'Zoo theory' may explain lack of alien visitors

[pallidin]

21 minutes ago, badeskov said:

I agree completely. However, odds are also against them visiting us.

Said "credible" witnesses are just as prone to making mistakes as any other person is, in fact even more given their training.

Uhm, no. That concept was accepted and demonstrated even before Tesla was born.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Nah, we just have to realize that the speed-of-light is not absolute.

After all, Einstein's equation is E=MC squared.

That's c squared.

That's speed-of-light times the speed-of-light. Not warp one or 3... Warp 186,000.

Plenty enough speed for intragalactic travel (within our own massive galaxy)

Edited January 4, 2018 by pallidin

[Black Monk]

16 hours ago, badeskov said:

I agree completely. However, odds are also against them visiting us.

 

Not if there are many races out there who have the technology to get here easily.

[stereologist]

17 hours ago, pallidin said:

Nah, we just have to realize that the speed-of-light is not absolute.

After all, Einstein's equation is E=MC squared.

That's c squared.

That's speed-of-light times the speed-of-light. Not warp one or 3... Warp 186,000.

Plenty enough speed for intragalactic travel (within our own massive galaxy)

The speed of light is absolute and the same for all frames of reference. That is the basis for special relativity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Quote

The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer.[Note 4] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[5] after being motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether;[16] it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments. It is only possible to verify experimentally that the two-way speed of light (for example, from a source to a mirror and back again) is frame-independent, because it is impossible to measure the one-way speed of light (for example, from a source to a distant detector) without some convention as to how clocks at the source and at the detector should be synchronized. However, by adopting Einstein synchronization for the clocks, the one-way speed of light becomes equal to the two-way speed of light by definition.[17][18] The special theory of relativity explores the consequences of this invariance of c with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.[19][20] One consequence is that c is the speed at which all massless particles and waves, including light, must travel in vacuum.

The E=mc² formula describes how energy and mass are related. It is not about speed. It is not about "Warp 186,000"

Quote

Special relativity has many counterintuitive and experimentally verified implications.[21] These include the equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc²)

 

[badeskov]

4 hours ago, Black Monk said:

Not if there are many races out there who have the technology to get here easily.

So far we have no evidence of that at all. Physics supporting that is really difficult and no conclusive evidence has ever been presented supporting such.

Cheers,
Badeskov 

[Rlyeh]

20 hours ago, pallidin said:

Nah, we just have to realize that the speed-of-light is not absolute.

After all, Einstein's equation is E=MC squared.

That's c squared.

That's speed-of-light times the speed-of-light. Not warp one or 3... Warp 186,000.

Plenty enough speed for intragalactic travel (within our own massive galaxy)

What? Do you think E=mc² is a speed?

[pallidin]

On 1/5/2018 at 11:56 AM, Rlyeh said:

What? Do you think E=mc² is a speed?

c, the speed-of-light.

And in the equation it is squared.

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, pallidin said:

c, the speed-of-light.

And in the equation it is squared.

Which wasn't the question.

[MisterMan]

5 hours ago, pallidin said:

c, the speed-of-light.

And in the equation it is squared.

And so you think that means the speed beyond which something cannot be accelerated is the speed of light squared?  Excellent idea.  But lookie here!

E^2 = (MC^2)^2

Now the limit is the speed of light cubed!  Plus some extra M!  That ought to be fast enough for just about anything!  If not, I think we can probably make it even faster.  Let me know.

 

 

[Essan]

Even if aliens could invent a way of getting around the speed of light issue, or had entirely different concepts of time (maybe a year to them is as a second to us?) why would they visit Earth when most of it is covered in deadly, corrosive, dihydrogen monoxide and almost the only presence of methane, essential for all life, is as a trace gas?  

Now, Europa and Titan could have life, but this poisonous lump of rock so close to the sun, bathed in radfiation?   No chance ....  

 

 

[seeder]

talking of the speed of light....is not essential....what IS essential....is knowing whether, for example the human body....can withstand such speeds/acceleration

Now biological aliens will face the SAME issues maybe
 

Quote

 

However we attain speeds in excess of 40,000kph, we will have to ramp up to (and down from) them patiently. Rapid acceleration and deceleration can be lethal to the human organism: witness the bodily trauma in car crashes as we go from a mere tens-of-kilometres-per-hour clip to zero in the span of seconds. The reason? A property of the Universe known as inertia, whereby any object with mass resists change to its state of motion. The concept is famously expressed in Newton’s first law of motion as “an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an outside force”.

“For the human body, constant is good,” explains Bray. “It’s acceleration we have to worry about.”

The average person can withstand a sustained force of about five Gs from head to toe before slipping into unconsciousness. Pilots wearing special high-G suits and trained to flex their torso muscles to keep blood from whooshing out of their heads can still operate their aircraft at about nine Gs. “For short periods, the human body can take much higher than nine Gs,” says Jeff Sventek, the Executive Director of the Aerospace Medical Association, based in Alexandria, Virginia. “But to sustain that for long period of time, not too many humans can do it.”

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150809-how-fast-could-humans-travel-safely-through-space

 

 

 

[seeder]

Quote

 

First of all it is worth noting that, as far as we understand, only light can travel at the speed of light. For a spacecraft to do it, under our current knowledge of how physics works, an infinite amount of energy would be required. While this remains a physical impossibility it certainly doesn’t stop us thinking about the implications of light-speed travel.

As Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity shows, as an object approaches the speed of light its mass also increases. An object’s mass determines its gravitational influence. In fact all things have a gravitational field, it is just that gravity is so weak we only feel it from very massive objects, like planets.
As we increase our spacecraft’s speed and therefore its mass, its gravitational effects would also increase. In general relativity mass and energy are equivalent and so as we approach an infinite amount of energy and equivalent mass, the spaceship’s gravitational influence would also increase to be higher than its usual field.

https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/is-there-a-centre-of-the-universe/