aliens don't exist

[zaangalewa]

For those who are not familiar with Zeno's Paradox of Motion:

It concludes that movement is impossible. An object cannot move from point A to point B, because, first, the object has to go half the distance from A to B. Then half the rest of the distance. Then half the rest. And so on, and so forth. This implies that point B will never be reached, as there will always be a remaining distance, half of which must be traversed before anything else can occur.

We crawled out from under this specious paradox when we learned how to sum infinite series of numbers. But it was always easy to fire an arrow through the air to its target to show the conclusion of this argument was absurd.

Hoyle's Fallacy, Zeno's Paradox, and the specious reasoning employed by zaangalewa are fundamentally no different. Just arbitrarily assign probabilities to arbitrarily chosen events leading directly to the event in question; any probabilities less than 100% will do. If you collect enough of these arbitrary declarations, you can make the event in question have a virtually zero probability. This is unbounded. You have no reason whatsoever to stop before the probability reaches zero. If you cannot make it to almost zero, I will just add some more arbitrarily chosen events and multiply your number by those arbitrarily designated probabilities. Rinse, repeat. We will get to virtually zero, eventually. For ANY event. No matter how common or rare the event seems to be, in reality

Which definitively tells us this is meaningless pap.

Zenon formulated a problem (paradoxon) of a method of science - the use of mathematics for the solution of a physical problems. That's all.

What I said has absolutelly nothing to do with Zenons paradoxon in case of infinitesimal values. It is for everyone totally clear that Achill runs faster than a turtle - the problem was to find a mathematical method to explain this.

I say it's totally unclear whether a second time life exists or not exists because we are not able to solve "~0 *~oo" (nearly impossible probability times nearly endless possibilities". This problem is mathematically not solveable how you can imagine if you write a program which finds randomly a very high number (1..oo) and a very low number (0..1) and multiplies this numbers. The results don't show any structure. => We are only able to solve this problem by searching in the reality of the universe all around us.


And the bad manners of US-Americans in all forms of discussions seems to be by the way a problem of the education in the US-American kindergartens.

 

[james bond]

No stupid, you are not following. This is a discussion for rational adults, not manbabies whose minds are handicapped by iron age mythology. The universe may be so vast, that even if there have been a billion advanced civilizations, it's not only possible they never traveled the universe, but also possible that, even if they have, they have not encountered earth.

Lol, I'm not the farking stupid one, farking stupid one. It's you, you, you.

Rational adults have figured out that life does not come from non-life, so there isn't life elsewhere. That there are no aliens. Not only that, the solar winds would play havoc with life if the planet or heavenly body wasn't protected. Climate change would be nothing compared to bearing up against the solar winds.

 

[james bond]

Just to further illustrate how useless and specious this old parlor trick favored by the Creationists is:

Event in question: formation of life on earth

Now, choose any arbitrary events you like that directly led to the existence of Earth and the life on it. Really! ANY. Formation of the Sun, the earth, the Moon, configuration of our Solar System, the chemicals present on earth, anything you like.

Now, assign each a probability of 99%. 99% seems pretty high, right? And event that is 99% likely to happen would almost always happen, right?

Welp, now multiply your probabilities. If you gather enough of these causal events, guess what happens? The probability of the "event in question" tends to ZERO. That's right. I can assign 99% probability to arbitrarily chosen events leading directly to the event in question, and end up with a virtually ZERO probability of the event in question.

The curve, for all x>0, looks like this, with the y-axis representing the probability of the "event in question", and x being the number of arbitrarily chosen, causal events with probability of 99%:

View attachment 548467

The probability that atheists would ever wise up in S&T is ZERO. Mwahahahahahahaha.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: aliens don't exist
SUBTOPIC: Scientific-Based Beliefs 'vs' Faith-Based Beliefs
※→ James Bond, et al,

BLUF: Believing in the "Scientific Method" on matters of the physical universe is completely separate from the Belief or Disbelief in the Supreme Being. You can believe in one, or the other, or both. The two frameworks are separate and distinct. The Scientific framework is within the human understanding; whereas, the Faith-Based framework is beyond the scope of scientific understanding.

The probability that atheists would ever wise up in S&T is ZERO. Mwahahahahahahaha.

(COMMENT)

I use the example of String Theory and Supersymmetry which are topics in Physics that do not lend themselves to study under the scientific method (yet). Like faith-based frameworks, string theory and supersymmetry are not yet in the realm of real science (testable).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[zaangalewa]

zaangalewa
The Greeks were very very limited

The Greeks tested in every of their city states another form of society. We are very limited. They were only 4 million people at all and had much more important people per a million people than any other "nation" of all mankind.

They did not know modern science at all

Without the ancient Greek culture we had not been able to know on our own what it is what you call "modern science".

Modern and real science is only a couple of centuries old

What is modern? What has it to do with science? And why is the ancient Greek culture not real for you although you are a child of this culture?

You did have Newton and Galileo much earlier but it’s only been around a short time

?

Newton became not famous because of Galileo Galilei - he became famous because of Johannes Kepler. Otherwise no one had taken serios his mysterious long-distance effect. But he had been able to explain the results of Kepler which were basing on the empirical data of Tycho Brahe.

 

[james bond]

RE: aliens don't exist
SUBTOPIC: Scientific-Based Beliefs 'vs' Faith-Based Beliefs
※→ James Bond, et al,

BLUF: Believing in the "Scientific Method" on matters of the physical universe is completely separate from the Belief or Disbelief in the Supreme Being. You can believe in one, or the other, or both. The two frameworks are separate and distinct. The Scientific framework is within the human understanding; whereas, the Faith-Based framework is beyond the scope of scientific understanding.


(COMMENT)

I use the example of String Theory and Supersymmetry which are topics in Physics that do not lend themselves to study under the scientific method (yet). Like faith-based frameworks, string theory and supersymmetry are not yet in the realm of real science (testable).

Most Respectfully,
R

This is too ignorant, even for you Rocco. Today's "scientific method" isn't real as it's based on atheism. The atheist scientists do no consider God to exist, let alone be the creator. Thus, we have creation science and are battling to have it taught in public schools. We find that science backs up the Bible and the greatest scientists ever believed in creation. The "scientific method" was founded by a creation scientist, Sir Francis Bacon. The atheist scientists are wrong and prejudiced right off the bat. They get to assume their atheism religion instead of a Creator in existence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You think we "apes" had been able to make fire on a water planet - if we had been evolved there from what kind of animal exactly?

You are the only one talking about odds of apes forming on other planets. An odd, apparently useless topic.

we just simple do not know what the result could be from "nearly endless possiblities" * "nearly no chance that this will happen". It could be any result.

That's a useless tautology. It is true of any event. But what we safely can say is that, if something can occur once in the universe, it likely has and will occur at least twice. This principle is actually useful, unlike the useless tautology above that you stated.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

specially because it could happen that two wrapped fallacies could also produce a truth)

No, they could not. They could produce a result that matches truth, but it would be quite by coincidence, not by virtue of valid method. Like a child getting the right answer on a math quiz, but getting by accident via incorrect methods.. So no, that's wrong. And the quiz answer is marked incorrect.

I am trying to explain to you why your argument is specious and useless. Are you following?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Zenon formulated a problem (paradoxon) of a method of science - the use of mathematics for the solution of a physical problems. That's all.

Uh, Zeno did more than that. Now you are making stuff up. Furthermore, since you are employing the same, specious reasoning as Zeno, maybe pause and direct the criticism at yourself.

Do you understand that you are doing this? Do you need a more thorough explanation?

 

[zaangalewa]

You are the only one talking about odds of apes forming on other planets. An odd, apparently useless topic.

I do not do this and you know it.

That's a useless tautology.

A what?

It is true of any event. ...

What a nonsense. I will stop now to "discuss" with you any longer. Believe whatever you like to believe about aliens and your very special form of "logic" - that's absolutelly not my problem.

 

[zaangalewa]

No, they could not.

Think! Someone is able to lie and to say the truth. This could be a wrapped fallacy for example.

 

[zaangalewa]

Uh, Zeno did more than that.

No. It's totally clear everyone knows that Achill is faster than a turtle. The problem of Zenon is a pure mathematical problem. It shows what we find out if we use the wrong form of mathematics which is not adequate to the physical problem.

Now you are making stuff up. Furthermore, since you are employing the same, specious reasoning as Zeno,

I used absolutelly nothing what Zenon had said with his very famous paradoxon.

maybe pause and direct the criticism at yourself.

Do you understand that you are doing this? Do you need a more thorough explanation?

no comment

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

1. the path to the planet on which intelligent life is possible about 5 million light years.
2.according to modern classical physics of Einstein
- the speed of light is limited and the time depends on the speed of movement
- a "hole in space" is theoretically possible, but time depends on speed and gravity

3 ... Imagine
Someone creates a hole in space
astronauts jump into this hole and get to the planet instantly .. But the planet is 5 million light years away.
They smoke cigarettes for 3 minutes and immediately return to Earth.

============
How long will it take?
1. For astronauts 3 minutes
2. For the inhabitants of the Earth = 5 million years + 5 million years + 3 minutes
about 10 million years.

=======
now let's imagine that aliens want to conquer the Earth, they are located 5 million light years from Earth ...
their troops will return to their planet in 10 million years. Their civilization will disappear.

aliens don't exist

Aliens and interdeminsional elves totally exist

 

[zaangalewa]

Greeks had zero modern instruments and many of what they said was wrong

US-Americans have many modern instruments and many of what they say is wrong. I guess in about 2500 years "they" - whoever they will be - will still read the Greek philosophers - and perhaps some German books about philosophy and science - but English books except Monty Shakespeare? Are you sure?

 

[zaangalewa]

No, they could not. They could produce a result that matches truth, but it would be quite by coincidence, not by virtue of valid method. Like a child getting the right answer on a math quiz, but getting by accident via incorrect methods.. So no, that's wrong. And the quiz answer is marked incorrect.

I am trying to explain to you why your argument is specious and useless. Are you following?

Greek knowledge: If you remember well then it had been Erathostenes who had calculated 40,000 km (instead of 40,077 km) for the circumference of the Earth (6.25 of his "stadions" are 1 km). This was known since 250 BC.

US-American knowledge: Specially the US-American author Washington Irvin, who wrote a book about Columbus, founded the myth people had believed in a "flat Earth" in the middle ages, because he justified with this nonsense the brave and smart American pioneer Columbus.

Indeed made Columbus wrong calculations about the distance between India and Europe - and he and his men survived only because an unknown continent had been between India and Europe - which "we" Germans (= Mr. Waldseemüller and his team of cartographs) named "America" to honor the Italian sailor Amerigo Vespucchi.

 

[Flash]

Energy is needed to travel in space. Currently we do this with the expulsion of hot gasses. (Hydrogen and oxygen fuel)

We will need a new technology to go faster than what we currently have... diminishing returns after a while.

Currently not even nuclear fission or fusion can expel hot gasses fast enough to get us to a significant portion of light speed in space. Those technologies might have more bang with a smaller amount of mass...but they still are insufficient to propel a person at one gravity for very long. (Might get a week instead of the requisite 2+years to achieve a significant portion) And a larger fusion reaction won't help. Some other means needs to be discovered. Space is a weightless vacuum after all.

Meaning that the energy requirements are about equal to a star.

And our sun is, relatively speaking, a huge beach ball next to a BB from a pellet gun standing in for Earth.
So the chances of interstellar travel happening for anyone are slim to none.
We would blow up the planet playing with such things long before we actually harnessed it effectively.

Exactly!

It would take the entire energy output of the world for three years to propel a shuttle size craft to 40% of the speed of light.

Humans have been brainwashed with science fiction and have no concept of reality when it comes to space travel, the size of the universe or what it takes to produce life.

For instance, just to mention distance. If the sun was the size of a golf ball the nearest star would be about 760 miles away.

 

[Blues Man]

1. the path to the planet on which intelligent life is possible about 5 million light years.
2.according to modern classical physics of Einstein
- the speed of light is limited and the time depends on the speed of movement
- a "hole in space" is theoretically possible, but time depends on speed and gravity

3 ... Imagine
Someone creates a hole in space
astronauts jump into this hole and get to the planet instantly .. But the planet is 5 million light years away.
They smoke cigarettes for 3 minutes and immediately return to Earth.

============
How long will it take?
1. For astronauts 3 minutes
2. For the inhabitants of the Earth = 5 million years + 5 million years + 3 minutes
about 10 million years.

=======
now let's imagine that aliens want to conquer the Earth, they are located 5 million light years from Earth ...
their troops will return to their planet in 10 million years. Their civilization will disappear.

aliens don't exist

There is the possibility that life exists in other parts of the universe.

That we most probably will never know if it does in no way means it doesn't exist

 

[RoccoR]

RE: aliens don't exist
SUBTOPIC: Scientific-Based Beliefs 'vs' Faith-Based Beliefs
※→ James Bond, et al,

BLUF: I believe you are making a terrible mistake in logic.

BLUF: Believing in the "Scientific Method" on matters of the physical universe is completely separate from the Belief or Disbelief in the Supreme Being. You can believe in one, or the other, or both. The two frameworks are separate and distinct. The Scientific framework is within the human understanding; whereas, the Faith-Based framework is beyond the scope of scientific understanding.

This is too ignorant, even for you Rocco. Today's "scientific method" isn't real as it's based on atheism. The atheist scientists do no consider God to exist, let alone be the creator. Thus, we have creation science and are battling to have it taught in public schools. We find that science backs up the Bible and the greatest scientists ever believed in creation. The "scientific method" was founded by a creation scientist, Sir Francis Bacon. The atheist scientists are wrong and prejudiced right off the bat. They get to assume their atheism religion instead of a Creator in existence.

(SOURCE)

(COMMENT)

I believe you are totally incorrect on this matter. The scientific Method has nothing to do with whether or not a faith-based belief exists. The "Scientific Method" deals with "empirical evidence;" and NOT as to whether user of the methodology has a belief (or not) in the supernatural.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

There is the possibility that life exists in other parts of the universe.

That we most probably will never know if it does in no way means it doesn't exist

(COMMENT)

This is an example of the application: theory of evidence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[james bond]

RE: aliens don't exist
SUBTOPIC: Scientific-Based Beliefs 'vs' Faith-Based Beliefs
※→ James Bond, et al,

BLUF: I believe you are making a terrible mistake in logic.



(SOURCE)

View attachment 549060

(COMMENT)

I believe you are totally incorrect on this matter. The scientific Method has nothing to do with whether or not a faith-based belief exists. The "Scientific Method" deals with "empirical evidence;" and NOT as to whether user of the methodology has a belief (or not) in the supernatural.

Most Respectfully,
R

I know the definition, RoccoR. Let's work out a problem instead of trying to show I'm ignorant (lol). (I show the atheists here are ignorant all the time by embarrassing them beyond belief. The best would be to have Jesus give them what they deserve at the end.) That would be more interesting.

For the atheists, it would be does God exist?

For the believers, it would be does God not exist?

For me...

1. God does not exist.
2. The results will not show a definite result or conclusion all the time.
3. If the global flood did happen, then God exists. The believers believe this is a true statement. The atheists do not.believe this is a true statement (IOW, they believe in a lie.).
4. People believe what they want to believe.
5. Open for discussion.