Who Believes in aliens??

[SNGX1275]

I would like to take the time to congratulate everyone that has posted in this thread. This is by far the longest time a thread that involves religion has lasted on this forum without getting locked or deleted. Lets hope I don't have to do that with this one later on.

 

[Vigilante]

Lol, in my (internet) experience, everytime a "religious" subject turns up, fist fighting ensues. Lucky for us, computer nerds tend not to get physical. lol

I believe the "time slows" theory, we already know that time slows down, and is proven, just on our own planet. I read somewhere that if you set to watches exactly the same, then put one person at sea level or lower, and one person on the higest mountain, the watches will quickly be as much as minutes off from each other. But this has more to do with gravity effecting time, not really speeds.
However, it is also proven that time slows farther into space. It all makes more sense when thinking about God, in that He is outside of time and is not effected by it. Time is just a system created for us. As we already know that time is not absolute, and changes depending where you are. That makes it pretty easy to understand how God could have been around "forever", because there is no such thing, because there is no time.

My head hurts. Lets just say that there are things we'll never know. And you are no less intelligent by believing the bible, as what science we have, has never disproven it anyway, it is still sound. Which would be a pretty grand feat for a bunch of cave dwellers thousands of years ago. Unless it really was written by God, which would explain its perfection.

Needless to say, despite common arguments, science and the bible, or religion, really don't go head to head. Religion isn't against science and intellect.

My theory, being Christian, is not that "space is infinite, therefor there must be life". But my theory is just, if God wanted to run some more planets, He could have. But that issue will never come up in my lifetime, so why think about it?

 

[MonkeyMan]

Well, before I get started, I would like to congratulate myself, for reviving this legendary post. If it wasn't for me, this post would have been lost in the thousands of posts that are on this forum. Anyhow, I'm going to stop with the concededness, and recognition. First, I would like to say that time is a manmade creation, from my theoretical point of view. I'm a Christian as well, and I do believe that God created the universe, and that time doesn't exist to him. This is just my belief, so technically, it is not a confirmed statement. Besides we have no way of actually knowing that, only speculation can be applied for an answer. You know, with so many planets, and solar systems in the Universe, pulling, contracting, and producing magnetic fields, I would believe that all of that force would be creating an astronomical field of energy and force, that would manifest into some form of energy, substance, or force. My belief is that all that force and energy is tugging on each other, and moving toward the outer regions of the universe, thus making the inner section of the universe smaller, because of this colossal astronomical force. One example is a black hole. A black hole, is a sort of ripple in space, that some believe, can transport you to another part of the universe. My theory, is that these things called black holes, are produced by this astronomical energy, that is pushing the universe inwards onto itself. My theory, is that there is a magnetic or forceful energy, that travels outward to inward in some parts of the universe. This energy can travel as a huge, astronomical, bundle of force, or it can travel as a single, line of energy. These energy modifications, are being caused by all the friction, magnetic fields, and energy that the universe produces as a whole. This energy or force, would be huge beyond our comprehension, so there isn't almost anything that we can compare it to. This is my theory on the Universe, but some of you may beg to differ.

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

Assuming the universe is infinite, there's an infinite chance other lifeforms exist.

Wrong. Infinite probability does not have a statistical meaning. You (probably) meant a probability of 1. Furthermore, the universe is not infinite. There is some room for speculation, but all current data points to a finite universe.

Since "time" has been unequivocally proven to slow down at great speeds, then there is a theoretical limit to what acceleration time can exist at.

Time does NOT slow down from the point of view of the person traveling at great speed. It only slows down for the people traveling at great speed from the point of view of a stationary observer. How can either acceleration or speed possibly be linked to the EXISTENCE of time? They're related to the rate of time in two different inertial reference frames, but not to the EXISTENCE of time. Special relativity says nothing about time ceasing to exist, only about time passing differently for inertial reference frames moving at high speeds relative to each other.

My belief is that all that force and energy is tugging on each other, and moving toward the outer regions of the universe, thus making the inner section of the universe smaller, because of this colossal astronomical force. One example is a black hole. A black hole, is a sort of ripple in space, that some believe, can transport you to another part of the universe. My theory, is that these things called black holes, are produced by this astronomical energy, that is pushing the universe inwards onto itself. My theory, is that there is a magnetic or forceful energy, that travels outward to inward in some parts of the universe. This energy can travel as a huge, astronomical, bundle of force, or it can travel as a single, line of energy. These energy modifications, are being caused by all the friction, magnetic fields, and energy that the universe produces as a whole. This energy or force, would be huge beyond our comprehension, so there isn't almost anything that we can compare it to. This is my theory on the Universe, but some of you may beg to differ.

That's a very nice theory, but it's quite apparent that you have absolutely no idea what force, energy, friction, magnetic fields, or black holes even are. Prove me wrong. Also, don't congratulate yourself too much; you've posted only un-scientific nonsense based on nothing more than passing fancies and homegrown "theories" (and I use the word very loosely). If this thread is legendary for anything, it's legendary for the sheer amount of crackpot pseudoscience tossed around.

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

And you are no less intelligent by believing the bible, as what science we have, has never disproven it anyway, it is still sound. Which would be a pretty grand feat for a bunch of cave dwellers thousands of years ago. Unless it really was written by God, which would explain its perfection.

Science only concerns itself with things that are testable. You can't devise a test to see if god is real or not, so why bother? God is just not a scientific idea, and therefore has nothing to do with science. Belief in god is a purely individual choice, and science should not even be viewed as a threat to god, cause it isn't.

As for the bible: While god may not be testable, the bible certainly is. Let's keep in mind this is the book that says the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is three. Three! Here is a very long list of contradictions in the bible.

Some might claim that all these mistakes were introduced by humans. Regardless of where the errors came from, there are so many that I have trouble trusting anything in the book to be of divine origin. Surely god would grant his scribes better copying skills than this!

 

[sllewe]

lithiumdeuterid you have missed what this post was about in the first place. It is what you believe.

Some might claim that all these mistakes were introduced by humans. Regardless of where the errors came from, there are so many that I have trouble trusting anything in the book to be of divine origin. Surely god would grant his scribes better copying skills than this!

Now your quick to criticize people of their illfound theroys but it seems your being a bit sure of yourself eh? Did god send you an email with the answers to the big questions? Well i didnt a message either, so i guess thats why they call it faith.....



Sean

 

[hewybo]

smart

lithiumdeuterid you have missed what this post was about in the first place. It is what you believe.



Now your quick to criticize people of their illfound theroys but it seems your being a bit sure of yourself eh? Did god send you an email with the answers to the big questions? Well i didnt a message either, so i guess thats why they call it faith.....



Sean

I think it's just that Mr. i-need-more-lithiumdiatribe simply knows more than everyone else. It's difficult to keep all that knowledge contained. :monkey:

 

[pcaceit]

I have always wondered about that. I mean, when does the universe end? Seriously, It cant just go on forever..thats..impossible. GOD it's making my head hurt thinking about it. Just beyond our comprehension I guess. As for aliens, Yeah they have to be real. Remember that time in California when 500 people reported to the police of seeing a bunch of ' Unidentified Objects ' . 500 people just dont form a mob one day and say, " lets lie to the police today ", Comeon, aliens HAVE to exist.

There can be no end!!!!!
there must be something beyond any boundary, border, wall etc...
it is inconcievable that there is a thing that is called nothingness... it must exist even if there is nothing there... the thing called nothing must be something.. therefore there can be no end
Think about you and what you are surely you, your mind, your soul, your thought, whatever.... is just in your body at present and when you leave it you will become part of a new society, entity, medium whatever.. surely there is life out there.... Hows that for major headache...LOL

Regards PcAceIt

 

[Vigilante]

The dude who wrote that "contradictions" site, obviously knows nothing whatsoever about the bible, or about God. I read the first few and just laughed, contradictions? Hardly.
This thread is all about logic that makes your head spin. Hows this for making your head spin: what if there are NO contradictions? What if A and B are BOTH true? Maybe the human race just isn't that smart yet, to understand such things.

But please fellas, don't get this thread deleted by getting religious about it!

 

[pcaceit]

Aliens Exist (I have the Proof) Read on giggle..giggle..giggle...

I once met an alien.... who told me he was an alien... so i laughted till i could not speak.

He said "well listen to this" You humans go around blindly ignoring the obvious, you try to explain everything with your thoesis, formulas, Quantum this and that, and the answer to it all is in your face!

He said "if you can explain this then you really are superior spieces and I who have travelled across many dimensions and lived before the dawning of your time am Non existent" He said

"If a train is travelling at 60mph and a fly was travelling towards the train at 20mph, when the fly and train colide the train continues in the same direction it at had been travelling in but the fly now splatted on the windscreen has now changed direction and is now travelling in the direction from whenst it came, So if the fly has stopped and reversed then at the moment of contact with the train, the fly had stopped so if the fly stopped then the train must have stopped as well because the fly could not travel forward and backwards at the same time! but you humans will say that the train did not stop"

now was that a madman or an alien???????

 

[Vigilante]

I used the same argument on a cop once. See, in court I told the cop that I hit a bug just as I came to the stop sign, so scientifically speaking, my car must have been stopped.

But they didn't believe me. So I guess we must only trust the law for our truth...

 

[pcaceit]

Did you get a not guilty? cause you should have

 

[Vigilante]

lol, no I'm just kidding.

I don't know dude, you left me stumped on that one. Cause I think the "fly" can hit 0mph for a flick of an instant, and the train doesn't have to slow at all. There is a lot of relativity in that puzzle. They are two different masses, and they therefore can go different speeds. Until the inertia of one outdoes the other. In which case the train quite easily converts the fly to its own motion.

Ah heck, I don't know what I'm talking about

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

Now your quick to criticize people of their illfound theroys but it seems your being a bit sure of yourself eh?

Being sure of yourself is one of those privileges you have when you're arguing with 300 years of scientific research at your back.

"If a train is travelling at 60mph and a fly was travelling towards the train at 20mph, when the fly and train colide the train continues in the same direction it at had been travelling in but the fly now splatted on the windscreen has now changed direction and is now travelling in the direction from whenst it came, So if the fly has stopped and reversed then at the moment of contact with the train, the fly had stopped so if the fly stopped then the train must have stopped as well because the fly could not travel forward and backwards at the same time! but you humans will say that the train did not stop"

Saying the train must have stopped simply because the fly stopped is an incorrect statement. I'll explain:

The fly has a non-zero size, shall we say, 6 millimeters (mm) long. If we say that the fly's exact position is at its center of mass, then the center of mass is 3 mm from the edge. Imagine the fly colliding with the train in slow-motion. At the instant the train makes contact, the fly's center of mass is 3 mm away from the train's surface. In the next couple of microseconds, parts of the fly are travelling toward the train (to the left, let's say), while the parts contacting the train are travelling to the right. This has the effect of compressing the fly. If the fly's left side is accelerated quickly enough, it will compress the fly to lethal pressures, and the fly will 'splat'.

Before the collision, the center of mass is first moving to the left at 20 mph. As the train contacts the fly, the center of mass (being the spatial average of all the fly's mass) begins to slow. As the fly is compressed, the center slows, reaches zero velocity for an instant, and begins accelerating to the right again. Due to the (tiny) force of the fly against the train, the train is decelerated by a very small amount. The train's velocity never reaches zero. It simply transitions smoothly from 60 mph to 59.99999999999 mph (or whatever).

This really isn't that hard to understand, even for a non-physicist. I don't see how anyone could think a fly hitting a 60-mph train would stop the train. It's just common sense. Whoever came up with this "paradox" obviously knew very little about collisions.

 

[Vigilante]

Being sure of yourself is one of those privileges you have when you're arguing with 300 years of scientific research at your back.

Or 7000 years of well know biblical history...

But of course, if you are a "member" of any "religious" denominations, you are obviously brain dead and therefore cannot formulate a single cohesive truth. Uh huh.
Scientific research said the earth was flat
Scientific research said we could never walk on the moon
Scientific research said we could never fly
Scientific research said people would never need a home computer
Scientific research said by now we would be living on Mars and have hovercraft

Scientific research sometimes hits the mark, but I've learned to wait for retractions before accepting its theories.

 

[hewybo]

hmmmm

Being sure of yourself is one of those privileges you have when you're arguing with 300 years of scientific research at your back.

I, being quasi-illiterate, should not be asking questions of you, sir, but which of the scientific phenomena you have cited were propounded in 1706? Spontaneous pair production? Containment of anti-matter? Space-time relativity? Perhaps, the Grand Unified Theory? Or was it the apple on the head theory?

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

Scientific research said the earth was flat

I had a feeling someone would reply with that. Actually, it was not scientists that said the earth was flat. Scientists have known the earth was round for at least the last 2000 years. Aristotle (in the 4th century, B.C.) argued that the earth was round based on the round shadow it cast on the moon during a lunar eclipse. It may have taken a long time for the public (not to mention the church) to accept, but scientists have thought the earth was round for a very, very long time.

Scientific research said we could never walk on the moon

This is obviously wrong, because no scientist worth his sodium chloride would ever use the word "never" in describing the possibilities of human achievement. At most, the scientific opinion was, "With our current technology, we cannot reach the moon", but that's hardly "never".

Scientific research said we could never fly

Same deal as above. Which research are you referring to, by the way? (I'll bet you'll ignore this question).

Scientific research said people would never need a home computer

Nope. Nobody would publish research that claimed to know that people would NEVER do something. People, and technological breakthroughs, are unpredictable, and the scientific community knows this.

Scientific research said by now we would be living on Mars and have hovercraft

Actually, it was Hollywood who said this in the 1950s and 1960s.

There is a reason scientists never say "never". They are well aware that their models of the universe are only approximations, and sometimes need to be corrected or rewritten. However, look at how far those approximations have gotten us (cars, computers, etc.)!

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

I, being quasi-illiterate, should not be asking questions of you, sir, but which of the scientific phenomena you have cited were propounded in 1706? Spontaneous pair production? Containment of anti-matter? Space-time relativity? Perhaps, the Grand Unified Theory? Or was it the apple on the head theory?

It was indeed Newton's laws of motion.

 

[sllewe]

Surely god would grant his scribes better copying skills than this!

Right....that is scientific alright

 

[pcaceit]

Being sure of yourself is one of those privileges you have when you're arguing with 300 years of scientific research at your back.

Saying the train must have stopped simply because the fly stopped is an incorrect statement. I'll explain:

The fly has a non-zero size, shall we say, 6 millimeters (mm) long. If we say that the fly's exact position is at its center of mass, then the center of mass is 3 mm from the edge. Imagine the fly colliding with the train in slow-motion. At the instant the train makes contact, the fly's center of mass is 3 mm away from the train's surface. In the next couple of microseconds, parts of the fly are travelling toward the train (to the left, let's say), while the parts contacting the train are travelling to the right. This has the effect of compressing the fly. If the fly's left side is accelerated quickly enough, it will compress the fly to lethal pressures, and the fly will 'splat'.

Before the collision, the center of mass is first moving to the left at 20 mph. As the train contacts the fly, the center of mass (being the spatial average of all the fly's mass) begins to slow. As the fly is compressed, the center slows, reaches zero velocity for an instant, and begins accelerating to the right again. Due to the (tiny) force of the fly against the train, the train is decelerated by a very small amount. The train's velocity never reaches zero. It simply transitions smoothly from 60 mph to 59.99999999999 mph (or whatever).

This really isn't that hard to understand, even for a non-physicist. I don't see how anyone could think a fly hitting a 60-mph train would stop the train. It's just common sense. Whoever came up with this "paradox" obviously knew very little about collisions.

Think the Jist of the Paradox was that if the colision was between two infinately solid objects with similar proportions of mass and velocity to the fly and train and no flexibility, Duribility, elasticity, absorbtion properties etc... were to colide then the more massive and momentous would continue in the same direction and lesser would have to stop before it could reverse if it did not distort or shift direction or move at a tangent, but went back on the same line it was travelling in

Even with no knowledge of collisions (like me) surely no object can travell Forwards and backwards on the same line at the same time, Assuming perfect strait line motion on contact and on reversal of direction, surely there must be an instance of non motion before reversing? and if both objects are in contact and one is motionless what of the object that is still in motion?

Yeah can agree that the poor splatted fly had broken up at molicular level and that the molicules merely moved off at angles before taking direction of the train.

 

[hewybo]

Imho

Seems like we'd waste a lot less energy with a dang swatter. :wave:

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

Think the Jist of the Paradox was that if the colision was between two infinately solid objects with similar proportions of mass and velocity to the fly and train and no flexibility, Duribility, elasticity, absorbtion properties etc...

The issue here is that no object can be truly solid in the way you've described. At the atomic level, there are clouds of electrons surrounding the nucleus of each atom. It is this electron-electron repulsion force that causes matter to bounce off other matter. It is, therefore, impossible for matter to cause other matter to reverse direction instanteously. That would require infinite force, and no finite object is capable of supplying infinite force.

Let's assume for a second that the fly and train are totally solid, and they collide elastically. The train still would not have to come to a stop, because it would only touch the fly for an infinitesimal period of time. Remaining motionless for an infinitesimal period of time is identical to never having ceased moving. Still, it cannot be evaluated from a physical perspective, since it's an impossibe scenario.

As an aside, imagine a solid wall of infinite mass is moving towards you at 1 mph. What happens when it hits you? (Pretend gravity doesn't exist).

 

[Vigilante]

As an aside, imagine a solid wall of infinite mass is moving towards you at 1 mph. What happens when it hits you? (Pretend gravity doesn't exist).

Is this like in Star Wars when they are trapped in the trash compactor? If so, inevitably a secret door will be near by to escape the eventual contact.
----

lithiumdeuterid - It is futile to begin a circular argument that will no doubt get this intrguing thread shut down. I have no intention of doing such a thing. Not to mention it is off topic to begin with.

I'll bet you'll ignore this question

I see it. There now, does that count as "not" ignoring? Good.

There is a reason scientists never say "never". They are well aware that their models of the universe are only approximations, and sometimes need to be corrected or rewritten. However, look at how far those approximations have gotten us (cars, computers, etc.)!

Not much argument there. But you see the point of my post in this comment? I used the phrase "scientific research" because that is the term you used earlier. That is the problem with people like you who are always thinking "atoms" and the smallest particles. I suppose next you'll point out there was a problem with the "e" in "research" on my 10th line
The point of my post is exactly what you pointed out, man is fallible and often makes mistakes, wrong assumptions etc...
People of "science" make passing statements SUCH AS the ones pointed out. My primary objective is to say that, regarding the bible and true non-bias science, they don't go against each other. However they clash greatly on educated guesses, theories, assumptions, logical conclusions that aren't provable, and so forth. It doesn't go against the laws of nature, laws of the universe, laws of physics, biology, chemistry, and so on. Science is a great way to discover the minute details and great complexity of the systems that God created.
That's not to say that spiritual beings, both evil and benign, aren't able to break those laws when they want to.

 

[CrossFire851]

_Who ever said that nothing can get pass abslolute zero was wrong.

 

[toffeapple]

If there are aliens why would we presume that they are the same size or shape as us?
Its entirely possible that they wouldnt even be visible with our specturm of sight, make any audible sounds we could distinguish or even of any comparable size that we would be able to detect...they could smaller than atoms or larger than planets