Comment on Lmao
obvs@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoI love how Earthlings assume that all of the variables on other planets would be exactly the same as they are on Earth, leading them to believe they have any idea about what other species might be dealing with on other planets.
It’s cute.
You do know that they couldn’t even estimate the functionality of the heat shield fo of our own planet? That they had to literally increase the angle of entry because they couldn’t accurately predict the behavior of a planet that they’ve been studying for all of recorded time?
Are the laws of physics actually a thing? Clearly. But here’s the thing: The kinds of organisms that might exist on such an object could be absolutely massive compared to us. And for us to assume that we would have an understanding of the laws of physics that would be anywhere near as great as animals that might have brains exponentially larger than ours? And hell, the energy that might be available in such environments? We don’t know what’s in space around these objects, or whether there are any kinds of characteristics which would make unconventional (to us) means feasible to get off of the planet.
For all we know, they could be scientifically a billion years ahead of us and might be able to manipulate time or matter in ways we couldn’t conceive. It hasn’t even been 100 years since humanity learned to harness nuclear power.
No, there are too many variables. Life on such planets could evolve in countless different ways, and the different characteristics of the environment, and the resources on and around the planet provide too many options for us to be wrong.
And before you respond that I am arguing against science, no, it’s actually your opinion that is arguing against science. History is filled with organisms finding unusual solutions for problems that were long deemed impossible to solve. And when people said “Well, I don’t think we have enough knowledge to make such a firm claim,” history is also full of people like you who insisted that there was no way. And history is full of people who walked into the room, picked up the rules as they wrre known to that point, and basically flipped over the game board.
You are literally the person arguing that a scientific process is impossible given environmental variables because they don’t match the laws of physics.
But you don’t understand that you are arguing not for the infallibility of those laws, but for the infallibility of our understanding:
-
of the laws as we understand them
-
of the chemical makeup and geography of the planet
And all of that is not even to mention that the estimates of whether the planet itself was capable of supporting life have literally changed relatively recently because humanity developed a better understanding of science.
If I had a nickel for every time someone proudly claimed something to be impossible because it hadn’t scientifically been done yet I would be richer than Elon Musk.
MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You’re treating scientific uncertainty as if it means “anything is possible.” It doesn’t.
We don’t assume variables on other planets match Earth. Astrobiology, planetary science, and exoplanet studies are built on the opposite assumption: that most planets don’t resemble Earth. When scientists estimate what life or civilizations could be like elsewhere, they work from measurable constraints (gravity, density, stellar flux, atmospheric composition), not wishful thinking. For example, we know that: A planet with 3× Earth’s gravity constrains organism size, structural strength, locomotion, and escape velocity. A planet with a dense hydrogen atmosphere changes chemistry and energy availability. A star’s light spectrum dictates photosynthetic possibilities. These aren’t guesses. They follow from basic physics and chemistry, which apply everywhere.
“They misestimated a heat shield” ≠ “we don’t understand planetary physics.” Engineering uncertainty in a single atmospheric re-entry doesn’t invalidate the underlying physics. Weather variation, material tolerance margins, and modeling limits don’t erase Newtonian mechanics or thermodynamics. If your argument were valid, airplanes would disprove gravity because turbulence is hard to predict. Scientific uncertainty does not mean lawlessness.
An organism the size of a mountain on a 10g world can’t simply evolve because “maybe their brains are bigger.” Biology cannot override: stress limits of matter metabolic scaling laws biomechanics gravity energy density limits An advanced species might innovate, but it doesn’t get to ignore basic constraints. A billion-year-old civilization would know more than we do, but they still can’t accelerate to escape velocity without energy, or support infinite mass with finite-strength materials. Knowledge does not nullify physics.
This is pretty much just “We can’t rule out magic, therefore you’re wrong. Science can only operate on what’s known to be possible or what follows from tested theories. Speculating about physics-breaking abilities isn’t meaningful without evidence; it’s equivalent to saying “you can’t disprove dragons.”
When scientists say “a civilization on a super-Earth would struggle to reach orbit,” they base it on: the planet’s mass and radius → calculates escape velocity atmospheric density gravitational load on structures realistic energy sources We don’t need to know the exact geology to know that a planet of a given mass requires a minimum amount of energy to launch mass into space. That’s just conservation of energy.
Saying “we don’t know everything” is true. Saying “therefore any extreme scenario is viable” is not.
obvs@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Except I’m not.
I am treating things as if we are a species who barely has enough knowledge to send a small group of individuals off of the planet, and I am stating that while humanity seems to have a fairly okay ability to do that(and barely get to the next rock over), we probably shouldn’t be speaking with the confidence as if we wrote our masters thesis on interstellar travel. The moment humans stop having tons of massive scientific discoveries about space travel every year, that’s the point that we might have a good argument that it’s impossible for someone to escape a particular planet.
At this point, we can’t even confidently say that we know what that planet is like. Hell, up until recently, they believed that planet couldn’t even support life.
I am not questioning the laws of physics.
I am questioning that humans’ understanding of them is complete.
But you go on with your bad self, with your complete assurance that nothing will ever get off of that planet. The good news is that both of us will be dead before anyone even gets to know that it’s been tried.
MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You can question whether we know everything, that’s always fair. but saying “maybe something will escape a high-gravity planet because we don’t know everything” is like saying “Maybe we’ll find out 2+2 isn’t always 4 because math isn’t complete.” Possible? In a philosophical sense, yes. Useful? Not really.
Most “revolutionary” discoveries refine our understanding, not overturn the foundation. Relativity didn’t make Newtonian mechanics wrong. It expanded the domain. Quantum mechanics didn’t nullify classical physics. It explained small scales. Dark matter didn’t erase gravity. It suggests additional components.
When you argue, “We’re still making discoveries, therefore our predictions about what is possible are worthless,” you’re ignoring that the discoveries rarely contradict established, experimentally validated constraints.
You aren’t offering any reason to believe our current models are wrong, only that they could be wrong because science is incomplete. By that logic, any claim can be doubted indefinitely, and no amount of evidence ever matters.
But i truly like your child like enthusiasm for space. You throw intresting ideas around, but so far they have been only wishfull thinking. Difference between science, fantasy and religion is, that when something new is proven in science, people accept it, but it needs proof first.
In fantasy people throw crazy ideas and have fun, knowing they are not real.
Religion is when you have “faith” that something is true.
You are living in somewhere between fantasy and religion with your ideas. There is nothing wrong with it, but it makes discussions meaninless, because while i try to argue based on science you dont have any limitations and can just say. “We dont know, maybe they can manipulate time”. Its really convinient isint it.
obvs@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sure thing, Lord Kelvin.