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: 8
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



originally posted by: smithjustinb
We're unique on this planet. Who's to say we're not unique among others?


The Drake Equation - Found Here . The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument. It estimates the number of active civilizations which are communicative in the galaxy. Factoring in all the uncertainties, the probability number of 'unique' civilizations in the galaxy range between 1000 and 100,000,000. So no ... I'm thinking we aren't 'unique'.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   


habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges.


Gotta love human thinking. Does science assume all intelligent life must be like human and other Earth life? Must it match to be able to communicate. Human arrogance doesn't help the pursuit.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel


habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges.


Gotta love human thinking. Does science assume all intelligent life must be like human and other Earth life?


No, absolutely not. Science is well speculating about very "far-out" life forms, such as life-forms that are silicone based as opposed to carbon based etc. And I personally don't have a problem even imagining very outlandish and bizarre life-forms which have nothing to do with life as we know it.

BUT....it's not wrong to take what we know as criterions and start looking there, rather than speculating even further...like about crystal life structures or life that doesn't rely on a star's energy, oxygen etc...etc.. otherwise we would just fall into a hole of endless speculation : ) rather stay with those things we know..and start from there to search.
edit on 7/31/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Jadestar,

Where is your optimism coming from that we would conclusively settle this question, say, within the next 30 years?

Even with new telescopes being built like the JWST, say we would detect a planet and we find 100% evidence that such a planet has methane in the atmosphere. Even then, we would not conclusively (!) know that the methane is indeed produced by life on the planet.

And I have doubts that we will manage interstellar travel within the next 30 years , let alone in this time-frame even manage o visit the closest of stars outside our solar system like Alpha Centauri.

So how would this question be 100% and conclusively be settled from observation alone, even with the best and high resolution telescopes? Just wondering.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
Intelligent life may not be prevalent. There is only one species on Earth capable of doing anything like this. There are millions of species on Earth that aren't and have no desire to do this. We're unique on this planet. Who's to say we're not unique among others?


Correction: Presently there is only one species present on earth capable.

humanorigins.si.edu...

Any one of those species could have evolved to our level or beyond ours had things gone differently. We lucked out or out bred them and even cross bred with them in cases.

That would suggest where life is present there would be several candidates that could fill such a role over time.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar


Occam's is exactly right in the part I bolded but wrong when he says 0 is the stronger of the two possibilities.

The fact is we don't know which of the two possibilities is stronger in this case -AT THIS POINT IN TIME-

You got me thinking about this now. So far all we have are zeros. I think its more like we find it or we don't. If we don't, the possibility for each will remain the same since there will always be more ground to cover. Can one possibility be stronger than another? What would tip the scales in your opinion?

I'm thinking things are possible or they aren't with no real strength. Like something can't be more possible than something else unless we bring in probability.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: JadeStar
jadestar,
if a planet was 100% efficient would it still be detectable?



Excellent question.

The answer is yes.

The planet itself would be detectable through the various ways we detect them now.

1. Radial Velocity or "Wobble" caused by its orbit around the star.

2. Transiting the star or causing a dip in the star's brightness as it passes between it and us.

3. Direct Imaging of the planet with a very large telescope or group of telescopes (called an interferometer) - even a 100 percent efficient planet would reflect some light from its parent star.

If you mean a civilization on such a planet that is 100 percent efficient, then the answer varies depending on what type of technology they might be using.


thanks for the answer jade star,im amazed you can find a 100% efficient planet with a telescope.you learn something new every day! that is more amazing than the civilization chances.

edit on 31-7-2014 by ben555 because: forgot "than"



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Ross 54
That is an interesting point but no one is saying we are alone, only that it is what we know so far. The only way to rule that out is by finding life out there.
The earth being at the center was a possibility until it was shown otherwise.

There is an inherent "bias" when trying to determine the real occurrence of life out there simply because of our vantage point. This is evident with the remarks being made.
www.technologyreview.com...

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.

Looking at the paper that uses Baysian analysis, I see that it is addressed solely to the chain on reasoning that says: Since life appears to have arisen on Earth very early, we can assume that this means that life is prone to arise whenever favorable (Earthlike) conditions prevail. They claim to disprove this line of thinking mathematically. They do not appear to have considered at all the lesson that the history of human knowledge teaches us.
The Copernican Principle, an accepted scientific principal, warns us against thinking ourselves uniquely situated on this planet. I think that this principle may reasonably be said to apply to the issue of life and intelligence in the universe, since the scientific effort to learn about such life is part of the astronomical pursuit.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Ross 54

Bias is also something to consider. Just because we happen to be here to observe life, it doesn't mean anything statistically. Since we only have one occurrence of something and that occurrence happens to be us, we have a built in bias towards life being common. So you could also consider the belief that the Earth was at the center of the solar system a bias since there was only a limited vantage point. The idea was also a religiously held belief and not a scientific one nor an idea based on math.

The idea that we might be alone is based on our current observed data. Its not a religiously motivated idea. If you step back and look at the data from a purely mathematical perspective, it is very apparent that there is no real mathematical probability of ET life that can be determined. I believe it exists but that is based on faith not math. It is really difficult to keep those things separate in this realm.



edit on 31-7-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
I wouldn't presume to critique a statistical argument advanced by professional mathematicians.
I agree that our limited scientific knowledge of a few centuries ago could have conferred a bias that allowed the erroneous geocentric theory of the solar system to flourish. If this is so, wouldn't it be just as correct to say that our current limited knowledge about the rest of our galaxy could conceivably confer, on some, a bias against other civilizations in our galaxy; a bias that could be equally erroneous?


edit on 31-7-2014 by Ross 54 because: removed superfluous word.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Totemic

According to the Sumerians legends. The annunaki found our planet via a probe and found out that our planet had a lot of gold and this was thousands of years ago. They came here and made us dig gold for them. The annunaki quickly found out we were lazy workers, so they genetically altered us to be better gold diggers. I've always wondered why ancient man was so good at finding and extracting gold from the planet. They were gold mining before the wheel was invented. Even the egyptians had the most gold in ancient times and they lived in the freaking desert.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


... I'm thinking we aren't 'unique'.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



me too



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Ross 54

If this is so, wouldn't it be just as correct to say that our current limited knowledge about the rest of our galaxy could conceivably confer, on some, a bias against other civilizations in our galaxy; a bias that could be equally erroneous?

Yes but I think you are missing my point. If someone dismisses the idea of life or even intelligent life based on what we know then, yes. I don't think anyone dismisses the idea. The paper I referenced goes into a lot of detail to say that there isn't enough information to determine much and that we shouldn't rely too much on our own existence as proof of anything. It really isn't a case "against other civilizations in our galaxy". If you noticed, it makes the point that all it would take is one other data point to cause a change in their conclusions.

Finding a single case of life arising independently
of our lineage (on Earth, elsewhere in the Solar System, or
on an extrasolar planet) would provide much stronger evidence that
abiogenesis is not extremely rare in the Universe.


Bayesian math is used a lot in learning algorithms. The idea is that as you add data, you update your predictions.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

ross,zeta

for me equations dont mean much to me. dont really understand them. common sense says it is full of life,simple.i dont need a PHD to use logic.

being such a close minded person unable to think outside the box is a waste of the human brain(not aimed at zeta&ross)

we as humans seem to sit and wait to be told about alien life,never going to happen. WE have to find it ourselves,its there for us to find (look up to the stars on a clear night). there is good evidence out there but it needs pieced together. the longer we fight it the harder it is to learn.
if we could get 40-50% of the population to demand the truth the governments will cave.
the governments are meant to work for the people. but we let them tell us anything we want to hear,whatever is easiest and we hand over our hard earned money to let country go broke,barely able to feed and clothe your children as the top 1% that run the country's seem to get richer?
so yes lets wait to be told the truth.

edit on 1-8-2014 by ben555 because: spelling

edit on 1-8-2014 by ben555 because: clothe



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ben555


for me equations dont mean much to me. dont really understand them. common sense says it is full of life,simple.i dont need a PHD to use logic.

I think what you really mean is that you believe. For me, when I look up at the clear sky at night, that is all it takes. Its not logic. Logic IS an equation BTW.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

i believe in the chances of ufos being none human as we know it. this thread is about a mathematical equation wrote by a person. i did not use an equation to form my views. get over yourself,stop splitting hairs on how i form any of my views.

my comment was aimed at people that are interested in exploring things for themselves.

" For me, when I look up at the clear sky at night, that is all it takes" why are you here then?
are you still following up on "why people who see UFOs think their aliens?" idea? how is your research going??

edit on 1-8-2014 by ben555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Would the probes be micro in size limiting detection or "cosmic fly bys" of some sort to check in on a planets inhabitant level & advancement-developments...



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Drake equation is so annoying !
Might as well just guess without the bs !
Hate that equation !



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: ben555


for me equations dont mean much to me. dont really understand them. common sense says it is full of life,simple.i dont need a PHD to use logic.

I think what you really mean is that you believe. For me, when I look up at the clear sky at night, that is all it takes. Its not logic. Logic IS an equation BTW.



I also wholeheartedly *believe* in almost infinite, other life-forms and I freely admit it's a belief, in the same as someone may believe that earth is the only inhabited planet.

Likewise, we don't have any other option than to BELIEVE, simply because we don't have data to confirm either one or the other view there, I think we established this already.

Those equations, and excuse me to say it, are dumb. Because they can only be made going from our very limited view and understanding. Prime example would be to assume that space travel would never be possible by exceeding the speed of light. However, we don't know whether in XYZ years there are means to simply "short cut" those barriers, eg. with worm holes, warp drives etc...then such equations are as silly as THOSE were they predicted hundreds of years ago that in the future the streets will be full of horse *** since everyone will own a horse and a carriage to travel. (Or making an estimate how many horses and hay it would need to fly to the moon....if you get what I am pointing at)

Worse even, we don't even understand yet why and how exactly life originated. Did it come from comets to earth? Is it an universal principle? Etc..etc... for that reason all we can do is believe. Equations are worthless without real data to use in those equations.

Edit: I am firmly convinced that an ultra-civilization capable of interstellar flight will NOT use "conventional" means of travel. They mastered space/time. They don't need probes sling-shotting around the galaxy at a ridiculous slow 1/10 of light-speed. This is OUR idea of space travel, except that we're maybe 100,000s of years less advanced and cannot even fathom how they can do it. They may zap between "dimensions" and from one end of the galaxy to the other in one second. I have many reasons to *believe* this. The classical "UFO" is not a craft that is made to sustain lengthy travels through space as we would assume when we think about "space ship".
edit on 8/1/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

norulesallowed,
Edit: I am firmly convinced that an ultra-civilization capable of interstellar flight will NOT use "conventional" means of travel. They mastered space/time. They don't need probes sling-shotting around the galaxy at a ridiculous slow 1/10 of light-speed. This is OUR idea of space travel, except that we're maybe 100,000s of years less advanced and cannot even fathom how they can do it. They may zap between "dimensions" and from one end of the galaxy to the other in one second. I have many reasons to *believe* this. The classical "UFO" is not a craft that is made to sustain lengthy travels through space as we would assume when we think about "space ship".


i like your thinking!!





top topics



 
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join