Printable View
Jerm you enjoy being a smartass. I think its lame but do you.
[QUOTE=ShannonElements]Well, that's why I asked rather than just assuming. I don't think anything exists for some kind of 'grand reason'. Just my opinion. Agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much all i've been doing. Agree to disagree and acknowledging one anothers beliefs/position.
Some things are just there as a result of circumstances and serve no purpose whatsoever even though most things around us are there for a reason.
that is fascinating, I wonder how they know that there is that stuff out there
[QUOTE=Jerm]Some things are just there as a result of circumstances and serve no purpose whatsoever even though most things around us are there for a reason.[/QUOTE]
Doesnt mean the things you think are there serving no purpose dont serve a purpose.
there must have been at least over a reported 10,000 alien encounters or ufo sightings.
I think there are ONLY 2 real possibilties when it comes to the the question of intelligent life populating the universe..
1. technology isn't as limitless as we think it is and the universe is populated with infinite intelligent life that has no way of ever communicating with each other or ever visiting each other.
2. We are completely alone in the universe and it is devoid of other intelligent life.
If there were a vast number of intelligent life out in the universe AND the technology to comminicate and traval the universe someone would have had to have set up a "franchise" at some point and time.. it would only take one one entitity to do this and we would be aware of them.
One entity in limitless time and infinite species... and we would know about it.
It would only take one lifeform deciding to start a "franchise" using something like this...
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_probe[/url]
[QUOTE]someone would have had to have done this at some point and time.. it would only take one one entitity to do this and we would be aware of them.[/QUOTE]
Considering our human history is sooo short, and our capability to try and reach other intelligent life has been even shorter, I don't see how we would be aware of them so soon.
You have to read about the concept of a Von Neumann machine. Basically it's like a robot that self-replicates and spreads itself through the universe.
How I imagine it working is that it would self replicate.. see a Sun like ours.. figure out that life will develop here one day, come here, set up shop, wait around for us, and then communicate with us.
So, again, if life was limitless.. I don't see how one life form out there wouldn't have done this. And it would seemingly take very little technoolgy to do this.
As for the time frame... yes we haven't been around long. But there should be life that is much much older than us that would have spread through the Universe by now.
[b]Well, just to play ball, let's say one of these machines spotted our sun, and decided to head over to set up shop. When it departed for our solar system, humankind had yet to exist, but due to the enormous distance, we've already advanced to present day and it's still on its way. And our universe is relatively young, so even if there is more intelligent life out there somewhere, it's quite possible that they're not yet as advanced as we are. I know, not exactly sci-fi, but possible.[/b]
The thing is, I think to be able to travel through space it would be necessary to manipulate time. And this is why there is a very big possbility the limitations of technology are too great to travel through space to other life forms.
No matter what Einstein tells you, you can't manipulate time.
That's why I said there were only 2 possibilities...
1. no tech
2. no intelligent life forms
If the technology is there we would know they are there. If the Von Nuemann machine isn't possible then it isn't possible for life to travel to other life. So, no Von Nuemann then no life.
That's how I sees it. I hope I'm wrong though.
Another thing I was thinking about, is that it would be cool to have a giant depiction of the images in the original post of this thread. I am wondering if you had a giant diagram, like imagine putting a diagram on the side of some immense wall, how big would big would it have to be, if say on the diagram the Earth was as big as a quarter or something?
It would be cool to see it from a distance and then walk up to it very close.. you could get a good idea of the scale that way.
first, some one asked about a googleplex, and I never saw an answer... A google is 10^100. A googleplex is 10^google.
Second, for anyone with time/interest, Arthur C. Clarks Odyssey (2001,2010, 2061 and 3001)books have some interesting takes on a lot of the things discussed here, although 3001 prolly addresses the majority of them in the best way. Each book can be read without any knowledge of the others, so feel free to skip to that one, if you want. It even discusses how Von Nuemann type machines could observe/affect our world.
Finally, a lot of the most recent theories state that while there is not definite boundry to the Universe, eventually the momentum of the planets/stars/cosmic dust gained through the bigbang will run out, at which time the universe will begin to collapse back on itself. Of course, the popular theories seem to go back and forth between that and the infinitly expanding universe theory on a regular basis. Also, a seldom heard theory (no clue what the name is ) says that after the expansion stops, pockets of the Universe will collapse back in on itself, eventally causing multiple "big bangs" at cosmicly large distances from each othe at some time in the future, instead of another huge big bang from the whole universe collapsing into itself.
I think, all the theories are fun and stuff, and I'd love to know what will happen. But, until God wants us too, we prolly won't know.
Can you imagine the gravitational pull on Jupiter. I don't know how accurate I am, but a petite 90 lb girl would probably weight a few hundred lbs, maybe even a thousand pounds on jupiter.
[QUOTE=Jerm]No matter what Einstein tells you, you can't manipulate time.[/QUOTE]
Jerm you are wrong. Time is not stable. Time is directly proportional to speed. Time has been manipulated many times. When astronauts go into space they set their watches with NASA time and when they come back their watches and 1 or 2 minutes behind time. Because a space shuttle travels so fast, time actually slows down. This has been proven in labratories as well. Einstein is right.
Electronic time may change but speed won't stop you from aging like you're supposed to. Don't think of time like something you see in a clock or watch. Time isn't a number per se, if you're going to be wrinkly in "90 years", you'll be wrinkly in "90 years".
lol I can't believe you grown ass men can still believe in some mythical fairy tale like god and all that religious bullsh1t. Totally devoid of any logic based thinking. It's like me telling you to please believe I have a magic unicorn above my head, as a rational person, why the fvck would you believe me if I can't prove it????
The thing is that even though people can't show you God, they can show you things that God has done in their lives and in the life of others. Your unicorn?...That is only in your dreams.
what is time if it cant be measured Jerm?
Time isn't what you neccessarily see on your watch. I could measure time using the position of the sun in the sky. I doubt speed will be able to manipulate that. Isn't that what sundials are all about anyway?
ok here's one for you then.....there are elements on the sun that only last like 0.0000000000001 seconds before they die. Somehow, we know these elements exist because we are able to see them on Earth for that 0.0000000000001 seconds before they vanish. But, lets not forget that the suns rays take 8 minutes to get to earth. How can this be explained? When something travels at the speed of light, time is slowed down dramatically. No time passes when something travels that fast, until it hits the earth and stops moving. Then it is effected by time like we are. So dont act like you know what you are talking about.
Are you trying to tell me that if I can somehow get in a machine that travels at the speed of light, in "30years", I won't be having grey hair?...I call shenenigans. By the way, what you're claiming is just a theory that can't be proven right/wrong. Wasn't this all in Einstein's relativity model?
Time cannot be manipulated. It is not a physical entity like length/heigth. Time is an abstract entitity IMO atleast.
no it is fact!! It has been proven right. And yes i am saying that if you had a twin brother and he was on earth and you were traveling at the speed of light that you would live forever while he would die at 76 or whatever.
[QUOTE=FabCasablancas]Another thing I was thinking about, is that it would be cool to have a giant depiction of the images in the original post of this thread. I am wondering if you had a giant diagram, like imagine putting a diagram on the side of some immense wall, how big would big would it have to be, if say on the diagram the Earth was as big as a quarter or something?
It would be cool to see it from a distance and then walk up to it very close.. you could get a good idea of the scale that way.[/QUOTE]
if earth was the size of a quarter, the biggest sun would be the size of the earth.
[QUOTE=Jerm]Are you trying to tell me that if I can somehow get in a machine that travels at the speed of light, in "30years", I won't be having grey hair?...I call shenenigans. By the way, what you're claiming is just a theory that can't be proven right/wrong. Wasn't this all in Einstein's relativity model?
Time cannot be manipulated. It is not a physical entity like length/heigth. Time is an abstract entitity IMO atleast.[/QUOTE]
no it has been proven by experimentation that the faster you travel the slower time becomes. It has been only proven by a few milliseconds because we can't travel very fast, but it has been proven.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Jerm just shut up you are like 12 years old and you are wrong man. How many different things do i have to show you. Time is not stable for the LAST TIME. Maybe you cant grasp the idea. Time is about as stable as ur weight.
[QUOTE=Jerm]It is not a fact. There's a reason why it is called the [B]relativity theory[/B], it hasn't been proven to be a fact of life. How do you even prove that time is dependent on the relative speeds of the observer's time frames?...How do you make an object achieve the speed of light?..
What you're arguing is a "theory" not a fact. Basic science tells you that a theory is a hypothesis that hasn't been proven beyong reasonable doubt.[/QUOTE]
I guess you don't believe in gravity either then. Or that we are made of atoms and molecules. just because you can't see it doens't mean its not true or its not there. People have been trying to disprove Einstein's theory for decades, you're not gonna be the first to make an argument that its wrong.
PureElement, I like your style. lol
It is not a fact. There's a reason why it is called the [B]relativity theory[/B], it hasn't been proven to be a fact of life. How do you even prove that time is dependent on the relative speeds of the observer's time frames?...How do you make an object achieve the speed of light?..
What you're arguing is a "theory" not a fact. Basic science tells you that a theory is a hypothesis that hasn't been proven beyong reasonable doubt.
[QUOTE]There has been considerable testing of the time dilation theory showing the theory proved. However, all tests involve only particles at electron mass and smaller. These tests, by necessity, do not involve particles at nucleonic size in the mechanism which actually measures the timing, due to the accuracy required.
As the twins hypothesis involves particles of nucleonic size i.e. constructed of atoms I do not believe such structures can be effected by time dilation and that this part of Einstein’s postulate is flawed.
This concept has implications in that particles which may have been influenced by time dilation may well be much older than nucleonic particles.
Articles based on Einsteins work indicate that he wrote the time dilation effect would only be appropriate at velocities close to the speed of light.
I now believe that no object of nuclionic particle size or above can be accelerated to anywhere near these speeds. Any such attempt would result in the nuclionic particles being disrupted to the extent that they would either form into a close (touching) mass or fly apart. The so called weak and strong forces being disrupted at these speeds. [/QUOTE]
That's a short essay by my friend. How do you achieve speeds close to the speed of life since Einsten himself beleives that this theory is only true at those speeds. It's called time dilation by the way.
I like how I'm making reasonable arguments and the high school student(Pure Element) and layman(ShadyMilkman) are depending on insults.
[QUOTE][B]I guess you don't believe in gravity either then. Or that we are made of atoms and molecules. [/B]just because you can't see it doens't mean its not true or its not there. People have been trying to disprove Einstein's theory for decades, you're not gonna be the first to make an argument that its wrong.[/QUOTE]
That part of the theory has been proven beyond reasonable doubt while other parts of the theory like time dilation are still in doubt or can't be proven. That is why it remains a theory.
yea look up an article when ur back is against the wall and act like ur an expert. "its called time dilation thank you very much".
like pure said, i guess you dont believe in gravity either.
come to the DARK SIDE Jerm....things are better over here.
[QUOTE=Heilige]So there is only so much variation available, but once again, it's for life as we know it, which is life that resembles that which is on Earth. There could be, and probably is, all sorts of weird life out there that has completely different rules.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm basing everything on. We just don't know the scientific laws for those places we can't go to or can't see. It's a strange thought, but it has to be considered.
The thought that there is vastly more intelligent life out there is just such a crazy thought. Not just that they exist, but that they might have been around before us, watched our planet and our galaxy form, and have studied us since day one of our existence. If so, I guarantee they're getting a kick out of this thread. :eek:
[QUOTE]come to the DARK SIDE Jerm....things are better over here[/QUOTE]
Are you also saying I could travel in high speed to a point in space and view what happened yesterday on earth. Does that sound reasonable to you?...That is what the theory your presenting as "fact" may imply. (Think about the way we see other planets here like they were millions of years ago.)
I feel that time and matter are not connected, but that our measurement of time is connected to matter.
The fact that a second spent on the north pole is different from a second spent in a car traveling west at the equator at sea level and is also different from a super-sonic jet traveling high above the earth bothers me at a fundamental level and is unbeleivable.
This isn't a matter of seconds being lost. It is hte fact that 24 hours in one place can mean 50 years in another. The universe will have a hard time functioning if nothing obeys a time line. There is a time line which is why our universe can be able to even operate. Yesterday is yesterday. You can't go in a flight travelling at the speed of light and see your dead grandpa or see yourself when your balls haven't dropped. These are things that make me beleive that at a fundamental level, these things are wrong.
[QUOTE=Jerm]Are you also saying I could travel in high speed to a point in space and view what happened yesterday on earth. Does that sound reasonable to you?...That is what the theory your presenting as "fact" may imply. (Think about the way we see other planets here like they were millions of years ago.)[/QUOTE]
None of the theories of the higher sciences seem reasonable if you view it with the mind of an ordinary person. Geniuses don't think like any of us, and yet they have made the only real differences in the world. You think Newton or Galileo are any different from the scientists now?
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are based on Math. They don't have enough experimental proof yet, but they are not "shenenigans". They are based on research from the greatest minds in the world. And Mathmatics is just as important as reason or simple observation. Without it we would still base our thinking like Aristotle.
What happens if we mirror Star Trek:TNG and mirror everything they do on the show, form a "federation" with other planets, while becoming enemies with others.
[QUOTE=PureElement]None of the theories of the higher sciences seem reasonable if you view it with the mind of an ordinary person. Geniuses don't think like any of us, and yet they have made the only real differences in the world. You think Newton or Galileo are any different from the scientists now?
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are based on Math. They don't have enough experimental proof yet, but they are not "shenenigans". They are based on research from the greatest minds in the world. And Mathmatics is just as important as reason or simple observation. Without it we would still base our thinking like Aristotle.[/QUOTE]
You're 100x more intelligent than Shady Milkman who thinks everything in the relativity theory has been proven to be facts and we should live by them. They are shenenigans when you think of the implications of these things. They just won't make sense, it will mean that we don't actually exist when we exist. Like it means that I can go outside of space at a high speed and watch how the earth is in the future. These things don't make sense.
Amazing pics.
Just goes to show how insiginficant the earth and humans are in the big picture.