Forum menu
however the time will be exactly the same as ours
is your best guess.. but having never even been to the bottom of the ocean, let alone the moon or a distant galaxy.. we can only ever [i]assume[/i] our guesses about the utter unknown to be accurate..
but what was in question was their/our perception of it.. do we even know if a tree perceives time the same way as us..?
Ok then Junkyard - the known universe.Time only occurs in the respect of one event/moment leading to another - it is immeasurable and we have decided to put a scale to it.
That's like saying milligrams don't exist. Mass and weight are still there though.
You really REALLY need to think about time dilation. If you travel for 10 years in space and come back to earth 1000 years later, time exists my friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
is your best guess.. but having never even been to the bottom of the ocean, let alone the moon or a distant galaxy.. we can only ever assume our guesses about the utter unknown to be accurate..but what was in question was their/our perception of it.. do we even know if a tree perceives time the same way as us..?
It doesn't have neurone synapses, or any chemistry that remotely resembles the ability to form memory.
Try learning some biochemistry and botany.
so we've discovered the actual chemical existence of memory now..? when..?
that's a new development..
I wonder what they'll think about it all in another thousand years..?
bwaaaarp... you are a science fundamentalist.. and extremist even
osama bin labcoat
Yeah, actually it's pretty easy to see. If memories were being processed there would be tell tale chemical cascades associated with the ability to change and hold form in response to external stimuli.
There are not.
Science can do shit you've never even thought about.
I'm not a fundamentalist, you are just an ignorant red neck who's trying to argue with people on topics they are qualified in. I'm having fun batting every hilarious primary school grade scientific assumption you make down.
The sad thing is with people like you is that you end up making these nonsensical, rhetorical and circular arguments because you can't hack the fact that scientific progress is eroding whatever religious or world view you hold.
oooh.. that is some next level shizzle fo sho 😀
Veering dangerously back on topic,
I just looked at some numbers.
The observable universe contains about 3 to 100 × 10^22 stars (30 sextillion to a septillion stars), organized in more than 80 billion galaxies.
It's estimated that the universe is 10^23 times bigger than the observable universe. That's 10 and 23 zeros.
That's a lot of planets.
No life on other planets? It suddenly seems unlikely.
There's a nice diagram here, but it's hard to view. Best to F11 your browser.
.jpg)
That's like saying milligrams don't exist. Mass and weight are still there though
Yeah, I am seeing your point though - maybe we've both been arguing at crossed purposes.
Time I suppose does exist in relation to the turning of the earth, in respect it has been a certain number of said actions since the 'big bang' or whatever.
Hands up, my argument is flawed - my head hurts, I'm a bit pissed and it's time for bed.
I may well challenge you again tomorrow with a clear head though. 😕
Other life forms though - you bet! 😉
I'm not trying to argue.. and I'm not saying that you're wrong..
I am a redneck.. I don't even have a gcse..
you are just talking in absolutes which makes you appear not very bright.. which is a shame I think.. considering
I don't speak in absolutes when I'm dealing with scientific matters, yours Junki are not. They are misinformed opinions lacking any common understanding of even basic science.
Had you actually been able to engage me in a debate not worthy of total derision, like some of the finer points of genetics that are not totally understood then I would have been much more reasonable.
Instead, what you should do is buy a blooody basic chemistry and physics textbook because you are obviously curious and a curious but non-reading person is a waste. Put your brain to what it was designed for Junki. Curiosity like yours is all you need and it is more important than anything else. Do not argue about this kind of thing until you understand what you are arguing about.
I'm sorry for calling you a redneck.
Junki - http://www.khanacademy.org/
Check this out mate, go through all the stuff on Physics and Chemistry. Do one at a time and make sure you understand each lecture before you move on.
If you catch yourself thinking, well how do they know this? Have they observed it? Well google is your friend!
Sorry I just get really pissed off with a lot of people (herbal medicine types, militant post-modernists, militant creationists et.... I don't mind any of these except when they pass certain boundaries)
I hope I have not put you off trying to understand....but just try to realize it's like being a concert pianist and having to teach 3 year olds to play chop sticks day in day out.
oh man..
I understand the basics.. I understand a fair old bit to be honest.. but this is a thread about the existence of extra terrestrials for gawds sake kiddo.. not a science versus art bun fight
so we're playing devils advocate.. trying to initiate a bit of free thinking.. exploring the boundaries
the essential what ifs of it all Buzz Killington.. what if you're wrong..?
which appears to have offended your delicate sensibilities somewhat..
I apologise..
Sorry I just get really pissed off with a lot of people (herbal medicine types, militant post-modernists, militant creationists et.... I don't mind any of these except when they pass certain boundaries)
I've re-visited this thread for now just to add that I get really pissed off with people who make assumptions about people who disagree with their stonewalled view of our existance, call them names and don't even have the respect to call them by their correct username, in fact manipulating it into a derisory term. Apparent intelligence (or maybe just knowledge of/ability to regurgitate 'facts' about a particular subject) aside doesn't excuse you being a complete and utter tosser.
there's other life forms even just here on this thread.. 🙂
night all...x
I've re-visited this thread for now just to add that I get really pissed off with people who make assumptions about people who disagree with their stonewalled view of our existance, call them names and don't even have the respect to call them by their correct username, in fact manipulating it into a derisory term. Apparent intelligence (or maybe just knowledge of/ability to regurgitate 'facts' about a particular subject) aside doesn't excuse you being a complete and utter tosser.
[img] 
[/img]
I just started getting annoyed when someone mentioned stars might not actually be suns because what it might be is something else, like I don't know, windows to heaven emulating sun like bodies in spectral analysis.
And I was a **** because like Dawkins I've come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with people like homeopathists, animal right's nutcases etc is to ridicule them. Because they don't listen, ever.
"I think that life will be discovered in the solar system within my lifetime- really simple organisms on Europa or something. "
This. There is good Scientific evidence already. It's just not quite 100% conclusive.
I have found that the only polite way to deal with dogmatic people is to not waste my breath. Because they don't listen, ever.
Bwaaarp.. you are suffering from a severe lack of imagination.. all of the great thinkers would be utterly appalled by you..
Indeed yunki is right on some of this - and some of the absolutist statements bwaarp has made are a little too certain
I just find it a stilted way of thinking..
'wood is for making pointy sticks..'
'but what if we could make incredible heat and energy with it too..?'
'no.. it's for pointy sticks.. look.. see..?'
'could we try rubbing it together.. maybe create some immense heat energy..?
'no.. pointy sticks.. that's all'
'really..?'
'YES YES YES REALLY..'
'well.. ok.. I understand the pointy sticks thing.. and agree.. but is there a tiny chance that we missed something..? '
'STOP IT STOP IT I'M TELLING MY DAD'
'wow'
It's not being narrow-minded to favour observable, testable models of how life and the universe works over loads of "yeah, but what if, man..." 6th form ramblings.
If it is then it's narrow-minded to get on with dealing with the world we see around us rather than worrying about, say, whether hurricanes are caused by pink unicorn farts.
This is not the same as asserting that humans know all there ever will be to know about the universe, the end. It could be, for instance, that there are silicon life forms like that one in Star Trek that etched messages into the floor with acid, or places where gravity works differently or whatever. I mean 'could be' in the sense that you could argue you can't rule it out until you've visited every single spot in the universe to check.
Put another way, there's no point bothering with what would be massive exceptions to 'the rules' when there's so much to do within those rules. If some such exception jumps up and bites us in the face then those 'rules' will be revised- that's how science works.
There's not a scientist in the world who thinks science knows everything about everything. But that's a long way from saying every supposition should have equal weight- science just can't work that way.
'wood is for making pointy sticks..'
'but what if we could make incredible heat and energy with it too..?'
'no.. it's for pointy sticks.. look.. see..?'
'could we try rubbing it together.. maybe create some immense heat energy..?
'no.. pointy sticks.. that's all'
'really..?'
Versus the yunki approach:
"Sticks burn. Fire is hot."
"That's a bit absolute isn't it? What if not all fire is hot? I'm going to stay over here in the cold because I disagree with your arrogant science."
I just find it a stilted way of thinking..'wood is for making pointy sticks..'
'but what if we could make incredible heat and energy with it too..?'
'no.. it's for pointy sticks.. look.. see..?'
'could we try rubbing it together.. maybe create some immense heat energy..?
'no.. pointy sticks.. that's all'
'really..?'
Who is that you think thinks like this? No scientist I've ever met.
Straw men aren't doing much to prove your point.
I'm not having a pop at science or scientists..
I am a whole-hearted subscriber to science and it's wondrous discoveries.. I'm not a new age fantasist.. I do enjoy however discussing what may or may not be possible, the things that are as yet undiscovered..
what I am doing is having a dig at the insecure young men on this thread (which is about extra terrestrial life) who are insisting that there is absolutely nothing more anywhere or anyhow, than the science that we already know..
I'm starting to think that STWs outspoken scientific fraternity have an almighty persecution complex
i know this one's a few pages old, but it's a good one, and i think it's very interesting...
colournoise - MemberDidn't NASA find a non-carbon (phosphorus?) life-form in Mono Lake a while back, or was that discredited?
slainte rob
nearly, but not quite.
it seems that some clever scientists hypotheoteticated (guessed) that it might be possible that some life-forms could have adapted to replace phosphorous with arsenic. so they went looking for places where this might be true.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11886943 ]linky - bbc[/url]
(it's perhaps not as exciting as finding silicone-based life)
I'm not a new age fantasist.
You do a very good impression of one.
what I am doing is having a dig at the insecure young men on this thread (which is about extra terrestrial life) who are insisting that there is absolutely nothing more anywhere or anyhow, than the science that we already know..
Who would that be then? I don't see anyone insisting that. Or any "young men" for that matter!
berks
I believe there are other inhabited planets, and other planets with 'life' on them. Not sure about them visiting Earth, I guess it's plausible that an race on another planet is more advanced than us and has the ability to travel vast distances quickly. But given that advancement in technology, they aren't going to learn much by shoving a whatsit up someones insides.
Although we spend a great deal of time filming and studying a new species of rat or something in a remote valley in the Amazon rain forest, so perhaps it could be feasible that they'd be interested in us morons.
But why the secrecy, wouldn't they just plonk themselves down in Trafalgar Square, and go "Oi, you. Fat block with a camera, come in here and let's have a look up your jacksy". Perhaps they've watched our TV and seen Independance Day and worry a nervous scientist/fly and a belligerent ex-rapper will shove a bomb up their jacksy.
And regarding speed of light....would an object travelling at the speed of light just appear out of nowhere? You wouldn't see it arrive, or would only see it once it's dropped below speed of light.
Oh...just read some of the previous comments. Has this thread already degenerated into willy waving and posturing?
Perhaps the aliens have read this forum and decided that we've just a bunch of ****ers and not worth visiting.
MrSalmon +1
s your best guess.. but having never even been to the bottom of the ocean, let alone the moon or a distant galaxy.. we can only ever assume our guesses about the utter unknown to be accurate..
No a guess would be to just do as you say and say something without evidence because a Druidh once told me when I was acid that it was like you know maaaaannnnnn 😉
I have spent many years arguing and hanging out with this type
but what was in question was their/our perception of it.. do we even know if a tree perceives time the same way as us..?
Perception of an observable event is irrelevant it is still there.
I cannot observe radiation ....t is no less real or universal because of this fact.
like homeopathists, animal right's nutcases etc is to ridicule them. Because they don't listen, ever.
Bwaarp Why have you linked as fact – homeopathy does not work with a moral judgement on the rights or wrongs of experimenting on animals? It is also poor for you top say nut jobs when I assume you are pro torture if we are going to use intemperate language. This makes no sense one is fact based and one is opinion based ...which is pretty much what we are debating.
I just find it a stilted way of thinking
Well we could all go on flights of fancy and imagine things that are wonderful and supernatural if you wish but it wont make them true. Your mind is so open you cannot eliminate infinite error - you think because you can consider/conceive it then it has some truth to it. This is a false premise.
PS
Rubbing sticks together is empiricism you do something you observe it , you replicate and then you try try to understand what happens. Your approach is to just think about what might happen if we rubbed the sticks together and coming up with outlandish ideas and then saying it is arrogant to say [ if you do it correctly] you will get fire rather
After drafting several replies to the excesses of this thread, I've given up. [url= http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/alien-phenomenology-or-what-itas-like-to-be-a ]Alien Phenomenology[/url] is quite a fun take on the subject. Yunki, I think you'll like this.
Ah...right. Thread over.
No it isn't!
Rubbing sticks together is empiricism you do something you observe it , you replicate and then you try try to understand what happens. Your approach is to just think about what might happen if we rubbed the sticks together and coming up with outlandish ideas and then saying it is arrogant to say [ if you do it correctly] you will get fire rather
Exactly. Well said.
To me you have it backwards yunki.
You suggest that we can never possibly know anything at all.
Science would say that if we can perform experiments that confirm that a theory holds in every instance we can observe then that theory is "good enough" to work with and we'll stick with it till we have some evidence to the contrary.
The latter approach has proved considerably more productive than just going [i]"But what if we're wrong dude and like, somewhere out there *handwave* atoms don't exist and it is all made of *handwave* something else. You should totally add that as a footnote Mr Mendeleev."[/i]
lol @ GrahamS 🙂
Science would say that if we can perform experiments that confirm that a theory holds in every instance we can observe then that theory is "good enough" to work with and we'll stick with it till we have some evidence to the contrary.The latter approach has proved considerably more productive than just going "But what if we're wrong dude and like, somewhere out there *handwave* atoms don't exist and it is all made of *handwave* something else. You should totally add that as a footnote Mr Mendeleev."
And this is well said.
There may well be aliens, I dunno, but there isn't even enough evidence to be "good enough" (copywright grahamS) so right now I remain unconvinced that they have been here.
And this is well said.
There may well be aliens, I dunno, but there isn't even enough evidence to be "good enough" (copywright grahamS) so right now I remain unconvinced that they have been here.
which is also my belief... and always has been..
I just thought it would be interesting to talk of what ifs on such a what iffy type thread.. but this made some of you very uncomfortable and a few openly hostile..
which I find a bit weird from a bunch that are making new discoveries all the time.. I would not be surprised if the scientific fraternity turned around in a couple of years and told us it's all made from neutrinos..
which have surprisingly turned out to be the jizz of a giant space leopard called stanley
well you were talking a bit of postmodernist bollocks.. 😀
I don't even know what that means but yes probably..
now where do I find these post modernists..? this thread is full of militant scientologists, I feel quite persecuted
a good book is called introducing critical theory ([url= http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/book/introducing-critical-theory-155/ ]clickadoodledoo[/url]), it covers po-mo at the end. You can then go a bit further and read what grayling, russell, and simon blackburn have to say about it..
bumplet
I just thought it would be interesting to talk of what ifs on such a what iffy type thread.. but this made some of you very uncomfortable and a few openly hostile..
That would be because your "what ifs" sought to rather snootily dismiss millennia of hard won scientific understanding in favour of half-considered handwavey mystic stoner waffle.
You claim an open mind, but stand in the way of knowledge and progress.
now where do I find these post modernists..? this thread is full of militant scientologists
You may want to look up "scientologist" while you are there. 🙄
That would be because your "what ifs" sought to rather snootily dismiss millennia of hard won scientific understanding in favour of half-considered handwavey mystic stoner waffle.You claim an open mind, but stand in the way of knowledge and progress.
I pretty much agree with this, it's another way of describing what I considered to be po-mo bullshit, and goes some why to explain why people got pissed off with you.
I haven't dismissed anything..
I just cannot understand how or why you can claim to categorically know what is going on in deep space by applying the knowledge that we have gained here.. on this tiny insignificant speck in the corner.. it seems to me to be arrogant..
scientific research involves taking samples and more samples and comparing them and repeating the experiment until all doubt is removed right..?
well we don't even have samples from our nearest neighbour to compare.. let alone from the next star or galaxy
That would be because your "what ifs" sought to rather snootily dismiss millennia of hard won scientific understanding in favour of half-considered handwavey mystic stoner waffle.
you have totally made this up in your mind.. I only suggested that there can be the possibility of alternatives.. of infinite possibilities.. and you guys have in the main agreed that there could be..
so why the character assassination..?
you guys are ****ing insane
(the scientology bit was humour by the way.. )
Yes but any one can stand upand say what if, what if, but if you do it without knowledge or context, then you deserve to be dismissed, if you then accuse the dismissors of being closed minded then it just makes you a pain in the ass and not a positive contributor to any discussion.
Any true scientist is open minded but if we follwed every flight of fancy we wouldn't have any resource to discover anything. We need to target our research to increment on what we know. we can only take wild stabs in the dark if there is substantial evidence of radical discoveries to be made.