% sure what space even is. Like I said earlier, I believe there's other explanations we haven't discovered yet. I might be wrong on that, only time will tell I guess.

 

Another important distinction is the difference between moving and travelling. Since we know energy and matter are transferable and we have observed quantum entanglement sending data instantly we can say its possible to move things around faster than light. That doesn't mean those things travelled faster than light to get there.

[MewMew]

As humbling as it sounds to discover alien life, It would be remarkably worse to have life within distance of us or to have knowledge of our existence.

The Kardashev Scale only classes us as a 0.7 civilization. In perspective, if we came across a type 2 or 3 or even 4 class civilization that can harness the power of their own star or even galaxy we'd be in for a bad time. It would be like walking out to your car to go to work and stepping on ants.

[whm1974]

1 hour ago, The Torrent said:

Did they think 200 years ago quantum entanglement would be real?

 

did they think 100 years ago we could go to the moon and now we are talking about intergalactic travel rn.

 

u r gonna be surprised. Never say never lol.

200 years ago no one heard of Quantum Whatever....

[The Torrent]

55 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Maybe you should go back and read your posts. 

 

"To travel at the speed of light, we move faster than light, we just cover distance faster than light." 

 

You're not travelling faster than the speed of light. The point was nothing can move faster than the speed of light and your example proves nothing does. it's travelling the same distance at a slower speed but has a headstart on light. So light covers the distance faster it just is released later.

We don't move faster than light *, we just cover more distance. Seems my.phone autocorrect is at fault for all this.

 

[whm1974]

53 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

We don't move faster than light *, we just cover more distance. Seems my.phone autocorrect is at fault for all this.

 

This is why I always disable autocorrention if I can due to problems it causes... Anyhoo getting back to the subject... Getting closer to the Speed of Light or close enough to use the Time Dilation Effects, We could Travel to the Stars so to speak. One way trip? So what, there will be plenty of folks who would be willing to go...

 

The Nations of Earth could always send their Long Term Prison Population....

[TVwazhere]

-Topic Locked-

 

This thread has derailed and decayed into arguing. 

On 8/27/2018 at 5:44 PM, Whiskers said:

Community Standards

 

Generally speaking, as long as you stick to the following core principles you should not find yourself subject to disciplinary action:

• Ensure a friendly atmosphere to our visitors and forum members.
• Encourage the freedom of expression and exchange of information in a mature and responsible manner.
• "Don't be a dick" - Wil Wheaton.
• "Be excellent to each other" - Bill and Ted.
• Remember your audience; both present and future.