Can you explain why we see UFO's but very seldom hear them?, page 2

Originally posted by danx
Seriously, I don't understand how come people have such a hard time admitting to the possibility of inteligent/advanced life forms out there in the Universe,

I don't have a hard time admitting the possiblilty; I've studied it to my own satisfaction. I've decided, based on my own readings, that the chance is remote. Not impossible; just very remote.

to the point that they have to consider "paranormal manifestations", "interdimensional beings" as more plausible explanations.

I am willing to entertain any hypothesis that explains the phenomena. Based on what I've learnt, that explanation fits the best. Are there some theories that shouldn't be considered? Is it ironic for a believer in UFO's to tell another poster that they are being rediculous?

Honestly, taking all this into consideration and still believing that it's impossible for other inteligent life forms to exist in the Universe somewhere, is egocentric to say the least.

I didn't say it was [bimpossible. I said it was unlikely. Here's my exact phrasing:

newer research points in the direction that statistically, we are in all probability alone among intelligent life in the Universe.

You are assuming every living organism has the same tolerance to the environment and the Universe and all its 'hazards'.

No, actually I'm assuming that if a living organism is going to be more "like us," the more it will have the same requirements for life that we do. The more exotic a life form is, the less these arguments apply. But the less they are like us, then the less they are biological entities . . . which leads me back to the argument in my first post.

Here's an intro to the drake equation:
Drake

Here's the Wikipedia article on Drake and Sagan

Note this comment:

Confidence in ne was once higher, but the discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the creation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which have little of the ultraviolet radiation that has contributed to the evolution of life on Earth. Instead they flare violently, mostly in X-rays—a property not conducive to life as we know it (simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmospheres). The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (e.g. Jupiter's satellite Europa) adds further uncertainty to this figure.

But moving on:

Again, more assumptions.
You have no idea what information they can extract from our blood (or whatever its in our blood).

Actually I do have an idea. Blood cells don't have a full complement of our DNA that is copied for reproduction. Blood doesn't have mitochondria DNA. So whatever they want with our blood, they aren't doing mitochondrial research. And if they have such amazing god-like powers that they can get impossible information from our blood, then why can't they get the same information from a hair or a fingernail clipping? why do they have to have blood? I am suggesting, as a hypothesis, that they want blood for some other purpose. . . .

Like I said before, the 'laws' of physics don't represent UNIVERSAL TRUTHS, since they are continuosly being worked on, some prove to be incorrect or incomplete, as time and science moves on.

Have Newton's laws of motion been disproven? No. Einstein posited certain alterations under extreme situations near stars or black holes etc.; but It hasn't turned out that Newton was "incorrect." So until then, we can continue to apply Newtons's "laws" near the earth's surface until we actually do find a problem with them. Which leads me right back to the things I posted, based on the science we have to work with.

Assumption..
And you believe that anti-gravity would be the only means of transportation/propulsion in an alien craft because..?
And even if it's the only method of propulsion how can you say for sure that anti-gravity is useless in space?

I never said it was a possible means of propulsion. Other posters suggested it. I'm discussing why it doesn't explain UFO's very well.

And I can say it's useless because Newton's work (until disproven) says that gravity is an inverse-square law. It diminishes exponentially the further you get from another body (like a planet). If anti-gravity "pushes" against a gravitational field, then it's useless in space, where there is no gravity. I posted this already.

A lot of you're responses, in my opinion, boil down to the idea that "maybe science is totally wrong." While it may be true, it doesn't tell us anything useful about the UFO phenomenon. If I ask you why UFO's behave the way they do, and you respond with "humans are idiots," there's nothing for us to learn or test about our knowledge of them.

On the other hand, the idea that they are not creatures from another planet at all, but are something else entirely, is a hypothesis that has predictive values.

If UFO's are connected with paranormal phenomena, then we might begin by checking to see whether UFO's are more common near graveyards or other 'haunted' places, whether UFO occupants behave like other paranormal entities, and whether their motivations might be more understandable in those terms, than in terms of aliens who are studying us.

.