It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Physics & Space: Knowledge Deficit

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Physics was never a favorite class of mine in high school or college. I'm not a big fan of math so naturally physics was more challenging to me in contrast to biology or history. This didn't deter my interest in physics, only my understanding. I did find it mildly frustrating as my interest in anything space-related or science fiction was tenacious.

So here are some questions to those of you who have a thorough grasp of physics. We know we don't know everything about space, physics, and the universe, right? We know the concepts addressed and explained in physics is dynamic and has continued to evolve. Our understanding of space and time is also continuing to develop.

-In your opinion, professional or not, are our abilities to conceive, design, and develop commensurate to our growth as humans? Simply put, are we technologically-appropriate at this time as a species in regards to space exploration. I realize this may be a difficult question to answer as we have no comparison.

-How much farther ahead would we be if finances was less of an issue? Besides having an unlimited amount of capitol, what kind of figure would "thrust" our understanding and R&D "out of this world?" Sorry, no pun intended

-Do the different laws and theories in physics change as we learn more? Or are these laws pretty static?

-How much difference is there between the theories, laws, and concepts that birthed aviation and the concepts and theories that put man into space?

-To what extent is theoretical physics imperitive to our continued development as a spacefaring species? Considering Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist, I'd guess pretty important! How much has changed in the last 50 years between modern physics and the time before Einstein? Are we still in our infancy when it comes to understanding physics?

I think about how incredibly gifted and intelligent some of these scientists and engineers are and it makes my head spin. I think about the different laws of thermodynamics, or Einstein's theory of general relativity and I can easily lose an entire day to daydreaming!

Any thoughs are greatly appreciated!




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


Fundamental understanding of human space exploration, astrophysics and basic science is the *number one* reason why UFOlogy struggles to be taken seriously when people make reports or claims about ET visitation. They often fail among the most generous margins of scientific rigor right out of the starting gate.

If everyone could settle on what actual evidence is, how things are proven in mainstream science, and what steps are needed to be taken to bring these issues forward, then these theories would be taken more seriously.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The physics we understand represent repeatable outcomes of the input. Otherwise we call it woo. "The Bomb' demonstrated we have an idea of what's going on, in 1945. In 1969 man walked on the moon. People seem to expect exponential advances compared to when the Wright Brothers flew a couple hundred yards on a heavier than air powered craft near the beach aided by ocean wind.

The technological advances you seek are out there, they just don't happen to be in the realm of expensive spacecrafts the sci-fi fiction writes about, that kind of economical expense is illogical.

If you look closer at all of the technological advance made since the early 70's (when I had to read encyclopedias to do homework for school), you would be amazed at the progress.

Sending men to the moon is an outrageous expense, that yield zero return of investment. Money runs the world, the 60's are gone.

Even new music sucks comparatively.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DissonantOne
 


How about a craft we can touch?

That would settle the woo.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 




-How much farther ahead would we be if finances was less of an issue? Besides having an unlimited amount of capitol, what kind of figure would "thrust" our understanding and R&D "out of this world?" Sorry, no pun intended
MUCH farther. We had the technology to send probes and stuff to the far reaches of the solar system decades ago, imagine if we pumped more and more money and energy into the space program. We could have bases on Mars, we could have explored the surface of every planet and moon in the solar system by now if we really set ourselves to it.

We absolutely have the resources, technology, and scientific knowledge necessary to accomplish those tasks on this planet, but people have their priorities elsewhere, like say football, or some trendy clothing, or bombing other countries.


-Do the different laws and theories in physics change as we learn more? Or are these laws pretty static?
Sure, that's the thing about science, it's not one fixed set of beliefs that don't change in the face of evidence ( unlike religion
) But things such as Newton's laws have held up to scrutiny pretty nicely for hundreds of years.

An example that ties more into Astrophysics than Physics itself would be the theory of a geocentric universe where the stars orbit at the same distance from the earth. We used to think we were at the center of the universe, then one day we realized that we were just solar system in the outskirts of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. We came a long way from thinking in terms of shells encasing the earth



-How much difference is there between the theories, laws, and concepts that birthed aviation and the concepts and theories that put man into space?
Well I don't know a ton abut this subject, but obviously getting the aircrafts into their intended destinations requires completely different approaches. For airplanes, you need to be able to stay in the air and increase altitude, and for spacecrafts, you need to be able to literally escape the pull of gravity of the earth in order to get into space.


-To what extent is theoretical physics imperitive to our continued development as a spacefaring species? Considering Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist, I'd guess pretty important! How much has changed in the last 50 years between modern physics and the time before Einstein? Are we still in our infancy when it comes to understanding physics?
We still don't know quite a bit about physics. For example, dark matter and energy, which is invisible on the electromagnetic spectrum yet detectable due to it's effects such as gravitational lensing, makes up around 96% of the mass/energy of the universe. There are still lots of things to learn in the field of physics.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I think were currently not where we should be , because I believe not enough of the advanced technology is released to the public domain for us the spin into great ideas...its kept for national defence and corp profits.


I also believe were stuck in our understanding of theoretical physics...if you watch lectures of nassim haramein you'll see how hardline the current model is. He challegd that and for me bridged the gap between physics and spirituality.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
This is one of my personal pet theories -- That it is true, as some so strenuously believe, that every 26,000 years or so the Earth, and/or our entire solar system, goes through some kind of cataclysmic event, in which the planet becomes inhabitable for a certain stretch of time, until everything calms down and Earth again regenerates and Life begins anew.
If we, as a species, can come together soon enough, get over our differences, pool our resources, and put our time energy money etc. into scientific research and understanding, instead of exhausting our resources on defense, personal gain, greed, opulence, etc. then we have a chance to develop the technology that could save us, either in space exploration or some type of shielding or what have you and we can go on further in our evolution.
Kind of like a self regulating system – to be ‘worthy’ of joining the Galactic family we have to be able to Live and work together, trust each other, help each other, etc. Not as a religious ‘punishment’ thing, but more as just a natural cyclical thing…
I’m not real sure we ‘made the cut’ this time around… maybe the next ‘batch’ of humans will be a bit smarter?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by peri26
This is one of my personal pet theories -- That it is true, as some so strenuously believe, that every 26,000 years or so the Earth, and/or our entire solar system, goes through some kind of cataclysmic event, in which the planet becomes inhabitable for a certain stretch of time, until everything calms down and Earth again regenerates and Life begins anew.
If we, as a species, can come together soon enough, get over our differences, pool our resources, and put our time energy money etc. into scientific research and understanding, instead of exhausting our resources on defense, personal gain, greed, opulence, etc. then we have a chance to develop the technology that could save us, either in space exploration or some type of shielding or what have you and we can go on further in our evolution.
Kind of like a self regulating system – to be ‘worthy’ of joining the Galactic family we have to be able to Live and work together, trust each other, help each other, etc. Not as a religious ‘punishment’ thing, but more as just a natural cyclical thing…
I’m not real sure we ‘made the cut’ this time around… maybe the next ‘batch’ of humans will be a bit smarter?


Proof? Or wild [ill-informed] speculation?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by BagBing
 


Just wild,( ill-formed?), speculation...
my apologies if I offended...



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by peri26
This is one of my personal pet theories -- That it is true, as some so strenuously believe, that every 26,000 years or so the Earth, and/or our entire solar system, goes through some kind of cataclysmic event, in which the planet becomes inhabitable for a certain stretch of time, until everything calms down and Earth again regenerates and Life begins anew.
If we, as a species, can come together soon enough, get over our differences, pool our resources, and put our time energy money etc. into scientific research and understanding, instead of exhausting our resources on defense, personal gain, greed, opulence, etc. then we have a chance to develop the technology that could save us, either in space exploration or some type of shielding or what have you and we can go on further in our evolution.
Kind of like a self regulating system – to be ‘worthy’ of joining the Galactic family we have to be able to Live and work together, trust each other, help each other, etc. Not as a religious ‘punishment’ thing, but more as just a natural cyclical thing…
I’m not real sure we ‘made the cut’ this time around… maybe the next ‘batch’ of humans will be a bit smarter?


Proof? Or wild [ill-informed] speculation?


The only people I know that think they are smarter talk about it.

Exactly what does that suggest?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by peri26
This is one of my personal pet theories -- That it is true, as some so strenuously believe, that every 26,000 years or so the Earth, and/or our entire solar system, goes through some kind of cataclysmic event, in which the planet becomes inhabitable for a certain stretch of time, until everything calms down and Earth again regenerates and Life begins anew.
If we, as a species, can come together soon enough, get over our differences, pool our resources, and put our time energy money etc. into scientific research and understanding, instead of exhausting our resources on defense, personal gain, greed, opulence, etc. then we have a chance to develop the technology that could save us, either in space exploration or some type of shielding or what have you and we can go on further in our evolution.
Kind of like a self regulating system – to be ‘worthy’ of joining the Galactic family we have to be able to Live and work together, trust each other, help each other, etc. Not as a religious ‘punishment’ thing, but more as just a natural cyclical thing…
I’m not real sure we ‘made the cut’ this time around… maybe the next ‘batch’ of humans will be a bit smarter?


Proof? Or wild [ill-informed] speculation?


The only people I know that think they are smarter talk about it.

Exactly what does that suggest?


That you're not as smart as you thought you were? Just asking...



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
-In your opinion, professional or not, are our abilities to conceive, design, and develop commensurate to our growth as humans? Simply put, are we technologically-appropriate at this time as a species in regards to space exploration. I realize this may be a difficult question to answer as we have no comparison.
The record of written history suggests that our growth in technology hasn't always been smooth and continuous. There are many ways to answer this. One way would be to say if it wasn't for the dark ages which lasted for centuries, we might be centuries ahead of where we are now. The dark ages was a big anomaly and drag on our technological development.


-How much farther ahead would we be if finances was less of an issue? Besides having an unlimited amount of capitol, what kind of figure would "thrust" our understanding and R&D "out of this world?" Sorry, no pun intended
It takes more than just money, it takes focus to advance..focus like the US had in the 1960's, and that we haven't really had since according to Zubrin, and I think he might be right. This is the TL/DR answer to that question: www.nasa.gov... If you really want an answer to that question, and you haven't read that, you should probably read it.


-Do the different laws and theories in physics change as we learn more? Or are these laws pretty static?
This was discussed in another thread recently. The example I gave there was Eratosthenes measuring the size of the Earth thousands of years ago. We've since come up with more accurate measures and proven the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but he still did pretty good science way back then. A lot of refinements to science are like that. So some things change, and some things stay the same. Sometimes we completely miss the boat, like Phlogiston theory.


-How much difference is there between the theories, laws, and concepts that birthed aviation and the concepts and theories that put man into space?
A lot. Some similarities, but I'd say more differences.


-To what extent is theoretical physics imperitive to our continued development as a spacefaring species? Considering Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist, I'd guess pretty important! How much has changed in the last 50 years between modern physics and the time before Einstein? Are we still in our infancy when it comes to understanding physics?
To use an expression that Richard Feynman used, I don't think we know how many layers the "onion" of the natural world has yet. Some of the models we have make incredibly accurate predictions so claiming infancy seems totally inappropriate when we can make such accurate predictions. In other areas, like dark matter, we are totally ignorant of what dark matter is. In balance we're probably somewhere past infancy, but we still have much to learn.


I think about how incredibly gifted and intelligent some of these scientists and engineers are and it makes my head spin. I think about the different laws of thermodynamics, or Einstein's theory of general relativity and I can easily lose an entire day to daydreaming!
I think about how many people on ATS claim all these brilliant and gifted people are wrong, and they know better despite their lack of scientific education and training, that's even more mind-boggling to me than what the scientists work on! Yes I'm sure scientists have a few things wrong, but the rate at which papers are being written and at which knowledge is growing seems to be increasing almost exponentially. It's much different than when one man like Leonardo DaVinci could understand much of then-modern science himself...now there's way too much specialization among scientists for that.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DissonantOne
 




Fundamental understanding of human space exploration, astrophysics and basic science is the *number one* reason why UFOlogy struggles to be taken seriously when people make reports or claims about ET visitation


I agree. I think you're correct in saying that the "average person" probably doesn't have a good grasp of concepts such astrophysics or understand the fundamentals of space exploration. Heck, that's why I started this thread. Life sciences like biology always made more sense in my head than physics. I'm trying to educate myself on at least some of the more basic concepts and theories in physics. I would suspect that having some experience or knowledge in meterology would also be helpful. This is why UFO/ET observations by pilots hold up a little better to scrunity than the average person and hold more credibility. The more objective the report the easier it is to believe, while the average observation is probably more subjective.



If everyone could settle on what actual evidence is, how things are proven in mainstream science, and what steps are needed to be taken to bring these issues forward, then these theories would be taken more seriously.


Another good point here. If, indeed, we are being visited by extraterrestrials, we might be lacking the necessary senses to perceive all types of evidence of UFO/ETs, such as dimensional factors, etc. Equipment such as radar and sonor might also be insufficient to detect all types of UFOs. Perhaps in time, as our technology continues to develop, we will close the gap in technology between ourselves and ET, of course, this probably won't happen until about 100,000 years have passed lol.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
If you took all the grains of sand on every beach on the Earth, from the surface of the sand down to where the sand stops, and counted every grain of sand and called that sum the "total amount of knowledge that could possibly be known in the universe" I believe we as a species only know about 1 "grain" of that total.
edit on 22-1-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
-How much farther ahead would we be if finances was less of an issue? Besides having an unlimited amount of capitol, what kind of figure would "thrust" our understanding and R&D "out of this world?" Sorry, no pun intended


We would probably have done a lot more if funding wasn't an issue. The Apollo program would have gone on longer since it was cut short due to funding. We might even have had continued going to the Moon after the Apollo missions. Depending on R&D on radiation shielding, Lunar bases and Mars missions could have been attempted by now. And unmanned exploration would probably be a lot further along too. We could be sending orbiters, landers and rovers everywhere possible within our solar system.

But sadly, funding is the biggest issue when it comes to space exploration.


Originally posted by Illustronic
Sending men to the moon is an outrageous expense, that yield zero return of investment. Money runs the world, the 60's are gone.


I used to think there was no ROI from funding space exploration, but that's not entirely true. There was an estimated 33% return on investment from the Apollo program.

Economic impact of NASA funding




top topics



 
4

log in

join