Did someone actually compare aliens/ufo's to the easter bunny?
It's basically mathematically impossible that there's no other life in the universe, and probable that there's intelligent/advanced life.
Wth the amount of stars with planets orbiting them, there has to be other planets in the goldilocks zone.
Where did I say there's no such thing as other life forms in the universe? not that I could ever collect but if I could I would give odds for the existence of advanced life within 100 light years of us let alone the whole universe.
Possibly right, but bottom line is, they aint never been here
Can you prove that? No, you can't. You are going to fall back on the interstellar distance argument which is built on our limited understanding of the cosmos and physics. We have just scratched the surface of beginning to understand the universe. Einstein's constant may not be so constant because we are now finding that the universe is expanding at a rate beyond the speed of light, which according to some, is impossible.
When it comes to what exists beyond this tiny planet we live on, and how the universe works beyond out world, that is still very much a huge unknown. Because we measure everything else against what we know, and try to find explanations within what we already know, we are at a great disadvantage, because we don't know what we don't know. We are like a two year old being put into a post-doctorate lecture on almost any subject, and then expected to present something cogent on that topic. To that toddler, they are an expert and master of their universe, showing others their understanding of the magical properties of a substance they know well. To the post-doctorate students/fellows it is a baby flinging poo from its diaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
Where did I say there's no such thing as other life forms in the universe? not that I could ever collect but if I could I would give odds for the existence of advanced life within 100 light years of us let alone the whole universe.
How about 4.2 light years away? Did you know one of the tasks for the James Webb telescope will be to scan Proxima B in an effort to detect artificial light, specifically LED light? That's a pretty specific mission and a pretty specific target. Does that make you curious?
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 02-24-2022 at 06:08 AM.
Can you prove that? No, you can't. You are going to fall back on the interstellar distance argument which is built on our limited understanding of the cosmos and physics. We have just scratched the surface of beginning to understand the universe. Einstein's constant may not be so constant because we are now finding that the universe is expanding at a rate beyond the speed of light, which according to some, is impossible.
Burden of proof should the responsibility of the person or people making the claim. It's like a religious nut saying "prove God doesn't exist"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
How about 4.2 light years away? Did you know one of the tasks for the James Webb telescope will be to scan Proxima B in an effort to detect artificial light, specifically LED light? That's a pretty specific mission and a pretty specific target. Does that make you curious?
I sure am curious, I've followed the Webb's development for 20 years and have a second cousin who worked on the guidance system for it, I'm sure Webb will look all over the place, Alpha Centauri, Barnard's, Wolf and probably 1000's more by the time it's done.
Burden of proof should the responsibility of the person or people making the claim.
You're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ripTDR
but bottom line is, they aint never been here
Burden of proof and all.
Quote:
I sure am curious, I've followed the Webb's development for 20 years and have a second cousin who worked on the guidance system for it, I'm sure Webb will look all over the place, Alpha Centauri, Barnard's, Wolf and probably 1000's more by the time it's done.
Sure, it'll look around. But that is a pretty specific target with a pretty specific data point to look for. That's not just the needle in the haystack, that's identifying the make and model of the needle. A little strange, no?
1) it’s the closest exo planet
2) there was the interesting but likely natural radio waves discovered
3) if you have a tool like The JWT you are limited to the things it can measure to make discoveries.
4) an advanced organism with Similar evolution to humans would have discovered the diode.
From what I read about Centauri B, it is still a long shot to harbor advanced life. It is likely tidally locked and would lack active geology. Seasonal variation and active geology are two conditions believed to promote biodiversity, which are both huge mechanisms for robust evolution of organisms. It would have one really hot side, and one really cold side, leaving just a narrow band that would be comfortable to organic life. The system also lacks planetary giants to shelter it from impacts.
But they don't know those things as a matter of fact, but base them on sound deductions, so I agree that you should check it out to confirm. I would love it if they found something promising for sure.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The fabric of the Universe itself is expanding. Just like raisins in a leavening loaf of raisin bread dough, the every galaxy in the Universe all see the other galaxies moving away from them, with the more distant raisins (or galaxies) appearing to move away at faster rates.
But why is this?
It isn't because the raisins are moving relative to the dough that they're embedded in, nor is it because the individual galaxies are moving through the fabric of space. Rather, it's owing to the fact that the dough itself — just like the fabric of space itself — is expanding, and the raisins (or galaxies) are just along for the ride.
If we were to ask, from our perspective, what this means for the speed of this distant galaxy that we're only now observing, we'd conclude that this galaxy is receding from us well in excess of the speed of light. But in reality, not only is that galaxy not moving through the Universe at a relativistically impossible speed, but it's hardly moving at all! Instead of speeds exceeding 299,792 km/s (the speed of light in a vacuum), these galaxies are only moving through space at ~2% the speed of light or less.
But space itself is expanding, and that accounts for the overwhelming majority of the redshift we see. And space doesn't expand at a speed; it expands at a speed-per-unit-distance: a very different kind of rate. When you see numbers like 67 km/s/Mpc or 73 km/s/Mpc (the two most common values that cosmologists measure), these are speeds (km/s) per unit distance (Mpc, or about 3.3 million light-years).
The restriction that "nothing can move faster than light" only applies to the motion of objects through space. The rate at which space itself expands — this speed-per-unit-distance — has no physical bounds on its upper limit.
no object is actually moving through the Universe faster than the speed of light. The Universe is expanding, but the expansion doesn't have a speed; it has a speed-per-unit-distance, which is equivalent to a frequency, or an inverse time. One of the most surprising facts about the Universe is that if you do the conversions and take the inverse of the expansion rate, you can calculate the "time" that you get out.
The answer? Approximately 13.8 billion years: the age of the Universe.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
4) an advanced organism with Similar evolution to humans would have discovered the diode.
That's like saying they would have developed the internal combustion engine and built a Ford Pinto too. Why would any organism that evolved like humans discover any technology similar to that on earth? Technology would likely be more dependent on environmental influences more so than based on evolutionary influences.
Looking for emissions of energy radiation I can see. Looking for artificial sources of light, or identifying wavelengths of light would make sense. But the specifics of looking for evidence of LED light, seems way too specific. It's like looking at Mars and say you're looking for the existent of purple majesty potatoes. When you're looking for evidence of something broad you don't start focusing on on specifics.
Nice work counsellor. A little bit misleading in the final quote.
"The answer? Approximately 13.8 billion years: the age of the Universe. There isn't a fundamental reason for that fact; it's just a fascinating cosmic coincidence."
Also, I do like the interesting logic games being played in the article.
"But no object is actually moving through the Universe faster than the speed of light. The Universe is expanding, but the expansion doesn't have a speed; it has a speed-per-unit-distance, which is equivalent to a frequency, or an inverse time. One of the most surprising facts about the Universe is that if you do the conversions and take the inverse of the expansion rate, you can calculate the "time" that you get out."
So something obviously does move faster than light, it just doesn't count because it's not classified an object, and any objects riding on that non-object are not moving faster than the speed of light, they're just going along for the ride, like a raisin on a rising muffin. And then when we do math by eliminating this expansion, we come up with numbers that align with our predictions. Cherry picking data or over-normalization of data to comply with a model? Still an interesting article - surprising for Forbes - and provided a cool presentation of red shift. Wish they had gone more into dark energy/matter and explaining its influence on universal expansion and what exists beyond the observable universe with a possible foray into the dark flow and multiverse bubbles.
Sure, it'll look around. But that is a pretty specific target with a pretty specific data point to look for. That's not just the needle in the haystack, that's identifying the make and model of the needle. A little strange, no?
Yep, Its pretty easy. Have you seen them?
Have they made themselves known?
Do you know one?
Do you know of any extraterrestrial being that has visited our lowly rim star planet?
Is there conclusive evidence that another being has visited earth?
Is there conclusive evidence that they have visited your neighbour?
Have you any reasonable proof that would stand up in a court of law today that aliens have visited planet earth?
Me personally? No. But millions of people have claimed to have seen them and had experiences with them. There are narratives from indigenous peoples of travelers from the stars visiting.
Quote:
Have they made themselves known?
To me personally? No. But they have to millions of people throughout history who have claimed to see them, meet them, or be abducted by them.
Quote:
Do you know one?
No. I don't. How would I know if I did run into one if they are similar to us?
I also don't know nor have ever met a giant squid, but I am certain they exist because of circumstantial evidence and witness testimony. Personally not knowing someone or something does not mean they/it do not exist. This is some real four-year-old level thinking you're putting on display here.
Quote:
Do you know of any extraterrestrial being that has visited our lowly rim star planet?
I know there are millions of people who have claimed to have experiences with them, some even having unexplainable marks or injuries as a result of their interactions/abductions.
[/QUOTE]
Is there conclusive evidence that another being has visited earth?[/QUOTE]
Well, there is eye witness testimony. There is physical evidence. But no, we don't have one walking up to news reporter on the street and screaming "####er her in the #####" on camera.
Quote:
Is there conclusive evidence that they have visited your neighbour?
Actually, yeah. My neighbor is a retired Washington State Sheriff and had an encounter that he could not explain and is certain it was not terrestrial. As a trained observer and LEO I tend to trust him for the most part. But he is a Trump supporter so he may be out there as well.
Quote:
Have you any reasonable proof that would stand up in a court of law today that aliens have visited planet earth?
I don't personally, but there is a wealth of evidence from visitation sites and personal testimony of encounters exists. We convict people on eye witness testimony and physical evidence, so yeah, a case could be made.
Back at you. Can you refute the evidence and witness testimony collected over the years? How can you make the physical evidence disappear without blatantly ignoring it and the witness testimony from millions of people around the globe?
That's like saying they would have developed the internal combustion engine and built a Ford Pinto too. Why would any organism that evolved like humans discover any technology similar to that on earth? Technology would likely be more dependent on environmental influences more so than based on evolutionary influences.
Looking for emissions of energy radiation I can see. Looking for artificial sources of light, or identifying wavelengths of light would make sense. But the specifics of looking for evidence of LED light, seems way too specific. It's like looking at Mars and say you're looking for the existent of purple majesty potatoes. When you're looking for evidence of something broad you don't start focusing on on specifics.
Do you have a link to the specific experiment and time being conducted? My understanding of Loebs paper it was showing that it could detect Earth spectrum LED light at 500 times the Earths intensity of LED light and could barely detect All Light currently emitted from the Earth.
The general idea is that if a technology advanced society lives there they would illuminate the night side of the planet.
As for a diode I’m willing to bet any advanced life form has invented a device that emits light from an energy band change in an atom.
I’d also bet if we find life on an earth like planet (the ones we are looking at). Essentially having non-frozen water) we would also find a steam engine in their history.
Last edited by GGG; 02-24-2022 at 11:31 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Me personally? No. But millions of people have claimed to have seen them and had experiences with them. There are narratives from indigenous peoples of travelers from the stars visiting.
To me personally? No. But they have to millions of people throughout history who have claimed to see them, meet them, or be abducted by them.
No. I don't. How would I know if I did run into one if they are similar to us?
I also don't know nor have ever met a giant squid, but I am certain they exist because of circumstantial evidence and witness testimony. Personally not knowing someone or something does not mean they/it do not exist. This is some real four-year-old level thinking you're putting on display here.
I know there are millions of people who have claimed to have experiences with them, some even having unexplainable marks or injuries as a result of their interactions/abductions.
Is there conclusive evidence that another being has visited earth?[/QUOTE]
Well, there is eye witness testimony. There is physical evidence. But no, we don't have one walking up to news reporter on the street and screaming "####er her in the #####" on camera.
Actually, yeah. My neighbor is a retired Washington State Sheriff and had an encounter that he could not explain and is certain it was not terrestrial. As a trained observer and LEO I tend to trust him for the most part. But he is a Trump supporter so he may be out there as well.
I don't personally, but there is a wealth of evidence from visitation sites and personal testimony of encounters exists. We convict people on eye witness testimony and physical evidence, so yeah, a case could be made.
Back at you. Can you refute the evidence and witness testimony collected over the years? How can you make the physical evidence disappear without blatantly ignoring it and the witness testimony from millions of people around the globe?[/QUOTE]
So you got really nothing
Last edited by ripTDR; 02-25-2022 at 04:25 AM.
Reason: Ughhh... I'm not good at forums
Physical evidence on persons. Scars, bruising, and unexplainable substances in people's bodies. Subdermal marks on bodies, similar to finger prints, left by abductors. Changes in blood chemistry consistent with that of being in zero gravity. Electronic component failure consistent with being in or passing through a high energy field. Dermal burns and radiation exposure.
Physical evidence left behind by UAPs. Radiation signatures, burn marks, impressions, disturbances in grasses and foliage. Photographic and videographic evidence. Radar tracking data, including triangulated radar tracking data.
But I'm sure this will all be explained away or ignored. Millions of accounts. Physical evidence. Videographic, photographic, and radiographic evidence. But not enough, right? We need a body and we need it to be hung in the town square. Even then the same people would scoff at it and try to explain it away. Just like you did here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
That's not physical evidence, that's just a person saying stuff. Lanny said we have physical evidence. I'm curious what it is.
That narrative was from someone who saw and handled the physical evidence. Just because we no longer have access to that physical evidence does not mean it does not exist or did not exist. It just means it was confiscated and no longer available for examination.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 02-25-2022 at 07:27 AM.
