Most important discovery of humankind on its way

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

If one senses something that nobody else can does it exist outside of the singular observer?

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by WickedStar

I also read recently that our radio signals decay beyond recognition beyond a 100 light year range (or less, can't recall the exact details). So our broadcasts filter into nothingness a (relatively) very short distance from our solar system, beyond that threshold there is no signal of our existence to anyone else who might be listening. Precisely why SETI has proven so effectively useless imho!

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by Illustronic

Now we're getting into philosophy. We could all play the solipsism game, but I believe that there is an exterior reality. If many people observe, that's evidence enough to my mind that the entity in question exists.

Does our whole race not exist because nobody else is looking our way at any particular moment in time? What if Jim, the galactic nightwatchman spills his coffee, and takes his eye off us for a moment while he clears it up? Do we collectively cease to exist until he's back from the galactic vending machine?

edit on 15-5-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: spelling

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

My big question is why? Paranoid? Again why?

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

My point is that what exists in a singular mind may not exist outside of that singular mind therefore it is a manifestation of that singular mind, and not real outside of it. OK?

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by Evanzsayz

Uh.... technological advances? Seriously dude/ette.

This is the same mindset that tells us that World War 3 will never come. Of course things change, advance and so on. I don't understand the way you are thinking.

NB - this is my last post for now. Hopefully hammering the responses has helped boost this important thread into the Hot Topics list. Well done OP - an excellent read, very well put-together, and very well-resourced. Many contributors have also provided excellent resources and opinions. S & F..!!

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by Illustronic

I respectfully disagree. You are in the territory of the solipsist, a philosophy which to my mind (LOL) is inadequate to describe our reality..

Dammit! I said that would be my last post.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

ETA 1 - The point you are making, if experienced by one person then yes, I see where you are coming from. What I was saying was that these energetic entities were known to many ancient people, as espoused by the mystery schools of the day. Therefore, a collective delusion? I think not. But again, we are merely speculating. I haven't had personal experience of these entities (as far as I know, though they may have tried to communicate with me I suppose), and in general, only the adepts of the most sincere modern secret societies still carry on the traditions of knowledge sharing which might enable others to learn of and attempt communication with such entities.

I believe ATS member Zorgon has 'a bit of a thing' for one particular type of these entities, which he refers to as 'Critters', believing that they are responsible for many accounts of UFO sightings.

ETA 2 - no paranoia, just common sense. Sneakiness is the best form of defence, and sometimes the best preparation for necessary aggression. Think of the Ninjas, and our very own SAS and Delta Force etc...

ETA 3 - re: hiding black projects... What about the federal reserve's missing trillions? They never quite got their cover story ready in time by the look of that one. They may have wriggled their way out of it by now, but I haven't checked in a while. They can, and will, seek to hide the money trail by any and all means necessary, where black projects are concerned. Seriously. All means necessary.

ETA 4 - nice response Slayer! I'm adding that comment as an ETA to avoid over-filling the thread with my suspicious blue face.

edit on 15-5-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: as per ETA's

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:12 PM

reply to post by elevenaugust

Okay, where to begin?

With this paper, I want to demonstrate that we are probably living in the most important century for the humankind, as (and this is not only a strong intuition) there's no doubt in my mind that the final proof of extraterrestrial life will be found within the century.

Sorry for taking so long with a response this thread deserves. But I had things to do in the REAL real world.

Again, Great work.
This morning I took the time to read through it thoroughly. Good stuff, I truly appreciate it's content. Yes, IMO we are living in the most important era. The birth of our space exploration. In human history it's only been relatively recently that mankind first flew in a heavier than air vehicles {that we know of} then breaking the sound barrier then out into low Earth orbit and finally off to the moon. The speed in which this has developed is simply amazing.

If we look at the preceding 6 to 7 centuries mankind's technical development can be said to be painfully slow. This doesn't mean there weren't amazing developments and or accomplishments. But in the last century it has accelerated at a fantastic rate which hasn't abated and in fact it continues to increase exponentially.

So yes, I agree this present century the 21st will IMO make the 20th look mild by comparison.

- Distance is still an obstacle: discoveries methods can only be used in a combination way for relatively nearby stars out to about 160 light-years from Earth (exceptionnally up to 300 light-years):

As far as the public knows we don't have this technology/ability yet. However, There are those who believe that we already have such abilities or at the very least that we are in fact a bit farther along than the masses are aware. If we are to travel out into the cosmos we need to get past our Earth bound perceptions. It's recently fallen out of favor but Nuclear rockets and Atomic based propulsion would solve many of these issues.

The draw back here in the minds of many is the potential for residual radiation being produced and or released by such engine/rocket/propulsion systems. What many seem to either forget or are simply ignorant of is the fact that open space is already radioactive. So an engine/rockets/propulsion system releasing radioactivity in deep space would be similar to pouring a glass of water into the ocean.

as of February 2011, NASA's Kepler mission had identified 1,235 unconfirmed planetary candidates associated with 997 host stars, based on the first four months of data from the space-based telescope, including 54 that may be in the habitable zone.

I think we shouldn't limit ourselves by just searching for "Earth sized" planets in habitable zones. Other larger and smaller planets in the same zone may also contain life. If we are just looking for another planet to colonize then yes we need similar atmosphere and gravity etc which an Earth sized planet may offer. But, If we are searching strictly for signs of "Life" it may have found a way to develop on any number of sized planets and or gravitational strength or atmospheric density/makeup etc {not necessarily compatible to sustain Humans} in the "Habitable Zone". IMO.

Thanks again.



edit on 15-5-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:15 PM
What makes us think that, an advanced alien race requires a planet to live on any way ?

Who is to say that an advanced race of beings even exist in the same fashion that we think they do ?

With what understanding, as to why an advanced race of beings would even want us to find them?

And with what knowledge, make us think we are the top of the being list?

The only way we will ever find a race of beings that are more advanced that us is for us to clean up our own house first. Once we get our act together as a planet then may be we might perk some other beings interests.

As long a death and mayhem rule the planet we are just another under aged society that need to get there act together.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

Your contributions are a welcome extension of friendly lively debate to consider extended options of thought. When one digs to the deepest realms of thought though, one can only truly believe that old old expression; "I think, therefore I am".

Let me extend a nice little humorous excerpt said during my wife's father-in-law's funeral (who was a renowned physiological neurochemist), you can place the ethnicity where you please.

"A british man aboard a jet in Paris is set to go home as the stewardess approaches him asking if he would like a cup of tea. The man replies 'I think not' and poof! he vanishes.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by elevenaugust
Okay, where to begin?

the final proof of extraterrestrial life will be found within the century.

Sorry, I have a problem with that.
This year is 2011.
That means we still have ninety years left in this century.
That is a boatload of time as far as technology is concerned.

Let me tell YOU what is going to happen.
In less than a decade, there will be some sort of technological breakthrough and there will be another industrial revolution. Except it will dwarf any progress this planet has ever made. And in less than a quarter of a century we will be dropping bulldozers on at least every planet in our solar system. And in that century that you mentioned, we will not only know about ET's, we will be in an all out war with them.

All of your telescopes and radars are cool and interesting, but in the end, we will find those aliens with spaceships and good old fashioned footwork.


posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:25 PM
I have to leave now as I have this uncontrollable urge to cook a biological carcass in active fermented fruit with some fungus added to serve over fluffy white rice to ingest and later discard in a mutated form of what it once was. I have much work to do.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:27 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Thanks Slayer, and great post too!

I think we shouldn't limit ourselves by just searching for "Earth sized" planets in habitable zones. Other larger and smaller planets in the same zone may also contain life. If we are just looking for another planet to colonize then yes we need similar atmosphere and gravity etc which an Earth sized planet may offer. But, If we are searching strictly for signs of "Life" it may have found a way to develop on any number of sized planets in the "Habitable Zone. IMO.

I agree, and I'm not sure that there's a consensus in the scientist community about this important question.
I think that some scientists limit their research for "Earth-sized" planets within habitable zones in order to increasing their chances finding life, according to their own conception of what life is, i-e similar to what we know on Earth...
And I also think that some other scientists do think exactly like you and extend their research as far as they can.

Maybe I should add a chapter to my paper about Astrobiology in the sense of Planetary habitability and extremophiles organisms (and that was the point of many ATS members in this thread as well), here's an interesting extract from the wiki page:

There are many different classes of extremophiles that range all around the globe, each corresponding to the way its environmental niche differs from mesophilic conditions. These classifications are not exclusive. Many extremophiles fall under multiple categories. For example, organisms living inside hot rocks deep under Earth's surface are both thermophilic and barophilic.

An organism with optimal growth at pH levels of 3 or below

An organism with optimal growth at pH levels of 9 or above

An organism that lives in microscopic spaces within rocks, such as pores between aggregate grains; these may also be called Endolith, a term that also includes organisms populating fissures, aquifers, and faults filled with groundwater in the deep subsurface.

An organism requiring at least 0.2M concentrations of salt (NaCl) for growth

An organism that can thrive at temperatures between 80–122 °C, such as those found in hydrothermal systems

An organism that lives underneath rocks in cold deserts

An organism (usually bacteria) whose sole source of carbon is carbon dioxide and exergonic inorganic oxidation (chemolithotrophs) such as Nitrosomonas europaea; these organisms are capable of deriving energy from reduced mineral compounds like pyrites, and are active in geochemical cycling and the weathering of parent bedrock to form soil

capable of tolerating high levels of dissolved heavy metals in solution, such as copper, cadmium, arsenic, and zinc; examples include Ferroplasma sp. and Cupriavidus metallidurans

An organism capable of growth in nutritionally limited environments

An organism capable of growth in environments with a high sugar concentration

An organism that lives optimally at high hydrostatic pressure; common in the deep terrestrial subsurface, as well as in oceanic trenches

An organism that qualifies as an extremophile under more than one category

An organism capable of survival, growth or reproduction at temperatures of -15 °C or lower for extended periods; common in cold soils, permafrost, polar ice, cold ocean water, and in or under alpine snowpack

Organisms resistant to high levels of ionizing radiation, most commonly ultraviolet radiation, but also including organisms capable of resisting nuclear radiation

An organism that can thrive at temperatures between 60–80 °C

Combination of thermophile and acidophile that prefer temperatures of 70–80 °C and pH between 2 and 3

An organism that can grow in extremely dry, desiccating conditions; this type is exemplified by the soil microbes of the Atacama Desert

Each of these types have alive examples in Earth, so there's no reason to not believe that it could be possible in any extrasystem....

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:35 PM
The exsistance of ETs will most likely be disclosed by the private sector as that would allow the Goverments to say" we didnt know"

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by elevenaugust

Thanks for the link/article.

I posted on another thread recently where they were discussing a priority survey that NASA was circulating. The 3 options were should we explore the ice moons, Mars or return to the moon. I opted for the ice moons. No way of telling what potential life could be down deep below the ice crust where possible volcanic vents may be sustaining life.

This was countered by another poster who expressed their idea that there needs to be more done here on Earth first instead of spending money on these types of projects. I didn't reply. I actually agree to a certain extent. However, I also feel strongly in favor of exploration. Understanding the Cosmos and our place in it will IMO bring us closer together as a species more so than anything else.

Call me a romantic but this is how I've always felt.

I'm sure I'm not alone.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by jsettica

There is a scientific formula that also leaves hundreds of millions of years of evolution up to debate. Our sun is a 3rd generation star which is important because heavier atomic compounds can only be produced by earlier star explosions, or much larger gravitational collusion our sun is not capable of. With only a hydrogen and helium star base (in the early universe) no life can ever form, one needs a star formed from heavier elements from the cataclysmic forces of fusion of elementally formed heavier elements of solar systems of past.

A third generation star wasn't around billions of years ago, we may be the top of the elemental food chain so to speak, but one million years off of that theory could make a 'world' of difference, from hunters and gatherers to an elevated life form beyond us, or our detection.

The early universe was void of heavy elements until stars created them, after which stars could even be created themselves, after atoms could bind to begin with, hydrogen being the first of which.

If we are not to apply the scientific observations we have discovered to be repeatable then why don't we just sit in a room with Deep Purple blasting on a stereo and get high and dream up anything imaginable and call it science then?

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:49 PM
Very interesting...Good post!

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by Illustronic

Thanks vary interesting Post.

If we are not to apply the scientific observations we have discovered to be repeatable.

That is the problem, we are not repeatable, and to think that we even understand how the universe works because we have bin around what a few 100 thousands years. That is an over estimation of what we think we know.

Our ideas of how the universe works, never the less of how our solar system works are lacking to many degrees.

I don't know what we are, or if we are even capable of understanding where we are or what this all means to say just because we live on this planet and think that every other world out there copy's us is just a indication of how little we know of what is out there. Much the less of how it all works.

I still think until we fix our own world, and show to other beings that are watching us that we can change how we do things, and make this world a better place to live on.

Is a better thing to do.

But hay all in good fun anyway.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:38 PM
I agree with the OP, in fact, I'd even add, I'm a firm believer in the Singularity.I believe in my lifetime we will see huge changes in the way we think, live and understand the world around us.

This industrial revolution that someone remarked upon earlier, is, in fact, the information revolution. Computing power and the ability to access it will be a game changer.

I also believe that a move from 'top down' industry to 'bottom up' will make a huge impact on ours lives, if and when we can implement the technologies necessary at the right cost.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:50 PM
When I got to the

European extremely large telescope and overwhelmingly large telescope, I couldn't help but think it is an April fools joke. Who named these devices!?

top topics
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in