A suggestion.

Let's leave the "we are watching you and taking note of and tallying up all your bad behavior and sins against humanity" to the religious dogma and fakers please.

Mea Culpa
Mea Culpa
Mea Maxima Culpa

I personally don't think we earthers have what it takes to become members of the galactic brotherhood of intelligent beings or will have any time soon. So we are purposely excluded from the club until we show a lot of improvement in our treatment of each other.

I am unsure why there is a belief that technological advanced civilizations must be morally and ethically superior to us.

Perhaps so, but if not...

One idea, often expressed, is this: The greater the technical advancement, the greater the destructive power of a civilization. If they don't learn to live together in peace, and to take care of their world, they will likely destroy themselves. Those civilizations that do survive are likely to be the more reasonable, life-affirming ones.

Beyond that, there is the observation that Earth has apparently been left , at least largely, alone. Even at sub-light speeds, the galaxy could have been occupied by older civilizations, long, long ago. If they are aggressive and destructive, how is it that we're still here?

Happily, I think such pessimism is wrong. In 1951 the cold war was well underway, and with it the growing prospect of the destruction of civilization, if not humanity.

Sometimes a little pessimism can be a good thing because matters can only get better and therefore a welcome bonus. It's a little bit like is your glass half full or half empty. The height of the cold war was of course the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 which almost brought the world into a nuclear war. That resulted in the creation of the hotline between the USA and Russia.

If some entities in space are watching us, waiting for us to become more civilized, before making contact, hey will presumably have noted our progress.

Yes, I'm sure that they have, but we have a long way to go yet. Look at it from an ET's point of view. Russia & America are still verbal sparring partners, half of Europe want to live in a different country to their own. African countries on the Mediterranean coastline are a war zone, in the Middle East they still publicly stone women to death for adultery, and chop the hands off thieves. Witness the rise of international terrorism etc. Would any outside observer think we are ready to welcome space visitors from another Star system?

Apart from which the very arrival of an ET race would throw our science into turmoil. It would either mean FTL travel which Mr Einstein said was impossible, or some form of teleportation. We already have Quantum teleportation, but that is far removed from transporting living bodies around due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Remember the old school reports? "Some progress made this term, but could do better".

Let us not overlook the possibility that the overt appearance of an extraterrestrial civilization could have an immediate positive effect on our civilization. We would have the facts of their prospering well beyond our level of technical development, and having a presumably stable, orderly civilization. The implicit challenge would be for us to do equally as well; as in- 'If they can do it, so can we.' To use your 'school' analogy, We might at that point have come of age and be admitted to the galactic school, so as to learn how to do what these others have done.

There could very well be loopholes in relativity, just as there proved to be in Newtonian physics. In local space the light speed limit seems to hold, but that's only part of the story. By bending space itself, effective speeds much greater than that of light are possible, globally. Recall that space itself must have expanded far faster than the speed of light, in order for the universe as we know it to exist.

There is also no worldwide agreement on sending a message from earth to the stars and what it might consist of. The nearest we got was the Pioneer plaques.

Don't forget the Voyagers' Golden Records.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

but there is absolutely no way civilisations can reach each other. space is way too vast and everything are way too far apart. i dont believe in FTL travels, thats totally against physic and wormholes cannot exist. thats fiction.

Certainly by our current knowledge that is for sure. But we don't know about the future.

Future knowledge?
Changing the fact that nothing can move faster than light?
Or changing the mathematical laws of geometry?
The fact is that all objects in our universe are already travelling at the speed of light.
Explained here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2JCoIGyGxc
And that goes for information as well like sending a message to distance places in the Universe.
For instances a conversation, like saying "hi" with Proxima B takes 4.24 *2 years to get the answer "hi".
However wormholes exist and maybe you can transmit messages through them.
But you cannot transmit objects through wormholes.

Is it your take on it here, Chris?

Guess I am not able to spell it right either, or at least have to fix it, in order to make it correct.

So, perhaps a little take or give on the whole story, in that it could become that of Time dilation here, for that of one part,
and perhaps not the best, or any good either, from a scientific perspective, at least when it comes to details.

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

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

The word Einstein-Rosen Bridge (EP) fell out here, and perhaps should also be so, for that of Wormhole instead, but next that I more for that of
making it a space-time continuum here, for that of the Universe, in that this should be an integral part of a whole, next with respect to each other.

Is it next still the cat and mouse game of sorts, when we could be choosing to make science of one thing, and only a guess, for that of the other,
or could we make it a more general context for it all, by means of making it a general point of view?

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

First of all, what is meant with the Universe, and what it is supposed to be?

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

Except for perhaps not any hyperspace either, where you perhaps could jump a little around, for that of such a thing, meaning at least space travel,
of course not any Theory of Probability either, for that of making it such things as ideas, for next also speculation as well, or even a wild guess,
but perhaps a wish here to make it perhaps Formalism here, when next defining the properties of space, except for not any direct shape either.

Is it next any "Ready, set, go", when it comes to the notion of time, or should we only make it a famous Equation here, involving perhaps Matter and Energy,
for rather that of space and time?

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

Or, for at least what I could say, because I even am not able to catch the three Laws of Newton here, for that of my own purpose, or intentions.

Still perhaps not any "Laws" for that of life versus death either, like also evolution as well, but if you are a starter, for next also starters as well,
for that of the usual excuse, or exception.

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

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

But next sorry to say, for that of making it trolls, or the like, because perhaps not any earthquakes here either, for also the first link above, also not the right one either.

Or should it perhaps be the ashtray only, for that of a Cinderella, except for not any shining diamond either, for that of a dark cloud visible in the sky?

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

Again the red dots, for that of the single word, and losing the point, because here the sad fact that Theoretical Physics is not always about any soar eyes either,
for next also Tears in the wind, but perhaps a couple of ideas popping up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph-Louis_Lagrange

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

Do not forget the singularity either, which should be a single point in space, for that of the Force of gravity, and perhaps not the whole part of the story either.

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

Or maybe that of a Structured Query instead, for that of making it a language, except for still not any "knock-knock" either, for that of an entrance door.

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

Mentioned somewhere around, for that of making it a bit of Trigonometry, except for not any Logarithm, or Integrals either.

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

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

Still a little more thinking here, and ending up with that of Tensors here, for perhaps getting a bit closer to the subject perhaps at hand.

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

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

The problem here is that of just speculating, and also make it the graviton, for that of a hypothetical particle, for that of gravity, except for still not any
speculation, or even "postulations" either.

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

Think of it, and next it becomes easy for only making it "Logical" here, except for not any Logical consequence either, but next make it only that of Arithmetic instead,
and perhaps still only just as simple, for that of computational methods, or even that of just theorizing a little.

We could be back at the single point, except for still not the singularity either, for also making it a line, for also that of a circle, or square, if not any pyramid, or even that of a dice either,
for that of a cube, or cubic element.

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

Need to click a little down, for that above, but here should be a couple of things worth reading.

Das right !!

This cartoon has been on my refrigerator for years:


What amazes me is how we can still communicate and even navigate these far away travelers.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Velocity is a change of position per unit time. It actually would require two measurements to determine the speed and direction.

Velocity is a change of position per unit time. It actually would require two measurements to determine the speed and direction.

Velocity is a vector, the magnitude is what you call speed, the other part of the vector is direction.

In the context of special relativity, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer. General relativity, in addition, provides an explanation of how gravitational fields can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Definitions

It all depends solely on the "time interval" that it takes for light to travel from one end of the observed object or event to the other or to the observer. Hence we get apparent length contraction, time dilatation etc.

Actually we on earth are already very familary with the concept of Space-Time.
Let's say you should have a meeting with someone.
First you agree where in Space the meeting will be.
Then of course at what Time it will be.
Otherwise that Event will not happen.

Anyway, not forgetting neither Chris S, or moomin here, for that of the thread title, and perhaps some man wearing a beard, if not any hack of the Internet either.

But should better be back on perhaps Friday, for a little more, except for the 43 arc second discrepancy of planet Mercury, coming up in my mind.

This discrepancy is perhaps not any measure for that of any travel, including distance being traveled through space, by means of also a gravitational field,
but rather a measure for that of time itself, which could be a constant.

Supposedly gravity bends both space and time, but next we are left with the three Laws of gravity, in order to also make it time.

But is it not so, that when dealing with such a thing as speed, perhaps not any such thing as constant speed either, when perhaps breaking,
for also accelerating a bit, except for still not any inertia either?

Does an object accelerate, for that of a free fall, and next also at a constant speed, when also that of no friction, because of no air, like the surface of the Moon,
except for perhaps the surface of a neutron star instead?

The famous Hammer and Feather experiment on the Moon, only proves that Matter does not bother, for also that of size, except for only a short freefall,
in order to show that gravity is working, or acting equally, regardless of the object under consideration.

Next, make it both the Earth and the Moon, and their respective orbit around a common center, which perhaps could be computed.

Except for forgetting the very small difference, or discrepancy which will always be there, only for that of a space-time continuum,
or perhaps rather the Force of gravity itself, with a similar precision, for that of its Force.

Is it next the formula, for also Equation, except not any three Laws either, for that of perhaps a measurement, when it could also be empty space itself?

Does the Uncertainty Principle, or the Theory of Relativity, tell about an uncertainty, for also that of a measure, or could it rather be an impreciseness itself?

Next perhaps not any Quantum mechanics here either, because it should be about elementary particles, and their properties.

I still think it could be the secret here, for that of blinking with your eyes, and next not knowing whether your friend, or perhaps opponent, could be doing the same,
for perhaps only that of Relativity here.

The example of folding a sheet of paper on itself, for making it a curvature, is a quite good one, for next also making it only a walking distance,
between objects located in space, for that of a curvature, which next should be a space curvature, because of that of gravity.

It next also means that space could be folding on itself, for that of either being able to look at oneself in the neck, except for not knocking on any door either.

But also that "in the far distance", could also mean such a thing as space travel, for only those things which could be making it all possible.

Das Right

Space is not void but it is filled with particle-antiparticle pairs which exist for a very short time according to Heisenberg's rules. But if one of them is engulfed by a black hole the other remains and makes up what is called Hawking radiation. Once I put this problem to Roberto Battiston, a physicist who is now the head of the Italian Space Agency. If the particle-antiparticle pair are entangled, do they remain entangled if one of them falls in a black hole? He answered that my question was very subtle and wrote a long answer which unfortunately I have not downloaded and printed. I like printed paper, perhaps because I was a Physics and Astronomy editor for 12 years at Mondadori Scientific. I wrote of gravitational waves in 1970 following the results published by Joseph Weber on Physical Review Letters and was severely scolded by physicist Antonino Zichichi. He was right, of course, and Weber wrong, but in 2015 gravitational waves were detected by the LIGO/VIRGO interferometers, very different from Weber's resonant mass detectors, which were simply aluminium cylinders. But Weber's principle was correct, you get a real signal only if two or more detectors, in different localities register an event at the same time.
Tullio

---

Actually we on earth are already very familary with the concept of Space-Time.
First you agree where in Space the meeting will be.
Then of course at what Time it will be.
Otherwise that Event will not happen.

No, you agree the LOCATION of the meeting which will be in a certain AREA upon the surface of the earth.

On a flat surface which is a special case, yes. Then it's OK to ignore a third dimension.
But if the meeting should for example take place in a high rise building or you want to avoid a fatal meeting midair then you must use a third dimension. And time of course.

btw Events in physics.

In physics, and in particular relativity, an event is the instantaneous physical situation or occurrence associated with a point in spacetime (that is, a specific place and time). For example, a glass breaking on the floor is an event; it occurs at a unique place and a unique time.

Tullio,

I was reading a good biography on Einstein (Isaacs), and came across the contributions to the notion of curvature tensors . In addition to Reimann and Hilbert the Italian Mathematicians Ricci and Tullio Levi-Civita also had important contributions .

Thank you for mentioning the word kinetic here, except for not the article very good, but makes for at least a start.

I think that it was not only sitting below a tree, for not any expected, for also the unexpected,
because it could have also been with a couple of glasses, or even lorgnettes here, and not meant for you here,
when still that of my own near-sightedness.

It is really a quite voluminous subject here, for that of detail, and also intrinsic, for that of a correct spelling, or perhaps rather intricate.

The point here is perhaps leaving it here for now, by making it only the Laws of gravity, by Newton, and next also such a principle for that of gravity,

Definitely such a thing as gravitational waves coming from massive objects in space, but if perhaps rather that of a property of space itself,
including that of a possible frame, for that of time itself, I am not necessarily that fond of it, at the start.

If perhaps curved space, for that of space itself, next also the Force of gravity for this, except for not making it any property either,
only because of matter being present, and at times also making it a singularity.

Is gravity next relative, only because it could be a variable, for only that of a couple of Equations, making up the Force as a whole?

Or could I rather be still jumping around, except for not any hyperspace, when next traveling both forwards and backwards in time,
only because of the same, or similar Force?

Sometimes static, and at other times dynamic, we could at least be speaking of kinetic energy, for also that of mass, if not any static either.

Make it friction, for also that of inertia, and almost that of Mechanics here, when also making it Celestial mechanics.

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

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

Perhaps not only for the drawing board here either, in that we still could make it only ourselves, for also that of life on Earth, except not any climate either.

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

Is it next only the tick of a clock, for also a bit of synchronization, except not any Time dilation either, in that gravity should still be the decisive Force,
except for not time the controlling mechanism either, which could make it fit together, in order to make it a four dimensional space?

Next, time supposedly slows down in a strong gravitational field, and we still leave it to gravity to make it up any properties of space.

By the way, I have always wondered where the c2 came from, in the famous equation.

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

Here it refers back to Euclidean geometry, for now, if not making it any spacetime either, for also that of an interval. except for also both Vectors, and Tensors.

The problem here is perhaps different words for the same meaning, or perhaps subject, while the exact, or precise geometry, could be depending on the subject.

If such a thing as Cartesian coordinates, or the like, does it mean that the properties of space could be rather explained in such a way, except for not any gravity itself?

Still a bit of algebra in the previous, and next I am twisting my head, for that of the other subject, which should be more important.

Pulling a book here from the shelf, which is only black and white in color, but next also a must, for having it mostly all.

Using the appendix, for getting to the Laws of gravity, next passing by the three Laws by Kepler as well, for getting to G, from K, backwards.

Like the ebb, for also the high tide, only that of the Moon here, orbiting the Earth, and next only a bit of streaming, for next making it a flow of water,
which at times could be inward, while at other times slowly running out of steam, for still that of an ebb, in a constantly happening sequence.

Therefore perhaps energy a common term here, for that of both the knitted hand, like also the elevator, for that of the rollercoaster,
except not any static, or dynamic energy either, for that of any moving objects, versus those at a standstill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

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

Only because of my little idea here, as you perhaps know, and not so bad either here, because here not the Planck constant.

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

Except for only goes to show that the Laws of physics, and not only gravity, could be used in order to describe space, for also the properties it might have.

The little "y", for that of the greek letter gamma, is here the gravitational constant, some 6,66*10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 (multiplication in between),
and again the book, for also the needed subscript.

But next supposedly both Euclid and also Kepler wrong, for rather only Newton and Einstein here, except for still both Max Planck, and also Minkowski here.

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

But next that I could make it perhaps Matter here, for also mass, by also making it gravity, except for still not any gravity, for any energy either,
and for this, also a Topology, for that of space.

Again, still both the white sheet for that of a paper, except for not any Probabilistic equation, for only that of a likelihood, but if rather making it only an environment,
for that of space, also such a thing for that of life, as we already should know.

For this, also such a thing as written Laws themselves, next on perhaps paper, except for not any condition, or statement either, by making it only that of Creation.

Only making it a circle, for also an ellipse, if not any parabel, or hyperbel, and next only a two-dimensional surface, for that of a curved line,
except for not any three-dimensional space, where that of emptiness could be the most important thing, except for not the Force of gravity.

But rather the fact that a physicist could be so lucky, or fortunate, being able to express himself, in writing, those terms, for also Equations,
making it also propositions, for that of a cardboard of sorts, for that of making it the properties of certain objects, by next also that of space,
for only that of Mathematics itself.

Meaning here that any physical object in space, could also be explained by a similar mathematical equation, in the usual way.

Is time next still only a constant, for also that of running, when perhaps only empty space, with nothing in between, or close nearby?

Or is it only that of spinning around here, for also making it sometimes fast, for also a bit slow, if not any standstill either?

Why not fast moving, or slow moving instead, when perhaps making it that of a distance, for next any travel?

Compare both Vectors, and also Tensors, with the three Laws of gravity, and both perhaps different worlds, except for not any Einstein universe either.

Or perhaps rather a "relativistic" universe instead, for making it perhaps Minkowski, or Einstein here, for that of the others.

Make it perhaps Laws of motion, for also Laws of gravity, and perhaps also an interaction here, where the Laws of physics, could perhaps make for that of a
space environment, by rather such a thing as Relativity, where also that of Uncertainty could also be a factor.

If an object is at a standstill, next perhaps kinetic, except for not in any motion, for also being dynamic, and next also exhibiting energy as well.

Only its relative motion, makes for a similar amount of mass, also representing a considerable amount of energy, when next up to speed,
and next perhaps not only about the Force of gravity either.

Only the escape velocity, could make for a comet being close to the sun, and next escape, because of its orbital elements.

Makes me think that time could perhaps be still a constant, but next also "relativistic", only because of the environment it is part of,
and still only that of gravity, for perhaps also that of a field.

So, except for not any "Falling man" here, for only that of a free fall, a comet could be falling, for also that of an orbiting planet,
because it next could be that of the sun, for next also Matter, for that of mass, and still the Force of gravity.

Here that of slow versus faster once again, except for not any spinning around either, and it could be at least a massive object orbiting around its own axis,
for next also orbiting another object in space. for that of 24 hours, versus 365 days.

Really, should perhaps leave it to a Mathematician, or physicist here, for that to solve, except for still not any time travel possible either.

So, except for still both life, for also evolution, if not any climate, for that of the weather, perhaps the question why Mathematics could also be Physics,
if perhaps not the opposite either.

If such a thing is not only probable, but also likely, at least when considering Earth, next perhaps only the little "=", for that of an Equation itself,
in that it also could mean, for next also a meaning, which also could imply as well.

For a moment, I was thinking of c2 here, as that of making it a famous Equation, for at least part of it, except not any time either,
except for at least no such thing as any elementary particles, for that of any radiation, or energy.

The reason gravity could perhaps be a common denominator, for that of physical Laws, for also the written expressions for the same, by making it Mathematical terms,
for that of Equations.

Not in front of me right now, but if assuming a certain level of energy, for also that of different levels for such, it could perhaps resonate for such,
in order to always stay, or attain the lowest level possible.

Meaning that energy is needed, in order to increase temperature, while a release of energy, also should be a decrease of mass, for only that of energy escaping.

Next the star becomes smaller, for also being more compressed, except for still a fusion process in its interior, for that of a higher temperature,
when pressure is constantly increasing, because gravity could be the ultimate winner.

Therefore, physics for still that of nuclear fusion, while that of Time dilation, or the like, perhaps for a mathematician, because still only the space environment.

In summary, it becomes to many Equations here, for only a couple of physical Laws, except for still the missing link, for that of an uncertainty.

If it rather became the words here, by Einstein, for that of everything being relative, we also could just know, except for not any speculate either,
in the same way as a Tachyon could be making such a thing as traveling faster than light possible, and next also so, for that of any "Little Green Men".

Tullio,

I was reading a good biography on Einstein (Isaacs), and came across the contributions to the notion of curvature tensors . In addition to Reimann and Hilbert the Italian Mathematicians Ricci and Tullio Levi-Civita also had important contributions .

Einstein was not a mathematician and knew little about tensor analysis. He had a correspondence with Gregorio Ricci Curbastro, Tullio Levi-Civita and also Luigi Bianchi, whose "identities" he did not know. See Abraham Pais, "Einstein", pag. 278. They were all mathematicians of Padua University.
Tullio

---