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

page: 11
101
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Almost everyone in the common folk says that extraterrestrial life is improbable, without giving it another thought...Just speculate: The age of the earth is just a minuscule fraction of that of the universe...we fail to see that there are another gazillion star systems scattered around the void...and that they might just as well have planets in the habitable zone...and perhaps even life. This 'mentality' that has been spoon-fed by our religious books might just as well be a misconception. The books might be trying to tell a totally different tale than what is understood today. Well, our understanding depends on the standpoint we're obtaining knowledge from. If we can just maintain a scientific outlook and check out those books again, I don't think any of those 'miracles' prescribed will seem miracles anymore, and we will gain the crystal clear meaning of the text.




posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Wrong thread
yes Definitely
edit on 3/21/2013 by spoonbender because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I freaking love Michio Kaku, and I absolutely believe 100% life is abundant in the universe. How ever, Dr. Kaku, does not state he believes aliens have or are visiting us at the current time. I also agree with this. An Alien race would be mind bogglingly more advanced than we are just to get to our planet. Why on Earth would they be so bold as to get caught by beings that could potentially be dangerous to them, or themselves?

I would think an advanced race would observe us from a far, where it is safe for them to do so and if they decided they wanted to make any sort of contact with us they would do so at that time.

I also disagree with the OP on the notion that Athiest's are the ones typically scared of ET. I hear time and time again of religious believers claiming ET's are demons, that they are creatures of Evil, not to trust them and pray to god if they come to you. That sounds pretty fearful to me.

I'm an athiest, ET life does not scare me. IF an alien plopped down in my living room, my fear would be circumstantial. If he merely visited me, and attempted to communicate I have no reason to fear him. I may be startled at the appearance of something unknown, but after that I'd become more curious than anything else.

The moment it was discovered communication was possible I'm sure things would get a little crazy. I'd have so many questions, and I'd likely be looking to try and answer questions for my visitor.

I have always wanted an ET/ UFO experience. In all my life, I have had 0. I haven't searched overly hard for any evidence online, but most of the supposed evidence that is presented to me is less than impressing.

I believe in ET, Do I believe 99% of UFO's are truly something unknown. Well, unknown to the observer, but not other worldly. Do I believe any of them are out of this world objects, no.

I can not with any sensible logic claim ET has visited our planet. There is literally no sound proof. This does not how ever mean they do not exist.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Here's a posting of the video from the show Aliens: The Definitive Guide. Episode 2 will be on next Tuesday on the Science Channel.




posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
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?


Great, but you're only finding exo-planets, and planets that May support life, not life, nor advanced life, nor intelligent life. Each step further you get into that search, that pea goes from pea, to grain of sand, to molecule, to atom, to quark. As well, that ocean get's bigger, and bigger and bigger.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


I agree with some of your post but this last part is subjective.


I can not with any sensible logic claim ET has visited our planet. There is literally no sound proof. This does not how ever mean they do not exist.


I don't see how anyone can logically discount close encounters from others and say there's no sound proof. I think these close encounters are evidence of alien visitation. Is it conclusive evidence by itself? No, but when you add in other factors it's very good evidence.

At the end of the day, it's basically saying everyone who has had these encounters is lying or hallucinating. We can't be egocentric in these things. We can't say, well Aliens haven't shown themselves to me so there's no evidence. Or Aliens having communicated in the subjective way I want them to so there's no evidence.

So when you say Extraterrestrial exist you have to give weight to Extraterrestrial visitation. You can't say well Aliens can't do x,y and z. You can't limit what Aliens can do based on our current technology and understanding of Physics.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I don't think this should be surprising in the least. If you simply look at the sheer size of the universe, it's literally mathematically impossible for humanity to be the only intelligent species. I just don't think people understand just how big the universe actually is.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Theimp
 


Good point and this is one of the things that leads many people to the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Theimp
 


Good point and this is one of the things that leads many people to the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist.


And why can it not be so, it only seems illogical not to think otherwise.

Peace
edit on 22-3-2013 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Michio Kaku is more of a science fiction writer than a realistic theoretical physicist.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed his "physics of the future" book, although i was turned off with his pompous "were gonna be gods!" attitude, and his frequent vainglorious reminders that he's a theoretical physicist (we haven't forgotten, Michio, you don't need to remind us every 10 pages).

Do aliens exist? Likely. Are these aliens microbial life, or non-sentient? Or do we expect to find creatures such as ourselves??

If you ask me, who cares. It's not on my top 50 things I would like to know. I'm interested in the here and now,.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


What??

Please don't start this. I remember people started belittling Edgar Mitchell when he came out and said they exist. Mitchell went from a hero to a senile old man in less than 60 seconds.

You said:


Michio Kaku is more of a science fiction writer than a realistic theoretical physicist.


Dr. Michio Kaku:


Went to the National Science Fair in high school with a home-made atom smasher built in his parents' garage.
1968, Physics B.S. (summa cum laude) from Harvard University
1972, Physics Ph.D. from University of California, Berkeley
1973, lectureship at Princeton University
25 years as Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York.
Has been a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton & New York University.


physics.about.com...

It's fine to disagree but you don't have to make claims that are just not true about him because you don't agree with him.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Hijinx
 


I agree with some of your post but this last part is subjective.


I can not with any sensible logic claim ET has visited our planet. There is literally no sound proof. This does not how ever mean they do not exist.


I don't see how anyone can logically discount close encounters from others and say there's no sound proof. I think these close encounters are evidence of alien visitation. Is it conclusive evidence by itself? No, but when you add in other factors it's very good evidence.

At the end of the day, it's basically saying everyone who has had these encounters is lying or hallucinating. We can't be egocentric in these things. We can't say, well Aliens haven't shown themselves to me so there's no evidence. Or Aliens having communicated in the subjective way I want them to so there's no evidence.

So when you say Extraterrestrial exist you have to give weight to Extraterrestrial visitation. You can't say well Aliens can't do x,y and z. You can't limit what Aliens can do based on our current technology and understanding of Physics.


I've either presented this wrong, or you have failed to interpret my words. Either way, I apologize.

I do not claim ET does not exist because it has not shown itself or communicated with us. That is meant to be a separate all together, so I'm sorry the blended together. I will be sure to be more clear and concise.

I do not believe everyone who claims to have had a close encounter has actually had a close encounter. There are plenty of phenomena that can feel very real to us, and be nothing more than hallucination, dreams or tricks of our own minds.

We understand so little about our minds, and much of the world around us is filled in by our brains rather than actually observed. Our Eyes are notorious for this, and with that I can not take a sighting of a being in the woods as a being in the woods. Even if it was there are too many variables before I could accept it as being ET. No matter how weird it looked or acted in the dark.

Abduction almost always happens in an instance where the abductee was in bed, most of these cases as real as they may have seemed for the one who experienced it, could very well have been sleep paralysis related hallucinations where the person is consciously aware of their surroundings but their body is asleep, and they are between the waking world and sleep. These types of hallucinations are almost always terrifying, and extremely vivid.

On to stories of abductees being taken from cars, fields etc. I'm not sure. Lots of testimony varies so wildly, and many individuals seem to have stories that change frequently when they are brought up for revisit. I can not say the individual did not have an experience, but I'm not convinced it was with ET. As the years progress more and more people claim to have close encounters but less and less evidence outside of hearsay is available. There are rare cases where phenomena are observed by various witnesses and maybe radar picked something up, but this isn't always the case.

With the advent of photo manipulation software, more and more convincing fakes are surfacing on the web as well. The whole thing has taken on a new cult like aspect, where individuals come up with fantastical stories, produce video or photographic evidence that is nothing more than someone's creation. I'm skeptical about Earthly visitation, there are very few pieces presented to me that convince me someone isn't playing something up.

I often find videos online of people recording the dark sky and all we see is a light. They assure us the object is there, that it is not an aircraft, that it is not the military, for us to do some digging and it's next to an airport, or a military base, or we find out it was a clever hoax.

The ET waters have been poisoned, by the public themselves.

I believe ET exists, I believe Intelligent ET exists. I do not believe they visit us on the regular. I'm pretty convinced they do not abduct people either.

Can I take away the fact someone experienced something, no. will I call them liars, no not all of them. How ever, I'm not convinced the experience was ET. We live in a strange world, and there are far too many variables before we jump to interstellar beings abducting us. Something Paranormal I will bite on some cases, ET not so much.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I know all about Michio Kaku.

I've seen his TV show sci fi science, where he himself states in the beginning "I'm a theoretical physicist [sic], and a science fiction fan".

When I said he's more a science fiction writer than a theoretical physicist, i never meant to belittle his credentials; only to highlight the chimerical nature of his reasoning.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


I understand what you're saying I just disagree when it comes to Alien Visitation.

Most of what you're saying is based on your opinion that others couldn't have experienced or saw what they said they experienced and what they saw.

Again you have pictures, video, close encounters, abduction cases, trace evidence, ancient texts, current scientific discoveries and on top of that my own personal experience.

I saw two U.F.O.'s and I wasn't scared or hallucinating when I saw them.

One occurred when I went out on the balcony and the U.F.O. passed right in front of me.

The second time occurred while I was walking to the store across the street and as I was walking through the parking lot, the U.F.O. passed right in front of me.

My point is, people don't forget these experiences when they see them. People just don't become dumb and start to hallucinate when they see these things.

Pilots, Police Officers and those in the military shouldn't be reduced to Forrest Gump when they witness these things.

I just think once you accept the proposition that extraterrestrial exist, how can you then limit what, where and when they can do things based on our current understanding of technology and the laws of physics?



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Okay, a UFO sighting is simply the sighting of an Unidentified flying object. There are millions of reportings of UFO's. What makes it ET?

What about your sighting makes you believe what you saw was ET craft. I respect you saw something, I am not calling you or anyone else an idiot, or trying to degrade you for seeing what you saw. I would respect a description of your encounter.

I'm curious, I'm going to ask lots of questions, but I am not trying to ridicule you or anyone else.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


First, I think it's great you have a different opinion than I do because that makes for a healthy debate. If we were all monolithic in our thinking, the world would be less interesting.

I connect what I saw and what I see and hear from others to Extraterrestrials because they fit similar descriptions from abduction cases, close encounters and ancient text. Also, I just accept I can't limit what they can do once I have reached the conclusion that they exist based on the available evidence.

You highlight a good point.

I don't know anyone that says U.F.O.'s don't exist. These are unidentified flying objects. So I think it would be wise to really put money into the research as to the origin of these objects that are detected by radar and can easily evade our aircraft. We need to do research into these things with an open mind with Extraterrestrials as a probable explanation.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by milomilo

Originally posted by Mykey057420

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by drakus

Originally posted by raj10463

we are alone until proven otherwise

I disagree.
We don't know which one is it.
But it is dead simple to prove they exist. As soon as we find either living people, or indications of civilization.
How would you prove there are no people besides us?

Right now, we-just-don't-know, there's nothing wrong with not having an answer yet.
And it is certainly no excuse to invent stories to hide that we don't know.


Exactly.

There is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know". We could make assumptions and form a belief based on the evidence, but frankly, we don't know. Like I said earlier, I personally think the available evidence (which is by definition circumstantial) is telling me that life elsewhere in the universe exists. I certainly BELIEVE that, but I don't KNOW that. And neither does science (yet).

There is no disgrace in not "knowing" something. I'm not sure why people feel the need to make themselves think that they "know" something when all they can do with the evidence at hand is "believe" something.

And going back to the premise of the OP...Even Machio Kaku does not "know" life exists elsewhere. He -- just like me -- can only assume (or believe) it exists, because the available circumstantial evidence tells us it does.

edit on 3/20/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)





I think based on the Drake equation we can claim "knowledge". Even with extremely conservative estimates.

It's a forgone conclusion life has evolved elsewhere, the size of the universe guarantees it.
I think the real tipping point for these scientist is all the planets we keep discovering. To claim less than being sure, would be dishonest.


basing a statistical probabilities on limited knowledge will result in error.

the forgone conclusion you mention is based on theory and not a proven fact. until hard science can produce life in the lab , ONLY THEN can science predict life on another place. Knowing the exact paramenters are paramount for correct statistic, if based on theories then your data will be flawed beyond usable.

science should move from these 'concensus' thingy as it dilute the science part and increase the b.s part.

the current global warming fiasco debate are based on insufficient data modelling that resulted in wrong conclusion. worse, the global warming data and concensus are used to drive political gain thus further diluting the real science/truth and increase the data manipulation.

the anecdote of "millions of monkeys typing for millions of years wont produce the work of even the lowliest poet let alone shakespeare" is still true and should a warning for using statistic for your own justification

BUT if you are saying this is a BELIEF SYSTEM then thats your right, just dont state is as FACT.

regards



I disagree, give me enough monkeys and enough time... A 95% paternity test is admissible in court as fact. While I'm not 100% sure life exist elsewhere intelligent or otherwise. I'm 99% sure based on statistical evidence it does. How sure do you have to be, before you declare a fact? So I'll go on stating it as Fact. I say yes the tree still makes a sound, despite you not being there to hear it. This isn't a problem of observation. It's a problem of statistical probability.
edit on 22-3-2013 by Mykey057420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
"Others", being out there, verses contact and interstellar travel....that is two very different things.


All we have here is a statistic of one.


I don't believe it was ever "intended" for there to be travel and contact between the likely exospecies.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I remind everyone Life has arisen at least once, given the right conditions. Based on the fact it has happened at least once. I postulate it must happen more than once given 7 x 10^22 star systems. Believing in this type of exceptionality is like believing the earth is the exact center of the universe.... Who's crazier the pope or copernicus? I'll go with the internationally renowned scientist before I side with the armchair skeptic on this one.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Well, we're obviously proof that "advanced," sentient life exists in the universe. So, I don't see how one could conclude it doesn't exist elsewhere in space, as well.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
101
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join