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.

 

Mathematicians say it is likely alien probes have reached earth.

page: 14
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

how about in all probability? I think it is more than probable ET is not only out there but has come here and I don't see why he isn't still here. You actually feel comfortable basing your paradigm simply on what you are told by people who are well known for lying and deceiving us?


Probably is a term with a specific definition.

prob·a·ble/ˈprɒbəbəl/ Show Spelled [prob-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. likely to occur or prove true: He foresaw a probable business loss. He is the probable writer of the article.
2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.
3. affording ground for belief.


As of right now all of the evidence is against, and literally zero evidence is for. So no, it can not be said to be probable. Possible yes. You believe yes. I have no problem with either of those.




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
>>

So claiming to be the only advanced society in existence is totally consistent with what we know.

>>



Forming beliefs and views based on what you know: THE DEFINITION OF IGNORANCE



You can not *claim* we're the only advanced society since you/we don't have data to make such a claim.

You can, however, say you *believe* we're the only advanced science.

No, ignorance has a very different definition.

ig·no·rance/ˈɪgnərəns/ Show Spelled [ig-ner-uhns] Show IPA
noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

So KNOWING something is the opposite of ignorance.




>>

unicorns regurgitating rainbows has the same probability as aliens flying around in spaceships or even existing.

>>



Pure nonsense. We have established as scientific fact that a) Unicorns do not exist b) Therefore unicorns cannot regurgitate rainbows.

We also know for a scientific FACT that no being can regurgitate rainbows.

The very idea you claim that as a 100% scientific fact is funny, I am sure the humor is lost on you. Let me help you. Why do unicorns not exist? There is no evidence for them. The very same criteria you use to say unicorns do not exist is the very same criteria that says aliens do not exist, and your claim it's a 100% fact. And likewise that means unicorns can't spew rainbows, and ET can not visit us, neither exist with 100% certainty according to your criteria.




The probability that aliens fly around in spaceships is infinitely larger than the probability to meet rainbow regurgitating rainbows. The idea is actually "plausible" in a sense if we take recent discoveries and the established fact that we (to some extent) are actually doing exactly that, "flying around in spaceships" as far as our technology allows.

False. I already established why, as have others.




The idea that aliens exist and doing the same is not that far off, the idea that unicorns exist is based on NOTHING, there is no evidence they do nor a math or logic which would suggest they do, let alone that some exist who regurgitate rainbows.

Funny, again. So show me your MATH that shows the existence of ET.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Here is the definition I like:



Probability of an event happening = Number of ways it can happen /Total number of outcomes


www.mathsisfun.com...

So lets do a quick calculation.

Probability of aliens = Unknown Number of ways it can happen / Total of zero known outcomes

The answer is nothing. Not even zero. Null. Empty. Void. Non existent.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   


Everything we know is based on carbon based life. Spout all you want about how much we know based on satellite pictures & whatever else the establishment may feel like fabricating or editing. We don't explore space, end of story. I think someone would have to be terribly dense to think humanity is the only advanced civilization. Carl Sagan said that Humans make up .004% of matter in the known universe.

Whatever helps you feel better about voting I guess.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn

We don't explore space, end of story.

Then how do we know what we know?

Carl Sagan said that Humans make up .004% of matter in the known universe.

Did he make that up?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn I think someone would have to be terribly dense to think humanity is the only advanced civilization.

Some must be equally dense to not understand the difference between thinking something is true and claiming mathematical probablilities about it.

If you can not understand the difference I suggest you not reply, as there is nothing further to discuss.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy


Essentially he says that the probability of life out there = 1 - ((a-1)/(a)) ^ b where ((a-1)/(a)) is the probability of life existing anywhere and where the power b is the number of anywheres (stars) in the universe. The term heads toward zero as a and b approach infinity. b can at least be calculated with some degree of accuracy. He uses the value 30 x 10^24 as the number of stars in the universe. A reasonable assumption, I suppose. However the entire equation hangs on the value of (a-1)/a which he sets as 0.00000000000005, give or take a few zeros. This value is not yet known to any degree of accuracy and thus giving it a value and using that value concretely does not clear up the matter -- though it does provide a catchy title for a book.


So all he did was come up with a new Drake Equation, create a number out of his head that does not actually exist, and make money off it.

Just so we are clear, using ACTUAL DATA not fantasy makebelieve data, the equation comes out to NO life outside Earth.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reread what I wrote and don't fly off on a tangent. I asked how your having a better grasp on reality than I makes your life any better than mine. in other words what good does it do you that you think you know all the answers? a reply to: Harte



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   
ok fine, you're not a bettin man. good for you you don't believe there is life anywhere else in the universe. we are the only ones. good for you. so what? a reply to: OccamsRazor04



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

well I believe WE are the evidence that pushes the question to the probable side of zero. I assume you believe we evolved on this planet randomly from slime. can you explain your beliefs on the subject of our origins?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



well I believe WE are the evidence that pushes the question to the probable side of zero. I assume you believe we evolved on this planet randomly from slime. can you explain your beliefs on the subject of our origins?

You are welcome to your beliefs, that's not science. Life on Earth is only evidence of life on Earth, nowhere else.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

that is only true in your little solipsist world



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



that is only true in your little solipsist world

The problem with using big words is you might not use them correctly. Solipsism is the idea that only the self exists. Since I have not argued that at all, and I have argued much more exists, you have incorrectly used the word. Plus, that is philosphy, I believe I have been arguing for science, maybe that's the problem, you can't distinguish between the two.

I am interested in the logic behind life found on Earth being proof for life being elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian


Forming beliefs and views based on what you know: THE DEFINITION OF IGNORANCE

I don't mean to nit pick but I think that is the complete opposite of ignorance.


Hey,

you are actually correct but what I said also is valid.

I meant it like "basing your views ONLY on what you know".

Example: Someone lives in a country and has never been somewhere else. He is claiming and believing that his country is the best country in the world, despite not having one bit of information of another country.

We have a saying here which (loosely translated) goes something like "what the redneck-farmer doesn't know he won't eat".
This closed minded view, this limited knowledge about a few things people are familiar with..and then basing their entire world view on this.

So, from that point of view "forming of beliefs based ON WHAT YOU KNOW" is ignorance..so I guess we're both correct : )
edit on 8/7/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:43 AM
link   
>>
So KNOWING something is the opposite of ignorance.
>>

Everyone knows SOMETHING.
Ignorance for me is the "active" rejection, denial or refusal of anything new based on limited, pre-set thinking. If someone actively rejects new knowledge/information even entering their mind-set.

To tie this together with our topic: We "know" only a very tiny fraction of the universe, right know this barely spans our own solar system. Not even, because we haven't even explored our own solar system entirely! So..we know...not that much at all.

We are only the "most advanced species" because we lack the information whether there is any other species.
So..all we "know" is really that we don't know a lot. And because this knowledge is so severely limited it doesn't do (in my opinion) as a basis to make an assumption about possible life elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian




Forming beliefs and views based on what you know: THE DEFINITION OF IGNORANCE



I don't mean to nit pick but I think that is the complete opposite of ignorance.




Hey,



you are actually correct but what I said also is valid.



I meant it like "basing your views ONLY on what you know".



Example: Someone lives in a country and has never been somewhere else. He is claiming and believing that his country is the best country in the world, despite not having one bit of information of another country.



We have a saying here which (loosely translated) goes something like "what the redneck-farmer doesn't know he won't eat".

This closed minded view, this limited knowledge about a few things people are familiar with..and then basing their entire world view on this.



So, from that point of view "forming of beliefs based ON WHAT YOU KNOW" is ignorance..so I guess we're both correct : )

I see your point, the difference is he (and myself) are not basing it on what we personally know, but the collective knowledge of the human race.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

I understand where you are coming from. I think you mean that people who form beliefs on what they don't know...

my point being is that it is a perfectly valid notion to believe we are alone. The difficulty that I would have is if someone rejected the idea that we may not be alone and based that belief on religious ideas or thinking that we know enough.

we know relatively little. If someone comes along and states that we are alone and the knowledge we have so far confirms that, they are essentially correct. I see nothing wrong with that point of view.

its not unlike the idea of giant lizards once roaming the earth. Someone holding the belief that it wasn't true prior to the discovery of dinosaur bones would not have been incorrect.

there are a lot of things I believe are not true but that are still possible. discoveries are made all the time. Skeptics are not devastated by new discoveries.

as I have stated, my personal belief is that we are not alone. Thats only because I can't wrap my head around how big the friggen universe actually is. That and the idea really seems like it just has to be true. Could be that it is just how we are wired.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
reread what I wrote and don't fly off on a tangent. I asked how your having a better grasp on reality than I makes your life any better than mine. in other words what good does it do you that you think you know all the answers? a reply to: Harte




I don't think I know all the answers.

I know I know many of the answers. In fact, I provide them constantly here.

It wouldn't affect my life (or yours) either way though. And what does that have to do with anything?

Reread what I wrote - there's no evidence unless you make it up. Made up evidence does not lead to reliable conclusions. This fact doesn't make me either happy or unhappy, successful or unsuccessful.

Harte



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



well I believe WE are the evidence that pushes the question to the probable side of zero. I assume you believe we evolved on this planet randomly from slime. can you explain your beliefs on the subject of our origins?

Of course we did.

But that certainly doesn't preclude the same thing happening elsewhere.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join