Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/18/19 in all areas

  1. They avoid gravity wells... Actually you have to assert that aliens want to come here before you can say anything. Time is also a factor, do alien civilizations last forever? Ours has lasted a few thousand years so far, time is as big a factor if not larger than space. There could have been a million civilizations in the Milky Way so far and they could be separated by not just thousands of light years but thousands of years as well. I am of the "opinion" that planets would be avoided due to the fact that life has adapted to the earth, finding an earth like planet is no guarantee that we could live there. In fact slight variations in chemicals could make a planet uninhabitable to us even though the life that has adapted to it is prolific. It makes much more sense to build your own worlds than to try and find a world that happens to be perfect for you. Some alien specialist might be interested in us for various reasons but landing on the white house lawn would destroy the study. There is no reason to think that aliens would want to contact us and the idea that we could simply see them through their radio "leakage" is false. It's doubtful that we could detect a civilization identical to us at Alpha Centauri unless they were specifically pointing a high powered transmitter directly at us. Our radio leakage fizzles out within a light year or so due to the interstellar medium. Military type radar would be an exception but it would unlikely be a repeating signal and we have detected such signals from various places in our galaxy but they are not given weight because they do not repeat. I think we don't see aliens because that is exactly what we would expect to see unless they are intentionally signaling us and we do not do that, why should they?
    1 point
  2. Listen, we're a science discussion forum here. If you want to invent a new version of science that's NEVER wrong, you should go somewhere else. You aren't doing what the vast majority of scientists call science, and your replies look like you're a petulant kid who is trolling the professionals with his misunderstandings. I hope that's not the case, but I'm not sure what to do about your willful ignorance. MOST people come here to learn, not to preach unreasonable stances. I'm not a mathematician, but even I can see that it's the math that's infallible, while our verbal description of theory often falls short (because of human interpretations like YOURS). Science is based on modeled maths, and our theories describe the models. Period. I'm not sure where you learned differently, but it's wrong. If you keep screaming with your fingers in your ears, you won't learn anything.
    1 point
  3. The philosophy of science is part of philosophy, not science. And, in general, it says the exact opposite of what you say. Maybe you should take a course? Citation needed. That is an ... unusual definition. Pretty much every definition I have seen says it is a body of knowledge (about the universe) particularly that developed using the scientific method. Can you provide a reference for your definition? Or did you make it up? At the time, it was as good a theory as any other: in other words, it was consistent with all the evidence. Then more evidence showed it to be wrong and an alternative model was developed. This can happen to any theory. OK. There is a big discussion among philosophers of mathematics and (some) mathematicians about whether mathematics is discovered or invented, but either way: it is not personal. Something proved by one mathematician is true to all mathematicians and for all time. Er, it is.
    1 point
  4. Why do people insist on trying to explain things that don't actually happen and why things that do happen, can't happen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_crystallization
    1 point
  5. There's many reasons why terraforming Mars is a challenge, a lack of hydrogen isn't one of them.
    1 point
  6. This one. A few important things to note... The expansion of space only happens at very large scales. At the level of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, gravity stops things moving apart. The surface of a balloon comparison only works if you consider the just the surface of the balloon being a 2D analogy for 3D space. This also explains how a finite universe can have no boundary: the surface of the balloon (or the Earth) has a finite area, but has no edge. Dark energy is an extra factor that causes the rate of expansion to increase (this started about 4 billions years ago, I think) The speed at which things move apart is related to how far apart they are. This is nothing special, it is just because expansion is a scaling effect. Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. (We can see galaxies that are receding faster than light.) We observe that (distant) galaxies are moving away.
    1 point
  7. This negative universe hypothesis on the video I could easily counter. Thereisn't any substantial support in terms of the mathematical details. You would have years of work ahead of you to remotely get any professional to even consider the claims in the video. Let's start with the first claim of vector symmetry. Describing one vector direction as a positive universe while the opposite vector direction as the result of a negative universe is outlandish in the extreme. Secondly the formula you posted with regards to that claim is specifically the third law of inertia mathematical statement. "For any force there is an equal and opposite force. " That statement is symmetric not assymnetric. If you combine these two equal and opposite vectors the body will not move. So where did you get assymmetric with -1 ? Not that such a universe could interact with ours without significant and dire consequences. Specifically that law is symmetric under rotation translation symmetry That's just one of the earliest claims. One that will get this theory thrown into the trash. If you waste your time on some eighty page article on the assertions I saw you would definitely be wasting your time
    0 points
  8. I didn't see any logic just a video that I am not interested in watching. Is there something you want to discuss? You can't give a short synopsis of you idea?
    0 points
  9. Ok you geniuses go do shit at the rest of your pathetic lives.
    -1 points
  10. My evidence is the lack of evidence of another civilization.
    -1 points
  11. Logic and common sense are the same thing . So since logic is different from people to people , math are different from people to people.
    -2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.