I believe there are other lifeforms in the universe and they are nothing like we can imagine yet.
Study finds no evidence for UFOs
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
So do I; given what we know of the cosmos it seems highly improbable there's nobody here but us, but given the scale of things and the limitations imposed by what we know of physics, it seems equally improbable that anyone's ever visited us. I can't imagine a more exciting or significant news story than a report of clear evidence there's another intelligence out there, but so far we have no evidence either way.
But on another other hand, somebody has to be first. Maybe it's us.
But on another other hand, somebody has to be first. Maybe it's us.
There's an awful lot of unexplained things that would make alot more sense if the existence of UFO's was ever validated... but I'm going on the presumption that any life form that has perfected space travel has also evolved enough to know when NOT to make contact or leave irrefutable evidence of their existence...hmmm I think Star Trek called it the Prime Directive?? :lol:
and on that note, I wonder what we'll do if one of our probes ever actually finds intelligent life out there - will we try to colonize it, plunder its' resources, convert it to a more 'humane' way of life? <shudder>
I don't think we're ready as a species to interact with other species yet, and I think the word is out. They're stayin' outta our sandbox for now til they get the memo saying it's ok, Earth is all growed up and ready to play nice with the big boys.
and on that note, I wonder what we'll do if one of our probes ever actually finds intelligent life out there - will we try to colonize it, plunder its' resources, convert it to a more 'humane' way of life? <shudder>
I don't think we're ready as a species to interact with other species yet, and I think the word is out. They're stayin' outta our sandbox for now til they get the memo saying it's ok, Earth is all growed up and ready to play nice with the big boys.
Karl Sagan
in his Cosmo series, laid out the possibility of extraterrestrial life very well. I don't remember the exact numbers but it seems to me he very logically suggested that, given the number of stars and the implicit number of planets orbiting those stars, it is unreasonable to think we are alone in the universe. Given the fact that there are a billion stars in our own galaxy, and there are approximately a billion galaxies, it would suggest there are many millions of civilizations out there.
The basic problem is that for beings from the closest star traveling at the speed of light, or some high fraction of the speed of light would take over four years to get here. Our technology won't let us travel anywhere near the speed of light. Currently, physics tells us that going faster than the speed of light is impossible. Using our best technology, we don't live long enough the get to even the closest stars. If the aliens have developed a "warp" drive like in "star Trek", we would be like chimpanzees by comparison and only of academic interest to them.
I agree with Dexter in that seeing a being from another star would be the most joyous thing I can think of.
in his Cosmo series, laid out the possibility of extraterrestrial life very well. I don't remember the exact numbers but it seems to me he very logically suggested that, given the number of stars and the implicit number of planets orbiting those stars, it is unreasonable to think we are alone in the universe. Given the fact that there are a billion stars in our own galaxy, and there are approximately a billion galaxies, it would suggest there are many millions of civilizations out there.
The basic problem is that for beings from the closest star traveling at the speed of light, or some high fraction of the speed of light would take over four years to get here. Our technology won't let us travel anywhere near the speed of light. Currently, physics tells us that going faster than the speed of light is impossible. Using our best technology, we don't live long enough the get to even the closest stars. If the aliens have developed a "warp" drive like in "star Trek", we would be like chimpanzees by comparison and only of academic interest to them.
I agree with Dexter in that seeing a being from another star would be the most joyous thing I can think of.
RE: Study finds no eviden
New physics are removing the problems associated with the distance between stars as being the major hurdle it was. String theroy and Quantum stuff postulate multidimensions gravity being one blah blah blah in short the shortest distance between two points in space is not a straight line or even distance and space as we traditionally understand it. They may be here or not here at the flick of a switch or the thinking of a thought.Even magic is no longer impossible, there no longer exists a wall between physics and metaphysics, so anything goes, even neo-conservative capitalist intelligence is considered a remote if unlikely possibility. So UFOs are real but difficult to conform to the paradigm.
New physics are removing the problems associated with the distance between stars as being the major hurdle it was. String theroy and Quantum stuff postulate multidimensions gravity being one blah blah blah in short the shortest distance between two points in space is not a straight line or even distance and space as we traditionally understand it. They may be here or not here at the flick of a switch or the thinking of a thought.Even magic is no longer impossible, there no longer exists a wall between physics and metaphysics, so anything goes, even neo-conservative capitalist intelligence is considered a remote if unlikely possibility. So UFOs are real but difficult to conform to the paradigm.
Re: RE: Study finds no eviden
Well... not really. The wall between physics and metaphysics is still firmly in place, though there's certainly a lot of quackery and nonsense around certain parts of physics. Read this http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html for instance. There's no reason yet to think quantum effects can be scaled up to operate in the world of macroscopic objects, that's pure speculation. Arthur C. Clarke's dictum, that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, doesn't mean magic is possible.
In any event, we're a very long way from being able to turn string theory and quantum theory into useful technology for star hopping, and no reason at the moment to even think it can be done. So far, it appears that the limits imposed by a relativistic universe are pretty firm.
darkbeaver said:
Well... not really. The wall between physics and metaphysics is still firmly in place, though there's certainly a lot of quackery and nonsense around certain parts of physics. Read this http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html for instance. There's no reason yet to think quantum effects can be scaled up to operate in the world of macroscopic objects, that's pure speculation. Arthur C. Clarke's dictum, that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, doesn't mean magic is possible.
In any event, we're a very long way from being able to turn string theory and quantum theory into useful technology for star hopping, and no reason at the moment to even think it can be done. So far, it appears that the limits imposed by a relativistic universe are pretty firm.
while there are 70 sextillion stars (7 and 22 zeros) http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/ , there should be several times more planets and moons in the universe. Only sun has 9 planets, and some planets has several moons with solid surface and some with an atmosfere.
it is not logic to say that in the universe the earth is the only planet with habitable condition.
There must be one or several other planets with extraterrastial life. But it has not been proved, so that's why scientists are quite.
But the problem is that how intelegent they are. We don't know if other extraterrastial creatures are inteligent enough to build ships and fly to the earth, or they have no inteligent like other animals on earth.
so, MAYBE there are UFOs.
it is not logic to say that in the universe the earth is the only planet with habitable condition.
There must be one or several other planets with extraterrastial life. But it has not been proved, so that's why scientists are quite.
But the problem is that how intelegent they are. We don't know if other extraterrastial creatures are inteligent enough to build ships and fly to the earth, or they have no inteligent like other animals on earth.
so, MAYBE there are UFOs.
Re: RE: Study finds no evidence for UFOs
edited to add this: Heh... I just noticed this is my 1000th post. I'm glad such a milestone was something intelligent and useful... :lol:
'Fraid not. There's no "must" about it. There might be, and I think the odds are pretty good, but we haven't the evidence to conclude that with any certainty. You can calculate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations, subject to certain assumptions, with something called the Drake Equation, named after the astronomer Frank Drake who put it together. It's just a series of multiplied fractions, really, starting with the number of stars, times the fraction of them with planets, times the fraction of those suitable for life, times the fraction of those where life arises, times the fraction where life evolves to the point of developing technology, and so on. I'm sure if you google "Drake equation" you'll find a site that explains it and provides a calculator to let you input your own best guesses on the fractions.dekhqonbacha said:
edited to add this: Heh... I just noticed this is my 1000th post. I'm glad such a milestone was something intelligent and useful... :lol:
Dexter Sinister, thanks, very good point.
"must be" and "might be" are games of word. You use the words to express your mind, and I use mine. They are totally different.
In some point both of us could be right or wrong. Because there is no evidence that extraterastial life exist.
So, one could use "must be, maybe, might be, could be, should be."
"must be" and "might be" are games of word. You use the words to express your mind, and I use mine. They are totally different.
In some point both of us could be right or wrong. Because there is no evidence that extraterastial life exist.
So, one could use "must be, maybe, might be, could be, should be."
This is just an opinion
but I think it is a little more positive then that. There is an awful lot of raw material out there that could have formed untold numbers of planets just like the Earth was when the primordial soup gave us the first "life" in the form of little more than self-replicating cells. If we accept that we all evolved from those first beginnings of life, I can see no reason to think that the Galaxies are not teeming with life in every stage of developement. The more civilizations there are, the more likely our chances are of finding evidence of their existance. I'm not saying they will visit us, but Earth has been emitting copious radio waves for a few years now and eventually the wave front will reach someone with the ability to deduct what they are and answer us. Alas, an answer is probably many years away yet, but there is room for hope.
but I think it is a little more positive then that. There is an awful lot of raw material out there that could have formed untold numbers of planets just like the Earth was when the primordial soup gave us the first "life" in the form of little more than self-replicating cells. If we accept that we all evolved from those first beginnings of life, I can see no reason to think that the Galaxies are not teeming with life in every stage of developement. The more civilizations there are, the more likely our chances are of finding evidence of their existance. I'm not saying they will visit us, but Earth has been emitting copious radio waves for a few years now and eventually the wave front will reach someone with the ability to deduct what they are and answer us. Alas, an answer is probably many years away yet, but there is room for hope.
Re: RE: Study finds no eviden
We're a very long way from being able to turn string theory and quantum theory into something useful, that's true for us but it don't necessarilly mean that it hasn't already been done somewhere else. What I was trying to say was that magic does not exist and that science provides the reality and substance that displaces superstition. We are surrounded by many products and processes that mere years ago would clearly have been considered magic,were considered magic.
Dexter Sinister said:
We're a very long way from being able to turn string theory and quantum theory into something useful, that's true for us but it don't necessarilly mean that it hasn't already been done somewhere else. What I was trying to say was that magic does not exist and that science provides the reality and substance that displaces superstition. We are surrounded by many products and processes that mere years ago would clearly have been considered magic,were considered magic.
#juan,
that's true radio signals have been sent over a half century, and they travel at speed of light. They have reached far far galaxies and planets.
If there are any extraterrastial life, it does not nessecerly mean that they are as inteligent or more inteligent than us.
Imagine if the Earth had been the interest of extraterrestial inteligence long time ago. And suppose they had sent millions of signals. No one was able to know about them.
Presently, man must be experiencing the same problem. Maybe extraterrestials are not inteligent enough to catch signals, or maybe they are at stage of evolution, or are dying from catastroph and have no time to respond.
that's true radio signals have been sent over a half century, and they travel at speed of light. They have reached far far galaxies and planets.
If there are any extraterrastial life, it does not nessecerly mean that they are as inteligent or more inteligent than us.
Imagine if the Earth had been the interest of extraterrestial inteligence long time ago. And suppose they had sent millions of signals. No one was able to know about them.
Presently, man must be experiencing the same problem. Maybe extraterrestials are not inteligent enough to catch signals, or maybe they are at stage of evolution, or are dying from catastroph and have no time to respond.
dekhqonbacha
If radio signals have been broadcast for fifty years, those signals have traveled fifty light years. The nearest galaxy is a hundred and seventy light years away. Fifty light years would reach to a few of the closest stars. Remember, if it took fifty years for a signal to travel fifty light years, it will take the same amount of time for an answering signal to return when they get around to it.
If radio signals have been broadcast for fifty years, those signals have traveled fifty light years. The nearest galaxy is a hundred and seventy light years away. Fifty light years would reach to a few of the closest stars. Remember, if it took fifty years for a signal to travel fifty light years, it will take the same amount of time for an answering signal to return when they get around to it.
#juan,
the nearest galaxy is Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy which is 25,000 ly away, and the nearest star (Proxima Centauri) is 4.22 light-years away. Which means by the time we die, the first radio signal sent will not even leave Milky Way. So sad.
Note: 1 light-year = 63 239.7 A.U.s = 9 460 530 000 000 kilometers
the nearest galaxy is Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy which is 25,000 ly away, and the nearest star (Proxima Centauri) is 4.22 light-years away. Which means by the time we die, the first radio signal sent will not even leave Milky Way. So sad.
Note: 1 light-year = 63 239.7 A.U.s = 9 460 530 000 000 kilometers
Re: RE: Study finds no eviden
Not entirely. On string theory, yes, there's as yet no empirical evidence in its favour, so far it's just a calculating trick that might or might not end up having something to do with reality. Quantum theory is a different matter. We long ago turned that into something useful. The circuits in most electronic devices you use--a tv set, a computer, a CD/DVD/MP3/whatever player, everything in fact but a simple radio--contain devices that depend on quantum theory for their effects. Look up CMOS and tunnel diode, for instance, and find out how they really work in detail. They're quantum devices. Quantum theory's not some airy-fairy nothing-to-do-with-reality stuff, it's real enough that it can be used in engineering design for devices that actually work as expected.
darkbeaver said:
Not entirely. On string theory, yes, there's as yet no empirical evidence in its favour, so far it's just a calculating trick that might or might not end up having something to do with reality. Quantum theory is a different matter. We long ago turned that into something useful. The circuits in most electronic devices you use--a tv set, a computer, a CD/DVD/MP3/whatever player, everything in fact but a simple radio--contain devices that depend on quantum theory for their effects. Look up CMOS and tunnel diode, for instance, and find out how they really work in detail. They're quantum devices. Quantum theory's not some airy-fairy nothing-to-do-with-reality stuff, it's real enough that it can be used in engineering design for devices that actually work as expected.
