# Are we alone ?



## Geedee (Jul 30, 2009)

.


----------



## stona (Jul 30, 2009)

The universe will be teeming with life. Carbon forms are regarded as most likely because carbon is just about the only molecule capable of forming the basis of the large molecules needed for life in reasonable conditions (pressure and temperature etc).It is no accident that,many,many,years ago I studied organic chemistry not "carbon chemistry". If our planet is anything to go by most of it is likely to be biological"scum" made up of primitive forms (apologies to all trekkies).This has been the case on earth for most of the time that life has existed here. The problem of communication is not just related to the vast distances involved but the immense length of time.The chances of any life form being close and evolved enough to make contact during the span of a human lifetime is effectively zero. Expanding that time to the few thousand years of our human civilisation gives the same result.
Of course effectively zero still leaves an infinitessimal chance which is a good thing for any lover of a good science fiction story. That's science FICTION lol.
I once worked on a Star Trek convention in London.A fan asked one of the actors if he thought a dilithium drive was possible. Exasperated he explained that he was an actor not an engineer and that the show was shot on a sound stage not a spaceship. I think the questioner was genuinely disappointed!
Steve
Steve


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 30, 2009)

We are NOT alone....


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2009)

We are definatly not alone in the Universe...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2009)

How can we be?

The universe is too damn large for us to be the only life out there. There is just so much to be explored. The real question should be "how large is the universe"? When does it stop, and what comes after that?


----------



## beaupower32 (Jul 30, 2009)

I think we are not alone. Like Adler said, the universe is just too damn large for us to be alone. Now, is there life just like us. Who knows, maybe or maybe not. But there is some form out there. Who knows, maybe someone on here is a Alien.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 30, 2009)

Heh. Two guys posting back-to-back with alien avatars. Coincidence? Hmmm....

 As far as humanity being alone in the universe, and being "higher intelligence", I think that's probably a lot of ego talking. Its a biiiiiiiiig universe, and I have a hard time believing that God put all His eggs in one basket. Have I seen any aliens? Nope...not that I recognized as being alien, anyway. I guess, for me, in the absence of solid evidence one way or the other, I'm gonna have to step back and ride the fence on this one. There's good theories on each side, but right now that's all they are.  Theories.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jul 30, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Heh. Two guys posting back-to-back with alien avatars. Coincidence? Hmmm....




Shhh, your going to give away our secret.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 30, 2009)

The theory of meteorites seeding the universe (panspermia) makes it difficult to believe that we are the only ones seeded, or indeed seedable.

An extract on subject and the utter indestructability of life

Seeded Universe, Life on other Planets, Ancient Alien Microbial Life, Life in the Universe, Universe, Evolution, Burlington UFO and Paranormal Center, BUFO Radio, Paranormal and UFO News


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 30, 2009)

I guess it's possible to think we just happened to be the first planet with life forms to evolve,, but like a few others have said this place is just too big to ahve nothing else out there - it still boggles my mind that some distances are measured in millions of light years. I've always wondered if Noahs Ark was actually a space ship.


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 30, 2009)

Well....? I don't think we are alone....wouldn't mind seeing that this is true before I'm done here.....on our little piece of turf!


----------



## timshatz (Jul 30, 2009)

Hate to think we are. Terrible waste of space if it is true.


I think of it in terms of, "You mean humanity is the highest life form in the Universe? Time to start over..."


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2009)

I dont know about any of that. But a question that is worth asking is, should we colonise the moon and mars? Can we colonise the moon and mars? If so, how long before we can attempt this


----------



## BikerBabe (Jul 30, 2009)

timshatz said:


> -cut-
> I think of it in terms of, "You mean humanity is the highest life form in the Universe? Time to start over..."



I think of it like this:
"You mean Humanity is the highest life form in the Universe?
Time to start behaving, then!"

And a favourite quote of mine:

Journalist to Mahatma Gandhi: "Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of western civilisation?"
Mahatma Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2009)

Good quote BB....

Ever since I was about 13 years old and saw something in the night sky that had no explaination, with 3 friends and 2 adults present, I have been convinced that it is simply idiotic to believe that our star is the ONLY one that we can see with the naked eye that has a planet that could possibly support life... That doesnt include all those stars that cant be seen excpet with a telescope....

A bunch of years ago while on work ups off the coast of Greece, I video taped something at night that to this day cannot be explained.... I even went down to CIC and took a look at the SPS-67 radar PPI to verify that there was no air traffic in the immediate 100 mile vicinity....

In both instances, there are no current aircraft capable of performing the same maneuvers as these vehicles did...


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 30, 2009)

If the universe is expanding, WHAT are we expanding IN then?


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jul 30, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> If the universe is expanding, WHAT are we expanding IN then?



Our Levi jeans.


Wheels


----------



## Airframes (Jul 30, 2009)

I had a similar experience on two occasions, once on 'ops', the other on leave. Both times I was accompanied by two other responsible, sane, and sober adults, and we all saw the same thing. As you said Dan, the manouvres of these...'vehicles', was beyond anything we knew of, and and one of the occassions, the RAF were also mighty puzzled.
Given the vastness of 'out there', it would be more than arrogant to think that 'we' could be the only so-called 'advanced' life form.


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Jul 30, 2009)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Politicians and Hollywood types on this planet are living proof that Aliens are not only out there in the reast of the Universe, they are living amonst us as well!!!


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2009)

Michio Kaku. I love this guy. If you have never heard him before he is a total mind eff. This is not the best interview, but you get some insights into his Harvard/Princeton/Berkley educational background. Multiple universes, advanced civilizations, and aliens are just a bit of his physics based discussions. Fascinating if you ask me.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw8dcb8iKSM_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnkE2yQPw6s_


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 30, 2009)

the best proof that its intelligent life out there is that they have not contacted us ( that we ordinary deadly know of )
as we blow up nuclear bombs on our own planet.. how inteligent is that ? this is all we have folks..and we do our best to destroy it..
and it has to other planets out there.. millions teeming with life  and maybe some evolved long before us and are exstinct now..and others are just starting..and others are on the same level as us.. Einstein made a math thing on this and i dont remember what the numbers were but the conclusions was that it was millions of planets with life


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2009)

You didn't even watch it, did you.


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 30, 2009)

matt308
hehe..we wrotehere at the same time  so your post came when i wrote mine.
and i have seen him many times on discovery ! he is brilliant


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 30, 2009)

awsome post from youtube. never seen those. thanks Matt  go mulitverse  we live in a "soapboble" i love it


----------



## trackend (Jul 31, 2009)

Are we alone, no. are there any UFO's yes. are they from another world no.

impossible for there not to be other life elsewhere even our galaxy will have thousands of examples of life.

Many objects/lights etc seen in the skies remain unexplained however I have never believed them to be from another world I suggest if aliens had the techknowledgy to travel the vast distances needed inorder to reach this speck of dust being unable to be stealthy would be like a F15 lacking anything more powerful than a bow and arrow.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jul 31, 2009)

Thanks for the youtube links Matt.
Very interesting.


Wheels


----------



## stona (Jul 31, 2009)

trackend said:


> Are we alone, no. are there any UFO's yes. are they from another world no.
> 
> impossible for there not to be other life elsewhere even our galaxy will have thousands of examples of life.
> 
> Many objects/lights etc seen in the skies remain unexplained however I have never believed them to be from another world I suggest if aliens had the techknowledgy to travel the vast distances needed inorder to reach this speck of dust being unable to be stealthy would be like a F15 lacking anything more powerful than a bow and arrow.



I agree. Seems odd that some hyper intelligent space-time bending alien civilisation would invest all the effort recquired to get here just to stick a probe up a red necks behind or kill a few cows!
When we invest time and effort in exploration (even on our own planet) we are looking for a payback. Columbus didn't go to the new world because he thought it was there - he was looking for a trade advantage and was rather surprised it was in his way! Often now we are looking for ever diminishing resources. I'm not sure I'd like to visit Antarctica in 100 years time.
Someone asked what the universe is expanding into. the answer is nothing.You can not apply commom sense to this type of question!
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jul 31, 2009)

I believe it is likley that life exists on other planets , but I am sceptical that they have travelled her to gawk at us. Einstein has shown that it is impractical for mass to travel beyond the speed of light. In crude times, he showed that as velocity relative to surroundings approaches C (the speed of light) the amount of energy needed to achieve accelaration increases exponentionally. Another way to explain it is that the mass of the object increases as C is approached. 

Einsteins theories have been tested many times, and shows no signs of being disproved. However some scientists have postulated that Einsteins special theory of relativity his socalled theory of curved space, may hold the key to future space travel. I dont fully understand this stuff, so the best I can do is approximate. The theory goes something like this...essentially that the time space contiuum is like a series of folds in a blanket, and that it may be possible to cross through these folds to arrive at a other point in time and space....jumping through the folds, rather than taking the long way round. This stuff has often been speculated on in movies and such, but there is a serious body of theoretical postulation behind the fiction.

However travelling to distant stars to explore those stars, and their solar systems is not really needed. We ourselves are on the verge of developing technology that will allow us to "see" the planets of distant stars. Why would the little gree men get into spaceships when they would be able to observall they needed to observe from a telescope???

As far as I know the SETI project has yet to find any evidence of intelligent life out there. We should keep looking, but we also need to base our belief systems on what is observable and logical. The best we can say about the possibility of life is that it is likley, but unproven. The possibility of intelligent life visiting us seems a little far fetched. That does not rule out unmanned alien craft visiting us.

As for warlike intentions....thats utterly fanciful......there would be many other planets they could utilise without upsetting their neighbours


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 31, 2009)

It is possible that there is other life forms out there, but we are the most advanced.


----------



## proton45 (Jul 31, 2009)

I believe that their is mold "out their"... their could be something "intelligent" someplace, but until its scientifically proven I'm not jumping on the bandwagon. The only thing I'm willing to stick my neck out and say is that their is some kind of life out their...but its probably mold or microbes. 

*We have never been visited...I don't care what people say, it aint happened. I would be far more likely to believe in some type of un-maned "time machine" from the future...*


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 31, 2009)

proton45 said:


> *We have never been visited...I don't care what people say, it aint happened. I would be far more likely to believe in some type of un-maned "time machine" from the future...*



Like the colony of ants that live next to the super-highway.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 31, 2009)




----------



## comiso90 (Jul 31, 2009)

I'd like to think any aliens can make better looking craft but this is interesting:

The case of the captured mini-UFO (1972) ::: Pink Tentacle

.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 31, 2009)

proton45 said:


> ]We have never been visited...I don't care what people say, it ain't happened. I would be far more likely to believe in some type of un-manned time machine from the future...


Your opinion is no less valid than anyone's
but why send a time machine back from the future when events of the now are so well documented, all they'd need to do was root through their archives. Sounds alot cheaper.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 31, 2009)

Are we alone? No, there are many people in the world loving warbirds... 
Oh about the universe? 

Didn't you know that Earth will be destroyed in other to make an inter-galactic bypass? The plans have been on display at Alpha Centaury for many years.


----------



## stona (Aug 1, 2009)

proton45 said:


> *We have never been visited...I don't care what people say, it aint happened. I would be far more likely to believe in some type of un-maned "time machine" from the future...*



Many physicists believe time travel to be theoretically possible but you would be unable to go back in time. Not least because of the paradox that would be created. How can a time machine exist at a time before it was invented?
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Aug 1, 2009)

stona said:


> Many physicists believe time travel to be theoretically possible but you would be unable to go back in time. Not least because of the paradox that would be created. How can a time machine exist at a time before it was invented?
> Steve




I cant do the physics forthis question, but it is tied up with Einsteins theories of relativity. The faster you go, the slower time moves. If you could somehow exceed the speed of light time would actually start to go backwards. This is known to to be impossible with our current knowledge of the phyics of matter. 

"The standard equation for "time dilation" is that the time passing on Earth will equal the time on the object * 1/sqrt(1-((v*v)/(c*c))), where v is the velocity of the object and c is the speed of light. At v=c this goes to infinity, or in other words, time would stop for an object moving at the speed of light. This is not a problem because objects can't go at the speed of light -- it would take an infinite amount of energy (and their mass would also become infinite)."

(Dr. Eric Christian)

However, there are a lot of things we dont understand....or at least I dont understand. Light is the only phenomena that travels at the speed of light. Light is generally considered to be just energy, with no mass, and formed as an energy wavelength. However this "wave" theory does not explain all of the properties of light. In some respects it displays the characteristics if particles. This is where photon theory comes into effect. But if light is also a particle, then it must have mass, if it has mass, relativity does not have validity. 

My knowledge of this physics is over 30 years old....I was hoping some you younger science geeks might have more up to date knowledge of this stuff....


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2009)

I'm reading a neat book on astrophysics named "The Five Ages of the Universe". The authors require the reader to deal with and comprehend immensely large numbers ..... numbers so large he has invented a new time scale. 

The present age of our universe is approx 10 billion years of age. He puts this as the "first" cosmological decade.

The universe will be teeming with the formation of stars untill the end of the 14th cosmological decade (which is one hundred trillion years from now, or 100,000,000,000,000 years in long form). that is an incredibly long time for life to have formed and evolved in intelligent beings.

I'm now reading about what happens after the era we are living in now [the "stelliferous" era]. The author calls it the ""degenerate" era due to most of the matter in the universe is in the collapsed cores of the stars and is in that type of atomic state. This era is a tad long ..... from 15 to 39 cosmological decades [100 trillions years to 10^39 years] in the future.

And the next state, the "black hole era" is even longer ..... 40 to 100 cosmological decades [10^40 years to 10^100 years].

After that is the "dark era" ..... 101 cosmological decades and beyond.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 1, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> I'd like to think any aliens can make better looking craft but this is interesting:
> 
> The case of the captured mini-UFO (1972) ::: Pink Tentacle
> 
> .


Just more hoaxes...we all know the Germans built the first UFOs...


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Just more hoaxes...we all know the Germans built the first UFOs...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 1, 2009)

The concept of Billions of Years is just mind blowing to me.


----------



## stona (Aug 1, 2009)

Where is Steven Hawkinge when you need him?
Steve


----------



## proton45 (Aug 3, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Your opinion is no less valid than anyone's
> but why send a time machine back from the future when events of the now are so well documented, all they'd need to do was root through their archives. Sounds alot cheaper.



to prove it can be done? To make it clear, I'm not thinking that time machines are visiting us everyday...I just think that its a better explanation for unexplained "supernatural" machines then aliens flying to us from millions of light years away...


----------



## proton45 (Aug 3, 2009)

Their is a theory about wormholes and time travel that hypothesizes that if you could create a worm hole (blackhole) NOW, and that if you could keep it stable in a lab...that someone could travel back through it from the future. That would be one explanation for time machines visiting us..."why", to prove the theory.


----------



## trackend (Aug 3, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Just more hoaxes...we all know the Germans built the first UFOs...



Rubbish I was first with a UFO when I chucked the mother in law out of the up stairs window.
My next door neighbour yelled *" What the hells that?"*


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 3, 2009)

The universe is probably trilions and trilions of lightyears big. 

There has to be something out there.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2009)

trackend said:


> Rubbish I was first with a UFO when I chucked the mother in law out of the up stairs window.
> My next door neighbour yelled *" What the hells that?"*


LMAO!!!


----------



## fly boy (Aug 5, 2009)

i would have to say that we are not alone i mean everything keeps getting bigger so if there isn't damn


----------



## Daviducus2 (Aug 5, 2009)

Yes we are alone. Seriously.

You all will go to your graves without the discovery of evidence establishing life anywhere outside of this planet.

Why? Given the billions of other planets out there with conditions that could possibly maintain life there is better than an excellent chance that life would have evolved elsewhere. After all, by chance life evolved here. Right? Yes but life did not arise on this planet through mere chance. It was created by a God. This ball of life in our solar system is all about an environment for very special creatures with a moral dimension. 

Well, perhaps this God created life elsewhere too. How do you know this God didn't do that? 

I don't. This is just my belief. You are free to believe otherwise.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 5, 2009)

fly boy said:


> i would have to say that we are not alone i mean everything keeps getting bigger so if there isn't damn


Welcome back fly boy
good to see you haven't lost your touch...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2009)

Daviducus2 said:


> Yes we are alone. Seriously.
> 
> You all will go to your graves without the discovery of evidence establishing life anywhere outside of this planet.
> 
> ...



I do respect that belief, in a higher existence and our "special relationship to God..... I cannot reconcile the belief that we are a special species with a moral dimension. But that doesnt prevent or prohibit the existence of life on other planets. It does not prevent us from pursuing that "moral dimension". We do not cease to be human beings simply because life may exist on another planet. Thats like saying the teachings of the bible are destroyed by the phenonmenon of evolution. Whilst there are many who do solicit that evolution does not exist because it contradicts the word of God, most dont have too much trouble accommodating the two concepts side by side. I view evolution as a tool, used by that "higher being" to create the environment that we live in.

There is a fair chance that life exists in our own solar system, outside the earth. Look at some of the moons around Jupiter, even parts of Mars, may support primitive life forms. Am I going to question the existence of God if that happens,? Certainly not. Am I going to question our responsibility to seek the higher moral dimension, no way.....I willl be even more awestruck by the miracle of life because it exists or develops throughout the universe....


----------



## Daviducus2 (Aug 5, 2009)

_I cannot reconcile the belief that we are a special species with a moral dimension._

Do other animals exhibit moral behavior thus indicating a moral dimension? If we are indeed just another animal and not a special species, I suppose there is no reason other human animals should not be prohibited from regulating, controlling or exterminating people for the same reasons that other animal species are regulated, controlled or exterminated by people. After all, rights, inalienable rights, don't eminate from God under this scenario. Al rights eminate from man and what man giveth, man taketh away. Perhaps through government cloaked with the legitimacy of seeking the greater good for the species. Or the planet. Anthropogenic global warming proponents can finally seize upon the only way to regulate the human population which, frankly, is the only effective way to reduce human carbon emissions. No children, no carbon legacy that extends in ever growing numbers for potentially thousands of years. Interesting how radical left wing ideologies mesh so well with secularism. 

_We do not cease to be human beings simply because life may exist on another planet._

Agree. I don't think I implied anything to the contrary. You wll notice that I posited the following:

*Well, perhaps this God created life elsewhere too. How do you know this God didn't do that? 

I don't. This is just my belief. You are free to believe otherwise.[/B]

[I]There is a fair chance that life exists in our own solar system, outside the earth.[/I]

Yes and if I believed that life arose by "chance" then indeed it would be illogical not to conclude that many, many other planets must be teeming with life due to the operation of such chance occurrence across billions of other potentially life friendly planets. And for that matter, as I indicated in my previous post, if a God did created life here, maybe it created life elsewhere too.

I just don't believe it and for reasons that admittedly I can not prove.

A bit off topic here. The following is from a book written in the 1970's by cutting edge environmental activists and professors Paul and Ann Ehrlich (Stanford University) and John Holdren, President Obama's present Science Czar. One can see how a God free world view is an absolute prerequisite to human population engineering.

[img]http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/holdren.jpg










For more tidbits from Mr. Holdren, see:

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/*


----------



## Daviducus2 (Aug 5, 2009)

Page 837:






Page 786:






Page 787-788:






Page 767-787:






Page 838:






Also Page 838:






Page 944:


----------



## parsifal (Aug 6, 2009)

I dont see how the "we are the only ones with a moral dimension" argument has any sway one or the other as to the existence of life. And to be frank, I am not convinced that we are the only species with a sense of moral dimension. I do know this, we are about the only species that kills for the sport, will kill for no reason, and will kill in the name of something we have never seen and have no proof of existence.

The thing that strikes me in these sorts of discussions is that the people peddling them, be they christian, muslim, atheist, whatever, is that they always "know" that they are right, and that the moral high ground belongs to them. You know something....it doesnt. The best that we can do when it comes to questions of morals, is to arrive at some mutually acceptable set of standards and behaviours and then judge according to those standards. All those discussions about freedom of speech, human rights, the right to self determination, the rule of law, respect for others and their beliefs, and above all, tolerance are things that float into my mind when I think of morals. Amongst that general concept is the right to paractice ones religious beliefs without fear. 

But none of this discussion has any place in a discussion about the possibility of alien life. We can not know if such ELFs have a sense of morals or not, heck, we cant even know if there is intelligent life out there. If we start bringing some alleged moral or religious code into the debate, then we have taken this enormous step backwards, to somewhere equivalent to the Inquisition. We should simply look at the facts, or even the potential facts, based on verifiable source material, and avoid making judgements based merely on beliefs. Basing decisions on beliefs rather than facts, or observations, reduces our cognition to the level of voodoo basically


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 6, 2009)

Daviducus2 said:


> If we are indeed just another animal and not a special species,* I suppose there is no reason other human animals should not be prohibited from regulating, controlling or exterminating people *for the same reasons that other animal species are regulated, controlled or exterminated by people.
> 
> After all, rights, inalienable rights, don't emanate from God under this scenario. All rights emanate from Man and what Man giveth, Man taketh away


You suppose? You don't think there is something fundamentally atrocious about that statement?

Yeah well, God doesn't live on Earth, we do. I'm sure he's going to come along and divinely intervene at some stage but right now, I don't see him stepping up and dealing with nuclear proliferation, terrorism or disease. While we're waiting for him to turn up someone needs to run the show on behalf of the free world. Much as we'd like everyone to enjoy the inalienable rights we take for granted, there are some out there who have a vested interest in not letting it spread to their neighbourhood. 

So yes, man giveth and man taketh away - we're trying to give everyone our degree of liberty and quality of life, others are trying to take it away, it's not perfect. What do you suggest we do?

Oh
a program for sterilising women?
sterilants in the general water supply?

and the potentially catastrophic-for-the-species consequences of that if it goes wrong? Even if it worked, it's not the kind of society I want to live in. We can only solve our social problems through social enlightenment, not justifiable extermination and castration.


----------



## Maestro (Aug 6, 2009)

For once I agree with you Parsifal...

Anyway... I watched _UFO Hunters_ the other day, and even though I think that some of them may be some kind of weirdos, I must say that they found a few interresting facts. Just like that episode where soldiers of a RAF base in England in the middle of the Cold War (equipped with Nukes, so with very high security) repported spotting strange lights in the neighborhood, one of them even passed right over their heads. The base's security even chased a red-ish light in the nearby woods.

I mean, you would have to watch the said show yourself to get all the info, but it was clear that those lights couldn't have been any kind of "human-made" aircraft.

And the "UFOs" would have been spotted by inhabitants of the nearby town, soldiers of the RAF base and even the commanding officer of the base.

So are we alone ? I don't think so.


----------



## Maestro (Aug 6, 2009)

And would you please leave your friggin God alone ? We're talking aliens/UFOs here, not religion !


----------



## proton45 (Aug 6, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> You suppose? You don't think there is something fundamentally atrocious about that statement?
> 
> Yeah well, God doesn't live on Earth, we do. I'm sure he's going to come along and divinely intervene at some stage but right now, I don't see him stepping up and dealing with nuclear proliferation, terrorism or disease. While we're waiting for him to turn up someone needs to run the show on behalf of the free world. Much as we'd like everyone to enjoy the inalienable rights we take for granted, there are some out there who have a vested interest in not letting it spread to their neighbourhood.
> 
> ...




I know this aint really the thread topic here...but, wow. I got to agree with you, their is really something disturbing about that notion. Its like saying, "the only reason to be good is that God is watching..." I guess that (under this line of thinking) an atheist who demonstrates "moral" behavior without a sense of "Godly bestowed entitlement" has a stronger sense of compassion(?).

I don't even know what to think about the "Left wing conspiracy" , female sterilization stuff... "IF" they are organized in any fashion, they are such a small, small group... I actually find the notion that "Anthropogenic global warming proponents" are waiting to "cease the moment" (to force female sterilization) incredibly misguided and paranoid. The current trend in the movement is "self accountability"... its based on reducing "ones own" carbon footprint (as it is). If "someone" wanted to characterize the "ugly" side of the movement, it should be the "I'm a better person (then you), because I do more (sacrifice more) to save the planet...". 

Anyway...beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life here.  (rant over)


----------



## evangilder (Aug 6, 2009)

I have seen too many unexplainable things to believe that we are alone in the universe. Not just sighted, but seen on RADAR and caught with other instrumentation at insane speeds and with maneuvering that would kill any human being with the technology that we humans know right now. Do I have any photos, video or hard evidence? No, but I do know what I saw, and I was not alone seeing it in 99% of the instances.

That being said, there are some things that are strange, but not alien, or extraterrestrial. Many years ago, I was working on some radio gear in a remote Nevada location that had many, many reports of 'triangular shaped black UFOs'. Those UFOs were later presented to the public as the F-117 Nighthawk. Being a skeptic myself, my first impression of the F-117 was "What the hell is that?" not "What planet did that come from?". Of course, knowing where I was, I figured it was a test of some new wonder toy out of ARPA. The deserts are full of those.


----------



## Butters (Aug 6, 2009)

Davidicus 2 sez: "One can see how a God free world view is an absolute prerequisite to human population engineering."

What a joke. Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of the eugenics movement in 20th century America? Or the thousands of 'social undesirables' who were forcibly and LEGALLY sterilized in conformance with legislation passed by the overwhelmingly self-professed Christian state representatives of a large number of states? Better check the beam in your own eye, D2. No one group, theistic or otherwise, has the patent on oppression. Nor are any exempt.

Anyway, enough of that. This is supposed to be about the probabilty of extraterrestrial life in the universe, not partisan ideology/theology...

The mechanics of star formation and the stellar creation of heavy elements necessary for life mean that any universe possessing complex life will necessarily be old, cold, dark, and vast. Like ours. The evidence that life originated fairly early in our planet's 4.5 billion year old history plausibly suggests that organic life may be fairly common throughout the universe. However, the fact that in the 3.5 billion year history of life, only one species capable of pondering such matters as this has evolved, also suggests that intelligent,self-aware, and technologically adept life may be an extreme rarity. Furthermore, there is there is no compelling empirical evidence that life has a teleological imperative towards complexity, much less self-aware beings, like ourselves. That being the case, it is just as likely that we are alone in the universe, as not. You cannot make valid probablistic extropolations from one datum point. The Drake equation mentioned earlier in this thread (not by name, tho) is not a scientifically valid hypothesis by the accepted standards - it is merely a series of unverified assumptions piled one atop the other. Sort'a like a pile of steamin' cow patties. And with much the same reek...

The vast distances between the stars, and the physical constraints on possible velocities imposed by GR, make the claim of interstellar visitations an extraordinary claim by any standard. As there is no verifiable material evidence whatsover of either aliens or their purported craft, the inference that an unusual airborne phenomena is necessarily evidence of aliens, is unwarranted. It is sheer conjecture, nothing more. Just because we cannot explain a UFO, does not a priori mean that little green men are among us. Or anywhere...

JL


----------



## parsifal (Aug 6, 2009)

Great post Butters. With regard to interstellar travel, Einsteins theories remain solid, however I am troubled by the fact that light, a supposedly massless phenomena, cannot have all of its properties explained, unless it also has mass. if it has mass, then relativity is out the window. if relativity is out the window, then velocities above the speed of light may be possible, and perhaps something different happens to mass time and energy than was predicted in the Special relativity theories????? If that is a true statement, then perhaps the little green men in flying saucers is plausible??????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 6, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I dont see how the "we are the only ones with a moral dimension" argument has any sway one or the other as to the existence of life. And to be frank, I am not convinced that we are the only species with a sense of moral dimension. I do know this, we are about the only species that kills for the sport, will kill for no reason, and will kill in the name of something we have never seen and have no proof of existence.
> 
> The thing that strikes me in these sorts of discussions is that the people peddling them, be they christian, muslim, atheist, whatever, is that they always "know" that they are right, and that the moral high ground belongs to them. You know something....it doesnt. The best that we can do when it comes to questions of morals, is to arrive at some mutually acceptable set of standards and behaviours and then judge according to those standards. All those discussions about freedom of speech, human rights, the right to self determination, the rule of law, respect for others and their beliefs, and above all, tolerance are things that float into my mind when I think of morals. Amongst that general concept is the right to paractice ones religious beliefs without fear.
> 
> But none of this discussion has any place in a discussion about the possibility of alien life. We can not know if such ELFs have a sense of morals or not, heck, we cant even know if there is intelligent life out there. If we start bringing some alleged moral or religious code into the debate, then we have taken this enormous step backwards, to somewhere equivalent to the Inquisition. We should simply look at the facts, or even the potential facts, based on verifiable source material, and avoid making judgements based merely on beliefs. Basing decisions on beliefs rather than facts, or observations, reduces our cognition to the level of voodoo basically




Agreed, and very well said.

Besides the argument that GOD created this species and planet, so we are the only life forms is not valid anyhow. If you want to believe in that, then who is to say that there are not other GOD'S (that none of us on Planet Earth believe in) that did not create life in other parts of the universe.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 6, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Great post Butters. With regard to interstellar travel, Einsteins theories remain solid, however I am troubled by the fact that light, a supposedly massless phenomena, cannot have all of its properties explained, unless it also has mass. if it has mass, then relativity is out the window. if relativity is out the window, then velocities above the speed of light may be possible, and perhaps something different happens to mass time and energy than was predicted in the Special relativity theories????? If that is a true statement, then perhaps the little green men in flying saucers is plausible??????



Parsifal - The three concepts to dig into include Quantum Electrodynamics, the Quantum Field Theory and the duality of wave and particle whe describing the behavior of all matter and energy.

They bring the 'particle vs wave' discussion from Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into solid theory and behavior predictibility for all matter AND energy from Boson/meson, through electron/positron and photon to black holes. 

General relativity brought the properties of light into describable (and predictible) behavior in space-time context. Quantume FIELD Theory combined with Shroedinger and Hesinenburg ad Dirac's contributions led to Quantum Electrodynamics.. and so on.

The math is heady 'stuff' - I'm just an Engineer that stopped at Calculus of Variations and Chaos Theory but I can wade through the math - but struggle with synthesizing all the implications.

If a Physics pro dabbling in Quantum Electrodynamics and the extension of Quantum Field discussions down to sub atomic energy states, suddenly dives into this discussion, he will quickly slip past my comfort zoe


----------



## Civettone (Aug 6, 2009)

I didn't read through these discussions but I recall my philosophy classes and when we came to cosmology and the change that life also exists on other planets, and given that there is an innate mechanism towards more complex lifeforms, it seemed that there are two possibilities:

- either we are a change of one in a billion (or more) , so we're totally alone!
- either there will be an evolutionary mechanism leading to intelligent lifeforms on all planets capable of supporting those lifeforms. And given that there are unnumerable planets out there ... there may be a whole lot of life out there. And it will be (or will become) intelligent! 

Kris


----------



## parsifal (Aug 6, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Parsifal - The three concepts to dig into include Quantum Electrodynamics, the Quantum Field Theory and the duality of wave and particle whe describing the behavior of all matter and energy.
> 
> They bring the 'particle vs wave' discussion from Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into solid theory and behavior predictibility for all matter AND energy from Boson/meson, through electron/positron and photon to black holes.
> 
> ...




Thanks DG ....I think

To say I understand all that would be slightly overstating my intelligence. But its a start, I will go away and try and understand at least some of what you are saying. 

But the key to all of this is whether C (the speed of light) is the upper limit of velocity for matter.

Another "crackpot" theory that I have read about, but confess to not understanding is that the demarcation between energy and matter is not as clear as we like to think. Energy generally breaks down to being a wavelngth. Strangely, matter also appears to be a wavelength .....of something. Perhaps the gap in our understanding about the matter/energy thing is that there is something else behind matter and energy, something that we need to know about in order to understand the physical phenomenon better


----------



## Butters (Aug 6, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I didn't read through these discussions but I recall my philosophy classes and when we came to cosmology and the change that life also exists on other planets, and given that there is an innate mechanism towards more complex lifeforms, it seemed that there are two possibilities:
> 
> - either we are a change of one in a billion (or more) , so we're totally alone!
> - either there will be an evolutionary mechanism leading to intelligent lifeforms on all planets capable of supporting those lifeforms. And given that there are unnumerable planets out there ... there may be a whole lot of life out there. And it will be (or will become) intelligent!
> ...



Your philosophy professor should stick to what he knows. Clearly, neither math nor evolutionary theory are in that category.

The idea that biological evolution is a progressive, or goal-oriented, process is a common misconception. The evidence says otherwise. The apparent trend towards increased complexity is merely an illusion -an artifact of how humans perceive the world and the things that attract our attention. For most of life's first 3 billion years, life had been restricted to prokaryotes (single-cell organisms), and the advent of eukaryotic life-forms like ourselves in the last 500 million yrs is merely an interesting sideshow. Most life, both in numbers of species, and in terms of percentage of total global biomass, remains unicellular. And generally invisible to our eyes, if not in their effect upon our lives and planet. Complex creature like ourselves are the exception to the rule

Not only do bacteria remain the dominant life-form, but many relatively simple multicellular life-forms have descended from more complex ancestors. Simplification of anatomy is as common as complexification in nature. We just don't tend to notice it as much unless we actively look for it.

The rise of Homo sapiens is a contingent fact of history. It was not a preordained event. Nor is their any compelling reason to believe that the natural physical processes that drive the evolution of possible extraterrestrial organisms will be significantly different than what took place here. The laws of physics, chemistry, and probability are almost certainly the same everywhere in the observable universe.

JL


----------



## Watanbe (Aug 7, 2009)

I honestly have no idea what to think on this topic, very much a fence sitter. There is evidence for both arguments. I think there may be other life forms but not at the stages of technology and sophistication that we are. Small creatures and organisms rather than the vast civilizations we all imagine.

I would love for there to be something out there, but I am very skeptical.


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 7, 2009)

NASA's Kepler Spots Atmosphere On Distant Planet -- InformationWeek


----------



## Butters (Aug 7, 2009)

A planetary atmosphere may be a necessary condition for the emergence of life, but it is not a sufficient one. Mars and Venus have atmospheres, as do all the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus) Only Mercury and Pluto lack any atmosphere whatsover.

IIRC, even a couple of the gas giants' moons have atmospheres of sorts. I can't remember which ones, tho...


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

Awesome stuff Butters! I never saw it that way. Can you elaborate a bit? 

for instance


> Simplification of anatomy is as common as complexification in nature. We just don't tend to notice it as much unless we actively look for it.


 can you give some examples?

Kris


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 7, 2009)

I just thought it was cool that they're lookin for stuff like that, and have telescopes capable of doing it (even if they can't see the planet directly...we'll get to that level of tecnology, though). One thing I've always wondered, though, is why do we always assume that life on other planets must be carbon-based and breathe oxygen? Why couldn't another species live on a methane-atmosphere planet? Or in a vacuum?


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 7, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> I...why do we always assume that life on other planets must be carbon-based and breathe oxygen? Why couldn't another species live on a methane-atmosphere planet? Or in a vacuum?


It's no great leap of imagination to consider life forms using intra-system transport mechanisms other than oxygen/blood, it's a little more difficult to imagine life thriving in a vacuum. Just about every form of life I can think of conducts some form of cyclic exchange from inside the system to outside the system; it's difficult to know what would be getting exchanged in a vacuum.

Viruses show no signs of life until they enter a host, an analog to this could be the microbes clinging to pieces of meteor and comet that 'seed' planets (Panspermia theory) remaining dormant until they collide with a planet that has the right attributes to awaken them from their dormant state. But while they're in space (in a vacuum) showing no signs of life, can they be accredited as being 'life, living in a vacuum'?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2009)

The advantage of oxygen is its ability to provide a lot of energy for molecular processes as compared to other gases like carbon dioxide. It might also be a requirement to have oxygen in an environment so as to provide the energy necessary to allow higher order brains to evolve.

The advantage of carbon based molecules, is its ability to produce a huge variety in the types of molecules that might be necessary for complex forms of life to evolve from. All sorts of wonderfull molecules can be formed using carbon as a base, with nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen altering the shapes and characteristics.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

I remember there being life on earth in what was always considered to be uninhabitable for life. Apparently there are life forms near highly toxic volcano wells and in water lakes totally sealed off by ice for centuries.

So yeah, I also doubt it has to be life as we know it.

Kris


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 7, 2009)

Another feature of Earth that many other planets do not have, is the magnetosphere that blocks harmful solar radiation that would otherwise leave this planet a barren wasteland.

Out of the countless numbers of planets out there, conditions have to be just right to sustain basic life. Things like the above-mentioned magnetosphere, proximity to it's sun, physical size (thus gravity), basic elements such as water, oxygen, etc.

And if those conditions are met, will the developing life survive natural events, such as asteroid/meteor impacts, shifts in it's land-masses, developing weather events and so on.

For example, Saturn has staggering electrical storms on a scale we can't even begin to imagine. Jupiter has raging wind storms that shame anything on Earth. Venus has an atmosphere that is caustic, including sulphuric acid rain...

Life here survives by the slimmest of margins if you step back and look at the big picture. Humans can only survive in a narrow temperature range, we can only have so much carbon dioxide/methane/ammonia in our atmosphere to breathe. We can only tolerate so much solar radiation and the list goes on.

I think it's awesome that we can look out into the cosmos and "see" other solar systems and thier planets, but the existance of comparable life (like us), while very much possible, will be rare.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I remember there being life on earth in what was always considered to be uninhabitable for life. Apparently there are life forms near highly toxic volcano wells and in water lakes totally sealed off by ice for centuries.
> 
> So yeah, I also doubt it has to be life as we know it.
> 
> Kris



True, but this is life in a "closed" environment. Theres not much opportunity for it to evolve into more complex life forms in the same environmental characteristics.


----------



## BikerBabe (Aug 7, 2009)

I disagree.
Life just doesn't stop evolving just because we think it has reached it's peak in evolution.


----------



## Butters (Aug 7, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Awesome stuff Butters! I never saw it that way. Can you elaborate a bit?
> 
> for instance can you give some examples?
> 
> Kris



Thanks. I'll offer a few examples, but if you're really interested in exploring the concept, SJ Gould's, "Full House", is your best resource.

Many types of parasites have abandoned complex physiology in their adaption to a parasitic life-style, as have viruses. The argument that viruses are not truly 'alive is dependent on the premise that metabolism is the defining attribute of life. However, there are a number of multicellular organisms that can also suspend metabolic activity for varying lengths of time. Tardigrades (also known as 'water bears') are the classic example of this phenomena. Numerous vertebrates also have reduced complexity in comparison to their ancestors-flightless birds for one example, blind cavefish and salamanders for another. In certain deep-sea anglerfish, the males are basically gonads with a nose and fins. once they locate a female, they latch on near her vent and in a short time becomes irreversibly integrated into her circulatory system. Over time,the male atrophies to the point that he is no more than a sac containing the gonads...

The real stake in the heart of the premise that evolution is a teleological process, is not just the fact that the overwhelming majority of organism remain stubbornly unicellular, but the utter lack of an evidentially-supported causal mechanism for'progress' in evolution.The mutations that provide the grist for the mill of natural selection are the randomizing force in evolution. If there was an intrinsic drive towards 'improvement', you would expect that most mutations would be beneficial, whereas the opposite is actually the case.

Nature doesn't care a whit that you're loaded with fancy gizmos -all that matters is that you can handle the challenges in your immediate environment. If anything, Nature shows a bias for simplicity. Complicated organisms, much like our more complex machines, have just that much more to go wrong. A bacteria is much more durable than you are. Which only adds emphasis to Biker Babe's comment about the 'peak in evolution'. That 'peak' exists only as a parochial conceit. 

JL


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2009)

BikerBabe said:


> I disagree.
> Life just doesn't stop evolving just because we think it has reached it's peak in evolution.



Assuming the lifeforms we see in exotic locales on earth have been around since since the early days of our planet, they have not evolved much in the 3.5 billion years they've been with us.

And I suspect they wont evolve much in the next few billion years either. The environment they live in is too extreme for them to "venture forth" and colonize the oceans and lands.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

Butters said:


> Thanks. I'll offer a few examples, but if you're really interested in exploring the concept, SJ Gould's, "Full House", is your best resource.
> 
> Many types of parasites have abandoned complex physiology in their adaption to a parasitic life-style, as have viruses. The argument that viruses are not truly 'alive is dependent on the premise that metabolism is the defining attribute of life. However, there are a number of multicellular organisms that can also suspend metabolic activity for varying lengths of time. Tardigrades (also known as 'water bears') are the classic example of this phenomena. Numerous vertebrates also have reduced complexity in comparison to their ancestors-flightless birds for one example, blind cavefish and salamanders for another. In certain deep-sea anglerfish, the males are basically gonads with a nose and fins. once they locate a female, they latch on near her vent and in a short time becomes irreversibly integrated into her circulatory system. Over time,the male atrophies to the point that he is no more than a sac containing the gonads...
> 
> ...


Amazing stuff! Whenever I get the chance I'm going to get me that book! Thanks for a fascinating post Butters, appreciate it !

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2009)

> ....... and the advent of eukaryotic life-forms like ourselves in the last 500 million yrs is merely an interesting sideshow.



A sideshow?

Ummm, not a good corollary.

The last 500 million years has been the main event for the story of life, with the last 10,000 a special event.


----------



## Heinz (Aug 10, 2009)

We are definately the ubiquitous loner of the Universe. Who the hell would be friends with us! 

They came, they saw, they buggered off...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## A4K (Aug 11, 2009)

Agree wholeheartedl Alex!


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 11, 2009)

Heinz said:


> We are definately the ubiquitous loner of the Universe. Who the hell would be friends with us!
> 
> They came, they saw, they buggered off...


----------



## stona (Mar 6, 2020)

I was re-reading this for a bit of fun, and thought that some of the answers seriously underestimate the time and distances involved.

We have SETI, scanning the galaxy for alien signals, but imagine how long ago they would have had to be broadcast if their origin was at any significant distance from our own little corner of the Milky Way.

We have been broadcasting for about a hundred years. If we assume that radio waves travel at the speed of light in a vacuum (as far as we know they do!) then there will be a bubble of our radio waves about 200 light years in diameter. Surely someone must have heard us?

Errrrr, not really.
This image shows a 200 light year bubble around the earth in respect to our Galaxy.







It is NOT that box. It's the little blue bubble in the middle of it.

Of course there are billions of other galaxies, but they are so far away that the distances mean nothing to our tiny minds.

Food for thought methinks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Mar 6, 2020)

stona said:


> I was re-reading this for a bit of fun, and thought that some of the answers seriously underestimate the time and distances involved.
> 
> We have SETI, scanning the galaxy for alien signals, but imagine how long ago they would have had to be broadcast if their origin was at any significant distance from our own little corner of the Milky Way.
> 
> ...




This explains the message I got - " There was a problem downloading the firmware upgrade for your transmat device, please wait 3.5 billion years 
while Windows Alpha Centauri reboots....."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 7, 2020)

I'm sure, that there are other forums out there, we can't be the only intelligent species....

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 7, 2020)

Interesting topic. It seems just by the sheer number of planets out there( almost infinite )(,with better technology there learning that many stars do indeed have planets) that there must be life somewhere.
That being said I heard a report on the news last week that one of the organizations that searches for alien radio signals was hanging it up at least for now as they had searched everywhere within there capabilities and found nothing.
I imagine as more capable equipment becomes available they will resume.
One thing that has occurred to me is that it may not be in our interest to broadcast our presence. The universe seems to be governed strictly by physics and therefore would favor the development of strong, ruthless, self interested life forms. There is of course a chance that the development of intelligence could temper this evolutionary advantage as it has done with mankind to SOME degree but there is certainly no guarantee or I would argue even probability. We to often equate intelligence with "good" but any highly intelligent life form is at least as likely to be aggressive as benevolent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 7, 2020)

stona said:


> I was re-reading this for a bit of fun, and thought that some of the answers seriously underestimate the time and distances involved.
> 
> We have SETI, scanning the galaxy for alien signals, but imagine how long ago they would have had to be broadcast if their origin was at any significant distance from our own little corner of the Milky Way.
> 
> ...


I think you are right that everyone under estimates the time and distances but that is to be expected as I don't think the human mind can really grasp them.


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 8, 2020)

In my senior year in High School I wrote a Science fiction short story that had 2 development paths but with similar endings.

In one the universe was of the intelligent design/creationist variety. In the other the universe was of the randomly developed-order/Darwin type. In both universes, for one reason (Judeo-Islamic-Christian based) or the other (comet-asteroid seeding), the only type of higher intelligence was of the human variety.

In the intelligent design/creationist universe the reason for the speed of light limit and the vast distances with no close neighbors was intentional, due to the recognition by the Creator that humans needed to be kept separated to prevent one group from destroying their neighbor. Termination by the Creator and self-Darwination were non-factorable variables.

In the randomly developed-order/Darwin universe, whenever a close neighbor occurred, one destroyed the other, both destroyed the other, one or both self-Darwinated. The vast distances between neighbors was a randomly ordered-result, with the speed of light limit being a non-factor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Mar 10, 2020)

I think Douglas Adams summed it up in a nutshell with his Total Perspective Vortex concept. 
You're an invisible dot on an invisible dot. The universe is just infinitely beyond all comprehension of the hairless monkeys that populate this world. 
The same monkeys that consider themselves so "advanced"...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Mar 10, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Interesting topic. It seems just by the sheer number of planets out there( almost infinite )(,with better technology there learning that many stars do indeed have planets) that there must be life somewhere.
> That being said I heard a report on the news last week that one of the organizations that searches for alien radio signals was hanging it up at least for now as they had searched everywhere within there capabilities and found nothing.
> I imagine as more capable equipment becomes available they will resume.
> One thing that has occurred to me is that it may not be in our interest to broadcast our presence. The universe seems to be governed strictly by physics and therefore would favor the development of strong, ruthless, self interested life forms. There is of course a chance that the development of intelligence could temper this evolutionary advantage as it has done with mankind to SOME degree but there is certainly no guarantee or I would argue even probability. We to often equate intelligence with "good" but any highly intelligent life form is at least as likely to be aggressive as benevolent.


Stephen Hawkings was a big proponent of stopping beaming "hello" messages out into space because, he reasoned, any race that could receive those messages had the possible capability of coming here as well. And, well, they may not want to be friends with us, Elliot. Ouch.


----------



## Tieleader (Mar 10, 2020)

WARSPITER said:


> This explains the message I got - " There was a problem downloading the firmware upgrade for your transmat device, please wait 3.5 billion years
> while Windows Alpha Centauri reboots....."


So they're running Windows 10 as well...?


----------



## WARSPITER (Mar 10, 2020)

Tieleader said:


> So they're running Windows 10 as well...?



Well I did post to the intergalactic comms Q&A site but apparently I have to wait for the next Supernova event (codenamed Sunburst service pack 2) to get an answer....


----------



## Tieleader (Mar 10, 2020)

Damn,I'm still running pack Sunburst 1.0. No wonder I'm slow!


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 10, 2020)

If there running Windows 10 we have nothing to worry about. They'll be pre occupied for the next couple a hundred years trying to get that thing to work right.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Bernhart (Mar 10, 2020)

I've heard that the surest sign of intelligent life out there is they haven't tried to contact us yet

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 11, 2020)

I heard an interesting discussion on the radio (or podcast) the other day on this that the challenges of finding other intelligent life forms is related to the fact that there is almost always conflict when they come into contact. Therefore in evolutionary models intelligent worlds that came into contact would destroy one or the other or in some cases would dissolve through internal conflict. This would perhaps in part explain some of it but there’s almost certainly something out there.


----------



## denoferth (Mar 12, 2020)

Matt308 said:


> Michio Kaku. I love this guy. If you have never heard him before he is a total mind eff. This is not the best interview, but you get some insights into his Harvard/Princeton/Berkley educational background. Multiple universes, advanced civilizations, and aliens are just a bit of his physics based discussions. Fascinating if you ask me.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw8dcb8iKSM_
> ...



Yes, the darling of the media, his doctorate is in fruit fly reproduction. Michio Kaku, appears to have an opinion on everything. I’ve followed his antics for years and he’s certainly no friend of anyone who disagrees with his wacky, leftist opinions.


----------



## WARSPITER (Mar 13, 2020)

Two points;

1. All other civilisations in the cosmos who advanced far beyond us to the stage of being able to instantly produce whatever they wanted
and had also progressed to not having to have meals due to advanced tablets etc are extinct.

Why? because they were depressed and lost all creativity. Stopped building models of anything - shock horror.
And worse - no more bacon.

Having to live somewhere like that would be enough to make anyone give up.

2. Star Trek etc has a lot to answer for. Many people are actually shocked when they find out how far 100 light years is in distance
and that warp drive etc isn't "just around the corner". 

Question - where did Kirk et all go to the toilet on the Enterprise ? A friend had the 'official' plan book. Missing - toilets. Not one.
Beam it out Scotty ?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 14, 2020)

WARSPITER said:


> Question - where did Kirk et all go to the toilet on the Enterprise ? A friend had the 'official' plan book. Missing - toilets. Not one.
> Beam it out Scotty ?


That has to be better than the three seashells

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 14, 2020)

denoferth said:


> Yes, the darling of the media, his doctorate is in fruit fly reproduction. Michio Kaku, appears to have an opinion on everything. I’ve followed his antics for years and he’s certainly no friend of anyone who disagrees with his wacky, leftist opinions.



Actually, his PhD dissertation’s title is _Spin and Unitarity in Dual Resonance Models. _You can find a copy in Berkeley's library. If it's a typical theoretical physics PhD, even through I'm fluent in English and somewhat competent in math, it would take me a couple of years to try to read it.

Anyhow, Kaku is a string theorist — that’s a wacky enough position by itself— he's not much more out there than the other popular physicists pushing string theory, like Brian Greene.


----------



## WARSPITER (Mar 14, 2020)

For an obvious example of perfect spin and Unitarity in a Dual resonance model watch any clip of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers - way ahead of their time.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

