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 say aliens are probably visiting earth

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
centurion says:

" However, IMO, so is the revelation that scientists are now changing their minds on this subject after at least 50 years of denial."

That's a bogus comment.

First, contrary to your heading of "Scientists say aliens are probably visiting Earth", what the article really said was that some scientists believe in "...the strong probability that we should be in the midst of one or more huge extraterrestrial civilizations...."

That doesn't mean that aliens are" probably visiting Earth" or even that they ever have. It just means that some of these scientists think that we could be in the middle of a large area where there's a possibliity of life.

Second, scientists have never been "in denial" of the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life; they'd always believed that the chances of them ever visiting here are pretty slim -- and most of them still do.

However, we know now that a lot of solar systems have planets -- and that some of those planets might be able to support carbon-based life. Scientists, being people who are willing to change gtheir views based on evidence, are saying -- quite rightly -- that there is a better chance of there being extraterrestrial life and even intelligent life out there.

This is a long step from "aliens are probably visiting Earth".

If you were in Journalism 101, that article would've got you an F for the course.


The point of the article was that the question of alien visits is starting to move out of the shadows to the mainstream press. True it was only some scientists that stated this opinion, but not long ago it was none.

Journalism 101
This is ATS.
If I was doing this for a grade, it would be at an accredited school and I would be paying for the instructor.




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
if aliens are actually visiting the earth from other galaxies or even solar systems they MUST have overcome humans' warlike qualities.

because whoever posseses the technology to travel those kinds of distances already has god like power.

?



Can't disagree with you more on this one ..and again I refer you to fundamental law of life # 1; Life eats life to stay alive
Now for those of you who prefer to think in terms of energy..think of it as energy transforming energy to support and maintain critical functions.

Anyway..if we think of aliens as being life forms then we miust assume they are bound by that same fundamental law and that..much like capt Cook on his explorations, every port of call was sennas a place to restock on supplies.

Space travel means hyper speeds and hyperdimensional projection which would be hard on the system...and carrying extra weight would be difficult, so better to have proteins and nutirients in liquid form..so how about easily digestible and absorbable blood? I mention that as a reason so many sightings sem to dovetail with cattle mutilations and complete desanguinating without leaving a trace of blood on the ground which no one can explain.
But back to warfare..it would stand to reason that life forms capapble of transversing space would also be competing for resources, and that even if they themselves were not 'war-like', they could not guarantee that the inhabitants would be friendly or disposed to allowing themselves to be abducted or having their gold taken away..or their cattle used as food sources for ET's. So the ET's would de armed if for no other reason than to protect themselves on the journey.

Now, isn't that what we see being described by the Sumerians, The hebrews, the S.Americam cultures? Gods/starpeople with a lust for gold and the blood of cattle..and who refer to themselves as soldiers or officers in a heavenly 'army'

One last thought..why would the ancients lie? did they think so far ahead into the future that they realized UFO-logy would be a big thing in our time..and that maybe if they talked of star-people they'd get theor own special on the Sci-Fi channel?

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
What the article really said was that some scientists believe in "...the strong probability that we should be in the midst of one or more huge extraterrestrial civilizations...."


Speaking of the Sci-Fi Channel, this made me think... Anyone who watches Star Trek knows that the Federation occasionly encountered primitive species on planets within Federation space. Usually these were "aliens of the week" that were never worth revisiting again. So... are we "aliens of the week" ourselves?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shai
Space travel means hyper speeds and hyperdimensional projection which would be hard on the system...and carrying extra weight would be difficult, so better to have proteins and nutirients in liquid form..so how about easily digestible and absorbable blood? I mention that as a reason so many sightings sem to dovetail with cattle mutilations and complete desanguinating without leaving a trace of blood on the ground which no one can explain.


I know there are a ton of threads I haven't been through yet - this site is just enormous. But I had a thought about the first statement above and am just spilling this out of my brain:

Anyone remember the magazine "Omni?" I haven't seen it in years - I assume it's out of print. But I remember a very interesting article about ET's and interstellar travel. I think this was from "Project Blue Book," but don't hold me to that. And I have no idea if there was even a grain of credibility in that magazine. However, this guy stated that the technology used by aliens for interstellar travel relied on Gravity. There was some odd material they used for fuel, but the basic gist was that they didn't 'push' the ship to it's destination, they 'pulled' the destination to the ship.

In this thread we are talking, at least in part, about interdimensional travel. This links me to current theories that hypothesize Gravity is actually the strongest of the 4 known forces of nature, but it doesn't seem to so because of the 4, it is the only one the travels interdimensionally. (as a side note - I think there are only 2 fundamental forces, but they appear differently depending on whether they are enveloped in an interdimensional string, or locked in a string that is attached to our brane. But I digress...)

At any rate, kinda putting this all together, it would seem to make sense to use gravity as the force for travel, exploiting the interdimensional quality to travel in a 'hyperspace' that would all but eliminate the vast distance between the destination.

Any thoughts on this?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Wow, that article is interesting. The research is published in Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS).


From the table of contents


  1. Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation
    J. Deardorff, B. Haisch, B. Maccabee and H.E. Puthoff
  2. Permanence - An Adaptationist Solution to Fermi's Paradox?
    Milan M. Cirkovic


The first looks like the one referenced, the second looks relevant too.


from the article
"We are in the curious situation today that our best modern physics and astrophysics theories predict that we should be experiencing extraterrestrial visitation, yet any possible evidence of such lurking in the UFO phenomenon is scoffed at within our scientific community," contends astrophysicist Bernard Haisch.

Man, I want that research paper.


The scientists point to two key discoveries made by Australian astronomers and reported last year that there is a "galactic habitable zone" in our Milky Way Galaxy. And more importantly that Earth’s own star, the Sun, is relatively young in comparison to the average star in this zone -- by as much as a billion years.

Therefore, the researchers explain in their JBIS article that an average alien civilization would be far more advanced and have long since discovered Earth. Additionally, other research work on the supposition underlying the Big Bang -- known as the theory of inflation -- shores up the prospect, they advise, that our world is immersed in a much larger extraterrestrial civilization.


Christ, i want that damned paper. Well, I mean, I don't want to pay for it tho.

oh, schnike, here it is.
www.ufoskeptic.org...

Going to be intersting. I can see why scientists would say that there are alien civs out there, even nearby, but visiting us? With FTL technology? And a confirmation of on inflation affects it? Sounds damned good.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
The paper seems to say that

  1. Fermis paradox and our understanding of the age of the habitable zone and even slower than light travel allows for only two solutions, one is that there are no ETs, the other that there are numbers of them, they are active throughout the galaxy, and are at least aware of earth and the monkeys running around it one way or another.
  2. Because of the possibilities of whole other dimensions (via m-brane theory) existing, and the likelyhood of 'biogenesis and panspermia', its irrational to think that there are not at least some other advanced civilizations
  3. FTL travel might be possible via traversing wormholes, moving thru the extra dimensions that are required to make m-brane theory work, or even (and here is where the inflation bit comes in) by warping, thats right, warping space, in a manner that simply had to be lifted out of star trek (not casually lifted, or in whole lifted, but certainly the people who thought of it are aware of ST warp drive), by expanding space in front and shrinking it behind.
  4. Given the above, there are potentially amoung the reports of UFOs actual alien UFOs, and UFO reports are a valid subject of study, as they would allow knowledge of ET civ, tech, and society


They readily admit however

  1. There is nothing that says FTL travel is possible, there is, however, nothing conversely that rules it out
  2. Most FTL ideas require exotic types of matter (exotic types of existence I think is what it should rather say, like the quintessence) or unatainable energy levels


I would also question some other things. The basis of their decision to make it more rational to say that there are some ETs out there, in more detail is

  1. The habitable zone is 10^9 times older than the sun, and the sun is a young star within it
  2. There are possibly an infinite number of alternate habitable dimensions
  3. There are innumberable extrasolar planets


I find the 3rd and 1st points reasonably enough in the 'pro-ET' column, but the 2nd is entirely specualative. As far as I understand it, m-brane theory explains a lot of phenomenon, a lot of fundamental phenomenon, in this way, incidentally, its a 'good theory', because of its explanatory power. However, m-brane theory does not work in a 3,4 dimensional universe, and requires in one variant 11 in another 7 (i think, or perhaps m-theory is a 11 dimension variant and some other theory is the 7 dimension variant) extra dimensions. This hardly means that these dimensions themselves have been tested for or that anything is known about that. They are a rquirement for a very powerful theory to work, however, I don't think that because other aspects of m-theory are being confirmed/corroborated/justified/successfully tested that that means one can assume that the other portions are also corroborated/etc. IOW, if there aren't 11 dimensions, then m-theory is refutd, no matter how well supported it is on other aspects. Anyway, I get the impression that they find these alternate habitable dimensions to be an important part of their reasoning that there are, effectively, too many instances where life might arise, for it not to arise multiple times in multiple places.

However, I'd say that that is a slight criticism. I get the impression that the galaxy is so big, that it's difficult to just assume that life only arose on one planet. The really surprising thing for me is that they and others apparently think that every planet in the galaxy could be visited, even with only near light or slower than light travel, on the scale of tens of millions of years, which is, well, pretty damned astounding. It really does seem to speak strongly against the existence of ETs. Then again, I'd have to figure that contact with this system could of course be concealed. Consideration on that and other relevant topics is the bulk of the rest of the paper.

Anyway, apparently lots of the citations are also available on line, even a simple google for the full title gives some of 'em.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I just hope aliens never come and it's like in "ChildHood's End..." : (



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenycks

Originally posted by Shai
Space travel means hyper speeds and hyperdimensional projection which would be hard on the system...and carrying extra weight would be difficult, so better to have proteins and nutirients in liquid form..so how about easily digestible and absorbable blood? I mention that as a reason so many sightings sem to dovetail with cattle mutilations and complete desanguinating without leaving a trace of blood on the ground which no one can explain.


I know there are a ton of threads I haven't been through yet - this site is just enormous. But I had a thought about the first statement above and am just spilling this out of my brain:

Anyone remember the magazine "Omni?" I haven't seen it in years - I assume it's out of print. But I remember a very interesting article about ET's and interstellar travel. I think this was from "Project Blue Book," but don't hold me to that. And I have no idea if there was even a grain of credibility in that magazine. However, this guy stated that the technology used by aliens for interstellar travel relied on Gravity. There was some odd material they used for fuel, but the basic gist was that they didn't 'push' the ship to it's destination, they 'pulled' the destination to the ship.

In this thread we are talking, at least in part, about interdimensional travel. This links me to current theories that hypothesize Gravity is actually the strongest of the 4 known forces of nature, but it doesn't seem to so because of the 4, it is the only one the travels interdimensionally. (as a side note - I think there are only 2 fundamental forces, but they appear differently depending on whether they are enveloped in an interdimensional string, or locked in a string that is attached to our brane. But I digress...)

At any rate, kinda putting this all together, it would seem to make sense to use gravity as the force for travel, exploiting the interdimensional quality to travel in a 'hyperspace' that would all but eliminate the vast distance between the destination.

Any thoughts on this?


Dear Phoenyks,

Great Post! Since you asked for thoughts on the matter of dimensional travel I direct you to a site that i hope you find relevant:
www.inquiring-mines.com...

BTW..you are right about the laiens 'pulling space'towards them..at least that is how they perceive the journey., and you are equally right about the forces of the Universe....perhaps this link will put you on even more solid ground when you theorize..
www.bbc.co.uk...

...which I hope you contnue doing because, as i said..Great Post!

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
One thing I always shake my head in wonderment at is this childlike beleif that in order to advance to the level of interstellar travel a species would have to have "overcome thier warlike nature"
The idea is in direct opposition not only to all natural law as we know it, but to the history of the only form of sentient life we know of, namely ourselves.
In terms of nturl law, every single land species known to man has territory. Territory which they defend through either ritual or actual combat. Every single species on earth is in constant competition with others of its own species. Furthermore every single intelligent species on this planet is predatory in nature. cross all species, Genus, families, etc. the predatory animals are the smartest, in reltive terms. Why would alen life be any different.
And if as on earth this pattern is followed on other planets, then it stands to reason that any alien species would have to feed on antoher to survive just as we do. Therefore just as with us violence will be a part of thier nature.
In terms of human history it has always been the case that the prmary impetus for the devolpment of new technologies has been war. Just look at the advances in technology over the last 100 years. Virtually every technology we now use is based on wartime, or war related research.
Now the most common argument is that in order to undertake the monumental task of constucting and devolping ships capable of either FTl or large enough to be colony ships it wuld require a united world. However I fail to see how that translates into peaceful. Is not a world united in war against a common enemy just as unified as one united in peaceful exploration?
Perhaps the only reason thier world is united is because they decided to stop fighting among themselves long enough to conquer everyone else.
How many instances of a more devolped culture discovering another culture in our own history were instances of the more devolped not attempting to conquer the less devolped?
How many instances do we see of two warring cultures banding together to fight a common enemy do we see.
The simple fact is I higly doubt any culture that is not at least somewhat warlike would even have the drive to build FTL technology in the first place.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
One thing I always shake my head in wonderment at is this childlike beleif that in order to advance to the level of interstellar travel a species would have to have "overcome thier warlike nature"
The idea is in direct opposition not only to all natural law as we know it, but to the history of the only form of sentient life we know of, namely ourselves.
In terms of nturl law, every single land species known to man has territory. Territory which they defend through either ritual or actual combat. Every single species on earth is in constant competition with others of its own species. Furthermore every single intelligent species on this planet is predatory in nature. cross all species, Genus, families, etc. the predatory animals are the smartest, in reltive terms. Why would alen life be any different.
And if as on earth this pattern is followed on other planets, then it stands to reason that any alien species would have to feed on antoher to survive just as we do. Therefore just as with us violence will be a part of thier nature.
In terms of human history it has always been the case that the prmary impetus for the devolpment of new technologies has been war. Just look at the advances in technology over the last 100 years. Virtually every technology we now use is based on wartime, or war related research.
Now the most common argument is that in order to undertake the monumental task of constucting and devolping ships capable of either FTl or large enough to be colony ships it wuld require a united world. However I fail to see how that translates into peaceful. Is not a world united in war against a common enemy just as unified as one united in peaceful exploration?
Perhaps the only reason thier world is united is because they decided to stop fighting among themselves long enough to conquer everyone else.
How many instances of a more devolped culture discovering another culture in our own history were instances of the more devolped not attempting to conquer the less devolped?
How many instances do we see of two warring cultures banding together to fight a common enemy do we see.
The simple fact is I higly doubt any culture that is not at least somewhat warlike would even have the drive to build FTL technology in the first place.



Although I agree with an awful lot of what you write..I do believe there is one aspect of the problem you might have overlooked..
surely a race advanced enouggh to know how to croos galaxies or wormhole through the Universe would have learned by now that what comes around goes around..yes?
That might be the one reason they aren't coming here with particle blasters and quantum disruptors to pillage and plunder...or maybe we're not worth the ammunition since there is nothing we can do to stop them anyway.
And maybe they're not as united as we would like to assume....

Just notions to take on board.

-Sincerely
-shai



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I believe it's safe to say that this planet is a pretty violent one, and we don't show any signs of becoming any less violent towards each other in the future. If that is the case, you could say that it is possible that life if exists elsewhere, off of this planet, that they could also be just as violent a planet as ours. Correct?

Some believe that the aliens who have visited us have given us (or we have just recovered) some amazing technology, which we are using to advance our own abilities of flight and interstellar travel. Now, let's say that due to the advance tech we recieved, we were able to master interstellar flight in the future, and could travel at will to virtually any point in the universe, would that make us any less violent in nature? Why would the abilities to travel in that way cause us to leave our war like ways?

Now, could we not then say that it is possible that the alien life who is visiting us now, have had some assistance from another alien life on their own home planet at some point? If we rec'd help from an outside source, who is to say that it couldn't and wouldn't happen to another entity on another planet? So, if another violent by nature entity rec'd tech that enabled them to travel across the galaxy to our planet, why do would se assume that they too have dropped their violent ways?

See my point? If we can assume that we would not become a peaceful planet due to advancements in tech, why do we assume another entity that had the same tech given to them would do the same?

[edit on 28-1-2005 by mpeake]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join