Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life? (2 Viewers)

[Lightwave]

But that fouls up because of compression and the compression is limited to speed of sound in the material the bar is made of. I searched and got the same as what Galaxiom said. If not for that then it would mean we could send morse code and on the instant basis

But with the compression what happens if I move the bar a foot and then another foot etc.

Not sure might be wrong

Back to the light beam for a moment. Let's say I change the angle of torch so the beam is moved 100 yards on the other planet and I move the torch to the new angle at a steady rate so it takes me a 100 seconds. Does that mean 10 years later he starts to see the illuminated patch start to move and keep moving gradually over 100 seconds at a yard a second.

From description of light being like a stream of little rocks I assume the moving the torch would mean the beam would look curved, almost like a bullet trajectory where the curve got steeper the closer to the other planet.

Exactly that's my understanding

 

[Mike375]

I am not 100% confident on the bar and compression.

I seem to remember something like Youngs Modulus (might have spelling wrong) where a certain load or force produced a given compression or stretch.

So if I move the bar forward and acceleration means a force, then I move it again at the same rate hasn't the compression already been done?

I just found a website (I will go back and get the link) that has a lot of this type of thing.

Edit: here is a link to one of the sites. The links on the site don't open another site, just take you down the page.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html


One interesting one is you stand and look at the moon and then rotate yourself through 360 degree in 1 second. The moon is 240,000 miles away so a circle with that radius will have a circumference of about 1.5 million miles and so my vision had travelled at about 8 times the speed of light. Of course if I did the same with a start I would be at 1000s or millions of times the speed of light.

I have been on Google all day with the speed of light. I get the feeling that the speed of light limitation is one applying to increasing the speed of a mass and only in relation to itself.

Something I can't get an answer to is....if we start to accelerate then our mass increases....but what happens if we stop accelerating, in other words shut down the motor at 2/3rds the speed of light.

 

[Rabbie]

It should be noted that he was chucked out of college for generally acting irreverantly towards his tutors.

Unfortunately not everyone that flunks their college courses are geniuses that know better than everyone else.

Not actually true if you believe his wikipedia article . It says he left his secondry school using a doctors note. He did complete his course at the Polytechnic in Zurich

 

[Lightwave]

I've heard mixed report about Einstein. I found the following..

Einstein's formal secondary education ended at age sixteen. He disliked school, and just as he was planning to find a way to leave without hurting his chances for entering the university, his teacher expelled him because his bad attitude was affecting his classmates. Einstein tried to enter the Federal Institute of Technology (FIT) in Zurich, Switzerland, but his knowledge of subjects other than mathematics was not up to par, and he failed the entrance examination. On the advice of the principal, he first obtained his diploma at the Cantonal School in Aarau, Switzerland, and in 1896 he was automatically admitted into the FIT. There he came to realize that he was more interested in and better suited for physics than mathematics.

Einstein passed his examination to graduate from the FIT in 1900, but due to the opposition of one of his professors he was unable to go on to obtain the usual university assistantship. In 1902 he was hired as an inspector in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland. Six months later he married Mileva Maric, a former classmate in Zurich. They had two sons. It was in Bern, too, that Einstein, at twenty-six, completed the requirements for his doctoral degree and wrote the first of his revolutionary scientific papers.

I also heard a podcast in which he was described as initially a model student however he eventually became disappointed that the teachings were too classical and he became somewhat disruptive.

It may be popular folklore although you could see someone being frustrated if the lines they were given did not satisfy their beliefs.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Back from holiday vacation. Hope everyone had a good one.

"Odds" being used as it used in general conversation. In fact I just sent an email to someone that I doing some Access work for and I said the odds of it running by tomorrow are very good.

I get what you're saying. You're saying you're using odds to mean the same thing as chances. You're saying to you, they are essentially the same. That's ok, its just not how I am accustomed to hearing the terms used. Odds to me has always implied precision. Now that I know you weren't claiming such precision when you have used the term "odds", I don't take exception to your thoughts on the likelihood of certain scenarios.

Yes. And as is required for an atheist....the version does not change, no update and it does not become corrupt etc.

I still am not sure what you're going for. I'm not seeing the significance in your analogy.

Atheists always claim to deal with facts but the facts are changing and thus the basis for your argument "today" will change.

Yes, it absolutely could. But, do you see any difference between religious claims and scientific facts? If religion claims something, they tell you you must take it on faith. It is not to be questioned, it is to be accepted. Scientific facts come about from lengthy testing, in-depth analysis, and peer-review.

Are you trying to assert that scientific facts are no more worthy or important than religious claims because scientific facts have changed in the past?

If you base an argument on certain data or facts and the data/facts are changed then your argument has gone, the floor has been pulled from under you.

Which means what? Based on what you're saying, it seems that you're implying that since religion's claims don't change, they are consistent, and thus more solid of a basis from which to stand on? They are more likely to be accurate because they haven't changed?

Is that what you're trying to say, or am I not understanding you correctly?

 

[Rabbie]

From description of light being like a stream of little rocks I assume the moving the torch would mean the beam would look curved, almost like a bullet trajectory where the curve got steeper the closer to the other planet.

This in fact is predicted by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. An experiment was performed during a full eclipse which measured the gravitational lens effect of a massive star. This matched the result predicted by the Theory. However in order to get a measurable effect the beam of light has to pass close to an extremely massive object such as a large star.

 

[Galaxiom]

One interesting one is you stand and look at the moon and then rotate yourself through 360 degree in 1 second. The moon is 240,000 miles away so a circle with that radius will have a circumference of about 1.5 million miles and so my vision had travelled at about 8 times the speed of light.

Your field of vision is not an object but a concept. Nothing travelled at all. Concepts can travel at the speed of light but not objects.

The following examples come from a book called Relativity Visualized by Lewis C. Epstein. Well worth reading as a primer in Relativity if you can get hold of it.

The edge of the shadow of the Moon can travel across the surface of the Earth at faster than the speed of light just before it leaves at the end of an eclipse. But nothing is actually travelling at that speed. (Yes, this does mean that the Speed of Darkness is infinite.)

The point where a wave breaking parallel to a sea wall can travel along the wall faster than the speed of light. Once again nothing is moving other than a concept.

Something I can't get an answer to is....if we start to accelerate then our mass increases....but what happens if we stop accelerating, in other words shut down the motor at 2/3rds the speed of light.

Your mass from your own perspective does not increase regardless of your speed. Those who observe your relative motion see your mass has increased even after you stop accelerating. You also see their mass increased.

Indeed, from your perspective everything about you seems exactly as normal. The one anomaly you see is the fuel consumption. All that thrust should have had your mass moving much faster. However because you changed frame of reference, the energy required to reach that velocity must be calculated from your original stationary perspective. It uses the relativistic kinetic energy equasion which adds an extra term to Newton's Law of kinetic energy.

Einstein didn't throw out Newton's energy equasion but basically added another term that is trivial until velocities approach a significant fraction of the speed of light. Close to the speed of light it dominates the total energy.

Incidentally, many assume that Einstein's work was prompted by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein claimed he was unaware of that experiment and in fact his work was based on the implications of Maxwell's equasions of Electromagnetism which showed that the Speed of Light was an intrinsic property of space.

 

[Galaxiom]

All kinds of claims are made about Einstein. Some (invariably those with an agenda) even claim that he was autistic. Personally I think that claim is rubbish.

 

[Mike375]

I get what you're saying. You're saying you're using odds to mean the same thing as chances. You're saying to you, they are essentially the same. That's ok, its just not how I am accustomed to hearing the terms used. Odds to me has always implied precision. Now that I know you weren't claiming such precision when you have used the term "odds", I don't take exception to your thoughts on the likelihood of certain scenarios.

Well "odds" do put a number on things but not all of the time are they meant to be precise. With betting odds can be changed to force a change in how the bets are being placed.

I still am not sure what you're going for. I'm not seeing the significance in your analogy.


Yes, it absolutely could. But, do you see any difference between religious claims and scientific facts? If religion claims something, they tell you you must take it on faith. It is not to be questioned, it is to be accepted. Scientific facts come about from lengthy testing, in-depth analysis, and peer-review.

Are you trying to assert that scientific facts are no more worthy or important than religious claims because scientific facts have changed in the past?

Which means what? Based on what you're saying, it seems that you're implying that since religion's claims don't change, they are consistent, and thus more solid of a basis from which to stand on? They are more likely to be accurate because they haven't changed?

Is that what you're trying to say, or am I not understanding you correctly?

Religion or supernatural is not argued on the basis of "facts" but atheism is. In fact religion/spiritual are there because of a lack of facts or the science keeps changing.

Scientific facts come about from lengthy testing, in-depth analysis, and peer-review.

But that does not mean they are correct and that applies double for the topic we are talking about, that is, the start of the universe.

In fact things can turn into the opposite such a smoving from Steady State to Big Bang.

 

[Galaxiom]

Religion or supernatural is not argued on the basis of "facts" but atheism is. In fact religion/spiritual are there because of a lack of facts or the science keeps changing.

So religion relies on their propositions being untestable? I guess that is why religion is in decline as science continues to find ways to test the previoulsy unknown.

But that does not mean they are correct and that applies double for the topic we are talking about, that is, the start of the universe.

In fact things can turn into the opposite such a smoving from Steady State to Big Bang.

Religious "fact" is built on a single proposition that there is at least one deity that controls and directs the nature of all reality. From this shaky foundation an edifice is constructed. When conflicts arise with observation, at best religion rejigs the edifice but never considers the starting proposition.

Scientific fact is actually a tree built from a vast collection of propositions each depending upon a coherent set of principles arising from ever more fundamantal propositions until a tiny set of basic laws are reached at the foundation. These rules were arrived at because they hold for every observation.

While the details in the derived branches can and do change, changes in the fundamental laws are extremely rare such as was the case with Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Indeed, although these theories painted reality in a new light they did not profoundly conflict with previous knowledge, only our expectations.

The static universe was never taken as a fact by science but as a default proposition because there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. When the technology was developed to examine evidence, the reality was found to be different from expectations but it did not change the foundations of the tree of knowledge.

Religion has no capacity to change so stagnates thinking in every aspect of its influence. Its inability to deal with the nature of physical reality is obvious to all but the most blnkered adherents to the faith.

Fortunately an increasing number of people in the educated world are now coming to realise that religion is equally incapable of dealing with issues concerning morality.

 

[Mike375]

Glaxiom,

Read all your post.

Let's say I leave home and get up to 50% speed of light and head to a planet 10 light years away.

I am cruising at 50% light speed and the only thing I oberves that is "not right" is my remaining fuel. Newton is on board doing his equations and his best answer is we had a fuel leak But the leak appears to have stopped.

So about 20 years after leaving home we can observe the new planet with our new special equipment, we are a light week from the new home and still doing 50% light speed. Is the data we get back on the planet such as its mass the same as we established from earth.

We then start the retro rockets to slow from 50% light speed down to the speed to orbit the planet will the fuel used be greater than expected by copilot Newton and his equations.

From out perspective have we aged less than the 20 years at 50% light speed. Does the slow down from 50% light speed reverse things.

With the increase in mass as we speed up to light speed is that based on a change of velocity or the percentage of light speed. Let's say to rockets have both sped up to 50% of light speed and turn the motors off. Next day rocket 1 turns the motors back on and increases the speed from 50% light speed to 50% plus 100,000 mph. On rocket 2 we don't restart the motors but instead we launch another rocket from it and its speed goes to 100,000 mph relative to the mother ship. Does the small rocket increase in mass as per Einstein?

All this sort of stuff could make a man believe in a god

 

[Mike375]

Religious "fact" is built on a single proposition that there is at least one deity that controls and directs the nature of all reality. From this shaky foundation an edifice is constructed. When conflicts arise with observation, at best religion rejigs the edifice but never considers the starting proposition.

That is only true within the context of formal religions, most notable being the Abrahamic religions.

Atheists as a group seem to think all non atheists believe in the man with the white beard and his army of angel helpers.

The static universe was never taken as a fact by science but as a default proposition because there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

That is the same principle as what forms the views of people such as myself.

Religion has no capacity to change so stagnates thinking in every aspect of its influence. Its inability to deal with the nature of physical reality is obvious to all but the most blnkered adherents to the faith.

If it is correct it can't and won't change. If Big Bang is correct then it will be stagnate.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Well "odds" do put a number on things but not all of the time are they meant to be precise. With betting odds can be changed to force a change in how the bets are being placed.

Ok, but the simple point remains. If you know the odds, that IS precision. I.e., there is a 1/3 chance that some guy will die of cancer. That's quite precise.

Religion or supernatural is not argued on the basis of "facts" but atheism is. In fact religion/spiritual are there because of a lack of facts or the science keeps changing.

Ok, so since religion is not argued upon facts, that means it does not need to rely on them. It can always handwave away the things that don't seem to make sense with a simple religious phrase.

But, does that mean to YOU, I'm asking your thoughts here, that they are more valid than scientific fact?

Do YOU treat scientific facts and religious claims as the same? Do you feel they are equally valid, or is one more valid than the other?

Atheists as a group seem to think all non atheists believe in the man with the white beard and his army of angel helpers.

I know that not all religious people are some form of Christianity. But your defense of Christianity seems to imply you hold some of the same beliefs (or you're just arguing to argue, but that could not be it ).

Either way, its difficult to try to compare science to religius facts when your religion is "something is out there". In other words, a completely undefined and vague set of supernatural rules/guidelines. Its almost as if you're afraid to take a position.

If it is correct it can't and won't change. If Big Bang is correct then it will be stagnate.

But if religion is not correct it can and will (and does) change. Organized religion has changed a lot throughout the years, mostly to keep the people and the dollars rolling in.

As soon as religion makes a claim, tries to assert a universal truth, it can usually be picked apart and be shown to be impossible.

Immaculate conception?
A boat big enough to hold 2 of every species in the world, without those species eating one another?
72 virgins?

All of these claims can be torn apart and be shown to be impossible. Only faith will keep people believing in them, causing them to blind their selves to reality. And "faith" is just another word for obedience, indoctrination, etc. As in, even though everything you have learned and seen has shown you one thing, you must still believe in this other thing.

 

[Rich]

(or you're just arguing to argue, but that could not be it ).

It is and it's nothing new

 

[Kryst51]

Religion has no capacity to change so stagnates thinking in every aspect of its influence. Its inability to deal with the nature of physical reality is obvious to all but the most blnkered adherents to the faith.

If this were really true then Christians would still insist that the world was flat despite all the proof to the contrary....

 

[ChipperT]

If this were really true then Christians would still insist that the world was flat despite all the proof to the contrary....

I see little difference in that and the Christian denial of the Theory of Evolution, especially those who insist that their god put fossils in the ground and created them with the appearance of great age to confuse and confound the unbelievers.

 

[Kryst51]

I see little difference in that and the Christian denial of the Theory of Evolution, especially those who insist that their god put fossils in the ground and created them with the appearance of great age to confuse and confound the unbelievers.

Concerning fossils I think that our dating methods are flawed (in the past I have heard leactures on this, and though I don't remember the particulars, I came away with this belief).... And as far as the theory of evolution is occurred, it is just that, a theory... There are so many gaps in the "evidence" for it, and even many evolutionists have agreed that it is unlikely but they prefer that to the alternative (God Created the Earth). I certainly haven't studied this myself, but have been to seminars of Creation scientists that study these issues, and this may not be a completely reliable source but after watching Ben Stein's "Expelled" I have come to the conclusion that even evolutionists don't believe in the theory.... So Evolution vs Creation science doesn't apply to either.... So either belief is believed on faith.

 

[ChipperT]

Concerning fossils I think that our dating methods are flawed (in the past I have heard leactures on this, and though I don't remember the particulars, I came away with this belief).... And as far as the theory of evolution is occurred, it is just that, a theory... There are so many gaps in the "evidence" for it, and even many evolutionists have agreed that it is unlikely but they prefer that to the alternative (God Created the Earth). I certainly haven't studied this myself, but have been to seminars of Creation scientists that study these issues, and this may not be a completely reliable source but after watching Ben Stein's "Expelled" I have come to the conclusion that even evolutionists don't believe in the theory.... So Evolution vs Creation science doesn't apply to either.... So either belief is believed on faith.

I am not arguing evolution here other than to implore you to check out exactly what a scientific "Theory" means. It is NOT supposition. Look it up. There are thousands of references on the Internet.

I also suggest that, in the interest of really learning, you should attend seminars from many points of view, not just those of your own that you are trying to find support for. Of course a seminar conducted my Creationists are going to slant things their way to "prove" they are right. If you just attend those, it is called a "closed mind" and a closed mind never ever learns the truth.

 

[Adam Caramon]

And as far as the theory of evolution is occurred, it is just that, a theory...

Its a theory because science has a very high level of evidence/proof required before a theory is elevated to a fact, not because its just some guy's opinion.

There are so many gaps in the "evidence" for it, and even many evolutionists have agreed that it is unlikely but they prefer that to the alternative (God Created the Earth).

Could you provide a source, or is this what you believe after the sum of your life experiences?

I certainly haven't studied this myself, but have been to seminars of Creation scientists that study these issues, and this may not be a completely reliable source but after watching Ben Stein's "Expelled" I have come to the conclusion that even evolutionists don't believe in the theory....

Yeah, those are both very biased sources. Ben Stein in particular.

So Evolution vs Creation science doesn't apply to either.... So either belief is believed on faith.

This seems to be using the same logic as Mike375. If one claim by science has ever been refuted, then science as a whole must be suspect.

If you place evolution's likelihood of being correct at the same level as "god did it", then you must have a bad case of the faiths.


As an aside, a humorous rant I found on a CNN article questioning if Harry Potter was a "Good Christian"

Top Ten Signs That You Are An Unquestioning Christian:

10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

9- You feel insulted and ‘dehumanized’ when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.

7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the ‘atrocities’ attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in ‘Exodus’ and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in ‘Joshua’—including women, children, and animals!

6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about god sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old!

4- You believe that the entire population of this planet wi th the exception of those who share your beliefs—though excluding those in all rival sects—will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most ‘tolerant’ and ‘loving’.

3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor, speaking in ‘tongues,’ may be all the evidence you need.

2- You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history—but still call yourself a “Christian.”

 

[Kryst51]

I am not arguing evolution here other than to implore you to check out exactly what a scientific "Theory" means. It is NOT supposition. Look it up. There are thousands of references on the Internet.

I also suggest that, in the interest of really learning, you should attend seminars from many points of view, not just those of your own that you are trying to find support for. Of course a seminar conducted my Creationists are going to slant things their way to "prove" they are right. If you just attend those, it is called a "closed mind" and a closed mind never ever learns the truth.

I have taken science course my entire school career and have learned plenty about evolution, its methods, evidences etc...... I have not been taught in school my entire life about Creationism however so I have attended seminars to learn.... Not close minded, different learning venues maybe.