Which is Scarier? Aliens or No Aliens

[Bombastinator]

14 minutes ago, Praesi said:

And what has a Book of Fairytales to do with the Topic?

 

I think everyone can agree that the thing is at least old.  So it was something noticed a long time ago.  The concept of original sin is not that dissimilar from the concept that humans suck.  It’s a little more complex and nuanced, but not dissimilar.  There are numerous references comparing humans to sheep.  The most notable thing about sheep? They’re stupid.  Even for animals they’re stupid.  Examples are numerous but they’re all kind of “wow.  How do those things even live?”

Edited October 13, 2020 by Bombastinator

[Lord Vile]

7 hours ago, whm1974 said:

Dude, it wasn't that long ago in Human History that We couldn't even send rockets up in Space... Give Us another ~100 Years....

Launching something into space is a little bit different to breaking the laws of physics which the last time I checked was impossible. Unless you can find a handy dandy black hole to slingshot around we ain't getting faster.

[Lord Vile]

5 hours ago, dizmo said:

Correct.

They've found 24 Potentially superhabitable planets out of a pool of 4,500. If you extrapolate that, you'd have roughly 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 superhabitable planets in the universe. Yes, there are way, way more planets that don't fit the criteria, but that doesn't mean there's hardly any habitable planets. Not only that, we know next to nothing about space. We're constantly finding out that what we "know" is wrong, not right, and that there are many more habitable planets, and much greater chance of life than we've previously believed.

Fixed

 

You can't extrapolate that at all, depends on the location of those planets where they are in the galaxy and due to the SoL what we observe now may not even exist.

 

Again my point wasn't that there ISN'T life, the probability is there is, my point is it can't exist anywhere. Oh and we're likely never going to make it to another planet capable of sustaining life due to the distances involved.

[Praesi]

2 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Launching something into space is a little bit different to breaking the laws of physics which the last time I checked was impossible. Unless you can find a handy dandy black hole to slingshot around we ain't getting faster.

Without discovering how to open a wormhole (if they realy exist), or develop technology yet unkown to mankind and our laws of physics, we will never reach anything far away. I think Lightspeed and protection technology to travel with it could be possible in the Future. But even if. 50 Lightyears..thats nothing. Thats not even visible.

[Deli]

10 hours ago, whm1974 said:

Dude, it wasn't that long ago in Human History that We couldn't even send rockets up in Space... Give Us another ~100 Years....

Wright brothers had their first successful flight 117 years ago. I'm pretty optimistic that human will land on another planet outside our solar system in the next hundred year.

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, Praesi said:

Without discovering how to open a wormhole (if they realy exist), or develop technology yet unkown to mankind and our laws of physics, we will never reach anything far away. I think Lightspeed and protection technology to travel with it could be possible in the Future. But even if. 50 Lightyears..thats nothing. Thats not even visible.

Lightspeed isn't possible, the energy required to get anything with significant mass up to lightspeed is stupid. Think about it an electron which is around 1/3000 the mass of a proton travels at 0.6x SoL. Even that tiny bit of mass dropped the speed by 40%. Look at an Alpha particle and that travels at 0.06x SoL and that's just a He nucleus. The only other thing that travels at the SoL are gravitational waves. 

[Praesi]

Just now, Lord Vile said:

Lightspeed isn't possible, the energy required to get anything with significant mass up to lightspeed is stupid. Think about it an electron which is around 1/3000 the mass of a proton travels at 0.6x SoL. Even that tiny bit of mass dropped the speed by 40%. Look at an Alpha particle and that travels at 0.06x SoL and that's just a He nucleus. 

Yes. 99% is possible in theorie. But i doubt its realistic.

[Lord Vile]

44 minutes ago, Praesi said:

Yes. 99% is possible in theorie. But i doubt its realistic.

Even in theory, to travel at SoL you need to have 0 mass. Which is why the 2 things that travel that fast have 0 mass.

[TehDwonz]

11 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Even in theory, to travel at SoL you need to have 0 mass. Which is why the 2 things that travel that fast have 0 mass.

We don't even need to work on trying to achieve some fraction of the speed of light anyway. Manipulation of space-time is our current best option. Though the energy needed there is also extreme, but nothing like trying for light speed in our limited conventional 3D existence.

[Lord Vile]

Just now, TehDwonz said:

We don't even need to work on trying to achieve some fraction of the speed of light anyway. Manipulation of space-time is our current best option. Though the energy needed there is also extreme, but nothing like trying for light speed in our limited conventional 3D existence.

To warp space time you need an immense amount of gravity though, as in a gravitational wave which only occur in a measurable fashion though huge cosmic events like supernovas etc. 

[TehDwonz]

3 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

To warp space time you need an immense amount of gravity though, as in a gravitational wave which only occur in a measurable fashion though huge cosmic events like supernovas etc. 

If we are limiting ourselves to current understanding and knowledge only, then this entire discussion is pointless  

[Lord Vile]

Just now, TehDwonz said:

If we are limiting ourselves to current understanding and knowledge only, then this entire discussion is pointless  

Our knowledge of special and general relativity is fairly substantial which is where this falls. Unless large chunks of it are wrong it would be impossible. 

[TehDwonz]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Our knowledge of special and general relativity is fairly substantial which is where this falls. Unless large chunks of it are wrong it would be impossible. 

Ah I see where you are... theoretical physics is not knowledge of reality, it merely tries to explain our observations. Our understanding of reality is severely limited by our current confinement to, or awareness of, 3 dimensions. Trying to solve problems, like reaching distant stars within a lifetime, restricted by that limitation is a useless endeavour.

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, TehDwonz said:

Ah I see where you are... theoretical physics is not knowledge of reality, it merely tries to explain our observations. Our understanding of reality is severely limited by our current confinement to, or awareness of, 3 dimensions. Trying to solve problems, like reaching distant stars within a lifetime, restricted by that limitation is a useless endeavour.

Our observations are of reality therefore the explanation applies to reality. Most of the theories around relativity were put forward before we had the capability to experiment and confirm anything and have been proven over the last 100 years, with black holes being the most recent with the Event Horizon Telescope proving Einstein's theory of general relativity around black holes and gravitational waves which was proven a few years ago.

[Bombastinator]

I have been told there is substantial evidence that the standard model is at least partially incorrect, in much the same way as Newtonian physics was.  We just can’t figure out how.

[dizmo]

17 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Fixed

 

You can't extrapolate that at all, depends on the location of those planets where they are in the galaxy and due to the SoL what we observe now may not even exist.

 

Again my point wasn't that there ISN'T life, the probability is there is, my point is it can't exist anywhere everywhere. Oh and we're likely never going to make it to another planet capable of sustaining life due to the distances involved.

ftfy

I don't think anyone's arguing that life is on every planet. However, it's much, much more likely to exist on a large scale than you seem to be implying.

 

You can't say never. In our lifetimes? Of course not. But to say we'll never accomplish that is insane. 2,000 years ago I'm sure they'd have thought automobiles, or traveling to the moon would never happen either.

[whm1974]

13 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I have been told there is substantial evidence that the standard model is at least partially incorrect, in much the same way as Newtonian physics was.  We just can’t figure out how.

Partly incorrect in what way? For doing things here on Earth and sending probes to Mars, Newtonian Physics just works. Going to Mercury or at very large and small scales... That is well different.

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

Partly incorrect in what way? For doing things here on Earth and sending probes to Mars, Newtonian Physics just works. Going to Mercury or at very large and small scales... That is well different.

I’m not sure.  I’m not a mathematician.  I vaguely recall one issue having something to do with dark matter.  It does follow the way science works though.  Newtonian physics was considered irrefutable truth for many many years until Einstein came along.   The standard model was exceedingly hard to even create.  I have seen claims that it wobbles slightly in places, implying it has at the very least exactitude issues.  It’s new. Or relatively new at least as physics and mathematics go.  It may be it is still undergoing the prodding that Newtonian physics or einsteinian physics underwent when they were first published. 

[Lord Vile]

4 hours ago, dizmo said:

ftfy

I don't think anyone's arguing that life is on every planet. However, it's much, much more likely to exist on a large scale than you seem to be implying.

 

You can't say never. In our lifetimes? Of course not. But to say we'll never accomplish that is insane. 2,000 years ago I'm sure they'd have thought automobiles, or traveling to the moon would never happen either.

There's a very specific band where life would be feasible on the surface of a planet, too hot and there's no atmosphere and everything evaporates into space, too cold and everything freezes. Not enough gravity and you have no atmosphere etc.

 

Assuming we're still here in 2,000 years. And there's a marked difference between motorising a wheel and breaking the laws of physics.

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

The problem I have with the idea of aliens is that it's no different than religion where it's more belief than actuality, and then you have to just have faith in it.  No, fucking prove it to me or I'm not going to develop a sense of psychosis to make you feel better because you can't accept, "we don't know!" as a fucking answer.   People love putting things in place of unknowns then treat it as if it is factual.   Well sorry, but things don't actually work that way.   That's basically psychosis.   Aliens may or may not exist, but there's no evidence that fucking E.T. is out there.   The closest thing we have to an alien is Dennis Rodman.

I don’t even see Dennis Rodman as particularly weird.  I’ve met odder people than Dennis Rodman (this may say more about me than him)

[dizmo]

9 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

There's a very specific band where life would be feasible on the surface of a planet, too hot and there's no atmosphere and everything evaporates into space, too cold and everything freezes. Not enough gravity and you have no atmosphere etc.

 

Assuming we're still here in 2,000 years. And there's a marked difference between motorising a wheel and breaking the laws of physics.

They already have ideas that, in theory, would work. They have hurdles to overcome obviously, but with potentially hundreds of years to figure that out, it wouldn't be hard to imagine it'll come to fruition. The Alcubierre drive is one example. It doesn't break the laws of physics.

[whm1974]

9 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

There's a very specific band where life would be feasible on the surface of a planet, too hot and there's no atmosphere and everything evaporates into space, too cold and everything freezes. Not enough gravity and you have no atmosphere etc.

 

Assuming we're still here in 2,000 years. And there's a marked difference between motorising a wheel and breaking the laws of physics.

Why wouldn't We still be here in 2,000 years?  And besides who said anything about violating the Laws of Physics?

[Lord Vile]

1 minute ago, whm1974 said:

Why wouldn't We still be here in 2,000 years?  And besides who said anything about violating the Laws of Physics?

Global warming, resource shortages, nuclear war, antibiotic resistant bacteria to name a few.

 

To get to the CLOSEST star it'd take around 100 years travelling at the speed NASAs latest probe is expected to achieve whilst slingshotting around the sun. 

[whm1974]

3 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Global warming, resource shortages, nuclear war, antibiotic resistant bacteria to name a few.

 

To get to the CLOSEST star it'd take around 100 years travelling at the speed NASAs latest probe is expected to achieve whilst slingshotting around the sun. 

Humanity can and will Survive those things.

[Bombastinator]

-deleted- I post too slow.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Bombastinator