Favorite Movies

_Howard wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

Ha!  Aliens are just as supernatural as ghosts.

Only if the definition of the work supernatural has been changed.

_Howard wrote:

Time travel shifts the story from science fiction to science fantasy, a genre I have always found disappointing.

So, time travel is disappointing "science fantasy" -- but aliens are not? You'll have to explain for me where you have seen concrete evidence of aliens existing, I must have missed it.

The difference is that positing the existence of aliens does not violate the laws of physics.

But contact with them does.

How so?

The distances involved are non-traversable.

That's a technological and biological limitation. There are no laws of physics violated.

I would argue the "technological limitation" is because of the laws of physics.

The technological limitations are what prevent us from traveling huge distances relatively quickly. They do not prevent it from being done.

Consider human flight. Man could not fly because of restrictions imposed by various physical laws. We couldn't just flap our arms and take off. Then someone decided to revisit the teachings of Bernoulli, and they found other physical laws which allowed us to construct devices which allowed us to fly. So the laws of physics are not only limitations, but also benefits.

Wrong. The speed of light is a constant.

I didn't mention the speed of light.
What do you find wrong about my post?

_Howard wrote:

What do you find wrong about my post?

_Howard wrote:

The technological limitations are what prevent us from traveling huge distances relatively quickly. They do not prevent it from being done.

By "relatively quickly" (a nice pun, btw) I assume you mean within a dozen lifetimes -- and all the life support a ship would have to carry to make such a journey.

Because traveling space is not like sailing the oceans. You can't catch a few fish along the way and breath the atmosphere while you're under sail.

And the possibility of another lifeform being within a few hundred lightyears of us is extremely, vanishingly, remote -- not to mention the incredible energy it would take to power a spaceship that far at anywhere near a small percentage of the SOL.

Star Trek and Star Wars notwithstanding, aliens are just a supernatural fantasy -- like ghosts and gods.

And just like gods and ghosts, aliens *may* exist -- but there's exactly zero evidence that they do.

But there's also no way to disprove the negative, so the debate will always rage.

NoCoPilot wrote:

By "relatively quickly" (a nice pun, btw) I assume you mean within a dozen lifetimes -- and all the life support a ship would have to carry to make such a journey.

Because traveling space is not like sailing the oceans.  You can't catch a few fish along the way and breath the atmosphere while you're under sail.

And the possibility of another lifeform being within a few hundred lightyears of us is extremely, vanishingly, remote -- not to mention the incredible energy it would take to power a spaceship that far at anywhere near a small percentage of the SOL.

What you have described is what I referred to: technological problems. And there are, of course,  many more than what you mentioned.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Star Trek and Star Wars notwithstanding, aliens are just a supernatural fantasy -- like ghosts and gods.

You apparently didn't take my hint to look up the meaning of supernatural, so I did it for  you:

Oxford Dictionary wrote:

supernatural

adjective

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Gods and ghosts are supernatural by definition. Life on other planets is not. Your conflation of the two is invalid.
I agree that there is no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life - and there probably never will be. But that lack of evidence does not obviate the possibility of such life, as there are no laws of science, or nature if you prefer, which are violated by such life's existence. I will reconsider if you can present just one valid scientific reason for the impossibility of the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Oh sure, life on other planets -- in other solar systems, in other galaxies -- is POSSIBLE. You're right, there's no law of nature that says otherwise.

But life is rare. No other planet or moon in our solar system harbors life, of that we can be fairly certain. If Europa or Enceladus harbor anything living, at best it'll be algae or slimemold. No little green men.

But outside our solar system, contact with potential aliens -- multi-cellular, speaking English and wearing green spandex -- is impossible. So even *if* intelligent life forms exist elsewhere, we'll never know it and we'll never have contact with them.

Hence, such talk is fantasy.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Hence, such talk is fantasy.

You are misusing the term. To see how, I would say instead, such talk is fiction.

Sigh. No, because "fiction" is possible, and "fantasy" means impossible.

We've just established that contact with aliens is impossible.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Sigh. No, because "fiction" is possible, and "fantasy" means impossible.

We've just established that contact with aliens is impossible.

"Fiction" does not necessarily mean possible. This whole bit started because of my differentiation of the genres of science fiction and science fantasy. How did it get into physics and cosmology?

As to having established that contact with aliens is impossible, I disagree. I agree that it is impossible for us right now with our current knowledge. Will that someday change from impossible to possible? I have no idea. But if it does, I still don't believe we will ever make contact with an extraterrestrial species. In technical matters, I believe that the only valid use of the word impossible is to apply to that which is prevented by the laws of the universe.

NoCoPilot wrote:

But life is rare.

How can you be so sure about that? Thus far, we have made a cursory examination of exactly one solar system and found that one eighth of the planets is teeming with advanced life. Should one of eight be considered rare?

The latest estimate I read of the number of planets in the universe is one septillion (that's twenty-four zeroes).  I don't think that any conclusion should be made from a sample size of eight.

_Howard wrote:

I agree that it is impossible for us right now with our current knowledge. Will that someday change from impossible to possible? I have no idea.

Not unless the SOL changes.

_Howard wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

But life is rare.

Thus far, we have made a cursory examination of exactly one solar system and found that one eighth of the planets is teeming with advanced life. Should one of eight be considered rare?

• eight planets
  
• 173 moons
  
• between 1.1 million and 1.9 million asteroids
  
• countless comets
  
• one star
  

So, your figure should be "one of several hundred million" not "one of eight" and yes I'd consider that rare.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Not unless the SOL changes.

You seem to be the only one obsessed with the speed of light. No one is talking about traveling faster than light. You are making another assumption that exceeding SOL is the only method of travel.

NoCoPilot wrote:

_Howard wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

But life is rare.

Thus far, we have made a cursory examination of exactly one solar system and found that one eighth of the planets is teeming with advanced life. Should one of eight be considered rare?

• eight planets
  
• 173 moons
  
• between 1.1 million and 1.9 million asteroids
  
• countless comets
  
• one star
  

So, your figure should be "one of several hundred million" not "one of eight" and yes I'd consider that rare.

Don't you want to include the trillions of particles of dust in the rings of Saturn? How about the space debris we have left in orbit around Earth?

Now you're just being ridiculous.

_Howard wrote:

No one is talking about traveling faster than light. You are making another assumption that exceeding SOL is the only method of travel.

Interstellar travel, yes it is.

Voyager 1 left the solar system and entered inter-stellar space about four years ago. It is putting along at about 38,000 mph. Okay, it took thirty-six years, but it still got out there without exceeding SOL.

You should not assume that conditions which are common for you are therefore common everywhere. Just because you have hot & cold running water, that doesn't mean everyone in the world has hot & cold running water.

We know of exactly ONE instance of a planet with life. Wouldn't that a priori indicate life is exceedingly rare?

_Howard wrote:

Voyager 1 left the solar system and entered inter-stellar space about four years ago. It is putting along at about 38,000 mph. Okay, it took thirty-six years, but it still got out there without exceeding SOL.

Perfect example, thanks.

Voyager is expected to encounter its next star system in approx. 40,000 years.

NoCoPilot wrote:

We know of exactly ONE instance of a planet with life.  Wouldn't that a priori indicate life is exceedingly rare?

Absolutely not. Have you ever studied statistics? You cannot assign probability without having a sample size large enough to be representative of the entire population. We have looked at exactly eight planets out of maybe a septillion. That is indicative of nothing whatsoever.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Voyager is expected to encounter its next star system in approx. 40,000 years.

Ergo, interstellar travel without SOL. If you want to limit the discussion to voyages that can be made in six or seven days, that would be quite different.

Sigh. My point is made.