It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

page: 35
8
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Look, I have made it easy for you debunkers. The ET hypothesis isn't about one case. We can go back and forth on case after case and you will never explain the aerial phenomena U.F.O.

The cases you mentioned have been debated ad infinitum and U.F.O. phenomena hasn't changed.

So I'm making it easy for you. Just give me an explanation that fits the data better than the ET hypothesis. Give me a better explanation for the correlation between U.F.O.'s and nukes, radar, trace evidence, close encounters, eyewitness accounts and more.

It's really sad that in over 660 posts the most you can muster up is:


JAL 1628 = Most likely alien?
Ariel School = Most likely alien?
Rendlesham Forest = Most likely alien?
Travis Walton = Most likely alien?
Roswell = Most likely alien?
Solway Firth = Most likely alien?


Blind debunkers are really in a weak position. All this time and you can't give me a better explanation. I'm not asking you to go back and forth for 20 pages on a single case. I'm asking you to do something much simpler. Just give me an explanation that fits the data better than the ET hypothesis.

There's over 100 years of evidence and you would think debunkers would have something besides, Duh, I don't know. Let's use the brain a little.


What is sad is that after 660 posts you have yet to answer a direct question in an intellectually honest fashion.

Seriously, what's wrong with you? You have an almost autistic penchant for repetition, a complete inability to engage in meaningful conversation, and a severe comprehension and logical impairment.

What explanation best fits "the data" better than the ETH? Since ET has never been shown to exist I would say a wide and diverse range of natural phenomena, misidentifications, hoaxes, misperceptions, and lies since all of them exist, particularly with respect to UFO reports. You and a few like you demand a single "best fit" explanation where there exists a myriad of possible causes, both known and unknown. Why make such a demand when you know any such "hypothesis" would not cover the majority of reports, or even be verifiable in any way? To quote Zeta: "How do you test for Aliens?".

Yeah, yeah... I know. Michio Kaku youtube clip, blind debunker, logic and reason, and common sense.


edit on 24-4-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

More utter nonsense.

A diatribe filled with incoherent babble.

Here's your direct question.

"How do you test for Aliens?"

None of you blind debunkers can articulate why I need to test for aliens when the ET hypothesis is built on the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s.

All you guys do is ask the same questionS that has nothing to do with the ET hypothesis. This is because it's clear. The data surrounding U.F.O.'s and the behavior of U.F.O.'s supports one conclusion and that's the ET hypothesis.

If it were accepted tomorrow, ATS might as well close down this forum because U.F.O.'s would be explained.

You said:


You and a few like you demand a single "best fit" explanation where there exists a myriad of possible causes, both known and unknown.


You need to actually read the thread. Who said anything about a single best fit? I've talked about misidentifications and weather anomaly's. This is why I said SOME. I never said all U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

You talk about a myriad of explanations, then what explanations fits the data better than the ET hypothesis. I'm talking about the evidence that's used to build the ET hypothesis like this:

Radar reports

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Vehicle interference cases

www.ufoevidence.org...

Electromagnetic effects

www.ufoevidence.org...

Physical evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Government U.F.O. Documents

www.ufoevidence.org...

U.F.O. articles published in scientific journals

www.ufoevidence.org...









Unknown doesn't mean non existent. Sadly, debunkers can't use a little common sense when it comes to U.F.O.'s.

I have a new null seeing that in over 660 pages blind debunkers haven't tried to refute or debate the evidence that supports the ET hypothesis.

NO BLIND DEBUNKER HAS TRIED TO DEBATE OR REFUTE THE EVIDENCE SURROUNDING U.F.O.'S AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ET HYPOTHESIS.

In over 660 posts on this thread debunkers have said the same things without a peep about evidence.

They have said:

test the null (wrong)

prove the null (wrong)

test for aliens (wrong)

unicorns creating rainbows (wrong)

elves, fairies and ogres (wrong)

To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis. (blindly wrong)

the words crop circles and you tube links supposedly means that debunkers don't have to think (wrong)

So far on this thread debunkers haven't presented a simple argument as to why we shouldn't invoke extraterrestrials when it comes to the evidence that supports the ET hypothesis. Over 100 years of evidence and the best debunkers can do is say, DUH, WE DON'T KNOW.





edit on 24-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


More utter nonsense.

A diatribe filled with incoherent babble.

Thanks for putting the warning at the top.



So it would be No flying objects that are yet to be identified are controlled by extraterrestrials. So no U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.


You do realize this is still a double negative. "No flying objects that are yet to be identified" means you are excluding the yet to be identified objects. So you are talking about only the objects that have been identified? I know you don't mean that but... You never worked with logical statements I see.
unidentified
not identified
yet to be identified
are all the same
Not not identified is equivalent to identified
edit on 24-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: neoholographic

You do realize this is still a double negative. "No flying objects that are yet to be identified" means you are excluding the yet to be identified objects. So you are talking about only the objects that have been identified? I know you don't mean that but... You never worked with logical statements I see.
unidentified
not identified
yet to be identified
are all the same
Not not identified is equivalent to identified



edit on 24-4-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You said:


"No flying objects that are yet to be identified" means you are excluding the yet to be identified objects.


Of course it does if you dishonestly leave out:

Are controlled by extraterrestrials. It's a statement about flying objects which are a known atmospheric phenomena.

Man, debunkers avoid the evidence like it's the plague.

Of course, you will mention crop circles or you tube links in 5,4,3,2,1......

NO BLIND DEBUNKER HAS TRIED TO DEBATE OR REFUTE THE EVIDENCE SURROUNDING U.F.O.'S AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ET HYPOTHESIS.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Of course it does if you dishonestly leave out:

Are controlled by extraterrestrials. It's a statement about flying objects which are a known atmospheric phenomena


It doesn't matter what you put after. Can you restate it so it makes some sense? Otherwise, this would not pass 8th grade science.


Of course, you will mention crop circles

?
edit on 24-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

As a graduate student at the Ohio State University I worked on SETI with Dr. John Kraus and Dr. Robert Dixon. I was present during the 'Wow!' episode with Jerry Ehman. In this role I attended the 30th anniversary of Project Ozma in Greenbank Virginia. There I had the great opportunity to meet Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, Barney Oliver, Jill Tarter, Paul Horowitz and others.

Now, Frank gave a talk on his equation. He said that he developed the equation to give some sort of plausible scientific quantitative basis with which to answer the inevitable question, what is your probability of success? that funding sources inevitably asked. He also urged that the equation be used to help astronomers and other scientists in their research to quantify the result (N) with greater accuracy. Which it has done. Several research programmes have been funded on the basis that it would improve the quantitative accuracy of the Drake Equation.

So, it is with this in mind and this experience that I say that anyone who says the Drake Equation is merely a way to contemplate the possibility of ETI, and not reduce it somehow to quantitative numbers, isn't aware of these talks or this history, and on that basis is quite limited in their view. That is, the Drake Equation certainly is a way to contemplate ETI, but it has quantitative results as well, that is of interest to the analytical mind and the engineer. These analytical results have direct bearing on expolitics - such as it is.

The result of the Drake equation using the best available numbers published today is that there are about 4200 ETIs capable of radio communication or more.

Combining the ideas of Drake and Kardashev, and noting that there is a distribution around the average life span Michael Shermer came up with his excellent analysis, we can even using the ERFC( function to calculate the number of Type 0, Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 civilizations within this total. There is some small residue (20 by most counts) civilizations that have built self replicating probes and spread them across the galaxy. Those probes are quite capable of building avatars in response to their programming and making contact with intelligent species. I point out why, unless they are very near, we won't make direct contact. Even if star ships are 10x safer than airliners, they won't be penetrating more than 30,000 light years into the cosmos. Civilizations, even very advanced ones, who don't last very long compared to the time needed to traverse these ranges, would not spread very far anyway. The cosmos is vast compared to life, even capable ETI.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: WilliamMook

I really recommend checking out ...

SETI Candidate Signals List
Seeking Silent Aliens - How to Search for Advanced Alien Civilizations - Space.com article
Jadestar Threads

What are your thoughts on the paper by David Spiegel at Princeton University and Edwin Turner at the University of Tokyo?
arxiv.org...



www.technologyreview.com...

July 25, 2011

Probability of ET Life Arbitrarily Small, Say Astrobiologists

Astronomers have always thought that because life emerged quickly on Earth, it must be likely to occur elsewhere. That thinking now turns out to be wrong.

The Drake equation is one of those rare mathematical beasts that has leaked into the public consciousness. It estimates the number of extraterrestrial civilisations that we might be able to detect today or in the near future.

The equation was devised by Frank Drake at the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1960. He attempted to quantify the number by asking what fraction of stars have planets, what fraction of these might be habitable, then the fraction of these on which life actually evolves and the fraction of these on which life becomes intelligent and so on.

Many of these numbers are little more than wild guesses. For example, the number of ET civilisations we can detect now is hugely sensitive to the fraction that destroy themselves with their own technology, through nuclear war for example. Obviously we have no way of knowing this figure.

Nevertheless, many scientists have attempted to come up with a figure with estimates ranging from a handful of ET civilisations to tens of thousands of them.

Of the many uncertainties in the Drake equation, one term is traditionally thought of as relatively reliable. That is the probability of life emerging on a planet in a habitable zone. On Earth, life arose about 3.8 billion years ago, just a few million years after the planet had cooled sufficiently to allow it.

Astrobiologists naturally argue that because life arose so quickly here, it must be pretty likely to emerge in other places where conditions allow.

Today, David Spiegel at Princeton University and Edwin Turner at the University of Tokyo say this thinking is wrong. They’ve used an entirely different kind of thinking, called Bayesian reasoning, to show that the emergence of life on Earth is consistent with life being arbitrarily rare in the universe.

At first sight, that seems rather counterintuitive. But if Bayesian reasoning tells us anything, it’s that we can easily fool ourselves into thinking things are far more likely than they really are.

Spiegel and Turner point out that our thinking about the origin of life is heavily biased by the fact that we’re here to observe it. They point out that it’s taken about 3.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth.

So the only way that enough time could have elapsed for us to have evolved is if life emerged very quickly. And that’s a bias that is entirely independent of the actual probability of life emerging on a habitable planet.

“In other words, if evolution requires 3.5 Gyr for life to evolve from the simplest forms to sentient, questioning beings, then we had to find ourselves on a planet on which life arose relatively early, regardless of the value of [the probability of life developing in a unit time],” say Spiegel and Turner. #

When you strip out that bias, it turns out that the actual probability of life emerging is consistent with life being arbitrarily rare. In other words, the fact that life emerged at least once on Earth is entirely consistent with it only having happened here.

So we could be alone, after all.

That’s a sobering argument. It’s easy to be fooled by the evidence of our own existence. What Speigel and Turner have shown is the true mathematical value of this evidence.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we are alone; only that the evidence can’t tell us otherwise.

And if the evidence changes then so to will the probabilities that we can infer from it.

There are two ways of finding new evidence. The first is to look for signs of life on other planets, perhaps using biogenic markers in their atmospheres. The capability to do begin this work on planets around other stars should be with us in the next few years.

The second is closer to home. If we find evidence that life emerged independently more than once on Earth, then this would be a good reason to change the figures.

Either way, this debate is set to become a major issue in science in the next few years. That’s something to look forward to.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: WilliamMook

Here is another thread that Jadestar participated in,
Her analysis is rather interesting,..
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: WilliamMook

What are your thoughts on the paper by David Spiegel at Princeton University and Edwin Turner at the University of Tokyo?
arxiv.org...



You do understand that this work is dependent on there being no life outside Earth, and that evidence points to life being in at least 1 other location within this solar system alone...and probability suggests at least 4 other locations...just sayin...


edit on 24-4-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418
What evidence?
Or do you mean possibility?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanka418
What evidence?
Or do you mean possibility?



Evidence for life on ancient Mars, possibly even today...

Give me a couple days, I'll assemble it for you...



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Oh. You mean interesting looking rocks.
Don't do anything special on my account. There's a thread that's been running for a while now that's been a lot of fun and there are usually a few other threads added every week.


edit on 4/24/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


You do understand that this work is dependent on there being no life outside Earth, and that evidence points to life being in at least 1 other location within this solar system alone...and probability suggests at least 4 other locations...just sayin...


Sure. I'm actually kind of neutral currently. But I am pretty sure the work allows for future discoveries. I think its a good way to put things in perspective. And sure, once life is discovered elsewhere, it changes everything.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanka418

Oh. You mean interesting looking rocks.
Don't do anything special on my account. There's a thread that's been running for a while now that's been a lot of fun and there are usually a few other threads added every week.



No actually, I'm not referring to "just" the rocks...there are far more examples of possible fossil evidence for Martian life...dating back to around when Earth life started...about 4 billion years...

I'll just get that stuff together...I actually want to do that anyway...now I have more motivation.





posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: tanka418


You do understand that this work is dependent on there being no life outside Earth, and that evidence points to life being in at least 1 other location within this solar system alone...and probability suggests at least 4 other locations...just sayin...


Sure. I'm actually kind of neutral currently. But I am pretty sure the work allows for future discoveries. I think its a good way to put things in perspective. And sure, once life is discovered elsewhere, it changes everything.


Absolutely! As much as I might disagree with it...it is still very valuable work...give us a better appreciation for the life we do have...cause even if the cosmos it truly "teaming" with life, we are all rare and unique.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Good points and evidence is mounting that life in the universe is abundant and may even be in our own backyard.

Richard Hoover formerly worked at NASA who says he has found extraterrestrial life on Meteors. Now befor Debunkers start calling Hoover a senile old idiot, here's more about him.


Richard B. Hoover (B.Sc.) (b. January 3, 1943) is a scientist who has authored 33 volumes and 250 papers on astrobiology, extremophiles, diatoms, solar physics, X-ray/EUV optics and meteorites. He holds 11 U.S. patents and was 1992 NASA Inventor of the Year.[1] He was employed at the United States' NASA Marshall Space Flight Center from 1966, where he worked on astrophysics and astrobiology. He established the Astrobiology Group there in 1997 and until his retirement late 2011 he headed their astrobiology research. He conducted research on microbial extremophiles in the Antarctic, microfossils, and chemical biomarkers in precambrian rocks and in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites.


Here's a video:



Here's more:


New evidence presented by Professor Steven Benner at The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in Florida suggests that, billions of years ago, Mars was a much better place for the first cells to have formed compared to Earth. This gives more weight to the theory that life may have started on the Red Planet and then found its way to Earth aboard a meteorite.

According to Benner, if the RNA hypothesis is true then the story just doesn't add up.

Scientists believe that when life first appeared on Earth our planet was completely submerged in water and very low in dioxygen. Benner says life couldn't have originated under these conditions because borate and molybdate, two crucial catalysts to the formation of RNA, would have been extremely rare.

"If early Earth really was a 'water world,' then borate concentration would have been difficult," Prof. Benner tells Gizmag. "For molybdate, the problem is that it is highly oxidized (four oxygen atoms for every molybdenum atom), and ancient Earth probably did not have much dioxygen in the atmosphere."


www.gizmag.com...


A team of scientists at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., has found evidence of past water movement throughout a Martian meteorite, reviving debate in the scientific community over life on Mars.


www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Enceladus huge reservoir of liquid water.


This week, scientists from NASA confirmed that assumption, presenting evidence that Enceladus has a huge reservoir of liquid water beneath many kilometres of ice. The moon is actually quite small, just a few hundred kilometres across, so the surface area of the main ocean seems to be about that of Lake Superior. It is also up to 50 times as deep, however, making this alien ocean vast indeed. The blue “tiger stripes,” as they are known, are fractures in the moon’s surface through which this water and ice can escape. The exact points of eruption are known as “cryovolcanoes.” [Research paper: DOI: 10.1126/science.1250551 - "The Gravity Field and Interior Structure of Enceladus"]


www.extremetech.com...

More evidence of Panspermia:


New research out of the University of Hawaii suggests that both water and organic molecules travel the universe in tandem, seeding planets with “little reaction vessels” that could help provide dead planets with that first, all-important step in life’s development. This is another piece of evidence in favor of the panspermia hypothesis, which argues that life on Earth began thanks to an influx of molecules from outer space. Comets and meteorites are the typical carriers for this material, but this study suggests that even dust blown through the solar system on solar winds could provide a planet with both life’s most complex precursors and the water needed to allow those precursors to assemble into life.


www.extremetech.com...

I think planets are seeded with the building blocks of life and some planets are favorable to life and others are not. This means life would be abundant because Earth doesn't have some special ingredient to jump start life. So life can form on places like Earth as well as planets in harsher conditions like we see in extremophiles.

Some of these things are what lead Hawking to be ALMOST CERTAIN that intelligent alien life forms exist.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

As much as I might disagree with it...

I would venture to guess that it doesn't sit well with most people. All it really says is "this is what we know" which isn't very much really. Many people here have said that life out there is an almost certainty and most scientists agree....yada yada. So really, this work is just another perspective and its not set in stone.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks for the video...I was not aware of it...more stuff for my paper...

This however, is only the tip of the iceberg... there are many papers, and other bits of evidence that support what is in this video. Together it begins to make a rather convincing argument for at the very least; ancient life on Mars.

It is also significant that many of the scientists who talk about ancient Martian life also seem to indicate that life there started around the same time as it did on Earth. Unfortunately, Mars at about 1/10th the size of Earth couldn't sustain it's "planetary engine", lost it's magnetic field, and virtually died...although, many scientists still think there is some form of life there today.





posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Every scientific experiment has a falsifiable result based on some hypothesis to be tested.

www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org...

Now, some experiments you can do in a laboratory. Other experiments you do in nature. Astronomy involves the experiments in nature variety. Now the SETI experiments conducted involve certain hypotheses about what we expect to see.

At the Ohio State University, we constructed a digital signal processor that looked at a very high resolution at all the frequencies that occurred in what was known as the 'water hole' - the frequencies between the hydrogen line (18 cm) and the hydroxyl line (21 cm) Since H and OH add up to make water, Barney Oliver a famous scientist and engineer who worked for Hewlett & Packard back in the day, coined the term 'water hole' in 1971 and that stuck!

www.astro.wisc.edu...

Paul Horowitz at Harvard University, is conducting Project Beta - Billion Channel Extraterrestrial Assay - of the sky using Harvard's (26 meter) 83 ft radio telescope.

seti.harvard.edu...

This breaks the signals in the water hole down into 0.5 Hz channels - which is very accurate - and maps them in frequency space. This operated from 1995 to 1999. A windstorm damaged the radio telescope and it has never been rebuilt.

Now, the very fine frequencies used, are helpful in identifying signals. The Earth is rotating. It is moving around the Sun. The Sun itself is moving around the Milky Way's center in a grand orbit. The Milky Way itself is moving relative to the background radiation. Now all of these have an impact on how frequencies are detected due to the Doppler effect.

www.youtube.com...

So, things that move along with us on the surface of the Earth, don't exhibit this effect. Things in orbit around the Earth's center, exhibit a unique signature based on their orbital parameters. Things in orbit around the Sun, have another quite distinct variation in frequency based on their solar orbit paramaters. Things beyond the solar system, and inside the galaxy, have yet a different and distinct signature. Things outside the galaxy, different yet again.

This lets us classify signals, relatively quickly as being of interest. It lets us filter signals out that are generated on Earth. It lets us classify signals according to how they are moving relative to the observer.

So, first and foremost, we look for narrow band signals. These don't occur readily in nature. So a powerful narrow band signals, is a good candidate for an artificial signal.

Next we look to see how the narrow band signal is changing in frequency relative to the observer. That's because a signal floating among the stars, or orbiting another star, or on a planet of another star beyond the solar system, will have a unique shift in frequency that tells us a lot in a very short time about where it is. We can also very quickly eliminate terrestrial signals that leak into the telescope, signals from satellites in orbit around the Earth, or orbiting other planets, or originating on other planets. (although we have used OSU's 'Big Ear' to look for lightning on Venus and Jupiter and identified the source not only because it was in our 'beam' of detection, but also because the frequencies shifted in the expected ways, and even though we had the ability to look at all frequencies at once in doing these surveys, we found no artificially generated signals on Venus or Jupiter)

Anything that's narrow band and originating out beyond the solar system is a candidate signal. We have gotten something like 40,000 candidate signals in OSU's survey. Though Paul Horowitz hasn't published his results to my knowledge, I understand he has gotten similar results.

Now, the reason these are not reported is that they didn't meet the criterion for reporting established prior to the experiment. Namely, we should be able to track the signal, and record the signal.

The interesting thing about this is that in 40,000 tries, whenever we turned on the recorder to actually record the signal, the signal extinguished. This happened so often, we decided instead of turning the recorder on immediately, we'd wait a day, mark the location as a candidate signal, and then turn on the recorder. When this change of protocol was tried, we got nearly the same number of candidate signals, which also extinguished when the recorder was switched on.

This sort of spooky behaviour has more in common with ghost stories and ufo sightings than real science. After a few decades of this, and not being able to find any explanation for it in our equipment or process, and not coming up with any way of changing the experiment to get a better outcome, SETI has kept largely silent on the subject until the results are better explained, or the experiment changed to attain better results.

In his book 'The Pale Blue Dot' Carl Sagan shared this aspect of our SETI search, yet he urged us to continue;

www.youtube.com...


So, after having several decades to think about these results I think it should not be surprising that we are mystified by superior intelligences, if we have already gained evidence of them without fully realizing it. I thought of this one day playing catch with my dog, Wallace. The ball rolled out of her view and she looked to me enquiring it seemed to me, 'where is the ball' to which I replied by pointing. Over there I said. She continued to star questioningly. I continued to point. She approached me and licked the end of my finger. She didn't understand the inherent and natural meaning to me, of the act of pointing. I laughed and started moving toward the ball. She now followed my motion and saw for herself where the ball was.

Now, we are two species, both intelligent, that share much in common. Yet, I would say I have superior technical skills to my canine friend. However, much of what I do, no doubt mystifies my dog. Things like pointing.

So, why wouldn't be, with our relative inexperience in these matters, be mystified by anything an alien and superior technical species does?

Since the 1980s and 90s, there have been many advances in physics. One of the most interesting to me is a class of experiments called, 'the delayed choice experiment'.

www.youtube.com...

Here, how we choose to look at an entangled pair of photons determines how the photons act in the past.

Now, I wonder, could aliens slightly in advance of us, use radio telescopes in a sort of cosmological delayed choice experiment as a means to open up two way instantaneous communications? In that case, our naive effort to record a signal may have caused a collapse of the wave function, and marked Earth as inhabited by a species advanced enough to build radio, but not advanced enough to know how to use it to communicate efficiently over interstellar distances.

I haven't reduced these notions to clear analysis, but this is what I have been thinking about for twenty years now. Perhaps in another ten or twenty years I'll have an answer - if no one else figures out in the meantime!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join