call for debaters

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10208
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:24 am

As I have pointed out before, FTL is almost certainly impossible, but is not necessary. Jo and his fellow alien believers are just wrecking their own case by arguing an impossibility. There are other ways.

A possible star drive is what is called a fusion torch. That is essentially a system where tiny pellets of something capable of nuclear fusion are injected into a reaction chamber, and zapped with laser beams to turn each into a miniature hydrogen bomb. If 1000 such detonations take place per minute, it results in a smooth acceleration, and the possible velocity achieved could be anything up to 0.5 C. Humans cannot do it with current technology, but a more advanced civilisation might be able to.

The average distance between stars is 4 light years. Travel at 0.5 C would permit travel between two stars at average separation taking only a little more than 8 years (depending on acceleration capability).

Why do the alien believers feel they have to talk about impossibilities ?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:27 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:How do you know that? How big is an "unbelievable" amount?
E=MC2 directly states an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate a particle to the speed of light. Do the maths.


That completely misses the point. In the example Lance and I are talking about, the particle is never accelerated to the speed of light. So your objection is irrelevant.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:Nowhere in that post is the claim there is a hole in E=MC2.
Jo 753 directly states that an object can go faster than the speed of light which is impossible because of E=MC2. That is why I asked Jo 753 if he found holes in E=MC2 which he did not.

. . . It is quite clear to me that you are not bothering to read Jo 753's posts as you are imitating Sweetpea and simply trolling Lance and myself. :lol:


I am not trolling anyone. I am making sincere criticisms of your arguments and claims.

You are making the claim that it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light. Lance has conceded that no one has enough information to make that claim.

The mistake in your argument is the assumption that in order to bypass the limit imposed by speed of light, there must be some violation of E=MC2.

I have already posted a journal paper proposing how a vehicle might be able to traverse the universe faster than the speed of light but without violating E=MC2, by getting a bubble of space itself to go faster than the speed of light, even though the vehicle inside that bubble never reaches the speed of light relative to the space it is in.

Your assumption that it's not possible to go faster than light is an obvious failure to think outside the box.

If it is still not clear what my point is here, then read the Asimov story I cited previously, especially near the end where Prosser says, "Not final!" He was wrong. Prosser was not able to think outside his box. Likewise, anyone who says it's impossible for a vehicle to somehow bypass the speed limit of light, might also be wrong, and for the same exact reason, failure to think outside the box.

Einstein himself was guilty of this error when he admitted he could not imagine how it might be possible to generate electricity from controlled fission, and declared it impossible.

Contrary to your accusation, cautioning you not to make Einstein's mistake does not fit the definition of "trolling".

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:40 am

xouper wrote: That completely misses the point. In the example Lance and I are talking about, the particle is never accelerated to the speed of light. So your objection is irrelevant.
Bull-shit. Jo 753 claimed the spaceship could be accelerated to the speed of light. It is his claim I responded to.

xouper wrote:I have already posted a journal paper proposing how a vehicle might be able to traverse the universe faster than the speed of light but without violating E=MC2, by getting a bubble of space itself to go faster than the speed of light, even though the vehicle inside that bubble never reaches the speed of light relative to the space it is in.
Give me an example of such a bubble containing a massed item going faster than the speed of light. Answer A black hole

Are you and Jo 753 claiming the ground radar reflections that became unstable when aircraft flew through the reflection on the inversion layer......were actually aliens turning on and off black holes and thus could make impossible angular momentum changes while remaining on normal radar? How does your theoretical paper explain how normal radar could do this?
:lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:47 am

" by getting a bubble of space itself to go faster than the speed of light," //// Wouldn't that still violate e=mc2? Or did you just brain fart trying to describe a wormhole....which makes much more sense than bubbles on the brain.

I say its more pragmatic to accept well accepted "limits" on reality. Then be ready to overturn such ludite notions when a once in a century intellect blows it away.........but only UNTIL such event. Anticipation is just stoopid.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:52 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:As I have pointed out before, FTL is almost certainly impossible, but is not necessary. Jo and his fellow alien believers are just wrecking their own case by arguing an impossibility.

Jo 753 has no theory that can account for angular momentum changes (changes in direction) as he is only thinking about linear acceleration. Simultaneously he and Richard Crist are claiming the alien UFOs being observed in Washington DC were rapidly changing direction. In the scientific method they are meant to be composing a hypothesis for the facts they are presenting.

In reality, the ground radar reflections became unstable when the jets flew through the target's reflecting inversion layer. Imagine a reflection of the moon in still water. Poke your finger in the reflected image. The image becomes unstable and appears to move very quickly. After a while, as the water returns to being still the moon's image will return.

Now in the Washington DC facts, the ground radar observers saw the images become unstable when the jets reached the reflected targets and the same reflections returned sometime after the jets returned to base.
ripple in reflection.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:55 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:" by getting a bubble of space itself to go faster than the speed of light," //// Wouldn't that still violate e=mc2?
Yes. We already have these "bubbles" that contain internal objects moving at .999999( towards infinite) light speed. They are called black holes. However a black hole cannot as a thing travel faster than light through the universe. :D

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10208
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:05 am

Xouper is wrong in touting the Alcubierre drive. As I pointed out, it has already been discredited. It would require more energy than the entire universe contains.

But as I said, why insist on FTL ?
Personally, I think slower than light is fine. It just requires more time. A lot more time!

It has been stated that a world like Earth is detectable using radio telescopes out to at least 100 light years. Earth astronomers, and especially those working for SETI, have already examined every star system that far. So it appears very unlikely that any alien civilisation could exist closer than 100 light years. For an alien ship to come to our star system at a realistic speed, would take a very long time.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:10 am

Thanks Matt. since you post as if you know (which is more than myself) you say that going faster than the speed of light is impossible because it requires "an infinite" amount of energy all according to E=mc2? You might be right but the explanation seems off to me. The formula does apply and as I heard it explained once the issue is that as you apply more energy to a space craft or anything else to accelerate it more, as you approach the limit of the speed of light......the forumula take the energy being inputted and turns it into mass. Now....don't get me wrong....I don't understand what mass means in such an application. I think there is some kind of disconnect going on in that speed is measured in C in light years but thats not the same "C" that is in the formula?????....or something like that?

I don't understand it....and its not even Quantum Physics. Which by the way I thought includes the nothing of "Action at a Distance" with entangled basic particles that happens instantaneously or faster than the speed of light, by that is an issue with Lance...I just haven't posted it elsewhere.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:20 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Thanks Matt. since you post as if you know (which is more than myself) you say that going faster than the speed of light is impossible because it requires "an infinite" amount of energy all according to E=mc2? You might be right but the explanation seems off to me.
I read a lot about relativity when idiots claimed the Large Hadron Collider was going to create a black hole and end earth.

The Large Hadron Collider
Question "I've read in numerous places that the Large Hadron Collider is capable of accelerating protons at 0.999999991 c, which mathematically works out to being 3 metres per second slower than the speed of light. That seems so incredibly close to the speed of light, that it's hard for me to understand why we can't quite get all the way there."

Answer "The "speed limit" of cc is asymptotic. That is, the more energy you add to the protons, the closer they will approach cc, but it will never actually reach cc completely. (Equivalently, we say that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a massive object to c)"
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... peed-limit

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:28 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper is wrong in touting the Alcubierre drive. As I pointed out, it has already been discredited. It would require more energy than the entire universe contains.


So you say. The naysayers could be wrong, for exactly the same reason Prosser was wrong.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:37 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: That completely misses the point. In the example Lance and I are talking about, the particle is never accelerated to the speed of light. So your objection is irrelevant.
Bull-shit. Jo 753 claimed the spaceship could be accelerated to the speed of light. It is his claim I responded to.


Then post your reply to him and not me, because your objection clearly did not apply to my post.

Contrary to your accusation, it is not BS to point out that your objection did not apply to my post.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:I have already posted a journal paper proposing how a vehicle might be able to traverse the universe faster than the speed of light but without violating E=MC2, by getting a bubble of space itself to go faster than the speed of light, even though the vehicle inside that bubble never reaches the speed of light relative to the space it is in.
Give me an example of such a bubble containing a massed item going faster than the speed of light.


I did not claim such an example existed. I merely said there was a journal paper proposing a hypothetical scenario.


Matthew Ellard wrote:Are you and Jo 753 claiming the ground radar reflections that became unstable when aircraft flew through the reflection on the inversion layer......were actually aliens turning on and off black holes and thus could make impossible angular momentum changes while remaining on normal radar? How does your theoretical paper explain how normal radar could do this? [/color] :lol:


I have not made those claims, therefore there is no point in asking me to explain something I did not say.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:42 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:" by getting a bubble of space itself to go faster than the speed of light," //// Wouldn't that still violate e=mc2?
Yes.


How do you know that?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10208
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:02 am

To Bobbo

Matthew is simplifying things. There is a separate equation which describes mass as you approach light speed. I would have to search Google to find it, but it is not e = mc2.

But Matthew's description is accurate.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:10 am

xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:" by getting a bubble of space itself to go faster than the speed of light," //// Wouldn't that still violate e=mc2?
Yes.


How do you know that?
I already explained this twice. Can a black hole move through the universe faster than the speed of light? No. How is your "bubble" different to a black hole which contains object travelling at 0,9999(towards infinite) Light Speed?

..and don't try your other bull-shit excuse "We may discover a technology to get around E=MC2". You may as well say "In the future scientist create Superman who goes back in time like the movie". :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:16 am

..............and the reason that light itself can go at light speed...............is because it is mass-less? I forget if I read that or came to that conclusion myself. Seems to me I have read about photons and mass both yea and nay. Could be I didn't understand different issues, or my sources were wrong? Ha, ha........"without mass" how do they make those little sunlight tops spin in their vacuum bulbs?....................and again my forced conclusion without understanding it at all is that its not the mass that is moving the object but rather the energy. Whatever that could mean.

When it comes to accepting the limits of reality, I accept I don't understand the extremes of reality.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: There is a separate equation which describes mass as you approach light speed.
Here are the equations for everyone to play around with. :D

The Relativity Rocket Formulas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativis ... or_.CE.94v

Our Galaxy is 100,000 light years across. Here is the current level of maths the "woosters" are offering.
Joe 753 wrote:I'v red that at 80% LS you coud cross the galaxy in 12 (dayz, weeks or yirz, I forgot wich)

The answer is actually 125,000 years.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12391
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:28 am

How fast are you travelling rite now, Matt?

I dont no about bobbo and Nikki, but it looks like you and Lance are not getting the fundamental consept uv Einstien'z theory uv relativity.

I cant claim to understand the math, but I do get the consequensez, az weird az they are.

From the perspectiv uv sumwun in a very distant galaxy the Earth will appear to be moving at near LS.

In spite uv that, you can get into a rocket and akselerate at 10G in the direction that you appear to be going near LS from the distant obzerver'z perspectiv. You will not feel or be able to measure any differens depending on wich direction you go. It wont take any more enerjy to akselerate in that direction, even tho you are near LS.

Did you think therd be a gradual decrease in the G fors az you approach LS?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:29 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:..............and the reason that light itself can go at light speed...............is because it is mass-less? .
It's a bit more complex than that, and way beyond my skill level. From a photon's point of view no time has passed to it, even if it crossed the galaxy for 100,000 years from an outside observers view. That also depends if there ever was a photon or just a collapsing wave form that locked in one path when the wave collapses. It's got something to do with why we think there is three dimensional space simply because photons "take time" to interact with other things. The really weird concept is that if there was one photon remaining since the big bang.......no time has passed yet from its point of view. It gets ever weirder, because if string theory is correct, there are 10 dimensions and time.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:33 am

JO 753 wrote: but it looks like you and Lance are not getting the fundamental consept uv Einstien'z
No Jo 753. I have seen your woeful attempt at basic mathematics and simultaneously I have linked you to the formulas for applying E=MC2 to enter your numbers. You keep refusing to reply to those posts. .


JO 753 wrote:I cant claim to understand the math,
No one here thinks you could., :lol:

JO 753 wrote:From the perspectiv uv sumwun in a very distant galaxy the Earth will appear to be moving at near LS.
What is "Red Shift" Jo 753?
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essential ... a-redshift

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:43 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:" by getting a bubble of space itself to go faster than the speed of light," //// Wouldn't that still violate e=mc2?
Yes.


How do you know that?
I already explained this twice. Can a black hole move through the universe faster than the speed of light? No.


That does not disprove the possibility that a bubble of space might move faster than the speed of light.


Matthew Ellard wrote: How is your "bubble" different to a black hole which contains object travelling at 0,9999(towards infinite) Light Speed?


You would probably have to read the journal paper for an explanation how their proposal differs from a black hole.


Matthew Ellard wrote:..and don't try your other bull-shit excuse "We may discover a technology to get around E=MC2".


It is not a BS "excuse".

It is a fact that experts who have claimed something is impossible have sometimes been wrong. Einstein for example.

You are claiming something is impossible, therefore — as a good skeptic is allowed to do on this forum — I am asking how you know that. You may be right. Or maybe not. So far you have not justified your claim.

Secondly, it is a straw man to keep bringing up E=MC2 since that is not part of my objection to your claim. I have not said it was necessary to get around E=MC2 as a prerequisite for getting around the speed of light.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:47 am

xouper wrote: That does not disprove the possibility that a bubble of space might move faster than the speed of light.
I have now asked you three times "What is the different to your "bubble" and a black hole." If you don't know what your own argument is, no one can help you. :lol:

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10208
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:00 am

Xouper

Is nothing impossible?
We cannot know for sure. But there is always a level of probability where we can say that the likelihood of an event (like going faster than light) is so low that it is effectively impossible.

Here is a principle for you.
If something is against the laws of physics, no technology, regardless of how advanced, can do it.

An argument which amounts to saying that a chance of a million to one against is still possible is very unrealistic.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:11 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: That does not disprove the possibility that a bubble of space might move faster than the speed of light.
I have now asked you three times "What is the different to your "bubble" and a black hole." If you don't know what your own argument is, no one can help you. :lol:


I already explained that you would have to read the journal paper for that explanation.

Furthermore, you are the one who brought up black holes, not me.

If you are claiming that a black hole is the same as what was proposed in that paper, then it is your burden to justify your claim, not mine to disprove it.

If you are not making that claim, then clearly it is not logical to use a black hole to disprove the proposal in that journal paper.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:17 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Here is a principle for you.
If something is against the laws of physics, no technology, regardless of how advanced, can do it.


I agree.

But that is not the problem here.

The key word in your statement is the very first word "if".

If you you claim something is against the laws of physics, you could very well be wrong about that.

That is my objection.

How do you know when something is "against the laws of physics?"

As a skeptic, I am entitled to ask that question.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10208
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:42 am

Xouper

You are entitled to ask. But you should be aware that there are no absolutes, and nothing in science is about proof, just evidence.

FTL is generally regarded by physicists as being probably impossible. Sure, no one can ever guarantee that. But any FTL method would mean a change in the laws of physics as understood. My view is that such a change is a million to one against. I could be wrong, but that is the way the evidence points.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:09 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:..............and the reason that light itself can go at light speed...............is because it is mass-less? .
It's a bit more complex than that, and way beyond my skill level. From a photon's point of view no time has passed to it, even if it crossed the galaxy for 100,000 years from an outside observers view. That also depends if there ever was a photon or just a collapsing wave form that locked in one path when the wave collapses. It's got something to do with why we think there is three dimensional space simply because photons "take time" to interact with other things. The really weird concept is that if there was one photon remaining since the big bang.......no time has passed yet from its point of view. It gets ever weirder, because if string theory is correct, there are 10 dimensions and time.

Ha, ha. you can't possibly understand ANYTHING you just posted.

....................but, I'll take your word for it.

I did not know photons were that mysteriouso. I thought it was just particle (with no mass?) vs waves vs both vs It's Magic.

..............Thank God I'm comfortable not knowing everything....... and don't have to pester other people to cover it up.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:13 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

You are entitled to ask. But you should be aware that there are no absolutes, . . .


Yes, that's my point exactly.

When someone uses the word "impossible", that is an "absolute".


Lance Kennedy wrote:FTL is generally regarded by physicists as being probably impossible. Sure, no one can ever guarantee that.


I agree.

Please explain that to Matthew, because it seems I am not having much luck getting him to see that point.


Lance Kennedy wrote: But any FTL method would mean a change in the laws of physics as understood.


How do you know that?

In Asimov's story, Prosser was wrong, and it did not take a "change in the laws of physics as understood" to do what he said was impossible. It merely required thinking outside the box. Yes, that was fiction, but it is an excellent illustration of my point.

Einstein was wrong about controlled fission, but it did not take a "change in the laws of physics as understood" to do what he said was impossible.

I gave a list of experts who made incorrect predictions, but it did not take a "change in the laws of physics as understood" to do what they said was impossible.

So when someone says something is impossible (which is an absolute claim), I am entitled to ask how they know that.

When someone says something violates the laws of physics, I am entitled to ask how they know that. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I am willing to be persuaded by sufficient evidence.

Example: Suppose I drop a stone in mid-air and it hovers there, you might be tempted to say it can't do that without violating the laws of physics. But what really happened is that you were simply unaware how it was done and that it did not require any laws of physics to be violated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:23 am

X==all you are doing is exercising no judgement at all. Applying "absolute" strict definitions when the conversations are taking place within the boundaries of accepted scientific limits. I think that position is fair only when people are emphasizing it as an absolute which Matt has not done.

Its called judgement and discernment, as opposed to being an irrelevant pain in the ass.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:X==all you are doing is exercising no judgement at all. Applying "absolute" strict definitions when the conversations are taking place within the boundaries of accepted scientific limits. I think that position is fair only when people are emphasizing it as an absolute which Matt has not done.

Its called judgement and discernment, as opposed to being an irrelevant pain in the ass.


It warms my heart, bobbo, to know that you let my posts be a pain in your ass. ;)

You could, if you wanted to, choose to interpret my posts some other way.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:47 am

"..... ♫... Whose Ass?
.....My Ass??
................ Your Ass???
Whose Ass?..."

Repeat.

Not my ass so much. As demonstrated by my post to you so that your pain might be recognized. Again...you over personalize the comments. Look for e=mc2 aka the objective physics of it all. Thats right: still no absolutes..... just common sense. "Oh, to see ourselves as others do."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:57 am

xouper wrote: Furthermore, you are the one who brought up black holes, not me.
Black holes do not travel faster than the speed of light. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.

xouper wrote: If you are claiming that a black hole is the same as what was proposed in that paper, then it is your burden to justify your claim, not mine to disprove it.
Nope. It is your claim these magic bubbles travel faster than the speed of light and contain matter like a black hole does. Where is your evidence? :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:11 am

"Alcubierre drive" : The drive requires something that doesn't exist "exotic matter"......which doesn't exist.

This is as stupid as your evidence "How do you know scientists won't work out a way of getting around E=MC2"
If it doesn't work.....it doesn't work.

"However, there is are few problems with this theory. For one, there are no known methods to create such a warp bubble in a region of space that would not already contain one. Second, assuming there was a way to create such a bubble, there is not yet any known way of leaving once inside it. As a result, the Alcubierre drive (or metric) remains in the category of theory at this time."
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-alcubierre-warp.html#jCp

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Furthermore, you are the one who brought up black holes, not me.
Black holes do not travel faster than the speed of light.


I do not dispute that.


Matthew Ellard wrote: Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.


So far as anyone on the planet Earth knows at this time.

If you are claiming that nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light, then again, I ask, how do you know that?


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: If you are claiming that a black hole is the same as what was proposed in that paper, then it is your burden to justify your claim, not mine to disprove it.
Nope. It is your claim these magic bubbles travel faster than the speed of light and contain matter like a black hole does. Where is your evidence? :lol:


I did not claim that these "magic bubbles" are similar to black holes. That is your claim, not mine.

Secondly, I did not claim that these "magic bubbles" exist. I merely pointed out that there are scientists who are attempting to think outside the box to find a way around the limit imposed by the speed of light. Not all scientists are stuck in the box like you are.


Matthew Ellard wrote:[color=#000080]"Alcubierre drive" : The drive requires something that doesn't exist "exotic matter"......which doesn't exist.


I never said it existed. The entire paper is pure conjecture. I never said otherwise.


Matthew Ellard wrote:"However, there is are few problems with this theory. For one, there are no known methods to create such a warp bubble in a region of space that would not already contain one. Second, assuming there was a way to create such a bubble, there is not yet any known way of leaving once inside it. As a result, the Alcubierre drive (or metric) remains in the category of theory at this time."
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-alcubierre-warp.html#jCp


It remains in the category of "theory" at this time. Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along.

Also, that article does not refute the idea. The most they say is that they do not have the necessary imagination to figure out how to do it. At no time do they say that the laws of physics would be violated by such a warp bubble.

That article does not ever claim that the Alcubierre drive is impossible.

Maybe it will never happen. No one has enough information (yet) to say yes or no.

Furthermore, the article acknowledges that there are scientists who have been working on it. Why didn't you tell them it is impossible and to not waste their time?

From that article:

. . . On paper, it is a highly speculative, but possibly valid, solution of the Einstein field equations, specifically how space, time and energy interact.

. . . At present, such a thing just doesn't seem to be entirely within the realm of possibility. And attempts to prove otherwise remain unsuccessful or inconclusive. But as history has taught us, what is considered to be impossible changes over time. Someday, who knows what we might be able to accomplish?


That pretty much summarizes my point here.

Sorry, Matthew, but you have not yet justified your claim that it will never happen. In fact you cited an article that seems to disagree with you.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:35 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
xouper wrote:So far as anyone on the planet Earth knows at this time.
Are you going to tell Jo 753 and Richard Crist that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, as they live on Earth? They don't share your opinion.

Perhaps you will bring back your hilarious opinion "There is no evidence that anything can go faster than the speed of light but scientists may get around it tomorrow". Which would be as silly as "There is no such thing as Superman but perhaps scientists will create him in the future". This is an evidence based forum and not a fantasy forum.

xouper wrote: If you are claiming that nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light, then again, I ask, how do you know that?
It's your comical claim. Name your best example of such a thing. Next week you can tell me "God exists and how do I know he doesn't, even though there is no evidence?" Gorgeous will love your logic. Is Gorgeous helping you write your posts? :lol:
Gorgeous wrote: You will learn


xouper wrote:I did not claim that these "magic bubbles" are similar to black holes.
. No, you claimed "the magic bubbles were a potential way of getting around the speed of light by ignoring they require "negative energy" which doesn't exist. You may as well argue spaceship can go faster than light if they can capture magic pixies to carry the spaceship. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26757
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:42 am

Can Jo 753, Xouper or Richard Crist answer my question about angular momentum (changing direction) at near light speed? You can't hide your claims the "alien spaceships" changed direction in Washington DC forever.

It seems everyone can ask me questions, but ignore my direct questions.
:lol:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
xouper wrote:So far as anyone on the planet Earth knows at this time.
Are you going to tell Jo 753 and Richard Crist that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, as they live on Earth? They don't share your opinion.


If they are claiming that something can go faster than light, then yes, I will ask how they know that.

But no, I will not tell anyone that going faster than light will always be impossible.


Matthew Ellard wrote:Perhaps you will bring back your hilarious opinion "There is no evidence that anything can go faster than the speed of light but scientists may get around it tomorrow". . . . This is an evidence based forum and not a fantasy forum.


And the evidence is in the article you cited. Matt Williams wrote: "But as history has taught us, what is considered to be impossible changes over time. Someday, who knows what we might be able to accomplish?"

In other words, it is not just my personal opinion. Matt Williams said the same thing. I'm sure Matt Williams will be amused to hear you think he is being silly.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: If you are claiming that nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light, then again, I ask, how do you know that?
It's your comical claim.


Wrong.

I never made any claim one way or the other. I am simply asking you to defend your own claim that such a thing is impossible.

There is no dispute that you made that claim. It is dishonest to put that claim on me.

It's your obligation to support your claim with evidence. As you say, "This is an evidence based forum and not a fantasy forum."


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:I did not claim that these "magic bubbles" are similar to black holes.
. No, you claimed "the magic bubbles were a potential way of getting around the speed of light by ignoring they require "negative energy" which doesn't exist.


Where does it say they require "negative energy"? The wiki article uses the term "negative energy density" which is not the same thing.

If you are claiming that there can be no such thing as "negative energy density", then I will ask, how do you know that?

If you are claiming that there can be no such thing as "exotic matter", then I will ask, how do you know that?

Wikipedia does not say they cannot exist, so on what basis do you claim otherwise?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:17 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Can Jo 753, Xouper or Richard Crist answer my question about angular momentum (changing direction) at near light speed? You can't hide your claims the "alien spaceships" changed direction in Washington DC forever.

It seems everyone can ask me questions, but ignore my direct questions.
:lol:


I did not make any claims about "alien spaceships" changing direction, so there is nothing for me to explain.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:36 am

Matthew, there is a simple way to resolve this.

Simply acknowledge that it might be possible to find a way to bypass the speed of light as a limiting factor in space travel, even if the probability seems extremely remote at this time.

And then my objection goes away.

Lance has already done so and it has not harmed his general position here in any way.

Making such a concession is not an admission that alien spacecraft have been visiting Earth.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12391
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:46 am

You are obviously ignoring the post that disproovz your pozition, Matt. I think its a pride thing.

How fast are you going?

Therez another thing you hav mixed up - Nobody haz claimed the ships chanjed directionz instantly, let alone at lite speed. The witnessez report rapid directional chanjez, but sins they didnt hav a carpenter'z square handy and properly oriented at that moment, they coudnt know if there wuz or wuz not sum radius to the turnz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:04 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:If you want to propose alien mother ships travelling slower than light, and taking centuries to get here, then it is a bit more credible. Still unlikely.

How would you calculate the probability for such an event? And how would you relate your view to the more optimistic view of, say, Sagan and Shklovskii, who believed that "it is reasonable that...the rate of sampling of our planet [by aliens] should have increased, perhaps to once every ten thousand years....But if the interval between sampling is only several thousand years, there is then a possibility that contact with an extraterrestrial civilization has occurred within historical times." [Intelligent Life in the Universe, 1966]

If it is reasonable to suppose that alien visitation could be this frequent, since it's also reasonable to suppose that some of the visitors might stay here, there seems to be nothing at all unlikely about them being here now.

But at the end of the day, the bottom line is that this is still an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence.

If it's not an improbable claim, in what sense is it an "extraordinary" one? It might be extraordinary in the sense of surprising or awe-inspiring, but such claims, unless they are also improbable, wouldn't appear to require extraordinary (unusually strong) evidence.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest