From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

Never !

Interstellar distances are so great, as to preclude any chance of
travel or practical comunication.

Do the simple math : Time = Distance / Speed

This is why, although intelligent space faring species likely abound
throughout the universe, we are never visited by any.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

Never !

Interstellar distances are so great, as to preclude any chance of
travel or practical comunication.

Do the simple math : Time = Distance / Speed

Even at speeds approaching c , which is highly unlikely in any case,
times for even the shortest trips would be prohibitive.

This is why, although intelligent space faring species likely abound
throughout the universe, we are never visited by any.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

On 2/18/26 12:49, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:

Never !

Interstellar distances are so great, as to preclude any chance of
travel or practical comunication.

Do the simple math : Time = Distance / Speed

This is why, although intelligent space faring species likely abound throughout the universe, we are never visited by any.

I mostly agree about the travel.
As we understand the scientific rules, no human will
travel to another 'alien' civilization.
But, if we try, and continue to make progress,
we might indeed communicate with 'alien' life.

There is no reason why we can not in the future
(as our capabilities increase) create
"artificial intelligence" controlled computers
on space ships to go out as explorers, investigators,
and diplomats.

Communications may be possible if we are very patient
and have long time attention.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

On 2/19/26 2:38 PM, a425couple wrote:

On 2/18/26 12:49, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:

Never !

Interstellar distances are so great, as to preclude any chance of
travel or practical comunication.

Do the simple math :-a Time = Distance / Speed

This is why, although intelligent space faring species likely abound
throughout the universe, we are never visited by any.

I mostly agree about the travel.
As we understand the scientific rules, no human will
travel to another 'alien' civilization.
But, if we try, and continue to make progress,
we might indeed communicate with 'alien' life.

There is no reason why we can not in the future
(as our capabilities increase) create
"artificial intelligence" controlled computers
on space ships to go out as explorers, investigators,
and diplomats.

Communications may be possible if we are very patient
and have long time attention.

I recall reading "somewhere" that space travel in the future (very,
very, very* future) won't involve actually traveling gazillions of light
years away but instead, "punching through" the space-time fabric as a
sort of short cut. I suppose it would be like a great circle route on a
globe is shorter than the apparent straight line route or as we think of
SciFi wormholes and such.

But without that sort of mechanism, there is no way we'll see other life forms, let alone intelligent ones. As far as we know, even with
exoplanet systems that we have now found, the odds are scarce that a
planet will have the requirements for life (as we know it) let alone the
roll of the dice evolutionary process to produce intelligence.

That's a primary reason I don't believe in UFOs and extraterrestrial incidents. Some weird stuff no doubt, but explainable at some point,
now or in the future with more knowledge.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

a425couple wrote:

On 2/18/26 12:49, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:

Interstellar distances are so great, as to preclude any chance of
travel or practical comunication.

Do the simple math : Time = Distance / Speed

This is why, although intelligent space faring species likely abound
throughout the universe, we are never visited by any.

I mostly agree about the travel.

As we understand the scientific rules, no human will
travel to another 'alien' civilization.

But, like the OP, you do not understand "the scientific rules" to begin
with. There is more science than you (can) learn in highschool (in the USA).

But, if we try, and continue to make progress,
we might indeed communicate with 'alien' life.

True.

There is no reason why we can not in the future
(as our capabilities increase) create
"artificial intelligence" controlled computers
on space ships to go out as explorers, investigators,
and diplomats.

Also true.

Communications may be possible if we are very patient
and have long time attention.

Correct.

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity, where it actually belongs.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message news:10n7vse$3s5nk$1@dont-email.me...

I recall reading "somewhere" that space travel in the future (very,
very, very* future) won't involve actually traveling gazillions of light
years away but instead, "punching through" the space-time fabric as a
sort of short cut. I suppose it would be like a great circle route on a
globe is shorter than the apparent straight line route or as we think of
SciFi wormholes and such.

-------------------------------------------
An example is a crumpled map. Increasing the dimensions by one, 2 to 3,
allows different areas on the map to touch.

My guess is that we need to move out of the Sun's gravity well to make measurements and discoveries that will expand our knowledge of Physics. Our current theories fail to explain the structure of galaxies and we can't reconcile Quantum Mechanics with Relativity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

Atomic weights didn't make sense until Neutrons were discovered, as recently as 1932.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_the_neutron
"At the start of the 20th century, the vigorous debate as to the existence
of atoms had not yet been resolved."

Physics and Chemistry advance when someone finally makes the critical measurement that disproves the old system, like Galileo supposedly dropping weights off the Leaning Tower of Pisa to disprove Aristotle and allow
science to break free from his stifling errors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment

"Astronaut David Scott performed a version of the experiment on the Moon during the Apollo 15 mission in 1971, dropping a feather and a hammer from
his hands. Because of the negligible lunar atmosphere, there was no drag on the feather, which reached the lunar surface at the same time as the
hammer."

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10n8j6j$2icn$1@dont-email.me...

Physics and Chemistry advance when someone finally makes the critical >measurement that disproves the old system, ...

Then hopefully one of the theoreticians' cloud castles will be a better fit. The convincing evidence is if the new theory makes testable predictions of
new phenomena that experiments verify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

Stephen Harding wrote:

I recall reading "somewhere"

"The Science of 'Interstellar'"? 8-)

that space travel in the future (very, very, very* future) won't involve actually traveling gazillions of light years away but instead, "punching through" the space-time fabric as a sort of short cut.

_Spacetime_ is not a fabric, but a way to assign coordinates to events.

You mean a wormhole, an additional path between events that is spatially shorter than the one along the spacetime manifold.

I suppose it would be like a great circle route on a
globe is shorter than the apparent straight line route

It is the other way around, of course. With a positively curved spatial manifold, the Euclidean (straight-line) distance between points on it is the shortest. This can be seen by considering the corresponding metrics.

Euclidean metric:

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2.

Spherical coordinates:

x = r sin(theta) cos(phi)
y = r sin(theta) sin(phi)
z = r cos(theta)



dx = dr sin(theta) cos(phi)
+ r cos(theta) (d theta) cos(phi)
- r sin(theta) sin(phi) (d phi)

dy = dr sin(theta) sin(phi)
+ r cos(theta) (d theta) sin(phi)
+ r sin(theta) cos(phi) (d phi)

dz = dr cos(theta) - r sin(theta) (d theta)



ds^2 = dr^2 + r^2 (d theta)^2 + r^2 sin^2(theta) (d phi)^2.

A path P along the equator, dr = 0, theta = pi/2 ==> (d theta) = 0:

ds = r (d phi) ==> s = int_P ds = r int_0^phi d phi' = r (Delta phi).

[Due to the spherical symmetry, we can rotate the coordinate system
such that any geodesic lies on the equator.]

Suppose, for example, the first point on a sphere with radius r has coordinates

(r, theta = pi/2, phi = 0) <--> (x = r, y = 0, z = 0),

and the second point has coordinates

(r, theta = pi/2, phi = pi/2) <--> (x = 0, y = r, z = 0)

then the Euclidean distance between them is

s_2 = sqrt[(0 - r)^2 + (r - 0)^2 + (0 - 0)^2]
= sqrt(2 r^2)
= r sqrt(2) =~ r * 1.41

but the geodesic distance (along the equator) is

s = r (pi/2 - 0) = r pi/2 =~ r * 1.57 > s.

You are maybe confusing this with the *apparent* straight-line path if the curved surface is being projected on a flat surface.

or as we think of SciFi wormholes and such.

But without that sort of mechanism, there is no way we'll see other life forms,

Not true. We might see lifeforms on Mars, and possibly Europa and Enceladus (there are oceans under the frozen surfaces of those moons).

let alone intelligent ones.

There are intelligent lifeforms on Earth, not counting humans :-p

As far as we know, even with exoplanet systems that we have now found,
the odds are scarce that a planet will have the requirements for life
(as we know it) let alone the roll of the dice evolutionary process
to produce intelligence.

Humans know too little about the conditions for life to make even educated guesses. Currently they are in a position similar to that of person who
knows a hammer as the only tool.

That's a primary reason I don't believe in UFOs and extraterrestrial incidents. Some weird stuff no doubt, but explainable at some point,
now or in the future with more knowledge.

There are much better reasons for not believing that UFOs are of extra-terrestrial origin.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

Jim Wilkins wrote:

Physics and Chemistry advance when someone finally makes the critical measurement that disproves the old system, like Galileo supposedly dropping weights off the Leaning Tower of Pisa to disprove Aristotle and allow science to break free from his stifling errors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment

Read this carefully. The story about such an experiment by Galilei is based
on a posthumous account by Galilei's assistant, and probably never happened;
it is reaonsable to assume that Galilei disproved Aristotelian physics by rolling solid objects down inclined planes, and finding them to arrive at
the same time despite different masses/weights instead.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10n8j6j$2icn$1@dont-email.me...

Physics and Chemistry advance when someone finally makes the critical
measurement that disproves the old system, ...

Then hopefully one of the theoreticians' cloud castles will be a better fit. The convincing evidence is if the new theory makes testable predictions of new phenomena that experiments verify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

A common misconception.

Experiments/observations _falsify_ or _confirm_ a natural-scientific theory, they do NOT verify it. Because such a theory is always only a model, not
the truth:

The more independently obtained experimental/observational evidence that confirms a theory, the closer that theory is considered to be a solid foundation and a scientific truth. But that does not preclude the theory
from being falsified by another experiment.

Neil deGrasse Tyson even argues that this realization is why since the 20th century new theories are not presented as or considered "laws" anymore:

StarTrel: Why Science Doesn't Make Laws Anymore <https://youtu.be/EVJdwD7coQ4?si=PrR6CVWZE2VDF_6o>

[His argument contains a semantic fallacy, though, because those laws were never considered laws as in jurisprudence, but in the sense of regularities
of Nature, "laws" that *Nature* would obey; so humans "breaking" them, and
not calling them "laws" anymore because "laws are something that you don't break" is certainly NOT the reason. That physical laws would be laws as in jurisprudence is yet another common misconception that, unfortunately, he is helping to spread there.]
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10n8j6j$2icn$1@dont-email.me...

Physics and Chemistry advance when someone finally makes the critical
measurement that disproves the old system, ...

Then hopefully one of the theoreticians' cloud castles will be a better fit.
The convincing evidence is if the new theory makes testable predictions of >> new phenomena that experiments verify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

A common misconception.

Experiments/observations _falsify_ or _confirm_ a natural-scientific theory, they do NOT verify it.

You stated that *testable predictions* are verified (not theories), which is also what deGrasse Tyson said. I checked the meaning of that again: "to verify", although based on "veritas", Latin for "truth", can also mean "to check (up)", and thus "to confirm or falsify" which is conceptually correct;
in that sense I agree with you (and deGrasse Tyson) as what I stated below means the same.

<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/verify>

Because such a theory is always only a model, not the truth:

The more independently obtained experimental/observational evidence that confirms a theory, the closer that theory is considered to be a solid foundation and a scientific truth. But that does not preclude the theory from being falsified by another experiment.

Neil deGrasse Tyson even argues that this realization is why since the 20th century new theories are not presented as or considered "laws" anymore:

StarTrel: Why Science Doesn't Make Laws Anymore

Haha, Freudian typo: I was probably to write "Star Trek" because I had
written it so often before; but here it is "StarTalk", of course :-D

<https://youtu.be/EVJdwD7coQ4?si=PrR6CVWZE2VDF_6o>

[His argument contains a semantic fallacy, though, because those laws were never considered laws as in jurisprudence, but in the sense of regularities of Nature, "laws" that *Nature* would obey; so humans "breaking" them, and not calling them "laws" anymore because "laws are something that you don't break" is certainly NOT the reason. That physical laws would be laws as in jurisprudence is yet another common misconception that, unfortunately, he is helping to spread there.]

I think it is important to point out the above, though, so my comment was
not without value.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" wrote in message news:10n8ojr$2ttq$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net...

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10n8j6j$2icn$1@dont-email.me...

Physics and Chemistry advance when someone finally makes the critical
measurement that disproves the old system, ...

Then hopefully one of the theoreticians' cloud castles will be a better
fit.
The convincing evidence is if the new theory makes testable predictions of new phenomena that experiments verify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

A common misconception.

Experiments/observations _falsify_ or _confirm_ a natural-scientific theory, they do NOT verify it. Because such a theory is always only a model, not
the truth:

The more independently obtained experimental/observational evidence that confirms a theory, the closer that theory is considered to be a solid foundation and a scientific truth. But that does not preclude the theory
from being falsified by another experiment.

--------------------------

It -should- have been clear to you from context that I did not equate verifying a theory by experiment to declaring it a universal truth.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

Jim Wilkins amok-crossposted to alt.astronomy, rec.aviation.military:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10n8j6j$2icn$1@dont-email.me...

Physics and Chemistry advance when someone finally makes the critical
measurement that disproves the old system, ...

Then hopefully one of the theoreticians' cloud castles will be a better >>> fit.
The convincing evidence is if the new theory makes testable predictions
of new phenomena that experiments verify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

A common misconception.

Experiments/observations _falsify_ or _confirm_ a natural-scientific
theory, they do NOT verify it. Because such a theory is always only
a model, not the truth:

The more independently obtained experimental/observational evidence that
confirms a theory, the closer that theory is considered to be a solid
foundation and a scientific truth. But that does not preclude the theory
from being falsified by another experiment.

It -should- have been clear to you from context that I did not equate verifying a theory by experiment to declaring it a universal truth.

It should have been clear to you that I clarified my comment
*more than 3 hours* before you posted this:

<mid:10n9is5$81bc$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>
<news:10n9is5$81bc$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>

Also, please learn how to post, including to quote, properly:

<https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>

Using a proper newsreader application can help there:

<https://www.thunderbird.net/>

F'up2 poster
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy


Assumed that no science nor technology can travel faster than light, or
maybe to fold or warp, or teleport. Yes, those maybe fairy tales. :)

On 2/19/2026 4:49 AM, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:

Never !

Interstellar distances are so great, as to preclude any chance of
travel or practical comunication.

Do the simple math : Time = Distance / Speed

This is why, although intelligent space faring species likely abound throughout the universe, we are never visited by any.

--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2