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.

 

Response to the common skeptic's argument that interstellar travel is inherently unfeasible.

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by thedoctorswife
 


Originally posted by thedoctorswife

.......why are our laws of physics considered definitive?
This is something that I have wondered for awhile also. We don't even positively know that the Laws of Physics which we believe to be true, are consistent within our entire Solar System.

Those 'Laws' within another Solar System, another Galaxy, another Universe, etc.. etc..... could be completely different from ours. Those differences could even possibly be unimaginable to us.


I don't actually know much about Quantum Physics, but I'm pretty sure that some of the Laws of Quantum Physics completely disagree with Newtons Laws. That in itself should be enough to make it at least plausible, that our laws may not hold true within all other areas of this vast Universe.




All I really know is that it is highly likely that I will never know.











This article disputes that our current understanding of the laws of physics or what is right for our part of the universe we inhabit could very well be wrong in a sense that the laws of physics as science currently understands them may very well NOT APPLY to all parts of the universe.THAT WE INHABIT A PART OF THE UNIVERSE THAT HAS BASIC LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT IS JUST RIGHT FOR US BUT NOT FOR ALL THE UNIVERSE.
That other forms of intelligence and quite possibly more advanced than us having diffident or more advanced laws of physics is mind blowing and a real game changer to those who think science understands every thing that there is to understand.



VLT/Our Laws Of Physics COULD be Wrong??

**Breaking** VLT May Have Proven That Our Laws Of Physics Are Wrong - The Universe Is Not Equal! quotes; "the VLT (Very Large Telescope) in Chile has found that may prove our science based knowledge of laws and physics in the universe is completely and utterly incorrect and the so called experts in these matters may have to issue apologies for trying to ridicule the people who disagreed with them". "Defying Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, researchers have found new evidence that supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is "just right" for our existence".

Taking data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile Webb has observed that alpha varies in space rather than time. The VLT data suggests that, elsewhere in the universe, the value of alpha is very slightly bigger than on Earth; Laws of physics are not the same everywhere; 2010-09-09 16:20:00 Defying Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, researchers have found new evidence that supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is "just right" for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos. "This finding was a real surprise to everyone," New Scientist quoted John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Australia as saying.

Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a "preferred direction", or axis, across the cosmos. That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein's special theory of relativity. But the new study focuses on the fine structure constant, also known as alpha. This number determines the strength of interactions between light and matter. Taking data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile Webb has observed that alpha varies in space rather than time. The VLT data suggests that, elsewhere in the universe, the value of alpha is very slightly bigger than on Earth. The difference in both cases is around a millionth of the value alpha has in our region of space. Moreover, the team's analysis of around 300 measurements of alpha in light coming from various points in the sky suggests the variation is not random but structured, like a bar magnet. The universe seems to have a large alpha on one side and a smaller alpha on the other.


This "dipole" alignment nearly matches that of a stream of galaxies mysteriously moving towards the edge of the universe. However, it does not line up with another unexplained dipole, dubbed the axis of evil, in the afterglow of the big bang. Earth sits somewhere in the middle of the extremes for alpha. If correct, the result would explain why alpha seems to have the finely tuned value that allows chemistry - and thus life - to occur. Grow alpha by 4 per cent, for instance, and the stars would be unable to produce carbon, making our biochemistry impossible.


external text source link;

The study will be published in Physical Review Letters. (ANI)
www.swinburne.edu.au...
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 

Originally posted by WingedBull

........by what we can see in the observable, whether it be here or in far-off galaxies, the rules that apply to this part of the universe apply everywhere.
That conclusion would be based upon those details which we have observed, that are also in agreement with our theories.

However, there is still much that we have observed, that remains baffling. So those things which we cannot understand, are not always taken into account, in regards to the laws that are claimed to be 'Universal'.

That is all aside from the fact that in relation to the Universe, our observations have only just begun to scratch the surface.



 
 

Originally posted by WingedBull

As, I did not say what we know is "universal" (this is yet another attempt to twist what I said as saying our knowledge is perfect and definitive),
Enough of that nonsense.


In my opinion, 'Universal' is just a term that we should never even use, simply because we do not positively know.



 
 

Originally posted by WingedBull

There is a gross leap of logic taking place in this discussion...that because a hypothetical, heretofore unimagined sort of physics or propulsion system may exist, therefore aliens must be visiting the Earth. The logic just does not follow.
Just to be clear about it: I don't believe that↑ at all.

I haven't actually paid much attention to topic. Honestly, I probably haven't said much at all in this thread, that was actually on topic. lol


 
 

Originally posted by WingedBull

But beyond that, look at the logic of what you are arguing insofar as the laws of the universe not being the same everywhere. Even if that were the case, so what? Once aliens reached this part of the universe, our laws would be in play and whatever laws are true in their part of the universe are moot. They will be just as hobbled by our laws as we are.
That reminds me of something else I have wondered before, but have never actually mentioned......

If there are other forms of intelligent life out there, who are actually capable of interstellar travels, it still could be possible that may not be adequately prepared for the entering into our atmosphere. Their atmospheric conditions may be completely different from ours.



Example (translated from Alien-Speak into English, of course):

"Alrighty boys. It's been a long ass ride, but we've finally made it. You guys ready to go on down there, and check it out?"

"Yup. Let's go Captain."

What the hell Cap? It's getting HOT in here!!!

Then their faces melt off.
(similar to the last scene from 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark')



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 

Well apparently I'm not the only one who thinks it's plausible. ↑↑↑↑


 
 
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

This article disputes that our current understanding of the laws of physics or what is right for our part of the universe we inhabit could very well be wrong in a sense that the laws of physics as science currently understands them may very well NOT APPLY to all parts of the universe.
Maybe that is even a deciding factor pertaining to the lack of life elsewhere within the Universe.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
[color=C4B59B]Deciding Factor ↑↓↑↓↑↓↑ [color=BEEDE8]Contributing Factor



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Our current model of physics called the standard model has quite a few problems to say the least and is not complete. The theory of relativity has not been resolved with quantum physics and a unified theory is the current goal of physics. Personally I've wondered if physics as we know does apply to the entire universe. Based on our observations our current physics does appear to be constant throughout the universe. The LHC and the Higgs boson is the latest thing. Anti-matter, dark matter, dark energy, multiple universe and dimension theory and all the bizarre sub-atomic particles make it difficult to say what is possible or impossible.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 




Just because the laws of physics in another part of the universe might totally different from ours, that does not imply that life cannot exist out side of our currant laws or conditions for life.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

Just because the laws of physics in another part of the universe might totally different from ours, that does not imply that life cannot exist out side of our currant laws or conditions for life.
Which is the reason I corrected myself, in the next post down. I should have said 'Contributing Factor', instead of 'Deciding'.


...but anyways: I'm not saying that there are no other forms of life out there.... ....somewhere.

I just meant that the aforementioned differences in the Laws of Physics could possibly be part of the reason that life is not more plentiful/abundant.






edit on 9/12/12 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucas73
reply to post by Diablos
 

Von Neumann robots + corrupted data = Borg

No corrupted data needed. Actually, a good Von Neumann device would be a bacteria. Drop it down on a likely planet. Or just let it drift through space on its own until it randomly falls on a planet. It might take a little while for it to evolve to a point where it can build rockets and continue to spread itself through the universe, but what's the hurry?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Bascially...interstellar travel is inherently FEASIBLE, because of the fact that interstellar travellers be they robots, or EBE's, have visited our planet in the past; and probably will do more so in the future.
Wormholes, interdimensions aside...is brought on by the high probability that the starships that visit our planet, are capable of superluminal [faster than light] speeds.

My speculation on the type of fuel that a starship needs to achieve superluminal speeds --- would have to be an unlimitless supply of fuel that does not have to be stored onboard the starship --- with my most logical choice at the moment...would be photons from any star in our universe. In places where the lack of starlight photons is left wanting --- the storage of a small amount of seawater onboard the starship, would be the fuel for the photon engine, when fusion plasma is created between two gravitic magnetic fields surrounding the starship; and funneled into the engine and expelled with tremendous thrust.
edit on 12-9-2012 by Erno86 because: added a word

edit on 12-9-2012 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 12-9-2012 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 12-9-2012 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 12-9-2012 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 12-9-2012 by Erno86 because: grammar

edit on 12-9-2012 by Erno86 because: added a word



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

Just because the laws of physics in another part of the universe might totally different from ours, that does not imply that life cannot exist out side of our currant laws or conditions for life.
Which is the reason I corrected myself, in the next post down. I should have said 'Contributing Factor', instead of 'Deciding'.


...but anyways: I'm not saying that there are no other forms of life out there.... ....somewhere.

I just meant that the aforementioned differences in the Laws of Physics could possibly be part of the reason that life is not more plentiful/abundant.






edit on 9/12/12 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



Sorry ,but how can we know based on our LIMITED understanding of what is POSSIBLE from what we currently know about what conditions are right for life forms that we cannot possible even guess at to exist.Remember it was thought that NOTHING could survive in arsenic but recently it was found that life in the bacteria form could exist in arsenic.That was a game changer was it not, the fundamental of what conditions are right for life is up in the air after that discovery.What forms of life on distant planets that contain liquids more toxic than arsenic is actually raised not diminished as you are trying to imply,life is abundant out there the percentages are in its favour and so was this discovery of arsenic
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

Sorry ,but how can we know based on our LIMITED understanding of what is POSSIBLE from what we currently know about what conditions are right for life forms that we cannot possible even guess at to exist.
That is 'how', and that is 'why'.


The simple fact that we don't actually know much at all, means that from our limited perspective, the possibilities are endless. Anything is possible.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Erno86
 


Originally posted by Erno86

because of [color=D6CB83]the fact that interstellar travellers be they robots, or EBE's, [color=D6CB83]have visited our planet in the past; and probably will do more so in the future.
So all of a sudden, that is now a fact?

If it were, then you would have no problems proving so.

Since you cannot, it is simply hearsay, and nothing more.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

The simple fact that we don't actually know much at all, means that from our limited perspective, the possibilities are endless. Anything is possible. we don't actually know much at all.


I hope you don't mind me editing your quote to illustrate my point. Saying that anything is possible based on lack of knowledge is in fact an argument from ignorance.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 



Originally posted by cripmeister

Saying that anything is possible based on lack of knowledge is in fact an argument from ignorance.

Prove it!

If anything is not possible, then go on and advise me as to what the limitations are.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by cripmeister
 



Originally posted by cripmeister

Saying that anything is possible based on lack of knowledge is in fact an argument from ignorance.

Prove it!

If anything is not possible, then go on and advise me as to what the limitations are.



I am not making the claim, you are, so there is nothing for me to prove



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Originally posted by cripmeister

I am not making the claim, you are, so there is nothing for me to prove
That is incorrect. It was you who made the claim that it was ignorant of me to say that 'anything is possible'. If I am in fact wrong on that, as you have suggested, then there would have to be limitations of some sorts. So what are those limitations?


You just wanted to say that I was wrong, but cannot even attempt to explain exactly why I am wrong? That's weak.

If you cannot stand behind your own words, then it is entirely pointless for you to say anything at all.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Erno86
 


Originally posted by Erno86

because of [color=D6CB83]the fact that interstellar travellers be they robots, or EBE's, [color=D6CB83]have visited our planet in the past; and probably will do more so in the future.
So all of a sudden, that is now a fact?

If it were, then you would have no problems proving so.

Since you cannot, it is simply hearsay, and nothing more.







Based on my own eyewitness other-worlder starship sighting myself, and other's, I have no qualms in saying that it is a fact that space alien starship's have peaceably invaded our skies.
If you want proof...why don't you go out and go UFO hunting yourself. I don't have to waste my time, in running around in circles with you.

What planet are you from?

Cheers,

Erno86







edit on 13-9-2012 by Erno86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Erno86
 


Originally posted by Erno86

If you want proof...why don't you go out and go UFO hunting yourself. I don't have to waste my time, in running around in circles with you.

There's no need for you to get your panties all bunched up in a wad about it. I was just simply wanting to see the proof you have that would confirm this supposed fact of yours.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Originally posted by cripmeister

I am not making the claim, you are, so there is nothing for me to prove
That is incorrect. It was you who made the claim that it was ignorant of me to say that 'anything is possible'. If I am in fact wrong on that, as you have suggested, then there would have to be limitations of some sorts. So what are those limitations?


You just wanted to say that I was wrong, but cannot even attempt to explain exactly why I am wrong? That's weak.

If you cannot stand behind your own words, then it is entirely pointless for you to say anything at all.


I am not saying you are wrong because I don't know but neither do you. See that is the crux here, you are making a claim based on a lack of knowledge. When you don't know, all you can say is that you don't know.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

The simple fact that we don't actually know much at all, means that from our limited perspective, the possibilities are endless. Anything is possible. we don't actually know much at all.


I hope you don't mind me editing your quote to illustrate my point. Saying that anything is possible based on lack of knowledge is in fact an argument from ignorance.







The same can be said of those that claim that until science has discovered it or produced it in a test tube in a lab then its not possible.The real ignorance here is those that will not or cannot see beyond the box.Scientific understanding at present does not know everything there is to know and those that endorse this arrogant perception are the ones that are holding back new discoveries and are the ones to avoid.

To actually condemn any possibilities of advanced ET intelligences out there is a premature and very blinkered view of the multi universes.why condemn something that is yet to be discovered, "the world is flat" "man will never sail the Atlantic Ocean in any kind of vessel", man will never fly , ring any bells.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join