Aliens

[Phi for All]

I like to keep an open mind on the matter. Anything's possible.

 

I respect science for its enlightened methodology and achievements. However, is it me or is there an uncomfortable silence since Quantum physics and Relativity, around half a century ago? When I was a teenager, I was so excited at the speed of scientific progress. Now, I sense that the science party is fizzling out. Is this a fact or are scientific breakthroughs being kept secret? Perhaps I'm not reading enough.

 

I also thought the spirit of science was curiosity, and self-doubt; 'I wonder' and 'Am I sure?' Science minus these defining characters becomes non-science; a dogmatic oppressive mind yoke.

 

I understand that current scientific knowledge sets limits but to insist self-assuredly that x is impossible because it would violate scientific principle y is narrow mindedness.

 

What is possible and impossible is decided by the universe, not by science. Am I wrong?

 

I think the strength lies in the methodology. We make sure each step is not a leap ("Aliens from another universe!"), that we know how firm the ground is before accepting any path. It's a painstaking process, but it's a trustworthy one, the most trustworthy process we've ever found for explaining the natural world.

 

I think the weakness lies in the sheer complexity and vastness of the knowledge we've accumulated. The average person is always looking for ways to understand without taking the time to actually study what's in "the box". The average person thinks they can somehow intuit what science is after, that because they don't know much of what's inside "the box", this somehow gives them a special ability to think "outside the box".

 

Don't mistake a desire for productive solutions for a lack of curiosity. Anybody can come up with an idea that explains a certain phenomenon, but you won't get much productivity out of it if you don't approach the idea based on our current best explanations.

 

"Anything's possible" isn't true. There are lots of impossible things. As for self-doubt, that's why we work with theory instead of concrete answers. We try to always look at theory as our best current explanation, subject to new information and observations.

 

If there is any fizzling out in the science party, it's because of misconceptions within the general public. Popular media has warped the meaning of words that have very specific meanings in science, like theory, logic, and dimension. The more the general public decides that science is too much to learn, the more they start making up their own, and I think that's hurt science a lot in the last few decades.

[TheDivineFool]

@Phi for All

 

Thank you for your post.

 

May I pose a hypothetical question to you.

 

Suppose scientific observation confirmed beyond doubt an object travelling faster than light speed.

 

How would scientists react to this?

 

Would they doubt the observation or the theory that made light speed travel impossible?

 

The question clearly shows the subordinate nature of scientific theory to observational data. The theory must fit facts and not vice versa. If theory and fact clash, the theory goes in the dustbin, not the fact.

 

In the above described relationship between theory and fact, there's plenty of room for mind-boggling possibilities. Don't you think?

[Endy0816]

If there was evidence of that(not involving expansion) we would need to adjust, but FTL travel itself doesn't make much sense in terms of time dilation and length contraction. Generally the evidence is on the side of the speed of light relating back to causality in general.

[Phi for All]

Suppose scientific observation confirmed beyond doubt an object travelling faster than light speed.

 

How would scientists react to this?

 

Would they doubt the observation or the theory that made light speed travel impossible?

You qualified first that this observation was "confirmed beyond doubt". What this would mean is that the phenomenon was observed, an hypothesis was formed, the data was shared, and other scientists were able to re-create the experiment or observe the phenomenon. Skeptics would challenge the methodology used until they were satisfied that everything was done on the up and up, then the skeptics would react the way the rest of the scientists would react, which is to start testing other theories against this new knowledge to see how it fits in with our models.

 

The question clearly shows the subordinate nature of scientific theory to observational data. The theory must fit facts and not vice versa. If theory and fact clash, the theory goes in the dustbin, not the fact.

It's not like if a theory were just a little stronger it would be a fact. That's not the right way to look at it. Theories are based on what is observed. They attempt to explain what is going on based on what we already know and what we're observing. When new data comes along, the theories adapt to take it into consideration.

 

It is true we wouldn't have a theory without facts to observe, but I don't think looking at it this way is helpful. Without the theory, facts don't help us put the puzzle together.

 

In the above described relationship between theory and fact, there's plenty of room for mind-boggling possibilities. Don't you think?

I do, but I don't think we see the same possibilities. I see a way to make sense of the world in a way that I can double-check if I have doubts, a trustworthy way to explain things that happen or don't happen. I see a way to minimize my guessing.

[Andrew A]

Not necessarily could we not travel faster than the speed of light, I know its theoretical but Tachyons are a rising topic in discussion lately.

[Strange]

Tachyons are a rising topic in discussion lately.

 

Are they?

[swansont]

Not necessarily could we not travel faster than the speed of light, I know its theoretical but Tachyons are a rising topic in discussion lately.

 

Did someone find another reason why they can't exist?

[Moontanman]

About a decade ago I saw a documentery about UFOs. It's opening claim was that it could now reveal secrets that were covered up by governments regarding experiments that were kept secret for obvious reasons.... apparently after 50 years these things could be revealed. The program pretty much said that EVERY UFO sighting from 50 years ago and before were due to goverment experiments (In the UK and the US, so by assumption in the USSR also) - They took each account and and explained why people saw what they saw. They were doing experiments on ion lifter type flying saucers and stuff. I have NEVER found that documentry online since or found any record of it anywhere... I recon that maybe these things were revealed due the 50 year thing, but quickly trod down again after the documentry revealed too much... who knows...?

 

The point is - it is far more likely that these sightings are from some kind of secret experiment than from an alien space craft or some wierd intrusion from another dimention... OR, as swansont suggested, it could be something else entirely.

 

 

Can you repost that link? I still think that asserting that aliens colonising the galaxy are likely to ignore planets is the most supportable speculation regarding colonization of the galaxy, in fact I would go so far as to say that stars with vast asteroid fields would be most desirable and that voyages of thousands of years would be trivial considering you would be essentially taking your planet with you..

[MonDie]

knowing nothing goes faster than light and even if it could would still a craft hundreds if not thousands of years to go to another galaxy or planet, can't we safely say we are not being visited by beings from another world, so all these sightings of UFOs must be coming from another plane of existence, another dimension, what other explanation could there be? I've got a headache just thinking about it. JRD.

 

Hundreds or thousands of years in our time, but maybe a few minutes in theirs. As the ship accelerates toward Earth, the waves hit the ship in rapid succession, so they will watch Earth in fast-forward (and blue-shifted). Furthermore, I recollect that they would appear in slow-motion to us although I can't work out why. Plus, if my head is on straight, all that light from the ship would reach us in rapid succession only shortly before the actual arrival. No, special relativity by itself does not rule out visitors. However, it does suggest that our visitors might become stranded, with their planet unreachable and their pals long gone.

 

I don't believe the conspiracies, but AFAIK aliens are untestable unfalsifiable.

Ghosts, or aliens???

Edited May 30, 2015 by MonDie