In response to your earlier confusion: Mass is also a different measurement from weight. Weight is proportional to the force of gravity. You could lose weight by going to the moon. So, even if something has infinite mass, which it shouldn't, but it should be weightless in space.
These are more like annoying side discussions, really, than about the possibility of alien life. I could be wrong here, and still not be convinced that this makes alien life more possible. In my opinion we are all debating about separate things we don't understand; I've never been a proponent of that.
IMO whiteflags is just playing bug-in-a-rug.
A commonplace, conservative philosophy of science would tell us there is nothing to be gained from hypothesizing "as if" the accepted, demonstrable (aka. "proven"), laws of physics were ad hoc or provisional.
But dollars to donuts that was not how Einstein looked at the universe.
ps. I don't see any problems in Elysia's English, either.
Really, I'd just like to see things get back on topic. As far as I'm concerned, Elysia's position is something like this: "Never discount a possibility, especially since there is an infinite amount of stuff in the universe. Because of this alien life is infinitely likely." That doesn't make any sense, and even if it does to someone else, it just seems like a convenient way to tie in all the other pseudoscience being discussed in the thread.Quote:
IMO whiteflags is just playing bug-in-a-rug. [...] ps. I don't see any problems in Elysia's English, either.
I mean, ultimately, do you have to discuss this while discussing aliens? Hasn't anyone read Rare Earth? I'd just like to see the conversation move from the abstract bullcrap that we've spent so much time on. It's getting really uninteresting for me to read since we've strayed so far from the topic.
Yep. Well, it's one astronomer's opinion, anyway. I dunno if I would call it pseudoscience... it more or less explains why everything's just right with Earth, and supposes that alien life would need similar protection in order to keep existing. For example, Earth has a big magnetic field which filters most of the harmful rays in sunlight. So in essence, if alien life existed, it's probably on another Earth-like planet (Mars? I'unno).Quote:
Originally Posted by cpjust
Time cannot start without time, because an event (big bang) can only occur when time exists, therefore time has always existed.
There was noone to imagine time?Quote:
Time and space aren't linked - space is real, time is imaginary.
Theories like that change every once in a while. The fact that noone has been able to prove it's not true doesn't mean it's true since noone has proved it is true either. I am waiting for more reasonable theories than the "let's smack time hard in the face so it bends and we travel 30 years back in time" theory.
Time is imaginary. Prove me wrong.
There certainly seems to be a subjective perception of time.Quote:
Time is imaginary. Prove me wrong.
But what do you mean by it being imaginary? Who imagines it?
If you mean that time is just the passing of events, saying that non-event where nothing is or happens is also an event is completely beyond me. No events, no time.
And before or after all events - what leads you to think that there is time? Would it make any difference if we say there was or wasn't time? Note you can't measure the time when there are absolutely no events (there won't be you nor any watch ticking).