Here is where you try to disprove the physics theory’s that you don’t like and then someone else tries to defend them so it’s not one sided, like that FREAKING DIAMOND MODEL of space time.
Please hate on that one the most because it is (In my opinion) the worst best representation of spacetime there is because it disregards the fact that no matter how fast you travel, your not going back in time or even slowing down time for that matter. anyway I’m getting off topic, here is were you disprove scientific theory’s because you hate them and there’s nowhere else to do it online. I’m looking forward to your rants, thank you and let me know what you think down below.
Actually the way to disprove (or should I say, improve) a theory is to find an experiment or a situation where the theory doesn’t apply. For example Newtonian gravity was amended by Einstein for specific cases where the simplified model of gravity (without taking relativistic effects into account) resulted in incorrect calculations. For example the orbit of Mercury seemed to violate the laws of gravity until they were amended. Similarly to disprove a theory entirely you would have to refute enough of the experiments that established that theory as being done incorrectly, otherwise there’ll be a specific problem domain where the theory still applies.
Granted it’s much more difficult, and some even say there’s no point / these aren’t really scientific theories rather they are educated guesses, to disprove something like string theory. These are not grounded in scientific observations and these theories also don’t make testable predictions. So really these aren’t proper scientific theories with any use.
And besides, if you actually did all the work to disprove an existing theory yourself, publish it! As a book or on your own website, it doesn’t really matter, but it means the information will be easy to find for those who want to know, and you could make money off of it; as apposed to posting it on a random internet forum about a video game.
So this thread is only really useful for saying that theories that are already proven false, are false.
I’m talking about the theory’s that don’t actually have an experiment behind them and are just people thinking about how the universe works on a grander scale.
I don’t think those really need to be disproven, it’s only the media(?) and people who have very little clue about doing actual science that are taking them seriously. Other people know that it’s not worth the time to try to “disprove” things that weren’t real in the first place.
Maybe something like “Common Science Tropes That Don’t Make Sense” would be a better title for the thread you want? As others are saying, a forum thread isn’t the best medium for dismantling well-established scientific ideals.
Along those lines, something I don’t get is the idea that an alien spaceship crashed on Earth, like was claimed in Roswell. If a civilization is advanced enough to be capable of interstellar travel, I seriously doubt that they would still be dealing with the possibility of crashing on whatever planet they traveled to.
That’s philosophy, usually. Or hypotheses. Hypotheses are an important part of science, and philosophy often works to inspire scientists. Dismantling something that isn’t factual to begin with is only useful if people are trying to convince you it’s factual.
Also, time does slow down for quickly moving objects. Relative to slower moving objects, that is. For the object that is moving quickly, it would seem more like time is speeding up. The quicker moving object changes at the same speed it normally would, but the slower objects appear to change faster from its perspective. That’s because it’s not the entire universe’s clock that slows down, but specifically the clock of the object moving quickly. When a turtle watches a rabbit pass it by, the turtle believes the rabbit is fast. When the rabbit passes the turtle by, it believes the turtle is slow. Both viewpoints are equally true, but neither viewpoints are the same.
Thus, if we assume we’re the ones who are moving slowly, then indeed time does slow down for anything moving quicker.
This video explains how time dilation works really well.
Well, there’s one well-regarded hypothesis that frustrates me greatly, the grabby aliens hypothesis and its other forms. It assumes that alien empire would spread at a costant rate, wich makes no sense as war, political movements, simply not being able to maintain a territory that large, ect. Would break the model up, making occupied space become patchy or shrink. It assumes that the civilization woud last a long time which is also no guarantee.Looking at the theory again it doesn’t seem to explicitly assume that aliens spread at notable fraction at the speed of light or that an occupied planet would magically make it impossible for a sapient species to appear which was my biggest gripes with it. So no comment there. But it is still annoying how grabbyness seems to be an assumed end result, or a stable state even though humans leave and vacate settlements all the time.
Another version that does assume sapient species magicaly can not appear is the evil AGI version of this hypothesis. This version of the theory assumes that a AGI could spread like a grabby alien in a way that makes it impossible for another sapient species to appear. It was thought up as a way to fix some of the problems of the original hypothesis. This is even worse in every conceivable way. The only way that, this idea could work is if every AGI is evil and wants to kill all life, or just all sapient life. because if just one AGI is good it could start a war of extermination with the evil AGI, Preventing spread. That is ignoring the grabby AGI that would allow sapient life to appear just fine or the grabby AGI that would want to murder all other grabby AGI. This would make grabby AGI a self solving problem eliminating the paradox in the first place.
Anyway this was just a rant, looking at the hypothesis again it seems my gripes with it have more to do with educational channels misinterpreting and over-extrapolating its points instead of the theory itself.
2 Likes
aah31415
(The maker of SitF, Radiostrocity, The Lifenote and TGBing; The Second Ascended...; And just maybe a security warning come alive...?)
10
Maybe the best theory thus far is that we’re the first… For there should have been the first species to form civs…
Honestly I dislike that theory too, since it assumes that we’re the only ones currently with little to no data. Of course it all depends on how easily life comes to be; but I feel it’s unlikely that we’re the only ones at the moment, or, the more believable, only sapient ones. It is more probable for us to be early, or within the first wave of life, since that allows for other life to be. Or for space to be too big, and aliens to be to far away for us to dectect them. Since the farther away you go the farther in the past a planet is, it makes sense we might not be able to find life, let alone sapient life, that existed billions of years ago.
3 Likes
aah31415
(The maker of SitF, Radiostrocity, The Lifenote and TGBing; The Second Ascended...; And just maybe a security warning come alive...?)
12
What do you think about the future great filter theory?
I don’t really have much opinion on the great filter. Though the idea of linearity that many who repeat the theory seem to push, does bother me. I don’t really remember the theory well enough to support or refute it.
2 Likes
aah31415
(The maker of SitF, Radiostrocity, The Lifenote and TGBing; The Second Ascended...; And just maybe a security warning come alive...?)
14
Is the past great filter theory any different for you?
Definitely not, it assumes that not only is everyone is cowerdly, but that they are all murder happy on top of that. Even if this is an optimal strategy, different species are almost garenteed to have different ways of thinking about things, therefore are unlikely to all push the same “dark forest” policy. Dark forest could appear in different units of space if the environment is in place but it is unlikely to stay that way. People change and “blowing all our neighbors up” may start looking like a bad thing to the species enploying it, they could go extinct, a neighboring system could blow them up with extreme prejudice, or all their tactics could become countered forcing all the species employing them on the negotiation table.
I generally don’t like most solutions to the fermi paradox, or really the fermi paradox itself, especially since the most simple explanation is, “space is really big, and aliens could be really far away” if a sapient species exists right now 2.5 billion light years away from us, we would only be able to see their planet 2.5 billion years ago, missing their species, and all their recent history.
3 Likes
aah31415
(The maker of SitF, Radiostrocity, The Lifenote and TGBing; The Second Ascended...; And just maybe a security warning come alive...?)
18
A bigger problem is that this is like 1000x further away than andromeda.
Well, this is embarrassing, I’ll be honest I had no idea how far away most stars are and just assumed most were in the 1,000 to 1 billion light year range, looking it up, I seemed to have conflated how long it takes to travel their to how long it takes light to travel here. I also did not know how big the milkyway was. Ok so light taking to long travel here is out the window as a good explanation, I probably should use actual sources instead of vibes next time, and space being too big is still somewhat up for debate, atleast for the why don’t aliens visit question instead of the why we can’t detect them question.
3 Likes
aah31415
(The maker of SitF, Radiostrocity, The Lifenote and TGBing; The Second Ascended...; And just maybe a security warning come alive...?)
20
Well now around Milky Way spacefaring alien civs would need to have developed in the last 150K years or so for us to not have had an opportunity to contact them whilst they’d still be here.
