| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you believe there is other intelligent life in the Universe? |
| yes |
|
91% |
[ 41 ] |
| no |
|
8% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 45 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Naoryunosuke
Forum Plebian
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 138
Local time: 11:51 PM
Location: London, England
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | For the person traveling, it seems as if they are in motion for a much shorter amount of time. The "motionless" places they are traveling to may have experienced a great deal of time, but that is not true for the travelers. |
That idea was at best a piece of science fiction, I'm well aware of the idea that travelling at light speed would cause time to slow down for the travellers but this is simply not true. The whole idea treats time as if it's something that actually exists and can be manipulated when time is merely a dimension, it separates events just as distance separates objects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 6:51 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | Naoryunosuke wrote: | | jdopus wrote: | | Pretty much what Sv said, although I seriously doubt we will ever communicate with other intellient life |
Considering that there are billions of galaxies and that it would take us 2 million years traveling at light speed to reach our nearest galaxy Andromeda, then frankly I wouldn't be surprised if we don't meet another sentient being in the next million years.
If you take into account the fact that we've only actually begun to harness radio waves in the past couple of hundred years (about the same age as modern science), supposing that radio waves travel at the speed of light then signals from our planet haven't even reached our nearest galaxy yet. If a galaxy is 2 million light years away then that would mean any signals that we receive from it would have to have originated 2 million years ago, so even if we do discover evidence of intelligent life that doesn't mean they'll still be there.
If like us their sentience is a modern development, then it is unlikely that any signals will ever reach us within our lifetime. Even if they had hyperspace technology the chance of finding us within this wilderness is sheer pot luck, so this is a question I doubt will be answered in my lifetime, or even my great grand children's children's lifetime. |
It would take us far less than 2 million years traveling at light speed. |
Well, yes and no.
According to an observer on earth, it would take 2 million years, but to the passenger on board, it would take NO time at all -- reason being is that at lightspeed, time freezes. But Relativity forbids you going at lightspeed, only if you happen to be massless -- that is, nothing, except massless particles, can travel at lightspeed.
Now, if you're going at 99.99% lightspeed, instead of 2 million years, it would take you 28000 years, long enough for you to be dead when you get there...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 461
Local time: 6:51 PM
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naoryunosuke wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | For the person traveling, it seems as if they are in motion for a much shorter amount of time. The "motionless" places they are traveling to may have experienced a great deal of time, but that is not true for the travelers. |
That idea was at best a piece of science fiction, I'm well aware of the idea that travelling at light speed would cause time to slow down for the travellers but this is simply not true. The whole idea treats time as if it's something that actually exists and can be manipulated when time is merely a dimension, it separates events just as distance separates objects. |
Wow, so relativity isn't true. What a surprise discovery by an idiot with no stomach for new ideas! You definitely need to report to the scientific community with your startling evidence.
Eat shit, fucktard.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 6:51 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naoryunosuke wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | For the person traveling, it seems as if they are in motion for a much shorter amount of time. The "motionless" places they are traveling to may have experienced a great deal of time, but that is not true for the travelers. |
That idea was at best a piece of science fiction, I'm well aware of the idea that travelling at light speed would cause time to slow down for the travellers but this is simply not true. The whole idea treats time as if it's something that actually exists and can be manipulated when time is merely a dimension, it separates events just as distance separates objects. |
Sorry, but to a moving body, time does slow down. GPS is a continuous experiment in the theory of Relativity. Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites would fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day, and this would be cumulative. If scientists would ignore it, errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naoryunosuke
Forum Plebian
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 138
Local time: 11:51 PM
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | Sorry, but to a moving body, time does slow down. GPS is a continuous experiment in the theory of Relativity. Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites would fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day, and this would be cumulative. If scientists would ignore it, errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! |
I can accept that if it stands true that the increased speed is somehow slowing down the physical motion of the molecules. The point I'm making is that time does not exist, and whatever effect the journey may have on the traveller time itself has not been changed, merely the object. So even if the travellers are younger than the time it took to get there it would still take 2 million years. Also thank you for responding sensibly, unlike some other people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 461
Local time: 6:51 PM
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naoryunosuke wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Sorry, but to a moving body, time does slow down. GPS is a continuous experiment in the theory of Relativity. Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites would fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day, and this would be cumulative. If scientists would ignore it, errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! |
I can accept that if it stands true that the increased speed is somehow slowing down the physical motion of the molecules. The point I'm making is that time does not exist, and whatever effect the journey may have on the traveller time itself has not been changed, merely the object. So even if the travellers are younger than the time it took to get there it would still take 2 million years. Also thank you for responding sensibly, unlike some other people. |
Two million years relative to who?
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naoryunosuke
Forum Plebian
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 138
Local time: 11:51 PM
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | Two million years relative to who? |
You lost your right to ask me any questions after that outburst. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 6:51 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naoryunosuke wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Sorry, but to a moving body, time does slow down. GPS is a continuous experiment in the theory of Relativity. Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites would fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day, and this would be cumulative. If scientists would ignore it, errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! |
I can accept that if it stands true that the increased speed is somehow slowing down the physical motion of the molecules. The point I'm making is that time does not exist, and whatever effect the journey may have on the traveller time itself has not been changed, merely the object. So even if the travellers are younger than the time it took to get there it would still take 2 million years. Also thank you for responding sensibly, unlike some other people. |
All we know from relativity is that time is relative to the speed of the observer, whatever "time" is. One can argue ad infinitum what is the true nature of time -- philosophically or physically, and even physically, thermodynamics has also a pov on time that often escapes the average person. But, in many situations, we know that we must factor in Einstein's equations, otherwise, we could get in trouble -- the GPS being one, for instance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 461
Local time: 6:51 PM
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naoryunosuke wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | Two million years relative to who? |
You lost your right to ask me any questions after that outburst. |
It's not a fucking right to ask you shit, retard. It's not a right to teach a special education class, and that's what Joseph is doing right now. Go fuck yourself, retard. Fuckwits like you are the reason society is crumbling.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naoryunosuke
Forum Plebian
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 138
Local time: 11:51 PM
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | All we know from relativity is that time is relative to the speed of the observer, whatever "time" is. One can argue ad infinitum what is the true nature of time -- philosophically or physically, and even physically, thermodynamics has also a pov on time that often escapes the average person. But, in many situations, we know that we must factor in Einstein's equations, otherwise, we could get in trouble -- the GPS being one, for instance. |
If we're talking about time from the standpoint of the observer then they would certainly say that it only took X amount of years. let's say 1 million years to the observer. However the mathematics don't make sense if the object didn't take 2 million years to get there, so from the standpoint of relativity and time it would be both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 6:51 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naoryunosuke wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | All we know from relativity is that time is relative to the speed of the observer, whatever "time" is. One can argue ad infinitum what is the true nature of time -- philosophically or physically, and even physically, thermodynamics has also a pov on time that often escapes the average person. But, in many situations, we know that we must factor in Einstein's equations, otherwise, we could get in trouble -- the GPS being one, for instance. |
If we're talking about time from the standpoint of the observer then they would certainly say that it only took X amount of years. let's say 1 million years to the observer. However the mathematics don't make sense if the object didn't take 2 million years to get there, so from the standpoint of relativity and time it would be both. |
Relativity does not work the way one would like it to. To calculate these velocities, you would need to apply the Lorentz transformation equations. You would need to know which coordinate system carries the moving clock, and which doesn't.
In the scenario we are speaking of, going at near lightspeed to the next galaxy, the person in the spaceship would carry the moving clock. You, on Earth, would need to have two clocks to make the measurement --one here on earth, and a second one at the final destination to determine the velocity. Hence by the conditions in this scenario, the person in the spaceship would undergo time dilation.
Now, the person on the spaceship would experience time dilation but, OTOH, he would claim that you, the person on Earth, did not synchronize your two clocks!
It turns out that each observer would be right! And that's why the Theory of Relativity defies common sense... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naoryunosuke
Forum Plebian
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 138
Local time: 11:51 PM
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | It turns out that each observer would be right! And that's why the Theory of Relativity defies common sense... |
I'm glad we agree. I think we slightly disagree on our definitions of time but we're on the same wavelength. And will someone get rid of those trolls posts please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12814
Local time: 3:51 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: Alone in the Universe |
|
|
| Hit_me_up024 wrote: | I am about to make a very big contriversal statement. In my personal opinion I do not think that there is any intelligent life other than us. My reasoning for this is as follows:
1. conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur with the tightly restricted values of the universal physical constants, and that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be able to substain life.
2.In order for a planet to substain life it must have a reliable heat source thats is close enough but not too far away.
-For instance, the Earth is unique in the solar system in that it's at just the right distance from the sun so that water, which we all agree is essential to life as we know it , exists here in all three states, as liquid, ice, and vapor. Were Earth's orbit slightly larger or smaller, this would not be the case, and life might very well not exist here.
3.In order for a planet to substain life it must have a set orbit around its heat source, and remain on an axis
- For instance if the Earth did not have a moon, we would not remain on our axis and spin out of control. The moon equals out the gravity, and keeps the Earth steadily spinning with North and South just where they should be. Without this life wouldnt exist.
4. The conditions for evolution to even begin are very specific.
-Over the course of billions of years of evolution, intelligence will emerge, sooner or later, because it congers survival advantages on teh species that possesses it, which is what evolution is all about.
5. Existing radio telescopes are capable of detecting signals transmitted by alien civilization of comparable vapacity anywhere in our quarter of the Milky Way galaxy.
-The next generation of telescopes may be able to discern telltale signs of life specifically, carbon dioxide, which indicates the presence of an atmoshphere; water, suggesting oceans and ozone, a form of oxygen in teh spectra of starlight reflected off extrasolar planets.
6. For a planet to substain life it must have an atmosphere to filter out ENOUGH radiation from the heat source.
- For instance a planet must have enough of an atmoshere to filter out the radiation, without having too much of one filtering out too much radiation making it too cold for life to emerge. The ozone has to be proportionate to the heat source size and distance.
Go ahead and answer the pole to, just make an *educated*  guess |
There are BILLIONS of galaxies in the universe. Each galaxy has BILLIONS of stars. Even if only 1 in 1,000,000 stars has the right conditions to begin life, let alone sustain, that's still a BILLION inhabitable planets in the universe.
Are you saying that the chance of intelligent life existing in the universe is less than 1 to a BILLION against?
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 6:51 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: Re: Alone in the Universe |
|
|
| CET wrote: |
There are BILLIONS of galaxies in the universe. Each galaxy has BILLIONS of stars. Even if only 1 in 1,000,000 stars has the right conditions to begin life, let alone sustain, that's still a BILLION inhabitable planets in the universe.
Are you saying that the chance of intelligent life existing in the universe is less than 1 to a BILLION against? |
There's no way of saying. It could be that 1 to a BILLION is spot on, as well as totally wrong. It is pure speculation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12814
Local time: 3:51 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hit_me_up024 wrote: | | Quote: | | Also North and South poles switch and Magnetic North wanders constantly |
bull shit the north and south poles dont switch, if that was true then there would be no set seasons, no calender, no repeating night and day. Not saying the poles do not move but they definatley do not "switch", so let me get this striaght the Earths is just free ballin huh? rolling whatever way it feels like!- I think not |
This isn't a new discovery.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question782.htm
The poles can also switch places. Scientists can study when this has happened by examining rocks on the ocean floor that retain traces of the field, similar to a recording on a magnetic tape. The last time the poles switched was 780,000 years ago, and it's happened about 400 times in 330 million years
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
