133 replies to this topic

[thomastmc]

mudslag, on 01 January 2013 - 04:55, said:

aside from the topic happy birthday

It's not really my birthday, just the year is right, but the sentiment is appreciated none the less.

I was going to send you a pm, but if there was one thing I could take back from our discussion it would be not showing you and the conversation more respect after you showed that you were willing to do the same. Also, reading back some things I wrote could have easily been taken more harshly than they were intended. Some of that was due to jotting and not realizing what it looked like in writing, but as I said I should have comported myself with more dignity.

I respect your intelligence and your decorum. Happy New Year.

(Note that this is no way retracts from any argument I made though )

[mudslag]

thomastmc, on 01 January 2013 - 04:59, said:

It's not really my birthday, just the year is right, but the sentiment is appreciated none the less.

I was going to send you a pm, but if there was one thing I could take back from our discussion it would be to show you and the conversation more respect after you showed that you were willing to do the same. Also, reading back some things could have easily been taken more harshly than they were intended. Some of that was due to jotting and not realizing what it looked like in writing, but as I said I should have comported myself with more dignity.

I respect your intelligence and your decorum. Happy New Year.

I appreciate that, and I appreciate your view and the work you put into your expressing your views. I know I can come off aggressive and stubborn more then Id like. I specially get that way late into the night when Im working with little reward, I tend to take my frustration out on who ever I can at such late hours. It's definitely not personal. Any way have a great new years.

[TPreston]

thomastmc, on 01 January 2013 - 03:52, said:

Ok, I could see why you'd think that's apt from your stated positions.

Presuppose Atoms exist > atoms exist

Incorrect for atoms we have direct observational evidence.

[thomastmc]

TPreston, on 01 January 2013 - 13:09, said:

Incorrect for atoms we have direct observational evidence.

Just as if you've never seen a car, but only tracks left in the snow, you have observational evidence of cars due to the effect they have on their surroundings. Even that wasn't available for much of the history of the concept of atoms. Before the invention of sophisticated experiments and scientific equipment it was presupposed, and eventually proven true.

Einstein believed that quantum mechanics did not exist, famously saying "God doesn't play dice with the Universe". There was not enough sufficiently convincing evidence for him to believe that it was probable, even though many of his colleagues had accepted it's existence. Einstein was wrong, it happens to all of us, even the best of us.

[TPreston]

thomastmc, on 01 January 2013 - 22:35, said:

Just as if you've never seen a car, but only tracks left in the snow, you have observational evidence of cars due to the effect they have on their surroundings. Even that wasn't available for much of the history of the concept of atoms. Before the invention of sophisticated experiments and scientific equipment it was presupposed, and eventually proven true.

Well nice try but it wasn't proven true! Because you can split the atom and the atom is made up of other particles like the proton neutron and electron.

So again you have no evidence that alien life exists and your claim that such life exists is overreaching.

thomastmc, on 01 January 2013 - 22:35, said:

Einstein believed that quantum mechanics did not exist, famously saying "God doesn't play dice with the Universe". There was not enough sufficiently convincing evidence for him to believe that it was probable, even though many of his colleagues had accepted it's existence. Einstein was wrong, it happens to all of us, even the best of us.

Which is why we don't go presuming things like alien life exists without evidence;

[Dinggus]

freak180, on 27 December 2012 - 02:52, said:

bs.. we already have lol

When?

[thomastmc]

TPreston, on 01 January 2013 - 23:01, said:

Well nice try but it wasn't proven true! Because you can split the atom and the atom is made up of other particles like the proton neutron and electron.

You're partially right. Should I have said it was proven true, no, but not for the reasons you show.

Quote

Further progress in the understanding of atoms did not occur until the science of chemistry began to develop. In 1789, French nobleman and scientific researcher Antoine Lavoisier discovered the law of conservation of mass and defined an element as a basic substance that could not be further broken down by the methods of chemistry.^[16]


In 1805, English instructor and natural philosopher John Dalton used the concept of atoms to explain why elements always react in ratios of small whole numbers (the law of multiple proportions) and why certain gases dissolved better in water than others. He proposed that each element consists of atoms of a single, unique type, and that these atoms can join together to form chemical compounds.^[17][18] Dalton is considered the originator of modern atomic theory.^[19]

Dalton's atomic hypothesis did not specify the size of atoms. Common sense indicated they must be very small, but nobody knew how small. Therefore it was a major landmark when in 1865 Johann Josef Loschmidt measured the size of the molecules that make up air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

TPreston, on 01 January 2013 - 23:01, said:

Which is why we don't go presuming things like alien life exists without evidence;

In the above example Dalton had less evidence for atoms than there is for alien life. Einstein was wrong because he failed to see that the evidence available for quantum mechanics was valid in showing it's existence.

[trag3dy]

This thread...9 pages of 2 guys arguing with each other.

[thomastmc]

trag3dy, on 02 January 2013 - 00:11, said:

This thread...9 pages of 2 guys arguing with each other.

You've never read any letters between actual scientists... this is nothing.

[trag3dy]

thomastmc, on 02 January 2013 - 00:25, said:

You've never read any letters between actual scientists... this is nothing.

You're right, I haven't. I couldn't imagine anything more boring.

[thomastmc]

trag3dy, on 02 January 2013 - 00:43, said:

You're right, I haven't. I couldn't imagine anything more boring.

Everyone knows something you don't, (royal you, as in us or we), everyone has considered a possibility that you haven't. If you don't believe you already know everything, or that no one knows more than you, the only way to find out if an idea or piece of information is valid is to ask, or state what you think and rationally explanation information or possibilities you hadn't considered if or when someone brings it to your attention.

A lot of people say reading is boring, I guess one could consider expanding their awareness boring too.

[trag3dy]

thomastmc, on 02 January 2013 - 00:51, said:

Everyone knows something you don't, (royal you, as in us or we), everyone has considered a possibility that you haven't. If you don't believe you already know everything, or that no one knows more than you, the only way to find out if an idea or piece of information is valid is to ask, or state what you think and rationally explanation information or possibilities you hadn't considered if or when someone brings it to your attention.

A lot of people say reading is boring, I guess one could consider expanding their awareness boring too.

Sure.

[seta-san]

thomastmc, on 27 December 2012 - 04:42, said:

Mocking the idea of aliens is like mocking the idea of machine powered flight in 1901, or the idea of a man going to the moon in 1959.

Astronomers have shown that stars have planets orbiting them as a rule, not an exception. There are roughly a trillion planets in our galaxy alone. If 0.001% of them have any kind of life, that's 10,000,000 planets with life. If only 0.001% of the planets with life have intelligent life, that's 100 planets in our galaxy with intelligent life. Humans have existed for less than 0.25% of our planet's life.

few question the existence of aliens... even if they are just single celled. We question whether they are among us. It's 4.3light years to the next closest star. Let's face it, even if we sent out signals in every possible direction we likely wouldn't year back for decades or even centuries and even then, they are probably just as bound to their planet as we are to ours.

[thomastmc]

seta-san, on 02 January 2013 - 01:12, said:

few question the existence of aliens... even if they are just single celled. We question whether they are among us. It's 4.3light years to the next closest star. Let's face it, even if we sent out signals in every possible direction we likely wouldn't year back for decades or even centuries and even then, they are probably just as bound to their planet as we are to ours.

I would totally agree, except that few question the existence of alien life. I probably would have agreed with that last week though.

I wouldn't make a determination that intelligent alien life exists, although I do suspect it's likely. It's a totally different argument though, focusing on the evolution of animals and the evolution of intelligence. However, since alien life in general probably exists, intelligent alien life is as likely an assumption as to assume that since we have rockets and have put a man in space, we could probably go to the moon as well.

UFOs, which are closely linked by many to intelligent aliens, are more likely humans using very advanced classified technology and/or doing classified scientific experiments. I don't believe it's a coincidence that the UFO craze started in the mid-late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, when advancements in aerospace and propulsion systems took gigantic leaps. Still, I couldn't rule it out, or say that it would be all that surprising if they had visited Earth. Given a few more thousand years, or even a few hundred, it's mind boggling what humans might be capable of. However, there's not enough evidence to make a good bet for, or against.