Posted on 05/25/2016 6:59:50 PM PDT by MtnClimber
The means by which we have to explore space is all we have for now she it’ll have to do
Anything beyond that is wondering or wishing and subjective
Anti Christians live to demolish the concept of our uniqueness and they are the dominant force in science post 1960s rejectionism
Those who reject can believe whatever suits them in order to justify denying Christ or in the case of serious Jews....Adonai etc since they dare not utter their lord by name
Those of us who don’t sure haven’t been given a lot of evidence to the contrary have we?
Do I think God could have created other life firms out there?....of course
Do I think God created the universe as our home alone?...it’s sure possible...I don’t think he’s limited by time and space as we know it
Anti Christians are well suited to deny our specialness in the universe and yes I’ve seen skeptical scientists admit our circumstances are fairly unique so far
Folks who think that’s a fairy tale will put their faith in the eventuality that we are not unique and just cosmic evolution rather than faith in a creator who continues to be with and wait for....us since time began and till it ceases
It should all be answered in heaven...if not I’ll ask God himself when I check in at the front desk
God willing....obviously
I believe in God completely...I’m living the proof...my entire life is one of his purpose fostered by events way beyond my control or scope hence I see the universe as Gods hand perhaps to him as insignificant as a cup of water and inter dimensional or subjected to definitions of matter that we simply haven’t ever envisioned
I am not master of my domain...though l sure try
God is.....he and my wife.
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-02-earth-unique-thought.html
C 61
“God is.....he and my wife.”
lol. wuss.
It's not what we have in mind today either, since virtually nothing in your summary describes the modern understanding of atoms.
Besides a nucleus of clusters [yes] of neutrons and protons comprised of quantum-behaving subatomic particles [yes] which in turn are made of vibrating (waveform) energy [yes], surrounded by electrons statistically distributed into a variety [yes] of energy shell patterns [yes], these non-material [yes] atoms also manifest by vibrating in their associated fields. [yes]
Apparently you never really got that whole vibration thing, let alone fields.
I’m whipped
And I live on Henpeck Lane
No foolin..
I don't believe that when, some day, a planet and people like ours/us, that that disproves the existence of GOD, nor that it destroys Christianity nor Judaism.
Intelligence surely is....
Why are all the planets in our solar system round, even the gas planets?
Maybe it’s not a “waste of space”. Maybe the universe is chock full of more important things than “us”. And what if... just maybe... “life as we know it” means just what it says and the idea of “intelligent life” is a concept which exists only in our self-absorbed view of humanity and existence?...
Since the best guesstimate on our part of the age of the universe is something less than 14 billion years, the implication is that the impetus for this cycle came from elsewhere (he argues that the Big Bang came several billion years in to this cycle), and thus, argues for the existence of multiverses.
The problem with most all the responses on this thread (they are all good comments, by the way) is that all the thinking is being done in 4 dimensions.
If we're ever going to solve the problems of intergalactic space travel, be it through FTL travel or some other means, we have to think outside of the box.
Just because we have the restraints of relativity before us doesn't mean we can't find ways around it, or even through it.
My point, which will doubtless be roundly criticized on this board (and possibly elsewhere!) is that since it is a problem, and since it's out there, it is something that begs for a solution. That is what mankind ever seeks - solving the unsolvable. It is inherent in his basic nature.
Great minds spawn great things. Although these great minds are not present in great numbers, we have to move past the urgings of the Luddites to feed our own, for example, before exploring Mars.
If mankind demurs and decides to solve all our problems at home before embarking on things like exotic space travel, we will never get off this Earth, and eventually we'll all perish on it.
We have been semi-literate in the sciences for what? - something over a hundred years? In the vastness of time and space, why couldn't a civilization of sentient beings, in whatever form, have solved the problem over millennia (or however long it takes)?
Just because we can't do it now does not preclude the possibility we'll be able to do it in the future.
CA....
They have state vectors in Hilbert Space which describe their properties, some -- but NOT ALL -- components of which are colloquially called "wave functions." Their wavefunctions are not "energy," and they are not "vibrating."
Electrons are not "statistically distributed." They exist in linear superpositions of their energy eigenstates, which, upon measurement collapse with statistical probability into measurable observables. That does not mean they exist with "statistical distribution," only that their measurement results have statistical outcomes.
Matter, by definition is not "non-material."
Atoms do not "vibrate in their fields."
Please actually read a book about quantum mechanics sometime, and stop channeling Deepak Chopra and quoting lunacy from The Tao of Physics.
Yet more absolute nonsense.
I have a PhD in Physics.
In contrast, the author of the "research" you cite is a quack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern. He does not have a degree in physics at all, and claimed that the General Theory of Relativity was wrong. No mainstream physicist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, or astronomer accepts his views, which have been thoroughly demolished. Here are at least two treatments that do so:
Marsh, Gerald E; Nissim-Sabat, Charles (1999). "Comment on "The speed of gravity"". Physics Letters A 262 (2–3): 257. Bibcode:1999PhLA..262..257M. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00675-1.
Carlip, S (2000). "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity". Phys. Lett. A 267 (2–3): 81–87. arXiv:gr-qc/9909087. Bibcode:2000PhLA..267...81C. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00101-8.
Stop throwing out fancy terms to muck up the works just because you once took a physics class and copied the glossary.
I taught the subject for years.
Talk abut picking nits! And just imagine Einstein's embarrassment - what a plagiarist he turned out to be!
Einstein himself admitted that he formulated the Special Theory of Relativity entirely from Maxwell's treatment of electromagnetic radiation. The only people surprised by my claim are those -- that would be you -- who don't know anything about physics.
To quote from his thought experiment, based entirely on Maxwell's theory of radiation:
"...a paradox upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen: If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."
[and oh, by the way, how fast is Einstein moving in his Gedankenexperiment? Hint: it's at a velocity that people who don't understand relativity -- that would be you -- think that relativity doesn't describe.]
but tachyon theory posits speeds already faster than c
"Tachyon Theory" is an amusing speculation with no more experimental verification than Dirac's reworking of Maxwell's Equations to include magnetic monopoles. Furthermore, if you've actually read anything about "tachyon theory," tachyons can't interact with anything in our universe. So as far as relativity is concerned -- or FTL -- you might as well be talking about blue fairies.
I really don't kow what to say to this, because it's obvious that you're using it as a demonstration of what you think passes for logic.
Here's the analogy in gory detail, since you're slow:
You:
If our civilization exists long enough, we will discover new things.
Therefore, we will eventually discover that there is FTL transport.
Were your putative "argument" correct, the following would always be valid syllogism:
If our civilization exists long enough, we will discover new things.
Therefore, we will eventually discover that every thing now known to be true is not true.
Of course it is gibberish, like all the rest of what you've posted here.
Will we ever "solve" the problem that (for moderate to weak gravitational fields) the gravitational attraction between two material objects falls off as 1/r2?
Not every physical limitation is a "problem" to be "solved." Some things just are what they are. The geometry of Minkowski Space is one of them.
And, by the way, increasing the number of dimensions we might travel through, while an interesting speculation, cannot mathematically alter the limitations of the four dimensions we're already stuck with. If the distance to the other side of the room is ten feet across the floor, you can't decrease the distance by going up the walls and crawling across the ceiling.
I wasn't aware it was a problem....
Will we ever "solve" the problem that (for moderate to weak gravitational fields) the gravitational attraction between two material objects falls off as 1/r2?
I dunno. You must be aware that the phenomenon of gravitation exercises it's greatest influence over great distances. But for me, I don't know if we will ever "solve" the "problem".
Not every physical limitation is a "problem" to be "solved." Some things just are what they are. The geometry of Minkowski Space is one of them.
Yes, I agree. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
And, by the way, increasing the number of dimensions we might travel through, while an interesting speculation, cannot mathematically alter the limitations of the four dimensions we're already stuck with. If the distance to the other side of the room is ten feet across the floor, you can't decrease the distance by going up the walls and crawling across the ceiling.
You're still thinking inside the box.
Look, I don't have your impressive academic credentials. I was a business major who became a contract administrator. With this stuff we're discussing, I have a layman's interest; a strong interest, it's true, but still a layman's interest. And while I like to read, that's really the extent of skill and knowledge in this arena.
It's just the way I see things.
Thanks for the discussion. It's been informative.
CA....
The process of Rational thinking should be praised and hardly criticized; even if one doesn’t agree w/the result.
It was the linchpin of the wisdom of the Greeks of Antiquity who formed the bedrock of Western Civilization.
Are there other possibilities? Of course. That is unless one holds to a static belief that creativity has boundaries.
Without the moon there would be no tides, but how would that preclude the existence of life?
That is a strictly academic question, as God made it all and set it in motion.
Bflr
For instance, our Northern Hemisphere developed at a different rate and in different ways than our Southern Hemisphere, because God gave the Northern Hemisphere the North Star (Polaris), “the pole star”.......a zenith. We were able to find our bearings and figure out stuff about the heavenly bodies much sooner than the Southern Hemisphere. Although, you’ve got to give it to the Southern Hemishere for coming up with Puma Punca.
Annihilated.
Nicely done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.