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.

 

Why aliens aren't visiting us

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
other possible reasons for the great silence.

1. we are the first tech intelligence in our galaxy
2. we are one of many emerging tech civs at the same stage
3. all tech civs destroy themselves before managing to send probes or build beacons.
4. advanced ET civs dont build beacons or send probes. They do something else.

www.sentientdevelopments.com...




posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
everyone has heard this somewhere before but ill state the obvious again:

"We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an Act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity...Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do." - Ben Rich.

i read somewhere before that the time it takes for a civilization to become "high tech" as we call it, takes a couple of thousand -millions of years. (if you go by evolution), and the probability of destroying themselves (as we are pretty much doing now) are far greater that discovering some remote/distant galaxy/solar system/planet/heavily body with life on it...so that might be in line with one of the "possibilities" you list above.
Personally i think...Heck I don’t know.... all i know is that we have the Tech to do the exploring ourselves, but thanks to politics, governments and economic structures, we will not see the tech, nor will have it being used soon for the No1 interest build into the human DNA/Mind...Exploration and Curiosity


[edit on 25-6-2009 by GerhardSA]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GerhardSA
 




i read somewhere before that the time it takes for a civilization to become "high tech" as we call it, takes a couple of thousand -millions of years. (if you go by evolution)


How the hell would allele frequency under environmental attrition factor into the rate of technological advancement in a civilization?

I think your source is wrong, or you're misreading it. Further, it seems as though technological advancement does not progress linearly - but rather exponentially. This is because we use new discoveries to build tomorrows tools - tools are used to discover more, and allow for the next generation of tools which will be more powerful and more comprehensive and allow us to discover more.

In a more visual demonstration, lets look at both a linear and exponential sequences of numbers.

Linear: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Exponential: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512.

10 vs. 512. That's the difference between the power of exponential and linear growth. Now, just because information technology growth is exponential, doesn't mean unlimited. Exponentials may have plateaus and ceilings that will be reached that limit growth until a breakthrough allows for the next exponential growth trend. For example, bacteria cultures in a resource rich environment will start their growth curve slowly, reproduce exponentially, then return to a stable growth rate sustainable by the resource levels. They will stay at this level until a new adaptation allows them to make use of a new resource (such as nylon eating bacteria) allows for a further exponential growth.

At any rate, the advancement of technology in human society as a whole seems to show this exponential trend. It has nothing to do with black projects seeping out alien technology. We're just have more and more powerful tools in our scientific toolbox to discover and disseminate our discoveries to the public.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
I personally feel that a belief in ET's, at the moment resembles religion

Hi, atlasastro. Judging from the posts on this thread so far, you are quite right.

Many thanks for the heraldic devices, by the way.


I never hear anyone ever entertain the thought that we may infact be the first life as we know it, actually existing in the universe. This would also put us first in space etc.

It's against the Copernican, alias the 'You Ain't Special' Principle. Doesn't mean that it isn't the case, but it's not scientifically helpful to consider it.

Edit to add: everybody needs to look at the link in yeti101's post at the top of this page. Excellent stuff.

[edit on 30/6/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Thanks for your reply.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Many thanks for the heraldic devices, by the way.
No prob.



It's against the Copernican, alias the 'You Ain't Special' Principle. Doesn't mean that it isn't the case, but it's not scientifically helpful to consider it.
I see your point, and I am familiar with the popular thoughts that say something along the lines that "most rational and educated individuals could not imagine that we are in some way special or hold a unique position" in the universe. I think that the inclusion of imagination is not as scientifically helpful as much as it is hopeful in considering just what life is out there. If we reduce what we imagine by what we know, the concept that we are currently it in terms of life, stands out as not only being possible but currently is also what is observed, regardless of any principle or philosophy inspired by Copernicus that you, or science, apply to that view.

I would like that possibility as entertained and indulged in as others do with ET's.

I am keeping a firm interest in the Kepler Mission though. It is far more interesting.
Gliese 581C, and D were so exciting and dissapointing at the same time that I can't wait for what we may find now with this dedicated space based planet hunting observatory.


Edit to add: everybody needs to look at the link in yeti101's post at the top of this page. Excellent stuff.
I second those thoughts.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Fermi is entitled to his opinion. On the other hand, he does not have all encompassing knowledge about what other people have seen and experienced. Therefore, his opinion is only valid for his life experience.

Lots of other people know that ETs visit Earth because they have seen them.

I suggest that Fermi should have rephrased his comment to something like "I haven't seen them, so why aren't they visiting me". It's far less conceited than trying to claim that they haven't visited.

Besides, why is Fermi so special that he should see them?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Fermi is entitled to his opinion. On the other hand, he does not have all encompassing knowledge about what other people have seen and experienced. Therefore, his opinion is only valid for his life experience.

This is very true. It is true for everybody. And since you obviously don't know anything about Fermi (he's been dead these 55 years), your opinon of him is invalid.


Lots of other people know that ETs visit Earth because they have seen them.

Let's say lots of other people say they have seen them. So far, not one of them has been able to substantiate his claim. After more than half a century of claims, there remains absolutely no evidence that this planet has ever been visited by extraterrestrial intelligences.


Besides, why is Fermi so special that he should see them?


Enrico Fermi (29 September 1901 – 28 November 1954) was an Italian physicist most noted for his work on the development of the first nuclear reactor, and for his contributions to the development of quantum theory, nuclear and particle physics, and statistical mechanics. Fermi was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938 for his work on induced radioactivity and is today regarded as one of the top scientists of the 20th century. He is acknowledged as a unique physicist who was highly accomplished in both theory and experiment.[1] Fermium, a synthetic element created in 1952, the Fermi National Accelerator Lab, and a type of particles called fermions are named after him. Wikipedia


I suggest that Fermi...

I think suggestions are just about as valid as the opinions they spring from, don't you?

If you use the search function properly, you will probably find a thread on this subforum that suits you better than this one.

[edit on 1/7/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Did you ever consider that Fermi was right and they are already here just choosing to hide form us.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
This is very true. It is true for everybody. And since you obviously don't know anything about Fermi (he's been dead these 55 years), your opinon of him is invalid.

Since you assume that I know nothing about Fermi, your opinion is invalid.

Fermi expressed his opinion for why he hasn't seen aliens and he tried to generalise that to the entire planet.

Fermi's opinion was ignorant of other people's experiences with regards to ET life.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Let's say lots of other people say they have seen them. So far, not one of them has been able to substantiate his claim. After more than half a century of claims, there remains absolutely no evidence that this planet has ever been visited by extraterrestrial intelligences.

Correction.

You have not seen evidence to prove to you that ET life exists. It's an extremely small mind that tries to know what every other person on the planet has experienced during their lifetime.


Originally posted by Astyanax
If you use the search function properly, you will probably find a thread on this subforum that suits you better than this one.

No, this one suits me just fine. Thanks for your advice, but I'll decline to accept it.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
People who believe in alien visitors to Earth don't like Enrico Fermi, the brilliant physicist who, one day at Los Alamos in the middle of the Manhattan Project, found time at lunch to ask 'so, where is everybody?' and then proceeded to answer the question himself.


Fermi speculated... that the age of the universe, as well as its size, meant that there should be a number of advanced societies keeping Earth company, in a galactic sense. Growth of these civilizations would be exponential, Fermi implied, and therefore if they existed, we would have encountered them already. Ergo, advanced alien societies must not exist, since their expansion hasn't brought them into the range of our detection. Source

That was Fermi's conclusion: that there are no aliens, at least none within range.

Nowadays, we find it hard to believe that we are alone in the universe. We know that lots of stars - perhaps the majority - have planets. We believe that, given the odds, intelligent life-forms must have evolved on many of these planets.

Yet still the skies (for everyone but UFO buffs) remain discouragingly empty.

Obviously, massive astronomical distances don't help. Plugging very generous numbers into the Drake equation gives an average separation of about 200 light-years between intelligent civilizations in the Galaxy. But we should still have picked something up - an alien radio transmission, perhaps.

Now (see the above link) comes news that the problem may be one of limited resources. It appears that civilizations probably can't expand exponentially in space. Fermi's assumption was wrong.

So no alien visitors.

And - worse still - no galactic empires for mankind, either. We can no more expand our presence in space exponentially than aliens can.

Looks like it's going to be a long wait for ET, one way or another.



You are sadly still thinking inside the box. Maybe a box within a box at that. To top it off, you're sitting in awe before a "scientist" who could do nothing but think inside of that same boundary.

First, if Fermi did say "...therefore if they existed, we would have encountered them already." then he proved that science is incredibly short-sighted and deviod of genius. It seems that scientists are only recognized if they follow a pattern, a pre-determined and approved mindset. If they do follow the crowd, they are deemed "genius". True thinkers such as Tesla are marginalized.

So it is when the subject of ET comes up. The dull-witted are placed on a pedestal when denouncing the liklihood that we are not only not alone, but live on a very busy planet with races who are, for whatever reason, keeping a hand-off stance at the moment. There are ample, incessant reports of credible testimony from intelligent observers that UFOs are not only here but display a distinct non-Earthly behavior and technology. That's just the beginning. But, if you choose to disregard the evidence, for example, that of many government and military persons who have first hand experience at this, that's your choice.

Remember, the best science had to offer in the 18th and 19th century, the very best and most educated minds stated with as much conviction as someone like Fermi that humanity could not travel faster than 35 mph without dying. That was science. And people like Fermi are good reminders as well that science will NEVER have all the answers nor will it ever be on the right track.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
1. Space is Big. Said before but it is so BIG figured could be said again.

2. WE are explorers. As a species we like to discover new things. Does not suggest every intelligent species in the Universe will be as curious.

3. Space travel; or even radio signals, take tech. Metals etc.. So an intelligent water species won't be traveling far. Neither will there be intelligent life on very old planets and planetary systems. Various stars had to explode to seed the galaxy with the heavier metals that a technological society needs. That means it is totally possible we are the most advanced tech in this area of the universe.

4. A truly advanced technological species could be invisible to us. If you wanted to spy on bees without them knowing about you I'm pretty sure you could figure it out. Anyone traveling vast distances to get here might see us much the same way.

5. We base our definition of life off of this planet. As varied as it is it is not the end all for the definition of life and it's varied forms. Our experiences are still too limited to think we have any real understanding about ET life.

So even if there were a bunch of life out there, there are so many reasons why we might not notice any.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Visiting ESB

Originally posted by Astyanax
So no alien visitors.
And - worse still - no galactic empires for mankind, either. We can no more expand our presence in space exponentially than aliens can.
Looks like it's going to be a long wait for ET, one way or another.

You are sadly still thinking inside the box. Maybe a box within a box at that. To top it off, you're sitting in awe before a "scientist" who could do nothing but think inside of that same boundary.

Exactly. Great observation.

Fermi, thinking well within his box, precluded himself to know what else there might be.

Sorry, Fermi. You got it wrong, because you didn't know how to look into other people's boxes, where they had already opened their lids.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
You are sadly still thinking inside the box. Maybe a box within a box at that.

Care to describe the box - or boxes?


To top it off, you're sitting in awe before a "scientist" who could do nothing but think inside of that same boundary.

You didn't read the linked article, did you? It is an explanation for the Fermi paradox*. Doesn't really have anything to do with Fermi.

And what's with the quotation marks round 'scientist'? Was Fermi not enough of a scientist for you? Or do you doubt the credentials of the people who did the research on which the linked article is based?


First, if Fermi did say "...therefore if they existed, we would have encountered them already." then he proved that science is incredibly short-sighted and deviod of genius.

Oh dear. Hopelessly, hysterically wrong. Fermi didn't say aliens don't exist. Fermi simply asked, 'So, where are they?' The linked article seeks to answer that question and the answer is not 'because they don't exist'. Oh, why didn't you read the link before you came barging onto the thread making yourself look silly?


It seems that scientists are only recognized if they follow a pattern, a pre-determined and approved mindset.

Could you describe this mindset, please, and explain how it differs from the scientific method? Or is it, perchance, the scientific method itself you object to? Too slow? Too dependent on fact-checking and getting things right? Too suspicious of hallucinations and for-profit sleights?


If they do follow the crowd, they are deemed "genius".

Could you provide examples of scientists who were 'deemed "genius"' for 'following the crowd'? Not too many - one or two will do.


True thinkers such as Tesla are marginalized.

Sure, sure... So marginalized, in fact, that the unit of magnetic flux density is called the tesla.


There are ample, incessant reports of credible testimony from intelligent observers that UFOs are not only here but display a distinct non-Earthly behavior and technology.

Credible testimony, eh? How about some credible evidence for a change? Until we see some, aliens buzzing about in UFOs are just a modern myth, a cultural fairytale if you like. This was recognized as early as 1950, when Jung published his book Flying Saucers.


Remember, the best science had to offer in the 18th and 19th century, the very best and most educated minds stated with as much conviction as someone like Fermi that humanity could not travel faster than 35 mph without dying.

The thing about science is that it marches on. Science isn't fortunetelling: its conclusions are based on the best available evidence, and that evidence is carefully checked and doublechecked before it is accepted. That is why it is so dismissive of the 'credible' testimony of the 'UFO community'.

 
*Which, by the way, remains a paradox. All those claims, all those sightings, all those abductee testimonies... and - after sixty-odd years, still not one tiny piece of hard evidence to support them. Did you say I'm the one inside the box?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
They are not Aliens...they are halfbreeds and fallen Angles.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join