SETI make's alien contact?

[Microsoft_Boy]

*please don't get into religeous arguments here. they always end in flaming.*

 

[Spartan]

oh and for those of you naysayers about interstellar space travel, consider this:

--we used to think the sound barrier was impassible. (more specifically, theoretical work "indicated the pressures generated on a body as it neared Mach 1 would go to infinity, and the drag would therefore be so great that no aircraft could pass through the barrier") sound familiar? the mass of any object approaching the speed of light approaches infinity?

--we used to think the world was flat and that you could sail off the edge.

but knowledge was acquired and we passed those barriers. just because our current knowledge doesn't allow for interstellar travel, doesn't mean it's impossible. it's just impossible RIGHT NOW.

You seem to be forgetting that the conjecture concerning the speed of light is based on scientific LAW. You mentioned the sound barrier problem was based on "Theoritical Work". And the "world was flat" is just a stupid notion and was not based on any scientific testing, so I don't see how you can even use that in your argument.

Einstein's theory has been tested and retested in thousands of possible situation, and it has NEVER failed. It is supported by Newtoninan physics and works perfectly with quantum mechanics as well. It only fails in a black hole, and most scientists believe that we will NEVER be able to travel faster than light. However, it may be possible for us to travel to another part of the unvierse or a paralled universe through a spacetime tunnel. I posted about this in this discussion just a few posts back.

 

[Infomatic]

Some of you guys haven't heard of String Theory/M-Theory?

Read up on it, it'll explain the universe to you.

Also does a very good job of explaining the Big Bang. No, the "universe" as we know it did not exist before the big bang, since that's the conventional definition of the Universe -- What exists after the Big Bang. Beyond the Big Bang, there is the Multiverse. Universe implies one, Multiverse implies many. Although I'm not sure if you'd call what existed before the universe the 'multiverse' or if that's just the term to describe all the various universes in one.

Anyways, before the Big Bang (a more accurate way of saying it would be, "beyond the universe") there are the Membranes. They are what contain the strings that form the universe. Thats where String Theory (Strings) and M-Theory (those strings woven into a fabric) come in.

 

[Apokalipse]

Some of you guys haven't heard of String Theory/M-Theory?

Read up on it, it'll explain the universe to you.

Also does a very good job of explaining the Big Bang. No, the "universe" as we know it did not exist before the big bang, since that's the conventional definition of the Universe -- What exists after the Big Bang. Beyond the Big Bang, there is the Multiverse. Universe implies one, Multiverse implies many. Although I'm not sure if you'd call what existed before the universe the 'multiverse' or if that's just the term to describe all the various universes in one.

Anyways, before the Big Bang (a more accurate way of saying it would be, "beyond the universe") there are the Membranes. They are what contain the strings that form the universe. Thats where String Theory (Strings) and M-Theory (those strings woven into a fabric) come in.

yes, I've heard that theory of the big bang. though I'm more into Quantum physics.
I think in many ways String theory and Quantum physics is related, the membranes of the universe(s) are space-time, which can be curved (einstein used this to explain gravity)

and the quantum particles may actually be the strings on the membrane (quarks, quasars, photons etc)
though gravity is one thing in which both theories conflict, or at least seem to.
einstein says that gravity is the result of space-time curving in the prescence of matter (which does explain effectively why light is affected by gravity)
string theory says that gravity is the result of particles called gravitons, which float freely (are not attatched to the universe(s))

personally, I lean towards Einstein's gravity explanation. it just seems to make more sense.

though I do find the idea of multiverses interesting, I kinda lean against the idea, because it's really just theory (at least so far)
Einstein's ideas have been known for a lot longer, and seem to hold up very well in explaining the universe.

 

[Infomatic]

Yea, those things are amazingly annoying.

The end result is the same, so it hardly matters which one it is (other than verifying one theory) but its a question anyway.

 

[Apokalipse]

we also have two models to explain light, which have been around for a few centuries. the particle, and the wave model.

nobody can say that light is definately a wave, or a particle.

Quantum physics leans towards it being a particle (the photon)
and it can travel in space, with no medium for a wave to travel.

but light is massless, so it being a wave tends to make more sense there

 

[molsen]

You seem to be forgetting that the conjecture concerning the speed of light is based on scientific LAW. You mentioned the sound barrier problem was based on "Theoritical Work". And the "world was flat" is just a stupid notion and was not based on any scientific testing, so I don't see how you can even use that in your argument.

Einstein's theory has been tested and retested in thousands of possible situation, and it has NEVER failed. It is supported by Newtoninan physics and works perfectly with quantum mechanics as well. It only fails in a black hole, and most scientists believe that we will NEVER be able to travel faster than light. However, it may be possible for us to travel to another part of the unvierse or a paralled universe through a spacetime tunnel. I posted about this in this discussion just a few posts back.

i'm not debating any laws....all i'm saying is that our knowledge now and our laws now may seem silly and primitive to humans, say, 1000 years from now, just as we view humans 1000 years ago. people always say "we're at the height of this and that technology" and "this is law that has been tested and tested"...but ancient civilizations long ago had many beliefs they considered absolute that we now consider a joke. maybe our science (which seems absolute to us) will be a joke in the future. that's all i'm saying. CHILLLLL

 

[RockyZ]

Theories are meant to be proven wrong. There are many scientific theories that are proven wrong everyday. What makes you think a guy from decades ago could write laws that are so "perfect" (which is already stated in this thread is nto possible), that they could not be proven wrong?

 

[molsen]

Theories are meant to be proven wrong. There are many scientific theories that are proven wrong everyday. What makes you think a guy from decades ago could write laws that are so "perfect" (which is already stated in this thread is nto possible), that they could not be proven wrong?

i don't think he can. that's what i'm saying. just because our laws show that the speed of light cannot be exceeded....that could very well just be a limit to our testing abilities. who knows, tomorrow a scientist might discover that light is not the fastest speed in the universe. maybe some invisible particles (gravitons perhaps?) move faster than the speed of light.

reminds me of a t-shirt my old astronomy professor wore one day that got the class ****ed off... it said "Einstein don't know $hit"... i thought it was kinda funny.

 

[Apokalipse]

I think Einstein's laws have stood the test of time enough to say that they are accurate.
Newton's laws have been around since the 1600's and are still used today.
Einstein's relativity agrees with Newton's laws for the most part, but take time as relative instead of constant. and so far, that idea has proved to be correct through experimentation.

maybe there is something Einstein missed, just like Newton, but thus far his laws have been accurate.