Otherworldly life

[Juan Marino]

-

[wcomer]

Malenfant,

I believe the 'soccor ball' theory was ruled out:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0307282

As far as I know, it hasn't been show that the universe isn't infinite. All evidence seems to point to the universe being very big; many many Hubble volumes and possibly infinite. Maybe someone like Fridger could offer a more informed clarification on the matter.

[t00fri]

...
I suspect that Fridger gave up on it because more of these threads have been popping up lately.

RIGHT...and because I have been very short in spare time during the last 1-2 weeks, travelling around half the world and back

Bye Fridger

[Tech Sgt. Chen]

Well, here's my narrow minded take on the whole thing.
Do I believe in the possibilty of intelligent on other planets? Absolutely! In fact, I think the Law Of Averages assures it! Do I think we'll some day make contact with them or they with us? Absolutely Not and here's why: The distances to travel are too great and the space/time factor is a fly in the ointment. For example, the closest star, "Proxima", is approximately 4.266 LYs away. That means that it would take 4.26 years to reach it IF we could travel at the speed of light or (approximately 186,000 miles per second). At this speed, we would return to earth to find it is several hundred years older and everyone we ever knew (and their children and grandchildren) would be long gone.
Do I think we'll ever reach the Speed Of Light? No! Once one reaches the speed of light, he/she would transform into pure energy (unable to re-transform to original molecular structure) and remain an astronomical constant in the form of Light energy (which does not slow back down).

Even if we could (thoeretically) travel at the speed of light, there would only be a handful of stars within our own lifespan distance (of lightyears) to explore, and this greatly reduces the Law Of Averages. What I mean is, the distances are just tooooo great and Light Speed travel is impossible! For example, our Milky Way galaxy is approximately 100, 000 LYs long. That means, at the speed of light, you would need to live to 100, 000 years old just to survive the trip.
Calculating that one would need to be approximately 21 to 25 years old before being able to start this trek and 40 to 60 years old (I'm stretching it) before his/her age threatens to deteriorate one's physical capabilities, this leaves approximately 40 effective years to travel a span restricted to (not surprisingly) 40 Light Years distance. Warp speed (or, faster than Light Speed) simply is not possible since you would transform into Light Energy and remain constant at 186, 000 miles per second.
These scientific standards hold true for any other forms of intelligent life that might exist on other planets. This means, they can't reach us either!
BUT, and there's always a BUT; These standards hold true only in the physical realm! This is where it gets GOOD!
If one were to transcend the restrictions of the physical world, not only would Light Speed be possible but, it would also be the slowest method of travel. Imagine being able to span galaxies in the blink of an eye or a place where the Space and Time continuum is outside the laws within which you can operate.
Consider this, we are intelligent, living beings that exist in a physical state that borders on the fringes of another dimension. We live in a 3 dimensional world. There is (theoretical to some - very real and existent to me) a scientific consensus that suspects the existance of a 4th dimension. I myself, refer to it as the spiritual world. We are, in actuality, spirits living in a material world! We are inexorably bound and governed by the science and laws of this physical/material world.
We who exist in this 3rd dimension cannot see those who exist in the 4th dimension, nor can we cross over to it. They, however, can see us everyday as easily as we see each other, and they can transcend the plane into this 3rd dimension with complete control over whether we see them or not (since they are not bounded by laws in the 3rd dimension). If they wanted, we would see them in the same corporeal form as we see everything else.
Think of this representation: You're standing in a museum and staring at a painting of Ballet dancers by Degas. Though, this is no ordinary painting. The dancers are alive and performing right before your very eyes. You can see them in their 2 dimensional world but, they cannot see you in your 3rd dimension. You can touch the picture and their likenesses on it but, they cannot touch you. The only time that they would see you is when you touch the picture (say, with the tip of your finger) and, they would only see the layer of skin immediately in contact with the picture (and, you'd have to be touching the surface of the picture where their eyes are at).
Someday, we'll all be in this 4th dimensional/spiritual world, unbounded by the 3 dimensional Laws of Physics. But, for now, for reasons unknown to us thus far, we must live and abide by the laws set forth for us in this 3 dimensional/material world where we'll never be able to reach the Speed Of Light.
Hey, look what we've done to our own planet so far. You think anyone in power would even consider letting us trash the rest of their garden?

Whew! (Wiping the sweat from my brow and breathing like I just ran the 50m in 4.5 seconds) There's my opinion.

[Malenfant]

Once one reaches the speed of light, he/she would transform into pure energy (unable to re-transform to original molecular structure) and remain an astronomical constant in the form of Light energy (which does not slow back down).

Er no. When you hit the speed of light you are not magically changed into energy. Your mass increases to infinite though, which means you never actually could reach the speed of light because you'd need more and more power to move your increasing mass.

For example, our Milky Way galaxy is approximately 100, 000 LYs long. That means, at the speed of light, you would need to live to 100, 000 years old just to survive the trip.

Nope. You're forgetting time dilation. As you get closer to the speed of light, time slows down for you. The time dilation factor is equal to 1/SQRT[(1-((v/c)^2)]. So if you travel at half the speed of light, time dilation is about 1.15, which means time passes 86% slower on the ship than it does outside. If it travels at 0.9 of the speed of light, time dilation is 2.3, which means times passes about 44% slower on the ship than it does outside. At 0.99 it's about 14% of the rate outside, at 0.999 it's 0.04% of the rate outside, and so on.

If you could travel at 0.99c then in about 50 years of shiptime you could go about 350 lightyears because for you, time is about 7 times slower than it is outside. So while 350 years have passed for the folks back home, for you only 50 have passed. And there are a hell of a lot of stars within 350 lightyears of Sol.

Admittedly it wouldn't be possible to travel across the whole galaxy in a single generation like this, unless you travelled at something like 0.999999999c. But then 100,000 years would pass back home when only 5 would pass for you on the ship!

This means, they can't reach us either! BUT, and there's always a BUT; These standards hold true only in the physical realm! This is where it gets GOOD!

No, it doesn't. It gets pseudoscientific and armwavy, and that is BAD.

Consider this, we are intelligent, living beings that exist in a physical state that borders on the fringes of another dimension. We live in a 3 dimensional world. There is (theoretical to some - very real and existent to me) a scientific consensus that suspects the existance of a 4th dimension. I myself, refer to it as the spiritual world. We are, in actuality, spirits living in a material world! We are inexorably bound and governed by the science and laws of this physical/material world.

It's not a 'spiritual world'. Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "dimension" (I blame bad scifi B-movies).

Here's how it actually works. We live in a universe with three spatial dimensions, one temporal dimension, and (at the last count) about 7 other dimensions that are all curled up in submicroscopic space that determine the physical properties of our universe. The three spatial dimensions allow us freedom of motion along three axes at rightangles to eachother - forward/back, left/right, and up/down. The temporal dimension allows us motion forward through time (and maybe potentially backward, but nothing seems to do this at the moment). All a 'fourth [spatial] dimension' would do is be another axis of spatial movement that is at right angles to all three of the existing spatial ones. Obviously, we can't really imagine or picture this because we have no way of adding a direction that is 90 degrees to all of the other ones. Similarly, an extra fifth spatial dimension would be something that is orthogonal to all four spatial ones, which is even harder to imagine.

So a "fourth dimension" isn't some magical realm where other beings exist - it's merely another direction of motion.

Now, it is possible that other universes exist outside our own. However, anything with life in it is likely to be similar to our own in that there are three spatial and one temporal dimensions, because this is the most stable configuration. These two papers are rather interesting discussions of the subject:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

We who exist in this 3rd dimension cannot see those who exist in the 4th dimension, nor can we cross over to it. They, however, can see us everyday as easily as we see each other, and they can transcend the plane into this 3rd dimension with complete control over whether we see them or not (since they are not bounded by laws in the 3rd dimension). If they wanted, we would see them in the same corporeal form as we see everything else.

Sorry, but no. This is armwavy pseudoscience for which there is no proof whatsoever. Heck, it's not even that, there's not even any basis for it in reality.

The closest we have to that is that there it may be possible that the gravity from masses in other nearby universes are to some extent influencing our own (it's one explanation for 'dark matter' IIRC). I don't know if that idea has been accepted though.

[Tech Sgt. Chen]

Malenfant wrote:

Nope. You're forgetting time dilation. As you get closer to the speed of light, time slows down for you. The time dilation factor is equal to 1/SQRT[(1-((v/c)^2)]. So if you travel at half the speed of light, time dilation is about 1.15, which means time passes 86% slower on the ship than it does outside. If it travels at 0.9 of the speed of light, time dilation is 2.3, which means times passes about 44% slower on the ship than it does outside. At 0.99 it's about 14% of the rate outside, at 0.999 it's 0.04% of the rate outside, and so on.

If you could travel at 0.99c then in about 50 years of shiptime you could go about 350 lightyears because for you, time is about 7 times slower than it is outside. So while 350 years have passed for the folks back home, for you only 50 have passed. And there are a hell of a lot of stars within 350 lightyears of Sol.

Admittedly it wouldn't be possible to travel across the whole galaxy in a single generation like this, unless you travelled at something like 0.999999999c. But then 100,000 years would pass back home when only 5 would pass for you on the ship!

Oh I see. So what you're saying is that light from an object that is 1000 Lys away is not 1000 years old because light (photons have no mass); right? It's probably much younger.

No, it doesn't. It gets pseudoscientific and armwavy, and that is BAD

According to who and, what constitutes pseudoscientific in relation to this?
This has nothing to do with psychology.

It's not a 'spiritual world'. Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "dimension" (I blame bad scifi B-movies)

Oh I see, there is no spiritual world and no such thing as spirits. For lack of a better analogy, I used spiritual and 4th dimension in the same sentence. I did not assert that they were one in the same. My metaphor with the Degas picture should've made this clear. If not, my apologies.

So a "fourth dimension" isn't some magical realm where other beings exist - it's merely another direction of motion.

I don't remember using the word "magic" or any of it's variatives.

Sorry, but no. This is armwavy pseudoscience for which there is no proof whatsoever. Heck, it's not even that, there's not even any basis for it in reality.

Reality exists, for us, in the world as we know it and see it. That which we don't see, we theorize about.

Since no one has yet reached the speed of light, we theorize as best we can about it's principles. What we appear to really know about it is, light travels that fast.

And yes, gravity has a definite influence in warping space.

Leave pseusoscience to the pseudoscientists whoever they are and wherever they may be. I've personally never met any yet. Hi Dr. Sagan.
Loved your Contact story; you pseudoscientist you!

[Malenfant]

Oh I see. So what you're saying is that light from an object that is 1000 Lys away is not 1000 years old because light (photons have no mass); right? It's probably much younger.

No, I'm not saying that at all. A photon emitted from an object that is 1000 ly away is still travelling for 1000 years from our perspective.

A ship travelling at 100% lightspeed to a star 15 ly away and coming back is still gone for 30 years from our perspective. Though the people on board wouldn't have aged at all - from their perspective it's the same day as they launched.

According to who and, what constitutes pseudoscientific in relation to this? This has nothing to do with psychology.

Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be scientific but that is founded on belief and faith, with no physical evidence for it. In addition, pseudoscience usually uses horribly misinterpreted or misunderstood scientific principles to explain itself which when corrected collapse the whole argument. It is something that has not been proven by the scientific method.

Reality exists, for us, in the world as we know it and see it. That which we don't see, we theorize about.

Scientists theorise based on what they observe and what data they collect. You're theorising based on wishful thinking - that isn't science, it's pseudoscience.

Leave pseusoscience to the pseudoscientists whoever they are and wherever they may be. I've personally never met any yet. Hi Dr. Sagan.
Loved your Contact story; you pseudoscientist you!

Carl Sagan was a scientist, one of the best in recent years. You gravely insult his memory by calling him a pseudoscientist.

[Tech Sgt. Chen]

No, I'm not saying that at all. A photon emitted from an object that is 1000 ly away is still travelling for 1000 years from our perspective.

A ship travelling at 100% lightspeed to a star 15 ly away and coming back is still gone for 30 years from our perspective. Though the people on board wouldn't have aged at all - from their perspective it's the same day as they launched.

Boy, I'm sure glad I'm not a teacher becuase I seem to be lousy at making a point. Referring to your quote above; I'm aware of this, hence my Proxima analogy where the Earth would've aged hundreds of years.

Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be scientific but that is founded on belief and faith, with no physical evidence for it. In addition, pseudoscience usually uses horribly misinterpreted or misunderstood scientific principles to explain itself which when corrected collapse the whole argument. It is something that has not been proven by the scientific method.

This is the second time you said pseudoscience. There is no physical evidence that you'll ever be able to travel at the speed of light. Does your hopes or beliefs that "one day it may be possible" constitute a religious conviction? The last reference you made to it, I responded by using the term "psychology". It's you that keeps injecting religion or alluding to it. Are you a (for lack of a better term) Religiophobe? Because I make no reference to religion and you keep alluding or suggesting that it's my intention. There is no religion (that I know of) that constitutes a science (pseudo or otherwise).

The problem with Science, hmm - (I really shouldn't say that because it's not science); The problem with some people is that they always seem to equate certian words (in this case - spiritual) with religion!
Spirits (to me anyway) are just another form of life (especially in reference to the evolutionary process). To persistently equate the words "spirit" or "spiritual" with religion indicates (to me) that an unusual aversion to religion exists in the equatee.
I'm not speaking (in any way, shape or form) about religion. I never said that I am the final authority on the speed of light but, my point, which you seem to have run amok with is, I don't believe light speed will ever be attained by us. I specifically said, "that's my opinion". Which I have every right to hold (until I resettle in a communist or repressive country ). Most of the time that I've heard the term "pseudoscience" (scientifically speaking), it has been used in context with the psychologies. A pseudoreligion, well now, that's something completely different.

Scientists theorise based on what they observe and what data they collect. You're theorising based on wishful thinking - that isn't science, it's pseudoscience.

Now that's a very (suspiciously) presumptuous statement. Are you the final authority on wishful thinking or just the final authority on what you think I've seen or learned? I would never presume to tell anyone that.

Again, if you just get away from religion or trying to imply that I was speaking of such, I think you'll find yourself a much more objective thinker and not one whose judgements are clouded by an anomalous fear of religion.

Carl Sagan was a scientist, one of the best in recent years. You gravely insult his memory by calling him a pseudoscientist.

You obviously have no idea what I was making reference to. Have you seen the movie Contact starring Jodie Foster where she visits a foreign planet and is greeted by her father who died on Earth? It is a story based on Dr. Carl Sagan's book, his beliefs. It is you who have stereotyped him as a pseudoscientist if you're using the same standards of judgement upon him due to his referencing a spirit in his story. Or am I the only case to which you apply your religiophobe.

[Malenfant]

This is the second time you said pseudoscience. There is no physical evidence that you'll ever be able to travel at the speed of light.

I've never said that you could. The pseudoscience you're babbling on about are your assertions that we are "spirits living in a material world" and that there are other creatures in the fourth dimension who can pop over into 'our world' and do whatever they want. All of this tract, in other words:

]BUT, and there's always a BUT; These standards hold true only in the physical realm! This is where it gets GOOD!
If one were to transcend the restrictions of the physical world, not only would Light Speed be possible but, it would also be the slowest method of travel. Imagine being able to span galaxies in the blink of an eye or a place where the Space and Time continuum is outside the laws within which you can operate.
Consider this, we are intelligent, living beings that exist in a physical state that borders on the fringes of another dimension. We live in a 3 dimensional world. There is (theoretical to some - very real and existent to me) a scientific consensus that suspects the existance of a 4th dimension. I myself, refer to it as the spiritual world. We are, in actuality, spirits living in a material world! We are inexorably bound and governed by the science and laws of this physical/material world.
We who exist in this 3rd dimension cannot see those who exist in the 4th dimension, nor can we cross over to it. They, however, can see us everyday as easily as we see each other, and they can transcend the plane into this 3rd dimension with complete control over whether we see them or not (since they are not bounded by laws in the 3rd dimension). If they wanted, we would see them in the same corporeal form as we see everything else.

...

Someday, we'll all be in this 4th dimensional/spiritual world, unbounded by the 3 dimensional Laws of Physics. But, for now, for reasons unknown to us thus far, we must live and abide by the laws set forth for us in this 3 dimensional/material world where we'll never be able to reach the Speed Of Light.

There is simply no evidence for any of this at all. This sort of thing has no place on this board.

Does your hopes or beliefs that "one day it may be possible" constitute a religious conviction?

I've never said that it may be possible to go faster than light. It may be possible to 'circumvent the speed limit' somehow using wormholes or teleportation but while these things are theoretical possible they require vast amounts of energy - more than the Sun would ever output in its entire lifetime - to open and sustain.

The last reference you made to it, I responded by using the term "psychology". It's you that keeps injecting religion or alluding to it.

I haven't injected religion into this at all. Faith does not require one to be religious as well - they are merely the name given to the irrational belief that something is true when there is no evidence to support it. Science however, is rational - belief has no place in it.

Are you a (for lack of a better term) Religiophobe?

Taken literally, that means someone who fears religion. I don't fear it - I just want to see it removed from of discussions about rational science and morality.

The problem with Science, hmm - (I really shouldn't say that because it's not science); The problem with some people is that they always seem to equate certian words (in this case - spiritual) with religion!

No, you're the one that's doing that. And frankly, 'spiritual' is very much something that is religious in nature.

Spirits (to me anyway) are just another form of life (especially in reference to the evolutionary process). To persistently equate the words "spirit" or "spiritual" with religion indicates (to me) that an unusual aversion to religion exists in the equatee.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spiritual

1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

Seems to me that your opinion runs somewhat contrary to the definition of the word that everyone else uses. It implies something supernatural, no matter what definition you use. And the supernatural is by its very nature based on irrational belief, not rational science.

I'm not speaking (in any way, shape or form) about religion.

You're speaking about having faith in the idea that these four-dimensional spirits exist that can hop over to our world and do what they want, and that we can eventually hop over to their world. Maybe that's not a full-on religion, but it's certainly something that is an irrational belief that is not based on tangible evidence.

I never said that I am the final authority on the speed of light but, my point, which you seem to have run amok with is, I don't believe light speed will ever be attained by us.

I've not disagreed with that either. It's the rest of your post about dimensions and spiritual creatures that I have the problem with.

I specifically said, "that's my opinion". Which I have every right to hold (until I resettle in a communist or repressive country ).

Hold it all you like, so long as you don't try to convince anyone else that it's true. However, the fact remains that it is entirely fanciful and not based on what we know about reality.

Most of the time that I've heard the term "pseudoscience" (scientifically speaking), it has been used in context with the psychologies.

While we're at it:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pseudoscience

- A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
- a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific
- an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

You'll note that there is no bias there toward 'psychologies'. ANYTHING that fits the definitions above is considered pseudoscience. People going on about the face on Mars being an alien artifact are pseudoscientists. Creationists and Intelligent Design fanatics are psuedoscientists.

Now that's a very (suspiciously) presumptuous statement. Are you the final authority on wishful thinking or just the final authority on what you think I've seen or learned? I would never presume to tell anyone that.

It's not presumptuous at all - it's what science is. Provide evidence for your statements that there are creatures that we can't see in the 'fourth dimension' who hop over here on a whim. Provide a repeatable method of identifying and interacting with these entities. Provide evidence that "someday we'll all be in this spiritual world" that is "unbounded by the 3 dimensional laws of physics".

I may as well say that you're wrong and that one day we'll all become meatballs wrapped in the pasta arms of the Giant Spaghetti Monster that created the universe. I wouldn't be able to prove that any more than you can prove your statements though.

Again, if you just get away from religion or trying to imply that I was speaking of such, I think you'll find yourself a much more objective thinker and not one whose judgements are clouded by an anomalous fear of religion.

You obviously don't know the first thing about scientific thought do you. Science IS objective, by definition. Peoples' opinions about it are irrelevant - it still works the same way regardless of what they think.

You obviously have no idea what I was making reference to. Have you seen the movie Contact starring Jodie Foster where she visits a foreign planet and is greeted by her father who died on Earth? It is a story based on Dr. Carl Sagan's book, his beliefs. It is you who have stereotyped him as a pseudoscientist if you're using the same standards of judgement upon him due to his referencing a spirit in his story. Or am I the only case to which you apply your religiophobe.

I know exactly what you're talking about. I read the book version of Contact years before I saw the film. And it is quite obviously a FICTIONAL STORY. It's nothing to do with Carl Sagan's beliefs or opinions - if you want that, go read one of his factual books.

You might find that it helps in discussions to know the precise meaning of the words and terms that you use, rather than argue from a position based on what you think they mean. Dictionaries are there for a reason you know.

[Tech Sgt. Chen]

Alright, after this I'm finished with it:

I've never said that you could. The pseudoscience you're babbling on about are your assertions that we are "spirits living in a material world" and that there are other creatures in the fourth dimension who can pop over into 'our world' and do whatever they want. All of this tract, in other words:

Well, if we don't have a living spirit inside of us, what would you prefer to call it? And, whatever you want to name it is OK with me. The spirits I was referring to in the ANALOGY were once in the material world, now they're dead (physically). If you have a problem with life after death, that's OK with me too. You can believe whatever you want until you move to a repressive or communist country. These spirits that you claim I said "pop in and out of our world"; again it was an ANALOGY. If they popped in and out of this world as you claim that "I SAID", we'd sure being seeing a heck of a lot of them now but, we don't. Soooo, what are you left to infer? Maybe that's not what I meant in the analogy. This analogy was meant to give a simple (not overcomplex) understanding of another (any other) dimension.

There is simply no evidence for any of this at all. This sort of thing has no place on this board.

What sort of thing? The endless possibilities? You're kidding me right?

I haven't injected religion into this at all. Faith does not require one to be religious as well - they are merely the name given to the irrational belief that something is true when there is no evidence to support it. Science however, is rational - belief has no place in it.

Well then, I guess for the first time in Science, your use of the word FAITH (a word that really is mostly used in a religious context) has been misinterpreted by me and used in a context not normally associated with it.

Spiritual - Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material

Thank you for making my case for me. If you truly understand dictionary usage, you'll see that a definition under the number 1 refers to it's most common usage or reference. I see that even number 2 supports my point. As a matter of fact, any reference to religion, only runs 2 out of the 5 listed definitions and isn't even mentioned till number 3.

You're speaking about having faith in the idea that these four-dimensional spirits exist that can hop over to our world and do what they want, and that we can eventually hop over to their world. Maybe that's not a full-on religion, but it's certainly something that is an irrational belief that is not based on tangible evidence.

Now you're being childish and absurd!

Hold it all you like, so long as you don't try to convince anyone else that it's true. However, the fact remains that it is entirely fanciful and not based on what we know about reality.

I'm not! You started this whole thing! I just posted my opinion! By the way, Who is we?

- A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
- a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific
- an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

Yes and I agree. I also reassert that I've usually only heard this term in relation to the psychologies. Not astronomy!

You'll note that there is no bias there toward 'psychologies'. ANYTHING that fits the definitions above is considered pseudoscience. People going on about the face on Mars being an alien artifact are pseudoscientists.

Now I think you got a point!

Provide evidence for your statements that there are creatures that we can't see in the 'fourth dimension' who hop over here on a whim. Provide a repeatable method of identifying and interacting with these entities. Provide evidence that "someday we'll all be in this spiritual world" that is "unbounded by the 3 dimensional laws of physics".

Well, I guess you settled that. They don't exist.

You obviously don't know the first thing about scientific thought do you. Science IS objective, by definition. Peoples' opinions about it are irrelevant - it still works the same way regardless of what they think.

Doesn't sound to me like you're being very scientific here.

I know exactly what you're talking about. I read the book version of Contact years before I saw the film. And it is quite obviously a FICTIONAL STORY.

It is fictional simply in light of the fact that it didn't really happen but, I thought you already understood that point. I guess your private consultation with Dr. Sagan cleared up the whole intention of why the book was written in the first place. Just like all the other fictional novels he wrote. After all, he was a fiction writer!

You might find that it helps in discussions to know the precise meaning of the words and terms that you use, rather than argue from a position based on what you think they mean. Dictionaries are there for a reason you know

I whole heartedly agree!

[Malenfant]

Well, if we don't have a living spirit inside of us, what would you prefer to call it? And, whatever you want to name it is OK with me. The spirits I was referring to in the ANALOGY were once in the material world, now they're dead (physically). If you have a problem with life after death, that's OK with me too.

"Living spirits", "souls" and that sort of thing are firmly in the realm of religion. This is a Physics and Astronomy board, not a pulpit.

And you weren't referring to these 'spirits' by analogy, it sounded like you genuinely believed what you said. Your figures in the painting were the analogy.

You can believe whatever you want until you move to a repressive or communist country.

You can believe what you want there too. You just won't be able to voice your opinion unless you're willing to be persecuted for it.

These spirits that you claim I said "pop in and out of our world"; again it was an ANALOGY. If they popped in and out of this world as you claim that "I SAID", we'd sure being seeing a heck of a lot of them now but, we don't. Soooo, what are you left to infer? Maybe that's not what I meant in the analogy. This analogy was meant to give a simple (not overcomplex) understanding of another (any other) dimension.

Again, I am obliged to quote what you said rather than what you claim you said:

Consider this, we are intelligent, living beings that exist in a physical state that borders on the fringes of another dimension. We live in a 3 dimensional world. There is (theoretical to some - very real and existent to me) a scientific consensus that suspects the existance of a 4th dimension. I myself, refer to it as the spiritual world. We are, in actuality, spirits living in a material world! We are inexorably bound and governed by the science and laws of this physical/material world.
We who exist in this 3rd dimension cannot see those who exist in the 4th dimension, nor can we cross over to it. They, however, can see us everyday as easily as we see each other, and they can transcend the plane into this 3rd dimension with complete control over whether we see them or not (since they are not bounded by laws in the 3rd dimension). If they wanted, we would see them in the same corporeal form as we see everything else.

(highlight is mine). This is not analogy. This is assertion. You seem unable to distinguish between the two.

What sort of thing? The endless possibilities? You're kidding me right?

This board is specifically for Physics and Astronomy topics, not proofless philosophical/religious ramblings. If you want to do that, go over to the Purgatory board and philosophise to your hearts content. But this stuff is just noise here.

Well then, I guess for the first time in Science, your use of the word FAITH (a word that really is mostly used in a religious context) has been misinterpreted by me and used in a context not normally associated with it.

Sigh.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Thank you for making my case for me.

I didn't. The point is, your case is not based on physical proof, evidence or observation. It therefore has no place here on this board.

Now you're being childish and absurd!

No, I'm actually dead right. Your statements are based on nothing more that your own beliefs, not on reality.

I'm not! You started this whole thing!

You were the one that started about spiritual beings in a fourth dimension that visit our world.

I just posted my opinion! By the way, Who is we?

"We" being the scientific community, and anyone who thinks rationally about the world.

Yes and I agree. I also reassert that I've usually only heard this term in relation to the psychologies. Not astronomy!

Well, now you know better. Why don't you just say "gee, I didn't know that" and leave it at that instead of continuing to defend your assumed (and incorrect) definition of the word?

Doesn't sound to me like you're being very scientific here.

On the contrary, I'm being very scientific. If your claims are true, provide evidence for them and if that evidence is convincing then they will become incorporated into the body of science. If they are unprovable (as they are) then they are neither scientific nor rational.

It is fictional simply in light of the fact that it didn't really happen but, I thought you already understood that point. I guess your private consultation with Dr. Sagan cleared up the whole intention of why the book was written in the first place. Just like all the other fictional novels he wrote. After all, he was a fiction writer!

He was a scientist first and foremost. He also wrote several books and essays (eg Billions and Billions) that expounded on his opinions of things - he didn't need to write a fiction book to do that. If you want to cite his opinions, quote from one of his science books or essay/autobiographies, not from his fiction books.

[Dollan]

I feel that I have to interject here on one point: "Contact" was clearly not a representation of Carl Sagan's beliefs, nor was he, over all, a fiction writer. He used his "Contact" novel to put forth a great fictional idea he had, while attempting to remain within the realm of hard science (the idea of using wormholes was actually provided by Kip Thorne).

I'm not certain how many such novels Sagan wrote, but his other primary works were assuredly not fictional.

There is a great quote by Larry Niven that I use in some of my literary boards that I think applies here: "There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'."

Larry Niven is a great man!

...John...

[Smacklug]

Yes, you show a great deal of ignorance in your claims and assertions of Sagan practicing pseudoscience.

He has written severally factual books too.






And also, for god's sake, you asserted that there were "spirits" in the fourth dimension (time and space for god's sake), so stop denying it.

Also, out of curiosity, which school of though proposed 21 dimensions?

[selden]

Most people only know Sagan from his popularizations (like the TV program Cosmos) and his fiction. He also was a highly respected professor of astronomy at Cornell University.

Unfortunately, unless the tone of this discussion changes for the positive, I'll probably be locking this thread.

[Dollan]

Sagan was probably my originl inspiration for developing an interest in astronomy. Well, it all started when I saw a bright red bollide on the horizon when I was 10 or so, but that lead to my reading up on astronomy, and the very soon afterward discovery of the book Cosmos.

...John...

[Malenfant]

Unfortunately, unless the tone of this discussion changes for the positive, I'll probably be locking this thread.

I don't think it needs locking, I think it just needs to be moved to Purgatory. I just don't think that this board should be a place for people to state beliefs or opinions about things for which we have no data - it's entirely unscientific.

If I've been overly forceful about asserting that this board should be for scientific discussion rather than for philosophical/metaphysics then I'm sorry, but I feel pretty strongly about this. Especially given that think that scientific thought and rational criticism are under significant threat enough nowadays - particularly in the US. These flights of fancy need to be revealed for what they are - the attitude that whatever people come up with in their minds is as valid as what we know about the universe is entirely mistaken. I don't mind it so long as people say "I know what I'm talking about isn't real or possible" but when they start claiming that it might be possible when it clearly isn't is when they cross the line. The belief that personal opinion and belief takes precedence over reality should not be ignored or encouraged on this board. Rational thought and critical analysis however should be.

[Cham]

I totally agree with Malenfant.

There's no place for irrational and religious stuff here.

[Tanketai]

philosophical/metaphysics

irrational and religious

Certainly, irrational or religious POVs should not be discussed here. But as for the philosophical, I strongly recommend the use of philosophy in science boards. Philosophy is the mother of all sciences, the study of knowledge by itself. Maybe not all the philosophers were good scientists, but most of the great scientists were philophers as well.

My favourite quote from a great Philosopher/Scientist:

Cogito, ergo sum.

[wcomer]

Three cheers to Melenfant for his tireless efforts to seperate science from ignorance. It is a neverending and thankless task. I'm glad someone is doing it.

[t00fri]

YEAH!....