Do aliens really exist?

[RSS News]

Leading physicist Stephen Hawking says they almost certainly exist, but contacting them will be a big mistake. Are you with him on this?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[Sentinel]

Using the logic of probability, I'm pretty much convinced there must be intelligent life in space, shitloads of it. I'm not sure I agree it'd definitely be a mistake to contact them, and am interested in knowing Mr Hawking's reasoning behind that statement. As I see it it'd be more like Russian roulette -- they could be assholes, or they could not be.

Most importantly, however, I fear it's largely irrelevant at present, due to our inability to in a foreseeable future cross the enormous distances we are talking about here within a reasonable timespan. I do hope that'll change, of course, and support research in the field wholeheartedly.

[Revy]

And why does Mr. Hawking think they have not already been in contact with us? *X-Files theme music playing*

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Sentinel
I'm not sure I agree it'd definitely be a mistake to contact them, and am interested in knowing Mr Hawking's reasoning behind that statement.

His reasoning seems to be based on an analogous comparison with the consequences of the meeting between a technologically superior human community and its technological inferior. He uses the European colonisation of the Americas as his example.

I'm sure there used to be an Italian Marxist cult who believed that historical materialism dictated that any extraterrestrial society more advanced than our own, would necessarily be communist. I think it led them to postulate that the revolution would be instigated by alien visitors.

[Devrim]

I'm sure there used to be an Italian Marxist cult who believed that historical materialism dictated that any extraterrestrial society more advanced than our own, would necessarily be communist. I think it led them to postulate that the revolution would be instigated by alien visitors.

Posadists, not Italian though mostly based in Latin America. This is their website:
http://www.quatrieme-internationale-posadiste.org/
I wouldn't describe them as a cult either.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Cult or not, they have some pretty "out there" views: a nuclear third world war as the starting point for a world socialist society! :lol:

[Sentinel]

Cult or not, they have some pretty "out there" views: a nuclear third world war as the starting point for a world socialist society! :lol:

We used to have a member who adhered to that kind of thought, their name escapes me now. I think they got banned.

[Devrim]

Cult or not, they have some pretty "out there" views: a nuclear third world war as the starting point for a world socialist society! :lol:

Yes, as I have said before on here, Posadas used to be a good Trotskyist worker militant. People who knew him said that after being tortured by the state, he had a sort of breakdown and was the same any more. That is when he started coming out with all of the strange ideas. This doesn't exclude the people who went along with him, but it does make it slightly less funny.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Yes, as I have said before on here, Posadas used to be a good Trotskyist worker militant. People who knew him said that after being tortured by the state, he had a sort of breakdown and was the same any more. That is when he started coming out with all of the strange ideas. This doesn't exclude the people who went along with him, but it does make it slightly less funny.

Devrim

Werent they pro-nuclear war and campaigned for the USSR to make a first strike aswell though? Its one thing believing in aliens and presuming that they must have a communist society if they have reached the stage of space travel but wanting a nuclear war is out and out pathological.

[Devrim]

Werent they pro-nuclear war and campaigned for the USSR to make a first strike aswell though? Its one thing believing in aliens and presuming that they must have a communist society if they have reached the stage of space travel but wanting a nuclear war is out and out pathological.

Yes, as I said he was somebody who was severely damaged by torture. It doesn't in anyway excuse his comrades, but it does make it less funny.

Devrim

[Across The Street]

I believe firmly that we've made contact, and they aren't communists.

[Dimentio]

If what is told about the posadists is true, they almost sound like evangelical fundamentalists, wanting a third world war to happen to be able to ascend to a more advanced stage.

:lol:

[mikelepore]

Hawking talked about this in a video that get's played a lot on TV. I can't remember whether it's on the History Channel or the Science Channel. He says he's making a conclusion from the history of more technological societies coming into contact with less technological societies, where the common trend is for one to enslave the other. For this reason he believes that gold record launched on Voyager in 1977 was a bad idea. We sent the aliens a map to tell them where to find us, so they can come here and enslave us. I can't accept his reasoning. If they are so advanced that they can travel between the stars, their level of automation must be so advanced that our labor would be useless to them. Likewise with the suggestion that the aliens might come here to eat us. If they were capable of interstellar travel they would already know how to manipulate atoms to produce anything that they wish to eat.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Isn't Stephen Hawking's mental stability questionable these days? First he claims we are all doomed if we don't leave the planet. Now he claims aliens are a dangerous threat mankind should avoid.

The general argument for the existence of aliens is probabilities. The universe is big, and life will ultimately emerge again. The probability of life emerging could be anything. It could have been lower in the past and be higher now. There isn't much data to draw upon.

I'd say belief in aliens doesn't matter much. Space exploration is valuable for other reasons. In terms of resource distribution, I'd place funding for alien searching very low on the list.

I think extraterrestrial life would be interesting, but I'm certainly not worried about external threats. For all we know, the aliens are just as likely to help us than harm us, just as likely to steal our garbage as steal our oil.

[eyedrop]

The general argument for the existence of aliens is probabilities. The universe is big, and life will ultimately emerge again. The probability of life emerging could be anything. It could have been lower in the past and be higher now. There isn't much data to draw upon.

It should be higher now than in the earlier universe since an older universe has a larger percentage of heavier atoms, which are probably necessary for life. Our solar system is second generation (if I don't remember wrong) which is why we have a decent amount of heavy atoms. It could be plenty of other things factoring in as well. In human time-scale it doesn't matter much though.

Aliens aren't going to come and save/judge/doom us at this exact moment of time. So if they exist or not aren't very important.


Hawking talked about this in a video that get's played a lot on TV. I can't remember whether it's on the History Channel or the Science Channel. He says he's making a conclusion from the history of more technological societies coming into contact with less technological societies, where the common trend is for one to enslave the other. For this reason he believes that gold record launched on Voyager in 1977 was a bad idea. We sent the aliens a map to tell them where to find us, so they can come here and enslave us. I can't accept his reasoning. If they are so advanced that they can travel between the stars, their level of automation must be so advanced that our labor would be useless to them. Likewise with the suggestion that the aliens might come here to eat us. If they were capable of interstellar travel they would already know how to manipulate atoms to produce anything that they wish to eat. Well I could image earth-like planets being scarce and them wanting our planet, assuming some aliens needed earth-like planets.

[x371322]

I read about this last night. I'm not sure I completely agree with Hawking. Risky sure, but that doesn't mean we should avoid it. Maybe it's more that I hope he's wrong, rather than I think he's wrong. Of course I'm sure he hopes he's wrong as well on this subject.

[TheSultan]

Purely hypothetically, assuming aliens exist; I would say we should communicate with them. Who is to say that they will be hostile or want to destroy us etc. They could be many years ahead of us scientifically and the benefits could be astronomical.

I personally do not think they exist though, maybe "life" exists but I don't think it would be anything intelligent or remotely humanoid in nature.

[Dimentio]

I'll say we should let them try to communicate with us first, to avoid offending them. It is probably impossible to understand the neurological composition of intelligent extraterrestial life. Maybe they would interpret smiles as a sign of aggression? Or even movement?

[Jacobinist]

Well if you use the now somewhat outdated Drake equation, than most certainly yes, there is abundant life outside of the Earth (I tend to agree with this one). But if you are asking about aliens and their supposed encounters with humans, then it requires some insight. Im highly skeptical of extraterrestrial encounters in contemporary history, but I dont actually dismiss it. Earth has been around for circa 4.5 billion yrs, plenty of time for something weird to happen.

I dont however think aliens travel billions of light years to our planet only to go land in the middle of some fucking wheat field in southern Kentucky. This, I dont buy for a second.

[x371322]

I dont however think aliens travel billions of light years to our planet only to go land in the middle of some fucking wheat field in southern Kentucky. This, I dont buy for a second.

I can confirm this. Besides, there aren't a lot of wheat fields here. Marijuana and tobacco, but no wheat, at least not here in the south. So unless the aliens just want to get wasted they should look elsewhere. :laugh:

[Jacobinist]

I can confirm this. Besides, there aren't a lot of wheat fields here. Marijuana and tobacco, but no wheat, at least not here in the south. So unless the aliens just want to get wasted they should look elsewhere. :laugh:

Hehe, sorry comrade. No offense. I almost used Mississippi too, hehe. My apologies. :thumbup1:

[x371322]

Hehe, sorry comrade. No offense. I almost used Mississippi too, hehe. My apologies. :thumbup1:

Oh none taken. I agree with you. And hell, Kentucky's an easy target. :laugh:

[Obrero Rebelde]

Earthlings will have to get a jump start on conquering alien worlds before the ETs beat us to the punch. Imperialism -- the highest and final stage of capitalism -- is turning out to have a much longer life span than Comrade Lenin ever imagined from his time in history. Therefore, it should be used to the advantage of our species and we should colonize the entire solar system post-haste while we still have the imperial expansionist drive to do so. Manifest destiny carried into the heavens.

[ZombieGrits]

First he claims we are all doomed if we don't leave the planet. Now he claims aliens are a dangerous threat mankind should avoid.

Well space exploration and avoiding contact with aliens aren't mutually exclusive. Even if humans colonised the solar system and perhaps even the nearest other systems, the likelihood of encountering any sort of life on those planets is super-duper-slim.


we should colonize the entire solar system post-haste while we still have the imperial expansionist drive to do so. Manifest destiny carried into the heavens.

Is it still imperialism if nobody/nothing lives there?

[JacobVardy]

Is it still imperialism if nobody/nothing lives there?

If a massive influx of outside resources is used to prop up capitalism, then yes it is imperialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Earthlings will have to get a jump start on conquering alien worlds before the ETs beat us to the punch. Imperialism -- the highest and final stage of capitalism -- is turning out to have a much longer life span than Comrade Lenin ever imagined from his time in history. Therefore, it should be used to the advantage of our species and we should colonize the entire solar system post-haste while we still have the imperial expansionist drive to do so. Manifest destiny carried into the heavens.

Colonisation of the Solar System requires significant levels of initial investment as well as the ability to plan for the long term, on the order of decades to millennia. I've seen no evidence that capitalism is either efficient enough to provide that initial investment without economically destabilising itself in the process, nor evidence that bourgeouis democratic states or corporations are capable of much planning beyond the next general election or financial year.

We need a new socioeconomic framework if we want to take our destiny to the stars.

[Devrim]

Well if you use the now somewhat outdated Drake equation, than most certainly yes, there is abundant life outside of the Earth (I tend to agree with this one).

No there isn't.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png where:
N = the number of civilizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization) in our galaxy with which communication might be possible; and
R* = the average rate of star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star) formation per year in our galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way)fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet)ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) per star that has planetsfℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some pointfi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence) lifefc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into spaceL = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

fℓ is a complete unknown. It could be nearly one in which case the Drake equation would give us a massive number or virtually zero in which case it would give us a tiny number. The Drake equation tells us nothing.


For all we know, the aliens are just as likely to help us than harm us, just as likely to steal our garbage as steal our oil.

I think this is a good point. Aliens could possibly more 'alien' than we imagine.

Devrim

[Revy]

I dont however think aliens travel billions of light years to our planet only to go land in the middle of some fucking wheat field in southern Kentucky. This, I dont buy for a second.

Perhaps they don't see us as "ready". No doubt with everything that happens on planet Earth, war, climate change, capitalism, would you trust humanity with the technological knowledge that would come from true interplanetary exchange?

Abductions are a way of studying humans. Landing in a wheat field could tell them about our agriculture and the plant that's being grown. Such mundane things might be of interest to them if they are scientists first and foremost.

[Jacobinist]

No there isn't.

fℓ is a complete unknown. It could be nearly one in which case the Drake equation would give us a massive number or virtually zero in which case it would give us a tiny number. The Drake equation tells us nothing.

Umm, well a duh? I did say outdated Drake equation. And besides, the drake equation is used to calculate the statistical chance of advanced civilizations. And the formula is very open to trickery, but depending on what you choose to use as variables, you will most likely end up with a number in the millions.

Drake Equation multiplies these values together:
1) The total number of stars in our galaxy: 400,000,000,000
2) Percentage of those stars with planets orbiting them: 25%
3) Number of planets with possibility of life: 2
4) Probability of life arising on a planet: 50% (?)
5) Probability of intelligent life arising: 10% (?)
6) Probability of a technological society arising: 10% (?)
7) Percentage that the technological society is alive in the planet’s lifespan: 0.0000001% to 1% (?)

[Jacobinist]

Perhaps they don't see us as "ready". No doubt with everything that happens on planet Earth, war, climate change, capitalism, would you trust humanity with the technological knowledge that would come from true interplanetary exchange?

Abductions are a way of studying humans. Landing in a wheat field could tell them about our agriculture and the plant that's being grown. Such mundane things might be of interest to them if they are scientists first and foremost.

Really? Not ready? That is the reason they choose to land in a corn field in Nebraska? Should they trust us? Why are we even asking that question? If these advanced beings are capable of travelling millions of light years to reach us, I think we should be the ones that are worried.

I dont know, again, I dont totally dismiss aliens.

[Revy]

Really? Not ready? That is the reason they choose to land in a corn field in Nebraska? Should they trust us? Why are we even asking that question? If these advanced beings are capable of travelling millions of light years to reach us, I think we should be the ones that are worried.

I dont know, again, I dont totally dismiss aliens.

why do you think they are traveling MILLIONS of light years? It could be 10 lightyears.

[Technocrat]

I think life may be very common throughout the Universe, but intelligent life - not so much. If we look at Earth, we are the only species (arguably) to have reached sentience. If sentience were a common adaptation we should expect it to occur in more than one life form on Earth. Look at flying - flight has evolved independently in multiple species including insects, mammals, and birds. This suggests that flight is common and we might expect to find a flying animal somewhere on another planet. Intelligence is much rarer - more like a fluke of evolution than anything else. So while I fully expect that humans will one day encounter complex life on other worlds, I think our chances of encountering intelligent life are very slim. I would wild-eye-guess the number of intelligent species occupying a galaxy at any time to be less than 10.

[Jacobinist]

why do you think they are traveling MILLIONS of light years? It could be 10 lightyears.

Lolz, have you taken a physics class? I dont think you have, because it would be obvious that your above statement is hillarious. :laugh:

[Devrim]

And the formula is very open to trickery, but depending on what you choose to use as variables, you will most likely end up with a number in the millions.

Drake Equation multiplies these values together:
1) The total number of stars in our galaxy: 400,000,000,000
2) Percentage of those stars with planets orbiting them: 25%
3) Number of planets with possibility of life: 2
4) Probability of life arising on a planet: 50% (?)
5) Probability of intelligent life arising: 10% (?)
6) Probability of a technological society arising: 10% (?)
7) Percentage that the technological society is alive in the planet’s lifespan: 0.0000001% to 1% (?)

All the variables that you put a question mark next too though are, as you point out, unknown, and can't be known when we have a sample base of one. If one of them is practically zero, which it well could be, it would make the end result practically zero.

Devrim

[eyedrop]

Lolz, have you taken a physics class? I dont think you have, because it would be obvious that your above statement is hillarious. :laugh:You know it is possible to briefly explain why someone is wrong, instead of trolling and insulting people. What are you referring to btw, there are a couple stars within a 10 ly distance of earth. There are certainly stars closer than a million ly which we don't know if they have non-gas planets.

[Jacobinist]

All the variables that you put a question mark next too though are, as you point out, unknown, and can't be known when we have a sample base of one. If one of them is practically zero, which it well could be, it would make the end result practically zero.

Devrim

Agreed. Although I dont think any of the variables will be near zero.

Oh and just one light year, about 1 trillion kilometers, is a vast distance. Esp when you consider reaching 1 trillion kilometers within a year requires moving at the impossible speed of light.

[Hit The North]

I think this is a good point. Aliens could possibly more 'alien' than we imagine.

Devrim

Although any technologically advanced alien would have to share a similar relation to material reality as we do - the ability to transform themselves through collective labour. This will require opposable thumbs, big brains, etc.

[Technocrat]

The estimates shown say that for every 10 planets with life, one will have intelligent life. That seems way too high given that only one species on earth has ever evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to build spaceships with. It is reasonable to say that intelligence is a rare adaptation, unlike something like flight, which has evolved separately in multiple different species. I think this is the variable that would be near zero, but that still means that there could be a dozen intelligent species in our galaxy. Now, whether or not it is really possible for them to get anywhere is another question entirely - our current understanding of physics rules out the possibility of faster than light travel.

[Devrim]

Aliens could possibly more 'alien' than we imagine.Although any technologically advanced alien would have to share a similar relation to material reality as we do - the ability to transform themselves through collective labour. This will require opposable thumbs, big brains, etc.

I actually want to change my statement to aliens could be more 'alien' than we can imagine. I can see your point to a certain extent, but not that of opposable thumbs. What they would need would be a way to 'manually' manipulate things. I am sure that there are more possibilities than opposable thumbs, to use the Simpson's aliens for example, tentacles and suckers, but it could be something that we can't even imagine.

Devrim

[mikelepore]

2) Percentage of those stars with planets orbiting them: 25%
3) Number of planets with possibility of life: 2
4) Probability of life arising on a planet: 50% (?)


Those numbers are EXTREMELY unrealistic. First, there are many sections of the galaxy that have no metal atoms, so the only planets can be balls of gas. Next, binary and triple stars are typical, which would make the temperature on a planet swing widely. Then, even for single stars, it's common to have eccentric orbits that make the temperature swing widely. Then, even if an orbit is circular, it has to be within a narrow range of radius. Then the planet must have a magnetic field to deflect solar particles. Then the gravity has to be neither too strong nor too weak. Then the amount of water has to be neither too much nor too little. Then the atmosphere has to be something that won't kill the first self-replicating molecule as soon as it appear. The list of necessary conditions goes on ond on.

[Devrim]

Agreed. Although I dont think any of the variables will be near zero.

This post seems reasonable to me:


The estimates shown say that for every 10 planets with life, one will have intelligent life. That seems way too high given that only one species on earth has ever evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to build spaceships with. It is reasonable to say that intelligence is a rare adaptation, unlike something like flight, which has evolved separately in multiple different species. I think this is the variable that would be near zero, but that still means that there could be a dozen intelligent species in our galaxy.

Something that someone was talking about at work today, I work at a big telecommunications company, was how in relatively few years humans will virtually stop giving off radio signals, so even if there is intelligent life out there the period in which it broadcasts radio signals may well be really short.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

Although any technologically advanced alien would have to share a similar relation to material reality as we do - the ability to transform themselves through collective labour. This will require opposable thumbs, big brains, etc.

Or tentacles.

Nothing says they couldn't be a hive-based society though.

[Leo]

The estimates shown say that for every 10 planets with life, one will have intelligent life. That seems way too high given that only one species on earth has ever evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to build spaceships with. Yes, I think this is very obvious. Of all the ten millions, perhaps hundred millions of species who exist on earth, only one can be considered intelligent life. I'd say rather than one in every ten, one in every ten, perhaps every hundred million or more planets fostering life would have intelligent life. That is not to say it is impossible, of course.

On the actual point, Hawking's argument is not a new argument, in fact I remember Jared Diamond putting it forward in one of his books based on the same grounds.

Of course planets that even have the possibility to foster life (what is called planetary habitability) as we know it are quite rare themselves. To my knowledge, there is only one other planet than Earth which the scientists say may be habitable, which is called Gliese 581 d. This, the only planet among many many other known to astronomers.

Space-travel is unlikely to get any faster than light-speed even under the most advanced technological circumstances, if it can even get as fast as that (we of course never know). The possibility of two intelligent life forms in two different planets posing a threat to each other seems so minimal that its near impossible. I think Hawking's point is more of a rhetorical point about human nature and his perception of the alleged destructive tenants of intelligent life. Being a good physicist does not make one escape from the bourgeois definition of the human nature, of course.

[Revy]

The theory is that we could create wormholes to travel quickly to far away stars. This is a way around the idea that it would take aliens a long time to get anywhere. If they've developed the ability for a craft to circumvent gravity, well, then, it's not that far-fetched to imagine that they could do that.

[Invincible Summer]

I'll say we should let them try to communicate with us first, to avoid offending them. It is probably impossible to understand the neurological composition of intelligent extraterrestial life. Maybe they would interpret smiles as a sign of aggression? Or even movement?

This. Also, I always have to chuckle when some "scientist" on the news says that life can't exist on other planets because they dont' have water or oxygen or whatever.

Since when did we all agree and know that alien life needed these things?


Also, if we learned anything from movies, then aliens will always land somewhere in the US and some bumbling general with a reputation to maintain will do something stupid and we'll suffer many American casualties until some brave man with physical features attractive to the given time period decides to lose his mind and save the world single-handedly (or with the assistance of a woman who does nothing but scream or assist him at the very last second, or a child, or a dog) by fighting a bunch of aliens and then somehow negotiating peace, even though no one else has been able to

[danyboy27]

Well, i think its perfectly possible that intelligent life exist beyong this planet.

The problem is, the possibilities are so infinites, Lifeform could exist without the need of oxygen or water, and the size of those entities could be from gigantic to extremely small.

I mean, there could be a civilisation, right now, on other planet of the solar system, but they might be so microscopic, that even our best tech couldnt detect them.

We have to also consider that Energy based being might exist, hell, maybe mineral based.

[The Ben G]

Of course they do! The Universe is so huge, its almost impossible for there not to be.

[The Inquisitor]

Ron Paul believes in aliens. That's enough proof for me.

[earth fuck]

all u peeps who r so positive. you have no idea.
we cant know one way or the other!
i think it is likely, but i dont know, i cant. neither can u. and i doubt we will ever encounter them cus distance is too great.

[Technocrat]

This. Also, I always have to chuckle when some "scientist" on the news says that life can't exist on other planets because they dont' have water or oxygen or whatever.

Since when did we all agree and know that alien life needed these things?


I think this is a reasonable assumption given what we've observed of our own solar system. If life could easily arise without those things, we should have found life somewhere in our own solar system by now. Given that Earth is the only planet in our solar system known to have life, we can pretty reasonably assume that life requires oxygen, water, etc.

In regards to the possibility of a space-faring civilization: Since the galaxy is 100,000 light years across, a civilization that could go 50% the speed of light (slow interstellar travel) could conceivably reach every planet in the galaxy in 200,000 years, though it would probably take longer because expansion doesn't happen at a steady rate like that. Still, a space-faring civilization going 50% the speed of light would probably colonize the entire galaxy in less than 500,000 years. Even if they died out they would leave remnants of their civilization. So, given the current age of the galaxy, the question is: why haven't we encountered them or any artifacts left behind? Do sufficiently advanced civilizations just decide that space exploration isn't worth it? I think this is a possibility, because people tend to not care about things which they aren't going to see in their lifetimes - and space exploration requires investments that won't be returned for several lifetimes, in some cases. This makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective (conservation of resources/energy), so I imagine that alien civilizations would have a similar psychology (of course, a "hive mind" is also possible). It also makes sense that if a civilization has the capacity to build an interstellar space ship that they also have the technology to solve the problem of scarcity without going into space - which means that they wouldn't need to go to space for resources. This is why one of the only plausible scenarios I can see for space settlement involve some kind of disaster happening to the earth that we have sufficient time to prepare for. Example: if we found out that the atmosphere of the earth was going to render it uninhabitable for humans within 100 years, this would (hopefully) provide sufficient motivation to find and settle another earth-like planet.

[x371322]

I think this is a reasonable assumption given what we've observed of our own solar system. If life could easily arise without those things, we should have found life somewhere in our own solar system by now. Given that Earth is the only planet in our solar system known to have life, we can pretty reasonably assume that life requires oxygen, water, etc.

Actually, we have.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18744-zoologger-the-mud-creature-that-lives-without-oxygen.html

[mikelepore]

We only have a sample size of 1 from which to make any conclusions. The total number of times that we know of that something living came into existence from nonliving matter: 1. It's difficult to draw conclusions from any small sample, even when there are more than 1, say, a dozen, so some tentative conclusions made from a sample of 1 are even more uncertain.

We say that life requires water. What we do know seems to indicate that life is a series of chemical reactions that occur in aqueous solution. This is tentative but a good place to start.

I have greater doubt about the need for oxygen. Life requires the use of an external energy source to move chemical compounds to a higher potential energy, so that the system can then fall back down to a lower potential energy. Flipping back and forth between C + O2 <---> CO2 is not the only known way to achieve this energy storage and release. Almost all of the substances listed on the table of enthalpies of formation can do this. Although the word "oxidation" originally came from the name of oxygen, several other elements, such as the halogens, are better oxidizers than oxygen.

[Klaatu]

I have to disagree completely with Hawking on this. I think aliens not only exist, they are monitoring us, and are extremely benevolent. Hawking is just trying to project our own human weakness and barbarism on to these higher life-forms, which may have done away with violence milennia ago (?)

Could it be that Genesis, (in the Bible) was actually about these benevolent extraterrestrials? Did they "create" us? Is the earth actually a planetary zoological park, with animals of many diverse species, brought here by these advanced beings? Not "6000 years ago," but millions of years ago?

[Technocrat]

Actually, I think intelligent aliens do not exist - or at least none that have ever taken an interest in colonizing space.

The galaxy is older than 13 billion years.

If a civilization can attain a level of technology to go just 50% the speed of light, it would only take 200,000-500,000 years to colonize the entire galaxy (the galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years across).

So if it takes half a million years tops to colonize the entire galaxy, and the galaxy is more than 13 billion years old, our planet should have already been colonized! Based on this we can conclude that either 1) we are the first intelligent species to arise in our galaxy or 2) we are the first intelligent species to develop to a post-industrial level of technology (which allows radio broadcasts and space travel). A third possibility exists, that an alien civilization has developed to our level of technology or beyond it, but simply has not taken an interest in colonizing space.

[Technocrat]

Actually, we have.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18744-zoologger-the-mud-creature-that-lives-without-oxygen.html

An anaerobic metabolism is extremely inefficient - if you read the comments it would take around 10,000 - 20,000 calories per day at least to maintain a creature our size. If you read further you also see that creatures that don't require oxygen are quite common - they die when exposed to oxygen. There are many cells within the human body that are anaerobic in nature.

[The Inquisitor]

Based on this we can conclude that either 1) we are the first intelligent species to arise in our galaxy or 2) we are the first intelligent species to develop to a post-industrial level of technology (which allows radio broadcasts and space travel). A third possibility exists, that an alien civilization has developed to our level of technology or beyond it, but simply has not taken an interest in colonizing space.

What about the possibility that they just haven't colonized this far yet?

[Technocrat]

What about the possibility that they just haven't colonized this far yet?

It's possible, but extremely unlikely due to the laws of probability: you're talking about two intelligent, space faring civilizations arising at the same time (10,000 - 100,000 years of each other) during a 13 billion year time period - but none arising prior to that.

[Klaatu]

Actually, I think intelligent aliens do not exist - or at least none that have ever taken an interest in colonizing space.

The galaxy is older than 13 billion years.

If a civilization can attain a level of technology to go just 50% the speed of light, it would only take 200,000-500,000 years to colonize the entire galaxy (the galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years across).

So if it takes half a million years tops to colonize the entire galaxy, and the galaxy is more than 13 billion years old, our planet should have already been colonized! Based on this we can conclude that either 1) we are the first intelligent species to arise in our galaxy or 2) we are the first intelligent species to develop to a post-industrial level of technology (which allows radio broadcasts and space travel). A third possibility exists, that an alien civilization has developed to our level of technology or beyond it, but simply has not taken an interest in colonizing space.

But then who knows what technology they might have developed (for cross-galactic speed) Consider that a little over 100 years ago, scientists thought the sun was powered by ordinary combustion; nuclear energy was yet to be discovered. IMHO, we are only in the infancy of vast new technologies which are yet to be discovered...

[Technocrat]

But then who knows what technology they might have developed (for cross-galactic speed) Consider that a little over 100 years ago, scientists thought the sun was powered by ordinary combustion; nuclear energy was yet to be discovered. IMHO, we are only in the infancy of vast new technologies which are yet to be discovered...

? But if they were able to go even faster than light speed, that only strengthens my argument - they should have gotten here even faster.

[Invincible Summer]

Actually, I think intelligent aliens do not exist - or at least none that have ever taken an interest in colonizing space.

The galaxy is older than 13 billion years.

If a civilization can attain a level of technology to go just 50% the speed of light, it would only take 200,000-500,000 years to colonize the entire galaxy (the galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years across).

So if it takes half a million years tops to colonize the entire galaxy, and the galaxy is more than 13 billion years old, our planet should have already been colonized! Based on this we can conclude that either 1) we are the first intelligent species to arise in our galaxy or 2) we are the first intelligent species to develop to a post-industrial level of technology (which allows radio broadcasts and space travel). A third possibility exists, that an alien civilization has developed to our level of technology or beyond it, but simply has not taken an interest in colonizing space.


For some reason, your post reminds me of something an acquaintance of mine said while stoned:

"Hey dude ever wonder if maybe we're aliens? That we're just like drones sent to this planet but our "real bodies" are on some other planet? It's like we're surrogates of our true alien selves or something"

[Klaatu]

? But if they were able to go even faster than light speed, that only strengthens my argument - they should have gotten here even faster.

Which comes right back to mine: They are already here (and/or have been, millions of years ago?) that is, we could be their children (?)

And how does a parent treat his children? With love and benevolence. I could be wrong, but then, evolution never did have me convinced...

[The Inquisitor]

What about the ancient astronaut theories floating around? Are we going to automatically assume they are wrong?

[Technocrat]

What about the ancient astronaut theories floating around? Are we going to automatically assume they are wrong?

Yes - because an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, which is sadly lacking for this particular claim.

It also does a great disservice to humanity to claim that we were incapable of building certain things - so that aliens must have done it.

[Technocrat]

Which comes right back to mine: They are already here (and/or have been, millions of years ago?) that is, we could be their children (?)

And how does a parent treat his children? With love and benevolence. I could be wrong, but then, evolution never did have me convinced...

There's no evidence for this belief. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

Also, not all parents treat their children with love and benevolence - in fact throughout most of history, children were frequently regarded as a source of free labor.

[The Inquisitor]

Yes - because an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, which is sadly lacking for this particular claim.

From what I've seen they have a good amount of evidence that is too coincidental to not suggest some sort alien intervention in ancient society. I'd give archaeology more time to review all the pieces of the puzzle before I ruled out the possibility.

[The Inquisitor]

Which comes right back to mine: They are already here (and/or have been, millions of years ago?) that is, we could be their children (?)

Some people see the starchild skull as plenty proof for this.

[Klaatu]

From what I've seen they have a good amount of evidence that is too coincidental to not suggest some sort alien intervention in ancient society. I'd give archaeology more time to review all the pieces of the puzzle before I ruled out the possibility.

I agree, we cannot rule out the possibility. I like to think that the book of Ezekiel, in the Bible, is a credible, eye-witness account of extraterrestrials in flying machines.

[Devrim]

I agree, we cannot rule out the possibility. I like to think that the book of Ezekiel, in the Bible, is a credible, eye-witness account of extraterrestrials in flying machines.

I like to think that nobody will take anybody seriously on any sort of scientific basis who thinks that the books of the Old Testament are 'credible, eye-witness accounts' of anything.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Some people see the starchild skull as plenty proof for this.

The so-called 'Star Child Skull' has been proven by DNA analysis to have been human, and had two human parents. Some people will see proof of their ideas anywhere. It does prove them though.

Devrim

[x371322]

I think it all boils down to the fact that many people, myself included, simply want aliens to be out there. And not only to be out there, but to be interested in our affairs. It's interesting. It's intriguing.

I do believe aliens exist (it's a near certainty). But I don't necessarily believe they come here. There's not any real evidence to suggest it. Just because we can't explain how an ancient people did something, doesn't mean aliens did it. It's like saying that just because we can't explain why the door closed on it's own, that it must be a ghost. It's quite a stretch to take it that far. Let's rule out all terrestrial possibilities before we jump to extraterrestrial ones.

[Technocrat]

I agree, we cannot rule out the possibility. I like to think that the book of Ezekiel, in the Bible, is a credible, eye-witness account of extraterrestrials in flying machines.

First of all, eye-witness accounts are not credible. Which is why eyewitness testimony hardly ever holds up in a court of law.

Second of all, ...ah, forget it.

[Technocrat]

From what I've seen they have a good amount of evidence that is too coincidental to not suggest some sort alien intervention in ancient society. I'd give archaeology more time to review all the pieces of the puzzle before I ruled out the possibility.

Uh... they have? - no credible archeologist takes this stuff seriously.

[Technocrat]

I think it all boils down to the fact that many people, myself included, simply want aliens to be out there. And not only to be out there, but to be interested in our affairs. It's interesting. It's intriguing.

I do believe aliens exist (it's a near certainty). But I don't necessarily believe they come here. There's not any real evidence to suggest it. Just because we can't explain how an ancient people did something, doesn't mean aliens did it. It's like saying that just because we can't explain why the door closed on it's own, that it must be a ghost. It's quite a stretch to take it that far. Let's rule out all terrestrial possibilities before we jump to extraterrestrial ones.

I agree with this. It also does a great disservice to humanity to suggest that we were incapable of building certain things, just because today we don't understand how it was done. The alien astronaut theory is basically this: "People couldn't have built this, so aliens must have done it!"

Seriously? Just because we don't know how they did it, we're going to conclude that aliens must have intervened?

[Technocrat]

Basically, we need to realize that intelligence is not a common adaptation.

Flight is common - we can observe it in insects, mammals, and birds.

Intelligence is uncommon - we are the only species out of billions which has evolved to intelligence.

Evolution isn't a steady progression toward intelligence.

Whatever alien life we encounter will probably not be intelligent.

[revolution inaction]

Actually, I think intelligent aliens do not exist - or at least none that have ever taken an interest in colonizing space.

The galaxy is older than 13 billion years.

If a civilization can attain a level of technology to go just 50% the speed of light, it would only take 200,000-500,000 years to colonize the entire galaxy (the galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years across).

So if it takes half a million years tops to colonize the entire galaxy, and the galaxy is more than 13 billion years old, our planet should have already been colonized! Based on this we can conclude that either 1) we are the first intelligent species to arise in our galaxy or 2) we are the first intelligent species to develop to a post-industrial level of technology (which allows radio broadcasts and space travel). A third possibility exists, that an alien civilization has developed to our level of technology or beyond it, but simply has not taken an interest in colonizing space.

actually there were no elements heavier than lithium until after the first generation of stars. so althought the galaxy is more than 13bn years old that doesn't mean life could have developed 13bn years ago.

[Revy]

Uh... they have? - no credible archeologist takes this stuff seriously.

You don't have to believe they built the Pyramids or anything. Ancient astronauts is about visitation.


http://www.ufoartwork.com/images/ufoartwork_bc/ovni6.jpg

^these beings are called Wandjina (considered to be cloud and rain spirits, so they have a connection with the sky) by the Australian Aborigines. some cave paintings are said to be 5,000 years old. do they look like Greys?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/BaptismOfChristByAertDeGelder_Fitzwilliam_Cambridg e.jpg

This image is by flemish artist Aert De Gelder (http://www.kfki.hu/%7Earthp/bio/g/gelder/biograph.html) and is entitled "The Baptism of Christ" It was painted in 1710. A disk shaped object is shining beams of light down on John the Baptist and Jesus.

there's lots more. but these are ones that stand out and don't seem too vaguely interpreted.

also there are some cultural traditions that are very explicit about it. The Dogon tribe in Africa believe they were visited long ago by an amphibious species called the Nommos from the Sirius star system.

Does it mean we should believe it unquestioningly? no, but if we accept that we are not the only life in the universe, there could be something to it. The reason archaeologists don't want to take it seriously because they don't want to upset the cart and look crazy.

even many don't like to hear what Stephen Hawking is saying, though he's not saying they visit us. he's acknowledging that aliens can exist. and a lot of people don't want to hear that.

[Technocrat]

You don't have to believe they built the Pyramids or anything. Ancient astronauts is about visitation.


http://www.ufoartwork.com/images/ufoartwork_bc/ovni6.jpg

^these beings are called Wandjina (considered to be cloud and rain spirits, so they have a connection with the sky) by the Australian Aborigines. some cave paintings are said to be 5,000 years old. do they look like Greys?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/BaptismOfChristByAertDeGelder_Fitzwilliam_Cambridg e.jpg

This image is by flemish artist Aert De Gelder (http://www.kfki.hu/%7Earthp/bio/g/gelder/biograph.html) and is entitled "The Baptism of Christ" It was painted in 1710. A disk shaped object is shining beams of light down on John the Baptist and Jesus.

there's lots more. but these are ones that stand out and don't seem too vaguely interpreted.

also there are some cultural traditions that are very explicit about it. The Dogon tribe in Africa believe they were visited long ago by an amphibious species called the Nommos from the Sirius star system.

Does it mean we should believe it unquestioningly? no, but if we accept that we are not the only life in the universe, there could be something to it. The reason archaeologists don't want to take it seriously because they don't want to upset the cart and look crazy.

even many don't like to hear what Stephen Hawking is saying, though he's not saying they visit us. he's acknowledging that aliens can exist. and a lot of people don't want to hear that.

All this suggests is that there are common archetypes existing in the human subconscious.

This makes sense because our brains share a common structure. So the images that arise out of the subconscious are going to share some commonality, too. These are called archetypes. There is no need to invoke aliens as an explanation for this, just as there is no need to invoke aliens as an explanation for the pyramids or anything else built in ancient times.

In fact, if you want to see some 'greys' just take a lot of DMT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine).

DMT users call them "machine elves" or "greys".

People in the middle ages called them "angels" or "demons".

People in the modern era (because of their exposure to technology), interpret the images as being "aliens".

[Technocrat]

actually there were no elements heavier than lithium until after the first generation of stars. so althought the galaxy is more than 13bn years old that doesn't mean life could have developed 13bn years ago.

Granted, but let's say life could have arisen 6 billion years ago. The time it takes to colonize the galaxy is 500,000 years, tops - including the time it takes for their technology to evolve to the necessary level after attaining sentience (assuming a speed of around 50% c).

6 billion divided by 500,000 is 12,000.

So there were 12,000 periods of 500,000 years during which life could have reached space-faring technology and colonized the entire galaxy, but didn't.

This suggests that intelligence is either a freak of nature, or that space colonization just isn't worth the effort and intelligent races dedicate themselves to more introverted pursuits.

[Technocrat]

Implications of being the only intelligent species in the galaxy are hard to swallow. We want to think that we are not alone, because it takes some of the responsibility off of us to get our act together.

It means the stakes are raised much higher - if we are the sole bearers of intelligence, does it then become our responsibility to spread intelligence throughout the galaxy? I would think so. If we want the human race to survive for millions of years, the only way to guarantee it is by settling throughout the galaxy.

Rather than an alien race being the benefactor of mankind, we might be the sole bearers of civilization in the galaxy - we might be the benevolent aliens.

[Devrim]

This image is by flemish artist Aert De Gelder (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.kfki.hu/%7Earthp/bio/g/gelder/biograph.html) and is entitled "The Baptism of Christ" It was painted in 1710. A disk shaped object is shining beams of light down on John the Baptist and Jesus.

Even though we have already discussed to reliability of eye-witnesses, I hope you are not seriously trying to suggest that this painter had an particularly special insight into an event that happened nearly 1700 years earlier in a different continent.

It isn't a photo. He is making it up.

Devrim

[larrym]

or maybe they took one look at our planet and thought what a fucked up evil species of being we are and decided best to stay out our way haha

[revolution inaction]

Granted, but let's say life could have arisen 6 billion years ago. The time it takes to colonize the galaxy is 500,000 years, tops - including the time it takes for their technology to evolve to the necessary level after attaining sentience (assuming a speed of around 50% c).

6 billion divided by 500,000 is 12,000.

So there were 12,000 periods of 500,000 years during which life could have reached space-faring technology and colonized the entire galaxy, but didn't.

This suggests that intelligence is either a freak of nature, or that space colonization just isn't worth the effort and intelligent races dedicate themselves to more introverted pursuits.

Or they haven't noticed us yet, after all we've been around for no more than a million years in our present form. Or it may be they have decided not to talk to us, they may be anti social, or have rules/principle against communicating with other species, or they may be waiting for use to reach a certain stage in our social/technological development.

It's a bit soon to say because we haven't seen them yet then they aren't there

[(A)narcho-Matt]

I think everyone is forgetting:

"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

[Technocrat]

Or they haven't noticed us yet, after all we've been around for no more than a million years in our present form. Or it may be they have decided not to talk to us, they may be anti social, or have rules/principle against communicating with other species, or they may be waiting for use to reach a certain stage in our social/technological development.

It's a bit soon to say because we haven't seen them yet then they aren't there

That's true, there could be some kind of "prime directive" that they are following - but that kind of falls under what I was talking about when I said that if intelligent life does exist, they probably don't take an interest in space colonization. If there was a species interested in colonizing the galaxy, there were 12,000 periods of time in which they could have done it already.

[Technocrat]

I think everyone is forgetting:

"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

I don't know where this quote is from, but infinity is a concept that starts to lose meaning outside mathematics. Scientists don't claim that the universe is infinite in size, just way bigger than we can ever comprehend.

[khad]

I think everyone is forgetting:

"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

1) Who said this?

2) Did he fail high school mathematics?

Because everyone knows that a fraction of infinity is still infinity. For example:

∞/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 = ∞

[Revy]

Even though we have already discussed to reliability of eye-witnesses, I hope you are not seriously trying to suggest that this painter had an particularly special insight into an event that happened nearly 1700 years earlier in a different continent.

It isn't a photo. He is making it up.

Devrim

No. The importance is that it's a painting from 1710. not a movie or TV show. do you really think I would have thought it was based on a witness account of the baptism? :confused: Just because I'm a crazy UFO enthusiast ;), doesn't mean you should treat me like a child. if the artist had seen UFOs, don't you think he would have painted them in his religious scenes? since they liked to paint stuff from the Bible....

Making it up? it's a painting. what's important is the details. this wasn't made in the 20th century in UFO mania.

your average Christian at the time would have seen a UFO and thought it was some kind of divine vehicle of some kind. hence this painting.

The "Miracle of the Sun" in Portugal in 1917 sounds to me like a UFO sighting.

[Technocrat]

your average Christian at the time would have seen a UFO and thought it was some kind of divine vehicle of some kind. hence this painting.

No, what's happening is that people in two different time periods are experiencing the same subconscious archetype (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes). The one in the middle ages is interpreting the archetype as a divine being, the one in the modern era interprets it as a UFO. The different interpretations are the result of different cultural conditioning - in the middle ages everyone was exposed to religion, in the modern ere everyone is exposed to technology, science, and atheism - so what was once seen as a divine being is now interpreted as a technologically advanced, space-faring alien. Neither description is accurate. Both experiences are likely the result of DMT induced schizophrenia. Shared hallucinations are not uncommon in a group that shares similar conditioning. Shared hallucinations can even occur simultaneously.

If you want to see 'greys' for yourself, you can take DMT - they are a common sighting for DMT users. DMT occurs naturally in the brain and is thought to play a role in schizophrenia, ufo sightings, alien abductions, and religious experiences.

[Revy]

The Miracle of the Sun (Portuguese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_language): O Milagre do Sol) is an alleged miraculous event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle) witnessed by 30,000 to 100,000 people on 13 October 1917 in the Cova da Iria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cova_da_Iria) fields near Fátima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A1tima,_Portugal), Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal). Those in attendance had assembled to observe what the Portuguese secular newspapers had been ridiculing for months as the absurd claim of three shepherd children that a miracle was going to occur at high-noon in the Cova da Iria on 13 October 1917.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun#cite_note-0)
According to many witness statements, after a downfall of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun#cite_note-DeMarchib_139.E2.80.93150-1) It was said to be significantly less bright than normal, and cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun#cite_note-DeMarchib_139.E2.80.93150-1) The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun#cite_note-DeMarchib_139.E2.80.93150-1) frightening some of those present who thought it meant the end of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun#cite_note-2) Some witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry."^ what would you have thought if you saw that back then? and didn't know what we know now about what that kind of thing really is?;)

[Technocrat]

^ what would you have thought if you saw that back then? and didn't know what we know now about what that kind of thing really is?;)

Back then ignorant people thought everything was caused by mystical forces (just as ignorant people do now). Today we would interpret such an event as an unexplained meteorological phenomenon or something else.

The same wikipedia article says the following:



Professor Auguste Meessen of the Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Leuven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_University_of_Leuven), has stated that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly Meessen states that the colour changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun#cite_note-25) Meessen observes that sun miracles have been witnessed in many places where religiously charged pilgrims have been encouraged to stare at the sun. He cites the apparitions at Heroldsbach, Germany (1949) as an example, where exactly the same optical effects as at Fatima were witnessed by more than 10,000 people. [27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun#cite_note-26)

[(A)narcho-Matt]

I don't know where this quote is from, but infinity is a concept that starts to lose meaning outside mathematics. Scientists don't claim that the universe is infinite in size, just way bigger than we can ever comprehend.

Its from the HitchHikers guide to the galaxy its meant to be funny....:rolleyes:

My personal take on the whole aliens thing is i really dont care that much...

[Klaatu]

I like to think that nobody will take anybody seriously on any sort of scientific basis who thinks that the books of the Old Testament are 'credible, eye-witness accounts' of anything.



"First of all, eye-witness accounts are not credible. Which is why eyewitness testimony hardly ever holds up in a court of law.[/i]

I knew someone would shoot this down.

I said "I like to think" it is credible. (just my thoughts on it.) I did NOT say it IS credible, scientific proof.

Secondly, we have no one on trial here.

[Klaatu]

Granted, but let's say life could have arisen 6 billion years ago. The time it takes to colonize the galaxy is 500,000 years, tops - including the time it takes for their technology to evolve to the necessary level after attaining sentience (assuming a speed of around 50% c).

6 billion divided by 500,000 is 12,000.

So there were 12,000 periods of 500,000 years during which life could have reached space-faring technology and colonized the entire galaxy, but didn't.

How do you know this?



Even though we have already discussed to reliability of eye-witnesses, I hope you are not seriously trying to suggest that this painter had an particularly special insight into an event that happened nearly 1700 years earlier in a different continent.

It isn't a photo. He is making it up.

Based on what? Something he had seen, perhaps?

[Klaatu]

No, what's happening is that people in two different time periods are experiencing the same subconscious archetype (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes). The one in the middle ages is interpreting the archetype as a divine being, the one in the modern era interprets it as a UFO. The different interpretations are the result of different cultural conditioning - in the middle ages everyone was exposed to religion, in the modern ere everyone is exposed to technology, science, and atheism - so what was once seen as a divine being is now interpreted as a technologically advanced, space-faring alien. Neither description is accurate. Both experiences are likely the result of DMT induced schizophrenia. Shared hallucinations are not uncommon in a group that shares similar conditioning. Shared hallucinations can even occur simultaneously.

If you want to see 'greys' for yourself, you can take DMT - they are a common sighting for DMT users. DMT occurs naturally in the brain and is thought to play a role in schizophrenia, ufo sightings, alien abductions, and religious experiences.

So everyone who has ever seen a UFO was on dope?

[Technocrat]

How do you know this?

Because the math shows it to be true.

[Technocrat]

So everyone who has ever seen a UFO was on dope?

No, DMT occurs naturally within the brain.

[bcbm]

Although any technologically advanced alien would have to share a similar relation to material reality as we do - the ability to transform themselves through collective labour. This will require opposable thumbs, big brains, etc.

why

[Klaatu]

Originally Posted by EnviroWhacko
How do you know this?
Originally Posted by Technocrat
Because the math shows it to be true.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Originally Posted by EnviroWhacko
So everyone who has ever seen a UFO was on dope?
Originally Posted by Technocrat
No, DMT occurs naturally within the brain.

That was not my question.

[Cowboy Killer]

To be quite honest I didn't even really read through this whole thread, not that I'm an arrogant asshole, I'm just sick of this question. So here is my answer. We can never be 100% sure if aliens exist or not unless we see them ourselves. I think it it is possible, definitely not probable, that the formation and evolution of intelligent life could have happened only on this planet but I think out of the almost infinite number of planets that there are in the universe I think it is safe to say that there is intelligent life on other planets or moons and that some of the beings may have mastered space/time travel. However I think it is also safe to say that we may never know because to any group of beings that has mastered such a technological feat wouldn't really be interested in us and might think of us as a bunch of primitive apes and because of this I think that if they were interested, it would be because they want something from us, and would probably enslave us or annihilate us to get it. So I don't think I really wanna know if theres aliens.

[Technocrat]

Originally Posted by EnviroWhacko
How do you know this?
Originally Posted by Technocrat
Because the math shows it to be true.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Originally Posted by EnviroWhacko
So everyone who has ever seen a UFO was on dope?
Originally Posted by Technocrat
No, DMT occurs naturally within the brain.

That was not my question.

Sorry - what was the question?

I thought the answer to your question was implicit in my response.

If DMT occurs naturally within the brain and is responsible for "alien abductions", then it follows that no, not everyone who sees UFOs is "on dope" - they are hallucinating as the result of a chemical within their brain.

[Devrim]

1) Who said this?

2) Did he fail high school mathematics?

Because everyone knows that a fraction of infinity is still infinity. For example:

∞/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 = ∞

It is Douglas Adams, a reasonably comic famous writer in Britain. It is from a book. It is not meant to be taken seriously.

Devrim

[cska]

Granted, but let's say life could have arisen 6 billion years ago. The time it takes to colonize the galaxy is 500,000 years, tops - including the time it takes for their technology to evolve to the necessary level after attaining sentience (assuming a speed of around 50% c).

6 billion divided by 500,000 is 12,000.

So there were 12,000 periods of 500,000 years during which life could have reached space-faring technology and colonized the entire galaxy, but didn't.

This suggests that intelligence is either a freak of nature, or that space colonization just isn't worth the effort and intelligent races dedicate themselves to more introverted pursuits.

I have to argue that the latter could well be the case. There are an estimated 100-400 billion stars in the galaxy. To get the resources to visit every single star in the galaxy is no easy feat. So, rather than bother colonizing far parts of the galaxy (something which, if they are at all like humans, they wouldn't have the patience to do), they might be content to settle the stars in their immediate vicinity.

[Klaatu]

Sorry - what was the question?

I thought the answer to your question was implicit in my response.

If DMT occurs naturally within the brain and is responsible for "alien abductions", then it follows that no, not everyone who sees UFOs is "on dope" - they are hallucinating as the result of a chemical within their brain.

I want to see evidence that supports your claim (research studies, etc.)

[Technocrat]

I want to see evidence that supports your claim (research studies, etc.)

Please do not presume that I just post things on a whim without knowing if there is any supporting data.



# It has also been noted that Terence McKenna described seeing "Machine Elves" while experimenting with Dimethyltryptamine (also known as DMT). In a 1988 study conducted at UNM, psychiatrist Rick Strassman found that approximately 20% of volunteers injected with high doses of DMT had experiences identical to purported Alien Abductions.[34]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine


In other words, 20% of users given DMT had an experience identical to "alien abduction" experiences.

[Klaatu]

Granted, but let's say life could have arisen 6 billion years ago. The time it takes to colonize the galaxy is 500,000 years, tops - including the time it takes for their technology to evolve to the necessary level after attaining sentience (assuming a speed of around 50% c).

6 billion divided by 500,000 is 12,000.

So there were 12,000 periods of 500,000 years during which life could have reached space-faring technology and colonized the entire galaxy, but didn't.


I could argue the converse: Perhaps aliens (assuming they exist) already have visited this planet 12,000 times?
The evidence (UFO sightings, ancient drawings, etc) would tend to suggest this.

Are you saying that they could have visited this planet 12,000 times, and the proof is that they did not, based on
the assumption that they would have conquered us already?

Paraphrasing Physicist Michio Kaku,* Why would far-advanced aliens wish to colonize earth? To them, we are like ants.
If you come across an ant-hill in the forest, would you say to them, "Take me to your leader?" Or would you just
leave the wildlife alone and move on?

*Guest on Larry King Live, 4-30-10
http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/30/stephen-hawking-aliens-may-come-and-not-in-peace/

[Klaatu]

# It has also been noted that Terence McKenna described seeing "Machine Elves" while experimenting with Dimethyltryptamine (also known as DMT). In a 1988 study conducted at UNM, psychiatrist Rick Strassman found that approximately 20% of volunteers injected with high doses of DMT had experiences identical to purported Alien Abductions.[34]

Good. But this does not prove there are no abductions (nor ufo sightings, etc) It only shows that people experience hallucinations while on this drug. Visions which "are similar to" abductions, etc.

[cska]

I could argue the converse: Perhaps aliens (assuming they exist) already have visited this planet 12,000 times?
The evidence (UFO sightings, ancient drawings, etc) would tend to suggest this.

Are you saying that they could have visited this planet 12,000 times, and the proof is that they did not, based on
the assumption that they would have conquered us already?

Paraphrasing Physicist Michio Kaku,* Why would far-advanced aliens wish to colonize earth? To them, we are like ants.
If you come across an ant-hill in the forest, would you say to them, "Take me to your leader?" Or would you just
leave the wildlife alone and move on?

*Guest on Larry King Live, 4-30-10
http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/30/stephen-hawking-aliens-may-come-and-not-in-peace/

If 12,000 humans came across an ant-hill in the forest, chances are one of them would stomp on them. People aren't that nice, and I don't see why aliens would be any different. Anyways, if aliens did visit here and decide we weren't technologically advanced enough, they probably wouldn't have been spotted, so those alien sightings are still hallucinations.

[Klaatu]

If 12,000 humans came across an ant-hill in the forest, chances are one of them would stomp on them. People aren't that nice, and I don't see why aliens would be any different. Anyways, if aliens did visit here and decide we weren't technologically advanced enough, they probably wouldn't have been spotted, so those alien sightings are still hallucinations.

There you go, projecting again. I say that, if these are an advanced society, they have respect for life. It is true that, among humans, mature and educated ones would not even think of wantonly destroying living things. The only people that might do this are emotionally troubled children.

And you are right, "people aren't nice" to each other. But almost everyone would be nice to a little puppy or kitten, yes?

[Technocrat]

Good. But this does not prove there are no abductions (nor ufo sightings, etc) It only shows that people experience hallucinations while on this drug. Visions which "are similar to" abductions, etc.

You're right - it doesn't prove that there aren't any alien abductions, but it does suggest that invoking aliens as an explanation for these experiences in unecessary and often erroneous. Let's review the facts.

1) People claim to have "alien abduction" experiences
2) People given DMT, a drug which occurs naturally within the brain and is thought to play a role in schizophrenia, have experiences indistinguishable (not "similar to") from "alien abduction" experiences.
3) It is so common for people given DMT to experience "alien abduction" scenarios that over 20% of those given DMT have the experience! 1 in 5 for this kind of thing is a very statistically relevant number. That would be like if you developed a drug that made one out of five people see pink elephants - that such a highly specific response is so common is quite remarkable.

Now, any reasonable person could conclude from the above that "alien abduction" experiences are caused by DMT. There is no reason to believe otherwise, because there is no need to invoke any other mechanism as an explanation for the phenomenon.

[Technocrat]

I could argue the converse: Perhaps aliens (assuming they exist) already have visited this planet 12,000 times?
The evidence (UFO sightings, ancient drawings, etc) would tend to suggest this.

No, I am saying there are 12,000 periods of time during which a civilization could have colonized the entire galaxy going just 50% c, and didn't.

The "evidence" you cite has nothing to do with UFOs and everything to do with archetypes in the collective unconscious. Give the human race some credit, already!


Are you saying that they could have visited this planet 12,000 times, and the proof is that they did not, based on
the assumption that they would have conquered us already? Yes, if they had visited we would have something more substantial than some cave drawings which, as I've already explained, do not require that aliens be invoked as an explanation for their existence.


Paraphrasing Physicist Michio Kaku,* Why would far-advanced aliens wish to colonize earth? To them, we are like ants.
If you come across an ant-hill in the forest, would you say to them, "Take me to your leader?" Or would you just
leave the wildlife alone and move on?This is presumptuous, to say the least.

We know that habitable planets are exceptionally rare, therefore any alien race taking an interest in space colonization would have a huge interest in colonizing our world - which they didn't.

[Technocrat]

There you go, projecting again. I say that, if these are an advanced society, they have respect for life. It is true that, among humans, mature and educated ones would not even think of wantonly destroying living things. The only people that might do this are emotionally troubled children.

Aren't you also projecting your ideas of human benevolence? We literally have no idea what would motivate an alien race. However, we do know that habitable real estate is exceptionally rare in the galaxy, so a space-faring civilization would have every reason to take an interest in our planet.


And you are right, "people aren't nice" to each other. But almost everyone would be nice to a little puppy or kitten, yes?

Again, you're projecting your human ideas of benevolence which an alien might not even have. Our mammalian emotions could be completely 'alien' to the aliens.

[Klaatu]

The "evidence" you cite has nothing to do with UFOs and everything to do with archetypes in the collective unconscious. Give the human race some credit, already!

I HAVE seen a UFO. And there was no "archetype in my unconscious" of it. It was there. I saw it. And I was not on DMT!
You stated that I am presumptuous. You are quite presumptuous yourself there, buddy.



1 in 5 for this kind of thing is a very statistically relevant number.

No it isn't statistically significant. 19 out of 20 would be. Consider that we get 5 out of 10 just by flipping a coin.
(On a true/false exam, you can get half of the questions correct just by flipping a coin; this is why such a score
constitutes a failing grade)

And what of the other 4 out of 5 test subjects that did NOT experience "alien abduction" scenarios while on this drug?
This would tend to go the other way then, in that the drug effect is a POOR indicator of correlation, not a good one.



We know that habitable planets are exceptionally rare, therefore any alien race taking an interest in space colonization
would have a huge interest in colonizing our world - which they didn't.

No, we don't KNOW that. We have only begun to FIND planets. You are basing your claim on a false assumption
that we have ALREADY FOUND all possible planets in the galaxy! (Have we?)

In my own theory (which at least I admit is a theory, unlike yourself, who has all of the facts,) I've suggested
that aliens have been here and already have colonized this planet. Where did we really come from? Did we really
"evolve" from slime? I doubt it - We could have evolved from apes, but from primordial soup? I am not a religious
person, and I have battled Bible-thumpers for years - but I never did accept the "humans evolved from slime"
theory either. I have had the opinion for many years that humans are descendents of space travelers. Of course
I am not trying to prove this; it just seems logical to me. A lot more logical than these gods-vs-slime theories.



Aren't you also projecting your ideas of human benevolence? We literally have no idea what would motivate an alien race.

Of course not. So why do you and Hawking insist on "projecting your ideas of human (malevolence)?"



However, we do know that habitable real estate is exceptionally rare in the galaxy, so a space-faring civilization
would have every reason to take an interest in our planet.

How do we know this? As I've said, we have no idea of what proportion of "habitable" planets exist.
And if "a space-faring civilization... has every reason to take an interest in our planet," why is it so hard to
grasp that this probably has happened already??? Why isn't the Bible itself a reference to this? Again, I say
this not from a religious viewpoint (I do not follow any religion) I only suggest the obvious: that aliens HAVE
been here. Ancient people have recorded these events.



Again, you're projecting your human ideas of benevolence which an alien might not even have. Our mammalian emotions could be completely 'alien' to the aliens.

I think you have been watching too many alien movies. In the vast majority of Hollywood plots, the alien is violent and war-like.
In a small proportion of plots, the alien is friendly, but actually mistrusting of humans (The Day the Earth Stood Still)

_______________________________________________
I wonder why these men seem to be wearing space helmets
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Ancientastronauts.jpg

[Dr Mindbender]

Aren't you also projecting your ideas of human benevolence? We literally have no idea what would motivate an alien race. However, we do know that habitable real estate is exceptionally rare in the galaxy, so a space-faring civilization would have every reason to take an interest in our planet.


Thats assuming that such a lifeform would have the same biological temperances as us, which is no sure thing. For all we know, they perhaps breathe another compound or element or have a preference for extreme temperatures. How do we know that they are even animals? I wouldnt rule out the possibility that they could even be plant life or micro-organisms, with telekinetic abilities. I even saw a postulate on a science documentary that our first encounter with alien intelligence is more likely to be a machine. Which makes sense considering that machines are also on the frontline of our own push into space.

[Technocrat]

I HAVE seen a UFO. And there was no "archetype in my unconscious" of it. It was there. I saw it. And I was not on DMT!

You are ruling out other, more plausible explanations for your experience and jumping to an unlikely one because that is your preferred explanation.


No it isn't statistically significant. 19 out of 20 would be. Consider that we get 5 out of 10 just by flipping a coin.

And what of the other 4 out of 5 test subjects that did NOT experience "alien abduction" scenarios while on this drug?
This would tend to go the other way then, in that the drug effect is a POOR indicator of correlation, not a good one.This comparison doesn't make any sense. The coin results in one of two possible states: heads or tails. Ingesting a psychedelic substance usually results in thousands of possible results (depending on the personality of the user and the circumstances involved). The fact that one out of five reports a nearly identical experience is therefore highly significant. It's even more significant because DMT occurs naturally within the brain.

If you gave someone LSD or some other similar substance, no where close to one out of five would describe an experience as specific in detail as the one described by the 'alien abduction' scenario described by DMT users.


No, we don't KNOW that. We have only begun to FIND planets. You are basing your claim on a false assumption
that we have ALREADY FOUND all possible planets in the galaxy! (Have we?)No, I'm saying that habitable planets are rare - this can be demonstrated by looking at the planets we've found (we've found about 300 and ours is the only one that is habitable, with a sample group of about 30 you can begin to make statistically relevant predictions).


In my own theory (which at least I admit is a theory, unlike yourself, who has all of the facts,) I've suggested
that aliens have been here and already have colonized this planet. Where did we really come from? Did we really
"evolve" from slime? I doubt it - We could have evolved from apes, but from primordial soup? I am not a religious
person, and I have battled Bible-thumpers for years - but I never did accept the "humans evolved from slime"
theory either. I have had the opinion for many years that humans are descendents of space travelers. Of course
I am not trying to prove this; it just seems logical to me. A lot more logical than these gods-vs-slime theories.Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Aliens would have had to evolve, right? So we're back to evolving from slime. What you're saying is even less likely - either we evolved from slime here on earth, or Aliens, which evolved from slime, came to earth and colonized it (or tampered with life here in some way to steer its evolution).


Of course not. So why do you and Hawking insist on "projecting your ideas of human (malevolence)?"This isn't human malevolence - organisms are designed to utilize resources efficiently, those that don't die out. So if space colonization was worth the effort then the earth would have been colonized already. Malevolence has nothing to do with it.


How do we know this? As I've said, we have no idea of what proportion of "habitable" planets exist.A sample group of about 30 gives us statistically relevant information. We have detected around 300 planets and only ours is habitable.


And if "a space-faring civilization... has every reason to take an interest in our planet," why is it so hard to
grasp that this probably has happened already??? Why isn't the Bible itself a reference to this? Again, I say
this not from a religious viewpoint (I do not follow any religion) I only suggest the obvious: that aliens HAVE
been here. Ancient people have recorded these events.The evidence for this extraordinary claim is less than extraordinary: hearsay and folklore.


I think you have been watching too many alien movies. In the vast majority of Hollywood plots, the alien is violent and war-like.
In a small proportion of plots, the alien is friendly, but actually mistrusting of humans (The Day the Earth Stood Still)I think it's you who are into science fiction. I'm not suggesting that aliens should be warlike. There were like 10,000 periods of half a million years before we even evolved that aliens could have colonized our planet, but didn't.




_______________________________________________
I wonder why these men seem to be wearing space helmets
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Ancientastronauts.jpgLooks like mushrooms to me. Do you have any knowledge about the role of entheogens in ancient religion? The images depict two people under the influence of entheogens. At least, the same image has been cited as such by anthropologists.

I'm trying to construct scientifically plausible explanations, not science fiction scenarios.

If intelligent life could exist under radically different conditions than ours, why haven't we encountered any from our own solar system or nearby? (Here come the conspiracy theories).

There were at least 10,000 periods of half a million years during which machine life could have colonized the entire galaxy, assuming a speed of 30%-50% c. So unless they happened to evolve around the same time as us - which is statistically extremely unlikely - you're talking about something like putting 10,000 beads in a bag, taking two at random, and getting the only two that are yellow in color. Or if, you want to be even more conservative, it would be like doing the same thing with 3,000 beads.

[Klaatu]

You are ruling out other, more plausible explanations for your experience and jumping to an unlikely one because that is your preferred explanation.

I saw a UFO. Period. I do not claim it to be from outer space. I do not know what it was. It did not look like anything
I had ever seen before. I have tried to imagine what it could have been (It looked like a rotating cube, about one meter
in diameter, about 100 meters altitude, making a swishing sound) It remained rock-steady for 15 minutes, not moving
like a kite or balloon would. I left for a few minutes, then upon my return, it had vanished. I wish I had had a camera... damn!

I am not going to argue about DMT as (A) you are obviously an expert on drugs (hmm...) and (B) that is neither
here nor there.


No, I'm saying that habitable planets are rare - this can be demonstrated by looking at the planets we've found
(we've found about 300 and ours is the only one that is habitable, with a sample group of about 30 you can begin
to make statistically relevant predictions).

That might be true, with finite earthly samples. But there are billions of billions of stars out there...



Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Aliens would have had to evolve, right? So we're back to evolving from slime.
What you're saying is even less likely - either we evolved from slime here on earth, or Aliens, which evolved from slime,
came to earth and colonized it (or tampered with life here in some way to steer its evolution).

See you are caught up in the "evolution" thing, and this must apply to other worlds? Consider that Classic Darwinism
is about adaption of species, or natural selection. Darwin never made a claim that humans evolved from slime.
That would not come until 1952, in the Miller–Urey experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urey-Miller_experiment
where amino acids were synthesized in the lab. Even so, this and other experiments have not "proven" that all life
on this planet had "evolved from slime." And isn't it possible that life had always existed, yet was ferried across the
universe on comets, by spores (viruses' DNA) and exist on most heavenly bodies which are below the temperature
of which they would be incinerated? I am speculating here, of course - I don't have definitive answers. But I will
always ask the pertinent questions. If you ask questions, instead of try to provide answers, no one will call you out
on your theories. That is, unless you meet someone who thinks he has all of the answers.


The evidence for this extraordinary claim is less than extraordinary: hearsay and folklore.

From what roots does folklore begin? Things that may have actually happened perhaps?


I think it's you who are into science fiction. I'm not suggesting that aliens should be warlike.
There were like 10,000 periods of half a million years before we even evolved that aliens could
have colonized our planet, but didn't.

Again, you give no proof that they "didn't." You could not possibly know this.



Looks like mushrooms to me. Do you have any knowledge about the role of entheogens in ancient religion?
The images depict two people under the influence of entheogens. At least, the same image has been cited as
such by anthropologists.

I'm trying to construct scientifically plausible explanations, not science fiction scenarios.

Why is everything about drugs to you? Did you not think that these may be religious halos? And what of the halo?
Where did that come from? Any relations to depictions of glass space helmets, designed for our visitors to breathe
earth's (oxygen-rich or oxygen-poor) atmosphere?

[eyedrop]

No, I'm saying that habitable planets are rare - this can be demonstrated by looking at the planets we've found (we've found about 300 and ours is the only one that is habitable, with a sample group of about 30 you can begin to make statistically relevant predictions). I agree with most of your other points in this thread, but this is does not indicate that habitable planets are scarce or not. In that our methods for finding planets is slated towards finding large gas giants and not solid small planets. We don't know yet if solid exoplanets are common yet.

[x371322]

My problem with people saying things like "the aliens built the pyramids", is simple. If advanced beings have the technology to travel lightyears across the galaxy to get here, then wouldn't their creations be a little more... extravagant? I mean, the pyramids are amazing, no question, but they're not alien amazing. And stone henge? A race of super advanced technological aliens travelled hundreds of thousands of lightyears across the universe to... stack big stones on each other? It just doesn't add up. These aliens are supposed to be so advanced, yet they don't do anything but stack stones. I mean, no skyscrapers, no electricity, no vehicles, no computers, no nothing?

Look, aliens are out there... there's almost no debate on that anymore... but to say that they come here, or are concerned with us in anyway is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. All the so called evidence can easily be attributed to more earthly explanations. I believe most UFO sightings can be explained by either weather balloons, experimental government aircrafts, weather phenomena, hallucinations, or just plain hoaxes.

I hope I'm wrong, I really do. I think it would be sooo incredible if aliens would visit us and help us out. But I think that desire is just another wish for a savior. A hope that someone or something bigger than we are, will come and save us from ourselves. It's the same reason people make up Gods. Some wait for Christ to come and save us, others wait for aliens.

[Klaatu]

My problem with people saying things like "the aliens built the pyramids", is simple.
If advanced beings have the technology to travel lightyears across the galaxy to get here, then wouldn't their
creations be a little more... extravagant? I mean, the pyramids are amazing, no question, but they're not
alien amazing. And stone henge? A race of super advanced technological aliens travelled hundreds of thousands
of lightyears across the universe to... stack big stones on each other? It just doesn't add up. These aliens are
supposed to be so advanced, yet they don't do anything but stack stones. I mean, no skyscrapers, no electricity,
no vehicles, no computers, no nothing?

Good point. But the answer is simple: either (a) They wanted it to LOOK like the natives built it or
(b) They TAUGHT the natives new skills, which might have inspired them to build these structures
for themselves. This might be plausible in that: the natives would have wanted to worship, or pay
reverence to, their "gods," which would have been the visitors themselves (?)


Look, aliens are out there... there's almost no debate on that anymore... but to say that they come here,
or are concerned with us in anyway is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

My argument is that, since we are (might be) their descendents, they would be watching out for us
(as a parent is concerned for his children)


All the so called evidence can easily be attributed to more earthly explanations. I believe most UFO sightings
can be explained by either weather balloons, experimental government aircrafts, weather phenomena,
hallucinations, or just plain hoaxes.

And I suggest that they want it to look that way, in order to keep hidden from view(?)


I hope I'm wrong, I really do. I think it would be sooo incredible if aliens would visit us and help us out.
But I think that desire is just another wish for a savior. A hope that someone or something bigger than we are,
will come and save us from ourselves. It's the same reason people make up Gods. Some wait for Christ to come
and save us, others wait for aliens.
Actually, I think that they definitely WILL intervene, once the nuclear war starts up. They will not let this happen, IMHO.

[Technocrat]

I saw a UFO. Period. I do not claim it to be from outer space. I do not know what it was. It did not look like anything
I had ever seen before. I have tried to imagine what it could have been (It looked like a rotating cube, about one meter
in diameter, about 100 meters altitude, making a swishing sound) It remained rock-steady for 15 minutes, not moving
like a kite or balloon would. I left for a few minutes, then upon my return, it had vanished. I wish I had had a camera... damn!

Ok, but you are insinuating that it came from space.


I am not going to argue about DMT as (A) you are obviously an expert on drugs (hmm...) and (B) that is neither
here nor there.It is relevant because users given the drug have reported identical experiences to those who claim to have been abducted!


See you are caught up in the "evolution" thing, and this must apply to other worlds? Actually, yeah, it would. The mechanisms might be different but the basic idea would be the same - environment changes - organisms that are better suited to the new environment prosper, organisms not suited to the new environment die out.


Consider that Classic Darwinism
is about adaption of species, or natural selection. Darwin never made a claim that humans evolved from slime.
That would not come until 1952, in the Miller–Urey experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urey-Miller_experiment
where amino acids were synthesized in the lab. Even so, this and other experiments have not "proven" that all life
on this planet had "evolved from slime." And isn't it possible that life had always existed, yet was ferried across the
universe on comets, by spores (viruses' DNA) and exist on most heavenly bodies which are below the temperature
of which they would be incinerated? I am speculating here, of course - I don't have definitive answers. But I will
always ask the pertinent questions. If you ask questions, instead of try to provide answers, no one will call you out
on your theories. That is, unless you meet someone who thinks he has all of the answers.I'm not disputing the possibility that life may have an extraterrestrial origin, but that seems no more or less likely than life starting here.


From what roots does folklore begin? Things that may have actually happened perhaps?No, it has more to do with archetypes than history - though folklore may be influenced by history. That's besides the point, though - hearsay and folklore do not make facts.


Again, you give no proof that they "didn't." You could not possibly know this.Not having proof that something didn't happen isn't a good reason to believe that it did happen.


Why is everything about drugs to you? Did you not think that these may be religious halos? And what of the halo?
Where did that come from? Any relations to depictions of glass space helmets, designed for our visitors to breathe
earth's (oxygen-rich or oxygen-poor) atmosphere?Everything is "not about drugs" to me. I could just as easily ask: why is everything about aliens to you?

It could be a religious halo, but research on entheogens shows that the halo itself may also be related to entheogen-induced mystical experiences. There is little reason to believe that the image is a depiction of alien astronauts - it's wishful thinking.

[Technocrat]

Good point. But the answer is simple: either (a) They wanted it to LOOK like the natives built it or
(b) They TAUGHT the natives new skills, which might have inspired them to build these structures
for themselves. This might be plausible in that: the natives would have wanted to worship, or pay
reverence to, their "gods," which would have been the visitors themselves (?)

Or we could give the human race a little credit and assume that humans built these things on their own.


Actually, I think that they definitely WILL intervene, once the nuclear war starts up. They will not let this happen, IMHO.Isn't this kind of a dangerous view to have? I mean, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to disarm in case the aliens aren't standing by to stop the nuclear war?

[Klaatu]

Ok, but you are insinuating that it came from space.

No I'm NOT! I made no such claim. How could I? (re-read my post)


It is relevant because users given the drug have reported identical experiences to those who claim to have been abducted!

Yes, you said 20%. Aaaand.... what of the other 80% that were NOT on any drug?


Actually, yeah, it would. The mechanisms might be different but the basic idea would be the same - environment changes -
organisms that are better suited to the new environment prosper, organisms not suited to the new environment die out.

Or if they are intelligent beings, can take steps to modulate their environment (heating and cooling, for example)


I'm not disputing the possibility that life may have an extraterrestrial origin, but that seems no more or less likely than life
starting here.

Fair enough


No, it has more to do with archetypes than history - though folklore may be influenced by history. That's besides the point,
though - hearsay and folklore do not make facts.

No they don't. But facts have basis. And archetypes have origins. Especially if they are common throughout the world.
Consider that ancient peoples did not necessarily "hang out" together, nor communicate with each other, usually due to
the vast distances separating cultures. Yet had virtually similar, or related, archetypes? That is, how do cultures all over
this planet, in antiquity, come up with similar archetypes? That is, flying discs and space-suits?

And must ALL of this be nothing but a specter, alluding to common, mundane hallucinogenic drugs? You even said
yourself that only 20% of DMT experiences are that of being "similar to alien abductions."

And I was not ever talking about abductions in the first place, I was talking about sightings and encounters (well in the past,
as was recorded on many occasions, including in the Bible)


Not having proof that something didn't happen isn't a good reason to believe that it did happen.

And why not? "Not having proof" of something impetuously opens the door to alternative ideas, does it not?

You would make a rather poor research scientist, looking, for example, for a cure for cancer. It seems that you
would exhibit a serious lack of dedication, which is needed to press on to find success, when experiments fail,
and things don't go the way they are supposed to go. If Thomas Edison had thought like this, we may not have
had the electric light bulb when we did. If Kennedy had thought like this, we may not have gotten to land on
the moon when we did. The point is, it is belief that drives us on to find facts, not to just leave well-enough
alone and accept the status quo: the simpler, mundane, acceptable interpretation for unusual events...


Everything is "not about drugs" to me. I could just as easily ask: why is everything about aliens to you?

ummm... because this thread is about aliens (?)


It could be a religious halo, but research on entheogens shows that the halo itself may also be related to
entheogen-induced mystical experiences.
There is little reason to believe that the image is a depiction of alien astronauts - it's wishful thinking.

Except the fact that cave drawings of 10,000 years ago (which I had posted above) could suggest space-helmets?
It looks that way to the casual observer. But too bad there is no caption which explains what the picture is about...


Or we could give the human race a little credit and assume that humans built these things on their own.

Yes, I did speculate that. They could have built these unusual structures (which are tremendous feats of
engineering, in fact) by themselves, upon having been trained by visiting engineers having a vastly superior
knowledge of physics, etc?


Isn't this kind of a dangerous view to have? I mean, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to disarm in case
the aliens aren't standing by to stop the nuclear war?

Agreed 100%

[Technocrat]

Yes, you said 20%. Aaaand.... what of the other 80% that were NOT on any drug?

You misunderstand the study that I cited.

They were only looking at people given high doses of DMT, 20% of which reported identical experiences (the alien abduction scenario) which is highly significant given the level of detail reported - which is very atypical of these types of experience.


Or if they are intelligent beings, can take steps to modulate their environment (heating and cooling, for example)It's not like they just start out as intelligent beings, they have to evolve to that stage - which brings me back to my original statement.


No they don't. But facts have basis. And archetypes have origins. Yeah. The human subconscious mind is the origin.


Especially if they are common throughout the world.
Consider that ancient peoples did not necessarily "hang out" together, nor communicate with each other, usually due to
the vast distances separating cultures. Yet had virtually similar, or related, archetypes? That is, how do cultures all over
this planet, in antiquity, come up with similar archetypes? That is, flying discs and space-suits?You need to learn more about archetypes. Since most people have common brain structures, doesn't it make sense that the images arising out the subconscious would share some common structure as well? If you really wanna get into it you can learn about the Unus Mundus and how the archetypes in our brain are really reflective of archetypes within the world.


And must ALL of this be nothing but a specter, alluding to common, mundane hallucinogenic drugs? You even said
yourself that only 20% of DMT experiences are that of being "similar to alien abductions." You keep framing it as "only 20 percent" while failing to realize how significant that is. The level of common detail reported is what makes it significant. It would be like if you gave 100 random people LSD and 20 of them reported seeing dancing pink elephants for approximately 30 minutes. That's a level of detail that is statistically highly significant, given that the range of LSD experiences is so great that it would be rare for just two people to report similar experiences with that level of detail.


And I was not ever talking about abductions in the first place, I was talking about sightings and encounters (well in the past,
as was recorded on many occasions, including in the Bible)"Encounter" in this case is pretty much synonymous with "abduction" - it just depends on how you want to look at it, as the content of the experience is the same.


And why not? "Not having proof" of something impetuously opens the door to alternative ideas, does it not?

You would make a rather poor research scientist, looking, for example, for a cure for cancer. It seems that you
would exhibit a serious lack of dedication, which is needed to press on to find success, when experiments fail,
and things don't go the way they are supposed to go. If Thomas Edison had thought like this, we may not have
had the electric light bulb when we did. If Kennedy had thought like this, we may not have gotten to land on
the moon when we did. The point is, it is belief that drives us on to find facts, not to just leave well-enough
alone and accept the status quo: the simpler, mundane, acceptable interpretation for unusual events...So, not having proof that God doesn't exist is a good reason to believe in God, right? The rest of your statement makes no sense - a scientist doesn't believe in something simply because he lacks proof disproving it. If they did, then they would be a poor scientist.


ummm... because this thread is about aliens (?)
Except the fact that cave drawings of 10,000 years ago (which I had posted above) could suggest space-helmets?
It looks that way to the casual observer. But too bad there is no caption which explains what the picture is about...It's wishful thinking. Serious anthropologists who have studied these images conclude that they depict people under the influence of mushrooms. The "space helmet" is really a series of mushrooms growing from the user's heads. This interpretation is supported by other knowledge we have of the culture who produced the images (eg they used entheogens).


Yes, I did speculate that. They could have built these unusual structures (which are tremendous feats of
engineering, in fact) by themselves, upon having been trained by visiting engineers having a vastly superior
knowledge of physics, etc?Or they could have been built by humans with no TV, no rock and roll, and a whole lot of time on their hands.


Agreed 100%Well, that's good.

[Klaatu]

You misunderstand the study that I cited.

They were only looking at people given high doses of DMT, 20% of which reported identical experiences (the alien
abduction scenario) which is highly significant given the level of detail reported - which is very atypical of these
types of experience.

I've said this before, and I will say it again. Your study is neither here nor there. Produce a study that shows that
at least 90% of DMT users experience specific visions, or better, a study that shows that 90% of people who claim to have
been abducted were actually on "high doses of DMT." Then your argument would have merit. Just by claiming "identical
experiences" is not going to get it. That's like saying "20% of people have experiences of falling off of a cliff while on drug X"
would somehow prove that no one ever falls off of cliffs, nor has anyone ever fallen off of a cliff; since it's just all in their mind.



It's not like they just start out as intelligent beings, they have to evolve to that stage - which brings me back to my original statement.

Is it possible that intelligent beings have always existed somewhere in the universe? The better question is, does life
spontaneously generate? From slime? It amazes me, the arrogance of so-called scientists, making statements such as this,
with no proof, no mechanism, no motive, no nothing. Life is a continuum in the universe. If it spontaneously generates,
I would like to see it proven. It never has been.

The laws of entropy strongly contradict the evolution from slime theory. That is, simple things do not just "come together"
to form more complex things. Your car, for instance, did not materialize out of metal, glass, rubber, and plastic. It did not
put itself together and spontaneously generate this complex machine. The car had to be built. And built by intelligent
beings. My point is that, we are here, life is here, most likely by a positive impetus taken by visitors to this planet,
millions of years ago. I do not mean gods (in the religious sense) I mean advanced visitors. This is not possible?



Yeah. The human subconscious mind is the origin.

OK then: prove to us that this is ALWAYS the case.

It makes more sense that people all over this planet, in antiquity, had seen a common event, or events, and depict
their own interpretations of it, than some "collective conciseness" to which all people tune in to, like some sort of ESP,
and develop ideas which are similar. How would this work, anyway? You are suggesting something supernatural?



You need to learn more about archetypes.

Have you read anything by Joseph Campbell?



"Encounter" in this case is pretty much synonymous with "abduction" - it just depends on how you want to look at it,
as the content of the experience is the same.

Not necessarily. Now who is alluding to modern folklore and urban legends?



So, not having proof that God doesn't exist is a good reason to believe in God, right? The rest of your statement
makes no sense - a scientist doesn't believe in something simply because he lacks proof disproving it. If they did,
then they would be a poor scientist.

You missed the point here: The belief is that they are on to an important discovery. Research is more than data.
For example, if new discoveries were just about objectivity, computers alone could find a cure for cancer.

You speak of "not having proof." Yet we have heard from you: claim after claim, sans proof.



Serious anthropologists who have studied these images conclude that they depict people under the influence
of mushrooms. The "space helmet" is really a series of mushrooms growing from the user's heads.

Excuse me while I clear the coffee which had just backed up through my nose... "Serious anthropologists???"
Who? And what qualifies your "serious" gearheads to make a value judgment, and claim it is the ONLY POSSIBLE
explanation? Sure, they have a right to their opinion. But understand that this is purely subjective interpretation
of an ancient painting from 10,000 years ago. A conjecture of these as transparent helmets is as good as their
opinions are.



Or they could have been built by humans with no TV, no rock and roll, and a whole lot of time on their hands.

Without machines? And to what purpose? And with what motive? To pay homage to their gods (or perhaps
beings from other worlds, which would have seemed god-like to their primitive minds?)

[cska]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to chit-chat or something instead of sciences and environment. Cause EnviroWhacko has no understanding of the scientific method...

[Klaatu]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to chit-chat or something instead of sciences and environment. Cause EnviroWhacko has no understanding of the scientific method...

And how is that? Because I have the balls to challenge the "accepted science?" How do you think science works, anyway?
It works by doubting and challenge. Otherwise it is no better than dogma and religion...

[southernmissfan]

Somebody has been watching too many conspiracy driven shows on the History Channel.

But to the more scientifically inclined posters in this thread, I have noticed that the focus has been only on this galaxy. I literally know nothing about physics, space, or any of these subjects. But there are other galaxies in this universe right? Hell there's even theories that there are other universes right? Now of course if there is intelligent life in another galaxy, I would assume the possibility of it ever encountering us would be pretty much zero. Just wondering if anybody had any thoughts on that.

[Klaatu]

Somebody has been watching too many conspiracy driven shows on the History Channel.


I am sure you mean me. I don't watch all that much TV. And I think those "disaster/conspiracy" shows on the science channels are often melodramatic and even silly. But at the same time, I like to question everything, especially the established "science." It's fun! ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hang on EnviroWhacko, you haven't provided a reason for these super-advanced, suspiciously human-looking aliens* to give a stuff about us, apart from projecting your own love of puppies and kittens onto them. In fact you said that they would pay us no more attention than we would do to ants. So which is it?

This is of course quite apart from the statistical arguments and the Fermi Paradox.

*When in fact they would probably look more like Shub-Niggurath (http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=shub-niggurath&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi) or even weirder.

[cska]

I like to question everything, especially the established "science." It's fun! ;)

That's your problem. You question stuff because it is fun. Scientists question theories using the scientific method and Occham's razor, and theories they propose satisfy the requirements for scientific theories (aside from string theory, many forms of the multiverse theory, and similar unprovable bullshit).

[Technocrat]

I'm kind of tired of arguing with envirowhacko.

The entire galaxy could have been colonized at least several thousand times over already assuming a max speed of 50% c. Since it hasn't happened we can conclude (ignoring conspiracy theories) that one of the following is true:

1) we are the first intelligent beings to exist in our galaxy
2) intelligent aliens exist elsewhere (and/or have existed elsewhere) but took no interest in colonizing the galaxy, or they were content with settling a small region of space. This could be due to the tremendous resources involved with space colonization and the centuries-long return on investment.
3) the aliens may be a-technological or more 'spiritual' in nature - 'Avatar' aliens. This may be the norm, while our expansive nature may be atypical (or even unique to us).

As I side note, I would wild-eye guess the number of habitable worlds (meaning, capable of supporting human life without terraforming, at least to the point where a human could walk on the surface with nothing more than a breathing mask) within our galaxy to be fewer than 100. The number of stars is estimated at 100-400 billion, so if our world is one in a billion there should be at least 100 'earths' out there. Plenty to ensure that the human race lasts for millions of years.

[Klaatu]

Hang on EnviroWhacko, you haven't provided a reason for these super-advanced, suspiciously human-looking aliens*
to give a stuff about us, apart from projecting your own love of puppies and kittens onto them.

Yes I have suggested a reason: we could be their descendents.



In fact you said that they would pay us no more attention than we would do to ants. So which is it?

That was a quote from Michio Kaku, not mine. It was in response to the Hawking theory that aliens would conquer and kill us.



Scientists question theories using the scientific method and Occham's razor, and theories they propose satisfy the
requirements for scientific theories (aside from string theory, many forms of the multiverse theory, and similar unprovable bullshit).

Thing is that, there is a LOT of "unprovable bullshit" out there being circulated as "fact," when it is really 100% conjecture.
I have a problem with the unknown masquerading as fact.



The entire galaxy could have been colonized at least several thousand times over already assuming a max speed of 50% c. Since it hasn't happened we can conclude (ignoring conspiracy theories) that one of the following is true:

1) we are the first intelligent beings to exist in our galaxy
2) intelligent aliens exist elsewhere (and/or have existed elsewhere) but took no interest in colonizing the galaxy, or they were content with settling a small region of space. This could be due to the tremendous resources involved with space colonization and the centuries-long return on investment.
3) the aliens may be a-technological or more 'spiritual' in nature - 'Avatar' aliens. This may be the norm, while our expansive nature may be atypical.

As I side note, I would wild-eye guess the number of habitable worlds (meaning, capable of supporting human life without terraforming, at least to the point where a human could walk on the surface with nothing more than a breathing mask) within our galaxy to be fewer than 100. The number of stars is estimated at 100-400 billion, so if our world is one in a billion there should be at least 100 'earths' out there. Plenty to ensure that the human race lasts for millions of years.

Here is an example of what I am talking about: Technocrat purports to have the all of the answers to my questions.
Technocrat: your conjectures are valid, but mine are valid also. (that is, unless you can scientifically PROVE them wrong.)
You have attempted to prove that DMT is the cause of 20% of alien sightings, and that is fine. But the rest is opinion.



I'm kind of tired of arguing with envirowhacko.

Then why do you?

[Hexen]

I doubt it, Since I think Aliens are just pseudo-science fantasies similar to the Great Moon Hoax, intelligent life on Mars/Venus/etc theories in the Victorian/early 20th century era since humans want to believe the fantastic despite what reality probably really is. I also notice that once the Great Moon Hoax and Life on Mars/Venus/etc theories have been disproven, the fantasies only have been pushed back further.

Also I think Aliens/Life on Other Planets are just imperialist dreams that capitalists wish to invade other far distant locations beyond their reach...

[Technocrat]

You have attempted to prove that DMT is the cause of 20% of alien sightings,



No, that is not what I've been trying to prove to you. You are really showing a lack of knowledge regarding statistics (or you just aren't paying attention). 20% of users given DMT reported 'alien sightings'. DMT occurs naturally within the brain. This means that 100% of alien sightings could be explained by DMT.

The problem with the rest of your conjecture is that it rests on the "well, you can't disprove it" argument. This can be used to support all kinds of nonsense. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[Klaatu]

No, that is not what I've been trying to prove to you. You are really showing a lack of knowledge regarding statistics (or you just aren't paying attention). 20% of users given DMT reported 'alien sightings'. DMT occurs naturally within the brain. This means that 100% of alien sightings could be explained by DMT.

This is a non sequitur

It might suggest that 20% of alien sightings can be attributed to DMT; that is all. (how does 20% become 100% ?)



The problem with the rest of your conjecture is that it rests on the "well, you can't disprove it" argument.
This can be used to support all kinds of nonsense. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

(a) my statements are conjectures. I never said otherwise.

(b) your statements are claims of fact. This is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Good god, you need to take a course in logic!

You claim to have all of the facts. You do not.

[Klaatu]

I doubt it, Since I think Aliens are just pseudo-science fantasies similar to the Great Moon Hoax, intelligent life on Mars/Venus/etc theories in the Victorian/early 20th century era since humans want to believe the fantastic despite what reality probably really is. I also notice that once the Great Moon Hoax and Life on Mars/Venus/etc theories have been disproven, the fantasies only have been pushed back further.

Also I think Aliens/Life on Other Planets are just imperialist dreams that capitalist wish to invade other far distant locations beyond their reach...

Hey, you are entitled to express your opinion. But bear in mind that, there are a lot of things which have not been proven, or cannot be proven, in the universe. It is interesting that we are so smug, sitting here on this tiny, tiny rock, in the middle of billions of light years of space, yet we proudly believe ourselves to be alone in that vast universe. Well I for one am not buying into that wishful thinking. And as for Technocrat, who HAS all of the answers, I guess he has tired of arguing. Yet he has not really proven a thing.

[x371322]

It might suggest that 20% of alien sightings can be attributed to DMT; that is all. (how does 20% become 100% ?)

(If you don't mind Technocrat, I'd like to take this one.)

Because he never said that 20% of alien sightings are attributed to DMT! My God man, he's saying that 20% of DMT users claimed to see aliens. There's a difference there that you're not seeing. And because we all have some level of DMT in our brains, DMT could very well make up the 100% (or at least close to it) of alien sightings. Telling people they need to take courses, maybe you should look into a statistics class.

Once again, there's a difference between saying 20% of DMT users see aliens, and 20% of alien sightings are caused by DMT.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes I have suggested a reason: we could be their descendents.

Why is that a reason to care about us stupid hairless apes?


That was a quote from Michio Kaku, not mine. It was in response to the Hawking theory that aliens would conquer and kill us.

Well, since they haven't conquered and killed us, that suggests that if there are spacefaring aliens in our galaxy, they don't give a stuff about us.

[revolution inaction]

I doubt it, Since I think Aliens are just pseudo-science fantasies similar to the Great Moon Hoax, intelligent life on Mars/Venus/etc theories in the Victorian/early 20th century era since humans want to believe the fantastic despite what reality probably really is. I also notice that once the Great Moon Hoax and Life on Mars/Venus/etc theories have been disproven, the fantasies only have been pushed back further.

Also I think Aliens/Life on Other Planets are just imperialist dreams that capitalist wish to invade other far distant locations beyond their reach...

"the great moon hoax"?

[Technocrat]

This is a non sequitur

It might suggest that 20% of alien sightings can be attributed to DMT; that is all. (how does 20% become 100% ?)

No, you are really showing a lack of basic logic skills here. If 20% of those given DMT report alien sightings, and DMT occurs naturally within the brain, then 100% of alien sightings can be explained by DMT. I don't know how to make it any simpler than this for you - this is basic logic.


(a) my statements are conjectures. I never said otherwise.

(b) your statements are claims of fact. This is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Good god, you need to take a course in logic!

You claim to have all of the facts. You do not.Actually, you need to take a course in logic (as evidenced by your repeated failure to grasp the above). Perhaps an intro to statistics course is in order.

The only statement I've claimed as fact is that statement regarding DMT.

Whoops, just saw Czad already addressed this.

[Technocrat]

Hey, you are entitled to express your opinion. But bear in mind that, there are a lot of things which have not been proven, or cannot be proven, in the universe. It is interesting that we are so smug, sitting here on this tiny, tiny rock, in the middle of billions of light years of space, yet we proudly believe ourselves to be alone in that vast universe. Well I for one am not buying into that wishful thinking.

One could just as easily say that it is wishful thinking that leads one to believe that we AREN'T alone. If anything, your statements are based on wishful thinking because you WANT for there to be aliens.

I think it would be cool if we contacted aliens. I want for there to be aliens. Even though I wish this were the case, there is no good reason for me to believe it to be true. So how is this "wishful thinking"?

[Technocrat]

"the great moon hoax"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax

I agree with Hexen, these are fantasies which arise out of the human subconscious mind. Ancient Chinese rulers wrote about 'conquering the moon'. Johannes Kepler believed lunar travel to be attainable by the 1600s. Lewis Mumford classified these beliefs as "sun worship" - the idea that our salvation lies elsewhere than on Earth.

[Technocrat]

Why is that a reason to care about us stupid hairless apes?



Well, since they haven't conquered and killed us, that suggests that if there are spacefaring aliens in our galaxy, they don't give a stuff about us.

The probability of intelligent aliens existing is even worse if you assume that exotic faster than light technology is possible, because this reduces the amount of time required to colonize the galaxy.

[cska]

This is a non sequitur

It might suggest that 20% of alien sightings can be attributed to DMT; that is all. (how does 20% become 100% ?)



(a) my statements are conjectures. I never said otherwise.

(b) your statements are claims of fact. This is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Good god, you need to take a course in logic!

You claim to have all of the facts. You do not.

First of all, any mathematician will tell you that logic alone is not enough to model the real world. You need the scientific method.

Second, science does not make conjectures, it makes a hypothesis to explain observed phenomena and then uses evidence and Occham's razor to decide which theory is better. In this case, Technocrat's explanation is simpler and more testable than your explanation.

Finally, Technocrat is not claiming to have all the facts, but is simply presenting what is scientifically the most straightforward explanation. Until you come up with evidence to reject his explanation, by Occham's razor and its predictive value, it should be held as truth.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have a problem with the idea that advanced technology means that the possessor of that technology will inherently exploit people with less technology. Not only is Mr. Hawking unscientifically applying human desires and needs to extra-terrestrials, but he is applying human actions that are based on a certain kind of class-organization (colonialism and imperialism) or that come out of scarcity leading to the need to "steal" wealth or protect resources from others (early human warfare).

I think it's possible that life exists in the universe apart from earth, but I doubt it would look like us or be little green or grey men with 2 arms, 2 legs, and 2 eyes. I think there is probably no way that there would be contact between us and some other self-conscious life though because of the distance involved, the fact that on earth we have only been able to transmit and receive radio waves for a couple of generations and that human life is so short compared to the age of the earth let alone the age of the universe. Other life within range of our galaxy might have become extinct long ago, we might be extinct long before other life develops.

I also think even if we came into contact with something, we might not be able to recognize it or communicate with it. As a materialist, I think any life that developed would be based on conditions of the place where it developed and so why would we assume that life elsewhere would evolve in a way that even remotely resembles life on earth?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I will just say that I believe there are aliens. But I'm not claiming higher technology than us, & if they do, then I'm not claiming they are faster than light. That's stupid! But I do believe we're not alone. And yes, I am an activist for the release of "x-file" documents on alien reports & sightings all across the world for the past many years. But that's just me.

[cska]

I have a problem with the idea that advanced technology means that the possessor of that technology will inherently exploit people with less technology. Not only is Mr. Hawking unscientifically applying human desires and needs to extra-terrestrials, but he is applying human actions that are based on a certain kind of class-organization (colonialism and imperialism) or that come out of scarcity leading to the need to "steal" wealth or protect resources from others (early human warfare).

Do you think communism will stop the usage of animals for work, testing, and food? I personally doubt it. I think that is what an advanced alien civilization would probably treat us as, animals.


I think it's possible that life exists in the universe apart from earth, but I doubt it would look like us or be little green or grey men with 2 arms, 2 legs, and 2 eyes. I think there is probably no way that there would be contact between us and some other self-conscious life though because of the distance involved, the fact that on earth we have only been able to transmit and receive radio waves for a couple of generations and that human life is so short compared to the age of the earth let alone the age of the universe. Other life within range of our galaxy might have become extinct long ago, we might be extinct long before other life develops.

Yeah the 2 eyes, 2 legs, 2 arms thing is just for Sci-Fi convenience, and is given little credibility amongst serious scientists. As for contact between us, it depends. I think that an advanced civilization would at least scan all detectable frequencies of the EM spectrum, and look for changes in the atmospheres of planets. They might be doing so right now. Suppose for example, that an advanced alien civilization detects radio waves coming from our planet (and will probably eventually notice them go away, as we move away from radio communications). If they happen to be near by, they might have found that out right now, and a message to us might be on its way. But chances are, it will be thousands of years before the radio waves reach them, and an equal amount of time before their response reaches us...

Still, your theory about them going extinct is certainly a likely possibility. That is what the Drake equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) models.


I also think even if we came into contact with something, we might not be able to recognize it or communicate with it. As a materialist, I think any life that developed would be based on conditions of the place where it developed and so why would we assume that life elsewhere would evolve in a way that even remotely resembles life on earth?

Well, physically, they could be very different, but they would still be made out of matter. They would probably also be able to transmit and receive AM signals in whatever medium you wish. So, I think communication would be no harder than communicating with green aliens that don't have vocal cords.

[Klaatu]

Why is that a reason to care about us stupid hairless apes?

I don't know. But if I had great-grandchildren, I might care about them. If (and I mean IF) we ARE aliens' descendents, they might care?



Well, since they haven't conquered and killed us, that suggests that if there are spacefaring aliens in our galaxy, they don't give a stuff about us.

Yes, that is essentially what Michio Kaku said.

That is to say, we might just be the "hillbillies" of this galaxy?



he's saying that 20% of DMT users claimed to see aliens.



No, you are really showing a lack of basic logic skills here. If 20% of those given DMT report alien sightings, and DMT
occurs naturally within the brain, then 100% of alien sightings can be explained by DMT. I don't know how to make it
any simpler than this for you - this is basic logic.

I think he actually said 20% of DMT users claimed to "have similar experiences" as alien abductions; this is not the
same as "seeing aliens." I suggest we all D/L and carefully read the study itself. (can Technocrat post the link again?)
And do the researchers themselves claim in that study that 100% of alien sightings are actually due to DMT?
Or is this just the conclusion of Czad and Technocrat? I will ask my colleague, a professor of statistics at the university.
If he agrees, I will agree.



Actually, you need to take a course in logic (as evidenced by your repeated failure to grasp the above).
Perhaps an intro to statistics course is in order.The only statement I've claimed as fact is that statement regarding DMT.

ummm... (a) I have had courses in stats. I still say that your claim makes no sense at all.

(b) yes, you have repeatedly made statements which can be taken to be claims of fact.

There is a difference between you and me. I ask questions, and propose possible scenarios: ("are we their descendents?")
You claim to have the unequivocal, undisputable answers: ("no we are NOT.") That puts the burden of proof on to you
to prove your statement. Statements require proof; questions do not. That is why I am careful of what I write. I do not
make statements of fact if I do not have them.



One could just as easily say that it is wishful thinking that leads one to believe that we AREN'T alone. If anything,
your statements are based on wishful thinking because you WANT for there to be aliens.

I always go on the premise that a thing is either (a) possible or (b) impossible. It cannot be both, nor can it be neither.

The only things we can (conjecture) to be impossible are those events which are related to time. For example:
(a) we cannot travel backward or forward in time. (b) we cannot be in two places at once. (c) we cannot force time to
run backward, and other logical impossibilities. If this is true, then if a thing is not impossible, it logically follows that
the thing or event IS possible.

Using this logical conclusion, I feel it is entirely possible that there is (a) life, even intelligent life, out there, and
(b) they can and/or will seek us out and (c) may have already done so, possibly thousands, or millions, of years ago.
This is NOT an impossibility. It might be "wishful thinking," as you put it, but wishing is not the criterion here.



The probability of intelligent aliens existing is even worse if you assume that exotic faster than light technology
is possible, because this reduces the amount of time required to colonize the galaxy.

Aren't you forgetting the possibility of curved space (wormholes) ? Didn't Einstein propose this?

I guess I should be asking a pertinent question: Would you be challenging Einstein himself, if he were alive today?



any mathematician will tell you that logic alone...

I am not using mathematical logic. I am disputing Technocrat's many philosophically logical fallacies.



Second, science does not make conjectures, it makes a hypothesis to explain observed phenomena and then uses
evidence and Occham's razor to decide which theory is better. In this case, Technocrat's explanation is simpler and
more testable than your explanation.

I do not see why "Occam's razor" (the simplest explanation of a hypothesis) cannot apply to my argument (it is actually the simpler one)

BTW this is how research is done (I have left out the funding process)

idea > conjecture > hypothesis > deductive theory > test (experiment) > empirical data (observations) > result >
conclusion (with correlation, probability of error, and confidence level) > submission and peer review > publication



Finally, Technocrat is not claiming to have all the facts, but is simply presenting what is scientifically the most
straightforward explanation. Until you come up with evidence to reject his explanation, by Occham's razor and
its predictive value, it should be held as truth.

This does NOT mitigate ALL possible alternative explanations. And I do not even agree with his "proof," if and
when he has provided it; all he has given us is a drug study - which is weak evidence at best. He has given opinion,
as I have given opinion. Nothing has really been "proven." Therefore my conjecture is AS VALID AS his conjecture.
I am not trying to prove HIM wrong. But I wish he would STOP trying to prove ME wrong.

Actually the evidence which supports my side is much greater than anything that might support your side. For example,
as I've said before, there are ancient paintings, stories in the Bible, and many UFO sightings. To claim that these data
are false, requires proof - and I have seen none so far. From what it looks like, the "DMT study" which both of you are
so fond of, is not as much of a victory for you as you think it is. To me, it only suggests human reactions to certain
drugs (a valid point) but cannot explain away every alien or UFO sighting. That is absurd to think so.

[Technocrat]

I think he actually said 20% of DMT users claimed to "have similar experiences" as alien abductions; this is not the
same as "seeing aliens." I suggest we all D/L and carefully read the study itself. (can Technocrat post the link again?)
And do the researchers themselves claim in that study that 100% of alien sightings are actually due to DMT?
Or is this just the conclusion of Czad and Technocrat? I will ask my colleague, a professor of statistics at the university.
If he agrees, I will agree.

I'll say it again:

Based on the fact that 1 out of 5 people under the influence of DMT report alien sightings, and DMT occurs naturally within the brain, one could conclude that 100% of alien sightings were caused by DMT.


ummm... (a) I have had courses in stats. I still say that your claim makes no sense at all.Well, I can't help you then, since I and others have explained it to you multiple times, and it really isn't all that complicated.


(b) yes, you have repeatedly made statements which can be taken to be claims of fact. You keep making this assertion that I'm making 'statements of fact' - can you please provide actual quotes to support it?


There is a difference between you and me. I ask questions, and propose possible scenarios: ("are we their descendents?")
You claim to have the unequivocal, undisputable answers: ("no we are NOT.") That puts the burden of proof on to you
to prove your statement. Statements require proof; questions do not. That is why I am careful of what I write. I do not
make statements of fact if I do not have them.Again, where have I made this 'statement of fact'? I've suggested a possible scenario (a theory) and provided evidence for it. You've suggested a possible scenario (theory) and have not provided anything which could be considered 'evidence'. This means that what you're proposing isn't a theory at all, but mere speculation.


Using this logical conclusion, I feel it is entirely possible that there is (a) life, even intelligent life, out there, and
(b) they can and/or will seek us out and (c) may have already done so, possibly thousands, or millions, of years ago.
This is NOT an impossibility. It might be "wishful thinking," as you put it, but wishing is not the criterion here.I never said it was in impossibility, just unlikely given the available evidence. Science can never prove anything with 100% certainty, it works by ruling out possibilities that are less likely by applying the scientific method and Occam's Razor (like cska pointed out already).


Aren't you forgetting the possibility of curved space (wormholes) ? Didn't Einstein propose this?

I guess I should be asking a pertinent question: Would you be challenging Einstein himself, if he were alive today?Now we're really going off into science-fiction scenarios. Worm holes may (or may not) exist, and travel through them may (or may not) be possible. So if we're trying to construct a scientifically plausible scenario, worm holes don't do us any good, because a scientifically sound theory has to be supported by observation - not conjecture.


I do not see why "Occam's razor" (the simplest explanation of a hypothesis) cannot apply to my argument (it is actually the simpler one)How is your explanation the simpler one? It requires you to accept many things which are unknown, while my theory only requires you to accept things which can be observed by anyone.


This does NOT mitigate ALL possible alternative explanations. And I do not even agree with his "proof," if and
when he has provided it; all he has given us is a drug study - which is weak evidence at best. He has given opinion,
as I have given opinion. Nothing has really been "proven." Therefore my conjecture is AS VALID AS his conjecture.
I am not trying to prove HIM wrong. But I wish he would STOP trying to prove ME wrong. Sorry, this isn't personal, but your conjecture is not as valid as the theory I'm proposing. They aren't even in the same category. You are putting forward conjecture or speculation, I'm proposing a theory. Your conjecture requires you to accept many unknowns, while my theory is based on observations which anyone could make.


Actually the evidence which supports my side is much greater than anything that might support your side. For example,
as I've said before, there are ancient paintings, stories in the Bible, and many UFO sightings. To claim that these data
are false, requires proof - and I have seen none so far.Ridiculous - since when do you need proof to demonstrate that hearsay and folklore aren't admissible as scientific (or legal) evidence? :laugh:


From what it looks like, the "DMT study" which both of you are
so fond of, is not as much of a victory for you as you think it is. To me, it only suggests human reactions to certain
drugs (a valid point) but cannot explain away every alien or UFO sighting. That is absurd to think so.Why is it absurd to think so? The drug (which occurs naturally in the brain) causes 1 out of 5 people to have an experience which is indistinguishable from 'alien encounter' experiences.

[cska]

I am not using mathematical logic. I am disputing Technocrat's many philosophically logical fallacies.

Philosophy is not logical, and philosophy has nothing to do with science.


I do not see why "Occam's razor" (the simplest explanation of a hypothesis) cannot apply to my argument (it is actually the simpler one)

You clearly do not understand Occham's razor. It has little to do with simplicity, and is often misstated.

As Newton put it, "we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

Thus, we don't need aliens to explain the UFO sightings, so, by Occam's razor, we use Technocrat's explanation, as it requires less entities to explain the UFO sightings.


BTW this is how research is done (I have left out the funding process)

idea > conjecture > hypothesis > deductive theory > test (experiment) > empirical data (observations) > result >
conclusion (with correlation, probability of error, and confidence level) > submission and peer review > publication

Okay... So what? Have you proposed a scientifically testable theory yet?


This does NOT mitigate ALL possible alternative explanations. And I do not even agree with his "proof," if and
when he has provided it; all he has given us is a drug study - which is weak evidence at best. He has given opinion,
as I have given opinion. Nothing has really been "proven." Therefore my conjecture is AS VALID AS his conjecture.
I am not trying to prove HIM wrong. But I wish he would STOP trying to prove ME wrong.

Yes and you can't prove the moon isn't made out of blue cheese. We aren't doing math, we are doing SCIENCE. Science doesn't prove things. He isn't trying to prove you wrong. He is showing that there is an explanation that stands up to the tests of rigorous science far better than your explanation.


Actually the evidence which supports my side is much greater than anything that might support your side. For example,
as I've said before, there are ancient paintings, stories in the Bible, and many UFO sightings. To claim that these data
are false, requires proof - and I have seen none so far. From what it looks like, the "DMT study" which both of you are
so fond of, is not as much of a victory for you as you think it is. To me, it only suggests human reactions to certain
drugs (a valid point) but cannot explain away every alien or UFO sighting. That is absurd to think so.

Phenomenon that we know of, including the DMT effect, perfectly explain every alien or UFO sighting. If you disagree, provide an example of a sighting you think we can't explain.

[Klaatu]

Based on the fact that 1 out of 5 people under the influence of DMT report alien sightings, and DMT occurs naturally within the brain, one could conclude that 100% of alien sightings were caused by DMT.

Science can never prove anything with 100% certainty...


You contradict yourself here. (Do you read your own posts?) :lol:

I will address the rest of the hogwash tomorrow.

[Klaatu]

Okay... So what? Have you proposed a scientifically testable theory yet?

Have you? (other than that dubious 20% study)


If you disagree, provide an example of a sighting you think we can't explain.

I have already. I had seen a UFO. I had described it in an earlier post. Do you think I was on dope? Or I was hallucinating?
According to you and your buddy, EVERY sighting of a UFO is due to DMT in the brain. Well, your claim is false, because
I DID NOT IMAGINE WHAT I SAW. You don't know me, you don't know who I am, and you claim that I was hallucinating???

Or perhaps you are calling me a liar??? Which is it???

[x371322]

Have you? (other than that dubious 20% study)

I have already. I had seen a UFO. I had described it in an earlier post. Do you think I was on dope? Or I was hallucinating?
According to you and your buddy, EVERY sighting of a UFO is due to DMT in the brain. Well, your claim is false, because
I DID NOT IMAGINE WHAT I SAW. You don't know me, you don't know who I am, and you claim that I was hallucinating???

Or perhaps you are calling me a liar??? Which is it???

No one's calling you a liar. Try calming down a little man, jeez. Ease off the caps and bold for just a second. You're forgetting that the DMT thing caused people to see creatures resembling the common perception of alien greys, not just UFOs (although UFOs may have been involved). I feel that most UFO sightings can easily be attributed to experimental government aircrafts, weather phenomena, balloons, etc. It's not that people are hallucinating or lying about UFO sightings, it's that they're most likely misinterpreting what they're seeing. Just because you saw some weird craft like object in the sky, doesn't mean it was beings from another world. Millions of people have also seen God, Allah, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Bigfoot, ghosts, demons or whatever. And many would swear on their very lives that what they saw was real, but are these all authentic as well? I say... probably not.

[AK]

I think everyone is forgetting:

"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."
This requires someone (1, not 0) to have an imagination. 1 > 0. Your argument is irrelevant.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise there were a million more pages of arguments, I posted this in answer to something at the bottom of page 1.

Carry on, nothing to see here, just me and my incompotence.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know. But if I had great-grandchildren, I might care about them. If (and I mean IF) we ARE aliens' descendents, they might care?

You've not provided a good reason. Yes, you may feel something in common with even your great-grandchildren, but do you really think you would feel anything in common with your descendants hundreds of millions or billions of years hence? They might not even be sentient in any recognisably human sense.


Yes, that is essentially what Michio Kaku said.

His quote suggested active malignity rather than indifference, which is what I meant.


That is to say, we might just be the "hillbillies" of this galaxy?

I think it's more likely that we're the viruses.

[cska]

Have you? (other than that dubious 20% study)

I have already. I had seen a UFO. I had described it in an earlier post. Do you think I was on dope? Or I was hallucinating?
According to you and your buddy, EVERY sighting of a UFO is due to DMT in the brain. Well, your claim is false, because
I DID NOT IMAGINE WHAT I SAW. You don't know me, you don't know who I am, and you claim that I was hallucinating???

Or perhaps you are calling me a liar??? Which is it???

And what is dubious about that 20% study? Are you going to dismiss any result you don't like as dubious?

I did not say that DMT in the brain alone is responsible for all UFO sightings, but that it explained the ubiquitous flying saucer shape of older UFO sightings. For one thing, it is no coincidence that so many UFO sightings are near air force bases and aircraft development facilities. I mean, if I had seen a YF-23, I would have thought it looked alien.

And hundreds of millions of people believe Jesus (a guy who has been dead for thousands of years) talks to them, so I wouldn't be surprised if you did hallucinate the whole thing.

[Klaatu]

Just because you saw some weird craft like object in the sky, doesn't mean it was beings from another world.

I did not claim it was from another world. I just said that I could not figure out what it was.



You've not provided a good reason. Yes, you may feel something in common with even your great-grandchildren, but do you really think you would feel anything in common with your descendants hundreds of millions or billions of years hence? They might not even be sentient in any recognisably human sense.

Or perhaps they might be interested in a scientific sense? Are we an "experiment" on a planetary scale? (they are checking on the results)?



I think it's more likely that we're the viruses.

That could explain a quarantine, of sorts, of our planet (?) That is, we might be dangerous to them in some way?
(Or perhaps you were being facetious.)



And hundreds of millions of people believe Jesus (a guy who has been dead for thousands of years) talks to them, so I wouldn't be surprised if you did hallucinate the whole thing.

Thanks a lot.

Will Technocrat please post a link to the famous study?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Or perhaps they might be interested in a scientific sense? Are we an "experiment" on a planetary scale? (they are checking on the results)?

Simulation would be easier. If you can spawn life on a planet light-years away, then building a computer to do the same thing virtually is a doddle.


That could explain a quarantine, of sorts, of our planet (?) That is, we might be dangerous to them in some way?
(Or perhaps you were being facetious.)

I meant viruses in the sense that we could be incredibly simple entities relatively speaking, reliant on planets (or in the case of viruses, biological cells) to reproduce, and it's debatable whether we're truly self-aware (alive).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you think communism will stop the usage of animals for work, testing, and food? I personally doubt it. I think that is what an advanced alien civilization would probably treat us as, animals.Why? Again this is placing human qualities and motivations to some hypothetical being that would have developed sociologiaclly and biologically in completely different material conditions.

Assuming that some alien species could realize that humans are self-conscious beings, why in the world would they want to travel incredible distances to exploit us? Humans are pretty weak for forced Manuel labor; who knows if aliens would be carnivorous or if they would even have the desire or ability to digest human flesh and again, there are much more satisfying meat sources on earth than bone-y humans; what good would it be for aliens to "test" us considering the almost impossible chance that our biology would be similar in any way.

They might want to test people to find out how they work, but if a species is advanced enough to travel across the universe, they are probably aware of how rare life, let alone intelligent life, is and would therefore not want to harm or disrupt life elsewhere if possible.

[Klaatu]

Simulation would be easier. If you can spawn life on a planet light-years away, then building a computer to do the same thing virtually is a doddle.
They would need every possible variable. They would need to actually visit to collect the pertinent information. (an explanation for abductions?)


I meant viruses in the sense that we could be incredibly simple entities relatively speaking, reliant on planets (or in the case of viruses, biological cells) to reproduce, and it's debatable whether we're truly self-aware (alive).
Well I guess anything's possible (after all, I am the one who said it) ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They would need every possible variable. They would need to actually visit to collect the pertinent information. (an explanation for abductions?)

Sleep paralysis is a more plausible explanation for abduction experiences.

[Ocean Seal]

There is probably at least a couple hundred alien races out there, but as far as contacting them I'd rather err on the side of caution.

[empiredestoryer]

im sure they exist and i think he s right about not getting in contact with them look what happens when diffrent nations and races get in touch with each other they try to kill each other dont they

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah. Humans do.

Do you think that the Arawak Indians sat around in 1491 going 'well obviously there's no-one over the sea, or they'd have tried to contact us' and another bunch said 'no, really, any society that can master building a ship that'll cross the Wide Water will be so advanced that they'll come in peace', and then looked foolish when the Spanish turned up and enslaved them?

That's almost totally how I think contact with aliens won't happen.

Look at it like this; if the USA and the USSR hadn't been involved in the Cold War, spending all that money fighting each other and competing, all of that social wealth could instead have been expended on more useful things. For one, the Americans would have had somewhere to go with their space taxi, and the Russians would have been able to get to Mir without their rockets constantly blowing up. That's actually a tiny example, but to the point I think.

To look at it as a bigger picture, world peace would mean that we were at least 50 years ahead in the 'Space Race' of where we are now; and I think that this is relevent to the idea of spacefarers coming here. If they've managed to co-operate amongst themselves enough to devote such time and resources to coming here, then they must be communists (because otherwise their society would have ended in apocalypse) so they must be pretty enlightened.

Not that I'm waiting for commies from space to rescue us, I still think we have to do that ourselves. But I don't think we should be scared of them (because I think the chance of them turning up is so hugely remote that it's not even worth considering).

[Ocean Seal]

Actually, I think intelligent aliens do not exist - or at least none that have ever taken an interest in colonizing space.

The galaxy is older than 13 billion years.

If a civilization can attain a level of technology to go just 50% the speed of light, it would only take 200,000-500,000 years to colonize the entire galaxy (the galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years across).

So if it takes half a million years tops to colonize the entire galaxy, and the galaxy is more than 13 billion years old, our planet should have already been colonized! Based on this we can conclude that either 1) we are the first intelligent species to arise in our galaxy or 2) we are the first intelligent species to develop to a post-industrial level of technology (which allows radio broadcasts and space travel). A third possibility exists, that an alien civilization has developed to our level of technology or beyond it, but simply has not taken an interest in colonizing space.
Well this assumes that aliens travel in a sort of radial direction colonizing everything around it. Perhaps they have not explored our part of the galaxy. And one cannot assume that an alien race can colonize something as large as the galaxy in so short a period of time. It took Columbus 3-4 months to land in America why didn't Spain control all of it in 2-3 years after his arrival? And perhaps aliens are just beginning to colonize or perhaps (at the risk of sounding silly) they have some kind of inter-planetary tribunal which prevents them from entering underdeveloped planets (ie:Earth).

[leftace53]

Aliens? Yes.
Little green men? Probably not.
To find these alien we should totally invent like a box or something. One that can fly maybe, fly through space very fast. And it should have time and relative dimensions in space.

[NGNM85]

Why? Again this is placing human qualities and motivations to some hypothetical being that would have developed sociologiaclly and biologically in completely different material conditions.

Assuming that some alien species could realize that humans are self-conscious beings, why in the world would they want to travel incredible distances to exploit us? Humans are pretty weak for forced Manuel labor; who knows if aliens would be carnivorous or if they would even have the desire or ability to digest human flesh and again, there are much more satisfying meat sources on earth than bone-y humans; what good would it be for aliens to "test" us considering the almost impossible chance that our biology would be similar in any way.

They might want to test people to find out how they work, but if a species is advanced enough to travel across the universe, they are probably aware of how rare life, let alone intelligent life, is and would therefore not want to harm or disrupt life elsewhere if possible.

This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. I was, frankly, amazed when I heard about Hawking's statement. I'm still amazed he said it. It just doesn't make any sense to me, based on predictions by scientists, Transhumanists, Singularitarians, etc., as to what technologies would be likely to arise in the future, and what they could do, that there would be any reason to suspect a species at the level of development to be aggressive. I can't see anything we have that such a species, presumably a Type 2, or Type 3 on the Kardashev scale, would need to take anything from us that they didn't already have, or couldn't more easily obtain by some other means. We might be perceived as insignificant, but I don't see any reason why they would be actively hostile.

Incidentally, has anybody read Nick Bostrom's essay on the implications of extraterrestrial life? Here it is, if anybody's curious.
http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf

[Ocean Seal]

We would have no idea how alien civilization develops. It would be extremely interesting, but dismissing the chance that they could be hostile just seems like a little too much don't you think.

[Blake's Baby]

*sigh*

No. Any race that can cross interstellar space would almost by definition be communist. Why do we need to worry about communists from space?

[Technocrat]

Well this assumes that aliens travel in a sort of radial direction colonizing everything around it. Perhaps they have not explored our part of the galaxy. And one cannot assume that an alien race can colonize something as large as the galaxy in so short a period of time. It took Columbus 3-4 months to land in America why didn't Spain control all of it in 2-3 years after his arrival? And perhaps aliens are just beginning to colonize or perhaps (at the risk of sounding silly) they have some kind of inter-planetary tribunal which prevents them from entering underdeveloped planets (ie:Earth).

Why would they not have explored our part of the galaxy if they had the technology and resources to do so? One could argue that Spain had to settle for what it could afford, which wouldn't be the case with a society that had the ability to colonize space, since any such society would already possess the technology to achieve a state of post-scarcity. And why would it be difficult to colonize the entire galaxy? Say there are 300 habitable planets in the galaxy. These are detected using advanced telescopes (which we are working on building right now). You send 100,000 colonists to each planet and within a few generations the population of each planet would number in the millions. This would only take a few thousand to a few million years, and if we are being conservative there's at least several trillion years during which this could have already happened. Anyway, this all fits with what I've said - either there are no aliens or they haven't taken an interest in space colonization, or they are content with settling a small region of space. It also reinforces Einstein's theory of special relativity which says that faster than light travel is impossible - if faster than light travel was possible then the amount of time required to colonize the galaxy is reduced to near 0, which makes it even harder to explain the (apparent) absence of aliens in our region of space. As far as your last explanation goes (aliens have just begun to colonize the galaxy), it is possible but the odds are astronomically low. If they had just begun to settle space they would be at a similar level of technological development as our own, which means that they would have evolved at around the same time as us, give or take a few million years - and the time-frame we're talking about, the age of the galaxy, is trillions of years.

[Ocean Seal]

*sigh*

No. Any race that can cross interstellar space would almost by definition be communist. Why do we need to worry about communists from space?
I'm not sure that they would necessarily be communists. I think that that notion assumes that they develop in the same manner that we did.




Why would they not have explored our part of the galaxy if they had the technology and resources to do so? One could argue that Spain had to settle for what it could afford, which wouldn't be the case with a society that had the ability to colonize space, since any such society would already possess the technology to achieve a state of post-scarcity. And why would it be difficult to colonize the entire galaxy? Say there are 300 habitable planets in the galaxy. These are detected using advanced telescopes (which we are working on building right now). You send 100,000 colonists to each planet and within a few generations the population of each planet would number in the millions. This would only take a few thousand to a few million years, and if we are being conservative there's at least several trillion years during which this could have already happened. Anyway, this all fits with what I've said - either there are no aliens or they haven't taken an interest in space colonization, or they are content with settling a small region of space. It also reinforces Einstein's theory of special relativity which says that faster than light travel is impossible - if faster than light travel was possible then the amount of time required to colonize the galaxy is reduced to near 0, which makes it even harder to explain the (apparent) absence of aliens in our region of space. As far as your last explanation goes (aliens have just begun to colonize the galaxy), it is possible but the odds are astronomically low. If they had just begun to settle space they would be at a similar level of technological development as our own, which means that they would have evolved at around the same time as us, give or take a few million years - and the time-frame we're talking about, the age of the galaxy, is trillions of years.

I like your argument. I suppose the possibility that aliens have just begun exploring is rather low. Although there is the potential that a lot can happen in a million years. If so much can happen in a couple thousand years of human civilization think of what can happen in 1 million years. Those aliens could have been wiped out by any cosmic phenomenon or perhaps they failed at exploration.

[Technocrat]

I like your argument. I suppose the possibility that aliens have just begun exploring is rather low. Although there is the potential that a lot can happen in a million years. If so much can happen in a couple thousand years of human civilization think of what can happen in 1 million years. Those aliens could have been wiped out by any cosmic phenomenon or perhaps they failed at exploration.

Yep - A popular theory is that any aliens advanced enough to colonize space would also possess advanced weapons, and they destroy themselves before they can colonize space.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not sure that they would necessarily be communists. I think that that notion assumes that they develop in the same manner that we did...

Well, there are two choices; either they develop with an unstable society based on exploitation and inter-group (ie 'class') conflict, or they develop in a socially-cohesive fashion (and have communism). These aren't just abstract categories, they conform to something pretty fundamental to any social group organisation.

If they have inter-group conflict then they're less likely to develop space travel, because they're too busy killing each other, as Technocrat suggests above; if on the other hand they do develop deep-space travel, it's because they've learned to co-operate (in other words, they're likely to be communists).

Seems fairly straightforward to me.

[Bilan]

Sleep paralysis is a more plausible explanation for abduction experiences.

Great article on that from Cosmos (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/3153/the-stuff-nightmares).


REM-based activation of this system, in the absence of any real threat, triggers a sense of an ominous entity lurking nearby. Other neural areas that contribute to REM-dream imagery could draw on personal and cultural knowledge to flesh out the evil presence.

A second brain system, which includes sensory and motor parts of the brain's outer layer, distinguishes one's own body and self from those of other creatures. When REM activity prods this system, a person experiences sensations of floating, flying, falling, leaving one's body and other types of movement, Cheyne says.

[mikelepore]

In earlier times, people who experienced sleep paralysis reported having been visited in the night by Olympian gods or angels or succubi. In the modern age, people interpret the phantasms as "aliens."

[Hexen]

Lets face it, Aliens/UFOs are a modern phenomenon came from pseudoscience. Nothing more...

[Klaatu]

Lets face it, Aliens are a modern phenomenon came from pseudoscience. Nothing more...

"modern phenomenon?" I don't think so. There have been writings and observations about possible extraterrestrial visitors ever since cave-men first scrawled drawings on rock walls.

[Hexen]

"modern phenomenon?" I don't think so. There have been writings and observations about possible extraterrestrial visitors ever since cave-men first scrawled drawings on rock walls.

I think your falling into a trap of the whole Ancient Astronaut theory which also happens to be pseudoscience (or more like Pseudohistory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory), Pseudoarchaelogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology) actually).

So yes it's still a modern phenomenon just as the belief of the supernatural was a phenomenon during the pre-enlightenment era like mikelepore described.

[Blake's Baby]

Once upon a time, people believed that they'd been kidnapped by elves inside the Hollow Hills, and strange things had been done to them, leading to strange compulsions and behaviours.

Now we know those 'elves' were spacemen, it's obvious innit?

Or not.

I believe in aliens, I just don't believe God was one or that they come to Kansas to mutilate cattle and kidnap and anal-probe the locals.

[mikelepore]

One of the ancient astronaut authors on the History Channel was making a big deal about an ancient painting of a person wearing a helmet, sitting in a chair, and reaching out a hand to touch a long object. He said it's an ancient picture of an astronaut sitting in a spacecraft and reaching for a control stick. I took a good look at the picture. I thought about the way ancient warriors used to wear metal helmets as part of their armor. I can also imagine an artist depicting one of those helmeted warriors sitting in a chair, and perhaps thinking: while I'm sitting here I think I'll reach for that banana. Some of those writers make no effort to consider ordinary explanations for things.

This thing they said on TV is really silly. In Egypt there are three ancient pyramids that are approximately in a line, but the middle pyramid is slightly off the line. Then they noted that the three stars Alnitak, Alniham and Mintaka, as seen from earth, are approximately in a line, but with the middle star slightly of the line. So the man on TV said oh wow, the ancients built their pyramids to represent three of the stars in the constellation Orion! Then he added this gem: "And they have the three stars in the correct order!" He really said that last part, a completely meaningless statement.

But this one is the winner for stupid statements intended to show alien intervention. A TV commentator pointed out two particular hills on a map of Mars. Then he said with amazement, "If you were to connect these two points, they would form a straight line!" When I heard that, my mouthful of coffee went all over the floor.

[Klaatu]

I think your falling into a trap of the whole Ancient Astronaut theory which also happens to be pseudoscience
(or more like Pseudohistory, Pseudoarchaelogy actually).

So yes it's still a modern phenomenon just as the belief of the supernatural was a phenomenon during the
pre-enlightenment era like mikelepore described.


Your link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology is not about extraterrestrials.
They are concerned principally with junk science in and of itself. Of course there is junk science.
There is junk science in every field. There is junk religion, junk politics, and junk economic systems too.
We do hear a lot about that here on RevLeft, don't we.

They do mention this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronaut
Where there is not more than one skeptic, Michael Shermer, who is so skeptical of everything under the sun,
he probably does not even believe that he himself exists... and he is entitled to his opinion, of course.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________




One of the ancient astronaut authors on the History Channel was making a big deal about an ancient painting
of a person wearing a helmet, sitting in a chair, and reaching out a hand to touch a long object. He said it's an
ancient picture of an astronaut sitting in a spacecraft and reaching for a control stick. I took a good look at the
picture. I thought about the way ancient warriors used to wear metal helmets as part of their armor. I can also
imagine an artist depicting one of those helmeted warriors sitting in a chair, and perhaps thinking: while I'm
sitting here I think I'll reach for that banana. Some of those writers make no effort to consider ordinary
explanations for things.

And some writers only have mundane explanations for such artwork. Hey maybe you're right. But then
yours is the only possible explanation there could be, eh? Have you solved the JFK assassination as well? ;)



This thing they said on TV is really silly. In Egypt there are three ancient pyramids that are approximately in a line,
but the middle pyramid is slightly off the line. Then they noted that the three stars Alnitak, Alniham and Mintaka,
as seen from earth, are approximately in a line, but with the middle star slightly of the line. So the man on TV said
oh wow, the ancients built their pyramids to represent three of the stars in the constellation Orion! Then he added
this gem: "And they have the three stars in the correct order!" He really said that last part, a completely meaningless
statement.

You don't pay very close attention, do you. The narrators of these are not stating unequivocal facts. They are
asking questions, in the same manner as Von Däniken. They offer food for thought. They do not claim to know
all the answers, as a few skeptics on this thread seem to know all of these answers.

Perhaps someday we can discover the actual facts on these interesting phenomena.




But this one is the winner for stupid statements intended to show alien intervention. A TV commentator pointed
out two particular hills on a map of Mars. Then he said with amazement, "If you were to connect these two points,
they would form a straight line!" When I heard that, my mouthful of coffee went all over the floor.

Yes, taken out of context, it does sound silly. While you were trying to avert your spillage, you missed the rest of it.

What is your point?

[Hexen]

Once upon a time, people believed that they'd been kidnapped by elves inside the Hollow Hills, and strange things had been done to them, leading to strange compulsions and behaviours.

Now we know those 'elves' were spacemen, it's obvious innit?

Or not.

I believe in aliens, I just don't believe God was one or that they come to Kansas to mutilate cattle and kidnap and anal-probe the locals.

I think it's called the Changeling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changeling) legend...

These Alien Abduction stories are just a modern version of it. Gets to show that once human societies/culture changes but they still keep the old stories but they update them into a modern version of it.

Space Aliens are basically modern day versions of the old folklore of Faeries...

[Klaatu]

I think it's called the Changeling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changeling) legend...

These Alien Abduction stories are just a modern version of it. Gets to show that once human societies/culture changes but they still keep the old stories but they update them into a modern version of it.

Space Aliens are basically modern day versions of the old folklore of Faeries...

"Space Alien" stories, yes. (Star Trek, etc) No one disputes this.

[Hexen]

The thing is, the Ancient Astronaut theories is mostly came from speculations (mostly from misinterpretation what the artwork actually means) via our world modern worldview not the context of that time period nor factual evidence. I think it's kinda similar to conspiracy theories.


"Space Alien" stories, yes. (Star Trek, etc) No one disputes this. Well I was actually referring to the Alien aduction stories which are basically modern versions of the changeling folklore.

[Blake's Baby]

I think it's called the Changeling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changeling) legend...

I've always asssumed that it was to do with conditions such as Down's Syndrome and autism, where a baby is 'replaced' by another (elf) child that doesn't develop as expected, while the perfect human child is taken away to be brought up by the fairies.

But I think the 'oh I spent the night in the Hollow Hill and the fairies did weird things'-type legends it seems to me have a lot of similarities with 'shucks I got me anal-probed by some Greys'-type stories.

[mikelepore]

They are asking questions, in the same manner as Von Däniken.

That's not true about Von Daniken. I have heard him use the phrase "this proves...." when showing ancient paintings and concluding that the objects shown are real visitors who came from the sky. Later when someone put him on the spot for speaking that way, he replies, "Look, in my book, there are hundreds of question marks. I'm only asking questions." But then he doesn't offer a retraction of the other occasions when he has been saying "proof", "proves" and "proven".

That is also untrue about the History Channel, although what you said is true of the Science Channel and the National Geographic Channel. On the History Channel the narrator's script is written in a way that describes paranormal reports as verified facts, whether the subject is gray aliens with almond-shaped eyes, Edgar Cayce's psychic powers, haunted houses, or people possessed by the devil.

[Klaatu]

The thing is, the Ancient Astronaut theories is mostly came from speculations (mostly from misinterpretation what
the artwork actually means) via our world modern worldview not the context of that time period nor factual evidence.
I think it's kinda similar to conspiracy theories.

To take this to a logical extreme, you could argue that George Washington never existed. (Have you ever actually seen
or met him?) How do we know he existed? I feel that he actually did exist, because... wait a minute... What "proves" this?
What would constitute "factual evidence" of the past? And what sort of evidence would you require to acknowledge the
existence of aliens? An interview with a "Mister Spock?"

I can just as easily claim that the artwork does indeed depict astronauts. It can be inferred to mean that idea just as well
as your claim of that figure grabbing a banana, or a stick-shift lever. And I submit to you, how do you have the authority
to rule that ancient drawings and writings are "misinterpretation of what the artwork actually means?"

We haven't proven that aliens exist, beyond a shadow of a doubt, as they say. But no one has proven the non-existence
of aliens either. No one has proven that we have not been visited, yet there is much evidence suggesting that we have.

Thus my argument holds at least equal merit as yours.



That is also untrue about the History Channel, although what you said is true of the Science Channel and the National
Geographic Channel. On the History Channel the narrator's script is written in a way that describes paranormal reports
as verified facts, whether the subject is gray aliens with almond-shaped eyes, Edgar Cayce's psychic powers, haunted
houses, or people possessed by the devil.

I am in agreement that the History Channel needs to be careful on how they present things. They do use the word "proof"
when they should not. Many of their "specials" I would consider to be a form of entertainment, and not hard-core science.

Yes we need verifiable facts. And "proof" is a high bar to jump. Which is why I had been disputing someone else's claim
on this thread that DMT is certain "proof" that "100% of alien abductions" are due to hallucinations.

And that person claims his math "proves aliens did not visit here." No, it doesn't. His math "proves" nothing.

The facts are in the evidence. And there is a lot of evidence. But much depends on how that evidence is interpreted.
One thing we do know as fact: evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. This is why a preponderance of
evidence is required, at the very least. And yes, contexts and frame of reference.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To take this to a logical extreme, you could argue that George Washington never existed. (Have you ever actually seen
or met him?) How do we know he existed? I feel that he actually did exist, because... wait a minute... What "proves" this?
What would constitute "factual evidence" of the past? And what sort of evidence would you require to acknowledge the
existence of aliens? An interview with a "Mister Spock?"

I can just as easily claim that the artwork does indeed depict astronauts. It can be inferred to mean that idea just as well
as your claim of that figure grabbing a banana, or a stick-shift lever. And I submit to you, how do you have the authority
to rule that ancient drawings and writings are "misinterpretation of what the artwork actually means?"

Because there is no other evidence of ancient astronauts aside from your bizarre interpretations of ancient drawings.


We haven't proven that aliens exist, beyond a shadow of a doubt, as they say. But no one has proven the non-existence
of aliens either. No one has proven that we have not been visited, yet there is much evidence suggesting that we have.

Thus my argument holds at least equal merit as yours.

Bullshit. The burden of evidence is upon the one making the positive assertion - in this case, the assertion that aliens have visited the Earth in human times. The reason for this is because otherwise, the person making the positive assertion can concoct endless justifications for why they can't come up with the evidence.


I am in agreement that the History Channel needs to be careful on how they present things. They do use the word "proof"
when they should not. Many of their "specials" I would consider to be a form of entertainment, and not hard-core science.

Yes we need verifiable facts. And "proof" is a high bar to jump. Which is why I had been disputing someone else's claim
on this thread that DMT is certain "proof" that "100% of alien abductions" are due to hallucinations.

Provide quotes, because I think you're being dishonest.


And that person claims his math "proves aliens did not visit here." No, it doesn't. His math "proves" nothing.

Again, I think you are dishonestly paraphrasing. While Technocrat's mathematical argument does not "prove" that aliens have not visited the Earth, it does serve to illustrate just how unlikely it is.


The facts are in the evidence. And there is a lot of evidence. But much depends on how that evidence is interpreted.

But interpretations can be wrong, and yours are, because they ignore everything that does not confirm with your own prejudices.


One thing we do know as fact: evidence can be interpreted in more than one way.

Not all interpretations are equal.


This is why a preponderance of
evidence is required, at the very least. And yes, contexts and frame of reference.

Which you have chosen to ignore.

[Technocrat]

This guy has a pretty convincing argument, along the same lines as the one I offered. If we exist, it means that space-faring aliens don't exist. Failure to understand this results from a failure to understand the galactic time scale and basic statistics. Sure, we can't say this with 100% certainty, just as science can never prove anything with 100% certainty, but we can say with more than 99% confidence that aliens do not exist (or at least they have no interest in colonizing space).

This also means that the space opera fantasies of youth, with their galaxy-spanning empires and personal ships capable of faster than light travel, will likely never become a reality.

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2007/04/aliens-dont-exist.html

[Klaatu]

Because there is no other evidence of ancient astronauts aside from your bizarre interpretations of ancient drawings.

"Looks like mushrooms to me" is not a "bizarre interpretation?"
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1736974&postcount=114


Bullshit. The burden of evidence is upon the one making the positive assertion - in this case, the assertion that aliens
have visited the Earth in human times. The reason for this is because otherwise, the person making the positive assertion
can concoct endless justifications for why they can't come up with the evidence.

I am NOT making "assertions." I am making suggestions.


Provide quotes, because I think you're being dishonest.

What are you talking about? I am AGREEING WITH YOU!!!


Again, I think you are dishonestly paraphrasing. While Technocrat's mathematical argument does not "prove" that
aliens have not visited the Earth, it does serve to illustrate just how unlikely it is.

Technocrat claims to "prove" it. He said it, I didn't:

Originally Posted by EnviroWhacko
"How do you know this?"
"Because the math shows it to be true."
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1736144&postcount=95

But interpretations can be wrong, and yours are, because they ignore everything that does not confirm with your own prejudices.

That works both ways, you know.


Not all interpretations are equal.

That is why a preponderance of evidence is required. I have seen no such thing from the skeptics.


Which you have chosen to ignore.

How so?

[Klaatu]

Technocrat
"If we exist, it means that space-faring aliens don't exist."

Noxion
"The burden of evidence is upon the one making the positive assertion"

Then the burden is on Technocrat. And remember that Hawking says aliens exist.

__________________________________________________ _________________
Technocrat

"This also means that the space opera fantasies of youth, with their galaxy-spanning empires
and personal ships capable of faster than light travel, will likely never become a reality."

Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899 (attributed)

[Klaatu]

This guy has a pretty convincing argument, along the same lines as the one I offered.
http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2007/04/aliens-dont-exist.html

You thought this up, eh? Seems to me that you are using his ideas. ;)

From that blog:

"We will start with a very simple assumption."

He goes on to make assumption after assumption, such as this zinger:

"The fact that we exist means that a previous civilization has not colonized the galaxy."

No it doesn't mean that at all. This completely ignores the possibility that WE are descendents of a previous civilization elsewhere.

After all of his conjectures and logical fallacies, he goes on to announce that:

"Aliens don't exist."

What a load. :lol:

__________

[Technocrat]

Mmmk, whatever. You just continue to demonstrate your basic lack of the scientific method, the galactic time scale, and basic statistics. I don't need to waste time going over why this is so, since I've already explained it. Have fun in your fantasy world.

I provided you with a mathematical, logical proof that demonstrates with more than 99% certainty that aliens (at least the kind that build galactic empires) don't exist. You've failed to understand it, much less provide a coherent, logical counter-argument. Science can never prove anything with 100% certainty. What it does is tell us which things are more likely, and which are less likely.

Also, saying that 'aliens don't exist' is not a positive assertion, you need to go take an introductory logic course.

Do you not believe in evolution? How could we be the descendants of aliens if we are evolved from primates? Pseudo-scientific garbage.

Also, 'invention' has very little to do with physical limits set by the universe. If c is a limiting velocity, it's a limiting velocity, and there's nothing we can do to 'invent' our way around it, just as it is impossible to make a circle with 4 right angles.

[Klaatu]

Mmmk, whatever. You just continue to demonstrate your basic lack of the scientific method, the galactic time scale,
and basic statistics. I don't need to waste time going over why this is so, since I've already explained it. Have fun in
your fantasy world.

This much is true: made-up science and statistics are no better than made-up art and literary chronicles.


I provided you with a mathematical, logical proof that demonstrates with more than 99% certainty that aliens
(at least the kind that build galactic empires) don't exist. You've failed to understand it, much less provide a coherent,
logical counter-argument. Science can never prove anything with 100% certainty. What it does is tell us which things
are more likely, and which are less likely.

This is where you make the ominous grand mistake: claiming that X's assumptions are "proof." I have, on the contrary,
provided overt hard evidence: Ancient writings and drawings. UFO sightings. Things which you and others dismiss as
"fantasy," "misinterpreted imagery," and "uncredible nonsense." Granted, some writings and artwork may amount to
nothing more than fiction and imagination. And some UFO sightings may be found to be mundane phenomena: cloud
formations, light reflections, secret military aircraft, etc. Yet not all must be, nor should be, dismissed as such. Why so?
You don't buy it, so it is therefore untrue? You are the final authority on this?

As I've explained before, I am simply asking pertinent questions, and introducing a few very interesting suggestions
for the curious mind to ponder.

Yet you continue to present your argument as certain fact, when you have no possible way of knowing such facts.
That is your logical fallacy. You could avoid this quandary, if you can answer with reasonable responses, framed as
suggestions and theories. But no, you choose to present your case as that of undisputable, unequivocal proof and fact.
If you would just avoid this dubious practice of blatant sheer certainty, and instead use a balanced hypothesis of
"I suggest this science is true" MO, I might be more receptive to your ideas. Instead, you and others here sound
as though you were preachers of some sort of religious dogma, not so as being a questioning scientist. You are not
scientists at all! That is because a good scientist always doubts, and always questions the status quo!

This is quite the opposite of religion. That is precisely why science advances, and religion stagnates: Science doubts,
whilst religion believes. And I do respect you for doubting, even condemning my theory but... do you reciprocate?



Also, saying that 'aliens don't exist' is not a positive assertion, you need to go take an introductory logic course.

FYI: "Aliens don't exist" is the TITLE of the blog which you had linked to.

Concerning that blog, I must assert that: assumption + assumption + assumption does NOT equal FACT.

Rather: assumption + assumption + assumption equals only assumption. Nothing more! This is called inductive reasoning,
which only directs us toward a probable cause. Which can only lead to truth upon acceptance of certain observable, measurable,
and credible evidence.

Having not ever claimed my theory as being indisputably factual, please show me where you have had the impression of
where I had stated my idea as being that of certain fact? That of undisputed naked truth?



Do you not believe in evolution? How could we be the descendants of aliens if we are evolved from primates? Pseudo-scientific garbage.

I appreciate the question. It is a good one.

Perhaps apes had been given the means to reason by our visitors, perhaps through brain operations, perhaps DNA gene therapy?
Hence (one) possible explanation and motive for abductions? Perhaps this is ongoing in the present time, in order to engineer a
more intelligent, less war-like human? In this sense, humans might be partially descended from the visiting race, or perhaps
our ape-to-man transition is not as clear-cut as we had thought?

These of course, are just ideas. I am not claiming these are facts. I suggest no more than that!

And I continue to concede to grant you the "20% DMT-hallucination" study (remember it is 20% but not 100% of course)
But there are more serious flaws in it (see next post)



Also, 'invention' has very little to do with physical limits set by the universe. If c is a limiting velocity, it's a limiting velocity,
and there's nothing we can do to 'invent' our way around it, just as it is impossible to make a circle with 4 right angles.

My point has evidently been lost upon you. I meant that we should never assume that we know all there is to be known.

Our modern technology is not at all stagnant. On the contrary: we have advanced at such an accelerated pace in the past
fifty years, probably further so than we had previously advanced in the past thousand years, technology speaking. Just think
of the upcoming 50 years? Have you considered accelerated knowledge and high tech in your own hypothesis of alien races?

[Klaatu]

I read up a bit on the DMT "study"

"DMT: THE SPIRIT MOLECULE" by RICK STRASSMAN M.D.
A review by Caroline Taylor
http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/dmt.htm


Once again, simlarities with alien abduction stories abound. Unlike some of these, however, little fear was usually
present where the beings were involved. Could this be because the volunteers were open to the experience and
willing participants in it? Also because mostly they were familiar with the effects of psychedelics? The answer seems
to be yes, on both counts.
In other words, these test subjects were already acid-heads.


He also notes the remarkable resemblance between this and other research subjects' reports and many "alien abductees'" accounts.
That is, acid heads who watch a lot of science fiction movies!


At this point Professor Mack's work is acknowledged as "fascinating" in its similarities to DMT experiences and also in its
suggestion that spirituality may be at the heart of the alien abduction phenomenon. But personally he is very uncomfortable
with the idea that "contact" is what DMT is about. (Indeed, the concept and implications of non-corporeal entities generally
appears to trouble him deeply.) He favours the idea that the "goal" might be to reach the "space" between "channels", which
envisages as a "perfect emptiness" (the similarity of this analogy to the Buddhist nirvana is clear.) He concludes with the
valid point that it is not so much the mechanics or metaphysics of the DMT experience that is important, so much as who
we are and what we as individuals might bring to it.
Thus this whole study is more about Zen Buddhism and the supernatural, not so much about (tangible) alien visitations.

Also, massive dosages of the (artificial) drug were given to the test subjects. The appearance of hallucinations would seem
relevant here, as well as the type of hallucination experienced. But this is not necessarily the case for all abduction experiences.
That is, not every abduction experience involves the consumption of massive dosages of DMT. To state that "DMT occurs naturally
within the brain, and then draw the conclusion that ALL (100% of) abduction experiences are (a) hallucinations and/or (b) the
effect of DMT, is a very wild stretch of logic, to say the least.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Looks like mushrooms to me" is not a "bizarre interpretation?"
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1736974&postcount=114

It's not that bizarre when you take into account the role played by entheogens (such as hallucinogenic mushrooms) in ancient religions, a role which Technocrat went on to mention and which you seem to have subsequently ignored.


I am NOT making "assertions." I am making suggestions.

You've not given any reason why we should take your "suggestions" any more seriously than established archaeological opinion.


What are you talking about? I am AGREEING WITH YOU!!!

Technocrat has not been arguing that "DMT is certain "proof" that "100% of alien abductions" are due to hallucinations".


Technocrat claims to "prove" it. He said it, I didn't:

You do not need to "prove" something with 100% certainty for it to be true. A mathematical argument can use mathematics, but does not have to be about mathematics, the one area as far as I'm aware where "proof" can be applied.


That works both ways, you know.

The negative hypothesis (that aliens do not exist, or at least have not visited the Earth) is entirely consistent with current human knowledge. The positive hypothesis (that aliens exist and have visited the Earth in the human past) needs something more supporting it than a-historical readings of Old Testament books (a la Von Daniken) or subjective interpretations of rock drawings.


That is why a preponderance of evidence is required. I have seen no such thing from the skeptics.

That's because it is difficult, if not impossible, to provide evidence against a hypothesis, because it's all too easy for those arguing otherwise to simply shift the goalposts.

That is why those who propose the existence of aliens who have visited the Earth need evidence in order to be taken seriously. I mean, for goodness sake, has it not occurred to a single alien abductee to swipe the alien equivalent a paperclip and submit it for study?

Further, if advanced technological beings have visited the Earth within human times, why have they not left anything behind? Technological advancement does not necessarily make a species environmentally considerate, as humans demonstrate. Combined with the magnifying properties of technology (a species with technology can change an environment, by accident or design, more than one without), this should mean that if aliens have visited Earth within the last 100 millennia or so, there should be plenty of evidence.

So where is it?


How so?

You made no attempt to address Technocrat's claim that entheogens (the effects of which have characteristic effects consistent with abduction experiences) were used for spiritual purposes by ancient peoples.

[Klaatu]

It's not that bizarre when you take into account the role played by entheogens (such as hallucinogenic mushrooms)
in ancient religions, a role which Technocrat went on to mention and which you seem to have subsequently ignored.

You're saying that these are drawings of mushrooms with arms and legs?



You've not given any reason why we should take your "suggestions" any more seriously than established archaeological opinion.

What "established archaeological opinion?" Please provide us with references to the "mushroom-head person" (?)
from at least two reputable, unrelated sources.

And why shouldn't open-minded people consider all possibilities?



Technocrat has not been arguing that "DMT is certain "proof" that "100% of alien abductions" are due to hallucinations".

I hope not, because it is wrong to use the terms "proves" and "suggests" interchangeably. These are two completely different criterion.

(Post made by Technocrat)
"You're right - it doesn't prove that there aren't any alien abductions..."
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1736777&postcount=109

Then he goes on to say:

(Post made by Technocrat)
"DMT occurs naturally within the brain. This means that 100% of alien sightings could be explained by DMT."
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1740711&postcount=133

(Post made by Technocrat)
"If we exist, it means that space-faring aliens don't exist."



You do not need to "prove" something with 100% certainty for it to be true. A mathematical argument
can use mathematics, but does not have to be about mathematics, the one area as far as I'm aware
where "proof" can be applied.

I would submit that there is much more evidence on my side than on yours. You wish to dismiss it,
and that is your opinion. And you have a right to your opinion. But I will quote Technocrat here:

(Post made by Technocrat)
"Not having proof that something didn't happen isn't a good reason to believe that it did happen."
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1737893&postcount=119

Do you see how this can work equally in my favor as yours?

(Post made by Technocrat)
"Your conjecture requires you to accept many unknowns, while my theory is based on observations which anyone could make."
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1742498&postcount=148

The theory proposed by Kujlisz in "Aliens don't exist" (http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2007/04/aliens-dont-exist.html) relies on a lot more "unknowns" than my theory does.
Mine only involves ancient writing and drawings. Simple.



The negative hypothesis (that aliens do not exist, or at least have not visited the Earth) is entirely consistent with
current human knowledge. The positive hypothesis (that aliens exist and have visited the Earth in the human past)
needs something more supporting it than a-historical readings of Old Testament books (a la Von Daniken) or subjective
interpretations of rock drawings.

And I suppose this "mushroom-man" thesis is an OBJECTIVE interpretation of rock drawings? Who has the authority
to decide this, rendering any and all alternate hypotheses null and moot?

And the negative hypothesis needs much more than one drug-hallucination study and skeptical opinionated denialism.



That's because it is difficult, if not impossible, to provide evidence against a hypothesis, because it's all too easy for
those arguing otherwise to simply shift the goalposts.

I have never wavered from my honestly-held position that our human existence has something to do with ancient visits
from extraterrestrials. I have held this belief since I had first read Chariots of the Gods?, when it was published in 1968.



That is why those who propose the existence of aliens who have visited the Earth need evidence in order to be
taken seriously. I mean, for goodness sake, has it not occurred to a single alien abductee to swipe the alien equivalent
a paperclip and submit it for study?

Firstly I, like hundreds of others, speculate what is actually in "Area 51." If nothing, as the government asserts, then
why not allow research teams to canvass the grounds? Conduct independent, unbiased investigations of this place?
Is this proverbial alien "paper clip" there?



Further, if advanced technological beings have visited the Earth within human times, why have they not left
anything behind? Technological advancement does not necessarily make a species environmentally considerate,
as humans demonstrate. Combined with the magnifying properties of technology (a species with technology can
change an environment, by accident or design, more than one without), this should mean that if aliens have
visited Earth within the last 100 millennia or so, there should be plenty of evidence.

So where is it?

Carefully hidden, I would surmise. Suppose WE are the "aliens" visiting another world, inhabited by less-advanced
humanoids. We would like them to advance in technology, in order to fight disease, hunger, and poverty. But would
we proceed to build them a computer or something? Would we interfere in their politics? No. But we might do something
to help out. How about implanting some ideas in some of the more brilliant natives' heads? Ideas which, if utilized,
might bring about positive advancement of technology and political system?

It might be possible that quantum leaps in knowledge and technology might have been artificially inspired into certain
"bright" people here? For example, Isaac Newton invented calculus. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. What I am saying
is that, ideas and innovations like this may have required more than just a stroke of genius? The cave man's invention
of the wheel - was it a smart cave man? Or a smart cave man that was influenced in a dream by a benevolent "teacher"
from the outer cosmos? A teacher who wished to help improve the human condition?

I will remind you that these are just ideas! Therefore they do not require "proof."



You made no attempt to address Technocrat's claim that entheogens (the effects of which have characteristic effects
consistent with abduction experiences) were used for spiritual purposes by ancient peoples.

Of course hallucinogens were used since the beginning of time; so what? It is true that ancients used hallucinogenics
for religious purposes, and this may be an explanation of some cave drawings, but it does not in any way completely
rule out alternative interpretations. I think it is hogwash to make one, and only one, conclusion, and proclaim that
this is the only possible conclusion which can be made from an ancient cave drawing.

[revolution inaction]

You're saying that these are drawings of mushrooms with arms and legs?



and soft toys

edit: where did my picture go?
Here it is again
http://www.thecuteproject.com/images/items/1583.jpg

[Technocrat]

(Post made by Technocrat)
"Not having proof that something didn't happen isn't a good reason to believe that it did happen."
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1737893&postcount=119

Do you see how this can work equally in my favor as yours?

(Post made by Technocrat)
"Your conjecture requires you to accept many unknowns, while my theory is based on observations which anyone could make."
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1742498&postcount=148

The theory proposed by Kujlisz in "Aliens don't exist" (http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2007/04/aliens-dont-exist.html) relies on a lot more "unknowns" than my theory does.
Mine only involves ancient writing and drawings. Simple.

Are you serious? Your theory completely relies on unknowns, since it relies on subjective interpretations of ancient cave drawings, biblical texts, and other hearsay.

Again, my theory doesn't require that you accept anything unknown. It just requires that you accept that 1) we exist and 2) the galaxy exists the way we see it


And I suppose this "mushroom-man" thesis is an OBJECTIVE interpretation of rock drawings? Who has the authority
to decide this, rendering any and all alternate hypotheses null and moot?

It makes a lot more sense than the ancient astronaut theory given the role entheogens played in the cultures who produced the cave drawings.


Carefully hidden, I would surmise. Suppose WE are the "aliens" visiting another world, inhabited by less-advanced
humanoids. We would like them to advance in technology, in order to fight disease, hunger, and poverty.

Why the hell would they care? Suppose, suppose, suppose - this is all your theory amounts to.


It might be possible that quantum leaps in knowledge and technology might have been artificially inspired into certain
"bright" people here? For example, Isaac Newton invented calculus. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. What I am saying
is that, ideas and innovations like this may have required more than just a stroke of genius? The cave man's invention
of the wheel - was it a smart cave man? Or a smart cave man that was influenced in a dream by a benevolent "teacher"
from the outer cosmos? A teacher who wished to help improve the human condition?

Again, why the hell would they care? Your argument is bordering on religion, now. 'A benevolent teacher who wanted to improve the human condition'.


I will remind you that these are just ideas! Therefore they do not require "proof."

You're presenting these ideas as facts, therefore they do require proof.


Of course hallucinogens were used since the beginning of time; so what? It is true that ancients used hallucinogenics
for religious purposes, and this may be an explanation of some cave drawings, but it does not in any way completely
rule out alternative interpretations. I think it is hogwash to make one, and only one, conclusion, and proclaim that
this is the only possible conclusion which can be made from an ancient cave drawing.

So you've acknowledged that the cultures that produced the cave drawing used entheogens and that they played a significant role in their culture. You're right that this doesn't completely rule out alternative hypotheses, but Occam's razor would dictate that the simpler explanation is that the cave drawings depict people under the influence of entheogens. Therefore it is the more likely explanation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You're saying that these are drawings of mushrooms with arms and legs?

You really are a dishonest shit, aren't you?


Looks like mushrooms to me. Do you have any knowledge about the role of entheogens in ancient religion? The images depict two people under the influence of entheogens. At least, the same image has been cited as such by anthropologists.

[my emphasis]


What "established archaeological opinion?" Please provide us with references to the "mushroom-head person" (?)
from at least two reputable, unrelated sources.

I can't provide the references you require because of your inane straw man tactics.


And why shouldn't open-minded people consider all possibilities?

Because there are a ludicrous amount of possibilities one could waste their time with; people with proper intellectual rigor will stick to those possibilities that are likely given current knowledge.


I hope not, because it is wrong to use the terms "proves" and "suggests" interchangeably. These are two completely different criterion.

Why don't you try actually paying attention to what people say?


I would submit that there is much more evidence on my side than on yours. You wish to dismiss it,
and that is your opinion. And you have a right to your opinion. But I will quote Technocrat here:

(Post made by Technocrat)
"Not having proof that something didn't happen isn't a good reason to believe that it did happen."
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1737893&postcount=119

Do you see how this can work equally in my favor as yours?

Except that you ignore the shading of probability modulated by available evidence. We have plenty of evidence for the use of entheogens for spiritual purposes, but no evidence for aliens landing on Earth and telling us the secrets of the universe.


(Post made by Technocrat)
"Your conjecture requires you to accept many unknowns, while my theory is based on observations which anyone could make."
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1742498&postcount=148

The theory proposed by Kujlisz in "Aliens don't exist" (http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2007/04/aliens-dont-exist.html) relies on a lot more "unknowns" than my theory does.
Mine only involves ancient writing and drawings. Simple.

That's exactly the problem. You are proposing the existence of advanced technological aliens that have visited the Earth within human history, and your only so-called "evidence" is an anachronistic interpretation of ancient writings and drawings.


And I suppose this "mushroom-man" thesis is an OBJECTIVE interpretation of rock drawings? Who has the authority
to decide this, rendering any and all alternate hypotheses null and moot?

And the negative hypothesis needs much more than one drug-hallucination study and skeptical opinionated denialism.

Actually, the negative hypothesis doesn't require anything. It seems you still have not grasped who has the burden of evidence.

For example, suppose I were to posit the existence of a pan-dimensional psychic spider on Mars. In order for people to take my hypothesis seriously, I would need evidence. If people were to point out to me that the various probes and landers sent to Mars have not seen a spider, I could claim that it was invisible, or lived underground.

Are you beginning to grasp the basic problem here?


I have never wavered from my honestly-held position that our human existence has something to do with ancient visits
from extraterrestrials. I have held this belief since I had first read Chariots of the Gods?, when it was published in 1968.

In the example given above, I did not waver my position either. I effectively made excuses for why my belief in a pan-dimensional psychic spider on Mars was not supported by the evidence.


Firstly I, like hundreds of others, speculate what is actually in "Area 51." If nothing, as the government asserts, then
why not allow research teams to canvass the grounds? Conduct independent, unbiased investigations of this place?

Because the US government wants its military secrets to stay secret. People will always want to stick their noses into secret airbases, and spreading stories of UFOs in hangars and dead aliens in bunkers is a perfect way for them to distract attention from what they're really doing.


Is this proverbial alien "paper clip" there?

Why shouldn't it be? Modern technological societies produce a massive profusion of small, disposable objects which are indisputably of manufactured origin.


Carefully hidden, I would surmise.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Why would aliens bother to hide their presence? A species capable of crossing interstellar distances certainly has nothing to fear from even modern humans.


Suppose WE are the "aliens" visiting another world, inhabited by less-advanced
humanoids. We would like them to advance in technology, in order to fight disease, hunger, and poverty. But would
we proceed to build them a computer or something? Would we interfere in their politics? No. But we might do something
to help out. How about implanting some ideas in some of the more brilliant natives' heads? Ideas which, if utilized,
might bring about positive advancement of technology and political system?

Because as Technocrat pointed out, that's assuming that aliens have the same goals and values as humans.

Not only that, but the whole concept that ancient humans got their best ideas from aliens belittles human capability. We can design and construct space shuttles, particle colliders, sewage systems and the Internet, but fire and the wheel are beyond us? What utter rot!


It might be possible that quantum leaps in knowledge and technology might have been artificially inspired into certain
"bright" people here? For example, Isaac Newton invented calculus. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. What I am saying
is that, ideas and innovations like this may have required more than just a stroke of genius? The cave man's invention
of the wheel - was it a smart cave man? Or a smart cave man that was influenced in a dream by a benevolent "teacher"
from the outer cosmos? A teacher who wished to help improve the human condition?

What's wrong with the idea that such things are the result of the right person thinking the right sort of thing at the right time?

Why the paternalistic assumption that the only way that humans can truly advance is through some super-duper aliens showing us the ropes?


I will remind you that these are just ideas! Therefore they do not require "proof."

Such ideas need evidence if they are to be anything other than smoke blowing out of your arse.


Of course hallucinogens were used since the beginning of time; so what? It is true that ancients used hallucinogenics
for religious purposes, and this may be an explanation of some cave drawings, but it does not in any way completely
rule out alternative interpretations. I think it is hogwash to make one, and only one, conclusion, and proclaim that
this is the only possible conclusion which can be made from an ancient cave drawing.

Hallucinogenic inspiration is almost certainly not the only provenance for ancient drawings, but I think you will find the alternatives are just as mundane.

[Klaatu]

I am going to cut into the rest of this tomorrow, because I am too fatigued and tired to do it tonight.
But since Noxion wishes to challenge me about all of this: I will bring out the bigger picture right now:

Allow me to quote Technocrat:"Are you serious? Your theory completely relies on unknowns, since it relies on subjective..."

How then could you possibly know the velocity of alien spacecraft, which you suggest as "half the velocity of light" (3X10 E8 m/s)
considering that this is not achievable by any known spacecraft?

I am going to challenge you and this Kujlisz character on the claim of "half the speed of light." You state that this velocity
can be achieved by aliens. How could you possibly know this? By our earthly knowledge of physics, which you so
faithfully tout, this is essentially impossible, given the tremendous acceleration forces required to attain such an unthinkable
rate of speed. How can "half-the-speed-of-light" be possible for a one thousand metric ton spacefaring vehicle?

Secondly, what about this expeditious spacecraft bumping into interstellar gas molecules, let alone microscopic rocks?
That is, the amount of momentum that even rarified interstellar hydrogen gas collisions have with the spacecraft, would result
in an increase in hull temperature manifold that of the space shuttle Columbia re-entering Earth atmosphere. That is,
utter incineration, or fusion of the metal hull.

How do these alien spacecraft deal with this? What sort of instability do these vessels experience whilst traveling at
1.5 X10 E8 m/s? Will they completely burn up, or at least get a lot of bugs on their windshield?

In short, PROVE that spaceships can travel 1/2 the speed of light, as per your claim.

[Technocrat]

I am going to cut into the rest of this tomorrow, because I am too fatigued and tired to do it tonight.
But since Noxion wishes to challenge me about all of this: I will bring out the bigger picture right now:

Allow me to quote Technocrat:"Are you serious? Your theory completely relies on unknowns, since it relies on subjective..."

How then could you possibly know the velocity of alien spacecraft, which you suggest as "half the velocity of light" (3X10 E8 m/s)
considering that this is not achievable by any known spacecraft?

I am going to challenge you and this Kujlisz character on the claim of "half the speed of light." You state that this velocity
can be achieved by aliens. How could you possibly know this? By our earthly knowledge of physics, which you so
faithfully tout, this is essentially impossible, given the tremendous acceleration forces required to attain such an unthinkable
rate of speed. How can "half-the-speed-of-light" be possible for a one thousand metric ton spacefaring vehicle?

Secondly, what about this expeditious spacecraft bumping into interstellar gas molecules, let alone microscopic rocks?
That is, the amount of momentum that even rarified interstellar hydrogen gas collisions have with the spacecraft, would result
in an increase in hull temperature manifold that of the space shuttle Columbia re-entering Earth atmosphere. That is,
utter incineration, or fusion of the metal hull.

How do these alien spacecraft deal with this? What sort of instability do these vessels experience whilst traveling at
1.5 X10 E8 m/s? Will they completely burn up, or at least get a lot of bugs on their windshield?

In short, PROVE that spaceships can travel 1/2 the speed of light, as per your claim.

I don't need to prove that spaceships can travel 1/2 the speed of light. If spaceships can travel faster, this only strengthens my argument since it reduces the amount of time required to colonize the galaxy.

1/2c was chosen because c is a limiting velocity in Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. These velocities could be achieved with solar sails or nuclear-fusion powered spacecraft.

If spaceships aren't capable of traveling this fast, then this fits perfectly with what I've said already:

Aliens (the kind that build galactic empires) do not exist. The same argument applies if you assume a max speed of 10%c. If spaceships aren't capable of going even this fast, then how the hell are aliens going to build a galactic empire? If the technology to go fast enough to colonize the galaxy exists, then it would have already happened - this is 99% certain.

[Klaatu]

I don't need to prove that spaceships can travel 1/2 the speed of light. If spaceships can travel faster, this only strengthens
my argument since it reduces the amount of time required to colonize the galaxy.

Oh yes you do need to prove it. You made the statement. According to Noxion, you must prove ideas.

Good luck with that. You can't just pull a number out of a hat and say it is possible. Spacecraft have never achieved
this rate of speed. Therefore the idea that this speed is attainable by a massive object is pure fantasy.

The largest particles humans have artificially gotten up to fractional light speed is the acceleration of subatomic particles
in a particle accelerator, but subatomic particles have very little mass. Even that requires a tremendous amount of energy
just to get these tiny particles to this speed. How are we going to get a massive 1,000 ton spaceship to half the freakin'
speed of light? This is not possible by any known technology.



1/2c was chosen because c is a limiting velocity in Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. These velocities could be achieved
with solar sails or nuclear-fusion powered spacecraft.

This has not been done yet, therefore has not been proven.



If spaceships aren't capable of traveling this fast, then this fits perfectly with what I've said already:
Aliens (the kind that build galactic empires) do not exist. The same argument applies if you assume a max speed of 10%c.
If spaceships aren't capable of going even this fast, then how the hell are aliens going to build a galactic empire? If the
technology to go fast enough to colonize the galaxy exists, then it would have already happened - this is 99% certain.

You said that at "1/2 of C, aliens could have crossed the galaxy 12,000 times." and "this is 99% certain."

Not quite. Pulling numbers out of hats again are we? And who ever brought up "build a galactic empire?"

[Technocrat]

Oh yes you do need to prove it.

Uh, no I don't - this was just explained to you in my previous post. You're caught in a Catch-22: it doesn't matter if the above is 'proven' or 'disproven', because either outcome supports my argument (as is explained in my previous post - I guess you missed that). I guess I'll humor you anyway.


Good luck with that. You can't just pull a number out of a hat and say it is possible. Spacecraft have never achieved
this rate of speed. Therefore the idea that this speed is attainable by a massive object is pure fantasy.Okay, then the idea that aliens could travel across space is also pure fantasy. Unless you are suggesting that they went really slow. If that's the case, this winds up supporting my thesis anyway: aliens that build galactic civilizations don't exist.


The largest particles humans have artificially gotten up to fractional light speed is the acceleration of subatomic particles
in a particle accelerator, but subatomic particles have very little mass. Even that requires a tremendous amount of energy
just to get these tiny particles to this speed. How are we going to get a massive 1,000 ton spaceship to half the freakin'
speed of light? This is not possible by any known technology.Uh, solar sails? Nuclear-powered spacecraft? I already mentioned these to you. With laser-driven solar sails there is no limit to how fast you can go. Theoretically, there's no reason why a laser-driven solar sail propelled spacecraft couldn't attain 99% the speed of light.


This has not been done yet, therefore has not been proven.It doesn't have to be done for it to be proven - that's why we have mathematics and the scientific method. Science can never prove anything 100%, it tells us what is MORE likely and what is LESS likely.


You said that at "1/2 of C, aliens could have crossed the galaxy 12,000 times." and "this is 99% certain."

Not quite. Pulling numbers out of hats again are we? And who ever brought up "build a galactic empire?"Now you're just failing to understand BASIC MATH.

The galaxy is (roughly) 100,000 light years across. The galaxy is roughly 13 billion years old.

Going half the speed of light, it would take 200,000 years to cross the galaxy.

12 billion divided by 200,000 equals 65,000. Or 65,000 chunks of 200,000 years during which aliens could have crossed the entire freakin' galaxy. So 12,000 was a conservative estimate.

Again, we can know the above with more than 99% certainty. The only assumptions that are required are 1) we exist and 2) the galaxy exists the way we see it

Let's be really conservative and say that there were 'more than 10,000 periods of time during which the entire galaxy could have been colonized'. Infer what you want from that. An intelligent person will look at that and infer 'that's because space-colonizing aliens never existed'. A person with a vested interest will begin concocting conspiracy theories: 'they already live among us'.

Ignoring conspiracy theories, it comes down to one of three possibilities that I mentioned earlier:



1) we are the first intelligent beings to exist in our galaxy
2) intelligent aliens exist elsewhere (and/or have existed elsewhere) but took no interest in colonizing the galaxy, or they were content with settling a small region of space. This could be due to the tremendous resources involved with space colonization and the centuries-long return on investment.
3) the aliens may be a-technological or more 'spiritual' in nature - 'Avatar' aliens. This may be the norm, while our expansive nature may be atypical (or even unique to us).

[Klaatu]

Uh, no I don't - this was just explained to you in my previous post. You're caught in a Catch-22: it doesn't matter if
the above is 'proven' or 'disproven', because either outcome supports my argument (as is explained in my previous
post - I guess you missed that). I guess I'll humor you anyway.

Hahaha! No sir, it is YOU who that has the conundrum. Your argument might be supported, or my argument might be supported.
The "catch-22" is that the issue cannot be solved on conjecture alone. And "speed of alien spaceships" is not known, nor
cannot be known, at least not until contact is made, and information is shared or at least observed. My guess is that terminal
velocity of alien space vessels (if they exist) would be not more than a few multiples of that of human spacecraft. That is, unless
some (unknown to us) method of propulsion is employed.



Okay, then the idea that aliens could travel across space is also pure fantasy. Unless you are suggesting that they went
really slow. If that's the case, this winds up supporting my thesis anyway: aliens that build galactic civilizations don't exist.

Suppose you had grown up in a cave, in the jungle, with no contact with the outside world whatsoever, your entire life.
You had never seen TV, a newspaper, an airplane, not a thing which would suggest that billions of people live within
12,000 miles of you (half of earth circumference) You might think that no one else existed on this planet. And that
might be a valid conjecture, on your part, since you had not ever seen another human being. See the analogy here?



Uh, solar sails? Nuclear-powered spacecraft? I already mentioned these to you. With laser-driven solar sails there is no
limit to how fast you can go. Theoretically, there's no reason why a laser-driven solar sail propelled spacecraft couldn't
attain 99% the speed of light.

"Theoretically?" Do you know a thing at all about physics?



It doesn't have to be done for it to be proven - that's why we have mathematics and the scientific method. Science can
never prove anything 100%, it tells us what is MORE likely and what is LESS likely.

There has to be at least EVIDENCE for a process to be proven.



Do you know a thing at all about mathematics, for that matter. And true, we cannot prove 100%, that is why we use
the method of statistical signigicance, which requires hard dATA, not guess work.

Agreed. So please show us your "hard data" that large spacecraft can travel at half the speed of light.



Now you're just failing to understand BASIC MATH.

The galaxy is (roughly) 100,000 light years across. The galaxy is roughly 13 billion years old.

Going half the speed of light, it would take 200,000 years to cross the galaxy.

12 billion divided by 200,000 equals 65,000. Or 65,000 chunks of 200,000 years during which aliens could have crossed
the entire freakin' galaxy. So 12,000 was a conservative estimate.

Again, we can know the above with more than 99% certainty. The only assumptions that are required are 1) we exist and
2) the galaxy exists the way we see it


Just leave out the dubious "half the speed of light" claim, and your idea might actually be sound.

Even if you were correct about the "12,000 times," how can you be so certain that we have not BEEN visited "12,000 times" already?
The evidence is stronger to suggest (not prove) this than not. Where is the evidence to prove the contrary? The fact that
ancients made use of hallucinogenic drugs does not completely rule out the possibility that ufo sightings are real.

Granted, most sightings are of mundane objects (clouds, balloons, etc) but the FACT is that many sightings still remain
unexplained. And even this does not PROVE that they are from other worlds, but it does strongly SUGGEST that outcome.



Let's be really conservative and say that there were 'more than 10,000 periods of time during which the entire galaxy
could have been colonized'. Infer what you want from that. An intelligent person will look at that and infer 'that's because
space-colonizing aliens never existed'. A person with a vested interest will begin concocting conspiracy theories: 'they
already live among us'.

Let's be really conservative and say that there was only ONE visit, all of those years; this is NOT impossible.

I will grant you this much: healthy skepticism is a good thing, otherwise the masses might wrongly believe in superstition,
fairy tales, religion, capitalism... (oops! I guess most humans are not there quite yet, you know, the "age of reason?") ;)

[Blake's Baby]

...

Even if you were correct about the "12,000 times," how can you be so certain that we have not BEEN visited "12,000 times" already?
The evidence is stronger to suggest (not prove) this than not. Where is the evidence to prove the contrary? The fact that
ancients made use of hallucinogenic drugs does not completely rule out the possibility that ufo sightings are real.

Granted, most sightings are of mundane objects (clouds, balloons, etc) but the FACT is that many sightings still remain
unexplained. And even this does not PROVE that they are from other worlds, but it does strongly SUGGEST that outcome....

False.

You really don't seem to get this.

We can't prove aliens have not visited, just as we can't prove unicorns don't exist, God is a myth or that you're not an 8-metre slug who lives on a giant cabbage leaf.

We may suspect that aliens have not visited, unicorns don't exist, god is a myth and you're not a giant slug; we may think these things are very likely in fact; we may demonstrate mathematically that it is unlikely that aliens have visited or that slugs can type. But we can never actually prove it. This is entirtely consistent with scientific method.

However, moving from "how can you be so certain that we have not BEEN visited ...
The evidence is stronger to suggest (not prove) this than not. ... The fact that
ancients made use of hallucinogenic drugs does not completely rule out the possibility that ufo sightings are real..." is unscientific.

The part that annoys me particularly is where you say that the evidence 'is stronger to suggest this than not...' and then say that our evidence 'does not completely rule out the possibility'...

So, it is a 'possibility' that isn't completely ruled out (a slim chance, let's say)? Or is it 'strong evidence'? You can prove your case any time you like, by producing firm evidence of alien visitation. A documented film for instance where humans converse with alien visitors, some alien technology, a spaceship perhaps; the memoirs of government personel who have spoken with aliens or had dealings with them; the US's list of ambassadors to alien civilisations. Any or all of these will be fine.

In the mean time, I demand that you prove that elves don't exist, because if you don't you're just part of the unscientific government cover-up that won't admit 'tHE tRUTH'.

[x371322]

Aliens exist, aliens don't exist, does it really matter that much? It doesn't seem like either side is really making any progress here. Personally I think it would be incredible if all this were true, but I'm not going to waste my life away waiting on some savior(s) that may or may not exist. I'd much rather worry about what I know exists, and work from there. It's just another religion to me.

In fact, EnviroWhacko's positions reminds me a lot of the Raelians. You're not involved with the Raelian movement by any chance are you comrade? It's a ufo religion that basically says aliens created us, and are coming back one day to help us or something along those lines. It sounds a lot like what you've been advocating in this thread. Interesting stuff to be sure, and quite honestly I hope you're right... but it seems like wishful thinking to me.

[Klaatu]

False.

You really don't seem to get this.

We can't prove aliens have not visited, just as we can't prove unicorns don't exist, God is a myth or that you're not
an 8-metre slug who lives on a giant cabbage leaf.

We may suspect that aliens have not visited, unicorns don't exist, god is a myth and you're not a giant slug; we may
think these things are very likely in fact; we may demonstrate mathematically that it is unlikely that aliens have visited
or that slugs can type. But we can never actually prove it. This is entirtely consistent with scientific method.

However, moving from "how can you be so certain that we have not BEEN visited ...
The evidence is stronger to suggest (not prove) this than not. ... The fact that
ancients made use of hallucinogenic drugs does not completely rule out the possibility that ufo sightings are real..." is unscientific.

The part that annoys me particularly is where you say that the evidence 'is stronger to suggest this than not...' and then
say that our evidence 'does not completely rule out the possibility'...

So, it is a 'possibility' that isn't completely ruled out (a slim chance, let's say)? Or is it 'strong evidence'? You can prove
your case any time you like, by producing firm evidence of alien visitation. A documented film for instance where humans
converse with alien visitors, some alien technology, a spaceship perhaps; the memoirs of government personel who have
spoken with aliens or had dealings with them; the US's list of ambassadors to alien civilisations. Any or all of these will be fine.

In the mean time, I demand that you prove that elves don't exist, because if you don't you're just part of the unscientific
government cover-up that won't admit 'tHE tRUTH'.

I guess you are making a too-tight bond between "evidence" and "proof." When I say "evidence," it can mean "suggest"
or "surmise" by logical induction. Let's face it: the evidence on both sides is NOT strong. It is, in fact, even somewhat
flimsy, by legal standards. I've been saying right along that my ideas are subjective, conjecture, guesses, ideas, etc.
I just wish to present ideas of possibilities. Don't take that as somehow being an insistence on ultimate truth.

I have NEVER said that it is "proven fact" that aliens (A) exist, (B) have visited, (C) or have kidnapped humans!
I have only said that there are unexplained UFO sightings and (alleged) ufo abductions (of which I myself am slightly
skeptical of, but I keep an open mind) Also, I've suggested that we could have had contact, but millions of years ago,
not necessarily in the present. Contact is not a complete impossibility.

I am simply bothered by those who (a) magically transpose 20% into 100%, (b) make claims of "half the speed of light,"
(c) blatantly dismiss ancient writings and drawings' interpretations of all but THEIR OWN opinion (classic my-way-or-the-highway
sentiment.) What authority do these people possess, to abolish any alternative interpretation? None. None at all.

But of course, don't take this whole thing too seriously; nothing can really be scientifically proven via what limited knowlege
we have anyway. We can only guess about these things at this point in time.



In fact, EnviroWhacko's positions reminds me a lot of the Raelians. You're not involved with the Raelian movement by
any chance are you comrade? It's a ufo religion that basically says aliens created us, and are coming back one day to
help us or something along those lines. It sounds a lot like what you've been advocating in this thread. Interesting stuff
to be sure, and quite honestly I hope you're right... but it seems like wishful thinking to me.

Never heard of them. But it does sound like an interesting group to investigate. But then, I don't think much of religion
(especially religious cults.)

Thanks for the info.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hahaha! No sir, it is YOU who that has the conundrum. Your argument might be supported, or my argument might be supported.
The "catch-22" is that the issue cannot be solved on conjecture alone.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Simply by observing space from our viewpoint, we can rule out certain kinds of alien civilisation as likely possibilities.


And "speed of alien spaceships" is not known, nor
cannot be known, at least not until contact is made, and information is shared or at least observed.

Again, untrue. The speed of alien ships can be deduced from the laws of physics.


My guess is that terminal
velocity of alien space vessels (if they exist) would be not more than a few multiples of that of human spacecraft. That is, unless
some (unknown to us) method of propulsion is employed.

Rocket engines don't work that way. It's not about power, it's about specific impulse and Delta V. Read and learn (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c.html).

Of course, if they could use reactionless drives (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3am.html), which physics strongly suggests is unlikely, you would face the same problem that you would if alien vessels were super-fast - that would just reinforce the Fermi Paradox because reactionless drives make travel between the stars easier.


Suppose you had grown up in a cave, in the jungle, with no contact with the outside world whatsoever, your entire life.
You had never seen TV, a newspaper, an airplane, not a thing which would suggest that billions of people live within
12,000 miles of you (half of earth circumference) You might think that no one else existed on this planet. And that
might be a valid conjecture, on your part, since you had not ever seen another human being. See the analogy here?

No. Because unlike your hermit, we can peer into space. We have yet to observe any Dyson spheres, so that rules out aliens capable of building such structures.


"Theoretically?" Do you know a thing at all about physics?

Do you? Because there's nothing unphysical about reaching such speeds.


There has to be at least EVIDENCE for a process to be proven.

Most advanced propulsion schemes, because they are proposed by real scientists and engineers, are based on well-understood physical phenomena. The grim reality of space-based industry means that it will be some time before such schemes reach the prototype stage.


Agreed. So please show us your "hard data" that large spacecraft can travel at half the speed of light.

Simple. A large spacecraft can carry a larger amount of propellant. A microgram of antimatter has the energy of 43 kilograms of TNT, making antimatter a highly efficient fuel.


Just leave out the dubious "half the speed of light" claim, and your idea might actually be sound.

Even if you were correct about the "12,000 times," how can you be so certain that we have not BEEN visited "12,000 times" already?
The evidence is stronger to suggest (not prove) this than not.

What evidence?


Where is the evidence to prove the contrary?

For fuck's sake. It's been pointed out to you multiple times that's not how evidence works.


The fact that
ancients made use of hallucinogenic drugs does not completely rule out the possibility that ufo sightings are real.

But it does cut the ground out from under your claim that ancient drawings show alien spacemen.


Granted, most sightings are of mundane objects (clouds, balloons, etc) but the FACT is that many sightings still remain
unexplained. And even this does not PROVE that they are from other worlds, but it does strongly SUGGEST that outcome.

It does no such thing. Being unexplained, they don't suggest shit.


Let's be really conservative and say that there was only ONE visit, all of those years; this is NOT impossible.

Maybe it is possible, but where's the evidence?


I will grant you this much: healthy skepticism is a good thing, otherwise the masses might wrongly believe in superstition,
fairy tales, religion, capitalism... (oops! I guess most humans are not there quite yet, you know, the "age of reason?") ;)

Yes, skepticism is healthy. It's just such a pity you don't seem to want to apply it.

[Technocrat]

some stuff

What's really sad here is that you actually think you are being scientific, when you are waist deep in pseudoscience. I could just repeat the same arguments to you again, which you have clearly failed to understand, but I see little point in it. If you don't get it the first three times I explain it, I can't help you.

Seriously, I have explained multiple times to you how the speed of spacecraft is irrelevant to the discussion since either way it ends up supporting my argument, yet you continue to press this issue. This is just one example of your repeated failure to grasp what is being said to you.

[mikelepore]

Here's a relativistic kinetic energy calculator:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/entities/calculators/relativistic_kinetic_energy/oo/bd/na/
For example, 1000 kg at 0.5 c is 10^19 J.

[Klaatu]

The original question was "Do Aliens Exist?"
I am thinking that most of us here believe that they DO exist, but the debate has become about whether
they have visited Earth or not. That has become a debate on whether high-fractional light speeds are feasible.


Rocket engines don't work that way. It's not about power, it's about specific impulse and Delta V. Read and learn.


That web page is about interplanetary travel, not so much interstellar travel? (thank you for posting the link)

To achieve half-of-light speed, we need:

The acceleration required: a = 1,900 m/s2 (this is almost 200g's; this would crush any living organism)
This accel must be maintained for 22 hrs to achieve 1/2 C (in m= 1 X10E6 kg vessel)
This gets it up tp 1/2 C just as we exit the solar system's outermost body, Pluto.

Impulse = ∆p (momentum) = Ft
A rocket (of any type) also exhibits a continuously negative ∆mass, due to used-up fuel.
(this gives greater acceleration as fuel mass disappears; we need calculus to find the variable effect on accel)
Required impulse of a rocket depends on it's proximity to strong gravitational fields (e.g. Earth surface at launch)

Impulse = Force • time = 2X10E10 Newtons • 8X10E4 seconds = 1.6 X 10E15 Ns

Total Work = ∆Kinetic energy= 2X10E10 Newtons • 6X10E12 meters = 1X10E23 Nm (Joules) required

Power required = 1X 10E23 J / 8X10E4 s = 1.4X 10E18 J/s (Watts)


Type I — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available on a single planet — has
approximately 1016 or 1017 W available.[2] Earth specifically has an available power of 1.74 × 1017 W
source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scaleThus almost 10 times the total power output of the Earth is required to accelerate this rocket to 1/2 C.
(note: total solar output = 4 X10E26 Watts)

For known technology: This requires 2.5 X10E15 kg of conventional fuel (gasoline was chosen)
Also the required oxidizer (LOX)= 1.8 X10E16 kg This = 2 X10E16 kg of total propellant.
The ship itself is only 1 X10E6 kg !

This is not feasible. Neither is 200g's of acceleration.

Yes I do know a thing or two about physics. What were you going to teach me? ;)

[Klaatu]

EnviroWhacko
"Suppose you had grown up in a cave, in the jungle, with no contact with the outside world whatsoever, your entire life.
You had never seen TV, a newspaper, an airplane, not a thing which would suggest that billions of people live within
12,000 miles of you (half of earth circumference) You might think that no one else existed on this planet. And that
might be a valid conjecture, on your part, since you had not ever seen another human being. See the analogy here?"

Noxion
"No. Because unlike your hermit, we can peer into space. We have yet to observe any Dyson spheres, so that rules out aliens capable of building such structures."

The hermit sees long thin clouds, high up in the sky. At times, he even sees them being created. They are just jet planes, his own "Unidentified Flying Object." He begins to wonder if there are other intelligent beings not too far away, since he surmises this to not be a natural event?

Have you ever gone to your refrigerator, looking for the jar of mustard, yet not see it, even though you suddenly discover it was right there in front of you the whole time? That is to say, I don't think it is good science to just rule out aliens, based upon the absence of hard evidence. That is because we have just begun the search...

[x371322]

Have you ever gone to your refrigerator, looking for the jar of mustard, yet not see it, even though you suddenly discover it was right there in front of you the whole time?

:laugh: Except, in this situation, you know it's in there, because you just bought the damn mustard last week. All this alien talk is mere speculation. Analogies don't really mean much. Losing the mustard is absolutely nothing like looking for aliens.

[Klaatu]

:laugh: Except, in this situation, you know it's in there, because you just bought the damn mustard last week. All this alien talk is mere speculation. Analogies don't really mean much. Losing the mustard is absolutely nothing like looking for aliens.

Apparently you do not live with a large family :D

[x371322]

Apparently you do not live with a large family :D

Haha. Nope. You've got me there I guess.

[Technocrat]

The original question was "Do Aliens Exist?"
I am thinking that most of us here believe that they DO exist, but the debate has become about whether
they have visited Earth or not. That has become a debate on whether high-fractional light speeds are feasible.


That web page is about interplanetary travel, not so much interstellar travel? (thank you for posting the link)

To achieve half-of-light speed, we need:

The acceleration required: a = 1,900 m/s2 (this is almost 200g's; this would crush any living organism)
This accel must be maintained for 22 hrs to achieve 1/2 C (in m= 1 X10E6 kg vessel)
This gets it up tp 1/2 C just as we exit the solar system's outermost body, Pluto.

Impulse = ∆p (momentum) = Ft
A rocket (of any type) also exhibits a continuously negative ∆mass, due to used-up fuel.
(this gives greater acceleration as fuel mass disappears; we need calculus to find the variable effect on accel)
Required impulse of a rocket depends on it's proximity to strong gravitational fields (e.g. Earth surface at launch)

Impulse = Force • time = 2X10E10 Newtons • 8X10E4 seconds = 1.6 X 10E15 Ns

Total Work = ∆Kinetic energy= 2X10E10 Newtons • 6X10E12 meters = 1X10E23 Nm (Joules) required

Power required = 1X 10E23 J / 8X10E4 s = 1.4X 10E18 J/s (Watts)
Thus almost 10 times the total power output of the Earth is required to accelerate this rocket to 1/2 C.
(note: total solar output = 4 X10E26 Watts)

For known technology: This requires 2.5 X10E15 kg of conventional fuel (gasoline was chosen)
Also the required oxidizer (LOX)= 1.8 X10E16 kg This = 2 X10E16 kg of total propellant.
The ship itself is only 1 X10E6 kg !

This is not feasible. Neither is 200g's of acceleration.

Yes I do know a thing or two about physics. What were you going to teach me? ;)


I'm going to ignore all the glaring errors in the above for now and just focus on the following:

You just attempted to prove that spacecraft can't travel fast. This supports my general thesis that aliens, the kind that go around the galaxy colonizing planets like in Star Trek, don't exist. The slower your theoretical limit on space ship speed is, the less likely it is that we have been visited in the past. I won't go over the details again of why this is, you can read my previous posts for that - I've already explained it multiple times. This is straightforward mathematics.

[Klaatu]

I'm going to ignore all the glaring errors in the above for now and just focus on the following:

You just attempted to prove that spacecraft can't travel fast. This supports my general thesis that aliens, the kind that go around the galaxy colonizing planets like in Star Trek, don't exist. The slower your theoretical limit on space ship speed is, the less likely it is that we have been visited in the past. I won't go over the details again of why this is, you can read my previous posts for that - I've already explained it multiple times. This is straightforward mathematics.

Firstly: what are the "glaring errors?" :confused:

Would you like to see my calculations and sources? I left them out for the sake of simplicity.

[Technocrat]

Firstly: what are the "glaring errors?" :confused:

Would you like to see my calculations and sources? I left them out for the sake of simplicity.

Firstly?

You mean, ignoring the fact that this line of argument essentially disproves your original claim?

[t.shonku]

Linear Travelling in space is almost impossible bcoz of the huge distances even in terms of light years.So if any one was to travel they would have to manupulate with the space time fabric.
And as far as Aliens go I think they are all kept in Area 51;),Area 51 is basically like cosmic Heathrow Airport:laugh:

[Klaatu]

You mean, ignoring the fact that this line of argument essentially disproves your original claim?

(a) You sure like to throw "facts" around. Be careful of the word fact.

(b) My calculations only demonstrate one thing: That it is not feasible to achieve 1/2 C
with any known technology, at least not without incurring enormous expense for fuel.
Noxion's rocket page link suggests antimatter fuel (but the cost is 25 million dollars per gram!)
Nuclear fuel would cost somewhere between that and ordinary combustible fuels, but still very
expensive. Also nuclear fuel leaves noxious radioactive waste in the wake of the ship.

(c) None of this "disproves" the notion of extraterrestrial travelers having visiting here.
Just because the aliens (assuming they exist, of course) did not likely get here by ultra-high
light speed does not mean they could not have gotten here at all. They could have traveled
much slower than light, say, 1/1000 C. (1.1 X 10E6 km/hr) and gotten here in less than 16
million years. But that's assuming they went from one edge of the galaxy to the other.
Perhaps they were much closer, say the journey only took 2 million years at 1/1000 C?
Even so, that would certainly be multigenerational "E.T's" (and/or in suspended animation?)

Anyway, they've had up to 12 billion years to arrive here!

Again, aliens' travels are pure conjecture. The only facts given here are physical calculations of travel possibilities.

[revolution inaction]

(a) You sure like to throw "facts" around. Be careful of the word fact.

(b) My calculations only demonstrate one thing: That it is not feasible to achieve 1/2 C
with any known technology, at least not without incurring enormous expense for fuel.
Noxion's rocket page link suggests antimatter fuel (but the cost is 25 million dollars per gram!)
Nuclear fuel would cost somewhere between that and ordinary combustible fuels, but still very
expensive. Also nuclear fuel leaves noxious radioactive waste in the wake of the ship.

space is full of radiation, there isn't that much we could do to make it worse




(c) None of this "disproves" the notion of extraterrestrial travelers having visiting here.
Just because the aliens (assuming they exist, of course) did not likely get here by ultra-high
light speed does not mean they could not have gotten here at all. They could have traveled
much slower than light, say, 1/1000 C. (1.1 X 10E6 km/hr) and gotten here in less than 16
million years. But that's assuming they went from one edge of the galaxy to the other.
Perhaps they were much closer, say the journey only took 2 million years at 1/1000 C?
Even so, that would certainly be multigenerational "E.T's" (and/or in suspended animation?)

Anyway, they've had up to 12 billion years to arrive here!

Again, aliens' travels are pure conjecture. The only facts given here are physical calculations of travel possibilities.


we don't need to prove alians didn't get here, the people who say they did are to ones who need to provide the evidence.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I'm guessing there has to be some kind of life forms out there not on Earth but wether we will actually will discover them is uncertain.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Alien: being or from or characteristic of another place or part of the world;

With this definition, & with the majority belief that there are other life forms outside of the earths atmosphere, then those on earth are aliens to those outside the atmosphere as well. We are aliens, as others are too.

[Blake's Baby]

Got to agree withVeg Athei Socialist. Just as uncertain is if they'll discover us. So far the jury isn't even out. I think most of us think the judge dismissed the jury ages ago citing 'no case to answer'.

[Red Saxon]

I saw a theory that suggested that you could "move" faster than the speed of light by folding the space in front of you while expanding the space behind you. This would create a wave-like affect and would allow your ship to "move" while in reality not actually being thrusted forward.

Or we could just invent stargates :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I saw a theory that suggested that you could "move" faster than the speed of light by folding the space in front of you while expanding the space behind you. This would create a wave-like affect and would allow your ship to "move" while in reality not actually being thrusted forward.

Inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)) suggests that it may be possible to expand/contract space at faster than light speeds. The Alcubierre drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive) takes advantage of this, although it is not without its own problems, such as the need for large amounts of (possibly non-physical) negative energy.


Or we could just invent stargates :P

Traversable wormholes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Traversable_wormholes) appear to be possible, although it remains to be seen if they can actually be built.

The Fermi paradox indicates such FTL methods are either extremely difficult or unworkable.

[Rogue Trooper]

Its a simple question they exist but they've never visited our planet

[Jazzhands]

It's mathematically impossible for aliens NOT to exist. Earth supports life, correct? So we're one planet in god knows how many others there are in the universe. Even if we were one in something like 10 million, that still leaves BILLIONS of other life-supporting planets. And they don't even need to be planets like Earth. Alien life is likely beyond our capacity to understand, as we are to them, since aliens are built for conditions on their planet. For all we know, there can be aliens on Jupiter that are just floating gasbags. But I highly doubt it.

[Blake's Baby]

No, it's not impossible. It's just really really unlikely.

On the other hand, unlikely things happen. Our entire universe is probably just a grand quantum fluctuation.

[mcg]

Any beings intelligent enough to get here, will have levels of science that will make our resources worthless. Aliens will not be colonialists, we're unlikely to catch smallpox, and I don't think intelligence can coexist with malevolently violent tendencies. Thus, I don't think contact with aliens will go badly. Nevertheless, it will be something totally new and therefore possibly dangerous. We should try anyway the chance of good things happening outweighs the chance of bad things happening.

[praxis1966]

I'm sure somebody's already said this, but since I can't be arsed (as the English would say) to read the whole damned thing I'm going to say it anyway. To address the thread topic: I don't remember who said the following, but I think it applies here as well, "The question isn't whether or not god exists. The question is, even if god does exist, would that change anything?" Substitute "aliens" wherever you see "god" in that quotation and you've just about summed up my thoughts on the matter, you know, seeing as how there's no current evidence of either.

Further, and I know from past experience that Noxion just loves it when I go all Carlin, but I just can't help myself when it comes to the following.


We should try anyway the chance of good things happening outweighs the chance of bad things happening.

Yes, because I'm sure they'll be so overwhelmingly awestruck by dinner theatre, lemon flavored dental floss, shoes with lights in the heels and all the other impressive innovations we've come up with in our time down here.

[t.shonku]

Watch this videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQVuqpOKfYc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo6Z_26PqcI&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pCGQuHwxxU&feature=related

[Wolf Larson]

Hawking talked about this in a video that get's played a lot on TV. I can't remember whether it's on the History Channel or the Science Channel. He says he's making a conclusion from the history of more technological societies coming into contact with less technological societies, where the common trend is for one to enslave the other. For this reason he believes that gold record launched on Voyager in 1977 was a bad idea. We sent the aliens a map to tell them where to find us, so they can come here and enslave us. I can't accept his reasoning. If they are so advanced that they can travel between the stars, their level of automation must be so advanced that our labor would be useless to them. Likewise with the suggestion that the aliens might come here to eat us. If they were capable of interstellar travel they would already know how to manipulate atoms to produce anything that they wish to eat.
(human) projection. i also wasn't fond of his 'superior culture' analysis....after all it was the westerners disease that did most of the work. Latin America wasn't some stone age voodoo cult, not any more than the christian west but according to bourgeois historians they were all ignorant savages.

[IslamicMarxist]

Are you kidding? We are nothing in this universe. Look, our solar system, is bigger beyond imagination, now make that smaller than a germ, that's the solar system compared to the galaxy, and theres billions and billions of galaxys, and those galaxys are in some sort of space cloud, and theres millions of those space clouds containing billions of galaxys. And one would say that we are the only planet with life? ridiculous. However, I don't believe in UFOs. If aliens were that advanced to visit earth, they are Communists :lol:

[IslamicMarxist]

Isn't Stephen Hawking's mental stability questionable these days? First he claims we are all doomed if we don't leave the planet. Now he claims aliens are a dangerous threat mankind should avoid.

The general argument for the existence of aliens is probabilities. The universe is big, and life will ultimately emerge again. The probability of life emerging could be anything. It could have been lower in the past and be higher now. There isn't much data to draw upon.

I'd say belief in aliens doesn't matter much. Space exploration is valuable for other reasons. In terms of resource distribution, I'd place funding for alien searching very low on the list.

I think extraterrestrial life would be interesting, but I'm certainly not worried about external threats. For all we know, the aliens are just as likely to help us than harm us, just as likely to steal our garbage as steal our oil.

The only true way that an Internationale can be formed and world peace is formed is something outside earth will attack. War means unity, it's horrible but true. If Aliens attacked us, we would all unite. But since we don't know about any other life, we attack each other, because we are the only ones to kill. Humans are the most barbaric species known to history.

[t.shonku]

A spectacular rescue of human civilization in 2012 by the advanced extraterrestrial type IV alien civilization – can it really happen?
India Daily Technology Team
Sep. 18, 2005



According to many researchers earth is destined to a severe test of survivability between now and 2012. Many ancient legends call for something that will happen in 2012 that will change human civilization forever. It does not mean world will come to an end but something will happen that will change the way we live, we think and so on.
Many researchers watching the UFO sightings, flight patterns and extreme increase in the number of natural calamities predict a spectacular phenomenon.
According to these think tanks, earth will face extreme flood in the coastal cities, extreme devastation of the earth’s crust through endless earthquakes, enormous volcanic activities, landslides, Tsunamis and so on.
The earth may become a planet not suitable to support intelligent life forms any more. What happened to Atlantis many years back may happen to the whole earth in a mega scale. All these can be caused due to excessive solar storms and weakness in the earth’s magnetosphere. The earth is in the process reversing its polarity and so is Sun. No one really knows what the net effects will be!
No one knows what will be the intensity of devastation – but is true that we will experience exceeding amount of natural calamities between now and 2012.
According to some thinks tanks, our civilization may be savede by some spectacular rescue efforts by the advanced extraterrestrial type IV alien civilization. According to these future observers, there are possibilities; we will be transported out to some other planets in distant galaxies or even out of this Universe into another Universe in the Hyperspace.
They see possibilities of spectacular events where our precious civilization will be saved. Some believe that something else will happen! We will not experience any significant problems at all. The extraterrestrial type IV civilizations will provide electromagnetic shield to us by hardening earth’s magnetosphere by many folds.





To check authenticity of this post click the link below
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/4642.asp

[Glenn Beck]

Aliens had sex with our ancestors and gave us opposable thumbs.

[Blake's Baby]

That was nice them (the Aliens). And indeed it might nice have been nice for them (our ancestors). And were they communists with opposable thumbs?

[Nolan]

http://dirtyharrysplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/alien-mannequin-exhibit.jpg

Does this answer the question?

[XxKrebsxX]

There is a strong possibility of alien life here in our very solar system. Of course, it won't be intelligent but it could be entire marine ecology in Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.

They say it could mimic deep ocean microorganisms like we have here in the oceans near thermal vents. Basically, scientists believe that sheet of ice cover's Europa's surface and underneath there is a vast ocean all around the moon. It really is exciting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29#Potential_for_extraterrestrial_l ife

[Telemakus]

Do aliens exist? Probably, somewhere out there.

But let's not worry about that, and focus on the species of our own planet first...

[DaComm]

Steven Hawkings claims that attempting to associate with extraterrestrial beings is not the brightest idea. He claims that all of our attempted sent messages to outer-space that we hoped reached alien life will only bring the aliens to the conclusion that we most certainly exist. He believes this will prompt them to invade, yada yada yada, it will resemble the English colonization of Native American soil. Thoughts on this? When I heard about this, after reading the first sentence, I came to the conclusion that this is all based on concrete fact and that it must be true. Hard facts are not needed to back up such a bold and determined statement! How did Hawkings become famous anyway?

[Blake's Baby]

By working out that Fred Hoyle's mathematics was wrong, and therefore the Big Bang probably happened; then he mathematically proved that Black Holes were real, 16 years before the direct evidence for their existence was observed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Steven Hawkings claims that attempting to associate with extraterrestrial beings is not the brightest idea. He claims that all of our attempted sent messages to outer-space that we hoped reached alien life will only bring the aliens to the conclusion that we most certainly exist. He believes this will prompt them to invade, yada yada yada, it will resemble the English colonization of Native American soil. Thoughts on this? When I heard about this, after reading the first sentence, I came to the conclusion that this is all based on concrete fact and that it must be true. Hard facts are not needed to back up such a bold and determined statement! How did Hawkings become famous anyway?

The problem I have with Hawking is his assumption that aliens will invade if they discover our presence. Since we haven't found any nearby Dyson spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere), that means that any alien civilisation nearby will have a Kardashev scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) of less than II. This means that interstellar travel is still expensive (in terms of energy and resources - a Kardashev I civilisation would be post-scarcity in terms of money) and possibly risky for them.

Besides, what could we possibly have that a Type I civilisation wouldn't have in abundance?

[revolution inaction]

The problem I have with Hawking is his assumption that aliens will invade if they discover our presence. Since we haven't found any nearby Dyson spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere), that means that any alien civilisation nearby will have a Kardashev scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) of less than II. This means that interstellar travel is still expensive (in terms of energy and resources - a Kardashev I civilisation would be post-scarcity in terms of money) and possibly risky for them.

Besides, what could we possibly have that a Type I civilisation wouldn't have in abundance?

since dyson spheres are suposst to absorb as close to all the energy radiated by a star as possible, and we have barely started so servay stars for planets, and even then we can only spot the ones with a convenent orientation, (about 3-7% of cases i think) and even this is in its infancey they what is it that makes you think that we would be know about a dyson sphere if there was one?

[Devrim]

Any beings intelligent enough to get here, will have levels of science that will make our resources worthless. Aliens will not be colonialists, we're unlikely to catch smallpox, and I don't think intelligence can coexist with malevolently violent tendencies. Thus, I don't think contact with aliens will go badly. Nevertheless, it will be something totally new and therefore possibly dangerous. We should try anyway the chance of good things happening outweighs the chance of bad things happening.

This sort of ignores much of human history.

Devrim

[Blake's Baby]

But the point that those of us who believe that interstellar aliens will almost certainly be communists are trying to make is, unless they've gotten over their competative phase of development and settled down a bit to form the World Centaran Community, for instance, they're more likely to wipe themselves out than form a society capable of dedicating itself to interstellar travel.

I really do believe that we'd be a lot closer to it now, had the history of the 20th century turned out differently.

[Devrim]

But the point that those of us who believe that interstellar aliens will almost certainly be communists are trying to make is, unless they've gotten over their competative phase of development and settled down a bit to form the World Centaran Community, for instance, they're more likely to wipe themselves out than form a society capable of dedicating itself to interstellar travel.

I think that aliens could be more alien than we imagine and have a completely different history of societal development from us. Maybe they never even had a 'competitive phase'.

Devrim

[PoliticalNightmare]

Because the universe has an infinite capacity (it goes on forever), everything is possible. This means that both other life forms and intelligent life forms are not only possible, but it is impossible that they can't exist within a territory that never finishes. It is possible that within every solar system there is some form of life.

Whether intelligent life is hostile or in a local (reachable) distance is purely a matter of chance. I am more interested in whether it is possible to find habitable planets nearby as the human race will eventually wholly consume this planet's available resources.