Aliens Exist, but Cannot Travel to Earth: A Loss for the Believer's Community?

Originally posted by TrueBrit
The question is deeper than one might think . There may be races that have existed in various forms , or stages of evolution , since time actualy existed. Perhaps born from the chaos of the first moments of existance, and only truely existing at the subatomic level. For all we know the universe itself may be a life form, and we and the galaxies that we speculate about, mere ticks upon its back. OPEN YOUR MINDS, WONDER IS AT HAND !

Well true but can we interact with them....

Originally posted by Horza
Since there are many stars, significantly older than the sun, where intelligent life might have evolved, we can then argue that a species could have evolved 5 to 50 millions years before humanity.

From there it is reasonable to argue that a species that evolved 5 to 50 millions years before us could have colonised our galaxy even with sub-light speed travel.

probably by traveling and living in artificial planetoids such as the moon....

Originally posted by Horza
So, an alien species would not need wormhole or FTL technology to be able to visit us.

True but I would imagine highely evolved beings have harnessed warp drives and artificial wormholes. In fact people who work in the military industrial complex allege that we as humans already have such technology but it will never be revealed, unless necessary. Where did we get this technology from?

Originally posted by Horza
They could be much much closer, say artificial habitats within our solar system or, as some have argued, already here, on Earth, with us.

Perhaps they live deep underground to shelter themselves from many "unforseen"/unfortunate events that will likely happen and cause mass extinctions.

Most people don't give these "critters" enough credit. The greatest trick the devil played was convincing people that he does not exist!

[edit on 14-3-2009 by EarthCitizen07]

An excerpt from a Discovery Newsarticle.

Warp Drive Engine Would Travel Faster Than Light
By Eric Bland, Discovery News

July 28, 2008 -- It is possible to travel faster than light. You just wouldn't travel faster than light.

Seems strange, but by manipulating extra dimensions with astronomical amounts of energy, two Baylor University physicists have outlined how a faster-than-light engine, or warp drive, could be created that would bend but not break the laws of physics.

"We think we can create an effective warp drive, based on general relatively and string theory," said Gerald Cleaver, coauthor of the paper that recently appeared on the preprint server ArXiv.org

The warp engine is based on a design first proposed in1994 by Michael Alcubierre. The Alcubierre drive, as it's known, involves expanding the fabric of space behind a ship into a bubble and shrinking space-time in front of the ship. The ship would rest in between the expanding and shrinking space-time, essentially surfing down the side of the bubble.

The tricky part is that the ship wouldn't actually move; space itself would move underneath the stationary spacecraft. A beam of light next to the ship would still zoom away, same as it always does, but a beam of light far from the ship would be left behind.

That means that the ship would arrive at its destination faster than a beam of light traveling the same distance, but without violating Einstein's relativity, which says that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light, since the ship itself isn't actually moving.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by EarthCitizen07]

we really don't know, they could have other ways such as information projection with gravity waves, or even something totally supernatural.

reply to post by Gazrok


You know, I'm not a religious person, but after reading that post I seriously heard the Hallelujah Chorus in my head.

Thank you Gazrok for laying that out so eloquently! I'm constantly amazed how people can't rationally work that out for themselves.

Well said!



-WFA

Edited for late night spelling

[edit on 15-3-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Statement two is false, we do know a lot about the chances for life existing outside of Earth. Most educated on the subject agree that the chances are pretty darned good, yourself included if I'm not mistaken...

Once again, no.

Since we're playing this like 2 year olds apparently...

Once again, yes.

We have a pretty good idea what the environment for life looks like (earthlike life that is) and we've made some predictions about what exotic forms of like might look like. The majority of mainstream science expects life to exist in the other natural environments that we all know are out there.

Wow Savior, listen I know you like to argue, but this is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

Surely there is difference between saying these two statements:

1)We know there is a french fry in my mcdonalds frenchfry bag.

and saying

2)Surely, since I ordered french fries, and this is the mcdonalds frenchfry bag that the mcdonalds guys gave me, then I might expect to find frenchfries inside this mcdonalds frenchfry bag.

Since we're spelling it out here, statement 1) implies knowledge we don't have. Statement 2) makes a prediction that is based on observable evidence, and then is subject to experimentation.

I wouldn't think this concept beyond your understanding Savior, I've seen you grasp such subtleties before.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
We only have one example of life arising anywhere in the galaxy. Therefore, we have no idea, whatsoever, of the chances of it arising elsewhere. None.

Now that's just nonsense. What do you expect to find out there?

Now try to make a serious answer to that question without examining the fact that Stars and Planets are out there, and likely some planets within habitable zones of their stars, and likely some of those planets with a relatively Earthlike history (The observable universe is enormous).

Okay now pretend you're me, because here we are.

You're asking me to look into my frenchfry bag and expect to not find any frenchfries. I think that's just silly.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
If we know the chances, then what are those chances?

Considering that you and I exist and are talking about it, off in some remote speck of the universe...

I'd say the chances are pretty darned good!

-WFA

[edit on 15-3-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

 

lol no the rare earth debate is still alive and well. You need to do more reading on the subject.

www.centauri-dreams.org...

Some say the intelligent design debate is still alive and well also. Really it's only alive and well in the mind of the intelligent design crowd, Science moved on several hundred years ago.

Originally posted by yeti101
as for kepler every experiment starts with a prediction. But to make a prediction in this field you need to make assumptions. Kepler team make a couple of big ones that may turn out to be completely wrong.

I suppose they could be wrong, but frankly I don't think they are. I think that there are other Earthlike worlds out there. And the concept doesn't frighten me. I'm not sure why it seems to frighten so many otherwise rational individuals???

I'm not sure why these otherwise rational individuals would knowingly choose to flatly ignore evidence collected over the past 60 years, about the universe around us. As I've said many times before even the Vatican has a telescope!

Originally posted by yeti101
My whole point in nbrining up kepler was to illustrate we dont yet have the data to say if earth like planets are rare or comnmon. Kepler will tell us if our solar system is an oddball or not. Nobody on earth knows the answer.

Hence my reply to your point, let's not get ahead of the data.

But since you've brought it up again, I will re-inforce my reply:

In absence of the evidence, what does Science predict?

Now how about representing that side of the argument, instead of acting like it's crazy talk? ')

Originally posted by yeti101
To be clear when they say rare earth they mean planets with complex life (plants & animals) not just size & orbit. Even the rare earthers concede microbial life is probably common.
[edit on 13-3-2009 by yeti101]

I would suggest to those rare earthers that they follow that microbial life theory through to it's natural evolutionary conclusions, instead of being content merely to acknowledge it in pre-biotic form.

I'm really tired of the 'they can exist as microbes, but not as intelligence' argument. It has zero merit. Earth evolved intelligence, so we can prove it's been done once. That in and of itself proves that it can be done.

Surely, in all the billions and billions of solar systems out there, you don't think a single one has developed complex intelligent life forms, besides dear old Sol?

Why would you possibly think that? It's not a rational argument. The chances of this theory (that Earth is the only planet in the universe harboring intelligent life) has like a .00000000000000001% chance of accurately describing the universe as it is. Why would this possibly be the theory you would choose to represent?

-WFA

Originally posted by lunarminer
Anyway, SETI and Fermi both assume that the method of contact that the aliens would choose would be in the form of radio communications. Why would we assume that an alien race would need radio?

Unfortunately I'm betting the answer is simply funding. Sad isn't it, that Shostak and his crowd can't bring themselves to admit the possibility that an ET species might have (much like humans) moved far beyond radio broadcast technology within a century, let alone a potential several million year span...

Very well thought out reply LunarMiner, nice to meet you.

-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

I suppose they could be wrong, but frankly I don't think they are

i think they're too optimistic becuase they treat binary systems the same as normal stars. I expect the results to be about half of what their prediction is.

In absence of the evidence, what does Science predict?

a prediction of any form is getting ahead of the data. Also science predicts tech intelligence will be rare in our galaxy. Are you happy to accept that conclusion?

I'm really tired of the 'they can exist as microbes, but not as intelligence' argument. It has zero merit. Earth evolved intelligence, so we can prove it's been done once. That in and of itself proves that it can be done.

but it doesnt tell us how common it is.

Surely, in all the billions and billions of solar systems out there, you don't think a single one has developed complex intelligent life forms, besides dear old Sol?

when science talks about this issue its usually in the context of our galaxy. Not the whole universe. Its about how common they are. So no i dont think were the only beings in the whole universe but we could well be alone in our galaxy or so far away from another civ we never detect them.

Sad isn't it, that Shostak and his crowd can't bring themselves to admit the possibility that an ET species might have (much like humans) moved far beyond radio broadcast technology within a century

I think your showing your ignorance here. SETI hopes soms civs use radio, they admit some may have moved on or some may be way behind. Theres nothing they can do about that. Unless you have a quantum communications decoder you could lend them?


[edit on 15-3-2009 by yeti101]

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

 

I suppose they could be wrong, but frankly I don't think they are

i think they're too optimistic becuase they treat binary systems the same as normal stars. I expect the results to be about half of what their prediction is.

Thanks for admitting that the possibility is a lot more than zero. That was the entire point I was trying to make here. I appreciate your intellectual honesty in conceding this point.

Originally posted by yeti101

In absence of the evidence, what does Science predict?

a prediction of any form is getting ahead of the data. Also science predicts tech intelligence will be rare in our galaxy. Are you happy to accept that conclusion?

Certainly, in absence of evidence to the contrary. I've seen a lot of evidence to the contrary though. I also think you may be under-realizing the size of the milky way galaxy. That combined with the length of time the Milky Way has been around, in my view is enough to figure that surely more than 1 (us) tech civilization has since flourished.

It's the treatment of that arguement as ridiculous that frankly ruffles my feathers. It's not ridiculous at all. Thanks for conceding that point as well.

Originally posted by yeti101

I'm really tired of the 'they can exist as microbes, but not as intelligence' argument. It has zero merit. Earth evolved intelligence, so we can prove it's been done once. That in and of itself proves that it can be done.

but it doesnt tell us how common it is.

True, but the certainty that it can be done does influence the figuring on how common it might be.

Originally posted by yeti101

Surely, in all the billions and billions of solar systems out there, you don't think a single one has developed complex intelligent life forms, besides dear old Sol?

when science talks about this issue its usually in the context of our galaxy. Not the whole universe. Its about how common they are. So no i dont think were the only beings in the whole universe but we could well be alone in our galaxy or so far away from another civ we never detect them.

That's very different from proclaiming them unlikely to exist. Thank you for conceding this point as well. It speaks highly of your intellect that you are not afraid to agree on rational points.

Originally posted by yeti101

Sad isn't it, that Shostak and his crowd can't bring themselves to admit the possibility that an ET species might have (much like humans) moved far beyond radio broadcast technology within a century

I think your showing your ignorance here. SETI hopes soms civs use radio, they admit some may have moved on or some may be way behind. Theres nothing they can do about that. Unless you have a quantum communications decoder you could lend them?
[edit on 15-3-2009 by yeti101]

I think you missed my point here, it's the fact that SETI is only interested in Radio Astronomy that is frustrating. They even dismiss Optical SETI, for no reason other than the fact that it's a competitor. It's not the right attitude, and it turns people off from listening to Shostak and his ilk.


-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


you seem to be really confused. I think tech intelligence is extremely rare not unique, Microbial life probably common, complex life less common. And its called the rare earth theory. Not the unique earth theory. They dont think theres only 1 either.

kepler wont tell us if the planets are habitable or not. It might find hundreds none are guranteed to have complex life. It makes no diffirnce to the rare earthers how many kepler finds. We may have to find thousands before we find one similar to ours

SETI performs optical & radio searches. Theres more to seti than hatcreek & the ATA

how many tech civs do you think are in our galaxy?

[edit on 15-3-2009 by yeti101]

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

 

how many tech civs do you think are in our galaxy?

[edit on 15-3-2009 by yeti101]

Likely more than 1, my best guess is at least 10.

I'm not confused I know the difference between SETI and optical SETI. You'll note in my replies I referred to Shostak, and his radio SETI only cult. I was very specific and direct about my complaints in that regard.

Shostak is on record stating his own feelings on this issue, on a number of different occasions. He feels that Radio SETI is the only thing we should be funding. I feel we should be funding many different types of searches, including sending humans out into space.

If you'd like to continue that argument, that's fine, but it's a different arguement altogether than the one we were discussing before. It's a personal feeling that I (and many others I've talked with) have about Shostak and SETI.

As long as we're clear on the fact that intelligent civilizations are to be expected, and life is likely all over the place, in at the very least microbial form, then I think we're pretty much in agreement now.

It's when you act like it's CRAZY to think that intelligent life is out there, that I must disagree Yeti. I'm glad you've backed off of that stance. I knew you were smarter than that.

-WFA

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

 

you seem to be really confused. I think tech intelligence is extremely rare not unique, Microbial life probably common, complex life less common. And its called the rare earth theory. Not the unique earth theory. They dont think theres only 1 either.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by yeti101]

If you mean that I seem really confused about your thesis, you were right. Thanks for spelling it out. You appeared to be arguing against intelligent life in the universe altogether. Seriously, you should probably re-read a lot of your posts, because that's really how you come off. If it isn't the way that you mean to come off, then I apologize for taking it that way. But you should know that as another person reading your arguments, that's how they sounded.

-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


10? well you think the same as me. Extremely rare.

Seth shostak reckons theres at least 10,000.




[edit on 15-3-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


seti dont have enough money to fund their current telescope array. Never mind build another for optical. They have done a few features on optical seti on their podcast but it doesnt surprise me you never heard them

When disinfo agents pose the falseness that ufo aliens aren't acknowledged,while we still use Chinese fireworks for rockets to transport in space,here's a wake-up call for the masses. 1976 Viking Missions found life on Mars,annd it was covered up successfully because the gullible masses layed down and accepted it.Here's the Mars fossil skull.How come Mars is covered with these? This is from Mars Spirit Rover 2 weeks ago. If Mars was so inhospitable the rovers would have died,frozen in their tracks from long winters.We have been conned.The people on Mars look like us,much prettier than this bigfoot head looking fossil. Can you see 2 eyes? Am I the only one who gets this stuff?

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by Elepheagle

 

So how far down the rabbit hole are you prepared to go?

I started out being pretty convinced that something was going on. At first, back in the sixties, I thought it was nuts-and-bolts stuff. Then after reading John Keel I thought it was ultraterrestrials. Now... I think the universe is teeming with life and there are a lot of people interested in us.

I think there's enough documentation to be able to say, pretty definitively, that the USG is certainly covering up their involvement with the issue. The question then becomes, how far? Are they just clamping down because they don't own the skies, or is it something more?

Various people have said that Ben Rich, Skunk Works director about 20 years ago said, back in the nineties after he'd retired, that "we now have the technology to take ET home."

Once you start to consider stuff like that seriously, you have to start looking at NASA as just a publicity stunt. No wonder their budget's so tight.

As far as the title of your thread goes... a mere eyeblink ago, historically speaking, the authorities and skeptics of the day were saying that you couldn't travel faster than 30 mph, because you wouldn't be able to breathe. It's the same kind of short-sighted arrogance.

I wasn't meaning to feign ignorance with the post-title and the contents which followed. Merely, the first half of the title is a hypothetical statement; the second half of the question asks about the effects of that hypothetical statement.

I think it's been stated here over and over now that most likely, life exists elsewhere. It's accepted by many people, but as was pointed out, hasn't seemed to have much of an effect on people's (or the masses) day to day life. The genesis of my thinking came about as I was wondering whether or not we needed a White House lawn landing for people to wake up and think about what life existing elsewhere actually means.

I am also convinced that something is going on. I've seen enough firsthand accounts via FOIA. I want to know more about that something, and it seems everyone's got their take.

I'm really not narrow minded, I'm just working with what I have to work with, and that is us humans and the planet earth. If you all want to sit around smoke cigars and drink 18 year old scotch as we dream up aliens I can do that too.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Xtrozero]

I think we're all working with what we have as well; and the discussion seemingly becomes more and more relevant as time passes. I think the best thing we can do right now is get together, scotch or no scotch, and discuss our own beliefs and experiences.

As for the OP question, I think for most people in our community, if there are no aliens actually on earth or have ever been on earth it negates an awfully lot of conspiracy theories, and that is simply unacceptable.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by maxweljames]

I worry about myself when it comes to this. Sometimes I find myself really wanting to believe. While the reality, or proof, of aliens may be a long time coming, or never come for that matter, the belief will never die, no matter what we learn.

Interesting articles:

The ETH and the Likelihood of Interstellar Travel
by Jean van Gemert
www.nicap.org...


Science & the ETH in UFOlogy - Michael Swords (JUFOS, 1989)
www.nicap.org...


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]