Interesting article by Neil DeGrass Tyson. Didn’t get to fully read it. Kinda wrapped up now but will dig into it later.
Also, a side note, I’m reading Death By Black Hole written by Neil. It’s a pretty good read
I had to read your reply twice before I discovered how you justified classifying Drake’s Equation as bad Sci-Fi, and then I noticed you modified the equation with barroom logic.
Drake’s Equation is just that, an equation. When ideas or concepts are so beyond current scientific and mathematical understand, one way of determining the boundaries of the problem is trying to figure out what one would need to know in order to solve the problem. Dr Drake created the equation in order to determine what scientific research would have to be done to get to some sort of answer.
Here is Uncle Carl explaining it back in the 1980’ series ‘Cosmos’
Higgs Boson Equation was the same, and fairly recently the math proved out with the CERN confirmation.
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is still just a theory, though last year the recording to two black holes colliding and sending out gravitational wave has pretty much proved his theory to be fact.
Fermat’s Last Theorem, was correctly proved in the mid-1990’s by Andy Wiles and he was knighted and given an award just last year. [“This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637 in the margin of a copy of Arithmetica where he claimed he had a proof that was too large to fit in the margin.”]
Now we are talking about Sci-Fi, I think Star Wars uses Hyperdrive (which I think is supposed to use a dimensional shifting of space, for it to work).
Star Trek uses, uses another form of FTL Drive(Faster Than Lightspeed), called Warp Drive. It distorts Space-Time, basically creating sort of bubble around the ship, which is still in flat-space inside the bubble. The bubble is what is traveling faster than the speed of light and the ship inside the bubble is being pulled along. NASA has been doing real research into warp-drive technology. I had bookmarked a couple of articles about this, but I can’t find the most recent one:
2 Likes
Man you guys are smarter than I thought. Lol
1 Like
Yeah, but the problem is that the form of the equation may be correct in that each variable seems to be necessary for the result, but the values are pure conjecture. If I stick my own values in there, I keep coming up with the value of 42.
And barrooms are the best place to test a theory. It’s also the best place to come up with theories. Well, barrooms and bathtubs.
Relativity is provable through observation. Use clocks, planets, or whatever and you can see actual evidence of the theory. Physicists are still debating certain minute aspects of the theory, but it’s pretty settled science.
Yeah, hyperdrive, warp drive, it’s all based on tachyonic theory. Assuming tachyon’s exist (and I’m more inclined to believe in tachyon’s than ET), the problem is that at that level, what’s to keep your warp drive from sending you backwards/forwards/sideways in time? The same ideas that lend themselves to FTL also lend themselves to time travel. Which is interesting in that some quantum experiments elements actually seem to travel backward in time.
As far as a government entity doing research into warp-drive, it’s actually more interesting than why lesbians are fat.
1 Like
An unfortunate oversimplification. Even for the most basic life form to appear from inorganic matter, it would make Jared’s confetti illustration look like child’s play. After all, someone built the plane and filled it full of confetti… or maybe it assembled itself out of iron ore in a volcanic eruption…
5 Likes
I love Science and Math, always have. If it wasn’t for undiscovered dyslexia, through my school years, I probably would have went that way in life. I know, it’s never too late, and yet it is.
@JaredAI 42 is always my ‘go to number’. Barrooms, bathtubs, and toilet seats; these are my best places of intellectualizing. Back to the ‘Anal Probe Conspiracy’.
Not really, or Einstein would of used them. Theory of Relativity is hard to prove because something large has to happen to space or time, outside of our reality, to prove it. He hypothesized but couldn’t prove. That’s why the gravitational waves from the two blackholes colliding, was such a major discovery.
42
This might be true, but I know Cherenkov Radiation does.
1 Like
Not true. Look into Miller–Urey experiment. Even though is has been attacked recently, it’s still compelling.
Little lost on the connection here…
1 Like
Nope, you can use the dual clocks experiment to demonstrate relativity. “Proof” is a very hard thing but all the evidence supports relativity.
There’s a huge difference between the statements “something large has to happen to space or time” and “outside of our reality.” Apples and Orangutans.
Sure, relativity has to do with “large things” but the dual clocks and demonstrate the principle by which you extrapolate to planets. “Outside of our reality” is a whole other n-dimensional concept.
Lot of problems with that one. All it really proved was the need for an intelligent creator.
1 Like
What if @JaredAI confetti flag was so numerous (millions of flags of confetti) hat eventually it would fall back together to form a flag similar to if you shuffled a deck of cards so many times it eventually shuffled itself back into order. The probability is there. Albeit very minute, but there.
1 Like
I have to say though this is definately a good time for the debate as the information is coming in as we speak
Thank you for agreeing with my statement.[quote=“JaredAI, post:28, topic:43624”]
Theory of Relativity is hard to prove
[/quote]
Support is not proof.
The problem with the Two Clocks Experiment is that no one has proved it…there have been attempts at it by using clocks on satellites, but this was later proved to be not conclusive evidence because ‘other factors’ were not isolated out. Yes, on the surface, it seemed to demonstrate the possibility of the theory of relativity.
This is true in one sense, that is why I used both in the sentence.
Not true, in the trying to prove Einsteins Theory. It is the theory of Relativity, our reality is relative to our position in space-time, is order to ‘prove’ the theory space-time has to be observed to have changed in some manner.
Ah okay, according to whom?
Without making some reference to your side of this, it is kind of hard to continue the conversation.
It’s kind of like that guy on the news, years ago, the reporter was trying to tell this guy it is dangerous to be out in a storm. The whole time he’s saying, “Nope, your wrong. I don’t care what anyone says. I know…” Then he got hit in the face with a flying stop sign.
2 Likes
Yes, mathematically it is a possible, given enough attempts.
However, I don’t think it was meant to be a true comparison and much as it was a funny comparison.
1 Like
One word: Oxygen.
Is oxygen needed for life? Can the amino acids in that experiment survive in an environment that has oxygen?
It’s an interesting experiment… but as abiogenesis, it’s a big fail.
I think part of the problem, is the age old belief, that knowledge will disprove God. That Science and Religion can’t co-exist.
This just isn’t true.
2 Likes
Yea, Aliens are intelligent because they use Dawn.
2 Likes
Yeah, I get on a lot of my Christian friends about this. God said “Come let us REASON together.” What bothers me is the concept that faith precludes science or evidence. I’ve written papers about relativity and Genesis 1:1.
My problem is two fold:
-
The average theologian doesn’t care about physics or relativistic theory and that’s what I care about. I banged my head against a wall with a Thomist regarding the nature of time for about 3 hours and the funny thing is that I think Thomas Aquinas actually had a pretty good handle on the nature of time.
-
The average non-religious person doesn’t care about evidence or actual science. Note: hashtag science is NOT science. Just because you hashtag science doesn’t mean you know jack squat about actual scientific investigation. And unfortunately, a lot of scientists are just as dogmatic in their religion of science as the theologian is as dogmatic in their religion.
Do they even have windows? What sort of soap do you need on a force field screen?
1 Like
There are some interesting details shared here.
I can agree with this.
I don’t know, I didn’t do it. It was done, from my understanding, to see it the building blocks of life can be made from inorganic material and electricity. Primordial Soup, if you will. Not much oxygen is needed to support organic matter, or even organisms.
Abiogenesis, from my understanding was speculation based on little real scientific data, it’s no wonder it fell apart. It didn’t disprove Miller–Urey experiment…from my understanding, this experiment wasn’t done to prove Abiogenesis.
