Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Plausibility of Alien Life
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 6 of 73 (495849)
01-24-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
01-24-2009 2:59 PM


subbie writes:
Is it plausible that alien life could travel to Earth? Yes.
It is plausible that alien life would travel to Earth? No
Why would they send life? Couldn't they send robots or droids across the universe, looking for other life? Why should they use the method Columbus used to discover America?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 01-24-2009 2:59 PM subbie has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 22 of 73 (496036)
01-25-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taz
01-25-2009 9:39 PM


Taz writes:
People used to think flight was impossible. People never even imagined supersonic speeds. And even then, people imagined flight would be like people flapping their wings to fly more like birds.
I am reminded of a science fiction novel I read some years ago. The novel was written before records were invented. The title and author escapes me for now. The author's vision of the future was that in the future if you ever wanted to listen to music you'd just turn on what we would perceive to be a primitive version of the radio. The characters explained that there were always people playing music and transmitting the music as a service to society. Recording the music and play it back later never even occured to this author.
I'm pretty sure if a technologically advance race decides to embark on interstellar travel they'd do it with much more efficient ways than what our current science would allow us. What you just said is little better than how people during Kristofer Kalumbus's period would describe intercontinental travel in the future.
That's right. And to me this gradual everlasting human progress is a hint that we might be possibly be dealing with a set up job. There are so many possibilities to extract vast amounts of energy, we just have to find the way to do it. If you are maintaining a somewhat neutral position, you cannot but wonder Why. Why are we so incredibly lucky in this random universe?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 01-25-2009 9:39 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 01-26-2009 2:02 AM Agobot has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 34 of 73 (496098)
01-26-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Rrhain
01-26-2009 5:24 AM


Rrhain writes:
If things were different, then we'd be different. Another comment I make that nobody ever responds to:
A parent and child are walking along when the child asks, "Why is the sky blue?"
"Well," says the parent, "If it were green then we would ask, 'Why is the sky green?'"
This is rather gross over-simplification. Would you say the same to your child if:
1. You win the lottery(great, you were lucky)
2. Then, the second time you buy a ticket, you win it again.
In this case, would you say to your child:
Son, if I didn't win the lottery twice consecutively, you'd be asking "Father, why didn't you win twice in a row?"
Rrhain writes:
To claim significance out of the fact that we live in a universe that can support our existence is to claim that the sky is blue specifically to allow us to ask the question, in English, "Why is the sky blue?" The sky is whatever color it is and we adapted to it.
This is again a gross over-simplification of how the universe works. The universe is mind-bogglingly complex, it's not simple in any humanly imaginable way. The universe is stranger than we can imagine, and i think this last bit of Einstein's is a bit oversimplification as well. It does look to the casual observer like things are the way you are describing them in the above quoted paragraph, but atheism has an awful lot of explaining to do, before it gains any solid grounds.
rrhain writes:
The universe is however it is and existence within it adapted to it.
"Existence adapted to it" is not good enough for everyone, and not everyone believes it. Not everyone believes that the 10^28 atoms in your body(Carl Sagen) - that's 100 000 trillion trillion atoms, combined randomly to form possibly the most complex entity in the visible universe that could explore the rest of this random environment that looks strangely fitted to its needs and has enough resources to sustain it for millions of years.
I am not saying God did it, but i am saying that your view towards how the universe is, looks incomplete.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 01-26-2009 5:24 AM Rrhain has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 37 of 73 (496115)
01-26-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
01-26-2009 10:03 AM


Re: Have You Considered the Alternative?
Buzsaw writes:
My understanding is that all we know about antimater particles is that when they encounter corresponding matter particles, they disappear. Does that mean we have no knowledge of where antimatter particles go, their capability and how fast they are capable of moving?
You have a wrong impression of matter particles. Matter particles are not solid balls.
Buzsaw writes:
Could the encounter of anti-matter particles with matter particles generate invisible intelligent phenomena?
If i were you, i'd delete this part. Would an atomic blast create humans? Did the Hiroshima bomb create angels?
EDIT: Hahaha. Did you mean that the blast would kill people whose souls would become the "generated invisible intelligent phenomena"?
Your ex-president must have generated a lot of invisible intelligent phenomena around Iraq.
Buzsaw writes:
It appears that a not is still unknown relative to what exists in the universe and the capability of the invisible.
IMO, this would only make some sense if you substitute the word "invisible" with "undetectable".
Edited by Agobot, : Haha
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2009 10:03 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2009 11:28 PM Agobot has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 44 of 73 (496167)
01-26-2009 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taz
01-26-2009 1:03 PM


Twisting reality
Taz writes:
How might we travel to other star systems? I don't know. I'll tell you this much. If I had been living in the 15th century, I would never have guessed HOW people could travel to the other side of the world in less than a few years time.
By the time we've come up with a vast energy source, I think might have learned how to manipulate our brains into creating a sort of realistic virtual reality(sort of like the "brain in a vat" hypothesis). This i think will be much more interesting than roaming the milky way, as we will be the creators of our own reality. To me, this will be like us being Gods. If religions can fool people into seeing jesuses, gods and Lucifers, why wouldn't it be possible for us to manipulate the human brain into seeing another pre-programmed reality that would be as real as the reality we experience?
And how would that be different to us becoming God?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 01-26-2009 1:03 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-26-2009 8:25 PM Agobot has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 49 of 73 (496223)
01-27-2009 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
01-26-2009 11:28 PM


Re: Have You Considered the Alternative?
Buzsaw writes:
My understanding is that we don't know what encounters of anti-matter particles (abe: do) to matter particles except that it makes (abe: both of) them invisible to humans/disappear. Where am I going wrong?
What is visible to humans? What you call world is in fact probability waves spread throughout the universe, that because of interactions(measurement/observation) turn to localised matter particle-like entities(and one of the main reasons why i can't believe there is a world out there is because these waves they have electric charge and mass throughout space; this is unreal). Anyway, so what is visible? Is a virus visible? If our Sun hits a black hole, it will disappear. Why should we expect that matter behaves the way we want it?
There is a giant black hole(about 30 000 000 times the mass of our Sun) at the centre of the adjascent Andromeda Galaxy. Theory says, because our galaxies are in a collision course, that in 2 billion years the whole Milky Way can be swallowed by this giant black hole. And the matter of our whole galaxy might become something the size of an atom. Mind-boggling? Yes, if you keep to your notions of hard to touch real, solid matter. But matter is really energy and obviously immense gravity can overcome the electromagnetism, the coloumb force and even the strong force between charges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2009 11:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 51 of 73 (496227)
01-27-2009 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Larni
01-27-2009 4:12 AM


Re: Have You Considered the Alternative?
Buzsaw writes:
My understanding is that all we know about antimater particles is that when they encounter corresponding matter particles, they disappear.
Larni writes:
This is incorrect.
There is:
mutual annihilation, leading to direct conversion of matter to energy.
You are correct, but i think by "disappearing" he meant disappearing from sight, the whole quote by Buz was:
Buzsaw writes:
My understanding is that we don't know what encounters of anti-matter particles (abe: do) to matter particles except that it makes (abe: both of) them invisible to humans/disappear
Buz is right that matter would disappear(from human sight), but it is known(as you said) that energy is conserved and that it merely changes forms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 4:12 AM Larni has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 52 of 73 (496232)
01-27-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rrhain
01-26-2009 5:16 AM


Rrhain writes:
That's why nothing with mass can move at the speed of light: It would require an infinite amount of energy.
It looks like light can travel faster than light. That statement is non-sensical but probably we have a wrong understanding of the speed of light or there is some effect at play I or possibly we are not familiar with. There is at least one example where light would have to travel faster than we think it does through space. Or maybe it's because we always live in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 01-26-2009 5:16 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 7:32 AM Agobot has replied
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2009 7:51 AM Agobot has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 57 of 73 (496250)
01-27-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Modulous
01-27-2009 7:51 AM


Modulous writes:
What is the mass of a photon?
It's fairly common knowledge that photons don't have rest mass. What's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2009 7:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2009 9:20 AM Agobot has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 58 of 73 (496251)
01-27-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Larni
01-27-2009 7:32 AM


Larni writes:
How can the maximum speed of light be faster than the maximum speed of light?
That's what i want to know as well. Well see, i'll try to keep it short(i don't like long posts anyway).
Imagine you are carrying in your hands a very powerful laser torch. A laser torch so powerful that it could send a beam of visible light to Mars. You switch on your laser torch and you point it towards the sky and hold it steady. After a minute, the light will reach Mars. You look through your 2000x magnifying telescope and see that the beam has hit Mars. Then you sweep your hand and the ray goes all the way to the other end of the horizon. What happens with the ray? It follows your hand and because light travels only in straight line, the light that shone Mars will have to move FTL to the other end of the horizon, which might be pointing to Jupiter for example. If it doesn't, then light will have to bend which is impossible as far as we know.
I can give you other examples but this is offtopic and i don't want to rack the mods.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 7:32 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-27-2009 10:20 AM Agobot has replied
 Message 62 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 12:46 PM Agobot has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 60 of 73 (496259)
01-27-2009 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Modulous
01-27-2009 9:20 AM


Modulous writes:
I just wondered why you replied to Rrhain, who pointed out that no object with mass can exceed the speed of light, with an example of something without mass exceeding the speed of light. I was hoping you might explain why you thought it was relevant to Rrhain's post...were you just randomly posting physics news or were you participating in some kind of debate?
If your point raised in Message 58 was what you were driving at, you might also want to check out this which discusses a similar setup. Then maybe start a new thread if you think it has some interesting discussion avenues to explore.
It was not an objection to anything he said, it was more like an addition to his statement which was correct. If there is interest in discussing this and related issues, i will start a new thread.
Thanks for the link although it doesn't explain very well what is actually happening. But i found this link which is even more mind-boggling:
Light Travels Backward and Faster than Light | Live Science
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2009 9:20 AM Modulous has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 63 of 73 (496287)
01-27-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Larni
01-27-2009 12:46 PM


Larni writes:
If you aim at Mars with a laser and it takes the fist photon 3 minutes to hit and then move your aim to Jupiter (say for example Jupiter in 3 light hours away) it will take the first photon 3 hours to arrive.
That's what i thought initially but i don't think this is the case any more. It's a little deeper than it looks at first sight.
Basically what you are saying means that light can bend and we know that light always follows a straigth line.
When you hold that torch and it's light is hitting Mars, the moment you move your hand light will stop to be emitted towards Mars. But that doesn't mean that a hypotetical person on Mars wouldn't see any more light. In fact, he would for another 3 minutes. And as you are moving your hand in some direction, light is either moving in a straight line FTL or it's moving not in a straight line.
Which one are we going to keep: That light can only move in straight line or that light can move FTL?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 12:46 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 1:40 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 01-27-2009 2:50 PM Agobot has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 64 of 73 (496289)
01-27-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by DevilsAdvocate
01-27-2009 10:20 AM


Sorry Devil's advocate, i have no idea what you are saying. Maybe you want to have a look at the link of Modulous to familirise yourself with where we are going:
If a visible laser on the earth is shone on the moon and the beam is moved along the surface, could the beam spot on the moon be made to travel faster than the speed of light?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-27-2009 10:20 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 66 of 73 (496293)
01-27-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Larni
01-27-2009 1:40 PM


Larni writes:
The beam of light diffuses.
Imagine a stream of water firing out of a hose in free fall and vacuum.
Now slow down the camera; looks like a solid stream of water, right?
Now move the hose 45 degrease to the right.
What do you see?
That's what happens with a 'stream' of photons
That's why i chose to use "laser torch" so that the light beam scattering effect would be negligeable. And I don't think light behaves like water coming from a hose. Light always moves in straight lines, that's a crucial point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 1:40 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 2:00 PM Agobot has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 68 of 73 (496298)
01-27-2009 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Larni
01-27-2009 2:00 PM


Larni writes:
That's why I stipulated free fall and a vacuum environment.
Over 3 light minutes the been will be massively diffuse because there will be not enough individual photons to 'paint' the target line of the beam.
No, there are trillions of trillions of them.
LArni writes:
You would get a line from Mars to Jupiter (say 3 light minutes apart) with maybe one photon per million miles (the numbers are doubtless wrong but I hope I'm explaining the principal).
This would trail along taking 3 hours to arrive.
I in no way argue that light bends in this instance. It moves in a straight line at the speed of light. Never faster.
But if you move your hand and the light trails behind your movement, someone watching your event with a telescope would see that light is following a curved path. That's impossible.
The whole explanation is more complicated than that and since we are offtopic and it's audacious to rack the mods even further, i'll conclude this with a quote from Richard Feynman about the properties of light:
"...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c." - Chapter 3, page 89 of Richard Feynman's book "QED".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 2:00 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 2:34 PM Agobot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024