> > We don't know the laws of physics. We know what we know. We have
> inferred
> > rules from experimental data which is often unverifiable. We hope that
> our
> > ideas are close (many are, but many still need to be tried and tested by
> > implementing technologies using such science - this is particularly true
> of
> > astrophysics - it's all theory.) but they are almost definitely not spot
> on.
>
> But they are not wildly different from the truth,
>
So, you have the truth by which to make this distance comparison ? NO!
Aaaaaggh! Am I the only one here able to rationalise with massive logical
errors?
> >
> > Secondly, and more importantly (this is central to my argument) you
> cannot
> > say from what persepective an alien intelligence might view the
> universe. We
> > look up at night and see absence of photons, speckled with photon
> sources,
> > because we detect photons. But what about things we don't detect, things
> we
> > have not yet discovered, or have misunderstood. These things will
> represent
> > the differences between civilisations. For all you know the universe
> could
> > be saturated with "slorgopo energy" which many creatures detect for some
> > purpose or another, but we don't, it has no observable effect upon our
> > systems and so we haven't noticed it, and evolution hasn't utilised it.
>
> if the solar system were saturated with 'slorgopo energy' it would be
> reproducable in any particle accelerator on any planet in the universe,
> and its effects would be observable via astronomy.
>
No, no, no and more no's......I'm not quibbling with facts on any of this
stuff - I don't know all about science and math, I'm pointing out logical
fallacies in the statements you're making. You assume yet again - this time
that slorgopo energy is detectable by the tools of astronomy - well, I made
it up, and I say it ain't. Hundreds of years ago if I had proposed
electomagnetic radiation, undetectable by human senses, I'd have done an
afternoon on the barbeque. "Human senses see all, as God has blessed....blah
blah..." they'd rant as I go up in flames. Just as you are assuming that
astronomy tools see all. I think not.
> Photons are among the most abundant, and are the easiest to detect by any
> means using matter.
>
>From OUR perspective, from OUR technological standpoint.
Rob.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.bournemouth.gov.uk