"They're Definitely Aliens in Outer Space" Michio Kaku

Should this be a surprise? He didn't say it's possible. He didn't say maybe. He said definitely.

He said this on The Definitive Guide to Aliens. A new show that came on the Science Channel. Most of the Scientist in the show were talking as though extraterrestrials are a forgone conclusion.

This goes back to what I said before. Humans always weigh the available evidence then reach a conclusion. We do it in all walks of life.

It's just with areas that clash with people's belief system are we supposed to tip toe around obvious evidence because we need "extraordinary evidence."

I have reached the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence. I have also reached the conclusion of visitation based on the available evidence.

I think they're a few reasons keep people from seeing the obvious based on evidence.

1. A belief system. Whether religious or atheist in nature. I actually think some in religion are actually more accepting of these things than atheist and skeptics.

In my talks with religious folks, many of them don't see a problem with the existence of extraterrestrials. When I debate atheist and skeptics they're the ones that seem scared to death of their existence. I think it's because the next natural question will be, did these advanced civilizations start some of the worlds religions. Then we have to look at things like the Bible in the context of advanced technology and not supernatural miracles.

2. I think the Bible and other text are full of Extraterrestrial Visitations and things like missing time. Like I said, if the Bible and other text is looked at from the standpoint of supernatural miracles then people can try to debate the supernatural. If it's seen in the context of advanced technology then the miracles are very easy to explain.

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

- Arthur C. Clarke

3. The egocentric view of life is disturbing to me. Basically life in the universe has to be started like life on earth. First, there's more evidence for Panspermia than there is for Abiogenesis and secondly there's no evidence that life on earth has some special ingredient that can't be duplicated anywhere else in the universe.

It was a good show and I'm looking forward to the next episode. Again, we don't need any special or extraordinary evidence, just evidence and there's plenty to support the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist.

If a pea is lost out at sea, floating on the high waves and crashing down into the never ending turbulence, do you think you could find it, if you had no idea where to look?

If not, why? You're a highly intelligent creature, far more intelligent than any pea?

If that pea is never found, does this mean that you do not exist?

Can you exist, and never find that pea?

We're that pea.

reply to post by winofiend


So True . The Law of Probability also would Confirm in Theory the Exsistance of other Intelligent Life in the Universe . From the One , come Many, is more than likely the case.......

edt.

reply to post by winofiend


However, unlike the pea, we are constantly broadcasting messages into space.

It's like if that pea had a GPS attached to it.

And unfortunately, Hitler (Of all people) was one of the first ever to give a cosmic shout out from Earth.
Not exactly a warm welcome for any visitors.

It’s unlikely that aliens are sitting around fiddling with rabbit ears in attempt to listen to our nonsense, but nevertheless, humans have been sending messages into space for decades. The first AM broadcast was on Christmas Eve, 1906, and Hitler’s broadcasting of the 1936 Olympics is regarded as the first signal powerful enough to be carried into space.

When compared to the vast size of the Milky Way, our presence here on Earth seems insignificant. Even our space-bound messages — which are traveling at the speed of light — are dwarfed by the galaxy’s immensity. The image on the left illustrates our “bubble” of existence, which spans 200 light years in all directions — but is just a small blip on the cosmic radar.

Source

the known universe (not including the rest of the undiscovered universe) is so large that there is the possibility of anything. a 99% chance that there is a planet full of only pink elephants that can fly. our universe is so big that there is a 99% chance that there is another earth, an exact replica. the universe is so big that it may as well be infinite.

reply to post by neoholographic

When I debate atheist and skeptics they're the ones that seem scared to death of their existence. I think it's because the next natural question will be, did these advanced civilizations start some of the worlds religions. Then we have to look at things like the Bible in the context of advanced technology and not supernatural miracles.

Wait what?
This statement isn't making sense to me. Was this a typo?
Maybe I just know some weirdos, but in my experience it is the religious that tend to hold on to their miracles.

Edit:
But yes, I agree that it is a certainty that intelligent life exists outside of Earth.
But I don't think it would be in our best interest if they show up here.



I like his analogy of having a conversation with a bug.

Ask your self this:
If aliens did make themselves known to us in a big public affair what do you think would be the first reaction?
We would shoot at them of course. That's what people do.

Now ask your self this:
What do you do, when you get bit by a bug?

reply to post by winofiend


I never bought this argument. With our limited technology, we're finding that pea. Just think where technology will be just 100 years from now. 60 years ago, people would have said we can never find these planets. That's just assumptions based on the current technology.

Draper Laboratory and MIT have developed a satellite the size of a loaf of bread that will undertake one of the biggest tasks in astronomy: finding Earthlike planets beyond our solar system—or exoplanets—that could support life. It is scheduled to launch in 2012.

The “nanosatellite,” called ExoPlanetSat, packs powerful, high-performance optics and new control and stabilization technology in a small package.

We're about to send up even better satellites. So if we can find the pea with our limited technology why couldn't others with more advanced technology?

Hi neoholographic. I just wanted to say hey and that i really like Michio, and i hold his statements in a high regard. I think it is very likely that there is life all over the universe. That being said, it is a heck of a stretch to say that there are definately aliens without definitive proof. Evidence is subjective. There can always be a counter argument until there is definitive proof. Very specifically, if you want proof of aliens, you will need to present an alien life form, be it a small single celled organism or a highly organized sentient being. ( either will do).

Kaku is coming from the premise that biological evolution is simply a natural product of cosmological evolution that if happened here can happen anywhere.

From that perspective he might be right in asserting that there is life out there. Unfortunately for him he is a scientist and must obey to the laws of science and to claim such things without empirical evidence , observation or experiment only further discredit him as the attention ***** he has been for the past few years on TV.

reply to post by ThinkingCap


That's assuming that they are even listening to radio or tv signals.

The pea argument is a valid one.

You could have a bright strobe light on a raft in the ocean. And you'd miss the strobe light if you weren't actively looking.

The ocean is huge and space even larger. It's like asking someone in a jet flying at 30K feet to try and find a pea in the ocean.

Originally posted by neoholographic
I never bought this argument. With our limited technology, we're finding that pea. Just think where technology will be just 100 years from now. 60 years ago, people would have said we can never find these planets. That's just assumptions based on the current technology.

This is patently false. Current technology is just about to peak beyond which the limits imposed on us by physics do not allow us to advance any further. It is a fallacious thinking to believe you can extrapolate the exponential growth of the past 2 centuries indefinitely into the future. That technological advancement was an anomaly that will never be repeated in the future. Our airplanes may seem so advanced to you, but they function on the same exact principles of the primitive rocketry that has been around for many centuries.

Originally posted by winofiend
If a pea is lost out at sea, floating on the high waves and crashing down into the never ending turbulence, do you think you could find it, if you had no idea where to look?

If not, why? You're a highly intelligent creature, far more intelligent than any pea?

If that pea is never found, does this mean that you do not exist?

Can you exist, and never find that pea?

We're that pea.

OMG best discription i have ever read. It puts the hunt for ET perfectly! I'm steeling this for my facebook page sorry

reply to post by Tennessee77


I don't agree with this at all. We reach conclusions in all walks of life because humans have reason. So we weigh the available evidence and reach a conclusion.

Scientist reached the conclusion that the Higgs Boson exists before the LHC was built.

Scientist reached conclusions about the String Theory Landscape.

Scientist have reached conclusions about extra dimensions.

Scientist have reached conclusions about a multiverse.

Scientist have reached conclusions about Hawking Radiation.

Scientist have reached conclusions about the holographic universe.

I think people misunderstand science as this rigid discipline that has to has absolute or definitive proof before conclusions can be drawn. That's just not the case.

Dark matter/energy for instance is proposed because of the missing mass in the universe. So, it doesn't take a leap of logic to reach the conclusion that dark matter/energy exist based on the available evidence. So whether it's dark matter/energy or something else, science will need to come up with a way to explain the missing mass. So it doesn't take a leap of logic to say dark matter/energy exists based on the available evidence and scientific theories.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by winofiend

 

So True . The Law of Probability also would Confirm in Theory the Exsistance of other Intelligent Life in the Universe . From the One , come Many, is more than likely the case.......

Sorry but "the law of probability" does not confirm anything. It is still only speculation.

I will be the first to admit. I think there is life everywhere but we have to confirm before we speak in absolutes. The methods we use to confirm anything should be based only on empirical evidence. Otherwise we sound like all the other crazies who "feel it is the truth".

Again, people have this crazy, rigid view of science especially when it comes to things like Extraterrestrials. You should watch a scientific debate once in awhile when both sides will argue each side like it's a fact.

This is what humans do because we have reason. We weigh the available evidence and reach a conclusion.

Kaku and others aren't reaching the conclusion that extraterrestrials exists in a vacuum, it's a conclusion reached based on the available evidence.

reply to post by neoholographic


You are right. Scientist come to all sorts of conclusions but the question is why do or should we believe them. None of the things you listed are final conclusions only proposals which need further study to determine their validity. String theory is not a broadly accepted stance on the nature of our physical universe. The higgs boson was only a proposal based on speculation and formula. It was a huge gamble to build the LHC. But it was the next step in a line of experimentation. They didnt know what they would find when they turned it on and began breaking particles into smaller pieces. But they had a really good idea based on formula and equations.

reply to post by neoholographic


Without definitive proof, ideas are still in the realm between hypothesis and theory. Unfortunately a lot of scientists have to exaggerate the merrit of their ideas in these public speaches to gain public appeal. That is how they get funding. . That is why they talk to the public like they are so sure that what they are working on is the most important priority. Also these are their ideas and they are very invested in them. Of course someone who has studied their field believes what they believe but without enough evidence to convince their peers it will remain a belief. And not a conclusive fact.

reply to post by neoholographic


By way of probability, yes aliens may exist...so with that mindset coupled with
- genuine ufo sightings from high profile personals
- multiple witness ufo sightings
- mountains of reported alien abductions cases
- ancient depictions of man in some sort "space" gear
- precision and highly complex ancient structures that somewhat depicts the position of stars in the sky.

Most of what has been listed above is taken at face value...sure some of the ufo cases may be regarded as fake? But are all the reported case fake?

And last but not the least, we are proof of intelligent life in this vast universe would you agree??? So if the universe can somehow create intelligent life on earth then why cannot this also be possible on some other solar system similar to our own???

Earth like planets may habour intelligent life

Earth-like planets could be all around us - and some may harbour life more advanced than on Earth, astronomers believe. A space telescope has found that 6% of red dwarf stars are circled by potentially habitable worlds. Since red dwarfs are the most common stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way, the closest Earth-like planet could be just 13 light years away. "We thought we would have to search vast distances to find an Earth-like planet," said US astronomer Dr Courtney Dressing.

"Now we realise another Earth is probably in our own backyard, waiting to be spotted."

NASA regarding growing number of earth-like planets

"The tremendous growth in the number of Earth-size candidates tells us that we're honing in on the planets Kepler was designed to detect: those that are not only Earth-size, but also are potentially habitable," said Natalie Batalha, Kepler deputy science team lead at San Jose State University in San Jose, Calif. "The more data we collect, the keener our eye for finding the smallest planets out at longer orbital periods."

What that in mind, now what is the likelihood of other intelligent life no different than ours , existing in this rather infinite space???

Well, if Dr. Michio Kaku can say "definitely" than what are the odds???

Peace

reply to post by Tennessee77


You answered your own question. You said:

They didnt know what they would find when they turned it on and began breaking particles into smaller pieces. But they had a really good idea based on formula and equations.

The truth is, they have a good idea as to what they would find based on the available evidence. Now they're always surprises and things occur that they didn't expect but the point is, scientist are not reaching these conclusions in a vacuum. Their looking at the available evidence.

With extraterrestrials, you have an abundance of stars and planets. You have exoplanets, You have liquid water on Mars. You have microbial life found in places where people didn't think life could exist. You have the bulding blocks of life found on meteorites and comets. They just said Mars had the right conditions to support life.

Again, there has to be counter evidence that shows why life couldn't exist elsewhere. Why couldn't the same or similar chemicals on earth form again anywhere else in the universe based on these current findings?

With science, there has to be evidence for and against the proposition.

For instance, the Higgs Boson is seen in the Standard Model. If other aspects of the Standard Model are being confirmed, then it didn't take a leap of logic to reach the conclusion that the LHC would find the Higgs Boson or something close to it before the LHC was even built.