Don’t pull the bumblebee argument on me.
That can be one of the definitions. I have no idea how that contradicts what I said. We do have a crude outline of the universe. There is far more to be learned about it than we currently know.
I did no such thing. Don’t pull a strawman argument on me.
That is exactly what you did. Name one thing about helecopter flight on Mars that violated the laws of physics as they were known 30 years ago.
That, I completely believe.
Name one thing about sending a probe to another star system that violates the laws of physics as they are known now.
That’s what is going on here. Saying that it will be hard, that people won’t be able to overcome the engineering difficulties, that people won’t bother to do it. Nothing that violates physics.
If anything it is you that is engaging in the bumble bee argument here by claiming that these things that you are unable to imagine are actually impossible.
So you admit that it doesn’t then? Good to know.
You make profoundly nonsensical arguments.
Show one instance where I made that claim.
No, I don’t think that that is what the problem is here. One person said that our understanding of the universe was elementary. You said “Not bloody likely” and cited Asimov’s essay that concludes that our understanding of the universe is incomplete.
You justified this by making up a definition of elementary meaning a simple crude outline, which still doesn’t contradict anything that anyone has said.
If you meant something other than disagreement with your statement “Not bloody likely”, then please explain what you actually meant.
You claimed that I made that claim when you invoked that I was using the bumblebee argument.
I simply turned the question back on you, to show how nonsensical it was for you to try to invoke it.
So, sure, I will show an instance where you made a claim that sending a probe to another star system violated the laws of physics as soon as you show an instance of me claiming that helecopter (sic) flight on Mars violated the laws of physics as they were known 30 years ago.
Remember, you claimed that is exactly what I did. Do you retract that statement, or are you ready to cite where I made that claim?
Anyway, the point that I made, and you ignored in favor of playing some sort of “gotcha” game, is if you asked someone 30 years ago if we would fly a helicopter on Mars, they would bring up all the engineering, technology, costs, and lack of desire that they see as insurmountable as reasons why we never would, why it is impossible. Which is exactly the same arguments made against interstellar probes and expansion.
Whatever, dude. Keep on pounding on whatever straw man exists in that world you have in your mind.
Here’s the story so far:
1.) Poster says that our understanding of chemestry and physics is very limited.
2.) I point out that we make extremely precise tools that depend on chenestry and physics to work like we think they work, and they work, so our understanding isn’t likely hugely wrong (from a practical, thing-building point of view, at least.)
3.) You jump in and say “Oh, yeah? Well you probably think helicoptors can’t fly on Mars lol bbq!”
4.) I say that there is no fundamental physics that keep a helicopter from flying on Mars.
5.) You say “Checkmate!” like you outsmarted me on a point I was never arguing in any way in the first place.
I neither said nor implied anything about the impossibility of long-term space probes. That argument you are applying to me comes only from inside your own head.
None of which arguments I have been making. You are attacking me for something some other poster said.
I think you’ve shifted the goalposts just a little there. We were talking about probes that would traverse the entire galaxy from a single point of origin. Starshot isn’t that.
Why are we talking about probes that traverse the entire galaxy? Are we assuming that the closest alien civilisation is at the other end of the galaxy for some reason?
Perhaps that is a reasonable assumption, given the absence of evidence for their existence.
No idea, but it’s right there in post #120
Firstly, what I said was that there could be a fleet of probes from a single origin, not one probe traversing the entire galaxy. There’s no reason that has to involve a single probe travelling more than 100k light years. Of course the simpler scenario is self-replicating probes, but that’s been discussed at length in parallel threads so I was just trying to avoid going into all that again.
But secondly, so what if I were talking about one probe going millions of light years? You still haven’t shown anything that would make that impossible, just your own skepticism.
And, so what? In this context, a really, really hard engineering problem is irrelevant, it needs to be shown to be impossible according to our understanding of physics, because we’re expecting a species millions of years ahead of us at this to be capable of solving really, really hard engineering problems.
Since you just conceded that interstellar transport may well be likely with humble human tech (or at least: our best physicists cannot see a reason it is not possible), you’ve boxed yourself into the position of believing hopping to the next star may be possible but going further some…law of physics kicks in? Do tell.
“Brain and brain, what is brain?”
That’s a pretty poor and self serving summation. Every point you made was incorrect.
So you do agree that an advanced civilization potentially could and would expand out across the galaxy with probes, machines, and even colonies?
If so, then you are making a very odd argument and undercutting that position. If not, then yes, I am arguing against the position that you hold.
In either case, I don’t see what value you have to contribute to this conversation, so I think I’m done unless you choose to actually discuss the merits of the science and technology behind space exploration, and how that relates to the possibility of extrasolar intelligences contact with us.
Starshot is a first step. It would not be our last.
Worst case scenario, or best case, depending on your perspective.
If there are contemporary extrasolar intelligences, which I personally doubt, then it would be hard to explain why there are only a few, rather than hundreds of thousands or millions.
My position is that the long journey time and exposure to very harsh conditions will make it physically impossible to create a machine that will remain in working order long enough.
Starshot may, or may not be possible, but it doesn’t scale up to a journey across the galaxy - it requires huge resources and support at the launch end. Propelling a speck of silicon at Proxima Centauri from Earth doesn’t do anything to enable a hop from Proxima Centauri to the next star.
Please can you drop the attitude? I don’t enjoy it.