Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you think the plausible method of space travel would be if we were to inhabit another planet? Faster than light is pointless. We need a faster method. Bending space (Warp) is so far off that it is only a dream.
We are a very young species in the galactic timeline. This is a "fact" taught by the old universe pushers. There should be many other mature beings roaming the cosmos. Yet they evade us.
If the universe is billions of years old and has many life sustaining planets then surely we would know by now.
The old populated universe is a paradox. This is explained by the Fermi Paradox.
How far from Saturn did our last probe go? The one that took all those great pictures of the moon and the rings. How far out was it?
We've just recently found that we have more than one moon at any given time. Out beyond the moon we see, we may have one, two, or even more "mini-moons" circling us. The latest one we found was only a few meters across. Now, how large would one of those probes be? We could have had dozens of probes pass us by and never known it. Over the next number of years, we could still have probes pass us by without our knowledge. We aren't prepared to "comb" space yet.
And, while virtually all the experts agree that species on other planets would not have evolved the same as we have, it is also very possible that their means of communication would not have evolved parallel to ours either. We listen for radio signals with the technology we know. They could be using a technology we do not know, and aren't looking for.
And, why have they not stopped in and set up a meeting with us? Would you like to go back in time about 45,000 years to have a conversation with Neanderthal? And, take a chance that you might get skewered before you managed to get them to listen to what you have to say?
The smaller the universe the faster the light would have been distributed throughout it.
Which is exacly why we know the size of the universe. Look at the graph I posted. The velocity of light IS a constant, and therefore we can measure the distance by measuring how many candles of light is emitted from any object. When we do that for the most distant illuminated object, we get a measurement of 13.7 billion light years, and that is the minimum age of the known universe.
The smaller the universe the faster the light would have been distributed throughout it.
If the size of the universe were fixed and not expanding and all ight sources were the same distance from us.
We live in a universe in which the majority of it is many billions of miles distance from us. It is even possible it extends beyond the detectable and there is matter so far from us that light from it has not reached us yet.
Back in the 30s a grade school student asked the Question, Why is it dark at night. The teacher first laughed and said because the sun set. the boy than asked why don't the stars keep it light. the teacher thought about that and realized he could not answer. Because of the tremendous number of stars, we should be getting more light from than, than from the sun. The explanation is because the universe is immensely old, and the stars are moving away at a tremendous speed and are so far from us the light has travelled for thousands of years before reaching us and dispersed to almost nothing. If the universe were either smaller, younger or not expanding. We could not survive as we would over time absorb sufficient heat from the stars to melt the earth.
How far from Saturn did our last probe go? The one that took all those great pictures of the moon and the rings. How far out was it?
We've just recently found that we have more than one moon at any given time. Out beyond the moon we see, we may have one, two, or even more "mini-moons" circling us. The latest one we found was only a few meters across. Now, how large would one of those probes be? We could have had dozens of probes pass us by and never known it. Over the next number of years, we could still have probes pass us by without our knowledge. We aren't prepared to "comb" space yet.
And, while virtually all the experts agree that species on other planets would not have evolved the same as we have, it is also very possible that their means of communication would not have evolved parallel to ours either. We listen for radio signals with the technology we know. They could be using a technology we do not know, and aren't looking for.
And, why have they not stopped in and set up a meeting with us? Would you like to go back in time about 45,000 years to have a conversation with Neanderthal? And, take a chance that you might get skewered before you managed to get them to listen to what you have to say?
Claiming something like this is equivalent to saying the universe is infinite.
Placing a definitive number on something as vast as the known universe is a contradiction.
Our science is limited. Yet scientists place universe age restrictions on our beliefs.
The number isn't limiting or restrictive. It is the minimum age of the universe. It is possible it is indeed much older. But at the very minimum, it is 13 billion years old. You say God doesn't intend to fool us? Then good. Accept facts as they are, and accept the fact that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.
jdaelectro: 13.7 billion years is hardly the same as an infinite length of time. And the cosmic background radiation of about 3K is a remnant of the Big Bang, vastly cooled and dispersed over that time.
jdaelectro: 13.7 billion years is hardly the same as an infinite length of time. And the cosmic background radiation of about 3K is a remnant of the Big Bang, vastly cooled and dispersed over that time.
Did I miss something? Who said anything about an infinite length of time?
Claiming something like this is equivalent to saying the universe is infinite.
Placing a definitive number on something as vast as the known universe is a contradiction.
Our science is limited. Yet scientists place universe age restrictions on our beliefs.
Your argument is limited because your knowledge is limited by your own beliefs. The universe is finite, but unbounded, much like the surface of a sphere.
What do you think the plausible method of space travel would be if we were to inhabit another planet? Faster than light is pointless. We need a faster method. Bending space (Warp) is so far off that it is only a dream.
We are a very young species in the galactic timeline. This is a "fact" taught by the old universe pushers. There should be many other mature beings roaming the cosmos. Yet they evade us.
If the universe is billions of years old and has many life sustaining planets then surely we would know by now.
The old populated universe is a paradox. This is explained by the Fermi Paradox.
We just haven't reached a higher perspective on the problem yet. Right now, we are like a couple of paleohumans who just invented the log raft, arguing whether it would be possible to cross an ocean on it to see what's on the other side. We aren't even conceptualizing enclosed sailing ships, much less steamships, nuclear submarines, Boeing 747's or even Google Earth. It's WAY too early to say it's impossible; the only guarantee is that we ain't crossing that ocean on a log raft.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
