The difficulties of interstellar travel and the implausibility of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Faster than light travel can and is already being done. There are thousands of Military reports with confirmed craft sightings via radar, visual, thermal, moving at speeds 40,000 mph plus making right angle turns or stopping on a dime. To make none ballistic movements like that without exploding, burning up, or breaking up means the craft use anti gravity propulsion and have a force field surrounding the craft. cancel out gravity you have 0 mass at that point light speed is nothing.




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by 727Sky

No, FTL speed is not the same as air travel, but, If we ever figure out a sure fire way of decreasing and objects mass through some type of force field to the point of negative mass then 17,000 mph 90 degree turns when just out joy riding would just be a normal thing to do while eating your crew meal.


Suppose it were possible to do this, i.e. modify inertia. It would make intercontinental air and cargo traffic faster and cheaper. Military aircraft would have immense capability. ICBM's could be stupendously scary, hide them in a large garage.

It still would be impossible to travel FTL, and even near light-speed travel would be extraordinarily hazardous requiring immense additional breakthroughs. Just the blueshifted radiation would be insanely dangerous, random hydrogen atoms would induce massive biological damage, and a tiny bit of dust could obliterate the spacecraft.





edit on 24-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


With our knowledge baseline I do not disagree with your post: but I go back to the original premise that if there are alien craft that have been reported countless times throughout history then they have figured out something outside or purview or the baseline of our science. Ben Rich, the once head of Lockheed Skunk Works on his death bed said we have stuff already that could take us to the stars but it is so buried in black ops that the public will never see it.

I wasn't there during his death but that is what I have heard from different sources.

I have never seen the classic UFO and have only read and heard stories so I wouldn't bet the farm on E.T. zipping around but I would not totally dismiss them either due to the preponderance of reports. Again if one report is not a hoax or mistaken identity then FTL is possible.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by 727Sky

No, FTL speed is not the same as air travel, but, If we ever figure out a sure fire way of decreasing and objects mass through some type of force field to the point of negative mass then 17,000 mph 90 degree turns when just out joy riding would just be a normal thing to do while eating your crew meal.


Suppose it were possible to do this, i.e. modify inertia. It would make intercontinental air and cargo traffic faster and cheaper. Military aircraft would have immense capability. ICBM's could be stupendously scary, hide them in a large garage.

It still would be impossible to travel FTL, and even near light-speed travel would be extraordinarily hazardous requiring immense additional breakthroughs. Just the blueshifted radiation would be insanely dangerous, random hydrogen atoms would induce massive biological damage, and a tiny bit of dust could obliterate the spacecraft.





edit on 24-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


It would be absurd to think the version of a human in 2013 would ride in a spaceship of such capability. The spaceship itself would probably be sentient.

In addition if you can expand or contract space you can certainly deal with objects ahead of you in space.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


And again this is from completely human point of view and once again the mistake that they have to be travelling, what if they have hyperspace, teleport, stargate, dimensions, can put their body into some state? Science fiction much? Well, that's what it it is and conclusions until one knows what kind of things exist and what not are WRONG. Wrong WRONG!!!

And to the other poster saying we have reached the barrier of technology, cannot do better... in terms of travel. Makes you think others may not be able to?

OPEN MIND, ACCEPT POSSIBILITIES - EMBRACE THEM AND YOU ARE GOLD!!!!

How does one make conclusions how some advanced civilization would not be able to travel because they can never reach that far? That logic cracks me up



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by Harte
 


And again this is from completely human point of view and once again the mistake that they have to be travelling, what if they have hyperspace, teleport, stargate, dimensions, can put their body into some state? Science fiction much? Well, that's what it it is and conclusions until one knows what kind of things exist and what not are WRONG. Wrong WRONG!!!

Are you sure you meant to respond to me? I said nothing about such travel being impossible. In fact, I stated that they could travel from star to star instantly.

On the other hand, a quick trip through hyperspace (or whatever) can't change the numbers involved. It is implausible in the extreme that we would be found that way by some alien spacefaring race.

Now, if you want to posit some sort of intergalactic telepathy along with magic spaceships, then that might work.

Harte



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I find the OP very biased, closed minded and arrogant.

Many here brought up good points, but you seem to cherry pick whom to answer, and you usually do when you actually think you have something to argument back in favor of your viewpoint.

I'll try not to sound like the rest by comparing how similar people like you said certain things in the past which were proven wrong in our present times. Although its a solid argument on its own, I'll try a different approach. You claim that the difference between scientists few centuries ago and scientists today is that we have a lot more thorough, solid, understanding of things (they thought that way back then too, but .. nevermind), especially in the filed of physics/astrophysics.

It depends on how you view these 'laws' that you keep bring up as your strongest argument. What is a law actually? Is it an impenetrable barrier? Uncircumventable constant? A 'fail-safe' of some sort?

I think those are just problems, challenges, waiting to be overcome. And we are problem-solving species (and I doubt the only one, or the best in that category for that matter). These laws are things that limit the mutual exposure and interaction between self-aware forms of life. From a given 10.000 intelligent species that form various forms of civilizations (or whatever analogue to that you can think of), probably only one cracks the problem. The FTL problem in this instance. Or wormholes (whatever you find more problematic to exist or happen).

There are observed phenomena that defy these laws (like some quasars shooting energy several times the speed of light). Also, in the case you pull that "that could be a result of faulty observation and perception"-card, I'll remind you of the quantum world. Common physics is at odds with whats going on on the quantum level. A particle being capable to exist at two places at the same or two particles co-existing in the same time, at the same point in space (and many, many other very mind-boggling things). Quantum entanglement offers possibilities of FTL communication. If FTL communication is possible, I don't see how the door can be without any doubt closed for FTL travel.

We limit ourselves only by the limits we impose on each other. And this is exactly that. This is not a case of 'laws-shmaws-we'll-get-there-its-a-matter-of-time-thing'. Its a better understanding and open thinking about this that may get us close to solving this problem, or solve it entirely, whoknows? If every single intellectual thought the way you did, when stumbling across something thought to be impossible at the time, we wouldn't have even budged from the Stone Age stage. And your skeptical attitude doesn't help at all with this.

The real problem happens when we accept absolutes and put boundaries on ourselves. A scientist comes across facts A,B,C. Fellow scientists analyze, interpret and accept them, together they form a theory based on those facts. Another scientist then comes across facts L,M,N,O. They are analyzed by fellow scientists, and they seem to fit the previous theory, filling more gaps that were in it (a direction occurs). Then, a different scientist comes across X,Y,Z facts. During analysis of this by other scientists, controversy rises, these facts don't fit the accepted theory. In fact, they contradict it, and move into a totally different direction! Scientists have a choice - they would have to give up the accepted theory, and form a new one, based on all the available facts in place, or they can twist the interpretation of the controversial bunch, to fit at least mildly in the already established scientific viewpoints. Of course, they spent time formulating the basics from the ABCLMNO facts, so the XYZ will be subject to more loose interpretation and integration in current models. That's what's going on in science today. And we already consider something a "Law", without going through the rest of the alphabet A-Z. For some reason, you think we have found the bulk of whatever the universe has to offer on physics basis. I say you are wrong, we have barely scratched the surface of an iceberg.

The problem is, we think too linear, too one-dimensional. That's why facts are at odds with each other sometimes in science, because our interpretation is faulty, and the directions these models take are in two different sides, and cannot be unified. The most gracious attempt at solving this problem that I have seen today in physics is the M-theory, or theory of everything, or the unified filed theory. We'll see how far we go with that, maybe it will be the "Amen" moment we waited for, maybe we are going wrong about it again, as we have in some many instances before.
edit on 25-3-2013 by Basqiat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
You also seem to have adopted a certain viewpoint, and you use only the available facts and accepted notions to argument it for real. Its the same bad logic many argue when it comes to the Fermi paradox (the big silence, no registered activity, no official contact, age of the universe, star birthrate, available planets, bio-challenges for life to emerge, etc.), while the same can be used to feed argument fuel to the opposite side of the same topic. It really depends if you are an optimist or pessimist, with an open mind, or closed mind. Its not something more complex. Using human science of the 60s, and faulty human logic of 2010s, you postulate that it would be impossible for extraterrestrials to have traveled between star systems and eventually visit other worlds, including our own. Nevermind that we are talking about an alien species, with a different set of values and principles, different neural make up and thought processes, exopsychology, exosociology, and different set of technological discoveries that didn't follow the same route of discovery like us, humans, just like its logical to assume that their evolutionary paths were different, ending up with them being different from us on biochemical and physiological aspect too. Most accept the latter as a given, but many, like you, smack a mental and psychological make up of alien life forms that is identical to human.

Our brains could have limits to how we can bypass a certain issue (it doesn't have to be FTL, for all I care, it doesn't have to be physics at all). Different brains work differently to solve a problem. Put a cat, a pig and a monkey, or say, a dolphin, octopus and a seal. They are all different animals, different environments too, but they will each solve the problem differently, in different way, in different time intervals. You would notice that they won't stop trying though. Same can be applied to different species of different planets. There are problems and challenges that are universal to all living life, and different species may solve them differently, in different length of time. Some might have solved how to control weather patterns of their world, but not how to actually leave it, so they will be stuck on their planet till their sun enters the giant stage of its life and fries their planet. Others may solve free energy, but not how to protect themselves from comets and asteroids. There can be many examples here.

The ETH stands firm, as there are obvious factors in place who shine in favor of it. Besides, even if you don't take in consideration any of those factors, still, your argument doesn't nullify the ETH.
edit on 25-3-2013 by Basqiat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Basqiat
I find the OP very biased, closed minded and arrogant.

Why thank you.



Originally posted by BasqiatI'll try not to sound like the rest by comparing how similar people like you said certain things in the past which were proven wrong in our present times. Although its a solid argument on its own, I'll try a different approach. You claim that the difference between scientists few centuries ago and scientists today is that we have a lot more thorough, solid, understanding of things (they thought that way back then too, but .. nevermind), especially in the filed of physics/astrophysics.

Except it isn't. You see, what the people in this thread seem to fail to grasp is that there is worlds of difference between something being impractical but still possible in principle and being ruled out explicitly by the laws of physics. Scientists may have believed flight will be impractical, but no real scientist believed that heavier than air machines are impossible. The real interesting thing is, 200 years ago scientists would have accepted the possibility faster-than-light travel according to known physics back then than today. I guess scientists were wrong, but not in the way you would have hoped, huh?


Originally posted by BasqiatIt depends on how you view these 'laws' that you keep bring up as your strongest argument. What is a law actually? Is it an impenetrable barrier? Uncircumventable constant? A 'fail-safe' of some sort?

That is exactly what it is. Again, laws may fail at certain boundaries where a more general framework must be worked out that not only explains all phenomena not accounted by the original law, but must also reduce to the original law in its domain and must also make new predictions. This is how science has worked for the past several centuries.

Just like we still don't have free-energy machines because Newtonian mechanics is "wrong", we won't have anti-gravity devices if we find general relativity fails at some irrelevant scale (



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BasqiatThere are observed phenomena that defy these laws (like some quasars shooting energy several times the speed of light). Also, in the case you pull that "that could be a result of faulty observation and perception"-card, I'll remind you of the quantum world. Common physics is at odds with whats going on on the quantum level. A particle being capable to exist at two places at the same or two particles co-existing in the same time, at the same point in space (and many, many other very mind-boggling things). Quantum entanglement offers possibilities of FTL communication. If FTL communication is possible, I don't see how the door can be without any doubt closed for FTL travel.


And with this paragraph you outed yourself and your lack of understanding. Common physics is not at odds with anything. Your interpretations of the non-deterministic nature of quantum physics as being evidence against it is flat out wrong. Quantum theory is by far the most successful model of nature ever devised, and it has never failed a near century of very clever experimental tests. The grave mistake you're making here is thinking nature must conform to our common sense. As for the quasars, citation needed.


Originally posted by BasqiatWe limit ourselves only by the limits we impose on each other. And this is exactly that. This is not a case of 'laws-shmaws-we'll-get-there-its-a-matter-of-time-thing'. Its a better understanding and open thinking about this that may get us close to solving this problem, or solve it entirely, whoknows? If every single intellectual thought the way you did, when stumbling across something thought to be impossible at the time, we wouldn't have even budged from the Stone Age stage. And your skeptical attitude doesn't help at all with this.

Understanding what is physically impossible/possible is the essential goal of physics. One cannot truly understand nature if we don't have a set of rules that can, under no condition, be violated. If you're feel-good nonsense of "anything is possible; sky is the limit" were ever to become dominant, that's when we stop making progress.


Originally posted by BasqiatThe problem is, we think too linear, too one-dimensional. That's why facts are at odds with each other sometimes in science, because our interpretation is faulty, and the directions these models take are in two different sides, and cannot be unified. The most gracious attempt at solving this problem that I have seen today in physics is the M-theory, or theory of everything, or the unified filed theory. We'll see how far we go with that, maybe it will be the "Amen" moment we waited for, maybe we are going wrong about it again, as we have in some many instances before.

This is correct, but once again you fall into the same trap of those who used similar arguments on the first few pages. I'll say this for nth time: the fact that the standard model and general relativity are incompatible with one another in certain domains does not necessarily imply that a model, assuming it exists, that unifies both fields will give rise to fantastic technological devices that would allow for faster-than-light travel or free-energy. If you wan to understand why that is the case, feel free to read this post.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Basqiat
 


You also seem to have adopted a certain viewpoint, and you use only the available facts and accepted notions to argument it for real. Its the same bad logic many argue when it comes to the Fermi paradox (the big silence, no registered activity, no official contact, age of the universe, star birthrate, available planets, bio-challenges for life to emerge, etc.), while the same can be used to feed argument fuel to the opposite side of the same topic.

Judging by this, the 'bad logic' is not the OP's but yours.

Your entire premise was stated much more cogently and succintly by ViolatoR. It is that circumstantial evidence is of no value when forming opinions—or, as it is more often put here, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That premise is wrong.

If you choose to reply to this post, keep it short. I stop reading at the 1,000-character limit.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Baby steps:

Dr. Eugene Podkletnov worked at a Laboratory in Finland specializing in Superconductor research. While working there as a scientist he mastered the technique of making very large diameter Superconductor Discs. While experimenting with a 30.4cm disc stimulated at 3 MHz he noticed a gravitational anomaly appeared. Podkletnov published his results, which have since been confirmed by the European Space Agency, and NASA. Boeing Aerospace even showed their interest in the effect.




The Transitional Quantum State It consists of a vibrating Bose condensate. The vibration of a Bose condensate at this dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters appears to increase the strength of the phonons that bind the condensate. This increased strength invites nuclear participation. Superconductors and proton conductors can be externally vibrated to harness the effect. This new understanding of the process of the quantum transition may allow a multi-bodied macroscopic object to be placed into a state of quantum transition. Trillions of atoms may be enjoined within a single state of quantum transition. Strong gravitational and long-range nuclear effects will be produced. The long-range nuclear effects may be used for the production of energy and the reduction of nuclear waste. The strong gravitational effects may be used for propulsion.


There is research going on with leaks and published papers from major research institutes that say that what is commonly referred to as anti gravity (cause and effect) is real but our understanding of applied science to get the desired end result is lacking.

edit on 26-3-2013 by 727Sky because: referred



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Our civilization is currently at a kind of plateau technology-wise. Not too many advances and upgrades from what we have now until we can figure out some of the finer details that underpin physics and actually come up with practical applications for that knowledge.

How gravity works seems to be the biggest one. I suspect it has less to do with mass, but more to do with the energy packets which that mass represents. In other words too many people are looking at the wrong end of E=mc^2 in terms of what gravity is doing.

Also there needs to be more research into electrical fields and stuff like permeability of space. Consider it a more detailed review of stuff we supposedly know from the 1800s and early 1900s in regards to EM and RF phenomena, but recombined with the quantum stuff we know via developments in atomic theory and electronics. There are some qualities or behaviors associated with electromagnetics that might be interesting, but are currently considered as losses or other undesirable traits if not just simply being ignored. Sometimes energy put into such devices doesn't come out as heat, nor shows up as RF or EM. So where does it go? Some of the formulas behind this stuff involves complex number sets, and if that's where those losses occur then hypothetically it might be possible to create negative energy if the phenomena was better understood. And working energy back into mass, there's a whole slew of things that may be worked out if we can put that to use. A warp drive might be one of them.

But until somebody figures out or stumbles into an overlooked quirk or quality currently not covered well by current physics or engineering, we're going to be stuck at this plateau that limits us to one star system. That's all chemical rockets are good for. And we wont see too far outside of the box because the majority of us will presume that any other technological species which may exist out there will have the same problem.

Likewise if anyone else out there can or has come here, they'll stay fairly mum about it. (At least not intentionally and overtly letting us know.) The "Prime Directive" as Roddenberry described it makes logical sense. We're supposed to figure it out ourselves. Untill we do, we're not their peers yet but just another interesting critter to be left alone in its habitat floating about in the cosmic zoo.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   


Likewise if anyone else out there can or has come here, they'll stay fairly mum about it. (At least not intentionally and overtly letting us know.) The "Prime Directive" as Roddenberry described it makes logical sense. We're supposed to figure it out ourselves. Untill we do, we're not their peers yet but just another interesting critter to be left alone in its habitat floating about in the cosmic zoo.


Star for you.

Also, the Prime Directive might actually be a reality because any advanced race would realize they don't have all the answers.

Leave a sentient species alone to develop in their own way and they may come up with something that wasn't thought of before.

If everyone uses the same play book then the outcome is predictable, no?

So, set back and relax, watch the savages and see what they come up with; it might be useful?



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 


What do YOU know about the laws of physics? For example, we do not know everything about gravity (or we'd be developing antigravity - provided that this is not done already, in secret), we don't know all about gravity in space, we don't know whether the same laws would apply in other parts of space...

So at this point you cannot rule out some things, as for the limitations of our own bodies and how they would deal with such speed - yes this could be a problem .. for us. Doesn't mean a civilization may not have other ways or bodies that could allow that to happen.

Or are you talking about reaching us in terms of normal travel? Sure I can agree that if aliens have visited they most likely have used either other frequency/ dimension, teleportations, some gawd knows what way - I can agree, normal travel may not be able to help them reach us.

But if you exclude ways of travel you may not even know can exist, then pity your ignorance



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 727Sky
Baby steps:

Dr. Eugene Podkletnov worked at a Laboratory in Finland specializing in Superconductor research. While working there as a scientist he mastered the technique of making very large diameter Superconductor Discs. While experimenting with a 30.4cm disc stimulated at 3 MHz he noticed a gravitational anomaly appeared. Podkletnov published his results, which have since been confirmed by the European Space Agency, and NASA. Boeing Aerospace even showed their interest in the effect.


It doesn't do your position any justice by citing the works of a well-known pseudo-scientist. Here are the many attempts of repeating his experiment to no avail:

Static Test for a Gravitational Force Coupled to Type II YBCO Superconductors
Gravity modification by high-temperature superconductors
Gravity Modification Experiment using a Rotating Superconducting Disc and Radio Frequency Fields

I am skeptical of your claim that NASA and ESA has proven his result, which is why I'll be requesting an appropriate citation. While it is true Boeing did fund anti-gravity research at one time (as did many other defense contractors and even the U.S Air Force), that was many decades ago. None of the above show any interest in anti-gravity research and have long realized that it is nothing more than a delusional pipedream.
edit on 26-3-2013 by Diablos because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-3-2013 by Diablos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
This argument is from the human point of view and assuming we know all there is to know about living beings and the universe.

What i take from this topic is since this is very difficult for humans to figure out at this point in history so no other intelligence is capable of figuring it out.

preeety arogant




posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   


It doesn't do your position any justice using a well-known pseudo-scientist whose results cannot be independently verified despite many desperate attempts.


I really do not have something you might call a position on the subject other than what I have read. I have not tried nor do I have the education to make viable experiments to prove the possibility of anti gravity devices thus I can only fall back to what I have read both about UFOs and results from published papers. Cold fusion was and still is in disrepute yet research continues and depending on who you want to believe in, some experiments are successful. Again as my previous post indicate: If one report of an Alien space craft is correct then all the naysayers are wrong.

The best UFO report in my life time is the JAL cargo 747 enroute to Alaska that played tag with a very large circular flying machine for several minutes. Even an Air force KC-135 saw the same thing only at a later date; I was not there but it is a good story to me because the object was not only seen by the crew but was tracked on radar. There are other stories that fit the bill of believability index for me but that is a personal choice I make for myself. .
edit on 26-3-2013 by 727Sky because: coma



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 



Again, 60s human science, and 2013 human logic. Is that what alien species are gonna use? Its arrogant to think we have reached almost or all there is to know about physics.

Also, the Fermi paradox - No, your argument doesn't explain it all. Its actually more logical for them not to make contact deliberately. Even if FTL is not possible, I doubt that it would stop a species to explore, so those species nearest to our star system most likely are aware of us, but don't wish to make contact.

There is also another solution to the paradox, that makes even more sense, but nevermind, I'll leave it at this, I'm really not interested in debating this with you. As it won't be a debate, you have a made up mind.

reply to post by Astyanax
 


Why is it wrong? Because we absolutely would have seen evidence of ETs by now? You actually think that we are that good? Okay, arrogance seem to be a common trait here I see, among the know-it-alls.

There is no logic to assume that if ETs are plentiful, and are not here, or is there any evidence that they are here, or around, that they must have been stuck on their planets and don't even attempt at reaching other star systems. Its as ridiculous as expecting ants or fish to know that we exist just because we are in their proximity and observing them.

And yeah, if you don't like the amount of characters I use, then don't reply to me, its that simple. I'm not obliged to cut down what I have to say for any of you.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos
A more plausible explanation for why lifeforms do not make contact is because interstellar travel is truly impossible. This is consistent with the current school of thought that there may be many civilizations out there in the galaxy, but they are all "trapped" in their respective solar systems.

Diablo,

While I agree with you on most the above, I'm hesitant to take the position you've assumed - that FTL transportation is impossible. That seems a bit too "end of physics" to me, a mistake that's been made over and over throughout the last century or three.

Like I said earlier, even if it's been done (by some other species,) the idea of visitation remains supremely improbable anyway. Statistically speaking, we'd have approximately the same chance of being visited by ET if FTL was impossible than we would if it had been accomplished.


Originally posted by DiablosThis is also the most considered solution to Fermi's paradox based on current knowledge. It would explain why we have yet to see any shred of evidence of an "interstellar empire".


It would certainly explain the absence of an interstellar empire, but so does lack of funding. And regarding Fermi's paradox, your claim above is, IIRC, not related to this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Fermi never postulated FTL travel when forming that "paradox." IIRC, it was based on self-replicating exploratory robots, which Fermi said could spread exponentially and be basically everywhere in the galaxy in reasonably short order (in galactic time, anyway.)

I never cared for that paradox, because it's not one. It presupposes that a race would naturally choose to create such a fleet of robots. Who says that such a thing should be inevitable?

Don't get me wrong, I have a very deep and abiding respect for Fermi, as any educated person certainly should. But he blew it on that one, IMO.

Harte



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Basqiat
 


Why is it wrong? Because we absolutely would have seen evidence of ETs by now?

No, it is wrong because of a principle known as Occam's Razor.


Okay, arrogance seem to be a common trait here I see, among the know-it-alls.

Just as prejudicial thinking and a free hand with the insults seem to be common traits wherever it is you live. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.


There is no logic to assume that if ETs are plentiful, and are not here, or is there any evidence that they are here, or around, that they must have been stuck on their planets and don't even attempt at reaching other star systems. Its as ridiculous as expecting ants or fish to know that we exist just because we are in their proximity and observing them.

If you put yourself into proximity with ants and fish, you will see that they do indeed know you exist and will take whatever steps are necessary to avoid or attack you. That said, no-one is making the assumption you suppose. Diablos has given some very solid, physics-based reasons for his views. I have a physics background myself, and what he writes makes sense to me. What you write, on the other hand, appears to me as self-deluding, wish-fulfilling, opinionated, ill-mannered rubbish.


And yeah, if you don't like the amount of characters I use, then don't reply to me, its that simple. I'm not obliged to cut down what I have to say for any of you.

Is this another sample of your 'logic'? If I don't like the amount of characters you use, I wouldn't read you, let alone reply to you. Thanks for keeping your reply below 1,000 characters anyway.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join