Moon-walker claims alien contact cover-up

[scotthm]

You're right. They are a myth.

What I find constantly amazing is that the idea that alien beings may have visited the Earth is, to some people, so automatically, unfailingly and irretrieveably inconceivable.

It is not inconceivable to me, but I think it unlikely enough that aliens are visiting our planet that I place such stories in the same category as mythology. When you can show me a convincing extraterrestrial alien, or interstellar spacecraft, I'll be willing to modify my opinion.

---------------

 

[scotthm]

Granted crossing interstellar distances takes some doing but you are projecting somewhat our own priorities and preconceptions onto some as yet unknown race.

Aren't you doing the same thing when you believe we've been visited by aliens who we have no reason to believe exist, and who we have no reason to believe would be able or interested in visiting Earth even if they did exist. It's only in our imaginations that these visitations are occurring, unless you've got an alien or a spacecraft to show us.

There is nothing to indicate that there actually is any life elsewhere in the universe other than some folk's belief that if we take for granted the fact that earth is not some special case then it seem reasonable to assume earthlike conditions exist elsewhere. still it doesn't amount to much more than a guess.

It seems strange to me that many people believe that Earth is such a thoroughly unremarkable place and yet manages to garner such attention from the interstellar community. Those two ideas seem at odds with one another to me.

---------------

 

[Zachary Smith]

You're right. They are a myth.

What I find constantly amazing is that the idea that alien beings may have visited the Earth is, to some people, so automatically, unfailingly and irretrieveably inconceivable.

It is not inconceivable to me, but I think it unlikely enough that aliens are visiting our planet that I place such stories in the same category as mythology. When you can show me a convincing extraterrestrial alien, or interstellar spacecraft, I'll be willing to modify my opinion.

---------------

I cannot produce such evidence as I have none. You make the mistake of assuming I am arguing on behalf of the legitimacy of the claims when it is the legitimacy of the CONCEPT which I support. As I suggested earlier, precedent is an important factor in my mind when I contemplate whether something is possible or not. WE exist. I believe in time we WILL visit other worlds in other star systems. We have already visited the moon and I believe it is technologically feasibile that we could visit Mars now or in the very near future, were we sufficiently motivated. And, yes, I DO understand the magnitude of difficulty in the difference between traveling to Mars and traveling to anothr star system entirely. I also have faith in the innovtive spirit of humanity and recognize that our understanding of the universe and ability at manipulating it has a long way to go before it peaks. I fully expect in 500 or a thousand years that travel between star systems will be possible. That IS an aspect of faith in my reasoning.

Where no faith is required is to accept the possibility that beings might exist elsewhere. We exist. Why NOT others? We will, I believe, eventually, travel elsewhere. Why not other as well.

It is not necessary to accept every alien abduction tale to be true to accept the POSSIBILITY that some aliens may have visited Earth at some point in our history. Frankly, I am extremely skeptical of most alien abduction tales and tend to think there are more psychological explanations behind them. But I'll consdier them. I'll listen to them. Why? Because I think such happens are absolutely possible, given what we know about the nature of this universe. And I'm a curious person.

I'm an agnostic when it comes to claims that aliens have visited the earth. They've never visited me. I've never seen a UFO. I have no doubt that our goverment is keeping secrets about UFOs. That has been demonstrated repeatedly by various UFO researchers. But when you ask the question, "why", I can't answer. Is the government keeping secret information that it has? Is the government keeping secret evidence and details concerning QUESTIONS they CAN'T answer. I dunno. Secrets, though, they ARE keeping. I've researched the subject enough to come to that conclusion. Doesn't mean they know SQUAT more than anyone else. They just like to do stupid shit sometimes. I remember reading where the government, while investigating John Lennon, classified lyrics to some of his songs as "secret". Pure genius that. And, yeah, they got them from the lyric sheet included with the alblum as sold to the public.

But there is a difference between arguing for the legitmacy of claiments and the claims they make and arguing for the legitimacy of the idea behind the concept. I think it's presumpteous to dismiss the idea out of hand--to relegate it to "myth" simply because you think it's unlikely. Myths are IMPOSSIBLE. Not unlikely. You attach an absolute to the concept and render it an impossibility when you term it a "myth". Clearly, it is NOT impossible as it has an established precedent--ourselves. It's an intellectual disservice and an insult to the curious mind to term the idea a "myth".

 

[scotthm]

You make the mistake of assuming I am arguing on behalf of the legitimacy of the claims when it is the legitimacy of the CONCEPT which I support.

No, I don't assume that. You've made yourself quite clear that you don't necessarily believe, but are open minded about the subject.

As I suggested earlier, precedent is an important factor in my mind when I contemplate whether something is possible or not.

I agree that it's influential. When we can send people to another star system and back, we will have a precident for interstellar 'manned' travel. Short of that, I'm not convinced that it's feasible, and I think it very unlikely that we're being visited from beyond.

Myths are IMPOSSIBLE. Not unlikely.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I'm perfectly willing to believe that things once thought to be purely myth can be found to have a basis in fact. So I see myth as ranging from the totally implausible to the somewhat plausible but unlikely, as in "urban legend" type of myths.

---------------

 

[CaptainStoner]

It's entirely possible that Earth civilization has been observed for millienia, from afar, or more closely. I think it is barking up the wrong tree to talk about how well governments keep secrets, or don't. For one, if we are talking highly advanced aliens that travel through hyperspace, then presumably it is their secret to keep.
Where it falls apart for me though is, Roswell and the like. So, these are ultra intelligent beings with super technology that can traverse galaxies - but for some reason, they crash on Earth!? And not just once, but several incidents of crashing on Earth!? Sorry, no.
An alternative explanation which I do like, is that something like Roswell might have been an intentional hoax on the part of Aliens to prepare humanity for first contact. To put themselves into the "mythology" as it were, and what a good way to do it. I don't think that beings like that would really need ships at all.

 

[scotthm]

For one, if we are talking highly advanced aliens that travel through hyperspace, then presumably it is their secret to keep.

Hyperspace? Where's that?

---------------

 

[Brolan]

For one, if we are talking highly advanced aliens that travel through hyperspace, then presumably it is their secret to keep.

Hyperspace? Where's that?

---------------

This highlights one of the reasons I'm a skeptic. The rest of the galaxy may well be teeming with intelligent life. But with our current understanding of the physics of the universe there is no way to travel faster than light. And no trifling piece of technology will change that. It would take a total re-understanding of the structure of the universe we live in. And our current understanding is pretty darn good.

 

[Zachary Smith]

For one, if we are talking highly advanced aliens that travel through hyperspace, then presumably it is their secret to keep.

Hyperspace? Where's that?

---------------

This highlights one of the reasons I'm a skeptic. The rest of the galaxy may well be teeming with intelligent life. But with our current understanding of the physics of the universe there is no way to travel faster than light. And no trifling piece of technology will change that. It would take a total re-understanding of the structure of the universe we live in. And our current understanding is pretty darn good.

And at one time it was believed that our understanding of the universe was "pretty darn good" when we'd sussed out the four elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water.

This hubris is one of the reasons scientists (not science, but SCIENTIST) often make me ill.

Our understanding of the universe is "pretty darn good" as compared to what? A year ago? A THOUSAND years ago? FIVE thousand years ago? My God, three hundred years ago they had no IDEA the entire electromagnetic spectrum existed. How do we KNOW what we don't KNOW? Since the very inception of science. scientists have taken the attitude that we've JUST about got it all figured out except for maybe dotting some i's and crossing a few t's. We KNOW we've got the big picture in place though. Then new concepts come along and there are "revolutions" in understanding and scientists say, "well, this was to be expected."

I REALLY do believe that the knowledge and understanding we WILL have of the universe in 500 years or a thousand will make our "big picture" look at quaint as we see many of the accepted concepts of the 1800's. People are SO bloody fond of that, "we can't figure a way around the speed of light so it CAN'T be done by ANYONE" excuse. Riddle me this, Batman, what if we learn to CONTROL and manipulate MASS? What if we learn how to CREATE energy. And please don't try to tell me energy cannot be created. It EXISTS, therefore it HAD to have been created at some p[oint in some universe in some time-line. Elsewise it is ETNERNAL and has ALWAYS existed and our "big picture" indicates right now that scenario is not true of the ENTIRE universe. The universe, as we understand it had a creation point. It follows that the fundamental components that make up the universe must ALSO have had a creation point. Or, like the example of eternal energy, those components have ALWAYS existed. And THAT is something which is so far beyond our level of science that it enters int the realm of philosophy and PURE speculation. And that demonstrates we are not even CLOSE to understanding even FUNDAMENTAL aspects about our universe.

One thousand years from now, ten thousand, a million years from what might our descendents know that is unthinkable to us today because even the groundwork for understanding it has not been laid?

Climb down from that pinnacle of ego and recognize we are taking our first BABY-STEPS as an advanced culture. Do you REALLY think that we can lay bare the secrets of all reality in a couple hundred years? Do you really think that what our descendants might know in a couple millenia won't put our "knowledge" to shame? Do you really mean to argue that a civilization even 500 years more advanced than ours wouldn't have made discoveries that would slack our jaws in wonder?

"We can't figure out how to do it right now so it can NEVER be done, by anyone. ANYWHERE. EVER!"

And if man was meant to fly, he'd have wings . . .

 

[Bad Bishop]

First of all, shame on anyone who implies that Dr. Mitchell is going senile or has any kind of mental impairment. Now, to specific comments:

Come on, the government can't do anything efficiently. It beggars credulity that it could keep a secret perfectly for decades.

But no one claims a perfectly-kept secret. On the contrary, UFO researchers point to a cover-up that has been subject to loads of leaks over the years. Yes, there have been loads of leaks by people who are or were in the military or intelligence fields. But there has hardly been any follow-up by responsible journalists. Researcher Stanton Friedman is fond of saying that the military and CIA have taken advantage of the egos of the Washington media, who do not believe that any big secrets can be kept from them.

Especially since we're talking about multiple governments, multiple factions coming into and out of power. Politicians like nothing more than to expose the scandals of their opposition or predecessors, and reporters want nothing more than to expose the next big government scandal and be the next Woodward and Bernstein.

Elected politicians, by and large, do not enjoy Top-Secret security clearances. Members of the military and intelligence community do not share extremely sensitive information with Congress except on a need-to-know basis. That's the way it's always been. So it really doesn't matter that there has been a lot of changeover in government. The old guys weren't in on the secret, and the new guys coming in aren't either.

And as for the journalistic community, it would be wonderful if they really wanted to uncover the government's UFO secrets. But they are not interested. The entire subject is taboo. Author Terry Hansen, in The Missing Times, argues that the media are complicit in the UFO cover-up. He says that national media, i.e. big papers like the NY Times, LA Times and the major news networks, tend to take their cues from the government when it comes to national security matters. When it comes to UFOs, local media have been more responsible and honest in their reporting (not that it's made any difference).

 

[scotthm]

I REALLY do believe that the knowledge and understanding we WILL have of the universe in 500 years or a thousand will make our "big picture" look at quaint as we see many of the accepted concepts of the 1800's.

That's very possible. It's also possible that our civilization will go the way of "Mad Max", and disintegrate for some reason.

The future is difficult to predict, and so just because some think we might be able to travel to the stars some day, doesn't mean that travel we currently believe is very likely impossible is currently happening. FTL travel is just a dream. It's even a dream to believe that aliens have FTL... until we see it with our own eyes.

What if we learn how to...

If we learn, then we learn. Until we learn we're just speculating. That's what people are doing about alien visitations.

What if we learn how to CREATE energy. And please don't try to tell me energy cannot be created. It EXISTS

Ah, an entire universe of energy and matter created out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. This sounds a lot like a miracle to me. Surely you don't believe in miracles?

---------------

 

[FordSVT]

^Perhaps he should simply have stated "access to vast amounts of energy we currently don't understand or have access to". instead of alluding to a magic, free energy machine. I think that was his intention.

For all we know, our descendants will harness the power of suns or dark energy or higher dimensions or who knows what to create wormholes or space warps. It's obviously speculation, but it's the reason I will rarely dismiss anything out of hand with words like "impossible" and "never".

 

[Deckerd]

I think technology will advance and it will be possible to build generational ships. Whether anyone wants to spend their entire life, and the lives of their offspring to several generations, travelling through the void is doubtful.

Travelling faster than light is impossible. This is true as I sit here right now. I think it will be impossible in 500 years time but I can't say that is true for obvious reasons. Arguing about the level of optimism people should have about future technology is (my favourite word) daft.

 

[Zachary Smith]

What if we learn how to CREATE energy. And please don't try to tell me energy cannot be created. It EXISTS

Ah, an entire universe of energy and matter created out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. This sounds a lot like a miracle to me. Surely you don't believe in miracles?

Indeed, I do NOT believe in miracles. But my point was that science is EVER so fond of saying energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can only change form and location. It's SCIENCE which claims the "miracle" in renigging on the explanation of WHERE energy comes from in the first place.

This is the challenge then; if it can NOT be created, HOW then does it exist? And, no, I am NOT advocating on behalf of a Creator Being. I am content that the universe and all that it contains are the product of natural processes. Still, when you examine the origins something--ANYTHING--which exists, you have essentilly have three possibilities.

1. It did NOT exist and was somehow created, either by natural or, yes, artificial means

2. It has and always WILL exist, which is rather inconceivable in that even the universe itself is acknowledged to have had a point of origin and a "time" when it did NOT exist (and we must account for the materials that fueled teh "Big Bang" somehow)

3. Another possibility as yet not conceived of (which is NOT to include this universe being an outgrowth of another because we must THEN account for where THAT universe came from)

These are NOT philosophical ramblings. These are VALID questions which, at their source, have OBJECTIVE answers. I.E. Either Energy was somehow created, by SOME natural or artificial process, it has ALWAYS existed--ETERNALLY, or another as yet, unspeculated posibility.

My point is SCIENCE doesn't know. It cannot BEGIN to guess. And such answers are KEY and fundamental to understanding our universe. It is SCIENCE, not me, who claims "Magic" when it tries to suggest it will explain things ONLY so far, then wave its hands in the air and "no more! IMPOSSIBLE!!"

Energy EXISTS. If it is a product of some more fundamental processes (almost certainly natural), WHY is it so ridiculous to speculate that at some point in the future, we may gain suffiecient knowledge and understanding to be able to DUPLICATE that process and actually create, NOT generate, but CREATE more?

If it IS an "eternal" constituient which has NO origin then that MUST be accounted for as well. Our science cannot BEGIN to account for something which EXISTS, but yet has NO ORIGIN. It's an almost irrational position. Even the universe itself has an acknowledge point of origin. But what about the stuff it's MADE from?

We have not a clue.

Color me a wild-eyed speculator if you want, but I just imagine we WILL have a better idea in 100, 200 or 500 years. And, yeah, while WE might go "Mad Max" on ourselves and never know, that's NOT an excuse to claim that ALL civilizations will inevitably go that route. And I genuinely believe OTHER civilizations DO exist elsewhere in this universe. And I'd bet big bucks that some are older than ours and know more about the basics and the "big picture" that WE have not yet begun to grasp.

Yes, that's speculation, but I think it is reasonable speculation because it asks NOTHING new of the universe. It only extrapolates out from where WE are now and where WE are heading.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't remember where I read it, but I once saw an article which pointed out that life took roughly 3.8 billion years to get from bacteria to today, and it attributed part of the "speed" of that evolution to the moon and the tides it causes. It said that the churning of ocean water and nutrients gave evolution a swift kick in the pants, as it were, allowing higher-level forms of life to evolve much more quickly.

By the end, it theorized that since the size and distance of our moon is such a unique advantage over most planets that would support life, mankind might be ahead of the curve as far as life in the universe goes.

Which is kind of a depressing thought.

 

[Noname Given]

I don't remember where I read it, but I once saw an article which pointed out that life took roughly 3.8 billion years to get from bacteria to today, and it attributed part of the "speed" of that evolution to the moon and the tides it causes. It said that the churning of ocean water and nutrients gave evolution a swift kick in the pants, as it were, allowing higher-level forms of life to evolve much more quickly.

By the end, it theorized that since the size and distance of our moon is such a unique advantage over most planets that would support life, mankind might be ahead of the curve as far as life in the universe goes.

Which is kind of a depressing thought.

Oh please. If not for the asteroid strike 65 million years ago; 'man' would not have achieved the civilization we have today; and religion has done it's very best to curtail any technical avancement.

My point? We became to dominent intelligent species, yes; BUT it not for a number of 'lucky' (for us) cosmic instances, we actually wouldn't be here.

There CPULD be a world where whatever became the dominent species of that world, WAS that way and never had a civilization ending event; or didn't have religious beliefs that saw technology as 'the devil's work' down through the ages. Given all that there could be a number of civilizations with technology and an understanding of the basic mechanics of the Universe thousands or a million years ahead of our own.

It COULD also be possible that we are the most technically avanced race in the Universe; or hell, we coukd in fact be the ONLY intelligent race in the entire cosmos (Yep, withoutr absolute verifiable evidence, anything is possible).

That said, given the overall age of the Universe (by our reckonning today, it could change tomorrow); as 15 billion years - and our planet being about 4 billion years; and also give the sheer size of the Universe; I do think it's MORE than probable there are indeed more intelligent highly technological civilizations out there; and they could be now, or sometme in our past be visiting this planet. But what DOES surprise me is the fact that most people and scientist do agree that there are probably other intelligent and technological civilizations out there; but the majority 100% dismiss the probability that one or more of these civilizations could be visiting Earth.

That just doesn't make sense.

 

[Zachary Smith]

^^

Well, WE can't figure out how to get arond the speed of light limit so clearly NEITHER can anyone else (should they exist at all).

In the end it may be that there are alternatives to the limits of lightspeed. Doesn't "spooky action at a distance" in quantum entanglement occur at superluminal speeds--instantenously, in fact? If so, there is clearly a medium of some sort where the speed of light limit does not apply. Perhaps aliens use quantum teleportation to travel vast distances instantaneously.

BTW--if quantum entanglement DOES comunicate instantenously, THAT is something ELSE which needs explaining. By what mechanism does the transmission of information occurr? What medium does it travel by? etc.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Oh please.

Don't get snotty. My post wasn't looking down on those who entertain the idea that we could be visited, it was presenting another point of view.

The point of it is that a lot of unique things had to happen in order for mankind to get where it is. You yourself said that we wouldn't be here if not for the asteroid strike. Well, what if that hadn't happened? If not for the global climate catastrophe, mammals wouldn't have risen as quickly as they did, and we wouldn't be here. Heck, the Mesozoic was 180 million years, so what's another 65 without climate change?

So in order for another civilization to get just to the point we're at, environmental conditions would have to get to the point where intelligence is a better evolutionary advantage than longer claws or faster legs.

To get to the point where they're breaking the light speed barrier, they'd have to be much more advanced than we are, and still be in roughly the same neighborhood. It's great if they can move many times faster than the speed of light, but no matter how high they crank those engines, going from galaxy to galaxy is still quite a trip.

Nothing about that says it's impossible, but it's almost certainly unlikely.

 

[scotthm]

For all we know, our descendants will harness the power of suns or dark energy or higher dimensions or who knows what to create wormholes or space warps. It's obviously speculation

Exactly. Speculation. Fiction.

These are NOT philosophical ramblings. These are VALID questions which, at their source, have OBJECTIVE answers. I.E. Either Energy was somehow created, by SOME natural or artificial process, it has ALWAYS existed--ETERNALLY, or another as yet, unspeculated posibility.

My point is SCIENCE doesn't know. It cannot BEGIN to guess.

We are in agreement on these points.

Energy EXISTS. If it is a product of some more fundamental processes (almost certainly natural), WHY is it so ridiculous to speculate that at some point in the future, we may gain suffiecient knowledge and understanding to be able to DUPLICATE that process and actually create, NOT generate, but CREATE more?

It's not ridiculous to speculate, but that's all it is. That's my whole point--that all this talk about aliens visiting Earth is speculation until you can produce concrete evidence, and I don't mean the testimony of people who've heard about things second or third hand, or who may be prone to misinterpretation of their surroundings. Extraordinary evidence needs to accompany extraordinary claims.

given the overall age of the Universe (by our reckonning today, it could change tomorrow); as 15 billion years - and our planet being about 4 billion years; and also give the sheer size of the Universe; I do think it's MORE than probable there are indeed more intelligent highly technological civilizations out there; and they could be now, or sometme in our past be visiting this planet.

I think it's at least as probable that any technologically advanced civilizations that may have arisen have long since destroyed themselves, been destroyed by natural disaster, or depleted their natural resources to the point that they never left their own solar systems. Maybe only 1 in 1,000,000,000 technological civilizations are able to traverse the stars. The nearest may be three billion LY away and having trouble just investigating their own corner of their own galaxy.

You see, if we're all just speculating about what we can imagine then the sky's the limit. We don't need to worry about reality and just can have ourselves a good old time.

---------------

 

[Brolan]

Hyperspace? Where's that?

---------------

This highlights one of the reasons I'm a skeptic. The rest of the galaxy may well be teeming with intelligent life. But with our current understanding of the physics of the universe there is no way to travel faster than light. And no trifling piece of technology will change that. It would take a total re-understanding of the structure of the universe we live in. And our current understanding is pretty darn good.

And at one time it was believed that our understanding of the universe was "pretty darn good" when we'd sussed out the four elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water.

This hubris is one of the reasons scientists (not science, but SCIENTIST) often make me ill.

Our understanding of the universe is "pretty darn good" as compared to what? A year ago? A THOUSAND years ago? FIVE thousand years ago? My God, three hundred years ago they had no IDEA the entire electromagnetic spectrum existed. How do we KNOW what we don't KNOW? Since the very inception of science. scientists have taken the attitude that we've JUST about got it all figured out except for maybe dotting some i's and crossing a few t's. We KNOW we've got the big picture in place though. Then new concepts come along and there are "revolutions" in understanding and scientists say, "well, this was to be expected."

I REALLY do believe that the knowledge and understanding we WILL have of the universe in 500 years or a thousand will make our "big picture" look at quaint as we see many of the accepted concepts of the 1800's. People are SO bloody fond of that, "we can't figure a way around the speed of light so it CAN'T be done by ANYONE" excuse. Riddle me this, Batman, what if we learn to CONTROL and manipulate MASS? What if we learn how to CREATE energy. And please don't try to tell me energy cannot be created. It EXISTS, therefore it HAD to have been created at some p[oint in some universe in some time-line. Elsewise it is ETNERNAL and has ALWAYS existed and our "big picture" indicates right now that scenario is not true of the ENTIRE universe. The universe, as we understand it had a creation point. It follows that the fundamental components that make up the universe must ALSO have had a creation point. Or, like the example of eternal energy, those components have ALWAYS existed. And THAT is something which is so far beyond our level of science that it enters int the realm of philosophy and PURE speculation. And that demonstrates we are not even CLOSE to understanding even FUNDAMENTAL aspects about our universe.

One thousand years from now, ten thousand, a million years from what might our descendents know that is unthinkable to us today because even the groundwork for understanding it has not been laid?

Climb down from that pinnacle of ego and recognize we are taking our first BABY-STEPS as an advanced culture. Do you REALLY think that we can lay bare the secrets of all reality in a couple hundred years? Do you really think that what our descendants might know in a couple millenia won't put our "knowledge" to shame? Do you really mean to argue that a civilization even 500 years more advanced than ours wouldn't have made discoveries that would slack our jaws in wonder?

"We can't figure out how to do it right now so it can NEVER be done, by anyone. ANYWHERE. EVER!"

And if man was meant to fly, he'd have wings . . .

Nice rant on where you think we are scientifically and culturally. Unfortunately it doesn't mean a thing. It has to do with the fundamental structure of the universe.

The universe has rules. One rule is the universe doesn't allow us to travel faster than light. It's rule you can't break (as much as we all would like to).

All together they are good rules because they keep you and I from flying apart into our component atoms. They also keep us firmly stuck to our planet and keep us from floating out into space.

We have put a lot of thought and research into these rules. One guy who helped us understand them was a guy named Einstein, maybe you have heard of him? His understanding of the rules is what brought about atomic weapons and energy. Perhaps you heard of them as well?

We have good handle on how they universe works. If there is some way to travel faster than light we would need to rethink all of our theories how the universe works. The problem with that is, they work. We get rockets into space, and to the moon. Atomic bombs explode, nuclear submarines move, we get it, we understand.

 

[Zachary Smith]

This highlights one of the reasons I'm a skeptic. The rest of the galaxy may well be teeming with intelligent life. But with our current understanding of the physics of the universe there is no way to travel faster than light. And no trifling piece of technology will change that. It would take a total re-understanding of the structure of the universe we live in. And our current understanding is pretty darn good.

And at one time it was believed that our understanding of the universe was "pretty darn good" when we'd sussed out the four elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water.

This hubris is one of the reasons scientists (not science, but SCIENTIST) often make me ill.

Our understanding of the universe is "pretty darn good" as compared to what? A year ago? A THOUSAND years ago? FIVE thousand years ago? My God, three hundred years ago they had no IDEA the entire electromagnetic spectrum existed. How do we KNOW what we don't KNOW? Since the very inception of science. scientists have taken the attitude that we've JUST about got it all figured out except for maybe dotting some i's and crossing a few t's. We KNOW we've got the big picture in place though. Then new concepts come along and there are "revolutions" in understanding and scientists say, "well, this was to be expected."

I REALLY do believe that the knowledge and understanding we WILL have of the universe in 500 years or a thousand will make our "big picture" look at quaint as we see many of the accepted concepts of the 1800's. People are SO bloody fond of that, "we can't figure a way around the speed of light so it CAN'T be done by ANYONE" excuse. Riddle me this, Batman, what if we learn to CONTROL and manipulate MASS? What if we learn how to CREATE energy. And please don't try to tell me energy cannot be created. It EXISTS, therefore it HAD to have been created at some p[oint in some universe in some time-line. Elsewise it is ETNERNAL and has ALWAYS existed and our "big picture" indicates right now that scenario is not true of the ENTIRE universe. The universe, as we understand it had a creation point. It follows that the fundamental components that make up the universe must ALSO have had a creation point. Or, like the example of eternal energy, those components have ALWAYS existed. And THAT is something which is so far beyond our level of science that it enters int the realm of philosophy and PURE speculation. And that demonstrates we are not even CLOSE to understanding even FUNDAMENTAL aspects about our universe.

One thousand years from now, ten thousand, a million years from what might our descendents know that is unthinkable to us today because even the groundwork for understanding it has not been laid?

Climb down from that pinnacle of ego and recognize we are taking our first BABY-STEPS as an advanced culture. Do you REALLY think that we can lay bare the secrets of all reality in a couple hundred years? Do you really think that what our descendants might know in a couple millenia won't put our "knowledge" to shame? Do you really mean to argue that a civilization even 500 years more advanced than ours wouldn't have made discoveries that would slack our jaws in wonder?

"We can't figure out how to do it right now so it can NEVER be done, by anyone. ANYWHERE. EVER!"

And if man was meant to fly, he'd have wings . . .

Nice rant on where you think we are scientifically and culturally. Unfortunately it doesn't mean a thing. It has to do with the fundamental structure of the universe.

The universe has rules. One rule is the universe doesn't allow us to travel faster than light. It's rule you can't break (as much as we all would like to).

All together they are good rules because they keep you and I from flying apart into our component atoms. They also keep us firmly stuck to our planet and keep us from floating out into space.

We have put a lot of thought and research into these rules. One guy who helped us understand them was a guy named Einstein, maybe you have heard of him? His understanding of the rules is what brought about atomic weapons and energy. Perhaps you heard of them as well?

We have good handle on how they universe works. If there is some way to travel faster than light we would need to rethink all of our theories how the universe works. The problem with that is, they work. We get rockets into space, and to the moon. Atomic bombs explode, nuclear submarines move, we get it, we understand.

Close up shop, boys and girls. They've got it ALL solved. Einstein did it. Nothing been learned since. Nothing new coming down the pipe. Nothing new gonna ever be learned again. Some cat called "Einstein" solved it all.

We've "got it".

(hubris, thy name is "science")

BTW, where did "energy" come from?

BTW, when did "time" begin?

BTW, when will "time" end?

WILL it end?

How many dimensions are there?

Are there other universes "outside" this one?

While we're at it, where did the constituent compenents that fueled the "big bang" come from?

DOES information that travels via quantum entanglement move instantaneously and, if so, is that NOT faster than light-speed and by what MECHANISM does it achieve this?

ETC ETC ETC.

"We've got a good handle on it".

Sure we do . . .

Dream on.

(BTW, got that "unified field theory" business worked out yet? Or is "Albert" still fiddling on that one?)