94% of the universe’s galaxies are permanently beyond our reach

[Mushroom]

You simply use laser beams that have digitally encoded humans . Before hand , you launch a vast army of AI nano bots to nearby Star clusters to construct bases to receive the laser beams and construct human clones

Only if we start yesterday.

OK, even assuming that is possible, it will take hundreds of years to get the receivers there. And the irony is, the faster we manage to send the ships, the longer they will take to arrive. And one thing that tends to cause people the most trouble is understanding how time dilation works. That the faster one travels, the less time a trip takes subjectively to themselves, but longer when viewed from outside of those traveling.

 

[Mushroom]

People live in outer space.

Only in LEO, with constant resupply from Earth.

The farther you travel from our home planet, the harder it is to send those supplies. Even if we were to send a colony to the Moon, it would be difficult to sustain them. Mars? Only with great difficulty and by sending supplies in advance of the main group arriving. Farther? Impossible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, I'd suggest a lot of scientists are aware of that. It's the general public that thinks we KNOW everything.

Some things become "fact" simply because people hear it a few times, though.

Yes, and the shoddy headlines that a lot of "science" articles carry don't help. "Scientists discover they were wrong all along about _____"

(One study, may not even really mean that, etc. And i haven't even gotten to intentional misinformation, yet. Just shoddy headlines. Cosmology related articles are especially plagued by this.)

So what to do? We have to trust somebody most times, just like scientists have to place trust (a bet) on something they think is likely true, in order to test it and to do further science. Professional scientists explain what they know against a back drop of not knowing jack shit about the rest. They happily admit what they dont know. They spend their hours trying to figure out not just what data tells us, but also what it DOESN'T tell us.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Only in LEO, with constant resupply from Earth.

Yes indeed. No minerals in empty space. No water, no iron, no organics.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, and the shoddy headlines that a lot of "science" articles carry don't help. "Scientists discover they were wrong all along about _____"

(One study, may not even really mean that, etc. And i haven't even gotten to intentional misinformation, yet. Just shoddy headlines. Cosmology related articles are especially plagued by this.)

So what to do? We have to trust somebody most times, just like scientists have to place trust (a bet) on something they think is likely true, in order to test it and to do further science. Professional scientists explain what they know against a back drop of not knowing jack shit about the rest. They happily admit what they dont know. They spend their hours trying to figure out not just what data tells us, but also what it DOESN'T tell us.

Mostly I find that people read things badly. When they see "could" "may" "might" they read "is". But yes, I'd assume some articles, especially in newspapers where the writer has no idea what they're talking about but has read some other article and is pilfering it.

 

[percysunshine]

Entropy is ... anothe name for karma.

 

[Mushroom]

It's the general public that thinks we KNOW everything.

And that is constantly changing.

I became aware of that decades ago. When I saw an the cover of an old astronomy book that my mom had that predated Hubble. Which had on the cover an iconic picture of the "Andromeda Nebula".

This was common until the 1950's, when the works of Edwin Hubble were finally universally recognized and that Andromeda was indeed another galaxy and not just a "nebulae".

And I am also old enough to remember when Black Holes were only speculation, and that many were debating what eventually be a "big crunch". Where the universe eventually contracted to a single point, and then explodes in a new "big bang". And the cycle would repeat itself.

This is all before "string theory", before things like multiverse and the like was being accepted as actually possible.

However, one thing that has been shown over and over again, a man born in 1879 was right far more often than he was wrong in his speculation of things far beyond being proven wrong. But everything will never be known, because each generation we learn more and more. I am old enough to remember speculation about what would happen when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. When the Berringer Crater was still thought by many to be a volcanic feature. Before the confirmation of the Chixulub Crater, and when it was only first being realized that dinosaurs still lived in birds. When it was only "wild speculation" that Yellowstone was actually a volcano, and might have originated in Oregon.

All well accepted "facts" today, but I am old enough to remember when these were all seen as the ravings of maniacs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mostly I find that people read things badly.

That too, if they get past the headline at all.

 

[Mushroom]

Yes indeed. No minerals in empty space. No water, no iron, no organics.

Not in enough density to support people.

We have found a lot of things we need everywhere we have looked. But not enough of them to sustain life.

We have found water and oxygen on the moon. But such a small amount that it would take more to extract them than we effectively use them. Lots of iron in the asteroid belt, but we can't eat, drink, or breathe what we find there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And that is constantly changing.

I became aware of that decades ago. When I saw an the cover of an old astronomy book that my mom had that predated Hubble. Which had on the cover an iconic picture of the "Andromeda Nebula".

This was common until the 1950's, when the works of Edwin Hubble were finally universally recognized and that Andromeda was indeed another galaxy and not just a "nebulae".

And I am also old enough to remember when Black Holes were only speculation, and that many were debating what eventually be a "big crunch". Where the universe eventually contracted to a single point, and then explodes in a new "big bang". And the cycle would repeat itself.

This is all before "string theory", before things like multiverse and the like was being accepted as actually possible.

However, one thing that has been shown over and over again, a man born in 1879 was right far more often than he was wrong in his speculation of things far beyond being proven wrong. But everything will never be known, because each generation we learn more and more. I am old enough to remember speculation about what would happen when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. When the Berringer Crater was still thought by many to be a volcanic feature. Before the confirmation of the Chixulub Crater, and when it was only first being realized that dinosaurs still lived in birds. When it was only "wild speculation" that Yellowstone was actually a volcano, and might have originated in Oregon.

All well accepted "facts" today, but I am old enough to remember when these were all seen as the ravings of maniacs.

The biggest problem for us is that there are things we simply don't know. We might be right about things we can see and figure out. But there are things we don't even know we don't know.

Like what's out in between solar systems, or in between galaxies. We assumed there was nothing, now we're learning it's not nothing.

We try and learn rules. The further we go the more our view of rules change.

 

[Mushroom]

We assumed there was nothing, now we're learning it's not nothing.

You may have thought that, but most who understood that there was "something".

Much like leaving the Earth and going to higher elevations. There is always "something" out there, but in what density? PPM? PPB? PPT? And since speculations have been of rogue planets and even rogue stars. Then the "tails" of past galactic collisions.

Heck, I wonder how many are even aware that we are not even in a "spiral galaxy" as has commonly been though, but actually in a spiral bar galaxy.

But just as most of the learned knew the planet was round even before Columbus set out, In fact, before 200 BCE the Greeks had realized not only that, but were within 15% of the actual size of our planet. It is amazing how often we have no understanding of how those who came before us thought.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You may have thought that, but most who understood that there was "something".

Much like leaving the Earth and going to higher elevations. There is always "something" out there, but in what density? PPM? PPB? PPT? And since speculations have been of rogue planets and even rogue stars. Then the "tails" of past galactic collisions.

Heck, I wonder how many are even aware that we are not even in a "spiral galaxy" as has commonly been though, but actually in a spiral bar galaxy.

But just as most of the learned knew the planet was round even before Columbus set out, In fact, before 200 BCE the Greeks had realized not only that, but were within 15% of the actual size of our planet. It is amazing how often we have no understanding of how those who came before us thought.

The problem is they thought the Earth was round, then we found out it's not round, it's an oblate spheroid. Okay, being pedantic there.

However the problem is the further away from the Earth we move, the more likely the rules are to change. This could be in terms of physical distance, but more likely with time. If things impacted out universe that happened before the universe existed in its current form, how are we supposed to find this stuff out?

 

[Mushroom]

The problem is they thought the Earth was round, then we found out it's not round, it's an oblate spheroid. Okay, being pedantic there.

However the problem is the further away from the Earth we move, the more likely the rules are to change. This could be in terms of physical distance, but more likely with time. If things impacted out universe that happened before the universe existed in its current form, how are we supposed to find this stuff out?

But based on what tools they had available, it was close enough. Which was largely at that time only thought and measuring the sun and horizon.

But moving from the sun-solar system-galaxy, the rules will not change. And we can tell by looking into the past. Which is quite literally not only possible, but has been done.

I present to you the "Hubble Deep Field". The first of three iconic Hubble surveys of seep-deep-deep space. Each time, looking into an "empty" section of space, and seeing there was more there than was previously thought.

Every single pixel in that image with something in it is another galaxy. Which staggered researchers when they first realized that in the 1990's.

But today, we live in the era of the "Hubble Legacy Field".

Which goes even "deeper". And literally is seeing galaxies formed less than two billon years after the "big bang". We are seeing the very embryonic stages of galaxies in this image, as well as the evolution to what we see around us today. And based on this can predict what is to come in the future.

But not a single thing has been outside of what we have learned from our own galaxy and solar system.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But based on what tools they had available, it was close enough. Which was largely at that time only thought and measuring the sun and horizon.

But moving from the sun-solar system-galaxy, the rules will not change. And we can tell by looking into the past. Which is quite literally not only possible, but has been done.

I present to you the "Hubble Deep Field". The first of three iconic Hubble surveys of seep-deep-deep space. Each time, looking into an "empty" section of space, and seeing there was more there than was previously thought.

Every single pixel in that image with something in it is another galaxy. Which staggered researchers when they first realized that in the 1990's.

But today, we live in the era of the "Hubble Legacy Field".

Which goes even "deeper". And literally is seeing galaxies formed less than two billon years after the "big bang". We are seeing the very embryonic stages of galaxies in this image, as well as the evolution to what we see around us today. And based on this can predict what is to come in the future.

But not a single thing has been outside of what we have learned from our own galaxy and solar system.

Problem is things don't add properly.

Dark matter.

Dark matter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe"

Wow, it's hypothetical, we don't know what it is, if it exists, though we know something is there breaking the rules we do know, and it accounts for perhaps 85% of the universe. Or the universe we know.

That's a lot of "we don't know". And there's probably more.

 

[james bond]

Are you saying your sky daddy is too stupid or weak to have created humans via abiogenesis and evolution? You dont seem to think much of his abilities, as far as sky daddies go.

God is neither stupid nor weak. He's the smartest and strongest being in existence. He doesn't need abiogenesis nor evolution. His reach is everywhere. You admitted 94% of our universe is out of our reach and it is increasing daily. God tells the believers how and why. It's why I am 100% positive creation is true and evolution is a lie. How else would I know that humans exchanged the truth for a lie? The atheists and their scientists depend on a human instead of God, so they're the ones who ended up with the lie.

I just exposed another one of you who can't argue like someone who is 100% positive. I think they are afraid and have to resort to ad hominem attacks because their science isn't holding up. Just because you or an evolution expert says so doesn't make it true.

 

[Hollie]

God is neither stupid nor weak. He's the smartest and strongest being in existence. He doesn't need abiogenesis nor evolution. His reach is everywhere. You admitted 94% of our universe is out of our reach and it is increasing daily. God tells the believers how and why. It's why I am 100% positive creation is true and evolution is a lie. How else would I know that humans exchanged the truth for a lie? The atheists and their scientists depend on a human instead of God, so they're the ones who ended up with the lie.

I just exposed another one of you who can't argue like someone who is 100% positive. I think they are afraid and have to resort to ad hominem attacks because their science isn't holding up. Just because you or an evolution expert says so doesn't make it true.

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is bible thumping in yet another science thread.

 

[abu afak]

God is neither stupid nor weak. He's the smartest and strongest being in existence.
He doesn't need abiogenesis nor evolution. His reach is everywhere. You admitted 94% of our universe is out of our reach and it is increasing daily. God tells the believers how and why. It's why I am 100% positive creation is true and evolution is a lie. How else would I know that humans exchanged the truth for a lie? The atheists and their scientists depend on a human instead of God, so they're the ones who ended up with the lie.

I just exposed another one of you who can't argue like someone who is 100% positive. I think they are afraid and have to resort to ad hominem attacks because their science isn't holding up. Just because you or an evolution expert says so doesn't make it true.

"Jesus Akhbar."
No science.
Religion section.

 

[james bond]

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is bible thumping in yet another science thread.

It's 21st century creation science as we are still discovering science backs up the Bible. I've been arguing that there was no life on Mars and now no life on Venus due to its harsh environment. More evidence against life on other planets. See how Earth is special? We had what abu afak posted, but he was wrong. What was terrible was he just discarded an AIG article used to criticize his post. When an atheist just discards things such as AIG science articles in S&T, then he needs to be pointed out and chastised.

I had to post God created natural selection or else the atheists would've stolen another scientific finding from the creator. As for the vastness of space, well, I can accept it and that humans won't be able to explore all of it because it shows God's unlimited power. The Bible states his arm is expanding the universe like a curtain and tent to dwell in. OTOH, the atheist scientists have made up invisible dark matter and dark energy to explain how the universe is expanding.

 

[james bond]

"Jesus Akhbar."
No science.
Religion section.

Creation science. The atheists can't just discard our science as religion when we have the greatest scientists in history. The atheists also use religion in their science as they do not accept God and His creation. For example, God created natural selection. Your side can have the vastness of space, but the creationists are interested in the shape of the universe like a curtain in the shape of a tent being expanded out and whether there is are edges and a boundary:

Your side claims it is flat and there are no edges and boundaries. Why can't you explain how they come up with that (hint: dark matter and dark energy)?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And that is constantly changing.

I became aware of that decades ago. When I saw an the cover of an old astronomy book that my mom had that predated Hubble. Which had on the cover an iconic picture of the "Andromeda Nebula".

This was common until the 1950's, when the works of Edwin Hubble were finally universally recognized and that Andromeda was indeed another galaxy and not just a "nebulae".

And I am also old enough to remember when Black Holes were only speculation, and that many were debating what eventually be a "big crunch". Where the universe eventually contracted to a single point, and then explodes in a new "big bang". And the cycle would repeat itself.

This is all before "string theory", before things like multiverse and the like was being accepted as actually possible.

However, one thing that has been shown over and over again, a man born in 1879 was right far more often than he was wrong in his speculation of things far beyond being proven wrong. But everything will never be known, because each generation we learn more and more. I am old enough to remember speculation about what would happen when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. When the Berringer Crater was still thought by many to be a volcanic feature. Before the confirmation of the Chixulub Crater, and when it was only first being realized that dinosaurs still lived in birds. When it was only "wild speculation" that Yellowstone was actually a volcano, and might have originated in Oregon.

All well accepted "facts" today, but I am old enough to remember when these were all seen as the ravings of maniacs.

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is bible thumping in yet another science thread.

Not if you ignore him...