The Biggest Crisis Since The Cold War: Where Are The Aliens?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I see you added a bit at the end there, so…

Do you have evidence of this eternally-existing universe, because it seems that the evidence would suggest otherwise.

Show me how you stretch out your arm "forever" and it never runs into a barrier. Thats infinite. Show me the beginning, not just another theory. Yah, they are all theories. Infinite deep space is a fact. Ever seen the Hubble Deep Field? That should convince you of whats further than we can see. Moving turtle goal posts.

Oh, that "beginnings" video is missing…. I see.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And I'm not sure why you are so convinced the universe (the one we currently occupy) is infinitely old. In fact, it most likely is not infinitely old. The universe we live in seems to have had a beginning.

"most likely" and "seems to"… disclaimers duly noted. You mean you aren't sure?

I am.


But thats subjective and just my opinion. Maybe we should do a thread on it. How about it, your opinion against mine?

Of course I'm not sure. However, there is much more evidence suggesting that our universe had a beginning, and virtually NO evidence whatsoever supporting the idea that it is has always just eternally "been here".

What evidence do you have that makes you sure that our universe has always existed? What is your explanation for the red shifting of galaxies and the background radiation?


Consider this thought experiment:

Why can't we see things more than (about) 13.5 billion LY away from us? The answer is that light from objects farther away than that has not yet had enough time to reach us -- the universe is not old enough. If the Universe were really infinitely old, then the light from infinite distances would have had an infinite amount of time to reach us. However, it is NOT the case that light from 50 billion to 100's of billions of light years away has reached us (let alone light from infinite distances)...

..i.e., .if that light for 50 billion or 100 billion LY away has had the time to travel from those distances to our eyes (and you say it has had the time to do so), then why hasn't it?

a reply to: Wirral Bagpuss

So the world is teetering on the abyss.

So where are they?

Then perhaps the world is not teetering on the abyss.


Or to the contrary...the drums of war are full on, the climate is nuts, the systems are corrupt from top to bottom, so it sure doesn't look good.

So perhaps they followed the advice once given to George McFly and they made like a tree and got out of here..

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Wirral Bagpuss

These "aliens" you speak of are not alien. They are fallen angels that once inhabited Earth (and probably other planets too) before man was created. They are already here and have been manipulating the nations since the fall of Adam. They want their planet back, and when they finally get around to revealing themselves, you'll wish they never existed.

The time is near.

Want their planet back? Well uhh....if they are so powerful how did they lose it in the first place?
And if they are manipulating the nations since Adam, wouldnt you say they already control their planet?

Just saying, I read your posts and tho its interesting, you seem to have a lot of conviction w out seeing the obvious holes i n your theories

dbl

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

However, there is much more evidence suggesting that our universe had a beginning, and virtually NO evidence whatsoever supporting the idea that it is has always just eternally "been here".

If you can't prove it "ends" then you can't make the claim that it began either. Well you can but just because you can't see beyond a certain point (major tenant of accepting Big Bang theory) is not proof there is nothing beyond that point.

Why can't we see things more than (about) 13.5 billion LY away from us?

Because of our instruments. As one indicator, every time the instruments improve they (once again) move the goal posts. They will again as soon as resolution and filtering improves. For the longest time little unresolved swirls or clouds were unknown until improved optics and tracking revealed the nature of galaxies. Due to the enormous distances involved how do you know there aren't more/other Universes a little further than we can see?

I ask again. if you were able to stretch out your arm forever would it encounter a barrier? If not and there are stars and galaxies as far as we can see, then I must conclude that there are galaxies and stars further than that. Forever if there is no barrier. Concluding there aren't because "we can't see" them is no conclusion.

What a concept-- forever. You realize that our whole lives we been trained to accept that all things have a beginning and an end? Thats the most difficult barrier to overcome. The one thats been placed in our minds.

I don't have a problem with it personally, but understand the huge barriers some others have to breach. Especially those that state :

…virtually NO evidence whatsoever…

if your mind is made up and you simultaneously state:

Of course I'm not sure.

I would look to my own conflicting point of view. It can't be both ways.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
...Because of our instruments. As one indicator, every time the instruments improve they (once again) move the goal posts. They will again as soon as resolution and filtering improves...

No. It isn't the instruments (at least not anymore). the Hubble, with its extremely long exposure capabilities, has seen to the edge of the observable universe. And when I say "observable universe", that is NOT a function of whether or not we have a telescope that can see that far, but rather it is a limit to what can be observed, the ability of the telescope notwithstanding.

We can tell those far-way galaxies (13+ billion LY away) are ancient galaxies filled with very old stars by the spectral make-up of the stars. Old stars from the beginning of the universe are almost entirely hydrogen; there had not yet been enough time for heavier atoms to fuse. The early universe was devoid of heavier elements; those heavier elements of the universe were made in the second and third generations of stars. What reason would a universe that has been around for eternity have for being lacking heavy elements 13+ billion years ago?

That limit is about 13.5 billion light years from us. There is almost certainly more universe beyond that we cannot observe, but there hasn't been enough time for the light from the universe beyond that point to reach us. And that's because our universe has not been around forever.

That's not to say that nothing existed before our universe. Possibly another universe existed before ours (maybe and infinite number of prior universes). Possibly many universes exist simultaneously with ours. So I suppose in that sense, there could have been life in those other earlier universes. However, you stated that life has been around infinitely long (i.e., forever), but unless life has a way to jump between universes or transfer from a past universe to our present, then life would have needed to spontaneously get a start at some point in our present universe.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Wirral Bagpuss

These "aliens" you speak of are not alien. They are fallen angels that once inhabited Earth (and probably other planets too) before man was created. They are already here and have been manipulating the nations since the fall of Adam. They want their planet back, and when they finally get around to revealing themselves, you'll wish they never existed.

The time is near.

Why would fallen angels inhabit he earth....? Did you dip your hand in the cookie jar? And i don't mean the cookies you eat.

originally posted by: benrl
OR maybe, they where never there.

Oh my. I see the kids are growing up. Let the truth flow.

Perhaps the UFO phenomenon is a result of manipulation of the media done as Cold war propaganda to hide things like Soviet incursions into our air space, Vice versa, and as a cover for advance aircraft.

Wait wait. Not that much truth. You know the kids love they're fairy tales.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And that's because our universe has not been around forever.

That's not to say that nothing existed before our universe.

Okaaay… you know its going to be hard to keep this up if you keep contradicting yourself.

i know what the astrophysicists say…

I think pics of the farthest things we can see are way too fuzzy to tell from fuzzy blobs. Like the recent discovery of habitable planets. That doesn't mean theres life there. But throw down the word "habitable" and the scientific world waxes on about life elsewhere. Then when you ask them direct, they say theres no proof.

Amazing, a living being telling me theres no proof of life "elsewhere".

Stuck in the middle ages. Not you, at least you aren't sure…

And when I say "observable universe", that is NOT a function of whether or not we have a telescope that can see that far, but rather it is a limit to what can be observed, the ability of the telescope notwithstanding.

Another contradiction. Sorry about pointing that out. How do you know if you can't see any further? The neat thing about telescopes is that a quality one ( I owned a Celestron 8" Schmidt Cassegrain) will allow higher and higher magnification while still delivering crisp black backgrounds. Up to a point. Every telescope has its "point" beyond which it cannot resolve.

What makes up for this is time exposure and computer filtering of objects. The Hubble Deep Field was a composite time exposure of many hours and assembling of image spectrums to produce what it did. Not all objects within the field were "digitally enhanced". For clarity some were omitted. Otherwise the plethora of objects would white out the screen with their presence. Others were given characteristics, still others were "augmented'. Its not a true image. It is a facsimile of the light captured. What was clear is that no matter where you look out there, there is just more Universe.

Now if you were to go to the furthest object in the Hubble Deep Field and put another Hubble on it and point it still further, in the same direction, what do you suppose you would see?

After all they didn't expect the results they got the first time, did they?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
...Now if you were to go to the furthest object in the Hubble Deep Field and put another Hubble on it and point it still further, in the same direction, what do you suppose you would see?

I think we we see some older galaxies still, but the fact is that the farther the objects we observe, the farther we look back in time, and the more different the universe looks.

After all they didn't expect the results they got the first time, did they?

They did in fact expect to see extremely distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field image. That's why they devoted the time to make it in the first place. That's also why they were very particular and specific about the target selection for the HDF image so they could get one of the best and clearest images possible of distant galaxies.

But that neither here nor there, and not really germane to my argument. What is germane is the fact that when they look back at the most distant (ergo oldest) galaxies they see galaxies and stars that are quite different than what galaxies and most stars look like today.

If the universe we currently live in today is (as you assert) infinitely old and has been here forever, then we should expect the universe to be mostly a static and generally unchanging place. Sure, there will be the usually life and death cycles of stars, but one would suspect that the universe as a whole would not be that different 13+ billion years ago as it is now. After all, 13 billion years is virtually no passage of time at all compared to an infinite amount of time...

...However, when we look at distant galaxies -- i.e., galaxies that were among the oldest we can see -- those galaxies are very different than the average galaxies of today. Those old galaxies are different because they are mostly devoid of heavy elements. As I mentioned in a post above, heavier elements are only made in stars. Galaxies today have 2nd and 3rd generation stars, and those stars and their systems have the heavy elements formed from the earlier 1st and 2nd generation stars. What we see when we look at 12 and 13 billion year old galaxies are galaxies and stars that are mostly hydrogen and helium -- FIRST generation stars; the FIRST stars.

I mean, if the universe is infinity old, then why do the stars and galaxies seem so different 13 billion years ago -- less than a blink of an eye when talking about a universe that you allege is "infinitely old". Why would those galaxies be so different? why does was the universe 13 billion years ago mostly devoid of heavy elements? Why does it seem that the earliest stars and galaxies were just hydrogen, lithium, and helium -- the lightest and simplest of elements that (as the theory goes) would have been the first elements formed when the universe began?

One would think that an infinitely old universe that has always been here forever and ever would not have been so different a mere 12 or 13 billion years ago.


Like I said, there may have been other universe before our current one, or maybe other universes in an infinite multiverse exist concurrently with our current universe; HOWEVER, that is not the same as saying our current universe that everything we know occupies has been here forever. The evidence of distantly old galaxies suggests that our current universe had a beginning.

Probably just up there, slowly scaring the space programs and the species.

a reply to: Wirral Bagpuss

The Cold War was created to control the masses by fear. The Ukraine crisis is most likely the same or is a distraction from what is really going on.

Whatever created the reports of sightings of UFOs and peculiar beings seems to have left us. Whether they were all misperceptions or Folk from Elsewhere, the stimuli just doesn't seem to be there anymore. There'll be no heroic, morally upstanding aliens declaring to humanity, "Put down your weapons and live in peace...or else!"

a reply to: intrptr

Check out Olbers' Paradox. If the universe was infinitely old and infinitely large, we'd expect it to be very bright. That the dark night sky isn't as bright as our own star tells us that our universe hasn't been around forever.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: intrptr

Oh, they're around. Where do you think we, indeed life itself, came from?..

If they brought life to Earth, then where did their life come from?

That would just create a continuous loop of questions.

We're just part of the great circle of life.

originally posted by: benrl
OR maybe, they where never there.

True, now...

What if they were there and they did interfere once and a while in the past but that this present situation isn't really that big of a deal as this present generation believes ?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Your posts are getting longer…

If the universe we currently live in today is (as you assert) infinitely old and has been here forever,

Our part of it is not infinitely old, the whole place is. By that I mean the part past what we can resolve in our instruments. That part is forever. You refuse to direct a single comment to my simple "arm stretching" exercise. There are no barriers. What is outside the "visible" universe? If we live in a cage then what is outside that? In the parlance of atoms, nuclei and electrons are the same scale as planets and suns, distances to next atoms are similar to distances between stars. We only barely resolve a few billions of atoms or a square inch of say a tree. It is lunacy to suggest we know what the rest of the tree looks like (or the forest, the mountain, the planet, etc). You get my point?

In scale, the Universe (our visible part of it) is so vast and the distances to the "edge" as some call it, are really limited by our filters. You say they can look deeper but why bother? The answers we need are right here.

then we should expect the universe to be mostly a static and generally unchanging place.

No less static than say the dynamic ecosphere of the planet or the solar system or galaxies or… on the time scale of the Universe it is filled with currents and eddies floating in an ether that we have yet to resolve as well. I'd show you the time lapse of that but it would take a long time to make. The ether that makes galaxies form and spin like rain drops in a hurricane. Without the atmosphere Hurricanes couldn't exist.

That atmosphere is everywhere on the planet the same way the ether is everywhere we look. There but invisible. The next "universe" or system of Universes is way to far away to resolve with current technology, although I personally feel that the currently (misunderstood) objects like Quasars may be other Universes as foreign to us as galaxies once were.

One other thing. Sure there are older parts (of our Universe) further back we look, the younger they become. But outside the "furthest back we have looked" there are no barriers. This furthest resolution of ours is still quite local when you consider how far infinite time space progresses (Stretch you arm… mind out).

If l live on an electron of an atom in the finger nail of a giant, there is no way I can tell what the hand or heart or brain of that giant "looks like". All I see is the few billions of atoms around me and between them only darkness. At a certain point my instruments deep reaching resolution break down. All the while I am arguing about the properties of the finger nail of space I exist in.

Another example is the "visible" electromagnetic spectrum. Our eyes see such a small part of it, our instruments resolve a bit more. It "ends" past the point of detection (as yet), but it doesn't really end there. We just haven't detected the next region. We see the space around us, but we don't see the air with our eyes. We see the effects of gravity but can't isolate and define the particles, waves (or waves of particles) that comprise it. Just so, there are probably other what we call "dimensions" outside and parallel to our own and in fact I have seen denizens of the spirit world (what we call ghosts) and they are right in fact right here next to us. The visible part of our senses doesn't see them and our instruments don't capture them with any clarity. Neither do we perceiver radio signals by listening to noise from a conch shell. Tell SETI that.

Everyone (well most) accepts there is yet undiscovered science at both ends of all the known "universe" and that each new discovery broadens our horizons. Putting limits on those horizons is the same as those that lived in the dark ages, (true world is flat and here there be dragons).

You can "heres the farthest we can see all day me" and I will simply say, yah thats the farthest we can see (or the closest) or the innest-outest, inward, outward, whatever.

The answers we seek should first include a journey of the heart inward to find our true selves, once that communication (antenna) is up then we resolve the simplest notions of our unbounded, infinite, timeless place we happen to exist in…. right now. If… then, must be.

I don't need instruments to "see' the Universe goes on forever and it therefore must have always been there. Oh yah… infinity. Thats not new and it is very mathematic and scientific, There is notation…

the circle and figure eight. Really a "sphere" and "symbol for infinity". Open your "eyes", see "beyond" your instruments. "See" with the minds "eye". Leap beyond logic and accept the infinite.

And I don't mean religion, by the way.

Enough of this. My instrument is fogging up.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Check out Olbers' Paradox. If the universe was infinitely old and infinitely large, we'd expect it to be very bright. That the dark night sky isn't as bright as our own star tells us that our universe hasn't been around forever.

I will, thank you.

Off the cuff, the "night sky" is really filled with streaming light from every source.

It is filled with light and "very bright", everywhere. We are only capable of seeing reflected and source light with our physical eyes. So the night sky "appears" dark.

Where are they?

The reason they haven't come down yet is maybe because this isn't the end of our species yet. Alot of political finger pointing and weak threats. Do Russia REALLY have the balls to keep going and risk complete alienation from the rest of the world?

When the end is near, i'm sure they will show themsleves in some form or another.

now this is a touchy subject, i think that WE (as a planet of human beings) are included in a five species treaty and have been approached by non human co existers in this solar system revolving around the sun we call "ours", and it was said (i wasnt there and cannot directly qoute) that they warned us away from using nuclear weapons and atomic weapons as it directly messes with space and time around us not just within our atmosphere but our solar system too.

If we are included in such a treaty then it is clearly not others place to stop us destroying ourselves, but they have a due care of attention for "our" planet as destruction of it will have a direct affect on the equilibrium of everything inside our solar system and more than likely outside of it aswell.


seen