Stephen Hawking warns over making contact with aliens
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Less than nothing eh! Ah ha you are a Hawkings neophyte for sure. It is not "about" ,in this case, since you've sent them "to" him, from follows to and to preceeds from, I win, send the money in a gym bag to the usual phone booth.
Quite so. On a geological time scale, we have only just discovered technology, discovered computers. That is why almost any intelligent race we come into contact is likely to be much more advanced than us.
Races less advanced than us probably don’t have the technology, don’t have the capability to look for intelligent life (even we barely have the crudest of the capabilities). The only way we will discover races less advanced than us would be if we visit their planet. But any race that is into interstellar travel, radio communications etc. is likely to be much more advanced than us.
You'd better have another toke, beaver, you're synapses are starting to return to being functional and you are almost lucid.
We would perhaps be well advised to inquire after their preferences beforehand, of course. Good thinking SJP, you may have avoided an interplanetary culinary incident.
Thankyou for the reminder I almost missed the after dinner window which I've had early today on account of a very big thing later tonight.
Sure it does. the life span of earth is several billion years. We discovered computers in the 40s, or about 60 years ago. On geological time scale, that is but an instance. I can imagine an intelligent race which discovered computers, nanotechnology one or two billion years ago and then moved on from there. Geologically speaking, we are just emerging from the stone age.
SJP, my geology prof. would eat your lunch too. The geologic time scale doesn't make sense unless you're talking about events which can be measured on that scale. We can measure human activity in the rocks and soil, but I don't think anyone can point to some observation and say, "That right there, computers were invented/mainstream right there."
It doesn't work. Geologic time goes by epochs, eras, periods, eons...and we differentiate them by distinct characteristics we can examine in the rocks and soil. Not comparable to the invention of a computer.
I mean it's like Al Gore pointing to an ice core and proclaiming he can point to the spot which corresponds to the signing of the Clean Air Act, nothing in the ice tells him that, but he could be correct with some post-hoc analysis. You certainly couldn't see it with your naked eye.
It doesn't work. Geologic time goes by epochs, eras, periods, eons...and we differentiate them by distinct characteristics we can examine in the rocks and soil. Not comparable to the invention of a computer.
I mean it's like Al Gore pointing to an ice core and proclaiming he can point to the spot which corresponds to the signing of the Clean Air Act, nothing in the ice tells him that, but he could be correct with some post-hoc analysis. You certainly couldn't see it with your naked eye.
Last edited:
nice tonington, i can see SJP wasnt part of the earth science club :lol:, SJP would be better off trying to be an armchair anthropolgist :lol:
So what is wrong with my statement, that on a geological time scale (which is measured in hundreds of millions or billions of years) we came out of stone age an instant ago? I don't see anything wrong with that. And I suspect neither would your geology teacher (did you have a geology prof. did you take geology at university level?) if he understood what is meant by geological time scale.
You are right, geological time scale goes by epochs, eons etc. Compared to that, we came out of stone age an instant ago.
Perceiving Einstein
Apr 27, 2010
To the average person the words “Einstein” and “Relativity” are reflexively synonymous with “complexity,” “unintelligibility,” and the notion that “this has to involve obscure mathematics.” We all know that Albert Einstein invented Special Relativity (SR) and its extension, General Relativity (GR). But what are they? Are these theories correct? Are they useful? Does it take a physicist or mathematician to understand them? Typically, any search of your local library or the Internet for a clear explanation of what Relativity Theory is all about usually falls quickly into a tangle of concepts such as Minkowsky space, time dilation, and other hypotheses – all impenetrable for the uninitiated. Or at least they have been up to now.
For years I have sought a simple explanation of these ideas. That search has been discouragingly unproductive. Early on I became aware that both SR and GR are controversial. Opinions on both sides of the question of their validity are intense. On one side, cosmologists and astrophysicists accept, defend, and use Einstein’s ideas to further their own work. They claim absolute success for models that result from their use of his theories. They disparage anyone who deigns to question the soundness of their beliefs.
Several non-believers1, 2 claim to have identified chinks in the body armor of Einstein’s work and in the validity and precision of later
Perceiving Einstein
Apr 27, 2010
To the average person the words “Einstein” and “Relativity” are reflexively synonymous with “complexity,” “unintelligibility,” and the notion that “this has to involve obscure mathematics.” We all know that Albert Einstein invented Special Relativity (SR) and its extension, General Relativity (GR). But what are they? Are these theories correct? Are they useful? Does it take a physicist or mathematician to understand them? Typically, any search of your local library or the Internet for a clear explanation of what Relativity Theory is all about usually falls quickly into a tangle of concepts such as Minkowsky space, time dilation, and other hypotheses – all impenetrable for the uninitiated. Or at least they have been up to now.
For years I have sought a simple explanation of these ideas. That search has been discouragingly unproductive. Early on I became aware that both SR and GR are controversial. Opinions on both sides of the question of their validity are intense. On one side, cosmologists and astrophysicists accept, defend, and use Einstein’s ideas to further their own work. They claim absolute success for models that result from their use of his theories. They disparage anyone who deigns to question the soundness of their beliefs.
Several non-believers1, 2 claim to have identified chinks in the body armor of Einstein’s work and in the validity and precision of later
Perceiving Einstein
Opposition to Einstein’s theory is nothing new, darkbeaver. The world famous and highly respected astronomer, Fred Hoyle was adamantly opposed to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Einstein’s theory predicts that the universe started as a result of an explosion and is expanding, the Big Bang theory rose out of Einstein’s theory.
This was in competition to the Steady State theory of cosmology put forward by Hoyle. Steady State theory said that universe has been as we see it for eternity, without any beginning. It also proposed that matter is continuously created out of nothing.
As more and more evidence piled up in favour of Big Bang, Hoyle's theory fell out of favour, until he and a few of his followers were the only supporters left. But to his dying day, Hoyle claimed that Einstein was wrong.
I read the very last book he wrote on Cosmology and in that he claimed that a deathly, sickly pallor hangs over the Big Bang theory today and shortly it will be proved false and his theory will be proved right. Just delusions of a once great mind, nothing more.
But there have been many opponents to Einstein. It is just that none of them have survived the test of science.
You guys are arguing the validity of "Theories".... just remember that they're called Theories for a reason and regardless of the amount of "Evidence" one theory has over another, they're still all theories and people believe or don't believe in them based on their own subjective interpretations on the said "Evidence"..... but even if 99% of the world's population believed in a theory and any evidence that may or may not back up that theory, it's still a theory.
It's like How a bunch of scientists believe Global Warming exists, and a pile of other scientists don't..... those that don't fall in line with the majority are labeled as quacks or have some bias in their views.... but who's to say that bias doesn't also exist in those who believe the latter?
Most of those who believe Global Warming exist tend to resort to bully tactics and a bit of a religious approach to what they believe in, in that they'll discredit, attack or otherwise try and shut down any investigation or questions brought to their approved theory.... yet if they were true scientists, they'd allow their beliefs to be challenged and tested, no matter how long it takes or how many tests are given.... they'd also allow those who don't believe in their theory to voice their concerns and present their own evidence, but they're instead, passed off as having oil companies or whatever filling their pockets, or discredited in some other way.
Regardless, I'm not going to drag this off into another direction towards debating global warming, as plenty of threads exist for that stuff, the point I'm trying to make is that so long as something is considered a "Theory" it is not fact, it is not proven, and thus, open for challenges and questions to that theory. Someone in the past tried to argue that a "Scientific Theory" is different then a general "Theory" but the differences are like splitting hairs. In the end, they're not fact absolute.... or else they'd be "Laws" not "Theories"
Bringing this back on topic, Hawking and Einstein are/were very intelligent, presented plenty of really in-depth, thought out ideas, theories, concepts, etc.... they have had some big impacts on humanity and how we look at the universe around us...... But they're still human, can still make mistakes, they are not perfect, and they have their own personal biases in some things that may prevent them from looking at certain topics clearly.
Just because someone has some high title, has loads of respect by millions of people around the world, and have introduced things into our lives/society.... basically all-around smart fellas..... doesn't suddenly make them Gods or the Pope.... in which I mean, everyone and their dog has the right to doubt or question anything they say or believe.
If nobody challenges or questions what you say or believe, how will you ever know you're truly right?
For me, this is why if something makes sense to me, it makes sense.... if it doesn't, I don't care who's saying it, if it doesn't make sense, it simply doesn't, and I'll say why.
It could be because I don't understand, or perhaps they never clearly explained themselves.... or perhaps they may have missed an important factor/calculation.....
I see it like those clowns who allowed the banks and big corps to take matters into their own hands and wanted deregulation so they can do whatever they want. They argued that trying to explain how it all works would be impossible to do, so just trust them to know what to do and trust that they'll do the right thing.
^ Which is a load of crap.... if they understand how it all works, then it's obviously possible to explain how it works.... they're not some super being or evolved human being.... they're a human like the rest of us, therefore if I was in charge and they wanted to have free control over what they do, they best sit the hell down and explain it to me so I can not only understand what they're doing and what they want.... but so I can also determine if it's the right decision.... if they can not explain what they plan to do or what they're doing now, then they're the ones who failed and I'd see no justification in granting them anything based on a bunch of mumbo jumbo that's only made to further cloud and confuse the situation.
It's like How a bunch of scientists believe Global Warming exists, and a pile of other scientists don't..... those that don't fall in line with the majority are labeled as quacks or have some bias in their views.... but who's to say that bias doesn't also exist in those who believe the latter?
Most of those who believe Global Warming exist tend to resort to bully tactics and a bit of a religious approach to what they believe in, in that they'll discredit, attack or otherwise try and shut down any investigation or questions brought to their approved theory.... yet if they were true scientists, they'd allow their beliefs to be challenged and tested, no matter how long it takes or how many tests are given.... they'd also allow those who don't believe in their theory to voice their concerns and present their own evidence, but they're instead, passed off as having oil companies or whatever filling their pockets, or discredited in some other way.
Regardless, I'm not going to drag this off into another direction towards debating global warming, as plenty of threads exist for that stuff, the point I'm trying to make is that so long as something is considered a "Theory" it is not fact, it is not proven, and thus, open for challenges and questions to that theory. Someone in the past tried to argue that a "Scientific Theory" is different then a general "Theory" but the differences are like splitting hairs. In the end, they're not fact absolute.... or else they'd be "Laws" not "Theories"
Bringing this back on topic, Hawking and Einstein are/were very intelligent, presented plenty of really in-depth, thought out ideas, theories, concepts, etc.... they have had some big impacts on humanity and how we look at the universe around us...... But they're still human, can still make mistakes, they are not perfect, and they have their own personal biases in some things that may prevent them from looking at certain topics clearly.
Just because someone has some high title, has loads of respect by millions of people around the world, and have introduced things into our lives/society.... basically all-around smart fellas..... doesn't suddenly make them Gods or the Pope.... in which I mean, everyone and their dog has the right to doubt or question anything they say or believe.
If nobody challenges or questions what you say or believe, how will you ever know you're truly right?
For me, this is why if something makes sense to me, it makes sense.... if it doesn't, I don't care who's saying it, if it doesn't make sense, it simply doesn't, and I'll say why.
It could be because I don't understand, or perhaps they never clearly explained themselves.... or perhaps they may have missed an important factor/calculation.....
I see it like those clowns who allowed the banks and big corps to take matters into their own hands and wanted deregulation so they can do whatever they want. They argued that trying to explain how it all works would be impossible to do, so just trust them to know what to do and trust that they'll do the right thing.
^ Which is a load of crap.... if they understand how it all works, then it's obviously possible to explain how it works.... they're not some super being or evolved human being.... they're a human like the rest of us, therefore if I was in charge and they wanted to have free control over what they do, they best sit the hell down and explain it to me so I can not only understand what they're doing and what they want.... but so I can also determine if it's the right decision.... if they can not explain what they plan to do or what they're doing now, then they're the ones who failed and I'd see no justification in granting them anything based on a bunch of mumbo jumbo that's only made to further cloud and confuse the situation.
Last edited: