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.

 

Where are the aliens?

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


So if you want to simulate a universe, you don't necessarily need to control every motion. All you need to do is give an initial condition/velocity to each particle, and then let the simulation loose to see what happens. Possibly, a simulation of sentient life may spontaneously develop.

Laplace's Demon made the world. Great theory!




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr


They do not directly take the form of humans because of their particle state does not allow finished details only outlines.

Could you please explain, in terms of actual physics, what you mean by 'their particle state'? What state are their particles in?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
For fun, one of my favourite vids! :




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

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


So if you want to simulate a universe, you don't necessarily need to control every motion. All you need to do is give an initial condition/velocity to each particle, and then let the simulation loose to see what happens. Possibly, a simulation of sentient life may spontaneously develop.

Laplace's Demon made the world. Great theory!


Yes, sort of!

I don't think any person could compute the initial velocities of all particles in the universe at the very beginning of the universe...BUT if we postulate that every particle motion today relies 100% on the initial motions of those particles back at the beginning of the universe (plus their subsequent interactions), then everything that happens in the universe today -- every brain chemical firing off a brain synapse in order to may a person (or any organism) think or do something, and every motion of every dust mote on every planet in the universe, EVERYTHING -- is predetermined by that initial condition.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

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


So if you want to simulate a universe, you don't necessarily need to control every motion. All you need to do is give an initial condition/velocity to each particle, and then let the simulation loose to see what happens. Possibly, a simulation of sentient life may spontaneously develop.

Laplace's Demon made the world. Great theory!


Yes, sort of!

I don't think any person could compute the initial velocities of all particles in the universe at the very beginning of the universe...BUT if we postulate that every particle motion today relies 100% on the initial motions of those particles back at the beginning of the universe (plus their subsequent interactions), then everything that happens in the universe today -- every brain chemical firing off a brain synapse in order to may a person (or any organism) think or do something, and every motion of every dust mote on every planet in the universe, EVERYTHING -- is predetermined by that initial condition.



Except that quantum conditions dictate that 'things are unknowable'. It's truly possible that things are unpredictable.


edit on 7-7-2015 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well, yes, if you leave quantum mechanics out of it.

Actually, if you start with a sufficiently integrated initial state, it probably isn't that hard. Write your physical laws, specify the initial mass of your universe and all the physical constants, then light the wick.

Creating universes? Pah. We do that every day before breakfast on ATS.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius

Rare earth solution:
- The idea is that we are special, the result of a chain of very improbable events. So even if there are plenty habitable worlds, the chance for intelligent life might be astronomically small. Thus the density of life in the universe is very low, making any contact pretty much impossible.


Using Earth as our only example of the evolutionary path to high intelligence, how is this not the correct and obvious answer?
We're the only species of billions to evolve something more than the purpose of survival and procreation. Intelligence beyond the need of survival of a species has never been the end result for any life form on Earth, except one. If it was a common or intended path, it would have happened multiple times and throughout multiple species and extinctions.
Human levels of intelligence is extremely rare and a fluke. It would be a fraction of a possibility on another "goldilocks zone" planet, but still a possibility.



originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: micpsi

I don't "believe" in the absence of testable evidence of alien visitors. I don't see any. All you've got are stories. And yes I have to use the word "testable" as the definition of evidence in UFO circles seems to be more or less "anything that sounds like it would support my UFO belief".

When you're speaking about objects in the sky that cannot be identified, all you can do is rely on stories and eyewitness testimony. "Testable" evidence can't be expected in situations like this. However, when you have countless tales of on-Earth occurrences of crashed alien spacecraft, the recovery of alien bodies, human-alien interactions, alien spacecraft landing, alien abductions, implants and so on, testable evidence becomes this viable reasonable requirement and expectation. It's no longer a visual phenomena out of reach in our skies, it's become physical tangible Earthbound one.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: MarsIsRed

Nice vid



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: moebius

They are everywhere. They have perfected a cloaking device which allows them to be stealth. We have not reached the point where we can see through said cloaking device. Also, they have the ability to alter their molecular structure to blend in here among the human culture.


You are correct. Though the blending part is only relative to how they blend. They do not directly take the form of humans because of their particle state does not allow finished details only outlines.

One thing i have not thought about was humans gaining the ability to see through their stealth technology. It may happe at some point. And when it does They will have a clear understanding of just how many are here on Earth. But as of now, They can turn on their abduction beams well remaining stealthed. So they can abduct people without anyone even knowing a saucer is hovering over said house. Or perched beside a sky scrapper.

Woohoo!
Here I am, perched on the edge of my seat nervously waiting for the UK parliamentary budget to be announced, and you made me laugh out loud. Thanks for relieving the tension!



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

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


So if you want to simulate a universe, you don't necessarily need to control every motion. All you need to do is give an initial condition/velocity to each particle, and then let the simulation loose to see what happens. Possibly, a simulation of sentient life may spontaneously develop.

Laplace's Demon made the world. Great theory!


Yes, sort of!

I don't think any person could compute the initial velocities of all particles in the universe at the very beginning of the universe...BUT if we postulate that every particle motion today relies 100% on the initial motions of those particles back at the beginning of the universe (plus their subsequent interactions), then everything that happens in the universe today -- every brain chemical firing off a brain synapse in order to may a person (or any organism) think or do something, and every motion of every dust mote on every planet in the universe, EVERYTHING -- is predetermined by that initial condition.



Except that quantum conditions dictate that 'things are unknowable'. It's truly possible that things are unpredictable.


It may be true that quantum states are "unknowable", but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are completely random. Quantum mechanics might inherently follow a strict set rules, even if the resultant motions of particles that follow those rules are not completely determinable.

To put it another way, just because those rules of Quantum mechanics may be such that they are not able to be understood, that doesn't mean that the rules don't exist on a very deep level.


edit on 7/8/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

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


So if you want to simulate a universe, you don't necessarily need to control every motion. All you need to do is give an initial condition/velocity to each particle, and then let the simulation loose to see what happens. Possibly, a simulation of sentient life may spontaneously develop.

Laplace's Demon made the world. Great theory!


Yes, sort of!

I don't think any person could compute the initial velocities of all particles in the universe at the very beginning of the universe...BUT if we postulate that every particle motion today relies 100% on the initial motions of those particles back at the beginning of the universe (plus their subsequent interactions), then everything that happens in the universe today -- every brain chemical firing off a brain synapse in order to may a person (or any organism) think or do something, and every motion of every dust mote on every planet in the universe, EVERYTHING -- is predetermined by that initial condition.



Except that quantum conditions dictate that 'things are unknowable'. It's truly possible that things are unpredictable.


It may be true that quantum states are "unknowable", but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are completely random. Quantum mechanics might inherently follow a strict set rules, even if the resultant motions of particles that follow those rules are not completely determinable.

To put it another way, just because those rules of Quantum mechanics may be such that they are not able to be understood, that doesn't mean that the rules don't exist on a very deep level.



I think that in a few hundred years we'll all be laughing about what
we missed when we developed quantum mechanics. It certainly
seems there may be an Implicate Order



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Since the question was asked, I think we're probably not alone. However, the question itself is irreverent. The human race will probably be long gone before anyone or anything shows up in this neighborhood. It makes more sense to stop asking the question of 'are we alone?' and to start focusing on how can we better propagate ourselves outward. We haven't even physically have gone or settled elsewhere in this system (and for good reason), so I think we need to cover that first before asking any other questions. As it currently stands, the average amount of actual missions NASA does on a yearly bases since 1959 is about 4, around 1 each quarter, give or take an extra month or two.
edit on 13-7-2015 by CidCaldensfey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

Have ya seen the television commercial where some dude drives 100's of miles, in record time. Is stopped in the ideal place to see the "Comet" he is waiting for. And while talking on the phone, he remarks that it only happens once in 125 years, and as he is messing with his shoe, his Comet travels across the sky behind him.

That is where ET is at...behind you, for y'all are not paying attention!

You ask, and ask, nut, never the right questions, you look for and at data, but it never meets your unreasonable expectations. And so you continue upon your path that leads nowhere, never finding what you think you want.

If you want evidence of ET, just look with a "truly" scientific eye, and you will find it. If you want evidence of visitation, you only have to look, again, with a truly scientific eye. It IS all there, for those who can see.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
It may be true that quantum states are "unknowable",


You both wholly missed that one. You are assuming that quantum states are "unknowable", when in fact they are all "knowable"...you simply don't know "which" one will manifest. Yet, there are simple technique to actually build a very good idea of what the "next state" will be, and you will certainly know which states it may be.

Seriously man, there is a whole area of Mathematics devoted to this...its called; Probability...very interesting stuff, and plenty "screwy".



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Using Earth as our only example of the evolutionary path to high intelligence, how is this not the correct and obvious answer?



A question for ya, maybe a couple; Why would you only consider Earth for your example? There are other stars, other planets, and we have a great deal f data on them.

If we consider that Sol and Earth formed in much the same way as every other solar system discovered thus far. Why would place a limit on that similarity? If the Earth continued on to produce life, why wouldn't another planet do the same?

Oh, and we are presuming similar conditions on the other planet... you know, "G" class star, rocky planet in habitable zone, liquid water...



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
It may be true that quantum states are "unknowable",


You both wholly missed that one. You are assuming that quantum states are "unknowable", when in fact they are all "knowable"...you simply don't know "which" one will manifest. Yet, there are simple technique to actually build a very good idea of what the "next state" will be, and you will certainly know which states it may be.

Seriously man, there is a whole area of Mathematics devoted to this...its called; Probability...very interesting stuff, and plenty "screwy".



My point is that it may only appear to us (with the knowledge we currently have0) that there is some randomness to quantum states -- even if that randomness has some probability attached to it.

What I'm saying is that even though we currently think that there is some random quality to the universe, DEEP DOWN there may be no randomness at all. It all might be very orderly and follow a strict set of rules, but we simply don't currently know those rules (and maybe we can never know those rules).



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
It may be true that quantum states are "unknowable",


You both wholly missed that one. You are assuming that quantum states are "unknowable", when in fact they are all "knowable"...you simply don't know "which" one will manifest. Yet, there are simple technique to actually build a very good idea of what the "next state" will be, and you will certainly know which states it may be.

Seriously man, there is a whole area of Mathematics devoted to this...its called; Probability...very interesting stuff, and plenty "screwy".



My point is that it may only appear to us (with the knowledge we currently have0) that there is some randomness to quantum states -- even if that randomness has some probability attached to it.

What I'm saying is that even though we currently think that there is some random quality to the universe, DEEP DOWN there may be no randomness at all. It all might be very orderly and follow a strict set of rules, but we simply don't currently know those rules (and maybe we can never know those rules).


While I would tend to resist this notion...I'm not sure I'm willing to rule it out...it would be, after all; one of the many probabilities.

But, I also tend to think of such things as a part of the beauty of the system...

In my tradition of Magick we are taught all truth contains its own contradiction; and this certainly does contain its own contradiction.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Using Earth as our only example of the evolutionary path to high intelligence, how is this not the correct and obvious answer?



A question for ya, maybe a couple; Why would you only consider Earth for your example? There are other stars, other planets, and we have a great deal f data on them.

If we consider that Sol and Earth formed in much the same way as every other solar system discovered thus far. Why would place a limit on that similarity? If the Earth continued on to produce life, why wouldn't another planet do the same?

Oh, and we are presuming similar conditions on the other planet... you know, "G" class star, rocky planet in habitable zone, liquid water...



Earth is the example of the perfect host for life to evolve. We can base the conditions of other planets to develop life, on that fact. Your "great deal of data" of other habitable planets, is no comparison to the real world data of Earths example. And when you look at the history of Earth and the evolution of life here, one thing is certain- human levels of intelligence is not a likely path. This is with billions of opportunities through billions of years. Pretty good odds for multiple high intelligence species to evolve, if it really is a part of life in general.

If you claim the conditions for high intelligence could only occur within our current cycle of life, then you still have to question out of the millions today, where are the other high intelligent species. Why does every other life form continue to have the only driving force of survival and procreation? Just an amazing coincidence, or something genetically preprogrammed and inherent in the force of life?

We are a fluke, a rarity, an accident. Even so, given the size of the universe and the fact that we exist, that shows in itself it can happen. Just not on every 'goldilocks zone' planet we find and the scale that some people claim.
How another intelligent species might look and the anthropomorphic stamp placed on alien beings by true believers, is another story.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Since the otherworlders --- who occasionally visit our planet --- use some form of photon propulsion --- it will be hard for them to camouflage their starships at nighttime, since they need a fuel source [fusion plasma photons] at a time where their is not sufficient starlight photons in dark planetary atmospheres.

But I believe that any journey on Earth's soil --- by these so-called ET entities --- require them to be trained in state of the art --- hi-tech --- mirror camouflage techniques, that make them virtually invisible to a human's naked eye. They're not going take the chance of greeting an Earthling --- for a first close encounter out in the open --- No...they'll most likely be trying to hide most of there major body parts behind a large boulder or something similar close-by.

And if they do want to try to communicate to us in other ways --- like telepathy, UFO eyewitness observation --- it will most likely be a communication attempt thru a high-tech form of laser holographic imagery.

Cheers,

Erno



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Earth is the example of the perfect host for life to evolve. We can base the conditions of other planets to develop life, on that fact. Your "great deal of data" of other habitable planets, is no comparison to the real world data of Earths example.


While I would agree that Earth is the only example thus far, it do not think of it as "perfect". If we construct the typical "bell curve" from mathematics and probability (statistics) and place Earth near its center we find that the "stars" almost demand that the median is a "G5" class, Sol is a "G2". Not too far off the ideal, but still something less.

You seem to have little idea of the data available for expolanets. Of course, and unfortunately, it is typically sparse, and doesn't include atmospheric data, but, such data can be acquired without great trouble and expense.



And when you look at the history of Earth and the evolution of life here, one thing is certain- human levels of intelligence is not a likely path. This is with billions of opportunities through billions of years. Pretty good odds for multiple high intelligence species to evolve, if it really is a part of life in general.



Actually you are over think this. True there are billions of opportunities, but, you will have to evaluate each of those opportunities to discover which are currently viable.

Life on Earth took what I think of as a "strange road". For the first 2.5 billion years, Earth did not have an oxygen atmosphere, despite the presence of liquid water in abundance. About 2 billion years ago was what is termed the "great oxygenation event", the atmosphere became more like what we have now, catastrophically, and was one of the many extinction events Earth has experienced. About 500 million years ago apparently there was an 'explosion' of complex life, interestingly, this also coincides with an extinction event.

The point is here; it took the Earth billions of years t evolve highly intelligent life forms...this same sort of timing can be expected everywhere...so a very large part of deciding IF a planet might have Earth like intelligences would be a consideration of the host star's age.

For instance; many like to think there is some sort f life around the star Sirius. Sirius about 400 million years old. Though, IF the star lives long enough it might evolve life, perhaps even intelligent. Problem is; Sirius is a class "A" star, they don't live very long...



If you claim the conditions for high intelligence could only occur within our current cycle of life, then you still have to question out of the millions today, where are the other high intelligent species. Why does every other life form continue to have the only driving force of survival and procreation? Just an amazing coincidence, or something genetically preprogrammed and inherent in the force of life?



Actually, yes, I do think that advanced intelligence is inherent in life, further, that life in general evolves toward something very much like a "Human", and beyond, into a realm that is a wee bit more...metaphysical...



We are a fluke, a rarity, an accident.


No neither a fluke, nor an accident, though certainly a rarity.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join