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.

 

Who says you can't get here from there?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Well, this is where the ET theory gets a bit sticky ... What is their purpose for being here? Basically any purpose you assign their visiting is illogical. So yes, logically they could exist, logically they could get here, but it is completely illogical that they have. List any purpose, I will show you how that purpose makes zero sense.


I don't think "illogical" is the right word. How can we accurately speculate on the motivations of an intelligence we know absolutely nothing about? They may have perfectly good reasons that are beyond our comprehension. Just because something seems illogical to us is no reason to declare it "objectively illogical", whatever that would mean. But assuming they do have some similarities to us, how about simple curiosity? Is it illogical of us to climb Mount Everest? Or to explore the ocean floor? Those things are difficult, yet we do them for some reason. And who is to say that interstellar travel is prohibitively difficult for every intelligent species who has ever existed or will ever exist? And if it isn't for them, why should it be for those who exist right now? Do you suppose that everything we do now would seem logical to Stone Age people? And do you assume that if humans were to find - a million years or so down the road - an easy method of interstellar travel, we would just shrug our shoulders and say, "Meh, sure we could do it. But why bother?"




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Because there are two possibilities. One is that they wish to remain anonymous, one is that they don't. With the technology required to reach here (staggeringly far beyond what we could imagine) they would be able to remain anonymous with ease. So the only alternative is they do not wish to remain anonymous, in which case we would see them much more commonly, and it would not be a debate that they exist or not. Instead what we have is them appearing to remain anonymous, but unable to do so. This is completely illogical as if they wished to be anonymous we would never have the faintest of ideas they existed.

If the Govt. wished to study you, you would never know. An alien species far more advanced than our wildest dreams can't do the same?


I would submit that one can't jump to the conclusion that their movements around our planet would be beyond our perception just because the propulsion systems they employ are advanced. Our technology is perhaps a few millions years more advanced than those utilized by chimpanzees...we can certainly cover distances in vehicles beyond their comprehension, at speeds that to them might seem impossible or frightening. But, if we get close enough to them - and slow down long enough - to observe them and their culture...there are certainly going to be "human sightings" from time to time.

In addition, I think there is a third possibility. That is, "they don't care". If, as they go about their business, we see them...fine. If we don't see them...whatever.

They do seem to react if we attempt to intercept them, or to interact with them. So, except for instances where they chose to do some up close study (or interference as the case may be), and they seek out individuals themselves...they do tend to want to stay away from contact.

There have been (reported) instances where they may want to send a political message of sorts...like when they appear over missile silos and disable all of the launch systems. Or, I suppose, it is possible that whatever sensor systems they use to probe such weapons systems...have the consequence of rendering them inoperable for a period of time.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Because there are two possibilities. One is that they wish to remain anonymous, one is that they don't. With the technology required to reach here (staggeringly far beyond what we could imagine) they would be able to remain anonymous with ease. So the only alternative is they do not wish to remain anonymous, in which case we would see them much more commonly, and it would not be a debate that they exist or not. Instead what we have is them appearing to remain anonymous, but unable to do so. This is completely illogical as if they wished to be anonymous we would never have the faintest of ideas they existed.


Why do you think that 'their' wishes, hypothetically, must be 1 of 2 extremes, "always seen" vs. "always hidden"? You might be stuck thinking only in terms of black and white. There are several compelling possibilities that could explain why 'they' are sometimes seen, sometimes not:
1) they don't care if they're seen
2) they'll reveal themselves gradually.

And we can't assume only one species (or its AI) is behind all of this, nor can we assume that multiple species would agree on the best approach to revealing this much wider reality to the self-absorbed natives. (That's us!) So we must add:
3) some species don't care if they're seen, some do.

To me, thinking big-picture and considering longer time scales, these are much more logical possibilities than either of the two extremes you seem to be forcing on the situation. Why assume uniformity, coordination and single-mindedness by all of 'them'? And even if it IS all somehow coordinated -- Earth as Class B "Airspace", Galactic FAA waiver required for those wishing to be seen down there! -- then the gradual revealing of their presence is exactly what I'd expect.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 

Nothing annoys me more than a scientist putting theories together and acting like they are facts without any real proof. What? So is this scientist saying that a rocket is the only way to get around space? That is stupid ETs might have a freakin teleportation device that allows them to get from point A to point B in no time at all. This also reminds me of what stephen hawking said about how all aliens coming to this planet would result in how Christopher Columbus was with the Indians. What? We have even grown to be more mature than that and the farthest we have gotten is the moon. Dont you think that another species who has harnessed deep space transportation would also be passed the point of just going in a trying to conquer an entire planet? I do. The Only thing Hawking is going on is something that earthlings have experienced, we cant go by that when thinking about how ETs would react and yet he acts like it is fact or something.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
i try telling people this all the time, well not all the time, then id look crazy, but when the convosation goes that way. and people just look at me like im crazy, people that are completely willing to accept the existance of ghosts, but not the idea of intelligent life on another planet. weird



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by eyesontheskies
 


I think you've missed the mark in your interpretation of what Haisch is saying. Actually, he's saying the exact opposite of what you seem to think he's saying. How about giving the article another read?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I wonder if an intelligent species would even bother doing the attempt. I mean it would be fairly pointless if they focus on technology advancement. If it take 10,000 years to visit the nearest planet with possible life on it with "current" technology, its easier to simply assume that in 10,000 years you have the technology to do it instantly (or considerably faster).

The universe would be a very sad place if advanced insterstellar flight is proven physically impossible, regardless of the degree of technology. Especially since it mean there is only one type of space travellers - those that move their entire civilization with them. Who would more than likely be rather unpleasant to meet...



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Another thought provoking thread mate and when it comes to the 'huge distance' assumption, I suppose sufficiently advanced civilisations could live 'off planet' in self contained ships free from the dangers of earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves etc.. thus negating the distance problem slightly.

Here's what Carl Sagan had to say about the subject (and aliens visiting the moon) when he was speculating about ET in 1962:




"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"


link


Cheers.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
Now, I'm not exactly "married up" to the extraterrestrial hypothesis necessarily, but I do consider it a totally valid - if not likely - explanation for a subset of the unexplained UFO reports that I've come across in my few years of looking into this stuff. I'm open to lots of other ideas. Interdimensional? Sure, why not. Entirely of human making? Possibly. Seems really unlikely to me, but probably wouldn't be any weirder than "interdimensional". But why not just plain old ET?

We know there are other planets out there. Extra dimensions are pretty much theoretical at this point, right? Furthermore, there seems to be a consensus these days among anyone whose opinion is worth anything that there could be life on these other planets...intelligent life even. We have no idea how common or rare the occurrence of intelligent life is once life itself takes hold somewhere. We have a sample size of exactly one and a whole lot of speculation. There is absolutely no reason to think that there are not intelligent species out there that are a million years ahead of us technologically. Do you feel confident speculating about what kind of technology Homo sapiens might be utilizing in the year 1,002,012 (if we make it that far) or what our understanding of nature might be?

This is why I bristle a bit when people try to tell me about the speed of light, as though I had never thought of that before. It's too far, they say. You can't "get here from there". It would take too damn long. Nobody's going to sit in a friggin' spaceship for 40,000 years to come to this planet.

Well I declare these people to be suffering from a lack of imagination.

And so does Bernard Haisch:


I agree completely that if the only way to get from star system A to star system B is to travel at sublight speed, this rules out frequent visitation. You might expect a visit once every ten thousand years (to cite a number I believe Carl Sagan once pulled out of his hat) even if the galaxy is teeming with civilizations. The questions is, are there conceivable alternatives to slogging through space? Maybe.


What? Who's Bernard Haisch??


President Digital Universe Foundation (2004-present)

Chief Science Officer ManyOne Networks, Inc. (2002-2009)

Director California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics, Palo Alto (1999-2002)

Staff Scientist Lockheed Martin, Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Palo Alto (1979-1999)

Scientific Editor The Astrophysical Journal (1993-2002)

Deputy Director Center for EUV Astrophysics, Univ. Calif., Berkeley (1992-1994)

Visiting Fellow Max-Planck-Institut fuer Extraterr. Physik, Garching, Germany (1991-1994)

Editor-in-Chief Journal of Scientific Exploration (1988-1999)

Visiting Scientist The Astronomical Institute, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands (1977-1978)

Research Associate Joint Inst. Lab. Astrophysics, Univ. Colorado, Boulder (1975-1977, 1978-1979)

Ph.D. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Astronomy (1975)

B.S. with High Distinction Indiana University, Bloomington, Astrophysics (1971)


He's just a scientist. He also has a website called ufoskeptic where, among other awesomely-written and intelligent articles and essays, you can read one entitled Extraterrestrial Visitation: The Speed-of-Light-Limit Argument. It's the first one on the top of the page. In addition there are analyses of a number of well-known unknowns and some cogent words on the Condon Report.

I highly recommend reading Haisch's stuff. Educate yourself.


edit on 23-6-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)


I am saying it!


You should educate yourself. Educate yourself on the difficulties of space travel. All you have posted are assumptions based on imagination and blind faith. You should add a little logic ,to police your imagination gone rampant.


Who cares how many plausible planets with life exists. Space travel is mind blowing difficult. And assuming some imaginative being is million years advance is ridiculous.

There are 3 vital points in being successful with space travel(which are impossible for us to achieve).

1) Lighspeed=short travels
2) Controlled Event Horizon=long travels
3) Life support

We have not advanced in space aviation since the late 60's. We basically hit a wall. The fastest man made object is the Voyager Probe. And it uses an orbital sling shot. Its currently leaving our solar system ,and in those past 35 years it has traveled one full "light day". Get it?

So we are not going anywhere any time soon. And soon meaning ,in your great great great grand children's time.

So assuming some being (any being) has mastered those 3 points is massively being Desperate. You need to wake up and learn the difficulties of space travel.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



Because there are two possibilities. One is that they wish to remain anonymous, one is that they don't.


Why limit yourself to these either/or solutions? Other possibilities include lights for display, illumination and propulsion.

In terms of display (flashing, multi-coloured effects), this would suggest the lights as a medium and, by extension, one could suspect a message. A message requires a recipient, but who that might be is, once more, open to speculative possibilities. Anonymity would therefore be selective and partial.

Reported sightings near or over AFBs are similarly rich in interpretation. For example, what effect might a displayed (flashing or static light) presence have on a military mind? It could be interpreted as militarily intimidating. So perhaps the lights have an ulterior psychological advantage.

Outcomes of propulsion are another possibility. A NASA scientist called Paul R Hill is probably the main guy for this angle. In his book, he related the perceived colours of UFOs to the photon energy they were emitting in ionising radiation. He noted that red and orange are commonly reported colours and suggested that these represented low-power states for UFOs. Jacques Vallee also wrote about power outputs in this rather dull paper.

Another researcher, Professor Michael Swords, wrote about a number of UFO reports that seemed to indicate that they were specifically aimed at the observers. In essence, they required a privileged view which would conform to the partial anonymity idea and also the idea of transferring a message. If there was a message, it was inevitably lost on the witnesses, but the details may have been understood elsewhere.


So they are able to travel here and have the superior technology to do so ... but have to rely on lights for communication? seriously? I limit myself only to that which is logical. Its like saying we have aircraft carriers, but we can only communicate using smoke signals.

As far as propulsion, since they can disappear this is also not a logical explanation. If these lights were a direct result of their propulsion system it would always be visible.

As far as intimidating our military ... you seriously think lights are going to do that? Is that how we intimidate people, we flash some lights above them? Again no logic there.

So far you have failed to present any solution that stands up to a simplest test of logic. Either they want to be seen, or they dont. They cant seem to make up their minds.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Well, this is where the ET theory gets a bit sticky ... What is their purpose for being here? Basically any purpose you assign their visiting is illogical. So yes, logically they could exist, logically they could get here, but it is completely illogical that they have. List any purpose, I will show you how that purpose makes zero sense.


I don't think "illogical" is the right word. How can we accurately speculate on the motivations of an intelligence we know absolutely nothing about? They may have perfectly good reasons that are beyond our comprehension. Just because something seems illogical to us is no reason to declare it "objectively illogical", whatever that would mean. But assuming they do have some similarities to us, how about simple curiosity? Is it illogical of us to climb Mount Everest? Or to explore the ocean floor? Those things are difficult, yet we do them for some reason. And who is to say that interstellar travel is prohibitively difficult for every intelligent species who has ever existed or will ever exist? And if it isn't for them, why should it be for those who exist right now? Do you suppose that everything we do now would seem logical to Stone Age people? And do you assume that if humans were to find - a million years or so down the road - an easy method of interstellar travel, we would just shrug our shoulders and say, "Meh, sure we could do it. But why bother?"


You completely missed my point. Do they wish to remain hidden, or do they wish to be seen, or not care if they are seen? First you have to choose one.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Because there are two possibilities. One is that they wish to remain anonymous, one is that they don't. With the technology required to reach here (staggeringly far beyond what we could imagine) they would be able to remain anonymous with ease. So the only alternative is they do not wish to remain anonymous, in which case we would see them much more commonly, and it would not be a debate that they exist or not. Instead what we have is them appearing to remain anonymous, but unable to do so. This is completely illogical as if they wished to be anonymous we would never have the faintest of ideas they existed.

If the Govt. wished to study you, you would never know. An alien species far more advanced than our wildest dreams can't do the same?


I would submit that one can't jump to the conclusion that their movements around our planet would be beyond our perception just because the propulsion systems they employ are advanced. Our technology is perhaps a few millions years more advanced than those utilized by chimpanzees...we can certainly cover distances in vehicles beyond their comprehension, at speeds that to them might seem impossible or frightening. But, if we get close enough to them - and slow down long enough - to observe them and their culture...there are certainly going to be "human sightings" from time to time.

In addition, I think there is a third possibility. That is, "they don't care". If, as they go about their business, we see them...fine. If we don't see them...whatever.

They do seem to react if we attempt to intercept them, or to interact with them. So, except for instances where they chose to do some up close study (or interference as the case may be), and they seek out individuals themselves...they do tend to want to stay away from contact.

There have been (reported) instances where they may want to send a political message of sorts...like when they appear over missile silos and disable all of the launch systems. Or, I suppose, it is possible that whatever sensor systems they use to probe such weapons systems...have the consequence of rendering them inoperable for a period of time.





So how does a chimpanzee see the satellite in orbit keeping track of it? Do you think it would be impossible to spy on a chimpanzee without it knowing? Of course you could make yourself aware, that is exactly my point. If you wanted to stay hidden you would not drive up in a jeep!!! You would only do so if you did not care if you were spotted. Chimpanzees see humans all the time, they "know" we exist, there is no doubt. You only proved my point. Which is it, do they not care if we see them, in which case why is there doubt? If they do not want us to see them why would we have any inkling at all they exist?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Because there are two possibilities. One is that they wish to remain anonymous, one is that they don't. With the technology required to reach here (staggeringly far beyond what we could imagine) they would be able to remain anonymous with ease. So the only alternative is they do not wish to remain anonymous, in which case we would see them much more commonly, and it would not be a debate that they exist or not. Instead what we have is them appearing to remain anonymous, but unable to do so. This is completely illogical as if they wished to be anonymous we would never have the faintest of ideas they existed.


Why do you think that 'their' wishes, hypothetically, must be 1 of 2 extremes, "always seen" vs. "always hidden"? You might be stuck thinking only in terms of black and white. There are several compelling possibilities that could explain why 'they' are sometimes seen, sometimes not:
1) they don't care if they're seen
2) they'll reveal themselves gradually.

And we can't assume only one species (or its AI) is behind all of this, nor can we assume that multiple species would agree on the best approach to revealing this much wider reality to the self-absorbed natives. (That's us!) So we must add:
3) some species don't care if they're seen, some do.

To me, thinking big-picture and considering longer time scales, these are much more logical possibilities than either of the two extremes you seem to be forcing on the situation. Why assume uniformity, coordination and single-mindedness by all of 'them'? And even if it IS all somehow coordinated -- Earth as Class B "Airspace", Galactic FAA waiver required for those wishing to be seen down there! -- then the gradual revealing of their presence is exactly what I'd expect.



I did not say they must be always seen or always hidden. I said they must wish to remain hidden, or not care if they are seen. It can not be both, it must be one or the other. So pick one, or tell me how they can logically want to be hidden while not caring if they are seen.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


Who cares how many plausible planets with life exists. Space travel is mind blowing difficult. And assuming some imaginative being is million years advance is ridiculous.


Why is it ridiculous? Do you think we are the pinnacle of intelligent life in the entire Universe? If I had to guess, I would probably say that we are somewhere in the "average" spectrum, with half of intelligent species behind us and the other half in advance of us. At what point in the history of the cosmos did any environment become hospitable to life? How early might intelligent civilizations have existed? Anyway, speculating about intelligent extraterrestrial life is in itself "assuming some imaginative being".
edit on 23-6-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

You completely missed my point. Do they wish to remain hidden, or do they wish to be seen, or not care if they are seen? First you have to choose one.


Why do I have to choose one? I don't claim to know the motivations of some hypothetical species. I guess I did miss your point.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Because logically it can not be both. It has to be one, you do not have to know their mind and choose the "right" one, but logic dictates it must be one or the other. Your refusal to choose one for a thought experiment is due to the fact that you understand the moment you choose one logic will refute that possibility. Then if you choose the other logic will refute that possibility. If both are illogical, and logic dictates one must be true, then logically the only conclusion is that no alien species are visiting Earth.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


Who cares how many plausible planets with life exists. Space travel is mind blowing difficult. And assuming some imaginative being is million years advance is ridiculous.


Why is it ridiculous? Do you think we are the pinnacle of intelligent life in the entire Universe? If I had to guess, I would probably say that we are somewhere in the "average" spectrum, with half of intelligent species behind us and the other half in advance of us. At what point in the history of the cosmos did any environment become hospitable to life? How early might intelligent civilizations have existed? Anyway, speculating about intelligent extraterrestrial life is in itself "assuming some imaginative being".
edit on 23-6-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



You and I will never know if we are the pinnacle of the universe. Never.. So why think about it. Get it?

The "average spectrum" part is an opinion= Self imaginative dogma made in your mind. Fueled by hope. HOPE=the cousin of "blind faith".


And your "what point in history of the cosmos" question is a another perfect example of what I am stating here? Its ridiculous..... Its like a football coach gets the Gatorade splash one minute into the first-quarter of game.

Understand?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


Who cares how many plausible planets with life exists. Space travel is mind blowing difficult. And assuming some imaginative being is million years advance is ridiculous.


Why is it ridiculous? Do you think we are the pinnacle of intelligent life in the entire Universe? If I had to guess, I would probably say that we are somewhere in the "average" spectrum, with half of intelligent species behind us and the other half in advance of us. At what point in the history of the cosmos did any environment become hospitable to life? How early might intelligent civilizations have existed? Anyway, speculating about intelligent extraterrestrial life is in itself "assuming some imaginative being".
edit on 23-6-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)


Why do you think we are not? What empirical evidence do you use to ascertain the fact that we are average? There is nothing wrong with flights of fancy, just dont confuse them reality.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Alcubierre drive. 'Nuff said.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by angrysniper
 


Actually, no, not 'nuff said. You just proved it is illogical for aliens to be visiting Earth. Thanks!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join