Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #321You you may be right in some regards. It's entirely possible to move off a home planet and to colonize another, but it would be an extremely difficult task. Species develop to fit their own planet, and living on a foreign one would be very demanding. For instance, there could be a planet that is like Earth in almost every way. It has the same elements in the same quantities and compositions and it is in the habitable zone. But it might be 5 times the size of Earth, and the gravity would be crushing. A species that looks and acts just like humans do might be able to survive there, but they would have to be 5 times the size as regular humans.
-
-
Er, we just discovered a new planet almost identical to Earth, with which if we had more advanced fire suits, could literally live on. The standard firesuit can withstand thousand degree temperature for about 18 seconds. The temperature of the newfound Kepler planet is 798 degrees.
Unfortunately too far away for our space exploration capabilities, assuming we had FTL we could easily make the travel.
If not, assuming we could at least slow down the aging process, we already have machines that can self-feed/water us and exercise our bodies without moving. We'd just have to make it wait.
Given 3 times as much time as Earth has had, who's to say an alien race hasn't already followed these steps?
-
The 1976 Tehran UFO incident is a fairly interesting case to discuss, primarily because of the reputable evidence for a physical presence that was very well documented.
This is the only real case with evidence worth considering that I can really think of at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident
Video for the lazy, but jesus christ its cheesy.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=701_1268549064
-
-snip-
-
Because you are like trying to use some "volume argument" using only one dimension, and considering empty space as a factor. It doesn't make much sense. I can't look over your calculations because they are very poorly written (please, just use ^ instead of mashing zeroes).
You have calculated the size of Earth compared to the universe in one dimension. I can do that too in an instant:
(Diameter of Earth) / (Diameter of the observable Universe)
=
13 000 km / 93 billion ly
=
(12 * 10^6) m / (8.8 * 10^26) m
=
1.36 * 10^-18 % or 0.000000000000000000136 %
Which tells us absolutely nothing of importance.
And Drake's Equation is still useless since we don't know all the variables (we can't even estimate some).
-
This, what if there have been/are right now civilizations that are much more intelligent than humans, but they have no way of travelling so far across the universe.
And they don't have to be humanoid like everyone expects.
It could be some fucked up race of cactus monsters
-
Er, it does. And the pictures I provided lay out the observable universe in two dimensions (where are you getting this one dimension from? One dimension is used for the perimeter of an object).
Why I say it does, because if we make up such a small proportion of the universe it's nigh impossible another sentient race exists.
I still don't get why you say the Drake's Equation doesn't work. There is only one variable that varies in that equation, the rest is estimated based on rather recent tests as per my sources.
What variables don't we know?
-
We can estimate the number of stars decently.
If you want to stretch it, we can estimate the number of planets aswell.
And then it becomes very uncertain to the point where you pretty much have to take a shot in the dark. For the other five variables.
-
I swear WitheredGryphon, if you handed me your post in real life I'd probably rip it in half and throw it in the bin.
There's no proof. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Let's say that Drake's Equation is completely 100% accurate. There's still no proof. We could be in the 0.00000000000000000000000000001% (or any other garbage figure) of universes without life besides Earth.
-
I personally think that the only real "evidence" (proof means that it is 100% certain) for the evidence of Aliens is the ancient "holy texts". This is pretty weak evidence, but imo it is the most likely.
There is also the chance that the amount of sightings of et increased after TV & Radio etc was due to the radio signals we were broadcasting over space, which some aliens have picked up and possibly mabye slightly decided to come here
-
Radio/tv signals are only going to be detectable a few light years around earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
-
Holy texts, thus aliens. That's evidence right?
-
That's still detectable by bypassing vessels. Might be weak but can easily be traced to the source.
Edited:
also the other day i saw this weird consistent pattern in the sky that looked like two triangle corners with one above the other. I was real curious because the cloud changed shapes but the triangular outline on the right side of it stayed solid.
-
Heh.
So by that logic one could argue that the various gods are real?
People write crazy things, and if they sound crazy they most likely are. Maybe one day people will think our comic books were real.
-
I didnt say it wasn't super mega ultra super terrible weak evidence, but its the strongest so far
Edited:
Maybe they will, but really we have no other "evidence" which is so widespread as that, and in all honesty I dont believe in god(s) but I think aliens are out there, and there is a microscopilly tiny mega ultra tiny chance that they may have made contact, which is the only other explanation for the holy texts other than some woman made it all up to not seem like an adulterer
-
But how is that evidence at all? There's no link between holy text and aliens.
-
really? Lots of the miracles they cite might be explained by technology, again I'm saying it isnt a very big change
the best example I can think of is when isolated tribes have been contacted with far more technologically advanced people, eg I remember hearing about a tribe who saw a bunch of fair skinned people, who when they wanted food would build a big strange altar in a clearing and a metal bird would shine down lightning and food would appear (this was the expedition going from south america to north, with the tribe refering to the radio tower they would set up to get supplies)
-
You're taking an awfully big link in going from 'book' to 'the events really happened, aliens'
-
Yes, I am. Its a better explanation then an almightly super natural being sent down his magical super son to magically kill himself so the world was better, but probably slightly worse than some dude(s) made it up to get rich/etc.., atleast until we have more evidence to prove of disprove it. At this point, we are basically clutching at invisible straws
-
How about the explanation is that it's fiction?
-
You are, not "we".
-
there isn't one. It is simply an irrational belif. Again, to me, it just seems a better possibilty than an enormous piece of fiction, especially as it seems to have somehow managed to indoctrinate a large amount of people, which it could have easily been. (think of it as being on the fence, except the fence isn't very well made and sorta wobbles a bit)
-
This subject became so boring after all this time searching for answers...
-
Personally I reckon aliens definetely exist, but are likely too far away for us to even hope to make contact with them.
-
The problem is that there is very little evidence for either side if this debate, so right now it's just a matter of opinions or beliefs
-
If there were solid proof, then this thread wouldn't exist, now would it?
-
He said nothing of proof. He said evidence.
-
ALIENS: Real, but not here, all the sightings are bullshit, it's just like the Loch Ness stuff. Who knows, there could be an alien civilization just a few star systems away, or the nearest one could be all the way in Andromeda! Nobody knows.
-
Good job contradicting yourself there.
What's the difference?
-
Seriously?
If I throw something up in the air and it comes back down, that's evidence of gravity. It's not proof. It could also be evidence of the world being flat.
Proof is information that verifies a claim as true. Evidence is used to build the claim and support the proof.
-
Ok thanks. In my native language we typically use one word for both meanings.
-
He is saying that nobody knows if the closest Alien civilization is in the Andromeda or a few star systems away.
Also, most sightings are most likely bullshit and the ones that look to be real (such as 1976 Tehran Incident) are most likely just something related to nature we cant explain, I highly doubt that Aliens are going to be all shadowy for no reason at all.
Rad, please don't start with your government is hiding it again, thank you.
-
I don't get why "the government hides them" is such a popular theory. I mean, why would they? What would be the point of hiding all the aliens and their technology from the world?
-
AUTISMAL FEDORA WEARING MASSIVE RUNNING JOKE - PRAY CROHN'S DISEASE KILLS ME
July 2010
17,345 Posts
To give conspiracy writers employment.
-
Because they have absolutely nothing to gain by informing everyone about it. The logical move is to keep it underwraps, because:
1) Monopoly on technology with unknown potential. You want to keep the true potential powers of this technology to yourself. It is a technology that could change the world we know, maybe even be used as a weapon far greater than any nuclear head, maybe even destroy our planet. Spilling your guts about having this potential is the kind of thing that could start another World War. Develop and use this technology yourself. Keep your mouth shut until you really know what you're dealing with here.
2) Alien visitors would be proof of other beings out there more powerful than humans. This would severely damage the image of power the governments around the world have. The people who rule countries want nothing more than the status quo. They like it because it's how they maintain their power. It's very stupid to risk everything by disclosing such a huge thing. Who knows what the results would be. Would society collapse? Would there be revolutions? Or would nothing happen at all?? The point is that it's an unnecessary risk. You have nothing to gain from telling everybody!
3) More extreme reasons could even be that it's part of a deal from the aliens. They agree with exchanging technology and information, but they don't want the human society to know. Just like any other military operation. Maybe they're very hostile, planning to attack Earth, and our government knows about it! Starting an uncontrolled mass panic is never a good idea - regardless of what government you believe in.
-
yes, but the amount of people involved would surely leak it somehow
not only that, but how would first contact be made?
Spaceship? instantly detected
Long range beam? lots of non-governmental telescopes could easily pick that up
The only real way this would be under wraps is if the aliens invited us to make first contact
-
So much information about this has been leaked for like 50 years. Where do you think we get all this information? So many retired army personel who in later years have started to blow the whistle... Only that hardly anyone listen or take them seriously. Just look at this thread. You're using a circle argument.
"If the government hid aliens then surely there would be testimonies/leaks"
"But there are!"
"They're nutcases. They are full of bullshit. Because there is no proof of aliens."
"It's a conspiracy."
"But then there would be leaks!!"
and so forth...
It is widely believed that the Roswell incident back in '47 was our first contact with aliens. Three aliens crashed in their ship in the desert (ie first contact was by accident). But then theories start to diverge as to whether there were any survivors, what happened to the ship and bodies, and when any formal contact with the aliens occured.
But I don't really understand the question. Why is first contact an issue?
-
I believe that life does exist elsewhere. While the development of life needs extremely precise conditions, the amount of stars and planets in the universe make the possibility of life greater.
See, earth is a very rare planet to our knowledge, which has a perfect distance from the sun to keep it at a temperature perfect for life as we know it to allow water to be a liquid and other elements to be at a state capable of sustaining life. However, I'm not sure if the first cell was developed on earth, or floated in from elsewhere, but creating a cell would involve random atoms and molecules forming by chance to bond into what we call a cell.
So we need, a perfect planet with a good, stable temperature with an abundance of the necessary elements to support life. We also need those random atoms and molecules to bind and form a cell capable of duplicating and sustaining itself. For all we know, earth could be the only planet in the universe where atoms have bonded to form a cell.
That being said, Many people assume that life elsewhere in the universe has to be carbon based much like ourselves, but other forms of life could be completely different from us with completely different elements needed. This means that different planet conditions, elements, temperature could be needed to sustain life and they don't need that "perfect" planet like earth to survive.
Tl;DR, Life is extremely rare but with the massive amount of planets and stars in the universe, it is quite likely that life does exist elsewhere in the universe.
This stuff fucking blows my mind.
-
First of all: No, the size of the universe alone says nothing about the actual likelihood of ET life.
Secondly: Irrelevant to the discussion!
-
wellll, it does. It just makes contact with us less likely
