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.

 

Have New Scientific Discoveries Made A Believer Of You?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
The question everyone is avoiding is - what is life?
And of course nobody knows.

I like to think that "life" is something with a point of view. Whether it's a human being or a tiny little bacterium, it's something that interacts with its environment in some way -- senses it -- and by doing so defines it. There is no universe without something living in it.




posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
I'm very skeptical about the existence of extraterrestrial life...and it's for this very reason that we don't know what life is, or why it should exist. We only know that it's here, on Earth.

But that's not all: we also know that there's no life on any of the 3 other planets in the habitable zone of our own star system (Mercury, Venus, and Mars). It's not even on our own Moon...a mere quarter of a million miles from the Earth's surface.


Only two of those planets (Earth, Mars) are in the broad definition of a habitable zone and only one is in the conservative definition (Earth)



People refer to the Law of Averages and point out the mathematical absurdity that life should be a one-off. That still doesn't convince me.

To use a crude analogy...how many millions of sperm are released in the act of conception? Yet only one reaches the egg.

Maybe it took the entire universe just to produce...

Us.


Life got going on Earth very early and its based on chemical processes which are the same throughout the universe so I highly doubt we'd be the only ones. There are just too many good places life could have developed, even within our solar system (Europa, Enceladus).
edit on 24-12-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar
Life got going on Earth very early and its based on chemical processes which are the same throughout the universe so I highly doubt we'd be the only ones.

Which chemical processes are those? If they're so common, how come on Earth, on which billions of environmental and chemical interactions take place every day, it supposedly only happened once in nearly 5 billion years?

Maybe this whole "chemicals interacting until they magically form into something living" thing isn't as commonplace as it would seem. Maybe even... unique. And only happened once ever.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Titor86
Hello ATS,

I was just wondering if, given recent Scientific discoveries and the wok done by Kepler and the like;

www.nasa.gov...

Is there anyone here who was previously a non believer but has now become convinced that there is life elsewhere in the universe?

If so.. Are you willing to own up and discuss what exactly tipped the scale for you?

I think this question is a non starter. At the end of the day even people who believe there are Aliens in the universe do so based on statistics and/or anecdotes and not facts. I'm not a fan of anecdotes, there are too many liars and out there and folks who want to sell books to the gullible to believe stories without some evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence, merely stories without other physical evidence to back it up.

SO I suspect the non believers will continue to not believe until that physical evidence makes a public appearance. The increasing number of earthbound environments with life (12miles under the earths crust) and the increasing variability of it will do little to persuade them.


What you say above about people who believe there are aliens in the universe do so based on statistics and not facts is patently untrue.
Fact discovery is a process that some do, some don't, and some do sometimes and only choose the facts they like and reject others based on the size of box they choose to live in. Usually that box is chosen for them already by how society treats them based on that box. Was it the "box" generally approved by most everyone else, or is it purely based on factual discovery.
Just because officials and other know it all types have cherry picked the "approved list of facts" for the general public, doesn't mean the book is finished.
There is a lot of information that things are not as reported officially, in fact, there is so much that is contrary to the official doctrine that believing the official list of "truths" would not be scientific. Facts do not need to be approved in order to be facts, and it isn't consensus based in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JadeStar
Life got going on Earth very early and its based on chemical processes which are the same throughout the universe so I highly doubt we'd be the only ones.

Which chemical processes are those?


Organic chemistry.


If they're so common, how come on Earth, on which billions of environmental and chemical interactions take place every day, it supposedly only happened once in nearly 5 billion years?


Life already occupies a niche. Its like asking why there aren't other hominid species. One dominant form crowded the others out.

There are a lot of hints we're not unique. Everything we've learned since Copernicus has pretty much moved in that direction.
edit on 24-12-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
OP: What tipped it for me that something real was going on that was non-human interaction was in the '70's when the military was researching "Magneto Aerodynamics" (Which are all still classified today, just do a freedom of information act request to see).
The link between seen craft and their affinity for electrical storms and other generators or conduits of electricity led the US military to investigate the relevance, and on shuttle missions astronauts saw how electrical storms thousands of miles apart in the atmosphere would respond to lighting strikes as if they were linked together within a few seconds. Now they call it sympathetic lightning, but I have not tried to research it yet. Stanton Friedman has attempted to get information but it remains classified. (Thinking of that STS footage when a bunch of objects formed around a huge lightning storm). Can't remember the mission number.

In my view, there is a very large "hangar door" that is closed to the public and scientists as well, but there are side doors they don't always keep locked.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Titor86

I would say yes. Based on so many recent discoveries, there's a higher probability that alien life exists and a much lower probability that we're the only life in the universe.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
The question everyone is avoiding is - what is life?

And of course nobody knows. Which is a pity, because the question whether it exists elsewhere in the universe can only really be answered when we have solved this conundrum.

Science is still very much in the dark ages here.

Many scientists these days appear to be absolutely convinced that it is simply about complexity, and that all we have to do is create a sufficiently complex computer and - hey presto! - an intelligent, living, sentient being will automatically emerge.

Quite why this should occur, they don't say.

I'm very skeptical about the existence of extraterrestrial life...and it's for this very reason that we don't know what life is, or why it should exist. We only know that it's here, on Earth.

But that's not all: we also know that there's no life on any of the 3 other planets in the habitable zone of our own star system (Mercury, Venus, and Mars). It's not even on our own Moon...a mere quarter of a million miles from the Earth's surface.

People refer to the Law of Averages and point out the mathematical absurdity that life should be a one-off. That still doesn't convince me.

To use a crude analogy...how many millions of sperm are released in the act of conception? Yet only one reaches the egg.

Maybe it took the entire universe just to produce...

Us.


Bad example. You're correct in stating that hundreds of millions sperm are released in the act of conception. However, it's not that "only one reaches the egg," rather, it's the first one that reaches the egg will fertilize it. Once that first sperm reaches and fertilizes the egg, a reaction takes place so that no additional sperm can fertilize that egg. So, there's really no way of knowing which sperm it was that fertilized the egg--in other words, it could have been the 6th sperm out of 600,00,000 that reached the egg or the 599,999,999th sperm.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: PhoenixOD

i have read drakes equation , and understand it , now a question for you :

why zero ?

if you claim to understand drakes equation - you should be able to answer

so - why zero ?

because unless you enter zero at some stage - you know what results drakes equation gives you



what are the numbers for the last 3 variables then? Me and the rest of the scientific world would love to know. lol



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Platoshologram
a reply to: Titor86

I would say yes. Based on so many recent discoveries, there's a higher probability that alien life exists and a much lower probability that we're the only life in the universe.


Well that are these discoveries then?



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar


Only two of those planets (Earth, Mars) are in the broad definition of a habitable zone and only one is in the conservative definition (Earth)


Fair enough, I got that wrong.

The pertinent point is...no signs of life.


Life got going on Earth very early and its based on chemical processes which are the same throughout the universe


Okay. We are composed of chemicals. Great. No one's disagreeing.

But what IS life?

Of course, you don't know, and there's the problem.

If you're saying that you just get a bunch of chemicals together and react them under certain conditions and you get life - that's an assumption based on educated guesswork and nothing more.

You can't point to any experiment which you can repeat under laboratory conditions which confirms that.

Therefore, you can't speculate as to how abundant (or not) life is once you leave this planet.

It's no longer science but idle conjecture. Based on nothing.

Explain exactly what life is, and then we can go from there.


There are just too many good places life could have developed, even within our solar system (Europa, Enceladus).


And yet it remains stubbornly elusive.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

Thanks for the biology lesson.

Was there a point you were making?



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: PhoenixOD

no idea - but you demand that one of them should be zero - why ?



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: PhoenixOD
no idea - but you demand that one of them should be zero - why ?


Where did i demand one of them is zero?

The simple fact is no one can claim the drake equation is proof of a mathematical certainty of life elsewhere in the universe unless they can produce all the numbers for all the variables.

You might as well be saying : planets that can have unicorns x planets that do have unicorns.

It even explain this on the wiki page on the drake equation :


Biochemists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel laid special emphasis on this uncertainty: "At the moment we have no means at all of knowing" whether we are "likely to be alone in the galaxy (Universe)" or whether "the galaxy may be pullulating with life of many different forms."


Its just mental masturbation...



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

Yes, there was a point. If nothing else, you made an analogy based on an invalid premise. You alluded to the process of egg fertilization to exemplify the vastness of life (?). Not to be purposefully confrontational, but the example didn't help out your argument, that's all. Certainly I could've kept the comment to myself, but I instead decided to point that out.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: JadeStar


Only two of those planets (Earth, Mars) are in the broad definition of a habitable zone and only one is in the conservative definition (Earth)


Fair enough, I got that wrong.

The pertinent point is...no signs of life.


Life got going on Earth very early and its based on chemical processes which are the same throughout the universe


Okay. We are composed of chemicals. Great. No one's disagreeing.

But what IS life?

Of course, you don't know, and there's the problem.

If you're saying that you just get a bunch of chemicals together and react them under certain conditions and you get life - that's an assumption based on educated guesswork and nothing more.

You can't point to any experiment which you can repeat under laboratory conditions which confirms that.





There have been experiments which have produced RNA but you're probably not aware of them nor other work in this area so it would behoove you to learn more about evolutionary biology and astrobiology before we continue this discussion.

Of course we do not know of any other life in the universe but as I said there are plenty of hints that it may be there if we are careful and look hard enough.
edit on 25-12-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: smurfy
The OP did not really ask about alien visits, but given that alien life does exist, there is no room to be a skeptic of any 'visitation' at all in our limited terms because we simply do not know.
That is a non-sequitur. Even if we were 100% sure there was alien intelligence 500 light years from us, there is still room for skepticism about whether they are visiting us or not, especially if their technology is similar to our own. Skepticism isn't a claim it's impossible, it's merely looking for extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims.


I starred this



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: PhoenixOD
no idea - but you demand that one of them should be zero - why ?


Where did i demand one of them is zero?

The simple fact is no one can claim the drake equation is proof of a mathematical certainty of life elsewhere in the universe unless they can produce all the numbers for all the variables.

You might as well be saying : planets that can have unicorns x planets that do have unicorns.

It even explain this on the wiki page on the drake equation :


Biochemists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel laid special emphasis on this uncertainty: "At the moment we have no means at all of knowing" whether we are "likely to be alone in the galaxy (Universe)" or whether "the galaxy may be pullulating with life of many different forms."


Its just mental masturbation...


The Drake Equation was conceived as a tool to break a question down into smaller questions which could be addressed with experiments.

It's not mental masturbation. That's science.

SEE ALSO: ATS: The Drake Equation - Illustrated and Clarified (INFOGRAPHIC)

Click thumbnail below to enlarge to full resolution:


edit on 25-12-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: PhoenixOD

i have read drakes equation , and understand it , now a question for you :

why zero ?

if you claim to understand drakes equation - you should be able to answer

so - why zero ?

because unless you enter zero at some stage - you know what results drakes equation gives you



what are the numbers for the last 3 variables then? Me and the rest of the scientific world would love to know. lol


Yeah we would! We're working on it though



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Titor86
Hello ATS,

I was just wondering if, given recent Scientific discoveries and the work done by Kepler and the like;

www.nasa.gov...

Is there anyone here who was previously a non believer but has now become convinced that there is life elsewhere in the universe?

If so.. Are you willing to own up and discuss what exactly tipped the scale for you?
Lol new scientific discoveries kepler and the like? How could anyone become believer when Einstein's GR imposes impossibility of ftl.
So untill GR hypothesis is dead and buried, it is unlikely any skeptic will become believer short of personal experience or contact with the et's.
Though it is a mathematical certainity that life exists elsewhere in the universe
edit on 25-12-2014 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join