UFO haiti video

[Mysterio]

Something tells me Kayla's been playing too much Xenosaga :wink:

I concur, knows his shit, lol

even if repeating it.

[Kaylia]

Wow just WOW...Kaylia you have been repeating the same thing over and over again. I don't know if you have read my post or not earlier. But in case you missed it, if we do NOT know everything about the universe. Therefore, your "What are we creating that our universe isn't doing already?" point fails because we don't even know what we are capable of doing in the universe. (Yes, it's just that simple) Just curious...what are you studying right now or have studied so far and is it in the US or Canada?

Of course I'm repeating the same thing over and over, my opinion on the subject won't suddently change, and there isn't hundred of different way to present it. I'm still trying to give you a slightly different perspective every post, but it's still the same point, and if you refuse to listen, I doubt it will convince you. What I'm saying won't change, especially since the scientist community seem to think that way. And if you want to know where I studyied, I just finished studying computer sciences at a university in canada (UQTR), and was studying physics before. Going back in electricity next semester to finish my bacc.

I asked that question, because everything that can be used to build a technology can be found in the universe, and our obversation show that almost everything can be explained with our current energy and model. Electricity, fusion, fision, magnetism, particles, atoms....all those thing explains 99.9999% of the phenomenon we encounter, and there is rarely exceptions (black matter is one of the few of the few mystery). Considering how powerful our tool are, it would be surprising if we overlooked a simple details that is within our range that could be used to do something significant as teleporting matter from point A to point B.

If such force or impact did exist, it would have a HUGE impact on our current physics, and would cause a lot more "mysteries" and unsolvable problem. The fact there is literally nothing that doesn't follow our models under planck scales show that there is little hope for space traveling.

[edit]
I will throw back the question at you. Did you (or anyone in this thread) ever attended an astrophysics class? Do you have so little faith in science to think our current model could be destroyed (instead of upgraded) or that our observation were wrong? Science progress never took any sharp turn in our history, it's cumulative and always include everything that was done before.

Something tells me Kayla's been playing too much Xenosaga :wink:

Oh I did...I did. ;/ Has nothing to do with my opinion in this thread tho

[Septimus]

Why would the majority of physicians, who spend their whole life trying to figure the rules of our universes say it's most likely impossible if they had high hope to ever see it happen? Everyone want space travel to happen, and no one as anything to gain saying it won't happen.

Why did the majority of scientists bawk at Einstein when he came out with Relativity? Why was science cold to accept Quantum physics? Partially because you can't latch onto every new hypothesis that someone comes up with, but also because scientists are human too. They have egos, they have dogma, they have deeply held opinions, they have baggage. No one wants to say: "I am spending my career learning things that will be obliterated in 100 to 500 years."

But one day someone is going to come along with a new idea that is going to drag the old paradigm into the lavatory, pick it up by its ankles, and give it a swirlie. The majority of people will be dead-set against it, but as those people start to retire the next generation will see this new concept for its merits. (Provided it has any.) It is silly for a scientist to use the word "impossible" unless it is followed with the phrase "by our current understanding". I'm not saying that trans-light travel is possible, I'm just saying that ruling it out is silly this early in the game.

And no, I didn't taken Astrophysics in college. I did however earn a degree in History and Philosophy of Science.

[Jotaru]

Agreed with Septimus. And by no means am I claiming I am right and you are wrong, Kaylia, or anything of the sort - it is my opinion on the matter, and what I personally believe. I am an Aerospace Engineering major atm, but only 2 years in, no big fancy degree anything, and just because its aerospace related I don't claim to know more than anyone else on the subject, we have barely touched on anything outside of regular fluid / solid dynamics this early, heh. Just tossing it out there so people know that I'm not claiming to be some big Ph.D. in intergalactic travel or some such, lol. Again, I honestly enjoy this kind of philosophical debate, I liked being in philosophy class, and since then I don't really have many people to discuss topics like this with, so it honestly is just for the pure enjoyment of the topic at hand. Yes, it sounds stupid and nerdy, but meh.

[Skyylya]

Event Horizon was a good movie.

Did you know that we're going to collide with the Andromeda galaxy in like 2 billion years!?!?

Hopefully by then if we're still around they'll have figured out how to get us outta this place or we're toast.

[Septimus]

Event Horizon was a good movie.

Did you know that we're going to collide with the Andromeda galaxy in like 2 billion years!?!?

Hopefully by then if we're still around they'll have figured out how to get us outta this place or we're toast.

Actually galactic collisions are fairly boring events. There is a lot of space between stars, most are generally left unharmed. (Except for the center of the galaxies which are kind of screwed...)

[Skyylya]

did anyone else watch that history channel series, 'the universe'

I hope that goes on DVD like planet earth, i missed a few of those

[Kaylia]

Why did the majority of scientists bawk at Einstein when he came out with Relativity? Why was science cold to accept Quantum physics? Partially because you can't latch onto every new hypothesis that someone comes up with, but also because scientists are human too. They have egos, they have dogma, they have deeply held opinions, they have baggage. No one wants to say: "I am spending my career learning things that will be obliterated in 100 to 500 years."

But one day someone is going to come along with a new idea that is going to drag the old paradigm into the lavatory, pick it up by its ankles, and give it a swirlie. The majority of people will be dead-set against it, but as those people start to retire the next generation will see this new concept for its merits. (Provided it has any.) It is silly for a scientist to use the word "impossible" unless it is followed with the phrase "by our current understanding". I'm not saying that trans-light travel is possible, I'm just saying that ruling it out is silly this early in the game.

And no, I didn't taken Astrophysics in college. I did however earn a degree in History and Philosophy of Science.

Who wants to uses 3 feet long equations when you could simply use f=ma! :D It's perfectly true human are doubtful when they face a new discoveries but it's understandable when you look at how sciences work. For every new good theories, there is probably 10 (or more) bullshit theories. You just can't accept everything the moment they are said, without looking at the alternative and the possibility of a mistake. When Eintein came up with relativity, there wasn't any real need for it (mercury thing was the first uses they found to relativity, 2nd was the nuclear bomb 15years later), and many thing were hard to test, especially with the tool they had. It did explain a few paradox, but it wasn't accompanied by any mathematical proof, labs experiments and everything else that sciences requires. Those came up many years later, and people were forced to accept it...

The point I'm trying to make is about something that is beyond the development of sciences. It has to do with the limit to our universe, and those were introduced by Einstein, but need to be present in any future models. What kind of shortcut exist between point A and point B if the universe doesnt allow you to go faster than light? Wormhole concept is the only allowed by our physics, but it involves using something that doesn't exist, and we would be pushing the model at its limit (meaning it doesn't necessarily work, like using newton's physics for a large speed). Move the universe around you instead of moving? Won't happen till the next millenium.

Quantum physics and relativity don't really contradict each other. They just cover a different domain that both have different rules. String theories basically found a model that explain the gap between both. While newton's physics was an estimation, it's very possible relativity is correct since it can explain the shape of our universe entirely, as a single entity. There is most likely something bigger than our universe, where multiples universe exist,but we havent reached the part yet, and it won't help us move within our universe. And by "multiple universe", I'm not talking about sci-fi multiple dimensions, I'm talking about the cause of the gravitational constant, speed of light, etc.


By our current understanding, it's impossible for a number between 0 and 1 to equals 2. Don't you think it's silly as well?

Actually galactic collisions are fairly boring events. There is a lot of space between stars, most are generally left unharmed. (Except for the center of the galaxies which are kind of screwed...)

Yeah, you would barely notice anything considering how slow the collision is. Might not even see a new stars depending where it collide, or at least, nothing that doesnt happen over millions of years

[Septimus]

Who wants to uses 3 feet long equations when you could simply use f=ma! :D It's perfectly true human are doubtful when they face a new discoveries but it's understandable when you look at how sciences work. For every new good theories, there is probably 10 (or more) bullshit theories. You just can't accept everything the moment they are said, without looking at the alternative and the possibility of a mistake. When Eintein came up with relativity, there wasn't any real need for it (mercury thing was the first uses they found to relativity, 2nd was the nuclear bomb 15years later), and many thing were hard to test, especially with the tool they had. It did explain a few paradox, but it wasn't accompanied by any mathematical proof, labs experiments and everything else that sciences requires. Those came up many years later, and people were forced to accept it...

The point I'm trying to make is about something that is beyond the development of sciences. It has to do with the limit to our universe, and those were introduced by Einstein, but need to be present in any future models. What kind of shortcut exist between point A and point B if the universe doesnt allow you to go faster than light? Wormhole concept is the only allowed by our physics, but it involves using something that doesn't exist, and we would be pushing the model at its limit (meaning it doesn't necessarily work, like using newton's physics for a large speed). Move the universe around you instead of moving? Won't happen till the next millenium.

Quantum physics and relativity don't really contradict each other. They just cover a different domain that both have different rules. String theories basically found a model that explain the gap between both. While newton's physics was an estimation, it's very possible relativity is correct since it can explain the shape of our universe entirely, as a single entity. There is most likely something bigger than our universe, where multiples universe exist,but we havent reached the part yet, and it won't help us move within our universe. And by "multiple universe", I'm not talking about sci-fi multiple dimensions, I'm talking about the cause of the gravitational constant, speed of light, etc.


By our current understanding, it's impossible for a number between 0 and 1 to equals 2. Don't you think it's silly as well?

Actually galactic collisions are fairly boring events. There is a lot of space between stars, most are generally left unharmed. (Except for the center of the galaxies which are kind of screwed...)

Yeah, you would barely notice anything considering how slow the collision is. Might not even see a new stars depending where it collide, or at least, nothing that doesnt happen over millions of years

A ha! OK, case-in-point time. As you said about Relativistic physics, "When Eintein came up with relativity, there wasn't any real need for it (mercury thing was the first uses they found to relativity, 2nd was the nuclear bomb 15years later), and many thing were hard to test, especially with the tool they had." Right now we are at the point with Relativity that they were in with Newtonian Physics, it works great and explains everything that they wanted it to explain- except for Mercury and the luminiferous aether but we can ignore those. Newtonian physics work amazingly, but there is a limit to where they work, Relativity expands upon what works and goes on to explain the things that don't work.

One day we will find things in Relativity that don't quite fit, and the next theory will do the same with Relativity- expand where it works and go on to explain the things that don't work. If/when this happens, does it mean that Einstein was wrong? No more wrong than Newton was. We still use Newtonian physics for things that aren't super-huge, super-small, or super-fast. And we will still use Relativity for things that aren't super-???, super-???, and super-???. Will this happen in our lifetime? Maybe, maybe not. Einstein's theories were centuries ahead of their time, we just have to sit around and wait for the next Einstein to grab science by it's lab coat and give it a good shaking. I'm not saying that this will allow trans-light speeds, time-travel, transporters, or what have you- I'm just saying that "impossible" is a very silly word when we don't know all of the loop-holes.

[Kaylia]

Right now we are at the point with Relativity that they were in with Newtonian Physics, it works great and explains everything that they wanted it to explain- except for Mercury and the luminiferous aether but we can ignore those. Newtonian physics work amazingly, but there is a limit to where they work, Relativity expands upon what works and goes on to explain the things that don't work.

More or less. Science evolution during the last 100 years (or 200) has been incredibly fast, and we didn't have 200 years and more to sit on the same formula (not even gonna start with all the religious bs they were going throught at that time). Most scientist actually have to add new elements to their way of thinking every 5, 10 or 15 years. The limit of relativity are already reached, since it cover our universe as a single entity (and not an infinity) entirely, and that's why we got string theories that is in development and should be tested eventually.

One limit of Newton's physic was that you can't move anything from point A to point B without using a certain amount of energy to accelerate the object (f=ma). The equation itself ended up being an approximation and incorrect, but the observation they made were still correct. Relativity added new limit with the space-time definition, and our infinite universe suddently got a shape, a beginning and possibly an end, but it doesn't describe anything outside those limits. String theories does that kinda, but I'm not up to dates anymore with last 2-3 years discoveries.

What physics discover is laws and limitation. Knowing those will always help us improve our technologies by building them around those limits, but it won't allow you to break them. The hypothetical faster than light space travel simply break those laws that are already acquired.

One day we will find things in Relativity that don't quite fit, and the next theory will do the same with Relativity- expand where it works and go on to explain the things that don't work. If/when this happens, does it mean that Einstein was wrong? No more wrong than Newton was. We still use Newtonian physics for things that aren't super-huge, super-small, or super-fast. And we will still use Relativity for things that aren't super-???, super-???, and super-???. Will this happen in our lifetime? Maybe, maybe not. Einstein's theories were centuries ahead of their time, we just have to sit around and wait for the next Einstein to grab science by it's lab coat and give it a good shaking. I'm not saying that this will allow trans-light speeds, time-travel, transporters, or what have you- I'm just saying that "impossible" is a very silly word when we don't know all of the loop-holes.

I agree with everything you said before the last line, but that's what we are all saying in this thread. The problem is that there is no model we could possibly make that allow us to create a worm hole (or anything you want), while including relativity and recent theories. No matter what you do, you will always have to divide by zero somewhere, or create inequality.

There isn't 0% chance, because there is still a few thing we don't understand within our universe, but the more we progress, the less likely our chance to see space traveling happen. That's a weird thing to say, but that's why scientist believe it's impossible.

[Septimus]

I agree with everything you said before the last line, but that's what we are all saying in this thread. The problem is that there is no model we could possibly make that allow us to create a worm hole (or anything you want), while including relativity and recent theories. No matter what you do, you will always have to divide by zero somewhere, or create inequality.

There isn't 0% chance, because there is still a few thing we don't understand within our universe, but the more we progress, the less likely our chance to see space traveling happen. That's a weird thing to say, but that's why scientist believe it's impossible.

But impossible by what we know is different from impossible. Down the line someone may figure out something that we would consider unachievable/unimaginable but not necessarily prohibited, like a way to convert baryons to tachyons. (Resting state moving infinitely fast by converting time into distance traveled.) I just think that under the current paradigm people find it far too easy to rule out ideas that won't be though up for hundreds of years.

[Jotaru]

Septimus, gtfo mah brain!

[Kaylia]

Actually, I find people quite optimistic in face of the increasing number of limitations. I wouldn't rule out anything, I never did and always stated there was a few possibilities. However at this point, the chance of it happening diminish every time we find a new model, even if our understanding of the universe get better. Why? Because for every new model, an exponential amount of technical difficulty are created, as well as new physics constraints that weren't included previously. What we can do isn't left to our imagination, but to what our universe allow us to do. Not everything was possible from the start, and not everything will be possible in the end since we are conditioned by the atoms that make us and the universe we live in.

I blame science fiction for sidetracking people from real physics, making them believe those outerspace fairy tales.

[dekamii]

imo this is going to be a never ending argument/discussion. until the day we understand how we came to be, we'll be able to know our limitation. if we don't know the foundation of the universe, how can we even define our limitations? more questions for you kaylia, are you religious by any chance and do you believe in the big bang?

[Kaylia]

imo this is going to be a never ending argument/discussion. until the day we understand how we came to be, we'll be able to know our limitation. if we don't know the foundation of the universe, how can we even define our limitations? more questions for you kaylia, are you religious by any chance and do you believe in the big bang?

Actually, I was done after my last post. I don't think I could have explained my point better than that, so no point continuing. And what kind of retarded question is that? What did I say that make you think that I believe in religion or anything of the sort, I'm siding with science since the beginning of this thread. I'm also siding with the general concensus amongst physicians that space travel will most likely never be done.

I'm not religious, and of course I believe in big bang. Why would I use relativity and quantum theories in my argument if I didn't believe in big bang? We are simply arguing about the future of the sciences and what can/can't possibly be done. Certain people believe that new theories give us more freedom, I believe that new theories will make it less likely to break the rule.

[dekamii]

I'm not religious, and of course I believe in big bang. Why would I use relativity and quantum theories in my argument if I didn't believe in big bang? We are simply arguing about the future of the sciences and what can/can't possibly be done. Certain people believe that new theories give us more freedom, I believe that new theories will make it less likely to break the rule.

sorry, sir! my question about your religion is just to see if your believes play any part in this discussion. to me, it seems like you have a very fixed mind on the future of mankind. to be honest, (please don't take this offensively) i think it's pretty stubborn for a person to think that our current laws of physic can determine the limitations of this universe. especially nowadays in the 21st century where what was considered impossible in the past has been done or happened. anyway, the other reason why i asked you the religious question is because i wanted to know if you solely believe that science can explain everything.

[Alleya]

Limitations of any kind are anti-scientific, pure and simple. It's the weight of evidence that determines weather one thing is more or less true/possible/correct than another, not current ideas about what can and cannot be done. If there is a way to do it, eventually we will find it, and if something truly is impossible we'll never really know for sure.

I also find your comment about sci-fi rather perplexing. Things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Isaac Asimov, etc etc inspired generations of scientists and artists to conceptualize and make a reality out of things thought impossible and entirely in the realm of fiction at the time. Technology today would be nothing like it is without creative people dreaming up crazy ideas and putting them out there for the world to see and become intrigued by.

[Kaylia]

sorry, sir! my question about your religion is just to see if your believes play any part in this discussion. to me, it seems like you have a very fixed mind on the future of mankind. to be honest, (please don't take this offensively) i think it's pretty stubborn for a person to think that our current laws of physic can determine the limitations of this universe. especially nowadays in the 21st century where what was considered impossible in the past has been done or happened. anyway, the other reason why i asked you the religious question is because i wanted to know if you solely believe that science can explain everything.

Bah...didnt want to reply. I suck at stopping an argument

Depend what you mean by "universe". The mathematicals model describing our space/time "bubble" are starting to be well understood. There is still many things left to determine (ie: cause of expansion), but those theories will come within the next century, and none should change anything concerning space travel. It's safe to say we understand this universe pretty well, and that we should understand it completely eventually. There is probably something bigger than this universe, and that's where the new model will come handy if that's what you meant by "universe".

Let's say as an hypothetical situation that the next model allow us to leave this universe, and go back in where we want. How would you execute that technically (as soon you leave the universe, rule should change, and matter probably won't be allowed to exist the way it is)? What kind of energy something like this would require? Fusion is still out of reach and do absolutely nothing special. High gravity? It create nice black hole, but artificially making one is one thing, and hoping that it actually do something "special" is another.

I used to think like you about sciences, that we could do everything, as long we have a brain to discover new ideas. My mind changed after I wrote a 40 pages essays on the possibility of human of going in space. I had many discusions with my physics teacher about the subject, and that's where I realized the importance of the restriction imposed to us by the universe. The models based on our experimental value will will always be valid for the data they cover. That's why newton is still valid on Earth and that's why relativity is still valid for anything under "c"

Limitations of any kind are anti-scientific, pure and simple. It's the weight of evidence that determines weather one thing is more or less true/possible/correct than another, not current ideas about what can and cannot be done. If there is a way to do it, eventually we will find it, and if something truly is impossible we'll never really know for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics).
Call it anti-scientific, I will call it mathematics. >_> "1=2" will alway be false the same way "0n = 3kg*10m/s²" and "10j= 10kg*c²/sqrt(1-50²/c²)" will be false under any circumstance in our universe. If something is truly impossible, mathematics will let you know.

[Alleya]

Mathematics still can't account for all the mass in the universe. The movement, speed, direction, etc of galaxies still can't be fully explained by mathematics and it takes some curiously ad-hoc explanation like dark matter to explain it away. While some of it is totally believable (dwarf planets and other large non-luminous objects that we can't observe from earth), other concepts like some magical undiscovered substance that gives off no radiation and is totally and completely unobservable and cannot be proven to exist making up 70% of the mass of the universe...seems to me to be making up for our lack of understanding.

Your apparent view that current human understanding is infallible and anything that cannot currently be conceptualized or explained if it operates even a tiny bit outside of current principles is what's anti-scientific about this whole discussion.

[AzazaelFenrir]

Ladies and Gentlemen I give you

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... eed116.xml

If it is accurate this whole discussion was for naught.

(if this was posted and I over skimmed it sorry)