Originally posted by ngchunter

The third scenario, which assumes that life can be passed from planet to planet with the help of asteroids, saw the total rocket to almost 38,000

I have to wonder if that "assumption" includes asteroids passing life between systems. That's what it sounds like, and to me, that's an absurd assumption. What proportion of asteroids will break orbit from its parent star? What proportion of those will contain any life at the beginning of the journey? What proportion of those will happen to be captured by another solar system containing a habitable planet? What proportion of those will still contain any trace of viable material after millions of years in transit? What proportion of those will happen to land on the planet habitable to that kind of life without annihilating it? I don't see how you could get 38,000 out of that.

Thats a cool pic of ISS!
How did someone manager to take a pic of that?

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by esecallum
we can easily destroy any aliens easily.

To travel across light years would mean the "aliens" would have weaponry technology more advance as us.

We wouldn't stand a chance.

That is quite wrong.

when you go to Australia on a plane from America does that mean you have superior weaponry to the Australians?

When you go to your local supermarket on a train do you have superior weaponry?

Why don't you buy a nuclear shelter and buy survival guns?

Aliens could kill us all.?

i am worried.

very worried by aliens.

they are a threat to our way of life and must be destroyed.

they could easily destroy us all.

i am scared.

i am terrified out of my wits.



[edit on 11-2-2009 by esecallum]

For those who scientists that are small minded think about what we know and then what we don't know about the universe. One is that we know that Earth species are composed mostly of Carbon and need Oxygen to breath either through H2O or through the Atmosphere. Then when you think about other planets We are looking for only planets that would find our needs.

Now where you have planets that would only fit our needs, this is where you miss most of the other species of the universe, because not every creature needs this special chemical composition. When we start think that when we mean alien species, that also means that they are not made the same way we are, so when you scientisits keeping looking for earth like plantets that might support life, you forget that you are looking for the planets that will suppoort life that looks like us. Why not take the time to think that one of our own planets in our own solar system might support life, but just not us.

When you think about it, they say that mars once supported life, why not still? Mars might support life for the chemical combo might work out so they need no Oxygen, but what ever Mars' Atmosphere is. Then Maybe Jupiter, the Gas Giant might support like, maybe the "Great Eye" might not me a storm but a formation of a Shield that is protecting a city, but because of the shield it makes this storm looking thing.

When you think of the moon, they say it once supported life because of the conspiracy videos out on youtube, then what say you, think don't only look for planets that could only support life forms like us, but then again you don't know any better this is all you know.

Originally posted by esecallum

That is quite wrong.

when you go to Australia on a plane from America does that mean you have superior weaponry to the Australians?

When you go to your local supermarket on a train do you have superior weaponry?

Those are really horrible analogies.

In reality, it's comparable to a B-2 bomber flying over ancient Rome.

We're talking about beings that have mastered the ability to transverse the vast distances between stars. If they have this knowledge, then we can only conclude that they have other advanced technologies as well, including weaponry.