Thoughts on - aliens and multiverse?

Maybe you are all just figures in the game I am just programming :)
 
So, is there life besides humans in the universe? Well, even on Earth there us life beside humans, even intelligent life of a kind, dolphins, porposes, Etc. Even our closest tealatives the chimps and apes can be considered intelligent, after a fashion.

So does life exist in the cosmos, almost assuredly. Does it fly around in UFOs, almost assuredly not. Even intelligent life is most likely stuck in its solar system. Travel across the universe is a long slow trip. So unless they live exceedingly long lives, or break the known laws if physics. Not being visited by little green men.
 
I'd like to think there are intelligent aliens - and not only because I have seen video clips where some of them are incredibly sexy - but I'm not sure on the statistics. I'm up for being abducted by the sexy ones though.
 
"the truth is out there" and the truth is if aliens are smart they'll skip over this idiot station populated with the scourge of Gotham city
 
Àliens must be around, due to the vastness of space. Ive read that mentioned here a couple times so sorry for repeating but it just kinda has to be right. Like many others said, Alien life form does not only mean human like creatures, it could be some bacteria. Basically any living organism thats found outside of our atmosphere. Although id love to see some Xenomorphs *crosses my fingers*
Ive always wondered if Black holes had some link with the creation of the universe just because how they both talk about a singularity, and nothing can escape a black past the event horizon...in my head its like a balloon being inflated..."the mouth" (original universe) is pushing all the air into the balloon (new universe) and expanding it. But im not so sure about this...it just feels right in my gut. My gut is right a lot of the time tbh. Yes I know, Ive lost all credibility now lmao
 
I find black holes fascinating - not least because the collation and processing of radio signals that produced the image of one involves mathematics that I use often - but I always think of a singularity as a 'divide by zero error' so when people talk about them it always makes me smile.
 
Sarah_1964 said:
I find black holes fascinating - not least because the collation and processing of radio signals that produced the image of one involves mathematics that I use often - but I always think of a singularity as a 'divide by zero error' so when people talk about them it always makes me smile.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the new pics of the gravitational lines surrounding a blackhole? Looks so bad ass :D
 
Much like the debates on Religion. It is a matter of belief. It is probable that there are alien life forms. It is likely that they are different enough from us that we wouldn't even recognize them as life forms and extremely unlikely that man will ever come into contact with them, so the debate will go on.
 
Pinguu said:
Science is not about belief it is about facts.
Click to expand...
Science has always been about facts and beliefs. Scientific theories are the beliefs we have based on the latest evidence we have uncovered. It is not fact and has often been proven wrong when new evidence is discovered. Scientists believed that the World was flat and the center of the Universe until they discovered it wasn't. Scientists believed that the atom was the smallest particle until they discovered it wasn't.
 
HandsomeDevil said:
I am pretty sure Galileo Galilei would have a strong argument against this.
Click to expand...
Yes, he did! Scientific doctrine began to change in the 3rd Century BC, as scientists found evidence of the spherical shape of the earth and Magellan provided a physical demonstration in the late 1500s. But Galileo still had to struggle to convince people, including other scientists that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
 
HandsomeDevil said:
I am pretty sure Galileo Galilei would have a strong argument against this.
Click to expand...

Yes he would but mathematically the Copernican model was in fact not as good at predicting planetary observations as Ptolemy's model of sun-centered cycles and epicycles: it was just simpler, so accepting it relied on believing that scientific models should be simple, even if less accurate. It was only when Kepler modelled orbits as ellipses rather than circles that Copernican models yielded better predictions than Ptolemaic - and elliptical functions are notoriously mathematically intractable still so often we fall back on Fourier models that are effectively perfect circles and so Ptolemaic. So the key in modern science is to believe the simple is preferred over the complex model.

In any event you have to believe something because no logical system that can cope with simple arithmetic can prove itself so you have to introduce ex machina axioms.
 
I read a LOT of sci-fi and I like the way different authors address the traveling across space and the vast distances involved. So there are 2 main trains of thought. One group just ignore the laws of space time and have ships that travel FTL. some refuse (Alastair reynolds being one of them, his reasoning is he was an astrophysicist prior to a top scifi author) others use a middle ground of portals of some description (P. F Hamilton and Neal asher) bypassing the need for ships to travel FTL by having an entangled black hole held open at each end by some sort of force field. Of course for this to be operational at some point a ship would have had to have travelled the distance the wormhole covers to install the terminal gate. A fact the authors fail to mention or only touch on briefly. So thoughts should science fiction books use FTL ships OR not. Or use wormhole tech but sacrifice some ship travelling the distance at relativistic speed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top