It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Stop looking for ET: modelling suggests we’re alone in the universe

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 05:17 PM
I'm sure this modeling is at least as accurate as the ones on climate change

edit on 6/23/2018 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 05:38 PM
You are really going to soil your drawers if and when you realize you are incorrect.
Advanced, non-human beings exist.

posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 05:42 PM
a reply to: skunkape23

I'll be all about it. I'll turn on a dime. I'll run naked through the streets shouting, "I was WRONG! The aliens are HERE!"

In the meantime, I'll be advocating a human galaxy/universe, until proven otherwise.

posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 06:18 PM

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: skunkape23

I'll be all about it. I'll turn on a dime. I'll run naked through the streets shouting, "I was WRONG! The aliens are HERE!"

In the meantime, I'll be advocating a human galaxy/universe, until proven otherwise.

No need, if they come they'll just drag you through the streets buck-naked, and into their spaceships for probing, or at least that's what I've heard.

posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 06:19 PM
Drake's equation that folks proudly state as a guideline is not an equation and wa never meant to be . Drake put forward a humorous example of how the Laws of Probability could be used in the field of Astronomy

Even given that , some experts have taken the sample equation and factored in all possibilities .
The results - we may very well be alone in the Universe.
Thank you for this thread.

posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 06:21 PM
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

I'll be all about it. I'll turn on a dime. I'll run naked through the streets shouting, "I was WRONG! The aliens are HERE!"

Thank "All Higher Powers" no one will ever be a witness to that....

posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 07:51 PM
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

The interesting thing about our universe, is that you are simultaneously 100% correct and 100% wrong.

If you have all the answers, how about you show your work?

By the logic of the modelling you are citing as some kind of evidence, we shouldn't exist either.

We do.

That's a question that your statistics can't answer.

You can not disregard all intelligent life, without an explanation for the practical observation.


This data set has one entry. That does not preclude others.

There is strawberry jelly, but jelly is rare because most objects aren't jelly. There is no evidence that grape jelly should exist, because strawberry jelly does, nearly 100% of all objects aren't jelly anyway. No grape jelly should exist.

>Even so, grape jelly isn't strawberry jelly, therefore, it's not jelly.
^ Yeah, ok? I'm not arguing semantics or duality. I'm arguing that your point is as meaningless as the counter claims.

I'd like this thread to undergo moderator consideration for removal on the following grounds:
This forum is for aliens and UFO's.
OP's thread is a claim that there is no such thing as aliens and UFO's as is seen from the standpoint of this board's standard vernacular and philosophical terms.
This thread is as dumb as posting in a Honda Civic forum, that there is no such thing as Honda Civics.
OP will argue otherwise, but I feel this is obvious to most of the community here. I'd rather he not get views, stars, or flags, for being "edgy".
His attempt at gaining unwarranted attention is obvious, and is a display of some sort of mental desire for self affirmation.

As I don't care for the same ideals and this is a garbage thread, I will not be participating in this thread any longer.
I will not respond to any posts or PM's by OP or OP's supporters. I'd like my reply post to be deleted along with the rest of this thread. It's all bad.

edit on 23-6-2018 by Archivalist because: Jelly analogy

edit on 23-6-2018 by Archivalist because: This argument is retarded and this entire thread doesn't really belong here. Isn't there some pseudo science board? Philosophy? Meta science? OP's thread belongs there. Not here.

edit on 23-6-2018 by Archivalist because: OP has issues, his thread belongs on another board.

edit on 23-6-2018 by Archivalist because: double meh

edit on 23-6-2018 by Archivalist because: final edit I abstain from this thread, henceforth

posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:13 PM
a reply to: Archivalist

1) I didn't write the original article linked to in my OP.

2) That said, I agree (largely) with the conclusion, as described in the article, which does imply some "wiggle* room.

3) I outline a few scenarios to explain existing report(s) of UFO's and close encounters (which aren't even from the article linked.

4) I apologize if that triggers you. I happen to enjoy questions. I assume that is what ATS is for? I can't say for sure, I'm not in charge of anything and I've only been here eight years or so.

5) You can agree or disagree and I won't get mad about it. You can offer alternatives. I think those are cool.

6) I don't particularly care about "stars" or "flags." I'll happily donate all of mine to you.

7) I'm actually really interested in the subject and have been since the mid-80s. I have also had a "close encounter" experience (detailed in my intro thread from all those years ago). I didn't get upset when my experience was dismissed as childhood sexual abuse. In fact, there may be some truth to that.

8) I saw and reported (to Mufon) a large floating (silent) black triangle in Wheatridge, CO in 1998. I'm fairly convinced that particular sighting was of a "secret" terrestrial craft, but you can never be 100 percent sure, right?

9) Your demands aren't credible. Your refusal to engage is not credible. I don't have any "supporters." I'm not mad atcha.

Some free advice? read more widely. Watch docs arguing multiple sides of any argument. Don't get upset when people don't auto-agree with you. Either way, have a great weekend!

posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 11:12 PM
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Here you go , confirmed proof of ET .
Backed to the hilt with rock solid evidence .

Nice try with the disinfo tho.
Phage and de Gasse Tyson would be proud of you .

The rest of humanity , including lil ol me ,...
(who used to work for one of your three letter groups)
have real experience in these matters .

Personally , I have met three different races ,
and have seen , close up , their ships , that are up to 5 kms in diameter.

Don't bother telling me I'm delusional either ,
because your naivete is unbounded.

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 12:50 AM
If we are alone, and life is soo rare, then we should probably start engineering some to shoot out into space. Give life a hand.

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 12:55 AM
I guess the bottom line is all those intelligent people just need to see the alien space craft for themselves....However it is much harder today to differentiate between a classified earth ship and a alien space craft then it was years ago. So either we have had am advanced space fleet since the 60's or someones visiting us. It's one or the other and I don't have to wonder if they are real.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 01:24 AM
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

It's an interesting paper. I skimmed over it. One problem I have with analyses of this sort is that in the course of demonstrating the improbability of relevant extraterrestrial intelligent life, it also highlights the improbability of our own existence. This is completely understandable from a statistical perspective. But it leaves a lot to be desired from an existential standpoint; because we do exist.

The paper referenced in the Cosmos Magazine article, Dissolving the Fermi Paradox, draws this conclusion:

When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). ’Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable.

If we look at this from the glass half-full perspective:
There is as much as a 47% probability that there is intelligent life in our galaxy.
And a similar 61% chance there is intelligent life in the observable universe.
Those still sound like decent odds to me. I say we should keep looking. And I expect that we will eventually detect some of our galactic cousins.

Side note: I don't believe we should slow or halt our exploration of space, via radio, infrared or any other form of telescope. I *do* believe the universe is literally "ours" for the taking/up-for-grabs and that we have a moral/psychological/physical imperative to survive, thrive and claim it, and I believe we can do so in about ten million years (which is nothing compared to the life of the universe) and that we can do it without warp drives, space "folds" or other forms of FTL wizardry.

With our current level of technology we can engineer interstellar spacecraft that can travel at approximately 0.1c. At 10% of the speed of light, humans could colonize the galaxy in less than a million years. Therefore, even if it takes a few hundred more years to actually build these things, we should still be able to fully colonize the galaxy in less than 10 million years you estimate.


posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 04:57 AM

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: donktheclown

Infinity is a tool used by mathematicians to say "I don't know" , the Universe has to be finite else why is it expanding.
As with Galaxies in this Universe I think it likely there are many other Universes in the void , the question is what's beyond the void.

I don't understand if you're saying it's finite or infinite.

It's infinite and flat. According to science.

This is from link below.

What Einstein called his worst mistake, scientists are now depending on to help explain the universe.

In 1917, Albert Einstein inserted a term called the cosmological constant into his theory of general relativity to force the equations to predict a stationary universe in keeping with physicists' thinking at the time. When it became clear that the universe wasn't actually static, but was expanding instead, Einstein abandoned the constant, calling it the '"biggest blunder" of his life.

But lately scientists have revived Einstein's cosmological constant (denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda) to explain a mysterious force called dark energy that seems to be counteracting gravity ? causing the universe to expand at an accelerating pace.'

This link might explain better than i can. But. It is the answer to your comment.

These guy's won the Nobel Prize in 2011 for their work which was the reason (above link) was brought back. Because it explained Einstein's Lambda.

edit on 24-6-2018 by blackcrowe because: add more info

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 05:58 AM
a reply to: blackcrowe

I'm saying in my opinion the Universe is finite and is just one of many other Universes in the void , if the people in your link believe differently that doesn't change my opinion , that it is their opinion.

A flat Universe as proposed by the researchers in the link holds with brane theory and in brane theory the branes are finite and many so I see nothing to suggest infinity.
edit on 24-6-2018 by gortex because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 07:27 AM
a reply to: gortex

No worries.

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 08:01 AM
a reply to: blackcrowe

If aliens exist, and i tend to believe that something does, chances are down to the vast distances and between the stars, they will be of the extradimensional as opposed to extraterrestrial variety.

Personally, i subscribe to the infinite universe/multiverse theory myself, might even turn out to be holographic by nature.

But its certainly not empty, hence will most lightly contain more life than just our own. Consider also we cannot even observe understand, or come to a significant conclusion as to what actually comprises the other 95/96% of our universe, most of the life may reside there for we really know.

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 08:08 AM
a reply to: blackcrowe

The force that is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate is actually GRAVITY, we are surrounded by the internal event horizon of a black hole, the further we move out the closer we come to that black hole boundary and the smaller our own time space continuum becomes.

Time relative to that of the TSC in which that black hole formed is faster here so unless we could slow our own rate of time down even if we could step beyond that boundary and the interstitial gravity well itself the outer TSC would appear totally black to us since our time base is so much faster, conversely to an observer there if they could see our brief existence (there is no less brief and they too exist within a surrounding black hole) it would seem to be so fast they would find it impossible even to observe our time space continuum.

The way it work's is this, take a big, a truly gigantic star.
If gravity is intimately related to matter as in the very fabric to time space has a one to one ratio of gravity but were it exists in a compresses (wave from) mass of superstring or field or if you like densely knotted superstring which we see as matter then that still retains a 1 to 1 ratio, this means a dense ball of matter has more gravity and that gravity is dictated by how much superstring is present but even in empty space were the superstring exists at a calm uncompressed form there is still a gravity of one to one, this is best viewed as gravity coming from a membrane in contact with our own brane in superspace while conversely time may actually come from the flip side or perhaps even from another membrane verse in superspace - our percieved laws and dimensions being cause by the interaction of these brains in superspace.

So at the very heart of this ball of mass, this giant star matter is all around it and if you go to that tiny, infinitesimally tiny point at it's very heart below the size of matter then gravity has to by definition pull outward as all that surrounding mass is pulling toward itself on that point.

So that star then collapses but being large enough it does not just become a hawking brown hole, oh not it becomes a true Einstein black hole which in brane term's mean's it is as damn close as we are ever going to get to seeing the brane which causes gravity in our own brane verse.

So as it collapses inward this isolated island of space time at It's core is also pulled outward, it inverts and what is opposite to gravity - time so this inversion generates a WHITE hole so a black hole has a white hole inside of it, this white hole expels energy at a rate which initially is actually faster than the speed of light relative it's parent TSC and in turn this back's up on itself forming a surrounding black hole shell.

So you have TSC then black hole then TSC then black hole then TSC on and on perhaps infinitely but if you could ever get to it's very core you would be at a white hole.

It is even bigger than that though, each NEW black hole created within each of these TSC has the potential if it is TRUE black hole not just a brown hole to create a white hole and start the same process all over again.

Time in each parent TSC is much slower than the daughter TSC so that in a single second of our own time a potentially infinite amount of time actually passes, you could simply never quantify it but you can predict it.

edit on 24-6-2018 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 08:14 AM
a reply to: andy06shake


If they're in our universe. Then they abide by the same laws of physics.

For me. This makes the chance of contactable lifeforms very small. Unless they're nearer than we thought.

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 08:21 AM
a reply to: blackcrowe

But do the laws of physics function in the same manner pertaining to the higher or even lower dimensions that these aliens/entities may originate from?

If they are from another universe/dimension/brane/plane of existence, with a different gravitational constant, physics or our understanding of such might just go right out the window.

Maybe they can be in two places at once, thus pick/choose/manipulate which physical laws apply?

Personally, i imagine that they are indeed closer than we thought.
edit on 24-6-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 08:24 AM
a reply to: andy06shake

Especially if there origin is actually another Brane verse in super space, our own brain and reality the very law's we think of as fixed may be anything but and laws that may once have applied due to random brane interactions in super space may have come and gone, our own reality could just be the orphan of a very different interaction and it's seemingly fixed law's and dimensions may have operated very differently under more or less brane interactions.

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in