Moontanman

Tesla is an often talking point of conspiracy theories, he has been given credit for everything from aliens to time travel. Your assertions would have to be quite a bit more specific to be taken seriously...

It will be interesting to see that, but if I had a dollar for every time that headline has been posted but with no real substance I'd be rich...

Tesla 0 Einstein 99 Research is underway to find possible reasons to believe Mars was destroyed in a nuclear holocaust, or that only god can create life. Showing something is being researched doesn't mean it is the correct thing in any way shape or form... You at the very least insinuated it, you keep going for things that are not part of the scientific consensus. Please, if you want to go in that direction we may as well start talking about flying saucers.

The only real answer here is we do not know, no curve can be drawn from one data point. Incalculable amounts of information remains to be discovered about the Earth's make up, as you go into more and more detail the amount of knowledge goes up but that isn't the equivalent of Einstein's theory. Really, you are going to use another forum as a source? No, gravity doesn't travel faster than light, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity , The speed of light isn't about light it's about information, nothing can propagate FTL, gravity is no exception.

Echinoderms can be thought of as non vertebrates with internal skeletons. Kind of an odd thing. I was thinking of it as radial but more like a sea cucumber in that respect. Interesting to think of in that time. Lots of odd things came and went in that time with no modern ties really...

To me it looks like an echinoderm version of an annelid. Just stretch out a sea urchin vertically, spins, feet with little nippers, lots of waving tentacles. It was when life forms were just getting started and lots of things didn't really fit in today's shapes... Actually lots of annelids are spiny, mostly little tiny spines like glass shards. Most echinoderms are spiny, even sea stars most often have spines and the hooked feet and waving tentacles. I live near the beach, I've been collecting and keeping echinoderms for many years. The sea cucumbers are soft but some still have spines and they have the tube feet and tentacles...

Does anyone else look at this and think echinoderm version of a worm?

We can have a million papers on the finer points of what we already know, not a good way to compare really. Did you even bother to read the link? If is a huge word, we are down to real limits, vacuum tubes were huge, individual atoms are a bit harder to use...

I would like to see a citation for this, proving a negative is not really possible. It's easy to ask if I can show it isn't but asking if you can show it will or even can continue to increase much less at an increasing rate needs some evidence. On the other hand, yes there is anecdotal evidence for this, while it is true our knowledge has increased huge discoveries are much more rare than simply showing an ever increasing rate of accuracy. Really big breakthroughs are become ever less numerous and smaller. 100 years ago Einstein come up with relativity, since then we have been putting an ever finer edge on his theory but no really equal breakthroughs have been forthcoming. Even Quantum Mechanics is nearly that old. The rate at which microprocessing has increased is not a law but simply an observation that is rapidly breaking down as we butt up against theoretical limits. https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2014/02/19/why-has-cpu-frequency-ceased-to-grow. Anecdotes are not always accurate...

I see, so it was a meaningless quip meant to to underscore that humans do not know everything? So what else is new? Do you really think that knowledge is unlimited? Human knowledge is two grains of sand on a beach? You know this how exactly? It's just as meaningful to say that human knowledge is equal to all the grains of sand on the beach and what we left is equated by two more grains of sand. There is no way to know at any one point when knowledge is complete and it's as meaningless now as it ever was to claim it...

So much for solipsism and any possible usefulness it may have in describing reality...

Prove it...

So you not willing to believe me? Why?

Yes...

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/48695239701720712/

I can honestly say i would come closer to that than replicating belief in things no one can have evidence of...

This makes more and more sense as we learn more. Worlds with liquid oceans and atmospheres seem to be out numbered quite badly, at least in our own planetary system... https://futurism.com/life-cosmos-exist-frozen-ice-worlds/

So you critique is based on me giving you a source that shows there is still some doubt? I would feel a bit less than honest if I didn't show the truth as it is rather than imply only what I want to show. Yes, we do have a working definition of life, admittedly it is based on the life we know, how could it not be? Life is an organised chemical system that metabolizes and reproduces with variation, yes there are other opinions but they most debate by admitting we cannot be sure. I would bet that life, if it is based on aluminum, dissolved in silica oceans would still show those signs, if it didn't it wouldn't be life. If you narrow life too much then we have already created it, or at least could. We can make machines that make copies of themselves, but that is not life. An AI is not life, it can be self aware but not be able to reproduce, or reproduce but with no possibility of variation. Like Data on Star Trek, several episodes debated on whether or not he was a life form, not if he was alive. There is a difference... No, in fact we used to say it might be impossible to fly faster than sound, but we knew things could travel faster than sound we just didn't know if we could build something that could. It was said that man could never travel to the moon, not because it was physically impossible, and the people made that claim soon realized they had over stepped their knowledge because the only reason they said that was because no one had really tried. But it was possible to show that is wasn't impossible, just very difficult to do with the technology of that time frame. Other things like the speed of light are a bit different, but I admit that in recent years at least we have a mathematical basis for the possibility, but it not the same as faster than sound or travel to the moon. There are actual physical reasons it cannot be done, of course new physics might change that but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Lots of things are really difficult, many may make the mistake of thinking difficult means impossible. It does not... Then why did you bring it up in a conversation about communication? Actually I have gathered evidence of some things, nothing on that level but I do know how and I know that I could at least in theory replicate the work of others. I know that evidence has been gathered and replicated by others, it not just something people pulled out of their rectums one night while drunk...

Yes we have a working definition of life https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html Why would you think there would be a second genesis of life here on Earth? Life would explode as soon as it started to reproduce taking over all available niches. Any other pre life would be consumed before it could do anything. Having said that there is the concept of a shadow biosphere, when we look for life we only look for life as we know it. Our tests would not show another type of life. Some research has been done in that direction but not much has been learned yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_biosphere The unknown does get bigger as we answer questions, how ever would you find it reasonable to dip your head underwater and look for something you knew nothing about? We know there are octopus in the ocean, if we didn't we wouldn't have the concept of looking for them. I can't say there are no dualheadedtwillmuffs in the ocean. I have no idea what that is so to say there are none at would at least imply you know what they are... In the past technological limits were assumed with little to no reason. Now we have reasons not to expect things like FTL communication, a better cell phone is vastly less than ftl... Quantum entanglement is not sending a message... You have reasonable expectations based on past performance, that is not faith... EM radiation existed all around us, we saw it, we just didn't know the details, considerable difference from it being hidden.

Let's try this again! Lost it all last time... Exactly! We have one data point, you cannot deal in probabilities with one data point. To me the Fermi Paradox is more an admission of ignorance than a genuine attempt at determining the probability of life on other planets. We should get used to saying "We don't know" no shame in not knowing, the shame lies in saying you do know when you cannot know... Again, we have one data point, a curve cannot realistically be drawn from one data point. Until we get more data saying that one alternative is more probable than another is nothing but baseless speculation. Now if we find life in our solar system, life that points to a second genesis of life, then we will have reason to at least be hopeful. But if we find a second genesis of complex life here in our own system then all bets are off...

I can't say that, while I consider it to be unlikely we are alone that in of itself says nothing about the facts or lack thereof. I would be amazed if there is no other life in the universe, in fact I would be amazed if there is no life in our own solar system other than us but at this time I can't see how a belief says anything about the facts...

Everyone knows they only hold nuclear wars on mars in the odd years...

They have lights on the outside of their flying saucers? Astounding! Give me evidence that theism contains wisdom, then we can talk about where it came from... I consider myself to be a apistevist, evidence is required, faith doesn't cut it..

I would say if religion contains any wisdom such wisdom is accidental and would probably been more wise had it been less accidental... Would you label yourself a theist dimreeper? But we know that under our current understanding we should see some evidence, my problem with this is that I think our current understanding is somewhat flawed but since my opinions on this are far from educated I must put them down as speculation. The original premise was that a civilization should be quite a bit brighter than our sun is in light but in radio waves. Everything we do that is electrical in nature gives off radio waves. From the 60 cycle hum of transmission lines to TV and radio broadcasts. But The premise has been shown to be increasingly flawed due to natural interstellar interference. Only a powerful direct signal, like radar scanning an object, or military radar type transmissions would be "visible" above the background noise. Such signals if we intercepted them would not be likely to repeat, a prerequisite for considering them as artificial. However, such signals have been picked up and no they did not repeat and so did not qualify as a possible hit. So you expect new technological breakthroughs that will make radio or lasers obsolete?

Man created god in his own image no doubt! Yes, but why do we lack information is the question.