Do aliens exist??
does the Goverment work with them and tthere technologies?
is it fact or false??
Do aliens exist??
does the Goverment work with them and tthere technologies?
is it fact or false??
read my thread on " should we contact aliens? " u'll understand ..........
Of course aliens exist. Aside from the obvious statistical argument, the main chemical building blocks of life (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, phosphorous, nitrogen) are some of the most abundant elements in the universe. Frankly, in the presence of liquid water, life almost seems like a chemical inevitability given enough time.
Earth is not special. There are countless other planets just like it, and if life could start here, it could start there too. That's just taking into account life as we know it; there could be other forms of life we don't know about!
Truly, there could be no subject more exciting to a biologist than that of extraterrestrial life.
Also, I doubt any civilization capable of interstellar travel would associate themselves with a stupid, primitive animal like humans. They'd be intelligent to see how unbearably dumb humans are, and if given advanced technology, we'd surely kill ourselves and everything on this planet, and as such they would never contact us until we are deemed ready. Which, I think, will be when we are also capable of interstellar travel.
It would be really funny if an advanced alien species were to show up, and it turns out that our species is the smart one. They just evolved first, and had thousands and thousands of years to figure out how to do stuff. Or maybe they're intelligent, but it's only due to cybernetic implants that enhance their own brains' potentials by grafting them into supercomputers? So, when they really want to think hard about something, they plug their head into the ship's on board computer with a USB cable and get a temporary IQ boost.
I wouldn't say almost certainly yes. Frankly, it is impossible to say wether they exist or not until irrefutable proof is found. Before then, it is all speculation.
Who knows, just like some people rely on religion for significance, maybe people rely on the hope of extraterrestrial beings to make our existence in this universe less lonely?
I would like to say yes, but I dislike making statements on anything without at least reasonable source of proof.
As for government conspiracies, that is tosh.
You have to think of it this way, were either the first life in the universe, the last or somewhere in the middle.
As we exist theres every chance theres other life in the universe, so were probably somewhere in the middle, though as so far we can only give fact to ourselves.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 10:30 AM.
Another possibility is that all evolution sequences end in an atomic winter. In that case intelligent life has ~10,000 years to figure itself out after the first writing technology appears. After their time limit is up, and nuclear war ensues, they wipe themselves out regardless of any space technologies, because they find ways to blow up every planet that has occupants.
If that's true, then at any given time, a life form like ours has a very high % chance of being alone in its bazillion parsecs worth of space territory because all of its potential peers either haven't evolved yet, or didn't last long enough.
Why is it more plausible that we are alone in the near infinite universe then there being other intelligent life out there ?
And as for all evolution sequences ending up in atomic winter? Consider this: the vast difference between a rat and a fish here on earth should be an indication of how different other life forms might be from us.
Take a look at the Mundruku, or Piraha, to get an idea of how diverse culture can be on one planet let alone spanning lightyears and eons of evolution.
But the requirements on this planet were met for life. That is why diversification was possible. Don't confuse cultural diversity with evolutionary diversity.
Now, there very well may be other planets out there that meet the requirements for life. Chances are there are many of them.
That does not mean that (a) life evolved on that planet, (b) life survived on that planet or (c) that if it did survive, it is intelligent life.
An easy mistake to make. Both turtle and tulip begin with a tu. (excuse me being familiar.)
Compared to the age of the universe, we have existed for hardly no time at all and there are already unmistakeable biological and electro magnetic signs of our presence on [ and beyond ] our planet. We have bits of hardware all over the solar system [ and beyond ] - if the universe contained even a fraction of the civilizations predicted by the Drake equation we would certainly have some evidence of them by now.
I am am an enthusiastic exponent of the theory that we may well be the first [ and or ONLY ] sentient beings on the block. I've found this to be a difficult standpoint as people are genuinely 'disturbed' by this proposal.
Recommeded reading - Rare Earth - this book lays out the tenuous thread of completely random events that have led to the appearance of life on this planet. If the Earth had not been whacked by the asteriod 65 million years ago,early mammals would still be hiding from dinosaurs and there would be no primates and therefore no hominids.
It amazing that we are here at all - I'm of the opinion that to expect that other alien civilisations exist demonstrates a lack of understanding of how we got here
I think the idea that our or any other government has some kind of exclusive arrangement with ETI is sci-fi and woo fodder. It presumes that ETI would require such an arrangement, be subservient to the 'cover-up,' and bestows an X-Files omnipotence on the part of the PTB to make any cover-up work...we're talking "control" that would have to manage everyone from astronomers, meteorologists, down to me and you with our nifty backyard telescopes. That's a lot of Men In Black!
The proposition that aliens are unlikely to exist is neither shortsighted, arrogant, nor an assumption.
To reaonably offer such a proposition requires consideration of observations, hypotheses and theories from cosmology, astrophysics, planetology, geology, geochemistry, biology, genetics, biocehmistry and a host of other disciplines. such extensive and intensive considerations cannot properly be called shortsighted.
To recognise that we may be the only intelligent lifeform in the universe should be, and for contemplative persons is, a uniqeuly humbling experience carrying with it an alomst inconceivable responsibility.
No assumptions that cannot be reasonably verified through observation are necessary to arrive at this proposition.
I agree that consideration of "observations, hypotheses and theories from cosmology, astrophysics, planetology, geology, geochemistry, biology, genetics, biochemistry and a host of other disciplines. such extensive and intensive considerations cannot properly be called shortsighted" but it's not the methodology that's shortsighted or arrogant here, it's the reliance on insufficient data to come to a conclusion. The best answer is we don't know. The worst answer is we do.
Yes life is a chemical inevitability, point is how many 'earth like' planets could have evolved intelligent
life that would have the means to develop technology as we know it.
Our technology is based on fossil fuels, produced on our planet by the vast forests over millenia.
Is it too far fetched to assume that other 'earth like' planets would not have the same scenario?
But still have intelligent life?
The Greeks worked out almost everthing, but communication on the scale we are about
they knew nothing of.
As an aside, Baron, is SETI looking in the wrong direction. If there are UFOs out there, how
do they comunicate with each other? Radio, as we know it, tells us nothing.
But that may mean they have a means of communication we are not aware of as yet
A few possibilities:
1) - Just as humans learn the most about lions in Africa when the lions don't know we're watching, maybe aliens might find our behavior to be the most interesting when we don't know.
2) - Just as it didn't take the Russians very long to figure out how to build the nuclear bomb once they knew the USA had one, maybe aliens don't like the idea of humans learning their technology. We're liable to go to their planet and start blowing things up if we get it into our heads that we're being treated as inferiors - which is probably how they look at us.
3) - Expanding on 2, just look at the things Muslim extremists do to first world countries like the USA. Last thing they need is a bunch of zealots going over there and telling them to worship Allah or Jesus Christ rather than their god "Ick Bick Zing", or "!@#;d boidrk" (or whatever other silly name they might have for their man in the sky).
4) - Resource harvesting: easier to do against a society of unwitting capitalists, rather than slaves. Maybe human stock markets are very simple to predict for them, or they patent a new technology every now and again. (Probably most patent attorneys aren't going to ask why their client is so secretive, or has tentacles hanging out of his/her/its coat, so long as he/she/it pays his/her/its bills on time, and if they do ask they can't tell anyway, due to client attorney privilege.)
In all these cases, it would be in their best interests to keep their presence covered up. Probably in our best interests too (except option #4)
Regarding #2, maybe they shouldn't crash all the time. You have to admit that would go a long way toward them keeping their technology out of the hands of us pesky Earthers, no?
#3 - Kinda reinforces why they shouldn't hobnob with the PTBs here.
#4 - I often read that ET comes here like a moth to a flame because we and/or our planet is something special but when it comes to our natural resources they can be found elsewhere. Now let's, for the sake of argument, say we had something found nowhere else or, at the very least, closer to them than the next oasis -- there's still no need to engage in the kind of subterfuge that involves things like cover-ups, MIB, and whatnot. As far as we go, are we really worth ETI coming here just so they can dabble in our stock markets? As far as interjecting advanced technology in small bits to see what happens, I can buy that in the context of your #1 I suppose. However, working with Uncle Sam or (name your country) isn't required nor is it wise. As I said earlier, it waters down the rationale behind your #1. Notice a common theme here?
It should be evident from my use of the phrases "the proposition that aliens are unlikey to exist" and "we may be the only intelligent lifeform" that I wholly understand the impossibility of proving a negative.The proposition that we are 'alone' can not ever be established. You understand that don't you?
I fully concur that extrapolating from a sample size of one is unscientific. That, however, was not the thought expressed in your original post.
I think you need to return your book of logical fallacies and ask for your money back Ophiolite. By taking an opinion that's directed at those who think we are alone or find it highly likely we are alone and trying to broad-brush it outside the context it was meant, you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.
Now are you done derailing this thread with your asinine nits?
1. I stated at the outset that "My grasp of logical fallacies is poor", so confirming the point was unnecessary.
2. My central point is that practically no one in their right mind makes the assertion you have directed your opinion towards. That is assuredly a strawman. So I ask you , why condemn a viewpoint that practically no right thinking person holds? Why?
3. If it is your contention that this is a reasonably common viewpoint you could simply have demonstrated that and thereby demonstrated the fallacy of my premise. Job done. That you have resorted instead to what approaches an ad hominem suggests you are unable to do so.
Now, if you wish to reply could you do so without the angst please.
Yet you did it anyway.1. I stated at the outset that "My grasp of logical fallacies is poor", so confirming the point was unnecessary.
Your central point is a strawman and makes you come across as a nit-picking smartass. My opinion regarding those that I feel are short-sighted and arrogant applies to those that reject or are highly against the concept of 'aliens' existing elsewhere. It doesn't matter what percentage of folks share that POV and my descriptors obviously weren't directed at those you refer to as "in their right mind." So why bring it up? If this thread was about ghosts and I directed my opinion towards those that believe in them (whether they frequented this forum or not) would you feel compelled to erect a similar strawman?2. My central point is that practically no one in their right mind makes the assertion you have directed your opinion towards. That is assuredly a strawman. So I ask you , why condemn a viewpoint that practically no right thinking person holds? Why?
Your "premise," if that's what you choose to call your BS, is based on a figment of your imagination. I never said a no-ET POV was "common" or "reasonably common" to use your term.3. If it is your contention that this is a reasonably common viewpoint you could simply have demonstrated that and thereby demonstrated the fallacy of my premise. Job done. That you have resorted instead to what approaches an ad hominem suggests you are unable to do so.
Angst? Heh, you misjudge me sir. Lack of respect is more like it. You'll get the respect you give.Now, if you wish to reply could you do so without the angst please.
You will recall that I argue for direct (not thinly veiled) ad hominem attacks against persistent offenders against the scientific method and the willfully ignorant. It is not to be applied to someone simply because you happen to disagree with them. Try to pay more attention.Originally Posted by puma man
If someone thinks there are no aliens, it doesn't make them short sighted or arrogant. It just means that their wild ass guess is different than your wild ass guess.
Humans have a reasonable knowledge of only one body (the Earth) in the Universe.
We are the dominant species, because of our intelligence, and while our existence does not clinch any arguments about the existence of aliens it surely is a major piece of evidence.
There is however the question as to whether anyone actually is so naive that they assume we are the only example of intelligent life in the universe. It would be a weak position to take, logically.
Are there any detected,iron core (or 'exotic' equivalent) planets that can deflect solar radiation?
Although i would never discount 'alien' life being able to evolve with solar radiation
Last edited by brane wave; August 28th, 2011 at 09:32 PM.
Are aliens real?,well many believe they are,and many believe they are not.I think they are and this is my reasoning.
Do i believe we are the only life forms in the galaxy? No i do not.It is highly reasonable that we are not,since this galaxy is HUGE.We think that,since we are the domonent species,then it sounds irrational that other life forms exist.Those people are wrong in my opinion.Now back in ancient Egypt,there were ancient cave pictures that showed flying chariots and (extraterrestrial beings) that came down from the sky.And other stories of the government getting their technological intelligence from aliens.These stories can be viewed either way,but the fact is,there are most likely other forms of life out there.Now you can picture them any way you want.Do they have to be Greys,or the comic book creatures you read about?No,they do not,but,you can have your opinion.Truth is,and i personally believe this,That the only way we will ever know about the other forms of life out there,is when our government decides to come front and tell us the truth about it.But when will that happen?,even i don't know that.
Not to mention that is an IQ was the result of years of hard research not from birth then would that mean that if our information that we earnt to gain a higher IQ at a later date could be compremised by others to become what we are. At elast my IQ has been one of a hard earnt reflection of what i truefully went out to earnhard for without using others to get where I am
Whatever your alleged IQ is, your English ain't good. You'd think a smart person would be more careful
Aliens do not exist. And angels do not exist either. We're all just people.
On a sub-atomic particle basis humans are the basis of life, because the particles that make up humans are known to man kind. that is to say that potentially life could be created elsewhere in the planet but that would require the correct genetic makeup which would be similar to ours of course though different in the way it was arranged. Plus it would have to have the necessary resources as we know it to produce life that could survive.
Does anyone know any aliens.No aliens don't exist.If aliens did exist ,then someone would know them or someone that knows them.No aleins do not exist.But I can't say for certain.
By statistical averages you are right,except you forgot a few variables that might also exist.
We don't know except for science what is out there in the universe.Which seems to me to leave the possibilitise of alien civilizations.But by the same reasoning it leaves open the possibilities of things from sci-fi movies .This of course includes planet of the Easter Bunnies.
Well, this revived thread - dormant since 2011 - is not, thus far, heading in a very positive direction.
Let me begin by welcoming you, tytj8501, to the forum and then comment on your posts.
Since this is a science forum we like to discuss science, the findings of science, the scientific method and so forth. Opinions may creep into some posts, but they should generally be subordinate to facts, established theory, or well reasoned argument.Aliens do not exist. And angels do not exist either. We're all just people.
If you make a statement as definitive as "aliens do not exist" you really need to back it up with some kind of evidence. (The evidence we really like is the kind you can find in peer reviewed research papers published in reputable science journals, but for the sake of a good discussion the bar can be set lot lower.)
Introducing comments about angels carries all sorts of implications about religion. If that is not what you intended then it would have been helpful to be more informative. Generally we try to keep religion out of scientific discussions.
I am completely at a loss as to what you mean by saying we are all just people. Are we also all just rabbits? Or elm trees? You do need to expand on what you've said in order for me to understand its relevance.
Either you have expressed yourself badly, or you are badly mistaken. Humans arrived three and a half billion years after life appeared on the Earth, so there is no way in which they are the basis of life. Just because we know about quarks and atoms and DNA does not make us the basis of life.On a sub-atomic particle basis humans are the basis of life, because the particles that make up humans are known to man kind.
??? Do you mean:that is to say that potentially life could be created elsewhere in the planet but that would require the correct genetic makeup which would be similar to ours of course though different in the way it was arranged. Plus it would have to have the necessary resources as we know it to produce life that could survive.
1) We are no in a position of being able to create life.
2) Life could arise again on the planet, but it would be similar to what is currently present.
3) Something else.
tytj8501, please do not take these observations as an attack on you. I am sure you have some interesting contributions to make to the forum, but at present you aren't making much sense. I hope you will post again, taking the time to explain your thinking a little more clearly.
Sapien, also welcome to the forum. You say this:
Since aliens, by definition, would be from other planets and we have not yet visited any other planets that are likely to harbour aliens, and there are no well-confirmed instances of them visiting us, then is not surprising that no one knows any aliens. Strange has already made the same point.Does anyone know any aliens.No aliens don't exist.If aliens did exist ,then someone would know them or someone that knows them.No aleins do not exist.But I can't say for certain.
We simply do not know if life like that on Earth is unique, rare, commonplace, or ubiquitous. Your last sentence is correct. It disagrees completely with your earlier statements.
What variables are you talking about?By statistical averages you are right,except you forgot a few variables that might also exist.
Tytj8501 = Sapien
Both are relatively new and seem to agree on a rare view. They also use very similar writing styles. To top it off, they're posting in a thread that's been dead since 2011, which is suspicious activity. Leave it to detective Moon, genius sleuth, to deduce they are in fact the same person.
There are about 400 billion stars just in our galaxy. Most of them have planets. And there are at least 170 billion such galaxies just in the observable universe. That is about 1000000000000000000000000 stars.
You are really certain that none of those gazillions of planets don't have life? Really?
What if they're not aliens but Humans from the far, far future who accidentally got sent back in time when they accidentally mixed up metric and imperial units when programming their wormhole-traveling technology?
aliens alien aliens... stupid stupid stupid... aliens aliens aliens...me you he she
Long time lurker, just wanted to post all of a sudden.
I tend to think that aliens possessing a commonality to us in dimensional time and space do not exist. In no way obviously could I state it empirically one way or the other. Of course, most persons opinions on such subjects are colored by their own interpretive framework of the universe. As such, I believe our thoughts on how big the universe is, are rather in a box. We have only what we perceive as existence, how could we have anything else, although technically were one able to stand back and observe all of existence, mayhaps this entire universe is but a blip of dimensional existence within few or many other dimensional existences. Maybe there are aliens or what we would conceive to be aliens that exist in entirely different planes of existence. Maybe their own universes are as big as ours. Not to discount of course a belief in spiritual entities, ghosts projections or other such things that aren't so tangible to us (if they were to exist, I am not saying they do). Would those qualify as aliens, and if those could in some way make a path into our perceived existence, would we then see them as aliens? As much as I love Firefly, Star Trek, and pretty much anything of the sort, I've no reason to believe it is anything like that, although I will happily dream of it.
If they do exist, in the way that people tend to formulate them in their heads currently, it would neither surprise nor rock me. If they didn't at all I would have the same reaction, but I still like to think of it. Due to my framework and beliefs, I tend to believe they exist but in entirely different universes, and I do believe in spiritual and metaphysical entities as well.
We do struggle hard to point out life everywhere, perhaps it is better to spend more time reflecting on the life we do actually know empirically exists..but well that is boring.
What do you mean by "dimensional existences"?We have only what we perceive as existence, how could we have anything else, although technically were one able to stand back and observe all of existence, mayhaps this entire universe is but a blip of dimensional existence within few or many other dimensional existences.
In other words they might as well not exist.I tend to believe they exist but in entirely different universes
Er, okay...and I do believe in spiritual and metaphysical entities as well.
I mean that the dimensions we perceive and exist within, might be but a shadow of greater existence overall. If there are countless galaxies within our perception. I could conceive that there could be countless universes beyond it. Differing laws, differing existence.
What, you can firmly believe in aliens without any actual observable evidence, but can't believe in spirits? Eh, either way.
There's nothing mysterious about life (beyond the obvious, of course).What, you can firmly believe in aliens without any actual observable evidence, but can't believe in spirits? Eh, either way.
Positing that Earth is the only planet in the entire universe to have life on it is a rather large step.
Spirits, however, are something else entirely.
What evidence do we have that spirits exists at all?
It can be true.I have watched the Obama's body guard turning into an alien video.And those bald guys,they never looked real to me.Maybe I am wrong.
There could be life somewhere out there.
Aliens do exist, and they have taken over the minds of nutjobs who come into these forums to try and start anti religious diatribes.
They are legion, and feed off of the silliness of those "discussions". And when they can dine no more on that insanity, they finish eating the brains of the possessed.
I have heard the "you're not a real atheist" comment a few times directed towards atheists who are harsh towards religion. I personally want the word 'god' removed from the US dollar, pledge of allegiance removed from school and sports. I dislike the word 'anti religious' because even the most peaceful and non-confrontational nonreligious people are often considered anti-religious in the minds of the religious.Originally Posted by Sculptor
Richard Dawkins would be considered anti-religious by most in general, and I don't view him as a nutjob. As for diabtribes, I can say I never directly insult religious people to their faces(but I do insult all religion in general). Meanwhile, a portion of members on this site(I won't name them) that claim to hate anti-religious people are the first ones to refer to the theist they're debating as an 'idiot' or some other insult.
My personal opinion is to not distinguish between nonreligious and anti-religious, to only use the term nonreligious. Context is more important, as some 'anti-religious' people don't even use diatribes. Anti-religious is nonreligious, they are not separate things.
Last edited by Burgergirl; October 4th, 2013 at 08:06 PM.
There is a broad misconception concerning "religious" and the book which contains the words of the followers of the followers of the children of Abraham:
They are not equal.
If one does not know the teachings of Zarathustra, nor the vedic manuscripts, then there becomes a pseudo-understanding that the "BOOK" stands alone.
OTOH, give us some waffle from Zarathustra or the vdeic manuscripts and we'll probably point out how inane they are too.
if there is any sciencer who believe in aliens should be fired immediately...
I take your mangled phraseology to mean ""If there are any scientists who believe in aliens he should be fired immediately".
It depends on what YOU mean by "believe in".
Aliens that have visited us? Probably, it depends on how (or if) he applies that belief to his work.
The possibility that aliens that exist somewhere in the universe? Hardly a firing matter - it's rational belief, possibly more rational than believing that Earth is the sole inhabited planet in the entire universe.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; October 5th, 2013 at 12:39 PM.
Maybe, i mean there are equations meant to calculate the possibility of life. Although we can say non intelligent "alien" life exist outside of our biosphere such as bacteria found on asteroids for one example and there are a few other examples. However the quest to find intelligent life would be the main agenda i guess. Although i would say, if aliens developed intelligence, how can we measure it? I mean don't all animals have a means of communicating, some use tools and others don't. If we are to quantify intelligent beings with those using tools than probably it could be a very small to maybe a no answer, if we say intelligence by communication and the ability to adapt, the possibility expands itself to a highly possible yes.
If you can answer how we quantify this form of "intelligence" which is usually portrayed in movies as beings who used advanced technology with the capability to surpass our modern arsenal which is quite narrow-minded, where the only way for the development of technology for any living being should and must be that of tools before intelligence can be expressed, when even intelligent discussions are even taking place now without the use of tools in consideration but the question of knowledge such is philsophy, showing that tools could possibly be a bad indicator of alien intelligence. I would be interested if anyone can define how we are going to quantify this intelligence and whether would it be restricted to that of our own development cycle or to include the possibility of others.
Tools and technology is a display of intelligence which is probably unique to us and a few other species. However other life forms express their intelligence is an aspect that can use clarification so as to establish a system to classify what is meant by the existence of "intelligent aliens".
Sources of the 2011 find:
Alien fossils found in meteorite? Scientists urge skepticism. - CSMonitor.com
Has life been found in a meteorite? : Bad Astronomy
Please excuse my ability to find sources that are reliable since i am not familiar with which source is reliable and neither can i take them all as unreliable.
I have checked the links you have provided, but I am afraid that their reliability is not high.
Although the CSMonitor does provide the necessary links and information, it is immediately clear that the validity of the primary source is questionable.
The Journal of Cosmology is not a peer-reviewed journal and has a habit of "publishing" erroneous claims.
From your article:"In response to some critics questioning why the research wasn't published in the more prestigious journals Science or Nature, the Journal of Cosmology responded with a statement that "both Science and Nature have a nasty history of rejecting extremely important papers, some of which later earned the authors a Nobel Prize." "Science and Nature are in the business of making money," the journal charged. "The Journal of Cosmology, is free, open access, and is in the business of promoting science.""
The second article is, despite being written by Phil Plait, not very reliable either.
It is a blog and thus written from a personal viewpoint (although he sums it up quite nicely).
About ALH84001, I quote from an earlier thread:
There is no need for apologies!
It is good to post sources, because it allows everyone to check the validity of one's claims and sources.
However, in defense of The Bad Astronomer, he followed up quickly as the top of the blog points out: Followup thoughts on the meteorite fossils claim : Bad Astronomy
Obviously being in a plane of existence not observable to us, all evidence of such things much like aliens is anecdotal. A corporeal existence, I don't think is something to be just discounted with a wave of a hand, no more than aliens. There are many accounts of spiritual encounters, paranormal activity (that if even but a fraction is true (which it might not be, but I don't know for sure myself in any kind of omniscient fashion)), can also make sense logically and scientifically, we just wouldn't have the scientific framework to understand the laws governing the interactions..(I would wager at some point it would all relate to energy, or informational transfer).
However, I am not putting forth dogmatism on something unobserved, just bringing it up in a pseudoscience forum for fun
|« UFOs versus Modern Technology | Do monopoles exist? »|