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