Is the Fermi Paradox evidence of the Gospel Plan?

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, longview said:

That is an unscientific thing to say.  I have read that even neutrinos have an infinitesimal amount of mass.  You need to do your homework.  CFR, please.

Neutrinos have mass. It is just a very small mass.

SEE https://physics.aps.org/story/v2/st10

Photons have no mass.

SEE: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

I accept your apology for saying I need to do my homework.

Edited April 18, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[RevTestament]

22 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Such aliens would face the same technological problems we face. It takes about 4.25 light years to get to our next closest  star at light speed. We don't know of any object that can go faster.

I'd be thrilled if we would. But alas that is a problem for human psychology and not technology.

It seems the best technology right now would take us 20 years to get there, although we could reach Proxima Centauri in a year less time since it is slightly closer:

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=35402   Plus it would take another four years for any data to come back.

If we were to go through that much effort, I'd like to see us send at least a few starshot probes to Proxima Centauri. Probes like this would have to be sent extremely accurately, as they would probably have little or no ability to maneuver themselves. There are at least 20 major technological hurdles to overcome as well.   

A nuclear-powered concept was designed to reach the Centauri system in about 100 years, and go into orbit. This project design was called Longshot:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot   

I doubt there is the political will to endure that kind of time frame for one expensive project. It would have to be self-maneuvering as it would take 8.5 years for it to ask for instructions, and receive an answer to make a maneuver.

A few years back someone announced a planet-find around Centauri B, but the proximity of Alpha Centauri A and B to each other generally spells trouble for the potential of life being in the system or at least a solar system much like ours - especially given B's irregular orbit. Others have been unable to confirm the existence of the reported planet, which would have had a heart-stopping orbit of 3.25 days, and a paper has been published reproducing the data without the existence of the planet. It seems to me the orbit of such a close proximity to a star would deteriorate due to friction with ejecta from the star, making it an improbable planet. Thus, the possibility of a habitable sized planet around either of these  stars remains unresolved, but it appears unlikely that either has giant planets like Jupiter. With NASA's new satellite to come on-line it seems appropriate to first try to find something interesting to look at in the system before launching a semi-blind mission, but again the irregular orbits in the system don't bode well for finding planets using transit search techniques. It appears appropriate to follow up on The Hubble findings - a "lightcurve."

Thank you for your comments

[RevTestament]

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your bolded statement above is simply an assertion of faith based on very few who have claimed to speak directly with YHWH.  Others personal metaphysical experiences are unique to them and may or may not be communication with a God being.

Given the number reported within the LDS community, including myself, I would say it is a little more than anecdotal evidence, however I have to agree such human reporting can be unreliable as with attention-seeking UFO reports. However, God has never subjected Himself to objectively verifiable scientific analysis, and I doubt He ever will. But, I do believe a good understanding of the scriptures leads to semi-objective evidence for one divine author. 

Quote

But the OP is interesting. It could be that is the universe in which we live is really 13 billion years old or so that it has taken a really long time on and planet for intelligent life to evolve and none have reached the point of interstellar space travel.  

Thank you. I found the thought interesting as well. I have come to believe the universe may have no measurable beginning, and to doubt the big-bang model. The big-bang model is not objectively verifiable within current knowledge of physics, etc. When trying to account for galaxies moving too slowly, "dark matter" and "dark energy" a new mathematical constant suggests the universe has no known beginning - some more random thoughts. Thus, if eternal spirits exist within this universe, they could have done so eternally as suggested by the King Follet discourse of JS. 

Quote

Humans however are a space faring civilization. We have been to the moon and in orbit around our world.  We have sent unmanned spacecraft that is now beyond the boundaries of our solar system.  Traveling to Mars is could happen in our lifetime.  Whether the human species will last long enough to develop technology to travel further than that is unknown.  You and I won't see it.

By space-faring I am referring to interstellar travel and colonization - a stage I don't believe we will reach - at least in our current mortal state. This discussion is one purpose for this thread - I don't believe it is in accordance with God's plan.

Thank you for your thoughts

[thesometimesaint]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It seems the best technology right now would take us 20 years to get there, although we could reach Proxima Centauri in a year less time since it is slightly closer:

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=35402   Plus it would take another four years for any data to come back.

If we were to go through that much effort, I'd like to see us send at least a few starshot probes to Proxima Centauri. Probes like this would have to be sent extremely accurately, as they would probably have little or no ability to maneuver themselves. There are at least 20 major technological hurdles to overcome as well.   

A nuclear-powered concept was designed to reach the Centauri system in about 100 years, and go into orbit. This project design was called Longshot:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot   

I doubt there is the political will to endure that kind of time frame for one expensive project. It would have to be self-maneuvering as it would take 8.5 years for it to ask for instructions, and receive an answer to make a maneuver.

A few years back someone announced a planet-find around Centauri B, but the proximity of Alpha Centauri A and B to each other generally spells trouble for the potential of life being in the system or at least a solar system much like ours - especially given B's irregular orbit. Others have been unable to confirm the existence of the reported planet, which would have had a heart-stopping orbit of 3.25 days, and a paper has been published reproducing the data without the existence of the planet. It seems to me the orbit of such a close proximity to a star would deteriorate due to friction with ejecta from the star, making it an improbable planet. Thus, the possibility of a habitable sized planet around either of these  stars remains unresolved, but it appears unlikely that either has giant planets like Jupiter. With NASA's new satellite to come on-line it seems appropriate to first try to find something interesting to look at in the system before launching a semi-blind mission, but again the irregular orbits in the system don't bode well for finding planets using transit search techniques. It appears appropriate to follow up on The Hubble findings - a "lightcurve."

Thank you for your comments

While Light Sails are interesting. I don't foresee much use for them in terms of interstellar travel. Maybe travel between the planets as a kind of unmanned cargo ship only. Right now the fastest vehicle is the New Horizon probe at about 36,000 miles per hr. Even at that rate it would take it some 78,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri. if it were going in the right direction which it is not.

There maybe life, even intelligent life on other planets outside our solar system. However the distances are just too great for us to overcome without some new type of theoretical physics coming forwards to actual technology. 

[longview]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Neutrinos have mass. It is just a very small mass.

One more homework assignment:  what is the upper limit of the mass of a neutrino?   what is the upper limit of the mass of a photon?  what is the ratio of the masses of the two?

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Photons have no mass.

Why have you ignored my reply to cdowis?  The latest inquiry has established a theoretical upper limit on the mass of a photon.  Please RE-read that post.

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I accept your apology for saying I need to do my homework.

bob and weave . . . bob and weave . . . it is unbecoming to play "rope a dope" while evading straight forward scientific questions . . . (just in case you are unfamiliar with the term "rope a dope", this is in reference to the famous boxing match in 1974 between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman) . . .

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, longview said:

One more homework assignment:  what is the upper limit of the mass of a neutrino?   what is the upper limit of the mass of a photon?  what is the ratio of the masses of the two?

Why have you ignored my reply to cdowis?  The latest inquiry has established a theoretical upper limit on the mass of a photon.  Please RE-read that post.

bob and weave . . . bob and weave . . . it is unbecoming to play "rope a dope" while evading straight forward scientific questions . . . (just in case you are unfamiliar with the term "rope a dope", this is in reference to the famous boxing match in 1974 between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman) . . .

What is the upper limit mass of any physical object? Photons have no mass. Read the articles I linked to.

I'm very familiar with that reference. It is used to describe strategies in which one party purposely puts itself in what appears to be a losing position, attempting thereby to become the eventual victor.