Uldra I Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 WTD,Bring us clear uncontroverted evidence of alien visitation, and proof that it is aliens and not something Earth based and we'll talk.proof one caveat: A great deal of debate continues as to whether these beings are related to Earth based life or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywolf2375 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 proof one caveat: A great deal of debate continues as to whether these beings are related to Earth based life or not. it's not so great a debate, unfortunately that one has been debunked and those are Earth based creatures. Granted, Arkansas is a weird place, but it is still on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uldra I Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 it's not so great a debate, unfortunately that one has been debunked and those are Earth based creatures. Granted, Arkansas is a weird place, but it is still on Earth. They might be half-alien because of all the abductions we have around here. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's Not That Littlefinger Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 they are out there and they have been here before, just not for a long ass time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Nice article. I have always loved Asimov's hypothesis that the moon was responsible for our evolutionary history. He suggested that such a large satellite was unusual and it brought heavy radioactive metals closer to the surface than they would normally be. Exposure to the radiation caused mutation to happen much more quickly, hence we get fast forward evolution. It fits in nicely with the filter behind us hypothesis. It also appeals to my romantic sensibilities about moon worship. I'm not going all yoni-power here. That big rock up there is freekin beautiful. Just LOOK at it. I enjoy looking at the moon as much as anyone. However, the problem with Asimov's theory, as with just about any theory about the development of life, is that we are studying with a sample size of one. There is no way of proving or disproving any theory with such a small sample size. I still live in hope of us finding other life on other planets. The galaxy, let alone our universe is too large for us to be alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Well, I posted on this thread so long ago I've forgotten what my previous position was on this topic. Currently my view is that no matter how many billions of trillions of rocks float around in a vacuum, banging into one another, being covered with various chemicals, being heated, cooled and heated again in endless random sequence - none of that means that you will inevitably go from Nothing to Something Living. No matter how many billions of years go by. It happened on Earth, but for all we know that was an utterly miraculous one-off event. The Mediocrity Principle seems to me more a statement of philosophical preference than anything that is predetermined by science. Rare Earth Hypothesis holds just as much water (hehe) as Mediocre Earth does, until we have evidence otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glaurung Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Interesting article, but way optimistic for the numbers of sunlike stars and earthlike planets. There is not just a 'habitable zone' around individual stars, there is a 'galactic habitable ring', for want of a better term. Stars orbiting too close to the galactic center are subject to fierce bursts of radiation; while stars orbiting too far out tend to be very low in metallicity - which you need for planets. Plus there be a whole bunch of other lethal weirdness out there. Is the star in a multiple system? Orbital eccentricity of the planet? Size of the planet? The main thing working against SETI, though, is signal scatter. Or look at this from the POV of an alien civilization 50 light years off with a tech level about equal to ours. Yes, we humans have been broadcasting signals into space for longer than that, but over a fifty light year distance, the signal scatters, becoming little more than background noise. At best, said alien's would pick up a rare puzzling fragment. Even if we selected the aliens star and broadcast a directional transmission at them, it would still devolve to mostly noise. Now there have been a couple of signals which could be scattered versions of ET transmissions. The estimate of sun-like stars may or may not be generous, but I think the 22% having approximately earth-size planets in the habitable zone is based on some solid evidence. It's given a 22% +/- 8% so I think 22% is a safe answer. It also ignores the fact that approximately 25% of red dwarf stars have terrestrial planets in the habitable zone and these stars are much more abundant than sun like stars. They are much more volatile in their youth, but if the planet retains an atmosphere long enough to outlast that volatility, those stars eventually quiet down to a radiation output level similar to a sun-like star. And they can take trillions of years to burn out, giving any such planet a much longer period for life to evolve. As for the galactic habitable zone, you are correct, however they are finding that low-metalicity stars are producing terrestrial planets at a much higher frequency than believed. They recently discovered a planet in the HZ of a 13 billion year old star and this planet is 17 times more massive than Earth and is a terrestrial planet. The fact that such a planet was able to form so densley despite being an old low-metal star is quite promising. Those stars in the inner galaxy would face more hurdles, such as high levels of cosmic radiation, but I think it is likely that some of these stars can give birth to life and evolve. Even if you limit only the stars in the galactic HZ, you're still going to come up with trillions upon trillions of potentially habitable worlds, so the odds are still extremely stacked against the possibility of Earth being the only planet inhabited by a civilized species. I do agree on your take on SETI. Even if there are civilizations out there...even if there are tens of thousands of them out there, the chances of us ever catching a strong signal with no doubts of its origin are EXTREMELY unlikely. There have been interesting signals as you mention, but non can be proved to be of extra terrestrial origin. Basically we have to have a planet that is close enough to interpret their signal. And that is unlikely. Or we need to listen in on a planet that is sending out extremely strong signals which would be unnecessary unless they were intentionally trying to contact us or they were trying to contact an interstellar colony, and even then we would have to be listening at the exact same time they were sending a signal that just so happened to directly cross our path...which is also extremely unlikely. There's also a good possibility that any civilization that reaches interstellar flight would be using a communication technology too advanced for us to even detect in the first place. So yeah...the chances of SETI stumbling on a signal in our lifetimes is extremely small and that's even if the galaxy is teaming with civilizations. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have been transmitting radio signals for a hundred years. That means there is a chance of one in 45 million that a random habitable planet is inhabited by a civilization on the same level as ours. Not very favorable odds for SETI. Now the chance for intelligent life out there is much larger of course, but most of it has to be either in the stone ages or far ahead of us. Pretty much. We have to be listening in on a planet at the small timeframe in which they are sending signals we can detect, and then the chances that they are sending out anything strong enough for us to detect or transmitting in our direction...are extremely small. That being said, I still think listening is a worthy endeavor. Well, I posted on this thread so long ago I've forgotten what my previous position was on this topic. Currently my view is that no matter how many billions of trillions of rocks float around in a vacuum, banging into one another, being covered with various chemicals, being heated, cooled and heated again in endless random sequence - none of that means that you will inevitably go from Nothing to Something Living. No matter how many billions of years go by. It happened on Earth, but for all we know that was an utterly miraculous one-off event. The Mediocrity Principle seems to me more a statement of philosophical preference than anything that is predetermined by science. Rare Earth Hypothesis holds just as much water (hehe) as Mediocre Earth does, until we have evidence otherwise. I'm not really sure. The fact that life came into existence nearly the exact time the earth settled down to a habitable state is very telling. It would be one thing if life only came into existence a billion years ago, but it didn't. It happened nearly as soon as it could possibly happen and there's even evidence to suggest that it may have occurred more than once. Also, if life is something that came into existence by chance rather than purposefully by some deity, then I think it's nearly impossible that it didn't happen elsewhere. If it happened by accident from countless chemical reactions and trial/error, then it is going to repeat itself given enough trial runs and the pure abundance of chemical cocktails out there makes the chances nearly impossible that it wouldn't happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted August 19, 2014 Author Share Posted August 19, 2014 The Presencing of the Other ...In my personal explorations of shamanism and my study of extraterrestrials, spirits, and so on, I have developed the hypothesis that these phenomena are neither real or imaginary. What seems to be happening is something subtler and harder to define: the alien "Other" is coming to presence within the human Psyche. This appears to be happening in phases and stages, or gradations, and it is a co-creative initiatory process for human consciousness, which has to go beyond dualistic or "either-or" logic in order to participate in the unfolding of this plot. Carl Jung recognized that the flying saucer as an archetype represented a development in the collective Psyche — and the round shape of the UFO, like the circular form of most crop circles, made it a symbol of psychic wholeness. Even in its form, the apparently tangible object was a symbolic representation of the movement toward conscious integration of unconscious forces. Since the 1940s, the "flying saucer myth" has developed into a vast Wagnerian narrative, featuring shadowy meetings between ETs and US Presidents, Faustian bargains, underground (or Underworld) bases, and diabolical activities designed to create terror in abducted victims. This new myth seems to be about, in part, the failure of conventional science and the collapse of traditional authority structures, when faced with the Other as a revealed aspect or projection of the Psyche... p.s. Oh, he mentions Orbs at the end of the article. Those are almost definitely not aliens/spirits/etc, merely mundane events with mundane explanations. Orbs, some definitive evidence that they are not paranormal pp 44-49 The orb has become well established within amateur paranormal research as evidence of some form of spirit manifestation or interaction. This paper looks at the history of orb photography, the technology of the digital camera and introduces some of the claims being made for the paranormality of orbs. A series of studies which took place from 1998 to 2003 have led to a greater understanding of the method of orb production as a normal part of the camera operation but did not generally affect the perception of orbs having a paranormal cause within the paranormal and wider community. A new experimental study commenced in 2009 made use of a newly developed stereo digital camera which subsequently was able to demonstrate conclusively that orbs are produced by well understood means rather than paranormal anomalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game Of Thrones Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Are they out there?Have they come to visit us? Did they help us build pyramids?Do they abduct and probe people?Were they the angels in the Old Testament?How do they get here? Are they from other worlds? Or other dimensions? Maybe Earthlings from the future?How come space seems so lonely and devoid of intelligent life?1. Yes.2. No. Ancient aliens is even more stupid than R+L=/=J.3. No, unless you're eating some weird mushrooms.4. There are no such things as angels. Don't kill me for this one, people.5. They didn't get here in the first place.6. Nobody knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 2. No. Ancient aliens is even more stupid than R+L=/=J. More stupider. Because both are from Jupiter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glaurung Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Nice article. I have always loved Asimov's hypothesis that the moon was responsible for our evolutionary history. He suggested that such a large satellite was unusual and it brought heavy radioactive metals closer to the surface than they would normally be. Exposure to the radiation caused mutation to happen much more quickly, hence we get fast forward evolution. It fits in nicely with the filter behind us hypothesis. It also appeals to my romantic sensibilities about moon worship. I'm not going all yoni-power here. That big rock up there is freekin beautiful. Just LOOK at it. More and more studies are coming out showing that the moon is not required for life. It doesn't affect the climate near as much as previously thought, and it isn't required to stimulate evolution. The star a planet orbits is much more active in the first billion or two billion years of its life, meaning much more radiation is hitting the planets early on from the star and they now believe that this helps with the evolution of early life. As for the moon being an unnaturally large satellite....I don't really think it is. Moons in the inner part of a solar system are going to form differently than moons in the outter part of a solar system. Moons in the outter part of a solar system largely form as a result of the leftover material around a gas giant...kind of like a small proto-planetary disc. There often may not be enough material to form a large moon or more than a few large moons, meaning if several moons are formed(which is common with large planets), there will be many smaller ones, which in turn makes the larger ones the more rare ones, and outter planets are large icy worlds and thus the size ratio is going to be much different than an inner planet no matter the size of moon. With inner planets, it is not likely that a moon will be formed from the same material as the planet and capturing a large object is difficult. Most moons in the inner part of a solar system are likely to be the result of impacts between protoplanets, large bodies. If the impact angle is the right angle to not obliterate both bodies, the larger body will survive and the smaller body will form a single disc of debris around the planet with a large amount of material, leading to a larger moon. Since inner planets are smaller, the size ratio between the satellite and host will be much closer by default. As for how common moons are around inner terrestrial planets...we probably won't know for a long time. I am of the opinion that they aren't that uncommon. A typical solar system will have dozens...perhaps even hundreds of protoplanets early in the formation of the solar system. Some get ejected from the solar system, some survive, and a great many likely crash into each other. I think there are probably enough collisions happening that a good number of solar systems will have a terrestrial planet with a moon, and that moon will likely be a decent size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoth Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I was surprised to discover that earth has a second moon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I was surprised to discover that earth has a second moon... Clearly you've never seen an episode of QI, where the number of moons is a running gag. AFAIK Cruithne is in a co-orbital configuration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoth Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Clearly you've never seen an episode of QI, where the number of moons is a running gag. AFAIK Cruithne is in a co-orbital configuration. Co-orbital configuration is much to "corporate" for my tastes. I prefer to think of it as the "wild child" sibling in Earth's dysfunctional little family. ;) Pretty little "orbit" depicted, though. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillio Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Pretty little "orbit" depicted, though. :D Yes, it makes me think of jellybeans... which is a nice change from chocolate... Oh, now I'm thinking of chocolate again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.