UFO's. Do you believe?

StyLaZyn wrote: Another thing to consider about space travel, where is our understanding of physics and the universe? Learning can be likened to evolution. We learn and grow more over time. Not to mention, we may one day discover that our theories and conceptions of the universe are not entirely accurate.   My point, there is a great amount of unknown and we currently project based on those things we know or theorize. Imagine in one or two hundred years what we may know. Are we in a "the world is flat" mode now?

Atkingani wrote:   http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=L55jImEhNZ0&feature=related    Anyway, viewing some old posts here I'd like to add that considering the probability that many Earth-like (or Mars-like) planets could have been formed around 3-5 billion years ago, their geological evolution might have been different than ours, being accelerated in many of them, providing conditions to life earlier that here. A difference of 1 million years (less than 1% in geological calendar) can mean much in terms of the development of higher forms of life.   But even if, for instance, the periods of life development were equal to us, a single difference of 20,000 years could be worthwhile. The Homo sapiens appeared circa 200,000 years ago but only around 10,000 years ago they (we) started the "civilizatory process"... can someone imagine in what stage we could be if this process had started 10,000 or 20,000 years earlier?

Edited by darqDean - April 16 2008 at 20:46

Voyager 90, model 125, launched in 2112 could have reached Alpha Centauri A in 2162... who knows?

Atkingani wrote: Voyager 90, model 125, launched in 2112 could have reached Alpha Centauri A in 2162... who knows?

 ^ good breakdown Jim, though I don't know if the idealists want to think we have neighbors in the Universe as much as a kind of faith in their visions of what is possible   .. I'm not sure which side I'm with either, though as fascinating as science is, I tend to be a dreamer

oh please  

Jim Garten wrote: darqDean wrote: If we were 10,000 years more advanced than we are now then our physiology, civilisation, culture, theology, sociology, technology and possibly even our biology would be unrecognisable, our scientific/mathematical models would be more refined (and more 'accurate'), but the actual physics of the Universe would be unchanged... As would humankind's fundamental nature (unchanged since we were all called Ug & Mrs Ug) to look at the skies and wonder; it's my opinion this debate is fuelled by the division between two points of view: 1 - The scientists (for want of a better word): The laws of physics are immutable & constant, therefore always have and always will preclude the possibility of practicable interplanetary travel. Ergo, even if life does exist on other planets, the likelyhood is we will never see/meet them, so can never prove their existence. 2 - The idealists/dreamers (again, for want of a better word): In an infinite universe, other forms of life must exist, and the likelyhood is their scientific advances can/could be/must be ahead of ours, therefore they can transend what we perceive to be the 'laws' of physics, interplanetary travel is therefore possible/probable. Effectively the idealists don't want to think we're alone in the Universe/Multiverse, the scientists probably think the same, but know we can never prove it one way or the other, so fall back on what can be proved by science. I just haven't decided on which side of the divide I stand yet...

Edited by darqDean - April 17 2008 at 06:43

darqDean wrote: Scientists are idealists who bear the onus of proof for their dreams while Idealists do not suffer such restrictions.   The Laws of physics are not something we impose on the Universe, but are our best-explanation of the limitations the Universe imposes on us.   The only way of transcending the laws of physics is by taking them out of this Universe and into another where the laws maybe different (subspace, hyperspace, string theory, branes, mutilverses, etc.) - which is fine - even if the transition from one Universe to the next is a mere detail to be solved at some later date...   Though moralistically it's the cosmic equivalent extending your driveway into your neighbour's garden just so you can get your car out of the garage quicker and I'm pretty sure the owners of the other universe would have something to say about it.

Since you mention multiverses: What is your view of the Everett-Wheeler-Graham model of quantum physics which has been greedily sucked up by SF authors? (For those who don't know about it: It is one attempt to explain the quantum uncertainty. The idea is that each time a quantum decision is made the universe splits up into two different universes, which are identical except for that one quantum decision. Since there are myriads of quantum decisions inside the universe in each pico-fraction of a second this leads to an infinity of universes. It sounds ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than Schrödinger's cat, which is alive and dead at the same time. It is quantum physics itself which is ridiculous.)
By the way: There has always been a debate about whether the universe is determined or not. I like it that the school of determinism could be represented by the symbol of Pavlov's dog (you ring the bell, and it drools) while indeterminism can be symbolized by Schrödinger's cat (the cat in Schrödinger's thought-experiment that seems to be alive and dead at the same time). So the debate between determinism and indeterminism becomes a fight between Schrödinger's cat and Pavlov's dog.

Jim Garten wrote: And thus, the central arguments within one of the most interesting debates this forum's seen for a long time are reduced to the following basic concepts: beardie wrote: it's the cosmic equivalent extending your driveway into your neighbour's garden just so you can get your car out of the garage quicker and I'm pretty sure the owners of the other universe would have something to say about it baldie wrote: the debate between determinism and indeterminism becomes a fight between Schrödinger's cat and Pavlov's dog Therefore, it matters not how expansive the debate and/or argument concerned, it can all be boiled down to a neighbourhood dispute between Mr & Mrs Pavlov, Mr & Mrs Schrodinger, their pets and a shared driveway... Just don't ask me to attend the planning meeting

I think this is probably the best explanation of how the universe works. There are a lot of similarities between neighbourhood people fighting and the structure of the universe. Both the concepts of relativity (what is a minor issue for one of the families is a major one for the other and vice versa) and the quantum concept of indeterminism (anything can become the object of a new quarrel at any time) are perfectly displayed in this concept.


Edited by BaldFriede - April 17 2008 at 09:21

Atavachron wrote:  ^ good breakdown Jim, though I don't know if the idealists want to think we have neighbors in the Universe as much as a kind of faith in their visions of what is possible   .. I'm not sure which side I'm with either, though as fascinating as science is, I tend to be a dreamer

this makes me wonder how people would react if we knew there was intelligent life out there. Especially religious nuts. they would probably go into denial or something. i do know people's perspectives on faith would definitely change