Are you referring to evidence and proof that alien life is rare in the universe, or evidence that FTL travel is impossible? Please don't hold back, show us the evidence.
You said, "That's easy." So much for the easy to find quote. 🙄
Side stepping noted. So this is your indirect admission that you don't know what you are talking about.
@tizman
What has gravity got to do with providing hard evidence of alien visitations?
Claiming it does is a classic science denialism approach.
What has gravity got to do with providing hard evidence of alien visitations?
Claiming it does is a classic science denialism approach.
If you were a photon, or acted like a photon, you would be traveling at the speed of light. For anything that travels at the speed of light time stands still. It's counterintuitive but has been proven by Einstein. I have no reason to doubt it. This means that no matter the distance the photon travels before it was absorbed on a distant object (radiation heating) it would take only an instant.
FTL is not required to go enormous distances. The only conflict would be that the faster you travel the more those people you left would age. For example, if you traveled to the very farthest galaxies in the universe at the speed of light it would still just take an instant as measured in your own time. However if you tried to return home it would be very possible that our own milky way galaxy might not still exist, let alone all the people you once knew.
So speed of light does just fine if you are willing to accept that everyone you now know you will never see again.
A bit oxymoronic, no? What in science has ever been unequivocally proven? Science is more faith based than religion. We have theories for theories to validate our assumptions. The very notion of establishing a scientific truth is a theoretical issue. We live in the moment. 🙂
not taking you to task at all.
You are the science denier. You deny the limitations of the science you use to prove and disprove things. You show me evidence of a full understanding of the the four forces/interactions. You can’t deny the possibility of something without fully understanding it, and we don’t fully understand it. Your stance has more to do with religion than a belief in science. Believing in science in the same way that people believe in religion is not better. I suggest that you look at the stick in your eye before pointing out the mote in other’s eyes.
Yes. The moment is a snapshot in time. It reflects what we know in that moment. Even the most casual look at different past moments in time shows us that what we think we know can keep us from moving forward. It also shows that orthodoxy and irrational belief in existing paradigms are fool’s pursuits.
Yes. The moment is a snapshot in time. It reflects what we know in that moment. Even the most casual look at different past moments in time shows us that what we think we know can keep us from moving forward. It also shows that orthodoxy and irrational belief in existing paradigms are fool’s pursuits.
That is completely incorrect. There's no faith at all, just hypotheses, theories and facts.
With religion, “faith” is the bug that is the feature
With science, “faith” is in the method and the dividends are “truth” and such truths remain until upended by further “truths”. The death of old truths is the bug that is the feature.
With science, “faith” is in the method and the dividends are “truth” and such truths remain until upended by further “truths”. The death of old truths is the bug that is the feature.
That are "believed in".
Both camps are comprised of believers. When proof arrives, there's no more need to "believe", only observe.
Who said anything about alien visitations? I’m not saying that aliens have come to visit us, I’m saying that you can’t prove that they haven’t by relying on our incomplete understanding of physics. How many times do I need to say the same thing?
Your stock in trade is the application of incomplete theories that lack any hard evidence to “disprove” things that I haven’t even said. Apparently, you think that qualifies as rational.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.