Is there life in outer space?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nimzovik said:
Ah yes… ridicule. The first reaction to an unwanted truth.

Ok. So what is your take of the UFO over the Dome on the Rock in Jerusalem?

Let me guess. A giant hoax perpetrated by perhaps by Steven Colbert? 🤷
Click to expand...
1st, there is absolutely no evidence that extra terrestial life exists, so how explain all this discussion? I think it stems from all the wild speculations of certain " physicists about a causeless, self existing universe.

2nd, no " UFOs " have appeared anywhere. In fact, such a possibility is non existent given all the known laws of physics and the distance to the next solar system.

3rd, of course alien existence is possible but we will never know about it.

4th, thus my little jokes. 😃
 
TheHolyTrinity said:
I wasn’t thinking calculator here.

Your response made me laugh, not at you but at the ramifications of your statement.

Kepler: Houston we have a problem.
Houston: This is Houston. Say again please
Kepler: Houston, we’ve have a problem. It appears the universe is in a box!
Houston: Uh, this is Houston. Uh, say again, please?

View attachment 17091

Hope you can see the funny side too.

God Bless
THT
Click to expand...
I do see the funny side, but the serious side is that the universe has no boundary which means that there is no box and thus no ramifications of the statement.
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
TheHolyTrinity: The universe is not infinite in any respect. In fact, a physical infinity does not actually exist, infinity is a mathematical construct to make some calculations easier.
Click to expand...
the universe is “flat”, and as you said elsewhere, it has no boundary - it is infinite although the physical contents are most likely finite

what i find interesting is that
  • all around us is the microwave background ratiation, which is the image of the much smaller universe that existed (?exists) less than 400k years after the big bang
  • there is no centre to the universe and no edge (we are at the centre, as is everything else)
  • what we meassure is the size of visible universe rather than the universe itself
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
TheHolyTrinity: The universe is not infinite in any respect. In fact, a physical infinity does not actually exist, infinity is a mathematical construct to make some calculations easier.
Click to expand...
One can not say with absolute certitude that infinity does not exist, now can one?

Do you have** proof** infinity does not exist? 😉
 
Linusthe2nd said:
1st, there is absolutely no evidence that extra terrestial life exists, so how explain all this discussion? I think it stems from all the wild speculations of certain " physicists about a causeless, self existing universe.

2nd, no " UFOs " have appeared anywhere. In fact, such a possibility is non existent given all the known laws of physics and the distance to the next solar system.

3rd, of course alien existence is possible but we will never know about it.

4th, thus my little jokes. 😃
Click to expand...
Ah ah ah…! You are proving my point. 😉 That is the evidence is routinely, in a knee jerk fashion ignored! (see your above post.) I presented evidence. (see the links)You have to at least discuss the evidence before you 'Proclaim ad hominem" .that there is no evidence. There is the material evidence of the implants. There is witness testimony ( you know- witness testimony? The same stuff we Christians use to evangelize?) There is an overwhelming abundance actual footage of UFO’s,There is the fact that Radar has indeed indicated that UFO’s are present. There is physical trace elements left at landing sites. There is actual physical evidence on the abductees themselves.
 
Nimzovik said:
One can not say with absolute certitude that infinity does not exist, now can one?

Do you have** proof** infinity does not exist? 😉
Click to expand...
Easily proved: you cannot get something infinite from finite material.
 
Aloysium said:
the universe is “flat”, and as you said elsewhere, it has no boundary - it is infinite although the physical contents are most likely finite
Click to expand...
False. A balloon has no boundary and is finite in size, such is the universe.
 
If the universe is flat, does that mean some future Columbus is going to fly off the edge of it???

:):):):)🙂

ICXC NIKA
 
Nimzovik said:
*Prove *it is finite. Prove the Multiverse is a ‘closed system.’ Prove there is nothing prior to the singularity.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
Prove that there is a multiverse. Prove that something could have existed “prior” to times existence.
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
Prove that there is a multiverse. Prove that something could have existed “prior” to times existence.
Click to expand...
The proposals of those that support the Multiverse (see here: scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist ) are just as scientifically valid as your proposal of a closed system.

Ergo you can not proclaim in ad Hominem manner, that infinity does not exist.
Simple really.

*Your *idea of no infinty can not be proven. You can only speculate. As can those that advocate the ‘Multiverse Theory’

Ergo we must continue to investigate both concepts. Therefore those that advocate Multiverse/infinity *must *be given audience.

To reject the multiverse/infinity concept in an Apriori manner violates the Scientific Method.

Nuff said. :cool:
 
Nimzovik said:
The proposals of those that support the Multiverse (see here: scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist are just as scientifically valid as your proposal of a closed system.

Ergo you can not proclaim in ad Hominem manner, that infinity does not exist.
Simple really.

*Your *idea of no infinty can not be proven. You can only speculate. As can those that advocate the ‘Multiverse Theory’

Ergo we must continue to investigate both concepts. Therefore those that advocate Multiverse/infinity *must *be given audience.

To reject the multiverse/infinity concept in an Apriori manner violates the Scientific Method.

Nuff said. :cool:
Click to expand...
Neither of the models (multiverse & single universe) are scientifically valid because the scientific method requires falsifiability! Since neither model can be falsified (because neither can be tested), then neither model is science!

There have been numerous discussions on this particular sub-forum on why a physical (i.e., real) infinity cannot actually exist, perhaps you should peruse those threads?
 
Yes…and? I reiterate. The infinity concept has not been refuted, now has it?

See here: plus.maths.org/content/does-infinity-exist

The concept is still much debated. It is hubris to assert otherwise.

Ergo I reiterate my reiteration. One can not reject the concept ad Hominem.
 
Nimzovik said:
Yes…and? I reiterate. The infinity concept has not been refuted, now has it?
Click to expand...
Of course the infinity concept is not refuted. It should not be refuted because of its use in mathematics. The physical infinity is refutable: it does not obey the Peano axioms, see:
  • the sum of all integers from 1 to infinity is infinity (whereas the sum of all numbers from 1 to 10 is 55)
  • infinity - 1 = infinity (whereas 10-1=9)
  • infinity - infinity = anything you want it to be (from +infinity on down to -infinity)
and so on.
 
et extracting those predictions presented an awkward problem: when you did a calculation to see what you should observe in an experiment you always seemed to get an infinite answer with an extra finite bit added on. If you then subtracted off the infinity, the finite part that you were left with was the prediction you expected to see in the lab.
Click to expand...
This here is BS. You cannot subtract off infinity because infinity does not obey the Peano axiom, see:
infinity + 1 = infinity + 2
infinity + 1 - infinity = infinity + 2 - infinity
1 = 2
Einstein’s theory of general relativity suggests that an expanding Universe (as we observe ours to be) started at a time in the finite past when its density was infinite — this is what we call the Big Bang
Click to expand...
Also BS. The term singularity is applied to the primeval atom because be Einstein’s field equations do not work at t=0!
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
Sorry! I did not realize that the universe was actually flat like a sheet of paper, and not flat meaning Euclidean geometry!
Click to expand...
a model that was much favoured in the past was that of time-space being represented by a sphere where the north and south poles represented the big bang and big crunch and the latitudes corresponded to the size of the universe at any particular time
it went along with the idea that if you shot a photon out into space it would eventually hit you in the back of the head
it was very neat and easy to grasp with one’s mind
unfortunately recent data did not go along with it
my mind continues to be boggled
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top