So any intelligent life out there must be mammalian? Interesting self-centric view there. Come on, the point that is being made is that we are consistently finding life forms that sit outside what we previously considered to be 'necessary for life'... and that's on *our own damned planet".
The idea that all life has to be based on the same mechanisms as ours is laughable. If there are methane-philiac microbes (and there are), then there's no reason why there can't be higher lifeforms in the same range as well. To think otherwise is just amazingly limited.
I for one welcome our immortal silicate crystal hive mind overlords.
I for one welcome our immortal silicate crystal hive mind overlords.
Sorry! There is no silicon based life, at least of any complexity. Only carbon is capable of making the long chained molecules necessary to form a living creature. I don't think scientists were aware of this during Star Trek days.
SCIENTISTS have discovered that inorganic material can take on the characteristics of living organisms in space, a development that could transform views of alien life.
An international panel from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Max Planck institute in Germany and the University of Sydney found that galactic dust could form spontaneously into helixes and double helixes and that the inorganic creations had memory and the power to reproduce themselves.
A similar rethinking of prospective alien life is being undertaken by the National Research Council, an advisory body to the US government. It says Nasa should start a search for what it describes as ?weird life? - organisms that lack DNA or other molecules found in life on Earth.
There's no way of proving its a fake, unless examination of the videotape etc showed signs of tampering/editing post the shooting. Anyway, those craft could be modified Moller-like devices? There's no way of proving these sightings are "genuine" either.
If a "genuine" alien craft landed in the middle of the Superbowl (for a silly example), and "real" aliens emerged, all on TV, then took off again... it would be undoubtedly be regarded as an excellent fake... How could one prove otherwise, unless the "aliens" did something aggressive (a very human quality). But there again, why should a race of beings, presumably way in advance of mankind re. their civilization (given the ability to traverse space in a way that circumvents relativity as we know it).... have to be encumbered with such human traits as wanton hostility?
Well that's one way to look at it. However it might be like this. If they're really in advance of us it might be like Professor of Theoretical Physics Michio Kaku says : " If you're going down a road and see an ant hill do you go over and try to sell the ants trinkets and technology to improve their lives? Or do you kick it over? Just because you can. "
By the way relativity as we know it is changing every day.
Sorry! There is no silicon based life, at least of any complexity. Only carbon is capable of making the long chained molecules necessary to form a living creature. I don't think scientists were aware of this during Star Trek days.
Never say never.
But under current understanding it seems unlikely.
Myself, intuitively, I side with those that say the universe is an awfully big place for just us.
There is a saying that goes something like: 'evolution doesn't make mistakes, it makes every mistake'. Maybe the universe is just full of mistakes and we happened to be one of the better attempts.
This could easily mean there are more life forms completely different from us but I still think that such an uncontrolled and random system is ultimately completely meaningless and worthless so I'm hoping it's not the case.
The videos are quite clearly fake, as soon as someone brings up a video of a saucer then it's immediately suspicious. It needs to be something people haven't thought of before like a glowing triangle.
Also, I don't know if people remember the effects in Independence Day but they were pretty good. For these kind of handheld quality films to appear after so many years with improvements in CGI software is not that impressive and if I'm being honest, it's getting a bit tiresome.
What I'd really like to see is someone try and fake the moon landing using equipment available in 1969 just to see if it was possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster
I think most UFO sightings are fake/wishful thinking, but there have been so many sightings, by so many people from all cultural/economic groups that at least a few would have to be real.
Apparently a lot of people believe in Jesus after having their lives transformed by him. I guess some of them would have to be right.
Apparently a lot of people believe in Jesus after having their lives transformed by him. I guess some of them would have to be right.
But can you prove them wrong? (not that I'm saying it's correct) Guess there is only one way to be truly sure, and I don't intend to find out any time soon!
I was thinking statistically, if X number of people claim to see event Y but there is no empirical evidence one way or the other, how can you prove they are 100% incorrect?
I believe there is enough evidence for UFOs. So many people have had experiences with them that I believe they are real. My question is: real what? Since the behavior of UFOs appears to defy laws of physics, they are evidently not entirely material, IMHO. We can only speculate, but I'd say they are definitely not just advanced technology. Too much like Star Trek.
I believe there is enough evidence for UFOs. So many people have had experiences with them that I believe they are real. My question is: real what? Since the behavior of UFOs appears to defy laws of physics, they are evidently not entirely material, IMHO
So does a frog floating in mid-air, but it can be pulled off with strong magnets.
'Appears' to defy 'my known' laws of physics, is the phrase I think you want. An electric light bulb witnessed by primitive tribesmen is not proof of magic, after all.
'Appears' to defy 'my known' laws of physics, is the phrase I think you want.
Appears to defy 'our' known laws of physics. The laws of physics are well established and verified. UFOs have been observed by visual sightings and on radar to display wild trickery, such as instant sharp-angle turns and lightning like acceleration from a stand still.
It's unlikely the material could withstand such maneuvers, much less the occupants inside.
Quote:
An electric light bulb witnessed by primitive tribesmen is not proof of magic, after all.
Primitives did not know much. Most of today's real technology would seem like magic.
Appears to defy 'our' known laws of physics. The laws of physics are well established and verified.
You forgot 'constantly being updated', 'constantly under scrutiny', 'not currently able to explain every verifiable phenomena in a laboratory setting'...
What, you think they're carved in stone? Obviously, you're not a physicist.
I am.
Quote:
UFOs have been observed by visual sightings and on radar to display wild trickery, such as instant sharp-angle turns and lightning like acceleration from a stand still.
It's unlikely the material could withstand such maneuvers, much less the occupants inside.
There is a massive, huge gulf between 'unlikely' and 'impossible'. Throw in our pretty piss-poor understanding of much of physics, and things just get more fun.
Quote:
Primitives did not know much. Most of today's real technology would seem like magic.
BING BING BING BING BING! WE HAVE A WINNA!
From the primitive's point of view, the light bulb appears their laws of physics, as they know them. Therefore, they are 'evidently not entirely material', right? And they *must* be something other than 'advanced technology', right?
I guess it's time to drag out the old Arthur Clarke chestnut, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
It's interesting to consider, given the vast transformation of "what things look like" and "how stuff works" in the past, say, thousand years, what tens of thousands of years beyond what we have now would seem to us.
I think sufficiently advanced technology could be so utterly alien (as it were) to our notions of "thingness" and "action" so as to be a kind of invisible.
I'm not talking about the urban myth that the indigenous locals "couldn't see" Columbus' ships-- while much bigger and differently configured than anything that population would have encountered, the basic idea-- big thing floating on water-- wasn't that much of a stretch. At most, I think Columbus' fleet would have caused some scale confusion, with a person never having encountered a manmade object that large assuming that they were nearer than they were, and some category confusion ("are those trees on that thing?").
But the technology of Columbus' Europe represents only around a thousand years of development beyond the circumstances of the peoples of "Hispaniola", and that thousand years doesn't include the rapid transformative acceleration engendered by the industrial revolution.
Imagine ten, or a hundred thousand years out ( and if there is any other intelligent life in the universe a civilization with a hundred thousand year jump on us is not an unreasonable expectation).
Would we be able to identify the artifacts of such a culture as technology, at all? Would such technology even take material form, or would it be mostly comprised of manipulation of the underlying forces at work in the universe?
Or what if "technology", as we express it, is an idiosyncratic artifact of human consciousness, which itself could just as easily be an offbeat type of sentience, big picture universe wise?
For all we know there are plenty of "civilizations" (whatever form that might take) making themselves known through various communications channels which are literally unthinkable, to us.
You forgot 'constantly being updated', 'constantly under scrutiny', 'not currently able to explain every verifiable phenomena in a laboratory setting'...
What, you think they're carved in stone? Obviously, you're not a physicist. I am.
Hey, your a physicist! Great, so am I. Likely, you've got a PhD and outrank my li'l old MS. At least we are on the same wavelength, I hope.
Of course I know science is constantly changing, but some things haven't budged in a long time and are well established. Classical mechanics still holds for the observations that I mentioned. The maneuvers observed would have incredible accelerations, which would stress the structure and it's occupants beyond their breaking point.
We know better than to say impossible, and I never said that. However, it is so improbable that I'm willing to base my beliefs upon it. Everyday I risk my life on things that have higher probability, like a bridge collapsing while I'm driving across. (Portland has lots of bridges.)
Quote:
From the primitive's point of view, the light bulb appears their laws of physics, as they know them. Therefore, they are 'evidently not entirely material', right? And they *must* be something other than 'advanced technology', right?
Oh, come on now. the primitives did not understand anything about physics. They observed how some things happen, but to call it their science is really stretching it. They let go of a stone and it would fall to the ground. They had no idea WHY it fell or what determined how fast it fell.
Oh, come on now. the primitives did not understand anything about physics. They observed how some things happen, but to call it their science is really stretching it. They let go of a stone and it would fall to the ground. They had no idea WHY it fell or what determined how fast it fell.
I think in this context he means "their expectations of how things behave and what can be accounted for based on those expectations."
So a light bulb would be entirely inexplicable, in a number of ways (as a phenomena, in its materials, in the manner of its construction).
However, I still think that even here a light bulb has enough relationship to aspects of the primitive's world to be, if not accounted for, at least described. So: fire contained in bowl, or star fallen from sky, etc.
My thought about much more advanced tech is that we wouldn't even be able to go that far. We would literally have no idea what we were looking at, because nothing about its mechanisms or actions would refer to anything in our world.
Newton would have been shocked by a lightbulb, and like members of so called primitive cultures, would have studied it to explain it. He would have gotten most of it wrong as would the primitives. Was Newton not a scientist? Were his explanations not testable? Would the primitive culture's explanations not be testable?
Science is simply a way to explain the universe in testable statements. There is nothing advanced needed.
My thought about much more advanced tech is that we wouldn't even be able to go that far. We would literally have no idea what we were looking at, because nothing about its mechanisms or actions would refer to anything in our world.
What you say could be true up to a point. But a much more advanced technology would not violate what we already know about the laws of physics. For example, when Einstein gave us the theory of relativity, it did not violate the older, classical laws of motion -- It 'extended' them. Classical mechanics still hold in the usual range of mechanisms,
So the UFO motions that I've mentioned are subject to the laws of classical mechanics. The sharp turns and sudden bursts of speed are well below light speed. Yet, it's the rates at which velocity vectors change that make many of us suspicious. It suggests to me these are not material objects, but some type of illusions or image.
The really interesting task at hand is to figure out how the UFOs are produced. They are detected by our eyes and by radar signals, yet are not material. As long as we keep insisting UFO are material object made by some super advance technology, we will get nowhere. Personally, I don't have a clue where to start.
Yet, rather than looking elsewhere, most people continue to accept UFOs as material objects made by an advanced technology, usually alien beings. Consider a similar example, the crop circles. No one could figure them out, so they were said to be the works of alien space crafts. Once the technique of producing crop circles was revealed, however, it was immediately clear. We may have a similar situation here, though it may not be a simple hoax, as were the crop circles.
These are the retards you have to watch out for. I and my friend saw what we saw with binoculars that day. I think the problem is that you didn't. So shut the fuck up.
Comments
So any intelligent life out there must be mammalian? Interesting self-centric view there. Come on, the point that is being made is that we are consistently finding life forms that sit outside what we previously considered to be 'necessary for life'... and that's on *our own damned planet".
The idea that all life has to be based on the same mechanisms as ours is laughable. If there are methane-philiac microbes (and there are), then there's no reason why there can't be higher lifeforms in the same range as well. To think otherwise is just amazingly limited.
I for one welcome our immortal silicate crystal hive mind overlords.
I for one welcome our immortal silicate crystal hive mind overlords.
Sorry! There is no silicon based life, at least of any complexity. Only carbon is capable of making the long chained molecules necessary to form a living creature. I don't think scientists were aware of this during Star Trek days.
SCIENTISTS have discovered that inorganic material can take on the characteristics of living organisms in space, a development that could transform views of alien life.
An international panel from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Max Planck institute in Germany and the University of Sydney found that galactic dust could form spontaneously into helixes and double helixes and that the inorganic creations had memory and the power to reproduce themselves.
A similar rethinking of prospective alien life is being undertaken by the National Research Council, an advisory body to the US government. It says Nasa should start a search for what it describes as ?weird life? - organisms that lack DNA or other molecules found in life on Earth.
There's no way of proving its a fake, unless examination of the videotape etc showed signs of tampering/editing post the shooting. Anyway, those craft could be modified Moller-like devices? There's no way of proving these sightings are "genuine" either.
If a "genuine" alien craft landed in the middle of the Superbowl (for a silly example), and "real" aliens emerged, all on TV, then took off again... it would be undoubtedly be regarded as an excellent fake... How could one prove otherwise, unless the "aliens" did something aggressive (a very human quality). But there again, why should a race of beings, presumably way in advance of mankind re. their civilization (given the ability to traverse space in a way that circumvents relativity as we know it).... have to be encumbered with such human traits as wanton hostility?
Well that's one way to look at it. However it might be like this. If they're really in advance of us it might be like Professor of Theoretical Physics Michio Kaku says : " If you're going down a road and see an ant hill do you go over and try to sell the ants trinkets and technology to improve their lives? Or do you kick it over? Just because you can. "
By the way relativity as we know it is changing every day.
Sorry! There is no silicon based life, at least of any complexity. Only carbon is capable of making the long chained molecules necessary to form a living creature. I don't think scientists were aware of this during Star Trek days.
Never say never.
But under current understanding it seems unlikely.
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_quest...ID=3&topicID=2
Myself, intuitively, I side with those that say the universe is an awfully big place for just us.
There is a saying that goes something like: 'evolution doesn't make mistakes, it makes every mistake'. Maybe the universe is just full of mistakes and we happened to be one of the better attempts.
This could easily mean there are more life forms completely different from us but I still think that such an uncontrolled and random system is ultimately completely meaningless and worthless so I'm hoping it's not the case.
The videos are quite clearly fake, as soon as someone brings up a video of a saucer then it's immediately suspicious. It needs to be something people haven't thought of before like a glowing triangle.
Also, I don't know if people remember the effects in Independence Day but they were pretty good. For these kind of handheld quality films to appear after so many years with improvements in CGI software is not that impressive and if I'm being honest, it's getting a bit tiresome.
What I'd really like to see is someone try and fake the moon landing using equipment available in 1969 just to see if it was possible.
I think most UFO sightings are fake/wishful thinking, but there have been so many sightings, by so many people from all cultural/economic groups that at least a few would have to be real.
Apparently a lot of people believe in Jesus after having their lives transformed by him. I guess some of them would have to be right.
Apparently a lot of people believe in Jesus after having their lives transformed by him. I guess some of them would have to be right.
But can you prove them wrong? (not that I'm saying it's correct) Guess there is only one way to be truly sure, and I don't intend to find out any time soon!
I was thinking statistically, if X number of people claim to see event Y but there is no empirical evidence one way or the other, how can you prove they are 100% incorrect?
I believe there is enough evidence for UFOs. So many people have had experiences with them that I believe they are real. My question is: real what? Since the behavior of UFOs appears to defy laws of physics, they are evidently not entirely material, IMHO. We can only speculate, but I'd say they are definitely not just advanced technology. Too much like Star Trek.
I believe there is enough evidence for UFOs. So many people have had experiences with them that I believe they are real. My question is: real what? Since the behavior of UFOs appears to defy laws of physics, they are evidently not entirely material, IMHO
So does a frog floating in mid-air, but it can be pulled off with strong magnets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rotTjRY5lRw
'Appears' to defy 'my known' laws of physics, is the phrase I think you want. An electric light bulb witnessed by primitive tribesmen is not proof of magic, after all.
'Appears' to defy 'my known' laws of physics, is the phrase I think you want.
Appears to defy 'our' known laws of physics. The laws of physics are well established and verified. UFOs have been observed by visual sightings and on radar to display wild trickery, such as instant sharp-angle turns and lightning like acceleration from a stand still.
It's unlikely the material could withstand such maneuvers, much less the occupants inside.
An electric light bulb witnessed by primitive tribesmen is not proof of magic, after all.
Primitives did not know much. Most of today's real technology would seem like magic.
Appears to defy 'our' known laws of physics. The laws of physics are well established and verified.
You forgot 'constantly being updated', 'constantly under scrutiny', 'not currently able to explain every verifiable phenomena in a laboratory setting'...
What, you think they're carved in stone? Obviously, you're not a physicist.
I am.
UFOs have been observed by visual sightings and on radar to display wild trickery, such as instant sharp-angle turns and lightning like acceleration from a stand still.
It's unlikely the material could withstand such maneuvers, much less the occupants inside.
There is a massive, huge gulf between 'unlikely' and 'impossible'. Throw in our pretty piss-poor understanding of much of physics, and things just get more fun.
Primitives did not know much. Most of today's real technology would seem like magic.
BING BING BING BING BING! WE HAVE A WINNA!
From the primitive's point of view, the light bulb appears their laws of physics, as they know them. Therefore, they are 'evidently not entirely material', right? And they *must* be something other than 'advanced technology', right?
Your argument holds as much water.
It's interesting to consider, given the vast transformation of "what things look like" and "how stuff works" in the past, say, thousand years, what tens of thousands of years beyond what we have now would seem to us.
I think sufficiently advanced technology could be so utterly alien (as it were) to our notions of "thingness" and "action" so as to be a kind of invisible.
I'm not talking about the urban myth that the indigenous locals "couldn't see" Columbus' ships-- while much bigger and differently configured than anything that population would have encountered, the basic idea-- big thing floating on water-- wasn't that much of a stretch. At most, I think Columbus' fleet would have caused some scale confusion, with a person never having encountered a manmade object that large assuming that they were nearer than they were, and some category confusion ("are those trees on that thing?").
But the technology of Columbus' Europe represents only around a thousand years of development beyond the circumstances of the peoples of "Hispaniola", and that thousand years doesn't include the rapid transformative acceleration engendered by the industrial revolution.
Imagine ten, or a hundred thousand years out ( and if there is any other intelligent life in the universe a civilization with a hundred thousand year jump on us is not an unreasonable expectation).
Would we be able to identify the artifacts of such a culture as technology, at all? Would such technology even take material form, or would it be mostly comprised of manipulation of the underlying forces at work in the universe?
Or what if "technology", as we express it, is an idiosyncratic artifact of human consciousness, which itself could just as easily be an offbeat type of sentience, big picture universe wise?
For all we know there are plenty of "civilizations" (whatever form that might take) making themselves known through various communications channels which are literally unthinkable, to us.
Baseless speculation is fun.
You forgot 'constantly being updated', 'constantly under scrutiny', 'not currently able to explain every verifiable phenomena in a laboratory setting'...
What, you think they're carved in stone? Obviously, you're not a physicist. I am.
Hey, your a physicist! Great, so am I. Likely, you've got a PhD and outrank my li'l old MS. At least we are on the same wavelength, I hope.
Of course I know science is constantly changing, but some things haven't budged in a long time and are well established. Classical mechanics still holds for the observations that I mentioned. The maneuvers observed would have incredible accelerations, which would stress the structure and it's occupants beyond their breaking point.
We know better than to say impossible, and I never said that. However, it is so improbable that I'm willing to base my beliefs upon it. Everyday I risk my life on things that have higher probability, like a bridge collapsing while I'm driving across. (Portland has lots of bridges.)
From the primitive's point of view, the light bulb appears their laws of physics, as they know them. Therefore, they are 'evidently not entirely material', right? And they *must* be something other than 'advanced technology', right?
Oh, come on now. the primitives did not understand anything about physics. They observed how some things happen, but to call it their science is really stretching it. They let go of a stone and it would fall to the ground. They had no idea WHY it fell or what determined how fast it fell.
Oh, come on now. the primitives did not understand anything about physics. They observed how some things happen, but to call it their science is really stretching it. They let go of a stone and it would fall to the ground. They had no idea WHY it fell or what determined how fast it fell.
I think in this context he means "their expectations of how things behave and what can be accounted for based on those expectations."
So a light bulb would be entirely inexplicable, in a number of ways (as a phenomena, in its materials, in the manner of its construction).
However, I still think that even here a light bulb has enough relationship to aspects of the primitive's world to be, if not accounted for, at least described. So: fire contained in bowl, or star fallen from sky, etc.
My thought about much more advanced tech is that we wouldn't even be able to go that far. We would literally have no idea what we were looking at, because nothing about its mechanisms or actions would refer to anything in our world.
Newton would have been shocked by a lightbulb, and like members of so called primitive cultures, would have studied it to explain it. He would have gotten most of it wrong as would the primitives. Was Newton not a scientist? Were his explanations not testable? Would the primitive culture's explanations not be testable?
Science is simply a way to explain the universe in testable statements. There is nothing advanced needed.
Oh, come on now. the primitives did not understand anything about physics.
The greeks had the diameter of the Earth within 60 miles circa 250 B.C. I wouldn't sell them too short.
My thought about much more advanced tech is that we wouldn't even be able to go that far. We would literally have no idea what we were looking at, because nothing about its mechanisms or actions would refer to anything in our world.
What you say could be true up to a point. But a much more advanced technology would not violate what we already know about the laws of physics. For example, when Einstein gave us the theory of relativity, it did not violate the older, classical laws of motion -- It 'extended' them. Classical mechanics still hold in the usual range of mechanisms,
So the UFO motions that I've mentioned are subject to the laws of classical mechanics. The sharp turns and sudden bursts of speed are well below light speed. Yet, it's the rates at which velocity vectors change that make many of us suspicious. It suggests to me these are not material objects, but some type of illusions or image.
The really interesting task at hand is to figure out how the UFOs are produced. They are detected by our eyes and by radar signals, yet are not material. As long as we keep insisting UFO are material object made by some super advance technology, we will get nowhere. Personally, I don't have a clue where to start.
Yet, rather than looking elsewhere, most people continue to accept UFOs as material objects made by an advanced technology, usually alien beings. Consider a similar example, the crop circles. No one could figure them out, so they were said to be the works of alien space crafts. Once the technique of producing crop circles was revealed, however, it was immediately clear. We may have a similar situation here, though it may not be a simple hoax, as were the crop circles.
The greeks had the diameter of the Earth within 60 miles circa 250 B.C. I wouldn't sell them too short.
The Greeks were not primitive. Theirs was a highly advanced civilization and culture.
These are the retards you have to watch out for. I and my friend saw what we saw with binoculars that day. I think the problem is that you didn't. So shut the fuck up.
As I said, I'm sure that it was compelling.