Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 104

Thread: Witnesses For Ufo Congressional Hearing

  1. #31
    Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 12:13
    The issue here is not whether aliens exist.. of course they do. How many galaxies are there? How many stars are there in those galaxies? How many planets in orbit around those stars? The chances of none of these planets being able to support life is ridiculous. Its a foregone conclusion based on simple probability.
    prove it



    it's simple to say something such as you have, but to prove it is a lot more difficult
    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>BLAH</span>

    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Wayne Rooney - A thug and a thief</span>

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #32
    Originally posted by 3rd gen noob
    prove it

    it&#39;s simple to say something such as you have, but to prove it is a lot more difficult
    Why dont you prove that not one of those billions upon billions upon billions of planets can support life? Apart from ours of course. Just the one.

    Its probability theory, simple maths. The chances that none of these multitude of planets could support life is preposterously low. It&#39;s possible but given the huge number of planets the chances of that being the case are so negligible that its not even worth entertaining the idea.

    You&#39;ve got more chance of winning every lottery in the world in the same week by buying just one ticket from each country. You&#39;ve got more chance of doing that every week for a year than there is of Earth being the only planet capable of supporting life in the entire Universe. The ideas ridiculous.

    Bring into the equation that there may be other completely different lifeforms that can survive in completely different environments (silicon based life perhaps?) and you&#39;ve just reduced the chances of us being the only life in the Universe to an even smaller amount.

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #33
    evilbagpuss
    The real issue is do they have the technology to travel at the necessary speeds to reach us within a reasonable amount of time?

    I don&#39;t understand, if they have the technology to travel light years why would
    time be an issue. Even we our on a breakthrough (with our on technology).

    http://www.cryonics.org/prod.html

    Cryonic Suspention:
    (1) Many biological specimens have been frozen, stored at liquid nitrogen temperature where all decay ceases, and revived; these include whole insects, vinegar eels, many types of human tissue including brain tissue, entire human embryos which have later grown into healthy children, and a few small mammalian organs.

    (2) While cryonics is still controversial, growing numbers of respected mainstream scientists, researchers, and medical doctors, particularly in the field of nanotechnology, have looked at cryonics and developed ideas as to just why and how reviving a person safely from cryonic suspension is possible, in spite of the damage from old age, disease, accident, ischemia, and the freezing process itself.

    In short: ever-increasing scientific advances, growing experimental evidence, and informed and reputable scientific opinion is coming together and telling us that it can be done. And the technology that will allow us to do it is being developed.
    SMARTY SMARTY HAD A PARTY NOBODY CAME BUT SMARTY

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #34
    Originally posted by imnotanaddict
    I don&#39;t understand, if they have the technology to travel light years why would
    time be an issue.
    Even travelling at the speed of light it would take a hell of a long time to reach the nearest star to us. 1 light years is the distance you can travel at the speed of light in a year. I cant remember how many light years the closest star is exactly but its a hell of a lot. The next closest is much much further than that and so on.

    The cryogenics point is a good one. But then you have the problem that by the time you reach your destination everyone you knew back on the originating planet could be dead.

    Then you have to consider the problems of communicating with the originating planet over those huge distances.

    Using light speed travel and cryogenics you could send out colonists and explorers but you would be unable to take orders from the home planet or send info back without it taking generations.

    So.. you&#39;d have to have a propulsion system and a communication system that could either travel at many times the speed of light or be totally independent of time and/or space.

    That would be one hell of an advanced species (&#33 hence the petri-dish analogy.

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #35
    Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 12:48
    Why dont you prove that not one of those billions upon billions upon billions of planets can support life? Apart from ours of course. Just the one.
    just because an atmosphere/environment can support life doesn&#39;t mean there actually is life there
    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>BLAH</span>

    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Wayne Rooney - A thug and a thief</span>

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #36
    Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 13:19
    Even travelling at the speed of light
    for such an &#39;expert&#39; in this field it&#39;s funny that you&#39;ve never heard of relativistic mass

    this is the principle which suggests that no massive body may travel at (or beyond) the speed of light

    the theory is supported by experiments already conducted
    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>BLAH</span>

    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Wayne Rooney - A thug and a thief</span>

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #37
    Originally posted by 3rd gen noob
    for such an &#39;expert&#39; in this field it&#39;s funny that you&#39;ve never heard of relativistic mass

    this is the principle which suggests that no massive body may travel at (or beyond) the speed of light

    the theory is supported by experiments already conducted
    lol. Ever heard of a paradigm shift? Heres an example.

    Newton stated that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    This paradigm held true for hundreds of years then Einstein came along and gave us the theory behind nuclear power and proved Newton wrong.

    E=MC2

    Energy = mass mulitpled by the speed of light squared.

    Clearly not an "equal and opposite reaction"

    Be sure.. in time Einsteins paradigm will be blown to pieces too. Its inevitable. Certain aspects of Einsteins theories of the Universe were shown to be incorrect. I cant remember the exact details but I think it was something to do with the rate at which the Universe is expanding. I cant recall if it was meant to be constant or variable in Einsteins paradigm but nevertheless he is gradually being proved wrong in certain areas, or more accurately his theory is being refined.

    I never claimed to be an expert btw, just an amateur enthusiast.

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #38
    Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 13:34
    Newton stated that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    This paradigm held true for hundreds of years then Einstein came along and gave us the theory behind nuclear power and proved Newton wrong.

    E=MC2

    Energy = mass mulitpled by the speed of light squared.

    Clearly not an "equal and opposite reaction"
    newton&#39;s third is completely unconnected to nuclear physics

    newton&#39;s third is also one of the fundamental laws and has NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN

    please don&#39;t try to patronise me

    relativistic motion has been proven by experiment

    how much more proof would you like before you believe something?
    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>BLAH</span>

    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Wayne Rooney - A thug and a thief</span>

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #39
    Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>newton&#39;s third is completely unconnected to nuclear physics

    newton&#39;s third is also one of the fundamental laws and has NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN

    please don&#39;t try to patronise me

    relativistic motion has been proven by experiment

    how much more proof would you like before you believe something? [/b]


    lol&#33;&#33;

    Please explain to me how these 2 things can be true

    "Every action creates an equal and opposite reaction"

    "Energy = Mass x Speed of light squared"

    Just because its "Nuclear physics" (merely a label) it does not seperate it from Newtons laws at all. Its still matter and motion and energy.

    Newtons laws were proven by experiment for hundreds of years. Then they were shown to be false by Einstein. You cannot have it both ways. They are not seperate theories existing in seperate worlds dealing with seperate objects. Newton was wrong in this particular area.

    You havent proven anything your merely repeating the results of experiments and ignoring the historical paradigm shifts.

    If you still dont believe Einstein blew away Newtons paradigm read this.

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/...8157961167.html

    <!--QuoteBegin-Einstein&#39;s relativity theory hits a speed bump


    That paper, and the general theory of relativity that followed it, revolutionised the way scientists understood the universe, and history has remembered it ever since as a shift from Newtonian physics - where space, time, motion and gravity are separate and proceed with rigid, clockwork elegance - to Einsteinian physics, where things bend, stretch and pull on each another in most unusual ways.

    In between these paradigm shifts, there are leaps in understanding
    [/quote]

    Why cant Einsteins theories be blown away by a new paradigm in the future? He had it wrong about quantum physics so why not this?

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #40
    Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 14:10
    You havent proven anything your merely repeating the results of experiments and ignoring the historical paradigm shifts.
    neither have you, it must be said

    ok, say you&#39;re right, can you explain for stupid people like myself exactly the connection between newton&#39;s third and e=mc2
    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>BLAH</span>

    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Wayne Rooney - A thug and a thief</span>

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •