Crosswords55 mins ago
Do You Believe In Any Of The Following?
171 Answers
A survey of 2,000 British adults was commissioned to mark the launch of the new TV series ‘Believe’. The poll asked respondents about their beliefs as well as superstitions that still hold sway in 2014, with the following results:
Top 10 Beliefs in Unexplained Phenomena:
1 - Ghosts (33%)
2 - Sixth sense (32%)
3 - UFOs (22%)
4 - Past lives (19%)
5 - Telepathy (18%)
6 - Psychic ability to predict the future (18%)
7 - Psychic healing (16%)
8 - Astrology (10%)
9 - Bermuda Triangle (9%)
10 - Demons (8%)
http://
Top 10 Beliefs in Unexplained Phenomena:
1 - Ghosts (33%)
2 - Sixth sense (32%)
3 - UFOs (22%)
4 - Past lives (19%)
5 - Telepathy (18%)
6 - Psychic ability to predict the future (18%)
7 - Psychic healing (16%)
8 - Astrology (10%)
9 - Bermuda Triangle (9%)
10 - Demons (8%)
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi24
Question Author
mibs, rather than make unverified assumptions about anyone’s inability to grasp the essential nature of the means and process of consciousness and reason, or to criticise what you perceive to be unbridled imagination, it’s far more rational to acknowledge that the unexplained is, indeed, unexplained – don’t you think?
09:57 Sun 30th Mar 2014
The refusal to acknowledge that ones lack of ability to explain is justification for believing that which defies explanation is verification of ones inability to grasp the essential nature of the means and process of consciousness and reason. An imagination unrestrained by objectivity, unfettered by knowledge of what is or is not possible within the constraints imposed by reality is the stuff that renders dreams indistinguishable from reality in what can only be an attempt to place ones preferred delusions on a equal footing with a comprehensive understanding.
Feeling that something must be real should never be the end of questioning the validity of ones beliefs but rather an affirmation of ones need to establish its reality if only to discover that one was suffering a delusion. The fear of acknowledging that one might possibly be wrong should never usurp ones pursuit of the truth.
naomi24 - "... I’m very well aware of the enormity of our galaxy and of the universe. However, at almost the speed of light, the distance between earth and our nearest neighbour (approximately 4 light years) is hardly ‘ginormous’. Bit of a mix up in your thinking there, Birdie. TTT’s logic isn’t irrefutable and neither is yours..."
You haven't thought this through. Let's assume that there are no intelligent civilisations within the orbit of our nearest neighbour. Let's look at another star. How about Rigel? It's the really bright one in Orions Belt. It's 723 light-years away but still well within in our galaxy. So a reply from there (assuming there is someone there to talk to) will take 1446 years. But let's say that there is no other intelligent life in our galaxy. Let's look at another galaxy instead. How about the Large Magellanic Cloud [LMC]? It's our nearest galactic neighbour at 179,000 light-years away...
I think you can see where this is going. On reflection, I don't think that my use of the word "ginormous" was misplaced do you? There was no "mix up" in my thinking.
- "... Just as she cannot provide evidence, neither can you provide evidence to conclusively debunk her claimed experiences – and before you launch into the usual ‘burden of proof’ rhetoric - we know..."
Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. You know that and have argued exactly the same in the past when discussing religion. However, when this particular matter comes up you abandon your usual logic and fall back to this default position, claiming that Occam's razor is a "blunt instrument" etc.
Mibs - Great post.
You haven't thought this through. Let's assume that there are no intelligent civilisations within the orbit of our nearest neighbour. Let's look at another star. How about Rigel? It's the really bright one in Orions Belt. It's 723 light-years away but still well within in our galaxy. So a reply from there (assuming there is someone there to talk to) will take 1446 years. But let's say that there is no other intelligent life in our galaxy. Let's look at another galaxy instead. How about the Large Magellanic Cloud [LMC]? It's our nearest galactic neighbour at 179,000 light-years away...
I think you can see where this is going. On reflection, I don't think that my use of the word "ginormous" was misplaced do you? There was no "mix up" in my thinking.
- "... Just as she cannot provide evidence, neither can you provide evidence to conclusively debunk her claimed experiences – and before you launch into the usual ‘burden of proof’ rhetoric - we know..."
Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. You know that and have argued exactly the same in the past when discussing religion. However, when this particular matter comes up you abandon your usual logic and fall back to this default position, claiming that Occam's razor is a "blunt instrument" etc.
Mibs - Great post.
mibs, //The fear of acknowledging that one might possibly be wrong should never usurp ones pursuit of the truth.//
I couldn’t agree more – but that must apply from whichever angle you’re coming from – no? It’s surely those who dismiss that for which verifiable evidence cannot currently be provided who allow their unqualified opinion to usurp pursuit of the truth? They abandon the pursuit altogether!
Birdie, I haven’t abandoned my usual logic and I have indeed thought this through, clearly demonstrating that your claim that TTT’s logic is irrefutable is inaccurate. You actually shot yourself in the foot with the example you gave – but of course you can attempt to recover by citing star systems millions of light years away if that’s what you want to do. I also predicted where this was going and here we go. ‘Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.’ As I said, we know.
I couldn’t agree more – but that must apply from whichever angle you’re coming from – no? It’s surely those who dismiss that for which verifiable evidence cannot currently be provided who allow their unqualified opinion to usurp pursuit of the truth? They abandon the pursuit altogether!
Birdie, I haven’t abandoned my usual logic and I have indeed thought this through, clearly demonstrating that your claim that TTT’s logic is irrefutable is inaccurate. You actually shot yourself in the foot with the example you gave – but of course you can attempt to recover by citing star systems millions of light years away if that’s what you want to do. I also predicted where this was going and here we go. ‘Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.’ As I said, we know.
"TTT, I read what you said. I can’t answer your question – but Stephen Hawking pins his hopes on antimatter, foreseeing future technologies that might reach speeds equal to a high percentage of the speed of light." - it's not feasable at 10000 times the speed of light! That's what I'm saying.
Birdie - thank you finally someone gets it! I just don't think many people comprehend the distances involved.
Birdie - thank you finally someone gets it! I just don't think many people comprehend the distances involved.
TTT, //it's not feasable at 10000 times the speed of light! That's what I'm saying. //
I know what you're saying, but you seem to be assuming that any star system we target must be located in the furthest reaches of the universe, which of course would be a very different matter altogether. With his example of potential contact with our nearest neighbour Birdie has inadvertently demonstrated that distances between us and our nearest neighbours are not necessarily prohibitive. Did you not read his posts properly?
I know what you're saying, but you seem to be assuming that any star system we target must be located in the furthest reaches of the universe, which of course would be a very different matter altogether. With his example of potential contact with our nearest neighbour Birdie has inadvertently demonstrated that distances between us and our nearest neighbours are not necessarily prohibitive. Did you not read his posts properly?
Aren't they prohibitive? Even a distance of 23 light-years (which is the distance roughly to the nearest feasible Earth-like planet, Gliese 667-Cc) is very significant. Even supposing that:
- Gliese 667 Cc is capable of sustaining life;
- that this capability has translated into life actually emerging there;
- that the life on Gliese 667 Cc subsequently developed into an intelligent species;
- some colossal natural disaster did not wipe out said species too early;
- that this species is further advanced, technologically and scientifically, than we are;
- that there was sufficient motivation for this species to explore the possibility of interstellar travel;
- that the planet had the natural resources capable of engineering such a craft;
- an interstellar journey of ~23 light years is technically possible in such a way that the astronauts can manage the trip within their lifetime;
- and that there were actually people within that species willing to commit to a journey which would mean leaving behind their homes and family for at least 46 Earth-years of their lives;
Even supposing all of these things, you'd still have to suppose yet more things still: that there was a sufficient motivation to make the journey in the first place.
Of course, that we have been able to see that planet automatically implies that they can see us... but over such distances the amount you can say about what you see is incredibly vague. What we know so far about Gliese 667 Cc can be written on the back of a small postcard, and even intense studying is unlikely to reveal much more about the planet than some bounds on its likelihood of sustaining life. Almost certainly there is little to no chance of telling whether or not there is life there without actually going to have a look. Which takes us back to the last supposition I made: who would be prepared to make such a long trip that would likely mean saying goodbye forever to friends and family, especially if there's no cast-iron guarantee that the trip will even be worth it?
And yet, Ufologists would presumably have us believe that:
a) Aliens have decided to make this trip;
b) Maybe dozens of alien species have done so independently of each other;
c) on arrival, they seem to have been content either to set themselves up as Gods, or to stick probes up random drunk people's backsides. I mean, really?!
After a while, it becomes apparent that a belief in aliens visiting Earth is just another way of trying to pretend that the Universe cares about our existence.
- Gliese 667 Cc is capable of sustaining life;
- that this capability has translated into life actually emerging there;
- that the life on Gliese 667 Cc subsequently developed into an intelligent species;
- some colossal natural disaster did not wipe out said species too early;
- that this species is further advanced, technologically and scientifically, than we are;
- that there was sufficient motivation for this species to explore the possibility of interstellar travel;
- that the planet had the natural resources capable of engineering such a craft;
- an interstellar journey of ~23 light years is technically possible in such a way that the astronauts can manage the trip within their lifetime;
- and that there were actually people within that species willing to commit to a journey which would mean leaving behind their homes and family for at least 46 Earth-years of their lives;
Even supposing all of these things, you'd still have to suppose yet more things still: that there was a sufficient motivation to make the journey in the first place.
Of course, that we have been able to see that planet automatically implies that they can see us... but over such distances the amount you can say about what you see is incredibly vague. What we know so far about Gliese 667 Cc can be written on the back of a small postcard, and even intense studying is unlikely to reveal much more about the planet than some bounds on its likelihood of sustaining life. Almost certainly there is little to no chance of telling whether or not there is life there without actually going to have a look. Which takes us back to the last supposition I made: who would be prepared to make such a long trip that would likely mean saying goodbye forever to friends and family, especially if there's no cast-iron guarantee that the trip will even be worth it?
And yet, Ufologists would presumably have us believe that:
a) Aliens have decided to make this trip;
b) Maybe dozens of alien species have done so independently of each other;
c) on arrival, they seem to have been content either to set themselves up as Gods, or to stick probes up random drunk people's backsides. I mean, really?!
After a while, it becomes apparent that a belief in aliens visiting Earth is just another way of trying to pretend that the Universe cares about our existence.
-- answer removed --
Jim, no, the distances are not necessarily prohibitive - but they might appear so to people with limited vision. Along with the suggestion that with the benefit of future technology inter-stellar space travel could be possible, Stephen Hawking also thinks we should be searching for a new home – and he’s no ‘Ufologist’.
We are taking our first tentative steps into space exploration, and if other civilisations do exist elsewhere, there’s no reason to suppose that they are devoid of curiosity. No one has suggested the universe cares about us. That’s a silly thing to say.
We are taking our first tentative steps into space exploration, and if other civilisations do exist elsewhere, there’s no reason to suppose that they are devoid of curiosity. No one has suggested the universe cares about us. That’s a silly thing to say.
I wasn't saying that other species were devoid of curiosity, but curiosity can only get you so far. And, like it or not, the distances certainly are prohibitive, at least if you are planning a return trip anyway. As I pointed out, even a journey from the nearest, even remotely plausible, habitable planet would mean a round trip of a minimum of 46 years from the perspective of the inhabitants or that planet. Realistically, those who are leaving would never be coming back, which in itself will surely place severe constraints on how near these planets would have to be before we could expect them to visit us. I think even if you were optimistic about it then you're looking at an intelligent species capable of interstellar flight having to be no more than 100 light years away to consider the possibility of their visiting. And I'm probably being generous with that figure.
And like I said, almost certainly they'd have little idea of what to expect when they got here, so even supposing the trip were feasible then it might not even be taken. I don't think that, despite your claim to the contrary, you really appreciate how vast and empty space really is. I don't think anyone does, really. If the Moon were the size of a pixel and you scrolled across the Solar System at the usual rate of scrolling webpages, then ignoring Relativistic effects it would still take over half an hour to get from the Sun to Pluto*. And that's barely a hair's breadth by cosmic standards.
I'd like to think that there is alien life out there, and that some day we'll contact it. But it's seriously unlikely to happen in my lifetime, if ever. I won't say "never", but you may as well be realistic about this.
*you can test this, at http://
And like I said, almost certainly they'd have little idea of what to expect when they got here, so even supposing the trip were feasible then it might not even be taken. I don't think that, despite your claim to the contrary, you really appreciate how vast and empty space really is. I don't think anyone does, really. If the Moon were the size of a pixel and you scrolled across the Solar System at the usual rate of scrolling webpages, then ignoring Relativistic effects it would still take over half an hour to get from the Sun to Pluto*. And that's barely a hair's breadth by cosmic standards.
I'd like to think that there is alien life out there, and that some day we'll contact it. But it's seriously unlikely to happen in my lifetime, if ever. I won't say "never", but you may as well be realistic about this.
*you can test this, at http://
-- answer removed --
It's worth pointing out just how much energy can be involved in feasible interstellar travel. Regardless of how it's achieved, in order to reduce the journey time for passengers travelling here from the nearest planet I mentioned, Gliese 667-Cc, down to about 7 years, would require a spaceship the size of the NASA space shuttles to have something like 4.5*10^23 Joules of kinetic energy. To put this number in context, the estimated total global energy reserves of Uranium 238 might provide almost exactly half of this energy if we were able to extract all of it and convert it as efficiently as possible -- and then after half a second it would all run out and we'd need something else. This is also equivalent to the total energy transmitted to the whole of the Earth from the Sun each month.
And that's for a trip of seven years as measured by the astronauts. To reduce the trip to a year requires about 10 times as much energy again.
This is a highly non-trivial technological challenge, requiring energies that can be measured most reasonably in terms of how much energy a star releases per second. In such units the relatively modest journey described above (Gliese to Earth in 7 years) needs a little over one thousandth of the energy the Sun outputs per second, and Gliese to Earth in a year needs about 1% of this energy instead.
And that's still only the best-case scenario of the nearest aliens being virtually next-door neighbours. Given those sorts of numbers for such a short trip, you can imagine that in order to travel much further than 23-odd light-years you would need to rip planets from their orbit, or blow up entire star systems, to provide the required energy.
And that's for a trip of seven years as measured by the astronauts. To reduce the trip to a year requires about 10 times as much energy again.
This is a highly non-trivial technological challenge, requiring energies that can be measured most reasonably in terms of how much energy a star releases per second. In such units the relatively modest journey described above (Gliese to Earth in 7 years) needs a little over one thousandth of the energy the Sun outputs per second, and Gliese to Earth in a year needs about 1% of this energy instead.
And that's still only the best-case scenario of the nearest aliens being virtually next-door neighbours. Given those sorts of numbers for such a short trip, you can imagine that in order to travel much further than 23-odd light-years you would need to rip planets from their orbit, or blow up entire star systems, to provide the required energy.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Songs That Are Connected To The Weather...
Music61 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles96 mins ago
How Many Onn Here Thinkthis Is...
News110 mins ago
Has Sunak Already Made Plans To Leave...
News131 mins ago
