Thread: Do you beleive in aliens?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

We know you're not Napolean, because his life has been documented. Napolean is dead. It's been long since proven as such. There is very logical reason to suggest the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Look at us. Our species is thousands of years old, and we are already touching on interplanetary travel. The universe is billions upon billions of years old (at least), so, at the very base, it's reasonable to assume that, should any other civilizations exist, they have had their interest in inter-planetary, interstellar, or intergalactic travel as well.

Focusing just on this first; this is utilizing a lot of inference and implication for the existance of aliens. Keep in mind all of the pranks and scams involving extra-terrstial claims that may also cause noise and problems with proving the existance of alien life-forms.

Of course, we can say that there is a probable cause that another life species has evolved like us. However, how many human beings have existed that could have lived a similar life-style as Napolean?

I realize this is far streaching, and I am not really arguing anything here. The point is that probability is not a reason to make something fact. The fact remains that you are still believing it be true simply from an inference from probability instead of fact.

Of course, we can both see the plausible difference between the two. There is obviously a more like-liness of another species outside of Earth than another Napolean simply due to the immense amount of variables required to bring about another Napolean. My point was simply that it still has a probability.

That bit of logic, alone, overrides even the remotest possibility of you being Napoleon. Sure, to just assume that it's the truth, beyond down, is fallacious. I won't argue with that, but there is a much stronger base for such reasoning than there is that you are Napoleon.

Right. We're on the same page here. I just wanted to point out that simply believing or inferring something is no reason for it to be facticity.

~

Originally Posted by Goldney

So together it is: 1,500,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. And that's if you can travel at the speed of light.

Distance is determined by how fast you go..?

That bit of logic, alone, overrides even the remotest possibility of you being Napoleon. Sure, to just assume that it's the truth, beyond down, is fallacious. I won't argue with that, but there is a much stronger base for such reasoning than there is that you are Napoleon.

I met Napoleon once. He was an asshole, wouldn't give me an autograph.

Originally Posted by Dreamhope

But military officials have reported alien sightings, even neil armstrong said he did, they would have no reason to say that, one person says pink elephants exist no one beleives but if 1mil people saw it there would be a possible existence.

They have reported UFOs, not aliens. difference.

Oh yes and 1 million people have claimed to see God, that doesn't mean he exists. haha. But I do believe there is other life out there, of course. And obviously existence is infinite so there's any kind of life you can imagine in existence.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Unless you consider the possibility of wormholes.

We also can't try to relate our own scientific prowess with those of extra-terrestrials. Many of their (possible) civilizations of more than likely existed for even millions of years before ours was even formed. Should this be the case, their technology could be so far beyond our wildest dreams that to count out the possibility of their having, long since, discovered how to utilize wormholes would be pretty premature.

I disagree, why should intelligent life have formed? Human beings are pretty exceptional creatures and I think that we're a big step up from the next smartest animal. As well as that, planets have a habit of "resetting" themselves with huge natural disasters such as volcanos and ice ages, the fact that the earth hasn't been interrupted by one of these for a long time is something of a miracle. There's a super volcano underneath Yellowstone Park that's just waiting to go off.

Originally Posted by M-Cat

Distance is determined by how fast you go..?

I was using light years as a base reference for all my working and got a little confused. Basically ignore that last part.

Originally Posted by Goldney

I was using light years as a base reference for all my working and got a little confused. Basically ignore that last part.

Yeah I know what you meant.

You never know but aliens might already know of earth and merely see us as we see cattle. And to be honest i think humanity should change its violent ways, for example if a highly intelligent peaceful civilisation came and shared there power to all corners of the earth, humankind would surely become corrupt and mis use the power to there own benefits.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

can someone explain why exactly it is supposed to be impossible to travel faster then light?

I mean we can go faster then sound, ok you now can't hear what's outside, so why can't ships simply go faster then the set speed off light, and just not see any light until they slow down?

Also why do people say going faster then light would result in time travel? So when you go really fast you age slower or something? They seem to mean say one year traveling at light speed means thousands of years on earth, so when you get back after two years if light speed the earth has changed loads. Why is this?

The simple answer is that we can't accelerate past the speed of light, since modern physical equations theorize that in doing so, an object's mass would become infinite. Now there exists numerous ways and theories to "cheat" this law, but it's in no way comparable to the sound barrier, which isn't even a barrier really. The time travel bit is taken from more equations in Einstein's theory of Relativety. Basically, the faster you move relative to a position, the less time goes by, past the speed of light, you would actually be reversing time compared to the same point, time is a dimension after all. In fact, astronauts on the International Space Station who spend months in orbit travelling at tens of thousands of kilometers per hour have existed for a fraction of a second less than us upon returning to Earth.

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

And to be honest i think humanity should change its violent ways, for example if a highly intelligent peaceful civilisation came and shared there power to all corners of the earth, humankind would surely become corrupt and mis use the power to there own benefits.

That's human nature, we'd basically have to evolve out of that, not an overnight thing.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Focusing just on this first; this is utilizing a lot of inference and implication for the existance of aliens. Keep in mind all of the pranks and scams involving extra-terrstial claims that may also cause noise and problems with proving the existance of alien life-forms.

Of course, we can say that there is a probable cause that another life species has evolved like us. However, how many human beings have existed that could have lived a similar life-style as Napolean?

I realize this is far streaching, and I am not really arguing anything here. The point is that probability is not a reason to make something fact. The fact remains that you are still believing it be true simply from an inference from probability instead of fact.

Of course, we can both see the plausible difference between the two. There is obviously a more like-liness of another species outside of Earth than another Napolean simply due to the immense amount of variables required to bring about another Napolean. My point was simply that it still has a probability.

There is obviously a more like-liness of another species outside of Earth than another Napolean simply due to the immense amount of variables required to bring about another Napolean.

By "suggesting the existence" of extra-terrestrials, I didn't mean to state it as fact. I meant that it's logical to at least present a case for it. My mistake. I should have been more clear on that.

Also, your statement was that you were Napoleon. That is different than saying you were exactly like Napoleon. It would be much more logical to give credit to the idea that the immense amount of variables required to bring about another Napoleon(esque) persons could be met, than there is to give credit that you are are, in fact, the one and only Napoleon, without getting into the whole aspect of reincarnation and/or parallel universes.

But, other than that, we agree on everything.

I should have explained a bit.

I think that for life to occur, is so rare, that we are the only planet in the entire universe with life.

Goldney:

I think you're committing the same mistake that so many other people do, when considering the plausibility/implausibility of extra-terrestrial life. You are basing too much of what is Universally Possible (as far as "life") off of what is possible by our own Earthly standards.

It's much like a super-intelligent deep-sea creature saying: "What? Life outside of water? That's preposterous. We all know that if you stay out of the water for too long, you die. Look all around us. Look at all the creatures that inhabit these oceans. The conditions have to be just right. There is no way life can exist outside of water."

Originally Posted by Goldney

I disagree, why should intelligent life have formed? Human beings are pretty exceptional creatures

Pretty exceptional? By whose standards? Our own?

Originally Posted by Goldney

As well as that, planets have a habit of "resetting" themselves with huge natural disasters such as volcanos and ice ages, the fact that the earth hasn't been interrupted by one of these for a long time is something of a miracle.

How many of these planets do you know have "reset themselves?" 3? 4 at the max? How old are these planets? How old is our solar system? How much information on what "planets" (generally speaking) "do," during the course of their existences, do you have? Again, this is the fatal flaw of basing what is universally possible by our present knowledge of what is possible for us which is, universally speaking, limited.

Originally Posted by Goldney

There's a super volcano underneath Yellowstone Park that's just waiting to go off.

Again, our civilization is relatively young and we, through technology, already have a better chance of surviving a "global killer" event than, say, the dinosaurs, and that is with the "young" technology that we now possess. Apply that same scale to a civilization that is, with all possibility, hundreds of thousands of years older than us and we are, suddenly, much less statistically exceptional.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

By "suggesting the existence" of extra-terrestrials, I didn't mean to state it as fact. I meant that it's logical to at least present a case for it. My mistake. I should have been more clear on that.

Yeah, I was more or less elaborating on what you said. You said that my analogy was not appropriate so I tried to show how. I think we get each other now.

Also, your statement was that you were Napoleon. That is different than saying you were exactly like Napoleon. It would be much more logical to give credit to the idea that the immense amount of variables required to bring about another Napoleon(esque) persons could be met, than there is to give credit that you are are, in fact, the one and only Napoleon, without getting into the whole aspect of reincarnation and/or parallel universes.

Oh, I suppose that is breaching upong "what is real" debate, hrm? Ok, sorry about that one. Let's just leave that there, lol.

But, other than that, we agree on everything.

Except one thing....


...



...


...


*Falls down in the sand, looks up and
*Shakes fist* Damn you! Oneirooooooo!!! You took my naaaammmeeee! :p

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Except one thing....


...



...


...


*Falls down in the sand, looks up and
*Shakes fist* Damn you! Oneirooooooo!!! You took my naaaammmeeee! :p

~

Hehehe. HEY!, I had nothing to do with it! It was just kinda...passed on to me!

Originally Posted by Grod

I should have explained a bit.

I think that for life to occur, is so rare, that we are the only planet in the entire universe with life.

How can you say that? do you know how big the universe is? say the universe is the sahara desert and each sand grain represents a planet, we are just one grain of sand. you get me?

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

How can you say that? do you know how big the universe is? say the universe is the sahara desert and each sand grain represents a planet, we are just one grain of sand. you get me?

I know that. It's infinitively big anyway. I think that life occurring is a fantastic idea, and is so rare we are the only planet with it.

Originally Posted by Grod

I think that life occurring is a fantastic idea, and is so rare we are the only planet with it.

What do you base that on?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What do you base that on?

As far as we know there is no other life in this solar system.

I know what you're saying, though, I'm only saying that relative to what I know.

Originally Posted by Grod

As far as we know there is no other life in this solar system.

This is true. But it's also thinking small on something which requires a much bigger scale.

There are billions upon billions of other solar systems out there. There are other stars (suns) and other multi-planetary orbits around those stars. It has already been confirmed that around some of the known stars (which is still even a small fraction of the stars that exist) there are planets that, as far as we can tell, are nearly identical to Earth in position, orbit, size, and various other aspects.

"As far as we know," without knowing it all, Earth has already been scientifically considered not to be unique. The only thing that remains is the obstacle of getting to those discovered planets and exploring them.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is true. But it's also thinking small on something which requires a much bigger scale.

There are billions upon billions of other solar systems out there. There are other stars (suns) and other multi-planetary orbits around those stars. It has already been confirmed that around some of the known stars (which is still even a small fraction of the stars that exist) there are planets that, as far as we can tell, are nearly identical to Earth in position, orbit, size, and various other aspects.

"As far as we know," without knowing it all, Earth has already been scientifically considered not to be unique. The only thing that remains is the obstacle of getting to those discovered planets and exploring them.

Do you have any sources for those identical planets? (This isn't an argument btw, I'm interested in this)

I've heard something like this, as in the distribution of matter repeating itself, but I don't think we'll ever know.

As I think someone said before here, the nearest solar system is hundreds of light years away... so we'll never be able to reach there, unless we travel via a wormhole, but that can take you through time as well as space. I can't prove alien life doesn't exist, the same as the other way,(unless we encounter some, of course) but unfortuneately I think we are alone in this universe.

Originally Posted by Grod

Do you have any sources for those identical planets? (This isn't an argument btw, I'm interested in this)

Yeah, give me a little bit. I know I saved them on my StumbleUpon hits, so I'll find them.

I do, and I really hope that I'm around when we finally make contact.

Originally Posted by Grod

Do you have any sources for those identical planets? (This isn't an argument btw, I'm interested in this)

I've heard something like this, as in the distribution of matter repeating itself, but I don't think we'll ever know.

As I think someone said before here, the nearest solar system is hundreds of light years away... so we'll never be able to reach there, unless we travel via a wormhole, but that can take you through time as well as space. I can't prove alien life doesn't exist, the same as the other way,(unless we encounter some, of course) but unfortuneately I think we are alone in this universe.

I think the planet O is thinking of is Gliese 581 c, which is only 20 light years away. Scientists have already drawn up plans to explore nearby solar systems, these unmanned missions would take place over the span of more than a century (Project Orion, Project Daedalus, Project Longshot).

The reason that the rest of our solar system seems devoid of life is because Earth is the only planet inside our solar system's habitable zone, a "sweet spot" that is at just the right distance from the sun (Mars and Venus are just outside the zone). But that doesn't rule out the existence of recently discovered extremophiles, a good candidate would be Europa, one of Jupiter's moons which is speculated to have vast subsurface oceans.

Now at the moment, we are pretty much only able to detect large extrasolar planets that are many times larger than Earth, usually gas giants. To our knowledge, there are no life forms capable of living in those conditions. But the reason we don't detect Earth-sized rocky planets isn't because they aren't there, it's because we can't. We just have to wait for technology to catch up with our imaginations.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I think the planet O is thinking of is Gliese 581 c, which is only 20 light years away. Scientists have already drawn up plans to explore nearby solar systems, these unmanned missions would take place over the span of more than a century (Project Orion, Project Daedalus, Project Longshot).

The reason that the rest of our solar system seems devoid of life is because Earth is the only planet inside our solar system's habitable zone, a "sweet spot" that is at just the right distance from the sun (Mars and Venus are just outside the zone). But that doesn't rule out the existence of recently discovered extremophiles, a good candidate would be Europa, one of Jupiter's moons which is speculated to have vast subsurface oceans.

Now at the moment, we are pretty much only able to detect large extrasolar planets that are many times larger than Earth, usually gas giants. To our knowledge, there are no life forms capable of living in those conditions. But the reason we don't detect Earth-sized rocky planets isn't because they aren't there, it's because we can't. We just have to wait for technology to catch up with our imaginations.

Thanks for the links, Spart.

I heard that about Europa, maybe in my lifetime we'll have astronauts explore it.

Originally Posted by Grod

Thanks for the links, Spart.

I heard that about Europa, maybe in my lifetime we'll have astronauts explore it.

I don't think manned missions will play an important part of space exploration for the foreseeable future, we'll probably just consolidate bases on the Moon and Mars. Unmanned space travel is vastly more efficient and new technologies are giving probes more advanced capabilities.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I don't think manned missions will play an important part of space exploration for the foreseeable future, we'll probably just consolidate bases on the Moon and Mars. Unmanned space travel is vastly more efficient and new technologies are giving probes more advanced capabilities.

Yes.

...yes.

Originally Posted by Goldney

Do you know how far away Andromeda (the nearest galaxy to us) is?

2,500,000 light years away.

A light year is around 6,000,000,000,000 miles.

So together it is: 1,500,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. And that's if you can travel at the speed of light. Which is impossible. Not just really really hard to do impossible. Against the laws of the universe impossible.

Yes that may be the nearest galaxy you argue, but what about the nearest planet?

That's 10.5 light years away. Still a colossal distance. As well as that the planet is gaseous so no life as we know it could form on it.

However, as to whether there is any other life out there in the universe? That's a mathematical certainty due to the size of the universe. So yes there is life, but none that has visited us.

If you could travel at the speed of light it would be instantaneous. The only people who would notice the amount of time it took would be the people here on Earth (if they would even still be alive) and the aliens (hopefully they would be, or some other population arose).