And sorry that was kind of a messy post. I tried to make it clearer.
If you could travel at the speed of light...
- Thread starter JeffKeryk
- Start date
Aha! We are in agreement, mostly. "Has to be our basis" is, IMO, a human concentric point of view and therefore limiting. I choose to at least contemplate life on another level.
If we can’t define what life is, then how can we ever expect to find it on other planets? Or perhaps it’s an awfully convenient excuse, because I don’t know, they’ve realized they will never find life on other planets?
Hermann
Site Donor 2023
When approaching the speed of light, your 1964 1/2 Mustang would not age.
Maybe we could observe and learn? It's not like we already know everything there is to know.
And just because we may never find evidence of other life, that does not disprove its existence. Hard to prove a negative. Sharks, ya know...
So far around ten rocky exoplanets have been found that are in the habitable zones of the stars they orbit, defined as having an average temperature that allows the presence of liquid water.
How many must there be in our own galaxy and of those estimated three hundred million surely some must support life, maybe even advanced life?
We may never directly observe this, since even if we could travel at light speed, the distance and thus time required would exceed our lifespans by multiples.
Let's also consider the practical aspects of traveling near the speed of light. How would we protect our ship from impacts of minor debris, and how would we avoid larger objects? How would we mitigate the effects of radiation exposure? How would we even navigate, since every object and system we might wish to reach is constantly in orbital motion, as our ship would be as well and our visual observation of any goal would always be historical? Interstellar navigation would be a three dimensional problem with no fixed reference, unlike anything we've yet attempted.
How many must there be in our own galaxy and of those estimated three hundred million surely some must support life, maybe even advanced life?
We may never directly observe this, since even if we could travel at light speed, the distance and thus time required would exceed our lifespans by multiples.
Let's also consider the practical aspects of traveling near the speed of light. How would we protect our ship from impacts of minor debris, and how would we avoid larger objects? How would we mitigate the effects of radiation exposure? How would we even navigate, since every object and system we might wish to reach is constantly in orbital motion, as our ship would be as well and our visual observation of any goal would always be historical? Interstellar navigation would be a three dimensional problem with no fixed reference, unlike anything we've yet attempted.
Last edited:
How about we all focus on the lifeforms we already have contact with? My dog is telling me she would like some belly rubs, now.
If you were the one actually going the speed of light from your reference frame, no matter the distance, you would experience no time whatsoever. The moment you achieved the speed of light, it would appear that you simultaneously reached your final destination.
Yeah, but what you're saying is we don't have a definition of a shark. Please explain how you're going to find sharks without knowing how they look like or having a definition of one?
Observation and learning; Science. Maybe even experience one day.
Again, just because we have no such evidence does not disprove existence. It's big out there, right?
I also get the feeling some points reflect human egocentric thought, perhaps even narcissitic thought?
What if other life, if it exists, finds us? And if "they" don't, that does not mean we do not exist, right?
In about 5th grade, my Science teacher told us, "Science is man's endless search for truth in nature." I love that point of view.
On a side note, but relative to my experience, in my career I was asked to do a task that many, far above my pay grade and experience, said could not be done. They were mistaken. I love it when I am wrong, and even when others find they are wrong. Learning is an incredible experience. I realize I know only a little.
Respectfully, I have a kind of a motto... When I say those 2 works, "I know", what I am really saying is, my mind is only open to what I want to hear.
Last edited:
That's only true for photons which don't have mass. For objects with mass the speed of light is unachievable and therefore we cannot conclude what said object or a person would experience. Does the speed of light stop the entropy? I don't think it does.
I don't think you see the logical fallacy with your statements.
You say we're looking for life, but we can't define it, but somehow observation and learning will reveal to us what's life and what's not?
Again, using your metaphor. Let's look for sharks, but we don't have a definition of one nor do we know how one looks like, but we'll just observe and study and that will somehow reveal to us what sharks are? How would we know we found sharks instead of orkas, or jellyfish?
Again; it's called learning. We had to learn about sharks, orkas and jellyfish at one time, right?
And I would dare say they existed before we knew about them. Perhaps even before humans walked this earth?
Good conversation! Which was the point of my thread.
Good convo for sure
How did we learn about sharks, orkas or jelly fish? Didn't we perhaps do some comparisons? Have some sort of standard to compare against? Otherwise we could call everything in the ocean sharks, right?
Well, that's my point with life lacking any sort of definition, comparison or reference. Without that, we can call anything life, wouldn't you agree? And if we can call anything outside our planet life, then it means absolutely nothing. No amount of studying will change this.
We need to define the basis, the definitions first, otherwise it's all meaningless. That's basics of the scientific approach.
I know...it's a thought experiment based on the OP. You can very easily mathematically show the concept that the faster something moves, the less time it experiences from its reference frame, and then set v=c and then the math will spit out t=0.
I realize this, but it brings up the question of entropy. Would it be the travelers perception of time, but his/her body would age just the same as being stationary. Or would the entropy also slow down or stop where the traveler would not age at all?
Its a good thing that humans can't travel at or near the speed of light.
Just look at how we have turned the orbital space around earth into a moving junkyard, and how many pieces of useless leftover material orbit earth.
Then think about having that on a cosmic scale.
Just look at how we have turned the orbital space around earth into a moving junkyard, and how many pieces of useless leftover material orbit earth.
Then think about having that on a cosmic scale.
It's not the "perception" of time that is different in different reference frames - it is time it self. People on the international space station don't perceive a time difference at all, entirely because the difference is tiny, but atomics clocks on earth and on the ISS will actually count ticks differently relative to each other.
I'm aware of that experiment, but what does it actually mean in terms of decay? That's what I'm interested in.
I never thought about this before, but this thread got me thinking about it for some reason. Perhaps it was answered somewhere, I should do some digging.
It is not requisite for us to know about sharks to enable their existence. Again, they were around long before humans. Possibly like those holes we are digging on Mars and sending into orbit? If we find something new, we will need to modify or make new definitions around "life".Good convo for sure
How did we learn about sharks, orkas or jelly fish? Didn't we perhaps do some comparisons? Have some sort of standard to compare against? Otherwise we could call everything in the ocean sharks, right?
Well, that's my point with life lacking any sort of definition, comparison or reference. Without that, we can call anything life, wouldn't you agree? And if we can call anything outside our planet life, then it means absolutely nothing. No amount of studying will change this.
We need to define the basis, the definitions first, otherwise it's all meaningless. That's basics of the scientific approach.
Just because we do not know about something, cannot define it, etc., does not mean it does not exist.
Humans are not the center of the Universe; there's a lot out there.
Science makes new discoveries and definitions all the time. New words are coined all the time; perhaps thousands per year?
How did sharks learn about us?
Similar threads
