Intoscience

Yes, especially so in modern western culture, money doesn't guarantee your health and happiness. But it certainly helps to take away some of the stress and anxiety of everyday life. Knowing that all your basic needs and some luxuries are a certainty and that you can pay for the highest level of health care is definitely a standard of wealth.

I have a relative who works in social care. Its certainly complicated, even when it comes to this type of accommodation. Many, to combat violence and fear factors impose rules to which many homeless folk chose not to adhere to, so continue living on the streets, drugs use and weapon carrying being the main 2. I suspect that most people would assume you are just begging out of idleness, without first understanding your lifestyle and culture. Regarding your PS. This attitude is ripe across a number of situations. Years ago when I ran my own construction business the wealthiest clients tended to be the meanest. Like wise the poorest the most generous. The poorer clients would happily offer drinks, food and cash tips to the workers. Whereas the wealthy clients would offer nothing but expect huge discounts. Just going back to homeless donations. I often offer loose change or a hot coffee, but on one particular occasion I was approached and advised by a police officer who saw a particular person begging not to approach or gift anything. She explained that the person was a multiple offender who was a drug user and had been offered help over the years choosing not to take it. Donations would encourage his poor behaviour so the police and social care were trying to deter him from continuing his current life style. Just something to consider and shows that each individual case is different and some complicated. There are people who are born into poverty, forced into poverty, chose poverty and chose to ignore poverty. As you said poverty isn't just about money. I was having just this discussion with my son the other day. What makes a person wealthy and what makes them poor? In modern western society for the general population a certain amount of money does help to provide a certain level of well being. The question is, what does money buy and how much does one need to achieve it? For example, my son offered to buy me a fancy car, a big, house, expensive holidays upon him becoming rich and successful (by the way he's still a student at Uni, so currently broke in reality). I explained that I don't need any of those things. What would be nice (for my personal wellbeing) is my house paid off, my early retirement, and enough money to cover my bills and health care. The rest is just material and has no value for me. My point being, wealth is really about health, happiness and content and poverty is really about suffering and hardship.

Yes, exactly. (my bold) Though I would say, new testable physics rather than just theoretical. Worm holes, space warping etc... can be plausible from a theoretical perspective just not currently testable. This is why most serious scientists and science enthusiasts are very sceptical about claimed alien visitations, and rightly so! We all want it to be possible (well perhaps the majority), why? Well because if it can be done and aliens have succeeded then this means we can also! I don't think there is anything more exciting than the possibility of visiting other planets, especially exo ones! I think this is why some sceptics (like myself), keep open minded and not too dismissive. Remaining positive and hopeful.

Yes, and reading through this thread you can see that there are a number of perspectives, considerations and assumptions. Which is inevitable, since we are discussing a topic that is with all intent purposes, way beyond our current technical capabilities (visiting exoplanets). Much of the discussion so far is around what we can technically perceive and or feasibly engineer (ignoring costs and constraints). Its a bit like being back when the only means of mechanical transport was horse and cart, then discussing ways in which you could circumnavigate the Earth by making the horse faster, or the cart lighter. Unfortunately the reality is, that from a practical view, the only way we can conceive relatively efficient interstellar travel would be based on, what seems like highly improbable, but theoretically plausible methods such as worm holes, space warping... All other methods are slow, very inefficient, very impractical and very expensive. Our constraints are fundamentally based on time and distance, simply because we are a biological species limited by short lifespans. If there is a possible scientific way to overcome these constraints our next challenge is technical. Then we have to consider the feasibility, cost and lastly (or firstly) the motivation. I cannot perceive (based on our current understanding of physics) how a biological entity could/would travel interstellar with any meaningful purpose. Unless they/it had over come the constraints of time and distance. Failing that, biological aliens would either have to be almost immortal (compared to life we know) or be life as we don't know. Alternatively some form of machine like visitation (probe, robot, A.I...) seems, from our experience, a more plausible possibility. Note: Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that we may be closing in on a full understanding of physics. This was countered, and rightly so. Our current models suggest that we occupy and can only observe around 5% ish of what appears to make up the universe. Leaving 95% still unknown, I'd say its a little presumptuous to say we are nearing a full understanding based on this observation. I enjoy discussions like these, but we have to be a little imaginative and speculative to answer the question "Could aliens ever visit Earth?". If you want to strictly stick with our current understanding of physics and technical capabilities and assume that aliens are life as we define/know it (in other words could we feasibly visit other exo planets), then the answer is a plain NO. But there is a caveat in the question - "ever" this implies no time limit so since we are unable to foresee the future then the answer is - For the duration of Earth's existence, allowing enough time, for any technically advanced being who can travel interstellar, then YES.

Yes, so fundamentally based on our current understanding of physics and technological capabilities any meaningful and practical interstellar travel is near on impossible. Unless you can consistently harness huge amounts of resource over a very long period of time. So therefore we can conclude that IF E.T has visited Earth from outside our solar system then it must imply that either the warping of space and/or the dilation of time can be practically harnessed in some way that we have yet to discover.

Though interesting, discussions on "realistic" interstellar travel based on our current understanding of mainstream physics and technology is a bit pointless. Delving into the engineering requirements alone, aside from human biological limitations and vulnerabilities shows that its basically practically impossible to go any significant distance. Its pretty obvious that "if" aliens are doing such then they have discovered either physics we are yet unaware of and technology which is beyond our understanding. All our realistic assumptions on this subject are, and can only be based on human experience. The reality being that if interstellar travel is practically possible in a meaningful and useful way for humans, then traditional reaction propulsion systems are not the way forward. This then brings us back to what we currently consider as "sci-fi speculation", warp drives, anti gravity mechanisms and so forth. This is what Bob Lazar's claim has been since the 1980's to this day. Whether you believe his story or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he claims a type of "gravity warp field" is the mechanism which the craft operates with. Sci-fi, hoax or other, objectively this makes more sense for interstellar travel than slow, inefficient reaction propulsion systems (ironically what Bob was an accomplished engineer in). The point being, as outlined originally, reaction propulsion systems are a pointless mode of interstellar travel. You can tackle the physics and engineering all day long but the conclusion will remain the same. Either aliens have never been here or ever will, or they have and we have yet to learn how to do it ourselves.

All life as we know it is made from matter, simple. So you have 2 options outside this: Option 1. Life emerging from pure energy, which we have no real examples, evidence, or models for. Option 2. life emerging spiritually, which we would define as "super natural" again we have no real examples or evidence for. Both these examples extend our current definition of life outside of what would be considered mainstream. If you want to propose an alternative to life as we know it (matter based), then by all means crack on. But if you are going to make propositions outside of the mainstream and bring them to a "science" forum then you better have some credible, testable evidence to support your claims.

Thank you, that makes perfect sense.

I find this interesting, and would like you to expand on your reasoning further.

Sounds to me a poor excuse for not facing up to the responsibility of your actions.

Though I do side on the no designer argument I can't help but feel much like what Markus stated. I have yet to find a compelling argument for the need of a designer, but many for the non requirement of design or designer. However because our knowledge still lacks, and the evidence supporting theories on and around how the universe initially began, and how life (as we know it) initially began, then I do beg the question. I'm happy to dismiss wild claims, especially those focused/built around religious beliefs. So at this juncture, I would remain on the - random evolutionary models bench. A little part of me wishes/hopes that a designer was indeed required, this may give some extra meaning to it all. Especially so if humans are intended to be just that little bit extra special.

Or the ultimate escape. Depending on your beliefs. If a person is an atheist who doesn't believe in any form of after life or transcendence, or reincarnation then death means full stop, the end in every sense. But you can be an atheist and believe in some form of continuum. (as per what The Vat stated) For a person to be be punished then they need to be judged.

Agreed, Going back to this recent claim Either the film makers of close encounters knew something no one else did, or the person making these claims is very unimaginative! I read that the latest NASA report on UAPs states that they have no reason to believe that any of the UAPs are non terrestrial. However, they do go on to state that the findings are inconclusive and many of the phenomena remain unknown both in construct and in origin. they also state that some of the evidence suggests that some of the objects are not moving as fast as reported and maybe just "drifting" with currents. This last part I find rather odd and I'm not convinced. Many of the objects where witnessed on multiple occasions by various experienced air force personal. I find it hard to believe that they would all mis-construe what they witnessed. I do however remain sceptical of "alien" visitations. But I'm not in the club of completely ruling them out. What may convince me more to join the "believers" is if we discovered new physics which may allow for, or at least theorise, a plausible practical method of long-distance short time space travel by meaningful physical objects.

I would have structured the sentence differently, because when I read the first part it came across as though you condoned Jimmy Saville's actions. Any person/s who abuse children deserve something!

hmmm... uncannily The sad thing being that all this does is fuel the stigma surrounding aliens and the possibility of their existence.