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

page: 6
101
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
It's not just Kaku. Stephen Hawking said "aliens almost certainly exist."

Again, this has nothing to do with wishful thinking.

PEOPLE REACH THESE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON EVIDENCE.

Exoplanets that are a balmy 72 degrees and covered with water, liquid water on Mars. Before we even discovered liquid water on Mars, the axiom from Nasa was "where there's water, there's life." The skeptic back then said we wouldn't find liquid water especially on Mars.

We have found Microbial life in places where they said life couldn't exist.

The Building blocks of life in Comets and Meteorites.

The Vastness of space and the number of stars and planets.

The fact that the universe is fine tuned for life either by a Transcendent Creator or things like inflation, multiverse and a parent universe.

The universe is find tuned to produce stars, comets, planets and LIFE.

There's nothing in the laws of physics to prevent life from forming elsewhere.

There isn't any special ingredient that can only be found on earth and can't be produced anywhere else in the cosmos.

There's more evidence for Panspermia and it's growing than their is for Abiogenesis.

At the end of the day, people have to accept that their opinion is subjective. I keep hearing people say WE don't know. No, YOU don't know and that doesn't mean others can't reach a different conclusion than you based on the available evidence.

Also, most people who object to what Kaku said aren't providing any counter evidence just hyperbole about how science is this rigid thing when Scientist often reach conclusions based on the available evidence.

Humans have this thing called REASON and we use it all the time to weigh the evidence.




posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's not just Kaku. Stephen Hawking said "aliens almost certainly exist."


Almost.

Not something either of them can or do know, so you might as well toss Einstein and Newton on the pile as well. Makes no difference.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 




Michio Kaku is a great sci-fi writer, but a terrible scientist.

Really ?
Michio Kaku is a good scientist , writer and presenter because he speaks the language of normal people and is willing to think outside the box .

Here is what he said ,

"Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies -- that's the visible universe," Kaku says on the alien TV special.


“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”
www.huffingtonpost.com...




Just because we exist means nothing. Koala bears can be found in Australia, so they must be everywhere, right? That's his entire basis for his statement

That isn't the basis for his argument but is a pretty blinkered view of the point he's trying to make .



edit on 21-3-2013 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

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

Sure ... the Drake Equation pretty much solves that. But the real question ... are there aliens on earth? I just saw the Travis Walton 'paranormal witness' yesterday and I have to say .. YES. I'd like to see Michio Kaku and other scientists say yes to THAT question as well.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


They will eventually. The fact is, it took awhile for many of them to accept that extraterrestrials exist and make statements like Kaku or Hawkings. This is because extraterrestrial life is seen as some special formula that needs special or extraordinary evidence. If you take away these societal barriers it's been plain to see that extraterrestrials exist. We just have to let go of the egocentric view of reality and the cosmos.

Again, it's no reason that extraterrestrials can't visit earth and there's plenty of evidence that they have. Again, people will say well Aliens haven't contacted me or I haven't seen them. Or they haven't contacted earth in the subjective way I would like them to contact earth so everyone else who have had Close Encounters has to be lying or crazy. Again, a silly egocentric way of looking at things.

We're already looking for life and finding exoplanets and other star systems with our limited technology. We can do even more if the crooked Politicians didn't have use in massive debt. Missions to Titan and Europa. We can't even launch The Terrestrial Planet Finder because of lack of funding. The TPF would look for biosignatures on exoplanets.

Again, if we can look for biosignatures for life, just imagine what a type 2 or 3 civilization can do when we're a type 0 civilization.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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

Sure ... the Drake Equation pretty much solves that. But the real question ... are there aliens on earth? I just saw the Travis Walton 'paranormal witness' yesterday and I have to say .. YES. I'd like to see Michio Kaku and other scientists say yes to THAT question as well.


What do you get when you multiply a bunch of assumptions together?

N



The Drake equation solves nothing and proves nothing.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's not just Kaku. Stephen Hawking said "aliens almost certainly exist."


This is exactly what I have been saying, but you are still arguing with me about it...

The term "Almost Certainly" (or sometimes "Almost Surely") is a very specific scientific term that is used to denote an ALMOST absolute, based on the evidence at hand.

Science uses that term very carefully and deliberately because of exactly what I have been saying -- and that is that even though a preponderance of the available evidence points to the existence of ET life in the universe, that evidence is still only circumstantial, thus the use of the term "Almost Surely".

Again, I personally believe that there is life elsewhere. I'm probably 99.999999999% sure. However, in science, 99.999999999% sure is as far as they can get without having hard evidence (in this case, hard evidence means meeting/contact those aliens or finding signs of them). A good scientist would NEVER say something was 100% fact without direct hard evidence (and the size of the universe is NOT direct evidence).

Hawking, being a good scientist, understands the scientific meaning of "Almost Certainly", and probably used that term deliberately. And his views on this seem to match my views on this.



Originally posted by neoholographic
...The fact is, it took awhile for many of them to accept that extraterrestrials exist and make statements like Kaku or Hawkings....


Mainstream science has believed for years that ET life most likely exists. Most of mainstream science has believed this for decades. Look at Frank Drake. He was well-respected among his peers even 60 years ago when he developed the Drake equation.

You would have been a little hard-pressed to find a good scientist 50+ years ago who felt humans were all alone. Although I'm sure there were a few who felt that way -- just like there are a few (very very few) today. Almost all people today who feel that humans are the only life in the universe are way outside of mainstream science.

edit on 3/21/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I would argue that the Drake Equation is not meant to solve anything, and not meant to prove what you think it's supposed to.
It is a tool that demonstrates how the vastness of the galaxy can turn very small probabilities into near certainties. Nothing more. Remember that the Drake Equation applies only to the Milky Way. Expand it to the Universe and you will find that any non-zero value in the Equation's terms lead to a mathematical certainty of other life in the universe.
Whether it is intelligent or can communicate or visit the Earth are other questions, and not, I think, what Dr. Kaku means when he says 'aliens'.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I reckon we ARE extra-terrestrials.
We managed to escape from Mars before it finished the way it is today.
Now, NASA is thinking of trying to get back there which seems damn stupid as there's a strong possibility of a comet impact on October 19 2014!
There is no missing link. Civilisations rise and fall. As for aliens, tell me WHO discovered the longest line of latitude, the longest line of longitude and then founded a country where the two intersect? We all know, but how many thousands of years ago did that happen?
This planet is plastered with aliens.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by demonhauntedworld
Expand it to the Universe and you will find that any non-zero value in the Equation's terms lead to a mathematical certainty of other life in the universe.


I think you've got that inverted. Any zero value would lead to a mathematical certainty of ZERO civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible. All terms must be non-zero.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla




Gagarin said it, perhaps not exactly that way, but, it was said.
edit on 20-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)




Then he is blind. I can't imagine anywhere better to see God...
edit on 21-3-2013 by Toxicsurf because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by raj10463
 

Impossible. It is logically impossible that we are the only ones. That is so egocentric its not even funny. I love this analogy: If you went to the ocean and filled up a large bucket with water and had no fish or any other life forms in the bucket do you conclude that there is no life in the ocean?

That's an incorrect analogy. A more correct analogy is to have a bucket of water with one fish in it (life on Earth), where you have no clue as to how the fish got there. Now try to determine how big you have to make the bucket before another fish can be found in it. The key determinant is not the size of the bucket, but the mechanism by which the fish got there. And we don't know that.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outrageo
One of my favorite books on this subject. It has silenced many "we are alone" protagonists. The math is flawless. The math evidence is overwhelming. Irrefutable.

Maybe I have a dime in my pocket. Maybe I don't. You can show me all the mathematical and statistical models in the world that have to do with the probability of me having a dime in my pocket. But either I do, or I don't. I can tell you with absolute certainty that I don't have 27 percent or 98 percent of a dime in my pocket, because there's no such thing. Only one way to know for sure.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
The fact is, it took awhile for many of them to accept that extraterrestrials exist and make statements like Kaku or Hawkings. This is because extraterrestrial life is seen as some special formula that needs special or extraordinary evidence. If you take away these societal barriers it's been plain to see that extraterrestrials exist.

Really? What do they call themselves? Where are they from?



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

reply to post by draknoir2
I think you've got that inverted. Any zero value would lead to a mathematical certainty of ZERO civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible. All terms must be non-zero.

 


Exactly. And we know there is more than one (us). Therefore...
edit on 21-3-2013 by demonhauntedworld because: text



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Outrageo
One of my favorite books on this subject. It has silenced many "we are alone" protagonists. The math is flawless. The math evidence is overwhelming. Irrefutable.

Maybe I have a dime in my pocket. Maybe I don't. You can show me all the mathematical and statistical models in the world that have to do with the probability of me having a dime in my pocket. But either I do, or I don't.


Schrödinger disagrees.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mykey057420
It's a forgone conclusion life has evolved elsewhere, the size of the universe guarantees it.

Nope. Just because the universe is big doesn't mean life evolved anywhere else. Perhaps it allows for more chances for life to evolve. But it also allows for more failures. Out of all the rolls of the dice, maybe Earth is the only place where it came up snake eyes a billion times in a row. Enough for DNA to put itself together and find itself in a functioning cellular structure (because DNA by itself just sits there).



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by demonhauntedworld

reply to post by draknoir2
I think you've got that inverted. Any zero value would lead to a mathematical certainty of ZERO civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible. All terms must be non-zero.

 


Exactly. And we know there is more than one (us). Therefore...
edit on 21-3-2013 by demonhauntedworld because: text


You're not following.

ALL the terms must be non-zero in order to avoid a zero result, and even when they are, there is no degree of certainty or accuracy, as all values are arbitrary guesstimates.

It is an interesting thought experiment, nothing more.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Outrageo
One of my favorite books on this subject. It has silenced many "we are alone" protagonists. The math is flawless. The math evidence is overwhelming. Irrefutable.

Maybe I have a dime in my pocket. Maybe I don't. You can show me all the mathematical and statistical models in the world that have to do with the probability of me having a dime in my pocket. But either I do, or I don't.


Schrödinger disagrees.

Well, Schrödinger would say that I do AND I don't, which is fine for a mathematical/philosophical view of a thing that can never be directly observed. But on a practical level, the level of dimes in pockets, it really doesn't provide a very satisfying answer to the question, does it? Quantum indeterminancy don't buy no gum.

And as I've said before on other topics, on a practical level when it comes to aliens, not finding them even if they exist pretty much equates to not finding them if they don't exist. The bottom line is that we're still not interacting or experiencing aliens, which I assume is the goal. Not to just have them theoretically exist out there somewhere. What good does that do?



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
of course there is life beyond what we know . the universe is constantly expanding. the earth is like a grain a sand in an ocean of space. so......were the only planet who got lucky huh





top topics
 
101
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join