![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Aliens=20had=20nothing=20to=20do=20with=20pyramids =20!
WHY=20? Because=20interstellar=20distances=20are=20FAR=20t oo=20great,=20as= =20to=20preclude=20any=20possibility=20of=20alien= 20=20contact,=20= even=20if=20they=20could=20travel=20at=20near=20li ght=20speed. Distance=20=3d=20Speed=20x=20Time Do=20the=20simple=20math=20! It=20just=20can't=20happen=20! BTW,=20this=20is=20why=20we've=20never=20been=20vi sited=20by=20ali= ens,=20and=20never=20will=20be. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Also note that as a simple matter of physics, that as the speed of matter gets anywhere near light speed, the kinetic energy of the matter goes to infinity. Just another reason why it can never happen.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() =20As=20we=20know=20the=20speed=20of=20light=20is =20broken=20all= =20the=20time. Not=20by=20any=20moving=20matter. =20Shadows=20and=20spots=20of=20light=20can=20mov e=20faster=20tha= n=20the=20speed=20of=20light. Specified=20locations=20don't=20count.=20Nothing=2 0phusical=20goes= =20faster=20than=20light,=20even=20particles=20in= 20a=20collider= =20etc. =20Even=20the=20edge=20of=20the=20univrese=20has= 20moved=20faster= =20than=20the=20speed=20of=20light =20and=20for=20all=20we=20know=20(we=20dont=20fin d=20out=20for=20= another=2050=20bn=20years) =20continues=20to=20do=20so. The=20universe=20is=20infinite=20and=20as=20such=2 0has=20no=20boun= ds,=20limits=20or=20edges=20of=20any=20kind. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
casag... wrote in message ...
As we know the speed of light is broken all the time. Not by any moving matter. Everything is made of energy, including matter, and can change its state. Modern scientists have already done it. They have teleported particles. Shadows and spots of light can move faster than the speed of light. Specified locations don't count. Nothing physical goes faster than light, even particles in a collider etc. In higher dimensions there is no locality. Even the edge of the univrese has moved faster than the speed of light and for all we know (we dont find out for another 50 bn years) continues to do so. The universe is infinite and as such has no bounds, limits or edges of any kind. And no specific locality. If you admit that the universe is infinite then you're already half way there with higher understandings. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Andrew W wrote:
casag... wrote in message ... As we know the speed of light is broken all the time. Not by any moving matter. Everything is made of energy, including matter, and can change its state. Modern scientists have already done it. They have teleported particles. .... You are safer sticking with some kind of wormhole. They are at least theoretically possible and "guarantee" you might get from A to B much faster than light going around the long way. The latest thinking is very skinny wormholes -- another solution of the General Relativity field equations -- might allow photons and even electrons to get through without collapsing. I.e. information from the future may be all around us, if we have the wit to find it. ~ ~ ~ The great thing about positing something is possible (no matter what) -- you are on the side of the angels. Proving a negative is well-known from grade school to be at best fraut and most likely in most circustances "impossible". "You can't prove a negative" says the old saw. For good reason. For this reason science sticks with saying what is possible, not trying to prove what is impossible. As some of scientist said one time "if someone looks at the evidence and says X is possible they may be right; if someone looks at the evidence and says X is impossible they are probably wrong". Hard to believe, I know, but psychology predicts certain personality types are "attracted" to statements about the impossible or things not being true. "I am not a crook" said some old guy. Immediately anyone with a working knowlege of how people operate would realize that guy COULD have said "I am honest" (it's even shorter and a better PR soundbite!) and would suspect there is some internal conflict going on there. Maybe the guy WAS a crook and trying to lie without appearing to lie because he had a history of being caught at it. If you say things in a certain way it's possible when what you said is later shown to be false you can allays claim it was a big mistake and noone can prove nuthin! I notie if you look around (what's left of ![]() hang their whole online personality as being "not X". Straight away the sign in the back of your head marked "shill" or "dishonest" should be popping up. ![]() Of course, being generous, we can also ascibe people stuck in allays trying to demonstrate/argue/prove negatives as hillbillies that jus don no eny better. If you want to be generous... -- [Thinkers:] It's been said scientists fall into 2 broad categories -- "extroverted thinkers" (so-called "ET"'s) and "introverted thinkers" (you guessed it -- "IT"s). Psychology sees "thinking types" as people that value reason over emotions and sensory impressions, "extroverts" as mostly concerned with the external world, while "introverts" are more interested in their own thoughts. The distinction colors the work and career of scientists. ET's like Gauss and Thomson/Kelvin are undoubtedly brilliant. But they proceed based on what they learned in the early stages of their career and then appear to "burn out" and are not able to learn anything much new after the age of 40. If their work was brilliant enough they rise to prominence where, unfortunately, then tend to become an impediment to further scientific development because they disallow anything that is not consistent with their learned world view. E.g. Gauss blocked ideas in what was then non-standard mathematics, and Kelvin was notorious for loudly disbelieving in "modern technology". ET's that work in academia are well-known as having short tempers and being unable to work with others, especially students. The prototypical "mad scientist" or "Dr Frankenstein" is another example of an ET. OTOH the introverted thinking is concerned about the "essence" of things rather than their surface appearance. They want to know how things "really" work rather than how they simply appear to work. IT's typically gravitate toward philosophy or psychology rather than physics and chemistry. But there are many notable exceptions. E.g. Einstein was an IT and valued imagination over knowledge any time. A prototypical IT is the reputedly mad recluse that lives in a cave in the woods and cobbles together crazy inventions. The career danger for IT's is becoming so involved in the inner workings of their own ideas they become irrelevant. Their work tends to become more and more abstract and complex over time and they can end up working on things of little interest to anyone but themselves and/or unrelated to the universe the rest of us live in. Interestingly, Einstein was unable to accept many of the basic ideas from Quantum Theory because it clashed with his preconceived ideas about how the universe "should" work. A touch of the ET in there. ![]() But unlike a full-blown ET Einstein's gentle and reasoned objections only spurred on new developments in the area. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"R Kym Horsell" wrote in message ...
"Cars will never moves faster than a horse because people will not be able to breathe". Haha. That one made me laugh. Thanks. They're all good quotes from the dark ages. Unfortunately some old school blockheads are still making similar ones now. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
R Kym Horsell wrote on 10/04/2021 7:21 am:
Snip My mental model of that kind of drivel is along the lines "humans will nebba gits two Mars acoz it's too far to walk". Sure, they'll get there, just putting one foot in front of the other ..... but it might take a little while!! ;-P -- Daniel |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() =20As=20we=20know=20the=20speed=20of=20light=20is =20broken=20all= =20the=20time. NO,=20absolutely=20never,=20as=20dictated=20by=20t he=20laws=20of= =20physics. Sure,=20I=20can=20scan=20my=20vision=20from=20one= 20side=20of=20th= e=20Andromeda=20galaxy=20to=20the=20other,=20BUT=2 0nothing=20signi= ficant=20is=20actually=20moving=20that=20way. Please=20cite=20just=20one=20example=20of=20the=20 c=20speed=20limi= t=20being=20exceeded=20by=20something=20meaningful =20! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HOW THE PYRAMIDS WERE REALLY, REALLY BUILT | Ed Conrad[_21_] | Misc | 19 | January 30th 15 04:54 PM |
HOW EGYPT'S PYRAMIDS WERE REALLY BUILT | tadchem[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 7th 10 02:31 AM |
HOW EGYPT'S PYRAMIDS WERE REALLY BUILT | Horace Oglesbee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 5th 10 02:51 AM |
HOW EGYPT'S PYRAMIDS WERE REALLY BUILT | Helios[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | June 23rd 10 10:28 PM |
How the PYRAMIDS were Really Built -- The "Toy" That Helped ColumbusDiscover America | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 29th 08 09:44 PM |