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.

 

Stephen Hawking says Aliens exist

page: 9
106
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I bet they told ET we have enough nukes to destroy both the earth and the moon. Stay away




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
So basically then the evil alien hypothesis wins then, right? Wow...

We do have a long way to go. A long way indeed. I hope Contact occurs, but only to the most evolved and aware people on the planet. The rest can watch with binoculars or on the big screen as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I've never understood why some people think the aliens are our friends. And that they are going to help us.

I've always intuitively felt that aliens are not to be trusted, and that they harm people.

I



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject
I bet they told ET we have enough nukes to destroy both the earth and the moon. Stay away


I think that was the point of nukes, it was never to destroy each other, it was to destroy the planet if aliens ever did come.

I doubt nukes where ever to destroy us, as i think there would never be a point where we would of been that stup1d, but the build up of nukes by russia and usa was to keep the earth from others.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
fear not,human, if 'they' attack, you won't even know it. you'll be typing a "why i think the moon is occupied" message on here and WHOOSH...you're gone.

ps: who is that man in that picture.the black and white one?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ewokdisco
fear not,human, if 'they' attack, you won't even know it. you'll be typing a "why i think the moon is occupied" message on here and WHOOSH...you're gone.

ps: who is that man in that picture.the black and white one?


I do not think they will attack, they are probably just controlling world events, as they please.

Why would you need to attack when they would have techs that could control us all in reality, and its probably what has been going on. Without outside help people are too stupid to have come this far, and people in alot of secret societies are very stup1d, they are just open to spiritual side, that this is.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
My thinking works like this. I believe there is extra terrestrial life out there some place in the universe. I believe that there is life on a larger scale than most folks want to think about. I dont know that there are any planets in our own solar system which cannot support life of one form or another. How about sentient clouds of gas in jupiter or saturn? How about microbes on mars, or bizzare deep water animals living under europas ice? We know there are bacterial lifeforms that can live in all the most violent and dangerous environs on our planet , so how about tiny organisms living on venus under the corrosive and heavy atmosphere?
However , of course none of this would intrest most people , because its not spaceship driving , lazer toting, planet killing, venom dripping , violent and evil, or indeed peaceful and helpful intelligent life that might exist in those places. However, we should be interested in those places , and in those non intelligent lifeforms, because the more we know about them, the better our best scientific predictions will be, and the more focused our search for interstellar intelligence will become. In order to make the search for intelligent life more accurate in its probings we need more data, and I think we will only attain that data by sending man to other planets , and properly exploring the OTHER worlds we can see. Its no use sending one probe, or one or three satelites, or a rover or two. They cannot cover the whole of a globe , single handed, leaving no rock unturned. Only colonisation can achieve a true deep investigation of the other planets in our solar system, and that should be top of the bill in terms of importance. If only so we are a little more prepared for contact when and if it comes.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
[edit on 25-4-2010 by Quetzalcoatl12]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
"I've never understood why some people think the aliens are our friends. And that they are going to help us.

I've always intuitively felt that aliens are not to be trusted, and that they harm people. "

Well, for one, before 1880, UFO sightings were generally lumped in with religion and angels, meaning that they were seen as being benevolent. Indigenous societies in particular, thought offworlders to be benign and helpful in times of great need and despair. To top it off, these visitors promised to return - and the people waited for them to do so!

That last point is an important one to remember. Generally, people do not long or yearn for someone to return if that person or group of people are evil. Somehow most Ufologists today fail to grasp this.

This all changed with Giovanni Schiaparelli, an Italian astronomer who described Mars as being overrun with structures he named "Canali". We distorted that into "Canals", and pretty soon, along with Hollywood and its portrayal of ETs being bad, the present day attitude was born.

Basic lesson to retain is that fearful people tend to see Aliens as being bad, while brave or courageous ones are more likely to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude towards the eventuality of ET contact. This was classically displayed throughout the Blossom Goodchild phenomenon in 2008. Heh, there were actually people who created marches and demonstrations telling people to be afraid of the aliens coming in on October 14th. Nothing happened of course, but the intelligence community must have been very busy monitoring public perception and reaction.

[edit on 10/26/2009 by nethawk]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


as much as i love hawking, his logic is flawed, he has underestemated the odds. there are things called "anthropic constants". basically, precise and narrowly defined variables that must be exact for life to exist.




These anthropic constants are different from other variables in Drake's equation in that they are meant to specify conditions which are considered viable for us. Hence the term anthropic. Ross's constants are formulated for situations in which creatures like us are inhabiting planets like ours, while Hawking is talking about the possibility of more abstract life, not even restricted to planets.

I realise that Ross argues there is an astronomically small chance of us existing here, and therefore it is unlikely that there is any other life in the universe; but the chance of humans existing does not begin to relate to the chance of extraterrestrial life itself.

Consider extremophiles - bacteriae prolific under circumstances we thought to be lethal by itself; or the anaerobic multicellular organisms that have been recently discovered. Compare this information to Ross's first "anthropic constant":



Anthropic Constant 1: Oxygen Level

On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an Anthropic Constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25% fires would erupt spontaneously, if it were 15%, human beings would suffocate.

from www.inplainsite.org...

I'd dare to say that this newly discovered species of Spinoloricus, phylum Loricifera, here on our own earth, would disagree with this very first constant. Apart from that, the fact that human beings would suffocate at 15% doesn't relate to the possibility of extraterrestrial life, either.


Most of his other constants just make me raise my eyebrows:


Anthropic Constant 5: Gravity

If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore neither would we. Talk about precision

from www.inplainsite.org...

What gravitational force is he referring to here? The gravitational pull of the sun? Surely, in that hypothetical, the sun still exists; so that's not it. What effect could destroy the sun? Or does he mean we would be removed too far from the sun to still be able to see it?

Whatever he wants to imply here, the fact is that there are a lot of planets in a fairly stable orbit. We're not even in a perfectly stable orbit ourselves. If this is a constant, then how does he apply it?




Anthropic Constant 8: Speed Of Light

Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.

from www.inplainsite.org...

Ross is clear about this one; no life is possible where people are tinkering around with the speed of light. Of course that is a paradox; if an organism is changing the speed of light, then there already is life. Obviously Ross knows what a paradox is, so it is probable that he is talking about more or less 'natural' variations in the speed of light. I, for one, don't think we need to worry about the speed of light being variable, much less posing any obstacle for extraterrestrial life.


Just one additional constant to show that Ross's choice for the term anthropic refers to the possibility of sustaining human life on another planet, and that virtually none of his constants is appropriate when entertaining the possibility of any extraterrestrial life:



Anthropic Constant 10: Jupiter.

If Jupiter were not in it’s current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.

from www.inplainsite.org...



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
no scientist (or rational human being, for that matter) would ever declare alien life impossible. almost all regard it as not only probable, but almost certain, given the vastness of the universe. not a single one will treat alien visitation as likely however, because not only is there no real evidence pointing to specifically that conclusion, but it is mathematically unlikely as well.



Astrophysicist Carl Sagan makes some interesting comments in this article from 1962:



Prof Says Beings From Outer Space Have Visited Earth
Associated Press, November 26, 1962


LOS ANGELES. (AP) - Some of the best scientific minds in the country were stumped when a slender, dark-haired young man chalked on the blackboard this equation:

N equals R FP NE FL FI FC L.

The speaker was Dr. Carl Sagan, a 28 year-old assistant professor of astronomy at Harvard University.

His audience consisted of several hundred members of the American Rocket Society, gathered for his luncheon address.

The equation was his way of expressing the mathematical probability that intelligent beings from outer space have visited earth.

Sagan soberly explained that in his equation N Stands for the number of advanced technical civilizations in the universe possessing the capability of interstellar communication.

R is the mean rate of star formation averaged over the lifetime of the galaxy.

FP is the fraction of stars with planetary systems.

NE is the mean number of planets in each system with environments favorable for the origin of life.

FL is the fraction of such planets on which life does develop.

FI is the fraction of such inhabited planets on which intelligent life with manipulative abilities rises during the lifetime of the local sun.

FC is the fraction of planets populated by intelligent beings on which advanced technical civilizations rises.

And L is the lifetime of this technical civilization.

Sagan said information in his formula is based on current estimates by astronomers. In making calculations, he assigned each symbol an arbitrary numerical value.

As expressed in numbers, Sagan said, the formula means that at least 1 million of the 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy have planets which have developed civilizations capable of travel between the stars.

"Let's say that each of these civilizations sends out one interstellar expedition per year," he said.

"That means that every star, such as our sun, would be visited at least once every million years. In some systems where these beings found life, they would make more frequent visits. There's a strong probability, then, that they have visited earth every few thousand years.

"It is not out of the question that artifacts of these visits still exist or even that some kind of base is maintained, possibly automatically, within the solar system, to provide continuity for successive expeditions.

"Because of weathering and the possibility of detection and interference by the inhabitants of earth it would be preferable not to erect such a base on the earth's surface. The moon seems one reasonable alternative."


"Forthcoming photographic reconnaissance of the moon from space vehicles - particularly of the back - might bear these possibilities in mind."

At a news conference Sagan predicted man himself would be capable of interstellar flight at close to the speed of light "within a century or two."

Asked if he believed in flying saucers, he said: "I do believe there are objects which have hot be identified."


Link


NASA Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch also makes some intriguing statements about the UFO subject at this website.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Hawkings is an atheist so he believes in a lie. There is no life on other planets unless God the creator put it there. Evolution is a joke and easily dis-proven. Basic laws of mathematical chances and common sense throws life randomly evolving out the window. Of course popular scientist lack common sense and objectivity now days, while those who really believe in being objective and looking for the truth in the evidence are shunned.

What the so called aliens are either hoax's or inter dimensional beings, basically in the same category as spirits, demons, fallen angels. They do things that defy physical reality because they aren't truly physical in nature, not because of some advanced technology they have.

People who dabble in the occult tend to have a higher frequency of seeing UFO's and Aliens from my understanding. They are basically opening themselves up to the spirit world of which is very dangerous to do so and thus increase alien encounters.

You want to believe in lies, well it is your choice, but just trying to toss out pebble of truth for ya.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman
Hasn't Stephen Hawking held these positions for quite a long time: That ETs are likely, and that we should be cautious about letting them know of our existence?


And how do we do that exactly? Cloak earth somehow? Hide under the bed if they do arrive? How can we not let them know we exist?

Saying life must exist out there is hardly genius thinking is it? Surely most believe that anyway.

And if they don't believe it, some smart guys ramblings won't change their minds.

My opinion is because of the sheer size of the universe, the chances of aliens being close enough to travel here must be astronomical.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asherah
I've never understood why some people think the aliens are our friends. And that they are going to help us.

I've always intuitively felt that aliens are not to be trusted, and that they harm people.

I



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


They exist, they were here long before us.


[edit on 103030p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


as much as i love hawking, his logic is flawed, he has underestemated the odds. there are things called "anthropic constants". basically, precise and narrowly defined variables that must be exact for life to exist.

"Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants (122 in all) would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (I.e., without Divine design). Assuming there are 10^22 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking; one chance in 10^138, that’s one chance in one with 138 zeros after it. There are only about 10^70 atoms in the entire universe."

do i believe that life exists elsewhere? meh, i'm not sure. but to claim that the odds are in favor of life existing elsewhere is silly when the chances of life existing on our own planet is so slim.



Totally not intending to be rude or mean in any way, but this is exactly his point, that your brain is not understanding. I'm sure Mr. Hawking has probably debated face to face with Mr. Ross, whom you should probably point out to people reading that may not be familiar, is a Creationist. I'm sure Creationism needs no explanation here.
You may have missed the point entirely, about our brains not having the ability to understand how they exist, as they may not even be "humanoid", and may not require the same criteria for existance as we do.
Hugh Ross caters to Christian theology, which has become tiring, to say the least, and this is not a flame. I myself, as a religious person, believe that we are not worthy of God's attention, because we are like his middle child: stubborn, spoiled brats that can't see past our own noses. If we continue to believe everything in the universe must be just like us, because we are created in God's image, we are just disappointing God.
To think we are rare in the universe, and that the creator would surround us in an infinite sea of wonder, by ourselves, and go into hiding after we advance, is foolish.
He needs to see past the book a little bit, because it is, after all, written by men, not God.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
You guys are looking at this universe through the eyes of scarcity;

The universe is a vast; infinite and abundant place;
with billions upon billions of planets and resources;

You have to think more logically;
If you walk into a public restroom; and there are 20 toilet stalls;
1 of them is occupied by a small weak inferior person;
Would you storm into his/her stall and force the person out or would you simply just walk into an empty bathroom stall and use that instead?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Here is a 2008 article where Dr. Hawking says life exists elsewhere.

Here is another from 2009 where Dr. Hawking discusses alien life.

So it certainly is not news that Hawking thinks we are not alone. No one has made fun of him, as Matrix Rising claims, proving how asinine her attack on skeptics is.

But we find ourselves with a bit of a conundrum. Matrix considers everyone who doesn't agree with to be a "pseudo-skeptic". In this 2008 article, Hawking dismisses the idea of alien abductions. So, is Hawking a hero or a pseudoskeptic, Matrix?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I'tll be just like star trek: first contact, the aliens will leave us alone until we've reached a certain level of technology.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
When Stephen Hawking speaks I listen, and what he is saying is very scary to me! hopefuly there is some kind of intergalactic law they have to follow or we are totaly *snip*



and we have already sent out directions and are currently broadcasting"here is earth come get us" lol

[edit on 25-4-2010 by paradiselost333]




top topics



 
106
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join