NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
DBTrek said:CapNG will argue that it doesn't have to be godlike, but to defy the known, testable, laws of physics it actually does need to be god-like.
DBTrek said:We're talking about taking a known, testable, limitation of mass and simply discarding it. That's god-like.
DBTrek said:Isn't that an awful lot of speculation for something that can be explained much more easily?
The Hawk said:IMO real science doesn't make a determination based on something that doesn't fit any available data. So IMO giving Occam's razor more than a small percentage of thought is for people not interested in real science but are more interested in debunking.
CapnG said:Known to us, testable only by tests we designed, who's answers must lie within a certain range to be considered valid. There's a tremendous degree of human vanity invested in this, coupled with an odd inferiorty complex that anything we don't currently understand is "god-like" knowledge.
The laws of physics are not immutable concepts carved into stone, like all science they are links in a chain and subject to revision should newer, better, more accurate information come to light. Whenever you say such-and-such "defies the laws of physics" what you really mean to say is such-and-such "defies the laws of physics as we currently understand them to be".
DBTrek said:I think when we're discussing a technology that bestows a godlike power . . . omniscience for example
DBTrek said:I'm comfortable calling their technology god-like.
DBTrek said:This isn't similar to showing a laser pointer to medieval knights (since medieval knights had no tested scientific theories stating that the existence of laser pointers should be impossible), this is taking the limits of nature as we have tested and understand it and performing feats beyond those limitations.
DBTrek said:Yet until we have a reason to disregard the limitations our science has found is why would we assume that these limitations can be overcome?
DBTrek said:2. What do you mean "Newton's 'laws' are incompatible with Einsteins 'laws'"?
Rick Deckard said:
CapnG said:Stop. Why is it omniscience? You're suggesting that if they know more than us they must know everything there is to know? That's a bit...much...
DBTrek said:Ah, you're talking about gravity being a curvature of space/time instead of a natural 'force'. Yes, Einstein did come up with a better theory. Perhaps, one day someone will come up with yet a better one.
DBTrek said:The problem comes in assuming that given enough time sentient beings "will" find a way to physically exceed the speed of light.
Rick Deckard said:Oh and let's totally disregard the idea of 'worm holes' which *theoretically* allow you to bridge the gap between any two points in space and *travel* between them across almost no distance at all - speed of light travel is not needed in this case. Even the 'high priests' of science are considering that possibility...
DBTrek said:The only thing being disregarded in this thread are the several, very real problems, that make the odds of human beings being contacted/abducted by aliens extremely remote.
So far the only answers provided by your side of the argument are:
"They have technology that is overcome all the problems you cite"
"How?"
"They're more advanced. You can not begin to conceive of their technology . . . but it miraculously conquers all problems unsolvable by us."
That's blatant disregarding of the tangible problems I've posed. It's no better than claiming they use "magic spells" to solve all the problems.
-DBTrek
Rick Deckard said:This isn't funny - you're basically saying that unless I can demonstrate to you how to break the 'sacred laws of physics', I don't have an argument. Brilliant logic.
DBTrek said:The only thing being disregarded in this thread are the several, very real problems, that make the odds of human beings being contacted/abducted by aliens extremely remote.
So far the only answers provided by your side of the argument are:
"They have technology that is overcome all the problems you cite"
"How?"
"They're more advanced. You can not begin to conceive of their technology . . . but it miraculously conquers all problems unsolvable by us."
That's blatant disregarding of the tangible problems I've posed. It's no better than claiming they use "magic spells" to solve all the problems.
-DBTrek
DBTrek said:You have an argument. The same kind of argument creationists have; A parapalegic one.
-DBTrek
Rick Deckard said:You're warped and not worth my time.
DBTrek said:Not true omniscience perhaps . . . since there remains the possibility that certain natural processes may never be fully understood . . . but pretty close to it.
-DBTrek