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.

 

Scientists to Congress - Aliens Exist.

page: 9
47
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
www.icr.org...

"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.
So far, none of the theoretical assumptions of science to explain this have been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape."

“The measurement of the earth’s spin rate shows that the earth is slowing down at a rate of 1 second per year. If earth is billions of years old, it’s initial spin rate would have been too fast for life or even the existence of our planet.”

“Most astronomers agree that short-term comets have a lifespan of 1,500--10,000 years. Astronomers have observed the death of 10 of these comets in last 100 years.
Since evolutionists realize all short-term comets should have “died” if the universe is 7--20 billion years old, they invent unverifiable explanations.”

NASA recently fired scientist David Coppedge, highly placed in the Cassini project, because he was handing out dvds on intelligent design based on statistical likelihood:
youtube: "Privileged Planet"
quite fascinating to think both macro (cosmos) and micro (DNA complexity) illustrates statistical likelihood of God, and eminent atheists like Dr. Franics Collins, Dr. Fred Hoyle and Dr. Antony Flew are changing their minds.


youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...




posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
www.icr.org...

"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

"nearby parts" of our galaxy represents a very small fraction of the Milky Way so we wouldn't expect to see many more than what we see.


originally posted by: Verum1quaereAccording to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.
So far, none of the theoretical assumptions of science to explain this have been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Oort Cloud. Comets are nudged out of there and cycle through afterward until they no longer survive.


originally posted by: Verum1quaere
"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape."

Galactic rotation rate has been further observed since the above idea was espoused.

Galaxies rotate at the same rate in the center as they do on the edges.


originally posted by: Verum1quaere“The measurement of the earth’s spin rate shows that the earth is slowing down at a rate of 1 second per year. If earth is billions of years old, it’s initial spin rate would have been too fast for life or even the existence of our planet.”

Utter tripe.

The Earth's rate of slowing is not constant - the gravitational lock with the Moon has increased it.

There is evidence - from ancient tidal marks - that the Earth spun faster in the past, though.


originally posted by: Verum1quaere“Most astronomers agree that short-term comets have a lifespan of 1,500--10,000 years. Astronomers have observed the death of 10 of these comets in last 100 years.
Since evolutionists realize all short-term comets should have “died” if the universe is 7--20 billion years old, they invent unverifiable explanations.”

More "Let's pretend comets formed in their eccentric orbits" when we know this is not the case.


originally posted by: Verum1quaereNASA recently fired scientist David Coppedge, highly placed in the Cassini project, because he was handing out dvds on intelligent design based on statistical likelihood:
youtube: "Privileged Planet"
quite fascinating to think both macro (cosmos) and micro (DNA complexity) illustrates statistical likelihood of God, and eminent atheists like Dr. Franics Collins, Dr. Fred Hoyle and Dr. Antony Flew are changing their minds.

This dates the piece to the fifties. You apparently assume that all scientific research came to an end after that.

Harte
edit on 5/27/2014 by Harte because: of a nail, a horse was lost...



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

I don't know if you were one of the ones who was disagreeing with me on something earlier in the thread, but I have to agree 100% with everything you said in that post.




posted on May, 28 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: 7918465230
Thanks for your reply.


And beings we're talking about infinity (which is just a theory btw, as is eternity), that would technically happen over and over again, over vast time scales, forever. Like I said though, the thought of infinity is more or less a theory. I doubt anyone could really prove that it actually exists.


Well it certainly is interesting.



Yes, they're free lottery tickets. It's a thought experiment, and the money to buy them is far from the point.

That sounds like a hell of sorts... Endlessly scratching away at lottery tickets



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   
If this was taken seriously, there would be open plans for positive diplomatic relations with a possible extraterrestrial species, including a defense plan in the event of contact with "hostile" alien forces. However I can also see it's quite reasonable this is also merely a ruse for funding. That's politics sometimes, though unfortunate. Less focus on money, more focus on relations with alien species, I say!



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: 7918465230
Thanks for your reply.


And beings we're talking about infinity (which is just a theory btw, as is eternity), that would technically happen over and over again, over vast time scales, forever. Like I said though, the thought of infinity is more or less a theory. I doubt anyone could really prove that it actually exists.


Well it certainly is interesting.



Yes, they're free lottery tickets. It's a thought experiment, and the money to buy them is far from the point.

That sounds like a hell of sorts... Endlessly scratching away at lottery tickets



No problem. I'm glad we could have a civil argument over the internet.


However, the scratching of the lottery tickets is again not the point. We were talking something like Powerball, or Mega-Millions anyway, which you don't have to scratch, just check the numbers. You could develop a machine to pick the numbers and then decide if you won or not, if you really want to get down to the unnecessary details. Technically, doing anything forever would be hell.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
www.icr.org...

“The measurement of the earth’s spin rate shows that the earth is slowing down at a rate of 1 second per year. If earth is billions of years old, it’s initial spin rate would have been too fast for life or even the existence of our planet.”




So a site that is dedicated to creation, and the thought that the universe is very young, really really young, is proof?

I don't have the energy to go over everyone of your "facts" but I'll do this one as example of someone who is cooking the books in favor of creation, and it doesn't help the theory one bit...


The length of the day is increasing by 0.0015 seconds every century, not 1 second every year, of which about 0.0007 seconds per century has to do with the tidal breaking of the Moon. That comes out to every 666.666........7 CENTURIES the day is increased by 1 second.

This means 4.5 billion years ago a day was 6 hours long on a very different earth than what we have today.


edit on 28-5-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   
What is all this weird talk of infinite chances of winning or finding a intelligence life form....

The universe has many finite aspects to it and I'll name a few..

1. Time is finite as in we are dealing with 14.5 billion years, and that is really 8 to 9 billion years of having all the heavier elements past the first two to actually make planets carbon etc for life. It took earth half of that 9 billion years to make us, so we have a rather big finite piece to all this.

2. The universe is infinite, but matter is finite, so that means there are just so many stars and planets out there that may have the right conditions for life to happen. We can take 70% of that right off the top, like skimming in gambling, with dark matter.

3. We have that pesky thing called time again. Though a person can win the lottery 100 times in a row it becomes rather unlikely when the universe will most likely come and go long before that happens, so in a sense we are dealing with limits here and not some infinite event.

4. We also have limits when we talk about species. Life seems to happen and is damn near impossible to wipeout when conditions are right, but species come and go all the time with a few million years at best normally to make this all happen. People tend to think of aliens creatures that have been around for a long time, but evolution never stops and in a few million years humans will not be human anymore.

5. Is intelligence a good or bad evolutionary trait? We seem to want to think it is a good trait, but it could be a bad one that when intelligence passes a critical point the species has a much higher chance of extinction.

When we look at earth we get one species out of billions in 4.5 billion years that just happened to have all the right tools, brain power, thumbs etc to go into space...not a good chance that there is a Star Trek utopia out there with those odds.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: 7918465230


No problem. I'm glad we could have a civil argument over the internet.

well, I wasn't really arguing too much. There are some interesting ways to explore the topic. My personal feeling is that there is no right or wrong answer and its a matter of perspective.



However, the scratching of the lottery tickets is again not the point. We were talking something like Powerball, or Mega-Millions anyway, which you don't have to scratch, just check the numbers. You could develop a machine to pick the numbers and then decide if you won or not, if you really want to get down to the unnecessary details. Technically, doing anything forever would be hell.

that seems like a waste of paper.

I once wrote a program that simulated poker hands as a way to understand the variance in the game. The program would run simulations in a variety of different situations and could run thousands of hands a minute. The more hands, the closer the percentages came to the actual math. So you could easily do the same thing for the lottery example. I must concede your point but I don't think you need to invoke infinity. In this case I could hit in a day or so.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What is all this weird talk of infinite chances of winning or finding a intelligence life form....

You might as well join in. A panel of scientists has established that the tickets are free and winning is inevitable.

Harte



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What is all this weird talk of infinite chances of winning or finding a intelligence life form....

You might as well join in. A panel of scientists has established that the tickets are free and winning is inevitable.

Harte


They must be talking about another universe where the odds are better...



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


They must be talking about another universe where the odds are better...

The odds are the same but if I am going to live forever I would do something a little more productive.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Give me all the Gold in the world, and I will build you a god.

Give me time, and all Gods are broken.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: 7918465230


However, the scratching of the lottery tickets is again not the point. We were talking something like Powerball, or Mega-Millions anyway, which you don't have to scratch, just check the numbers. .


Good thing, because nobody could afford to replace the infinite number of coins worn away in the process.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
The possibility should be common knowledge now.

It is common knowledge.

Science has been saying for decades that it is almost certain that other life exists in the universe. I don't know of any scientists who think we are alone (although there may be some religious fundamentalist scientists may feel this -- but I bet there are very few of them).



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Specimen
Give me all the Gold in the world, and I will build you a god.

Give me time, and all Gods are broken.

Give me all the gold in the world, and I won't build you a god.

Harte



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
As far Congress is concerned, they are better off focusing and arguing on God existence. Once they get that settle, then they can argue about aliens later.

I mean't metaphorically anyways, in a creepy, dark way.
edit on 28-5-2014 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It is common knowledge.

Science has been saying for decades that it is almost certain that other life exists in the universe. I don't know of any scientists who think we are alone (although there may be some religious fundamentalist scientists may feel this -- but I bet there are very few of them).


Well...give this a read.


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.
www.technologyreview.com...

arxiv.org...


edit on 28-5-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Well...give this a read.


Yeah, but even "rare" is not the same as "none".

Even if life is extremely rare, it seems to me the universe is so unimaginably huge that other life is almost surely out there. I mean, I've seen maps of our universe that shows our galaxy -- our galaxy -- as nothing more than a tiny insignificant-looking dot among a vast ocean of almost countless other insignificant-looking galaxy dots.

Having said that, if the distances between us and other intelligent life is vast enough, we may for all intents and purposes consider ourselves to virtually be "alone". I've given the analogy before on these boards that a person stranded on a deserted island with no hope to contact the world, and nobody knows he is there, is for all intents and purposes "alone" in the world, even though there are 6 billion other people on the planet.

If the distance between us and the closest other intelligent life is so large that we will never come in contact with them and vice-versa, then we could consider that being alone.


edit on 5/28/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You posted the same reference on May, 3 2014 in the following thread Show Proof of the Existence of ONE Alien Being. Did you happen to see my response? I have pasted it here for your convenience with some minor edits. The article in your quote goes against the spirit of their paper. They were trying to show that we could come to either conclusion. In fact, they were specifically attacking the widely held belief in the scientific community that life is abundant. This belief is cited in their paper as footnotes 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Here is my original response:


Summary: We can't assume a high or low probability because it is highly dependent on our selection of a prior. The quoted article really misses the point of the paper.


Thank you for linking the paper "Bayesian analysis of the astrobiological implications of life’s early emergence on Earth". I enjoyed reading it. It stresses the value of experimental data but seeks to provide a quantitative analysis of the limited data we do have. Ultimately, they show that we get a wide range of probabilities depending upon the prior we select. This is consistent with my assertion that we simply can’t make meaningful statements about the probability of life without more data.

The probability of abiogenesis, λ, is the posterior probability in their inference. The paper shows the wide range of λ based upon different plausible priors. They show that there are plausible priors which result in a low λ and are consistent with known data (In addition to the plausible priors that result in a high gamma and are consisten as well).

It appears to be a reaction to the belief that abiogenesis is presumed to be a high λ due to the fact that it happened on Earth and happened early on. Their goal is to show that it could be high or low. However, they are specifically attacking the notion of assuming a high λ. The article you quoted really misinterprets this paper. In fact, it goes against the paper’s very spirit. They are trying to point out the dominant factor of the prior. Three plausible priors are graphed that show a very wide probability range λ (see Fig 1):

λmin = 10^−3 Gyr−1 and λmax = 10^+3 Gyr−1

Here is a quote from the paper illustrating their goal.


Furthermore, an argument of this general sort has been widely used in a qualitative and even intuitive way to conclude that λ is unlikely to be extremely small because it would then be surprising for abiogenesis to have occurred as quickly as it did on Earth [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Indeed, the early emergence of life on Earth is often taken as significant supporting evidence for “optimism” about the existence of extra-terrestrial life (i.e., for the view that it is fairly common) [19, 20, 9]. The major motivation of this paper is to determine the quantitative validity of this inference.



In other words, we can't just assume λ is high and nor can we assume it is low because we can find plausible priors for both which is consistent with the existing data (again please see Fig 1). This isn't really a big surprise considering how little data we have. They stress the need to make observations through exoplanet research.

In the meantime, I believe we probably only have simulation at our disposal. Here is a quote from their paper about an elaborate process for selecting priors which they imply is intractable:



One approach to choosing appropriate priors for tmin, tmax, and δtevolve, would be to try to distill geophysical and pale- obiological evidence along with theories for the evolution of intelligence and the origin of life into quantitative distribution functions that accurately represent prior information and beliefs about these parameters.







 
47
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join