There were some adverse things that happened to the pioneer spacecraft, but I recently read that it was due to mirrors in the spacecraft. If you want, I'll find a source for that info. Someone mentioned intergalactic travel ITT. I looked back at the source that I posted and the 10^67 value was for transporting a small spacecraft through the Milky Way. Also not that intergalactic. I assumed that you were being sarcastic.
Yes, what is slowing the spacecraftS down are mirrors, obviously Please link me to where you recently read this. Alien life visiting planet earth does not require travel all the way through the milkway, another fallacy and thus not a claim that supports your idea. Most people know what assuming does.
it seems that people just have no imagination lately. like, you REALLY think that the idea of aliens is so incredibly far fetched based off of HUMAN theories and laws of whatever. dude, forget HUMAN concepts, if something could travel across space CLEARLY there "concepts" are FAR beyond anything we as HUMANS could comprehend. damn dude open your mind a little, i'm sorry but when I see your responses it just reminds me of someone stubbornly clinging to their ideologies when there idelogies HOLD NO VALUE in comparison to what "e.t"'s could do! that was directed at stonedphysicist
If they called you, they got the right number. If someone brings an argument to the table that they have no way of justifying, why should I respect it? I'm open to points of views different from mine, as long as they can be backed up. Why is it that your arguments are strawmen and ad hominems? I'm certainly open to being wrong, and I have changed my views when proven wrong. If you can't justify why I'm wrong, then you aren't going to convince me that I'm wrong. It's a pretty simple concept.
I wonder where early stories/drawings/paintings of strange gods in great wheels of fire in the sky wielding thunder from their hands stem from...
Something about its obsession with the wizard of oz and the scarecrow. I assumed it would belong to someone who talks about it all the time. But I guess that makes ME the ass. I'll just requote for you And I'll add it takes as much faith to believe that the laws of physics apply equally across the entire universe when we can observe wild fluctuations just a short ways down the cosmic road and we can't even begin to approach another star yet. So yeah, it's as justified as your belief that our current human written laws of physics are as congruent across the cosmos as you think it is. So I can't respect your ridiculous faith in that. SQUAAAAAAAAAAAWWWKKKKKKKK straw man SQUAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRKKKKKKKKK
Here you go: Mystery force may be due to mirrors No, but it would need a shitton of energy. Face it, you haven't been able to demonstrate how it's possible. The best you have is the correct claim that we don't know how far technology will go, but your use of that claim was an argument from ignorance fallacy. I also assumed that you might have something smart to say. Guess not. I would like to see that assumption proved right.
There YOU go. But you did just demonstrate how its possible. A "shitton" of energy. Whatever that is. hominemhominemhominemhominem sexy.
Empirical evidence shows that the laws of physics are the same throughout the cosmos. It takes no faith to believe that when you have data to justify it.
Science has never dealt with absolute truths. I also think you need to learn what at ad hominem attack actually is, because you really have no clue.
Lyman-alpha forest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dark flow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Flyby anomaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Just a little bit more addressing unexplainable anomalies that don't follow our current model of the laws of physics, suggesting that what we consider universal laws of physics may be more globally relevant than universally
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise
With our current understanding. I like how I get attacked as though I've stated aliens have visited our planet in the past.
Thanks for the read and thanks for proving to me that you actually did have something smart to say. Our current laws of physics are incomplete, which I'm sure that you are aware of. For the Lyman aplha forest, it looks like that's understood. The other stuff hasn't been explained yet, but that doesn't mean that it is unexplainable. There's a difference between the unexplained and the unexplainable.
I enjoy talking to you, yea it's very apparent that ufo's have been around since the dawn of man, this statue, for example, looks alot like an astronaut does it not? and how about this one looks alot like a rocket yea? Ancient cultures often made statues of their "gods". How would ancient stone carvers know what a rocket and an astronaut look like tens of thousands of years before they were "invented"? unless they were not "invented" and they've been here all along and our Ancient friends were awestruck at what they saw and carved statues to revere the "gods". just a theory. there are writings in Christopher Columbus's journal of Christopher Columbus and pedro gutierraz seeing "a light glimmering at a great distance." It vanished and reappeared several times during the night, moving up and down, in sudden and passing gleams." on his voyage from England to The New World in the Atlantic Ocean. I'm done talkin to you, peace man
As opposed to what else? All we have to go off of is our current understanding. I don't know whether or not you think aliens have visited us and that's not really relevant to what we were talking about.
I understand that, and I'm not saying that human intelligence doesn't have a grasp on what's going around us, but we don't exactly have a smidgen of hands on experience with the reality of what maths we've put together to detail what's going on. All I've ever stated is it's not unreasonable to infer that more advanced life may have discovered a way to visit us given that our current framework of laws are relatively infantile in their study. Never once said they actually did.
Enlighten me where I actually did this. I may have gone after your intelligence, but notice that I kept my insults towards you separate from my arguments against things that you've said. Therefore, none of my insults directed at you were ad hominems. There's a difference between using an ad hominem and being a dick.