Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are we alone.... The answer is ''Yes''

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    maninasia wrote: »
    so how are we considered more evolved? The question doesn't make any sense of itself.
    we have a few attributes

    we excel at harvesting resources in an energy poor environment by carrying the energy with us, the local inhabitants can't compete (some animals do this too)

    we can remember tales told by our grandparents so we can use resources in areas beyond living memory



    at present we are the species changing the atmosphere most (not the biggest impact, just the biggest changes) we are changing terresterial enviroments most (look at all the deserts we've made and the forests removed) we have a lot less biomass than the insects though



    we are the only species that has the possibility of stopping a planet killing asteroid


    we are the only species that has the possibilty to make artificial self replicating stuff


  • Options
    #153
    maninasia
    Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    It seems you avoided my point that 'more evolved' doesn't really mean anything.


  • Options
    #154
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    we have a few attributes

    ...


    at present we are the species changing the atmosphere most (not the biggest impact, just the biggest changes) we are changing terresterial enviroments most (look at all the deserts we've made and the forests removed) we have a lot less biomass than the insects though

    I think this part weakens your argument as it suggests that you could make a case for the algae which originally converted Earth's atmosphere from CO2 rich to Oxygen rich was the "most evolved" species of all.


  • Options
    #155
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I think this part weakens your argument as it suggests that you could make a case for the algae which originally converted Earth's atmosphere from CO2 rich to Oxygen rich was the "most evolved" species of all.
    you may have missed the "at present" bit or the "not the biggest impact" bit.

    our oceans were brown until dissolved iron precipitated out into banded iron formations, so for maybe 2 billion years organisms could release oxygen into their environment and have that nasty corrosive toxin neutralised


    it's a bit like the argument about lakes killed by pollution , in most cases the lake is teeming with microbial life, whereas before it was mostly devoid of it save for a few fish and their food chain


  • Options
    #156
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Could we agree that when we talk about life on other worlds we are referring only to our Milky Way Galaxy?
    Whether life exists on other Galaxies is largely irrelevant, [from our selfish point of view] because, like reincarnation, it isn't much good if you if you are unaware of it's existence and therefore unable to experience it.
    In our home patch I feel it will be possible to make contact with other intelligent lifeforms, however tenuously, sometime in the not too distant future.
    My evidence for this is zero and so is little more than a hunch or a guess.
    There is however a sort of continuum which has developed and gives me a little hope.
    It is the unsteady, wavy line from Copernicus right up to the discovery of earth sized proto-planets where each step seems to diminish our exclusiveness and leaves the door open for it's continued further erosion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    maninasia
    Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Could we agree that when we talk about life on other worlds we are referring only to our Milky Way Galaxy?
    Whether life exists on other Galaxies is largely irrelevant, [from our selfish point of view] because, like reincarnation, it isn't much good if you if you are unaware of it's existence and therefore unable to experience it.
    In our home patch I feel it will be possible to make contact with other intelligent lifeforms, however tenuously, sometime in the not too distant future.
    My evidence for this is zero and so is little more than a hunch or a guess.
    There is however a sort of continuum which has developed and gives me a little hope.
    It is the unsteady, wavy line from Copernicus right up to the discovery of earth sized proto-planets where each step seems to diminish our exclusiveness and leaves the door open for it's continued further erosion.

    There's no need to limit speculation to the Milky Way galaxy, it's an artificial limitation, and there are ways to manipulate space for civilizations that are advanced enough. This is all without even discussing multiverse theory.


  • Options
    #158
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    maninasia wrote: »
    There's no need to limit speculation to the Milky Way galaxy, it's an artificial limitation, and there are ways to manipulate space for civilizations that are advanced enough. This is all without even discussing multiverse theory.

    A little less Harry Potter and a bit more Edwin Hubble might be in order here?


  • Options
    #159
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,593 ✭✭✭ps200306


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    A little less Harry Potter and a bit more Edwin Hubble might be in order here?

    :D I agree. Unless someone is going to signal to us with the power of a decent sized star and wait several million years for a round trip communication, we can rule out contact with even the closest galaxies.

    From a practical point of view this makes the universe a much smaller place with regard to the likelihood of finding intelligent life. I'd be quite sanguine about the probabilities. I think we can rule out a decent sized chunk of the galaxy that we can't see due to dust clouds. Then include only the "suburban" stretches of the galaxy that are relatively quiescent with regard to nearby supernovae and encounters that disrupt cometary clouds.

    Then I think we can rule out all but stars of spectral type G and K. Anything bigger than 1.5 solar masses won't live long enough, and long-lived smaller M types produce hard X rays due to their fully convective envelopes and also have a close-in Goldilocks zone where planets would be tidally locked.

    That's even before we consider the importance of large moons, "good" Jupiters etc., metallic cores, plate tectonics etc. I think the list of candidates might eventually only number in the billions or tens of billions ... which isn't all that much.


  • Options
    #160
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    ps200306 wrote: »
    :D I agree. Unless someone is going to signal to us with the power of a decent sized star and wait several million years for a round trip communication, we can rule out contact with even the closest galaxies.

    From a practical point of view this makes the universe a much smaller place with regard to the likelihood of finding intelligent life. I'd be quite sanguine about the probabilities. I think we can rule out a decent sized chunk of the galaxy that we can't see due to dust clouds. Then include only the "suburban" stretches of the galaxy that are relatively quiescent with regard to nearby supernovae and encounters that disrupt cometary clouds.

    Then I think we can rule out all but stars of spectral type G and K. Anything bigger than 1.5 solar masses won't live long enough, and long-lived smaller M types produce hard X rays due to their fully convective envelopes and also have a close-in Goldilocks zone where planets would be tidally locked.

    That's even before we consider the importance of large moons, "good" Jupiters etc., metallic cores, plate tectonics etc. I think the list of candidates might eventually only number in the billions or tens of billions ... which isn't all that much.

    Except you're completely forgetting that intelligent species may deliberately 'seed' planets which would otherwise have remained sterile - its important to remember the distinction between planets which can foster life and those which can harbour it.


  • Options
    #161
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,593 ✭✭✭ps200306


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    Except you're completely forgetting that intelligent species may deliberately 'seed' planets which would otherwise have remained sterile - its important to remember the distinction between planets which can foster life and those which can harbour it.

    Why would they do that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    maninasia
    Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    A little less Harry Potter and a bit more Edwin Hubble might be in order here?

    Why? You think humans know everything there is to know about physics. You'd be wrong. Far from it. To start with

    What is dark energy?
    What is dark matter?
    How come gravity doesn't fit well with quantum mechanics?
    Is there another level of reality below quantum mechanics?

    Besides, the ability to manipulate space given enough energy is already thought to exist with current theories. The multiverse is also a strong possibility. Don't get your point to be honest. It's needlessly limiting according to our own technological development and understanding, which is very very limited.


    The universe is infinite or close to infinite in the way we could process it's size. Therefore space faring and space bending civilisations should exist already. If you are telling me they don't exist please explain why? Because there are up to 500 million galaxies in the universe and in the Milky Way alone there are 500 billion stars.

    Michio Ikaku has written plenty of books for the layman, I suggest you to look them up instead of Harry Potter. Or maybe the works of Einstein, who said that space and time are the same thing, space-time.


  • Options
    #163
    maninasia
    Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    I agree. Unless someone is going to signal to us with the power of a decent sized star and wait several million years for a round trip communication, we can rule out contact with even the closest galaxies.

    No we can't rule out, because there are large gaps in our knowledge of the physical world
    From a practical point of view this makes the universe a much smaller place with regard to the likelihood of finding intelligent life. I'd be quite sanguine about the probabilities. I think we can rule out a decent sized chunk of the galaxy that we can't see due to dust clouds. Then include only the "suburban" stretches of the galaxy that are relatively quiescent with regard to nearby supernovae and encounters that disrupt cometary clouds.

    Again assumptions, once intelligent life develops space faring abilities and advanced technology, they can work to predict and avoid things like supernovas.
    Then I think we can rule out all but stars of spectral type G and K. Anything bigger than 1.5 solar masses won't live long enough, and long-lived smaller M types produce hard X rays due to their fully convective envelopes and also have a close-in Goldilocks zone where planets would be tidally locked.

    Assumptions, plus not all radiation is bad, some organisms can withstand what we consider extremely high doses, and organisms can be shielded from radiation by living subsurface or beneath magnetic shields. That's our type of life, some types of life might gobble up x-rays for breakfast.
    That's even before we consider the importance of large moons, "good" Jupiters etc., metallic cores, plate tectonics etc. I think the list of candidates might eventually only number in the billions or tens of billions ... which isn't all that much.

    I agree, in terms of our type of life. But billions and tens of billions of candidates..is a lot of candidates. There is a missing point many people don't think about. What about lifeforms that are adapted to living in space and space faring? They don't just sit around..they go forth and multiply and enter new territory, evolving and changing as they go. It would not be a static situation.

    There's an interesting thing about space, it's similar almost every where you go. That means once a lifeform adapts to living in space, what's to stop them going anywhere?
    When plants colonised land, they colonised land across the whole planet. When fish colonised the oceans they colonised the oceans and lakes around the whole planet. They didn't just stop where they were.


  • Options
    #164
    realestraw
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭realestraw


    flanna01 wrote: »
    Guys.. Let's have a look at the facts...

    The Planet Earth is around 4.5 billion years old - This is the accepted age among respected scientists... (Not arguing over this point, it there, there about's).

    Ok... Since the crust of the Earth cooled down, it has developed plant life, marine life and land life..... ( I think it's safe to say that this statment is undisputed..?)

    Yet... In all of the billions, and more recent millions of Earth years, not one alien instrument has been found.. Not one building that could not be explained, not one carving, painting, sculpture.....Nothing!

    Going back to my original post... I was not doubting the possibility of the Universe harboring life - I would even say it is a certainty in my opinion..

    My statment was... That we have never been visited by an alien race. We will never be visited by an alien race. We will never communicate with another race.

    Two clear pointers are: If we were going to be visited by our galactic neighbours - they would have called by before now. Secondly: The distance between us is too far... Much too far.

    This is not true.. Not everything can be explained from what we have


  • Options
    #165
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    ps200306 wrote: »
    Why would they do that?

    Silly question. Why would anything advanced aliens do be comprehensible to mere humans?


  • Options
    #166
    slade_x
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 1,424 Mod ✭✭✭✭slade_x


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    Silly question. Why would anything advanced aliens do be comprehensible to mere humans?

    No, Why would they do that is equally a valid question as why wouldnt they do that in the fiction of the original statement.
    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    Except you're completely forgetting that intelligent species may deliberately 'seed' planets which would otherwise have remained sterile - its important to remember the distinction between planets which can foster life and those which can harbour it.

    I think what were completely forgetting here is that it is suprising that people can assert what a civilisation of aliens may or may not do when we dont even know if they exist or not. I find a claim that aliens somewhere are seeding planets a bit fanciful and even more problematic the stance that stupid humans couldnt possibly understand why aliens wouldnt do so, so therefor it must be a valid claim.

    It is important to remember the distinction between the possible likelyhood that we may not be alone and the creation of scenarios in which we may or may not know what they may or may not be doing.

    On a tangent to the topic also another worthy distinction is that of panspermia and well, lets say the religious views of some who use gods or alien civilisations to explain the existance of life on earth yet offer no explanation to the origins of those gods or those alien civilisations which sometimes actually creeps in to these debates. To reiterate the fallacy of such an argument in a commonly used instance "Well life on earth was started by aliens because otherwise it couldnt have started all on its own and since any understanding of aliens is way beyond humans then we dont need to explain the origins of said aliens"



    On a seperate note how this thread has progressed suprises me.


  • Options
    #167
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    slade_x wrote: »
    I think what were completely forgetting here is that it is suprising that people can assert what a civilisation of aliens may or may not do when we dont even know if they exist or not. I find a claim that aliens somewhere are seeding planets a bit fanciful and even more problematic the stance that stupid humans couldnt possibly understand why aliens wouldnt do so, so therefor it must be a valid claim.

    That is a rehash of the fatally flawed anthropomorphic argument which has already been rightly dismissed elsewhere on this thread so there's no need to rake over old coals.
    slade_x wrote: »
    On a tangent to the topic also another worthy distinction is that of panspermia and well, lets say the religious views of some who use gods or alien civilisations to explain the existance of life on earth yet offer no explanation to the origins of those gods or those alien civilisations which sometimes actually creeps in to these debates. To reiterate the fallacy of such an argument in a commonly used instance "Well life on earth was started by aliens because otherwise it couldnt have started all on its own and since any understanding of aliens is way beyond humans then we dont need to explain the origins of said aliens"

    Which emphasises the hypocritical nature of the science fundamentalists when they then turn around and say they believe in the blatantly unscientific nonsense of the 'big bang'. And when it is pointed out to them that such a belief is no more rational than religion, they say 'o well we believe it anyway'. Human nature I suppose.


  • Options
    #168
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    That is a rehash of the fatally flawed anthropomorphic argument which has already been rightly dismissed elsewhere on this thread so there's no need to rake over old coals.



    Which emphasises the hypocritical nature of the science fundamentalists when they then turn around and say they believe in the blatantly unscientific nonsense of the 'big bang'. And when it is pointed out to them that such a belief is no more rational than religion, they say 'o well we believe it anyway'. Human nature I suppose.

    There is however a fundamental difference between science and religion.
    At the risk of going off topic, I would suggest that if scientists came up with a better theory, [than the Big Bang] in the morning, all good scientists, even those who have given their lives to it, would drop it in favour of the new [better]theory.


  • Options
    #169
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    maninasia wrote: »
    Why? You think humans know everything there is to know about physics. You'd be wrong. Far from it. To start with

    What is dark energy?
    What is dark matter?
    How come gravity doesn't fit well with quantum mechanics?
    Is there another level of reality below quantum mechanics?

    Besides, the ability to manipulate space given enough energy is already thought to exist with current theories. The multiverse is also a strong possibility. Don't get your point to be honest. It's needlessly limiting according to our own technological development and understanding, which is very very limited.


    The universe is infinite or close to infinite in the way we could process it's size. Therefore space faring and space bending civilisations should exist already. If you are telling me they don't exist please explain why? Because there are up to 500 million galaxies in the universe and in the Milky Way alone there are 500 billion stars.

    Michio Ikaku has written plenty of books for the layman, I suggest you to look them up instead of Harry Potter. Or maybe the works of Einstein, who said that space and time are the same thing, space-time.
    Okay! No more J.K.Rowling for me.
    I'm going to curl up with something by Steven Weinberg, Richard Feynman or even a nice Niels Bohr. :)


  • Options
    #170
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    There is however a fundamental difference between science and religion.
    At the risk of going off topic, I would suggest that if scientists came up with a better theory, [than the Big Bang] in the morning, all good scientists, even those who have given their lives to it, would drop it in favour of the new [better]theory.

    A self-defeating argument I'm afraid - no scientific theory can thus ever be called 'final', each theory is merely a placeholder until ousted by something better... all 'good scientists' should have the honesty to admit that science will forever be chasing its tail.


  • Options
    #171
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    A self-defeating argument I'm afraid - no scientific theory can thus ever be called 'final', each theory is merely a placeholder until ousted by something better... all 'good scientists' should have the honesty to admit that science will forever be chasing its tail.

    Is it your contention that because a theory can never be final then somehow science is inferior to religious belief?
    I think scientists would contend that the fact that no theory can ever be final or perfect is one of the glories of science rather than a flaw.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    I think scientists would contend that the fact that no theory can ever be final or perfect is one of the glories of science rather than a flaw.

    Of course, because it means they will never run out of science to do!


  • Options
    #173
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Of course, because it means they will never run out of science to do!

    Are you suggesting that they are like civil servants?;)


  • Options
    #174
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,593 ✭✭✭ps200306


    I don't think there's any mileage in saying "we don't know what advanced aliens could do".

    Fine then -- they could have sent a signal from outside the observable universe, then travelled backwards in time through a wormhole in space, arrived in our solar system and quickly assembled our planet from junk in the asteroid belt, designed our DNA and grew us in a test tube, all of which only happened yesterday but they implanted memories in us of having built a radio telescope (which was really built by them) just in time to receive the signal they sent us from the future.

    You see, it doesn't really get us anywhere. If anything's possible then we might was well give up. We have to work from what we think we know. And what we think we know is that the speed of light in vacuo is the ultimate limiting speed in the universe, and neither aliens nor their radio signals can get to us from other galaxies in any reasonable amount of time. So, don't hold your breath for extra-galactic aliens -- they're not coming, ever.


  • Options
    #175
    maninasia
    Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    We know the speed of light is NOT the limiting factor in terms of getting around the universe, as we know that space can be bent and that wormholes are theoretically possible. Black holes were theoretical too and now they are fully accepted part of the known universe. There are also other theories on the warping of space and using it for space travel.
    http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/how-to-make-an-energy-efficient-warp-drive-120924.htm
    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136408-nasa-working-on-faster-than-light-travel-says-warp-drives-are-plausible


    Why use a horse and cart when you can take the plane? Space and time are part of the same fabric, space-time. You cannot separate it.

    Also, the speed of light is not the barrier many suppose. The closer to the speed of light you travel the faster the traveler experiences time. So if you actually reached the speed of light you would arrive instantaneously at your destination (this would require infinite energy for an object with mass of course:). However you just need a very massive amount of energy and you can shorten journey times to 1/10th or 1/100th etc of the perceived speed of light from outside. You state that 'aliens could not get to us in any reasonable time', what does that actually mean? Whose time are we talking about? A photon travels at the speed of light and therefore arrives at its destination at the same time it leaves, at least if you were to experience life as a photon.

    There are other more esoteric possibilities related to quantum entanglement, at the moment it is thought by most that entanglement does not allow the transmission of information, but there are some people in the field who believe it may be possible. This would also instantaneous communication across the entire universe, as long as you placed the entangled partners in position earlier in the process.

    For those who erroneously think we know 'a lot about physics', don't take my word for it, read if from Stephen Hawking's himself.
    http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html


  • Options
    #176
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    maninasia wrote: »
    We know the speed of light is NOT the limiting factor in terms of getting around the universe

    No, we don't.

    There are a number of theoretical possibilities for faster than light travel, but there is good reason to think they are impossible. FTL travel is time travel into the past unless Relativity is wrong, and you get into kill-your-younger-self paradoxes.


  • Options
    #177
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    No, we don't.

    There are a number of theoretical possibilities for faster than light travel, but there is good reason to think they are impossible. FTL travel is time travel into the past unless Relativity is wrong, and you get into kill-your-younger-self paradoxes.[/QUOTE

    Am I right in thinking that travelling forward in time [by the traveller relative to the people left at home] is [theoretically] possible but that travelling back in time is a complete No No?
    Apart from the "killing your own grandfather" paradox, is there also an "expenditure of energy" problem
    Again why would anyone bother travelling forward when to return you would find that your grandchildren had been dead for a thousand years.
    What society would fund such a trip?


  • Options
    #178
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Is it your contention that because a theory can never be final then somehow science is inferior to religious belief?

    No, but it's somewhat grating to hear followers of science use 'rationalism' to justify their beliefs, when they secretly know that the scientific search for truth yields the same unanswerable questions as religion. Ultimately the quest for knowledge will always be relative; absolute truth will forever remain tantalisingly out of reach...


  • Options
    #179
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Am I right in thinking that travelling forward in time [by the traveller relative to the people left at home] is [theoretically] possible but that travelling back in time is a complete No No?
    Well we're travelling "forward" in time, all the time :)

    Strictly speaking there is no mechanism to travel "back" in time described by relativity or lightspeed.

    The faster an object travels, the slower time passes for it. So a ship making a 20-year return journey at half lightspeed will to us appear to have taken 20 years, but the travellers will only have experienced maybe half that (figures are totally plucked from the air), and will have only aged by ten years rather than twenty.

    So this in theory is a form of time-travel where the traveller can move forward in time by simply moving really fast. Extrapolated, if we can understand the nature of how and why this works, then we could theoretically induce time dilation effects without having to "travel" at all - someone could walk into a time-dilation chamber, and while to us they will appear to freeze for ten years, to them only a couple of seconds have passed.

    Travelling back in time would be a totally different prospect altogether, it would be trying to alter one of the fundamental properties of the universe. Like trying to alter local gravity so that objects repel each other rather than attract. We could probably distort gravity to make it stronger or weaker, but making it repel rather than attract is a different prospect. Same for time.


  • Options
    #180
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    No, but it's somewhat grating to hear followers of science use 'rationalism' to justify their beliefs, when they secretly know that the scientific search for truth yields the same unanswerable questions as religion. Ultimately the quest for knowledge will always be relative; absolute truth will forever remain tantalisingly out of reach...

    At the end of the day you either believe in science or magic. I think science, [for all it's faults] has a better chance of arriving at the truth than magic, [for all it's allure].


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,547 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    No, but it's somewhat grating to hear followers of science use 'rationalism' to justify their beliefs, when they secretly know that the scientific search for truth yields the same unanswerable questions as religion. Ultimately the quest for knowledge will always be relative; absolute truth will forever remain tantalisingly out of reach...

    Science doesn't search for truths, it searches for facts.

    And who says science won't end up with a fully fledged theory of everything. Just because we don't know everything now, it doesn't mean this won't be the case eventually. We don't fully understand the make up of our universe of whether the universe is infinitely complex.


Advertisement