I have always believed that we are not alone out there. My reasoning is simple; do the math:
Let's assume that for every million solar systems out there, one will have life on it (at this very point in the timeline)Of those planets with life on them, one out of every million has intellegent life on it. When you consider that the Milky Way galaxy has over 300 billion stars, it becomes obvious that there are other intellegent, sentient beings out there. Even if you raised the odds to 1 out of 5 million out of 5 million, the math still supports life out there beyond our solar system
Which brings me to my next thought: Have they visited us? My belief is yes, we have been visited at least a few times. I once wrote a short story where Haley's comet was actually an ancient beacon designed to warn travellers that the 3rd planet was infested with humans.
But...even if we assume that there is life out there, and that we have been visited...exactly what percentage of the people who claim to have seen a UFO or been abducted are actually legitimate?
Let's assume that for every million solar systems out there, one will have life on it (at this very point in the timeline)Of those planets with life on them, one out of every million has intellegent life on it. When you consider that the Milky Way galaxy has over 300 billion stars, it becomes obvious that there are other intellegent, sentient beings out there. Even if you raised the odds to 1 out of 5 million out of 5 million, the math still supports life out there beyond our solar system
Which brings me to my next thought: Have they visited us? My belief is yes, we have been visited at least a few times. I once wrote a short story where Haley's comet was actually an ancient beacon designed to warn travellers that the 3rd planet was infested with humans.
But...even if we assume that there is life out there, and that we have been visited...exactly what percentage of the people who claim to have seen a UFO or been abducted are actually legitimate?
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Wed, September 22, 2004 - 2:33 PMMy view of the whole UFO deal is that UFOs are not of alien origin. At the same time, I know there is a REMOTE possibility that all the UFO stuff (sightings, abductuons, experimentations) is real. (Insert X-Files theme here.) As I understand it, the "official" skeptics view of UFOs is that there is no verifiable evidence that UFOs are alien spacecraft. If they really are alien, the evidence to prove that point has yet to found. Of course the UFO believers say there's more than enough verifiable evidence that UFOs are alien. Though they might be right, for now I'm going to go with the view that UFOs are not of alien origin.
As for the concept of life on other planets, that seems somewhat possible to me too. On the other hand, it might be very unlikely for lifeforms to advance to the level of achieving interstellar travel. If that's the case, then that would explain why we haven't made contact with alien intelligences yet. If that's not the case, then I guess the UFO-advocates might be right. -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Wed, September 22, 2004 - 2:42 PMYou bring up an interesting point. I have long believed that the whole purpose of project Bluebook was not to investigate aliens---but as a way to put a spin on sightings of aircraft being tested at skunkworks.
I do question the lofty habit of humans referring to themselves as intellegent life forms. ;) -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Wed, September 22, 2004 - 2:45 PMMe too. In fact, I often think of the term "human intelligence" as being an oxymoron. But then, what can you do about it?
-
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 10:54 AMI think they are complete and total bunkum. They have no more validity than ghosts, psychics, dowsers, and people living in the center of the earth.
Classic case of self-delusion.
Now that being said, one night while driving through the mountains in..... -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 11:28 AMBut do you believe we have been visited? -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 11:46 AMNope. Universe is too big and the achievable speeds too slow. I do wish we had been though. -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 12:02 PMSo you don't believe there is a way around Einstein's theoretical limits? Besides, he only said that you could not exceed the speed of light. L.99 is still pretty fast, and it'd get us to the nearest star system in a little over 4 years. -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 12:12 PMTrue, but the amount of energy it takes to get those kinds of speeds are stupendous!!!! Also, you then have to slow down.
So accellerate to the halfway point, then decelerate. So even if you could get up to .99L by halfway, your average speed is going to be only .50L and 8 years for a oneway trip. A two-way trip would be 16 years.
I swear, the damn universe doesn't want us to go anywhere.
www.planetary.org/interstel...rward.html -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 12:14 PMAnd for right now, there is no "practical" way around the speed-of-light restriction.
Some ideas are being punted around by scientists proposing possible ways around the speed-of-light limitation, but noone knows yet how to actually achieve them.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 12:16 PMBut anyone with the technology to get to .99L likely has the technology to overcome those issues. The same engines that got them to .99L can be used to get them back to .02L. -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 12:24 PMThe major problem isn't the technology, it's the amount of energy it takes. The more fuel you take the more fuel you need to accelerate the extra fuel. The amount of energy is incredible. It's not the speeds, but the fuel it takes to get the speeds. -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 12:29 PMAt one time powered flight was impossible because the engines of the era were just too heavy for the power they put out. We solved that eventually. -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 2:44 PMAdam, we may do it but not by just blasting out rocket power. At the speed of light, your ship's mass would reach infinity and you would need infinite fuel to get there. At say, .98L your ship would already weigh more than the entire rest of the Universe, so how do you reach 0.99L? Then decelerate? That's a lot of go juice!
I think the answer to FTL travel lies in quantum mechanics and cooperating with physical laws, not trying to overpower them! -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 2:46 PMThanks Roy, you said it more clearly than I did.
Bob
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Tue, October 5, 2004 - 6:40 PM<< Nope. Universe is too big and the achievable speeds too slow. I do wish we had been though.>>
The bigger the universe is, the higher probabbility of intelligent life. I have to wonder if thinking of space travel in terms of "achievable speeds" isnt a little narrow minded. You assume the distance between point A and point B is always constant and that the geography in between must be directly traversed to make it to your destination. Kinda dismisses the idea of wormholes out of hand.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, September 24, 2004 - 6:02 PMI discount nothing until proven otherwise.
The thing that's always bugged me, however, about the speculation about aliens and UFO's is our arrogance at assuming we'd be able to communicate or even recognize an alien being.
What if the entire universe is THICK with sentient beings, but they're in non-corporeal form and we're the relative apes stuck in a linear time-bound existence?
It's certainly fun to consider, and, if they ever showed up and gave us the option to travel back with them, "Close Encounters"-style, I'd be the first one on that ship!
But do I believe in all that Area 52 and its ilk nonsense? Most certainly not. -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Sat, September 25, 2004 - 8:12 AMMy thoughts on UFOs is best summed up by this Richard Feynman quote:
"UFOs are better explained in terms of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial beings rather than by any unknown rational efforts of extraterrestrial beings."
I can either make tons of assumptions and speculations and try to form an incredibly unwieldy, complex conspiracy theory about UFO's, or I can remember that there are a lot of irrational humans who are either dumb, or have a desire to trick people, or who have mental disorders. Occam's razor pretty much takes care of the problem for me.
I think its almost a certainty for life to exist out there, and relatively likely that intelligent life exist(s/ed) out there, but I have never seen a shred of evidence suggesting they've been here. The universe is so big that in addition to the amount of energy needed to traverse it, the time difference between us and what we are seeing is incredible. If we recieved a signal, the civilization that sent it would likely be long gone by the time we got it.
I know its fun to speculate about faster than light travel and sources of nearly-infinite energy, but once you start using them as arguments to support the theory that we've been visited by aliens, it just seems like a stretch. Here we are with tiny pieces of highly questionable evidence, and in order to satisfy our theory, we not only have to hypothesis the existance of a super-advanced civilization with technology that no only doesn't exist here on Earth, but theoretically can't exist based on our current understanding of the universe. I'm not saying its impossible for those things to be true, just that when you have to make so many assumptions for your theory to be true, its probably time to look for a better theory, one that fits the existing data a little better.
I'd love to be part of a first encounter. I agree with Laura, if aliens came, and I had the opportunity to travel with them, I think I'd do it. But somehow I think its a little unlikely.
In terms of 'government coverups', I agree that our government has been known to keep a lot of stuff secret, but I have a hard time believing something like this would stay secret. Our government is also bumbling and inefficient, and it seems like all sorts of things that should stay secret don't, and the lifetime of any conspiracy seems to be finite based on the number of mistakes made.
Someone made the point that perhaps the alien rumors were started by the military to provide a more compelling (and easily dismissable) explanation for tests of new types of military vehicle. This is an interesting idea, and I wouldn't totally disregard it since there are lots of odd ways to get around, including various functional disk-shaped planes and helicopters that people have tried out over the years. But again, I don't know that I've seen or heard anything suggesting that this is the case.
So anyway.. UFO's, compelling, but ultimately, not a realistic theory. I wish it were true, but that, unfortunately, doesn't make it so.
peace,
sam -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Sat, September 25, 2004 - 8:17 AMSorry, my Feynman quote was a bit of a paraphrase, here is the transcript from a video of a lecture he gave in the 60's.
"I had a conversation about flying saucers some years ago with "laymen". You see, because I'm "scientific", they think I know all about flying saucers!
So, I said "I don't think there are flying saucers."
My antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers?! Can you prove that it's impossible?"
I said, "No, I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely."
"That", they say, "is very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible, then how can you say it's unlikely?"
But, that's the way it is, scientifically. It is scientific only to say what's more likely or less likely, and not to be proving all the time what's possible or impossible.
To define what I mean, I finally said to him, "Listen. I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the unknown rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence.""
He was a great guy, a pure scientist to the core. If you haven't read any of his books, I highly recommend them! His viewpoints changed the way I thought about science (for the better). Richard Feynman wasn't in the business for any reason beyond a love of discovery and the natural world, and its pretty inspiring.
peace,
sam -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Sat, September 25, 2004 - 8:32 AMThat's a great quote. I bought and have on my shelf, unread and unlistened to as of yet, "Six Easy Pieces."
To be honest, I'm not a scientist - in fact, I'm really a creative type. But I'm intellectually curious and am terribly fascinated by science and math, so I bought the book/tapes with the hope of expanding my knowledge of physics.
And it has sat on my shelf for YEARS. It just appears too daunting to me!
But your post made me go get it off the shelf and bring it out to the living room where I will be forced to deal with it!
:-) -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Mon, September 27, 2004 - 11:51 AMOne thing that came up several times in this thread was that although most of you believe that statistically there probably was life out there, but that they could never have visited because of limitations outlined in Einstein's theory of relativity.
But what if it were discovered that Einstein was either wrong, or that there were ways around his theory. What if the limitations in pushing your mass to L1.0 were over come by an engine that had no actual thrust abilities---but moved craft by modifying and enhancing their kinetic energy at the atomic level. No engines, just redirect your inertia/KE in a new direction--or add to it. With this new information would you reconsider the possibility that we have been visited.
One small note, we always assume that they would have to travel great distances at sub-light speeds to visit us. But what if they have had outposts in our neighborhood for years. Species that have been spaceborne for thousands of years, studying us like silverbacks in the jungle. -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Mon, September 27, 2004 - 12:27 PMOh, I completely agree. At no point was I making such arguments, I assure you!
I am no scientist, which is probably why I'm not arrogant enough to think we've got it right!
:-) -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 1:07 PMOne point that Spaceman Spiff & I disagree on is that there are going to be ways to travel faster than light. I havea feeling that we will find one day that only stupid species travel in spaceships. I do believe that at one time or another we have been visited, but I think the majority of claims of abductions were just bad acid trips.
At least when they let the abductees go, they don't have a great big radio transmitter collar around their neck, or a tag stapled to their ear. ;)
-
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Thu, September 30, 2004 - 2:53 PMWe can speculate all day about our idea of the physical world being wrong, but the speculations do us no good in determining whether or not it is likely that we have been visited. The fact don't know of any theoretical method for exceeding the speed of light means that, scientifically speaking, it is very unlikely that anyone has done so. Not impossible, but very unlikely.
Our current understanding of physics is far from perfect, but we can't know how it is wrong (if we knew how it was wrong, then we could fix it!). Maybe the maximum speed attainable by a physical object is actually far less than the speed of light. This is an equally viable statement as the statement, maybe the maximum speed attainable by a physical object is more than the speed of light. The two statements are logically equivalent in weight, as would be any statement suggesting that maybe something we know to be true isn't actually true. I'm not saying that those things aren't possibilities, but until we know, then we don't know what we don't know. If that makes any sense. ;)
Anyway, I certainly won't say its impossible that we've been visited, just that, as far as I can tell, its incredibly unlikely. Maybe there are alien outposts nearby, but with 0 evidence to support that, and hundreds of big assumptions to be made, I have to put the tag 'extremely unlikely' on that kind of hypothesis.
Most of my concern isn't with people like we have here, but some folks out there who believe everything they hear without thinking about it. The phrase, "Truth is stranger than fiction," sometimes applies to life and science, but some people think it applies in ALL cases, that if something is really strange, it must be true. Sometimes the truth is a little more simple and basic than the fiction. I teach physical science and work with the general public at a museum, and it amazes me how many people believe something patently untrue about science. I blame it on a culture that is enamored with the crazy wild things that science brings us. If all a person ever learn about science are the wackiest possible factoids, its logical to assume that the person would assume that all wacky factoids are science. Science has a lot of wacky factoids, but not all wacky factoids are scientific. ;)
Anyway, extraterrestrial life is pretty facinating, and I certainly hope we discover some evidence of its existance in my lifetime. Even if its just bacteria fossils on Titan, it would change our culture in some deep fundemental ways over the generations as the knowledge that we are not alone sunk in. But I can't pre-guess things like this, I just bide my time and watch the research. ;)
peace,
sam -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Thu, September 30, 2004 - 3:19 PMImagine the social shift when aliens land on Earth, roll out their prayer run, and pray to their own God. It'll be a major blow to the religous seperatists who wage the 'tastes great, less filling' war over whose God is the real god.
Back to the thread though....
One reason I hesitate to lock into current scientific beliefs is because we have seen how that worked historically. I do not want to be one of the morons who mocked Pasteur or Galileo. There is far more that we DON'T know than what we DO know. While I believe that Einstein was at least partially correct in his assertions, I think the theory of relativity only applies to a single type of space travel.
What you said about people believing in all kinds of crap is largely a Hollywood issue. It has gotten so that kids learn more from movies than history class. It is for this reason that I get so pissed when they take liberties with historical movies like Braveheart. -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Thu, September 30, 2004 - 10:46 PMOne way I keep from locking myself into scientific theories is to not call them beliefs. Beliefs are something you hold in your heart, theories are something that logically follow from the evidence at hand. Changing my beliefs rocks me to the core, changing my theories is just a matter of seeing new evidence and adjusting the theory to account for it. Its not personal.
Some people (including some scientists, unfortunately), take their discoveries way too personally. Einstein was wrong about a few things (cosmological constant, for one), but later in his career he freely admitted he was wrong. He didn't take it personally, he just knew that as new evidence came to light, the theories would change.
Same thing with Hawking, he recently voluntarily lost a bet he had made a long time ago about whether or not information is retained entropically in blackholes. He could have been an ass and taken his assertion to the grave, but with new evidence and new studies, he saw his previous idea wasn't correct, and changed his ideas.
I'm not saying our current scientific theories are 'done', just that any change I make to them is going to have to be based on new evidence, not just the possibility of new evidence. I have no idea which direction our theories will go, so I choose not to speculate too much. But when new things come up, I happily change my ideas to accept the new information.
"Beliefs" are a bad way to handle science. As Leon Lederman once said, "Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money." I really believe that science isn't a religion. It deals with issues in a fundementally different way, and handles fundementally different questions than religion. Religion goes to your heart, we take it very personally, science is something that can change around us and be OK. When the lines blur, people get too personally vested in their theories, and they refuse change.
About hollywood, I agree.. The way news is these days, with music, and flashy graphics and CGI, highly paid actor/anchors, etc, its hard to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. I think lots of people growing up today naturally do not separate real from fake because the real is presented in the exact same way that the fake is. Its very confusing to the mind.
peace,
sam
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Thu, February 21, 2008 - 4:09 PMIf one studies this the information gets plain buttery. I happen to think extrarestrials don't do appearances or fly-bys much unless human beings or whatever are threatening this planet, the very fabric of reality and so on. Thats what I think, but don't hold me too it.
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Tue, February 26, 2008 - 6:30 PMI don't believe they're aliens from another planet; it's hard to get around Einstein. I think abduction experiences are probably a combination of sleep paralysis and something else.
However, I'm sure there IS a government coverup UFO conspiracy, but the conspiracy is simply this: after removing all the things mistaken for UFOs, there is still the troubling fact that there are apparently things in the sky that fly at hypersonic speed with controlled, non-ballistic motion (for example, a 90% right turn). The conspiracy is that no one knows exactly what they are, and we have no defense against them, whatever they are.
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 1:55 PMOn the UFO issue, things look different from the ground. I have always been fixated when I see small things gliding by smooth. I think, is it a model or some solo pilot thing, I dunno. But yours talks more about the extraterrestrial, or not native of earth. My thing on that issue is the possibility of life within planets, with what we see with telescopes and radio waves just being the harsh surface. Also, I am interested in the fact that life in the deep ocean dosen't need oxygen much at all. Could something like this flop around on another planet and figure something out? -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Sat, May 24, 2008 - 9:11 PMActually most of the air on Earth comes from the ocean. -
-
Re: UFOs---are they real
Sun, May 25, 2008 - 12:20 AMTechnically, 98% of the Oxygen in the air comes from the phytoplankton in the ocean which tend to inhabit a mile perimeter around large land masses. (The very area that man is destroying with all the garbage they toss out at sea among other wondrous activities) Phyto and Zooplankton are also part of a chain of carbon sequestration that finalizes in the ocean floor.
But...the deep ocean beasties that live in the thermal vents of thin crust really do lend to questions about just what constitutes habitable environs for non-terrestrial critters.
-
-