we are using the terms differently. i am referring to intelligent life. i should have been more clear.
i think lots and lots and lots of planets will have microbial life.
i think lots and lots and lots of planets will have microbial life.
All true, though we do not need to define intelligence in order to study and learn from any complex life we encounter.I'm sorry but this thread is still ripe with overspeculation. The only methods of FTL travel that physics has theorised are warp and wormhole, if we are going to discuss FTL we should at least stick to published research on the subject.
Where did you find that warp speed calculator? Sounds like a star trek thing rather than anything real.
As for alien life and habitable planets; we've got no idea the frequency of planets with Earth like conditions, on top of that we have no idea the likeliness of life and on top of that we can't even define intelligence let alone wonder how many intelligent aliens there are.
Well, long before we got to the stage of assessing its intelligence, we would find ourselves standing knee-deep in a rich ecology and face-to-face with a complex, macroscopic life form. Whether it's intelligent or not would be gravy.True Dave true, we could just look for behaviour that we would class as belonging to intelligence.
On the subject of warp drives for those w
What do you mean by complexity?Well, long before we got to the stage of assessing its intelligence, we would find ourselves standing knee-deep in a rich ecology and face-to-face with a complex, macroscopic life form. Whether it's intelligent or not would be gravy.
I am at a loss to imagine a scenario where we would discover life in a figurative vacuum of complexity, such that its own complexity by comparison would not be apparent.
I'd shy away from internet calculators based on Star Trek, the numbers you get back are pure fiction. For relativistic STL travel first you get up to speeds close to c. This requires a horrendous amount of fuel and a high specific impulse. A hypothetical antimatter rocket is the best that has ever been envisioned by scientists and it would only be able to burn at 1g for 10.5 days (if there was a 1:1 ratio of ship to fuel). To get up to .9c you would need 30 times this and to be able to decelerate at the end you would need 60 times, antimatter is awfully dangerous and a ship like that exploding near Earth would probably sterilise the portion facing it.yes, warp speed calculator came from star trek. the idea of warp speed was pretty much popularized by star trek. however, i wasnt trying to get bogged down in warp speed mechanics - just theorizing that ftl may be somewhat necessary to really get anywhere.
yesterday i was contemplating something i learned in college when we studied relativity, which i hadnt thought about. i may be wrong, but it is my recall that someone traveling at c, would measure 0 distance traveled, and 0 time taken, irregardless of his final destination, IN THE MOTION OF TRAVEL.
AND that while he was traveling at c, he would age very slowly. which means he could go many, many times the number of light years than the actual years it would take. the problem is that he may age just a few years when he got back. but when he did arrive, it might be 1000 years into his future.
if this is correct, it is still a decent step, such that our future could get some very good information. and once we started the process, if we kept sending someone once a year, then they would continue coming back on a consistent basis, such that our future could become much better informed.
They weren't going at all, it's fiction they also never stuck to their speed calculations and would vary how fast they could go based on the need of the plot.they are numbers for star trek. i was curious how fast they were going !!!
At .9c for every year the traveller experiences 7 go by on Earth. If you had an economical propulsion system capable of getting to that and a vehicle capable of keeping the occupants alive for extended periods of time then that's a fair speed to explore the local neighbourhood. That's doubly true if you have the propulsion and just want to send probes.the real shrink is not that much. even at 1/2 c, the shrinkage is only 14 %. at 90%, the shrinkage is a bit over 50. that doesnt buy us that much. you gotta get dang near c, before the shrinkage gets phenomenal.
Er...What? What does that speed have to do with re-writing relativity?of course, if we ever get to travel at those speeds, i suspect we will begin re-writing relativity - LOL.
Are you talking about special or general relativity? How do they "contradict"? As far as I am aware SR and QM work fine together and the problem with GR is that it doesn't reconcile with QM (hence the requirement for a theory of quantum gravity)qm and relativity contradict each other
I'm not seeing what you are getting at here regarding W/P duality (Hint: country specific sporting references don't translate well when talking to people from across the planet)duality throws a sandy koufax curve and fastball at us at the same time, regarding light as it really is.
Er...What??special relativity peters out at long distances, such that we need to invoke general relativity.
The fact that there are unexplained principles in physics does not mean that there is anything wrong with current theories. It's also illogical to state a time and suggest that we will overcome these problems within that time. It is extra illogical to suggest that because we don't know X in the future space travel may be possible.we got so many bandaids on our theories at present, that big change over the next millenium seems like a sure bet.
I don't see the relevance. I presume you mean sentient aliens, the chances of meeting sentient aliens whose technology, society and psychology were anything close to us seems astronomical. Meeting sentient life of any sort is likely to have a massive destabilising effect on our society.meeting aliens (if peaceful) is intriguing to me, because it may be a way for us to better ourselves and our understanding more quickly.
making big inroads is not the same as "overcome". when i see something that looks like it still has a lot of holes in it, and the rate at which we learn, i dont see that being a big leap.It's also illogical to state a time and suggest that we will overcome these problems within that time. It is extra illogical to suggest that because we don't know X in the future space travel may be possible.
I don't see the relevance. I presume you mean sentient aliens, the chances of meeting sentient aliens whose technology, society and psychology were anything close to us seems astronomical. Meeting sentient life of any sort is likely to have a massive destabilising effect on our society.
That has to be the worst example of attempted logic I have ever seen.i dont think it would have all that much destabilizing effect (again, if they are peaceful). i think the masses already suspect there is intelligent life out there. if i recall, our sun is not old, when compared to all the stars, which means there are many planets in the universe older than earth. so we could have older, wiser, more advanced life than us.
Yes, because the moment aliens arrive the governments will lose control and the people of Earth will stop with their everyday lives.the biggest problem would be for the bigwigs, trying to figure out how to continue their control over us.
This is a logical fallacy. The fact that something is unknown in a particular field and the fact that we have made discoveries in the past is no indication as to whether or not we will ever uncover those unknowns.making big inroads is not the same as "overcome". when i see something that looks like it still has a lot of holes in it, and the rate at which we learn, i dont see that being a big leap.
You are implying that because there are gaps in our knowledge Captain Kirk style space travel might be possible. Its a fallacy to say either way what unknown knowledge could or could not give. It is only logical to talk about what we know.we dont know x in the future, space travel may be possible - to what are you referring ?
I'll take peaceful to mean that they don't actively wipe us out. The destabilizing effect will be the knowledge that there are things unseen beyond our sight, that's been a terrifying concept for all of man's history.i dont think it would have all that much destabilizing effect (again, if they are peaceful).
Irrelevant on two counts; firstly the number of people believing something doesn't make it true. Secondly billions of people believe in a God but it would still be pretty destabilizing if that God appeared in the sky for all to see.i think the masses already suspect there is intelligent life out there.
Evolution isn't teleological. If a sentient species did evolve elsewhere there is no guarantee (in fact I think it's extremely unlikely) that they will progress socially, psychologically and technologically at the same rate and in the same directions than us. One day we could find a sentient species that has spent 100 million years living in a stone age, far older but any more advanced? "Wiser" is a very anthropic term and I highly doubt that it would apply to aliens.if i recall, our sun is not old, when compared to all the stars, which means there are many planets in the universe older than earth. so we could have older, wiser, more advanced life than us.
See above. Also for religious groups like the Raelian movement it could go a step towards confirming their faith.even most religious groups, except for the extreme - i dont think would have much effect.
Without politicians there would be no society, in some countries there are dictators and in others there are honest leaders.the biggest problem would be for the bigwigs, trying to figure out how to continue their control over us.
This really depends on what A is. If I quickly did a calculation in my head and came to 540 then someone with a calculator confirms it I get a far different reaction to if I think that there's a possibility space-faring aliens exist and then I witness a UFO outside my window.i simply said it would not surprise them. if i think A is true, and i am shown proof that A is true, i would typically say "that's what i thought".
Destabilising doesn't necessarily mean riots everywhere, destabilising as in it would force a radical change in how people see our position in the world. And of course people would be afraid! A few weeks ago there were people worldwide trying to commit suicide because they thought the world was going to end, people are not rational creatures. IMO people would have the same reaction to a huge ship suddenly spotted flying around the solar system as they would to finding a monster walking through their house, even if it isn't hurting them it is alien, unknowns with intelligence are a widespread fear amongst humans.surely you must realize your mistake on your second count. of course the appearance of god could be destabilizing to even believers. that is because he would be the creator of everything and no doubt put us in complete awe. we would not have that same awe for an alien, in that sort of emotional sense. if, as i said, the alien was not trying to harm us, i dont think the population as a whole would be scared.
I don't know what to make of this. Why would you think we would learn anything about the human condition or invent something new purely because we observe other intelligent life?nor do i think we would become destabilized. hopefully we could become better informed about a lot of things, and if we are lucky, come away with some sort of "invention or process" by which our human condition could be bettered.