Official First Contact In 2021! How Would You React?

[Socio Polor]

I wasn't suggesting the big bang being a theory makes it "unimportant" or something we shouldn't consider in the scientific community, it definitely is. In fact, the big bang theory is really the only major theory cosmologists have that explain the origin of the universe (as far as I know). I was simply stating that scientific theories shouldn't be taken as facts. They're many theories that have its fair share of flaws, the big bang included *cough* law of conservation of mass *cough*. Also, I agree that many of Einstein's theories are great, including his all-time famous theory of general relativity. However, bear in mind that just because we haven't observed many inconsistencies or errors in any of einsten's theories, this shouldn't make us arrogant and think that just because einstein comes up with a theory that goes against FTL, that they aren't other areas of physics or science that we have yet to discover that would put einsteins theories to shame or cause them to be completely altered on a significant scale. What we should be saying is "Based on our current knowledge of physics, FTL is impossible" not "FTL is impossible." The whole argument that people in the past said things were impossible simply because of a lack of technology is completely fallacious. no scientist simply says something is impossible just because we lack the technology. They had their theories on why they believed something was true, until later proved wrong. Just look at this article that discusses on why black holes don't exist. Now we know they do.

The problem isn't that Einstein has predicted FTL to be impossible, it's that there's been very few observed gaps or inconsistencies within Relativistic model, which actively discourages any type of FTL travel. So there would have to be a replacement model that allows for FTL travel, but there's very few that exist (to my knowledge), which is a bad sign. We would need a Grand Unified Theory of everything to completely disprove you, but I assure you it's highly unlikely to the point of implausibility.

Which goes along with my point that our understanding of the physical world is ever changing. Just because we don't see any mistakes in einstein's theory now, doesn't mean we won't in the future or if we discover something that makes FTL possible.

Black holes were a theoretical concept for hundreds of years, as a direct result of orbital mechanics that Newton pioneered (which were consistent on certain terms with Einstein). The scientific consensus has been that black holes probably exist for decades (possibly centuries), that you found one article that questions their existence (not a scientific paper) does not disprove that fact.

FTL is also a theoretical concept. Also, I can see you didn't thouroughly read the article has it's based on scientific papers written by actual astronomers that questioned their existence because the very existence of black holes went against astronomers understanding of physics quote from the article

but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear.

that is pretty much what black holes do

[Fedel]

I'd be in utter awe and do whatever I could to ensure I could study their culture.

[Valrifell]

The problem isn't that Einstein has predicted FTL to be impossible, it's that there's been very few observed gaps or inconsistencies within Relativistic model, which actively discourages any type of FTL travel. So there would have to be a replacement model that allows for FTL travel, but there's very few that exist (to my knowledge), which is a bad sign. We would need a Grand Unified Theory of everything to completely disprove you, but I assure you it's highly unlikely to the point of implausibility.

Which goes along with my point that our understanding of the physical world is ever changing. Just because we don't see any mistakes in einstein's theory now, doesn't mean we won't in the future or if we discover something that makes FTL possible.

Black holes were a theoretical concept for hundreds of years, as a direct result of orbital mechanics that Newton pioneered (which were consistent on certain terms with Einstein). The scientific consensus has been that black holes probably exist for decades (possibly centuries), that you found one article that questions their existence (not a scientific paper) does not disprove that fact.

FTL is also a theoretical concept. Also, I can see you didn't thouroughly read the article has it's based on scientific papers written by actual astronomers that questioned their existence because the very existence of black holes went against astronomers understanding of physics quote from the article

but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear.

that is pretty much what black holes do

Black holes had a history of self-consistent theoretical work dating for centuries, the field of FTL doesn't really have a similar level of clout.

There are also several theories as to what happens to information in the blackhole, famously pioneered by Professor Hawking. There are far fewer self-consistent theories for FTL travel. Again, the scientific consensus has been open to the possibility of blackholes for years, that a few individuals have not does not disprove that point. FTL, in the scientific consensus, is impossible. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone reputable who will tell you "yeah, information can go faster than light!"

Why bother following rabbit holes that aren't permitted or thought to be permitted in our current understanding of science? Holding your breath for FTL is a silly thing to do.

[Socio Polor]

Which goes along with my point that our understanding of the physical world is ever changing. Just because we don't see any mistakes in einstein's theory now, doesn't mean we won't in the future or if we discover something that makes FTL possible.

FTL is also a theoretical concept. Also, I can see you didn't thouroughly read the article has it's based on scientific papers written by actual astronomers that questioned their existence because the very existence of black holes went against astronomers understanding of physics quote from the article
that is pretty much what black holes do

There are also several theories as to what happens to information in the blackhole, famously pioneered by Professor Hawking. There are far fewer self-consistent theories for FTL travel.

fewer or not, they're still theories regardless. With time there may be more theories that support FTL, who knows. Or maybe there will be absolute proof that completely debunks it, who knows. Point is, in science we always have to be open to the possibility, no mater how tiny or massive they may be. That's what makes science fun and interesting. Discovering things we thought impossible, and finding out things we thought were true but were not. Don't you agree?

[Space Lads]

I would try to tell them to leave before they get Covid

[Valrifell]

There are also several theories as to what happens to information in the blackhole, famously pioneered by Professor Hawking. There are far fewer self-consistent theories for FTL travel.

fewer or not, they're still theories regardless. With time there may be more theories that support FTL, who knows. Or maybe there will be absolute proof that completely debunks it, who knows. Point is, in science we always have to be open to the possibility, no mater how tiny or massive they may be. That's what makes science fun and interesting. Discovering things we thought impossible, and finding out things we thought were true but were not. Don't you agree?

No, this is not how science actually operates. It's an idealized version of it.

The reality is scientists work within their paradigm and rigorously work within it to look for anomalies to eventually improve it. This means that several things just have to be accepted without question so we can get to the actual good and fun research, one of these things in modern days is Einstein's theory of relativity which precludes FTL. Operating outside this paradigm is a good way to not be taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community. If there is evidence to support the plausibility of Relativity being inaccurate, you'd have a point. Until then we assume the hypothesis is negative so we can be productive with our time.

[Mordka]

We need to kill them all.

[Andsed]

We need to kill them all.

How exactly? If they are advanced enough to somehow use FTL in what world could we hope to fight a war against them and not be wiped out?

[Socio Polor]

Which goes along with my point that our understanding of the physical world is ever changing. Just because we don't see any mistakes in einstein's theory now, doesn't mean we won't in the future or if we discover something that makes FTL possible.

FTL is also a theoretical concept. Also, I can see you didn't thouroughly read the article has it's based on scientific papers written by actual astronomers that questioned their existence because the very existence of black holes went against astronomers understanding of physics quote from the article
that is pretty much what black holes do

Why bother following rabbit holes that aren't permitted or thought to be permitted in our current understanding of science? Holding your breath for FTL is a silly thing to do.

If scientists never followed down rabbit holes that they themselves or others thought were silly or foolish, we wouldn't be as advanced in science as we are now. Einsteins theory of reletavity was a rabbit hole many thought was silly. Almost no one took him seriously because he went against Newton that gravity was not a force, he challenged scientists basic understanding of the universe that they followed for over 200 years, and he was shunned for it. Now look at general reletivity now, one of the forefront pillars of modern physics. If Einstein didn't go down that "foolish" rabbit hole that almost EVERYONE didn't understand or refused to accept, our physics would likely still be as it was over 100 years ago.

[Socio Polor]

fewer or not, they're still theories regardless. With time there may be more theories that support FTL, who knows. Or maybe there will be absolute proof that completely debunks it, who knows. Point is, in science we always have to be open to the possibility, no mater how tiny or massive they may be. That's what makes science fun and interesting. Discovering things we thought impossible, and finding out things we thought were true but were not. Don't you agree?

No, this is not how science actually operates. It's an idealized version of it.

The reality is scientists work within their paradigm and rigorously work within it to look for anomalies to eventually improve it. This means that several things just have to be accepted without question so we can get to the actual good and fun research, one of these things in modern days is Einstein's theory of relativity which precludes FTL. Operating outside this paradigm is a good way to not be taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community. If there is evidence to support the plausibility of Relativity being inaccurate, you'd have a point. Until then we assume the hypothesis is negative so we can be productive with our time.

I'm not arguing that, I know that's what scientists typically do. But it's often the ones that think outside the box and question everything we thought we knew that become great. Which is what einstein did with his theory of reletivity. It's only a matter of time before someone great comes along that questions einsteins theory

[Valrifell]

Why bother following rabbit holes that aren't permitted or thought to be permitted in our current understanding of science? Holding your breath for FTL is a silly thing to do.

If scientists never followed down rabbit holes that they themselves or others thought were silly or foolish, we wouldn't be as advanced in science as we are now. Einsteins theory of reletavity was a rabbit hole many thought was silly. Almost no one took him seriously because he went against Newton that gravity was not a force, he challenged scientists basic understanding of the universe that they followed for over 200 years, and he was shunned for it. Now look at general reletivity now, one of the forefront pillars of modern physics. If Einstein didn't go down that "foolish" rabbit hole that almost EVERYONE didn't understand or refused to accept, our physics would likely still be as it was over 100 years ago.

Both of these points are not at all what actually happened and are a romanticization of the actual events which transpired.

Einstein quite quickly won over support because his experiments and theory accurately explained things like the photoelectric effect and the mystery of Mercury's orbit. There was also an experiment to validate his theory through the observation of solar eclipses. There was nothing in the previous method of thinking that directly contradicted what came before (in fact it was supported and expanded to be made more accurate). Again I say this would be a critical difference with FTL travel. People took him seriously, they just didn't necessarily understand him.

Be careful not to slip into the Galileo Fallacy, just because your idea is under fire does not make it any kind of valid.

He worked within Newton's paradigm and resolved several issues through replacement, but we also have to acknowledge that his work is highly abnormal in the history of science.

[Valrifell]

No, this is not how science actually operates. It's an idealized version of it.

The reality is scientists work within their paradigm and rigorously work within it to look for anomalies to eventually improve it. This means that several things just have to be accepted without question so we can get to the actual good and fun research, one of these things in modern days is Einstein's theory of relativity which precludes FTL. Operating outside this paradigm is a good way to not be taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community. If there is evidence to support the plausibility of Relativity being inaccurate, you'd have a point. Until then we assume the hypothesis is negative so we can be productive with our time.

I'm not arguing that, I know that's what scientists typically do. But it's often the ones that think outside the box and question everything we thought we knew that become great. Which is what einstein did with his theory of reletivity. It's only a matter of time before someone great comes along that questions einsteins theory

That isn't what Einstein did, though. His theories are consistent with most of what Newton had before, except it was more accurate and explained various anomalies. His geometric interpretation of spacetime was very new, however, but it wasn't exactly ridiculed or denied. It just took a hot minute for it to be verified by the wider scientific community.

[Socio Polor]

If scientists never followed down rabbit holes that they themselves or others thought were silly or foolish, we wouldn't be as advanced in science as we are now. Einsteins theory of reletavity was a rabbit hole many thought was silly. Almost no one took him seriously because he went against Newton that gravity was not a force, he challenged scientists basic understanding of the universe that they followed for over 200 years, and he was shunned for it. Now look at general reletivity now, one of the forefront pillars of modern physics. If Einstein didn't go down that "foolish" rabbit hole that almost EVERYONE didn't understand or refused to accept, our physics would likely still be as it was over 100 years ago.

Both of these points are not at all what actually happened and are a romanticization of the actual events which transpired.

Einstein quite quickly won over support because his experiments and theory accurately explained things like the photoelectric effect and the mystery of Mercury's orbit. There was also an experiment to validate his theory through the observation of solar eclipses. There was nothing in the previous method of thinking that directly contradicted what came before (in fact it was supported and expanded to be made more accurate). Again I say this would be a critical difference with FTL travel. People took him seriously, they just didn't necessarily understand him.

Incorrect, it's not a romanticization in any way. Ask any scientist on whether Einstein was scoffed when he first proposed his theory of general relativity in 1915, they will tell you he was heavily scoffed and looked down upon in the scientific community. You're right that Einstein followed Newton deeply, but he went against him just as hard. Einsteins theory of reletivity was such a paradigm shift in the science community, many physicists didn't take him seriously and refused to accept his theory. Einsteins theory entirely contradicted Newtons idea of how gravity works, who suggested that gravity was a force that simply pushes and pulls in a regular space. Einsteins on the other hand suggested that gravity is in fact not a force but a result of the four dimensional spacetime curving as a result of large celestial mass which causes gravity. For years Einstein was taken as a fool until 1919 when his eclipse experimented proved him right. So no, Einstein did NOT gain the acceptence of his peers in an instant. it took him four grueling years to prove he was right

[Socio Polor]

I'm not arguing that, I know that's what scientists typically do. But it's often the ones that think outside the box and question everything we thought we knew that become great. Which is what einstein did with his theory of reletivity. It's only a matter of time before someone great comes along that questions einsteins theory

That isn't what Einstein did, though. His theories are consistent with most of what Newton had before, except it was more accurate and explained various anomalies. His geometric interpretation of spacetime was very new, however, but it wasn't exactly ridiculed or denied. It just took a hot minute for it to be verified by the wider scientific community.

Again, very incorrect, see my post above this one

[San Lumen]

you're right, many cosmologists don't know what was before the big bang, but most generally go along the idea that there was nothing as we don't know what could possibly exist before the era of the universe. If so, it does violate the law of conservation

Physics didn't exist before the universe, is the big problem, so there would have been no notion of physical laws like conservation before the universe. This is why cosmologists don't make predictions about the universe before the Planck Epoch.

Therefore it’s not a law if it can be violated. There is likely plenty of things in physics yet to be discovered and entirely new understandings. Just because someone is so now doesn’t mean it always will be. We haven’t learned all there is to know about physics

[Valrifell]

Both of these points are not at all what actually happened and are a romanticization of the actual events which transpired.

Einstein quite quickly won over support because his experiments and theory accurately explained things like the photoelectric effect and the mystery of Mercury's orbit. There was also an experiment to validate his theory through the observation of solar eclipses. There was nothing in the previous method of thinking that directly contradicted what came before (in fact it was supported and expanded to be made more accurate). Again I say this would be a critical difference with FTL travel. People took him seriously, they just didn't necessarily understand him.

Incorrect, it's not a romanticization in any way. Ask any scientist on whether Einstein was scoffed when he first proposed his theory of general relativity in 1915, they will tell you he was heavily scoffed and looked down upon in the scientific community. You're right that Einstein followed Newton deeply, but he went against him just as hard. Einsteins theory of reletivity was such a paradigm shift in the science community, many physicists didn't take him seriously and refused to accept his theory. Einsteins theory entirely contradicted Newtons idea of how gravity works, who suggested that gravity was a force that simply pushes and pulls in a regular space. Einsteins on the other hand suggested that gravity is in fact not a force but a result of the four dimensional spacetime curving as a result of large celestial mass which causes gravity. For years Einstein was taken as a fool until 1919 when his eclipse experimented proved him right. So no, Einstein did NOT gain the acceptence of his peers in an instant. it took him four grueling years to prove he was right

Which isn't really any faster or slower than most scientific principles these days, so. But this is a point to my point, you know. Nobody really believed Einstein until he had experimental confirmation of his theories, why should the modern scientific community believe that FTL is possible without any kind of indication that it actually is?

[Valrifell]

Physics didn't exist before the universe, is the big problem, so there would have been no notion of physical laws like conservation before the universe. This is why cosmologists don't make predictions about the universe before the Planck Epoch.

Therefore it’s not a law if it can be violated. There is likely plenty of things in physics yet to be discovered and entirely new understandings. Just because someone is so now doesn’t mean it always will be. We haven’t learned all there is to know about physics

I'm confused to see how you came to this conclusion from what I said.

The laws didn't exist before the universe because the laws are a property of the universe, so you can't talk about "before the universe" in any meaningful physical context.

Like I mentioned above, that physics remains incomplete is not a reason to entertain ideas that contradict the prevalent consensus with little evidence to their feasibility.

[San Lumen]

Therefore it’s not a law if it can be violated. There is likely plenty of things in physics yet to be discovered and entirely new understandings. Just because someone is so now doesn’t mean it always will be. We haven’t learned all there is to know about physics

I'm confused to see how you came to this conclusion from what I said.

The laws didn't exist before the universe because the laws are a property of the universe, so you can't talk about "before the universe" in any meaningful physical context.

Like I mentioned above, that physics remains incomplete is not a reason to entertain ideas that contradict the prevalent consensus with little evidence to their feasibility.

Again this notion that our understanding of science is the only correct one

[Valrifell]

I'm confused to see how you came to this conclusion from what I said.

The laws didn't exist before the universe because the laws are a property of the universe, so you can't talk about "before the universe" in any meaningful physical context.

Like I mentioned above, that physics remains incomplete is not a reason to entertain ideas that contradict the prevalent consensus with little evidence to their feasibility.

Again this notion that our understanding of science is the only correct one

Again this notion that you somehow understand more about science or the history of science than literal generations of researchers.

In a non-fallacious point, that isn't what I said. Our current understanding may be flawed, but only flawed at the fringes and gaps of theories. Future theories are proved consistent with what was prevalent before as to assert their consistency, FTL travel does not fit this description which is why scientists don't really entertain this idea.

[Socio Polor]

Incorrect, it's not a romanticization in any way. Ask any scientist on whether Einstein was scoffed when he first proposed his theory of general relativity in 1915, they will tell you he was heavily scoffed and looked down upon in the scientific community. You're right that Einstein followed Newton deeply, but he went against him just as hard. Einsteins theory of reletivity was such a paradigm shift in the science community, many physicists didn't take him seriously and refused to accept his theory. Einsteins theory entirely contradicted Newtons idea of how gravity works, who suggested that gravity was a force that simply pushes and pulls in a regular space. Einsteins on the other hand suggested that gravity is in fact not a force but a result of the four dimensional spacetime curving as a result of large celestial mass which causes gravity. For years Einstein was taken as a fool until 1919 when his eclipse experimented proved him right. So no, Einstein did NOT gain the acceptence of his peers in an instant. it took him four grueling years to prove he was right

Which isn't really any faster or slower than most scientific principles these days, so. But this is a point to my point, you know. Nobody really believed Einstein until he had experimental confirmation of his theories, why should the modern scientific community believe that FTL is possible without any kind of indication that it actually is?

Even if there was an indication, I'm sure there would be those who refuse to accept it simply because it goes against what they thought was right or possible, much like what Einstein experienced. If anything, I really feel the science community should use Einstein's early career as a prime example of the notion of "just because something sounds insane, doesn't make it so." I've noticed it's often the insane solutions or theories everyone makes fun of that winds up proven correct, ironically. But for the sake of argument and to get this thread a little more on topic, we should probably hold off here. I feel like if we continue we'll wind up debating about something political

[New haven america]

Yes that's what I was basically saying. The Big Bang is a theory because there's evidence that is occured such as the endless expansion of the universe and CMB which is thought to be a remnant of the big bang. however, because we can't actually observe the big bang, it remains a theory. Much like how the meteorite crashing into the earth that wiped out the dinosaurs at the end of the cretaceous period is a theory, the evidence that backs it up being the various rock samples uncovered and materials in the earth most commonly found on meteors

Being that it "remains a theory" because of a lack of experimental possibility does not lessen its value or importance to the scientific community. I restate that the theories put forth by Eintstein which have been highly corroborated by observed phenomena directly contradict the idea of FTL travel with zero observed inconsistencies or anomalies in that department. This, at the very least is highly problematic for anyone dreaming of FTL travel, and you should stop denying that.

Science very rarely likes to call things "facts" because of possible irregularities with individual experiments or observational data, this is something an intro-level undergraduate lab would tell you.

Wormholes (Which is an idea he admitted to himself) Alcubierre Drive (You're not actually moving the ship, you're moving the space around the ship), etc...

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

It would disprove (or prove, although unlikely) the possibility of religion. This alien species would, theoretically, have the same God and exact same holy scriptures if he was the creator of the universe

[San Lumen]

Again this notion that our understanding of science is the only correct one

Again this notion that you somehow understand more about science or the history of science than literal generations of researchers.

In a non-fallacious point, that isn't what I said. Our current understanding may be flawed, but only flawed at the fringes and gaps of theories. Future theories are proved consistent with what was prevalent before as to assert their consistency, FTL travel does not fit this description which is why scientists don't really entertain this idea.

So there is no possibility there is an extraterrestrial civilization out there whose learned how to do it because they are thousands of years ahead of of us technologically?

The arrogance is truly astounding

[Mordka]

We need to kill them all.

How exactly? If they are advanced enough to somehow use FTL in what world could we hope to fight a war against them and not be wiped out?

If they do come down on the planet then we would be waiting for them with guns, kill the aliens and steal their technology.

[Socio Polor]

How exactly? If they are advanced enough to somehow use FTL in what world could we hope to fight a war against them and not be wiped out?

If they do come down on the planet then we would be waiting for them with guns, kill the aliens and steal their technology.

Well that's quite a pessimistic view point, though with what's going on in the world, understandable. If we knew the ets were coming though, and they had peaceful intent, however we find out, do you think things will be different