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.

 

Report: Invisible alien probes “could already be” in our solar system

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


This just in: there is also a china teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, between the Earth and Mars. Oh, and don't forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Sidetracked; Wouldn't it be funny if an astronaut actually brought a tea cup into orbit to ruin Bertrand Russel's analogy?
edit on 17-7-2013 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Invisible? Maybe.. why not>
But I personally think that a good number of "UFO's" that are often seen and reported are just that..
Probes from somewhere else. lol
We have our own probes orbiting, studying, and landing on other planetary bodies,
It seems like the most logical first step to discovering what is actually on another planet, distant or close.
Yeah, I think most ufo's we see probably don't even have a breathing pilot in them. lol
Some probably even "invisible".



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Excellent thread, buried under a pile of BS as usual, bla bla bla on they drone, expecting everyone to have the IQ of a fencepost.

But what really makes me upset is that on good, strong, scientific threads, not very many come on, the people just go away when the controllers walk over it with their steel toed boots.

I think its time ATS has a real ufo forum minus the same old hum drum bla bla bla stuff that seems to put off real discussion.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
"Magic's just science we don't understand yet"
- Arthur C. Clark

Clarke's three laws
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.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Of course they could! Recent technology here on Earth has shown that "invisible cloaks" for light, microwaves, and other energy that we use for our senses and sensors to "see" are possible.... so why not far better tech cloaking probes from higher tech places and beings? We only see in a limited part of the spectrum, as humans. Our tech also has its "blind spots".



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


The test is only as good as the one administering it.

YOU gave me the glass.
YOU told me it was full.

Are you a liar?



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
i remember reading that one of the russian probes on its way to one of mars moons its last picture was a metal object before it went offline and another time in the 50,s something was tracked coming from behind the sun then going back round .

i cannot remember the sources anybody hear know ??



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Heck Jim, talk about putting a fox in the hen cage. You have created an interesting thread, which I suspect most readers have not taken the time to actually look at closely.

The OP supplies two links: one to the paper by Nicholson and Forgan, the other to a news report (if that is what Yahoo!News is).

The former is a straight-out investigation into the validity of the Fermi Paradox using current scientific method and knowledge.

The latter - the news report - mixes that report with unrelated comments and observations that wildly sensationalize the subject of alien probes.

It is interesting to note that the paper by Nicholson and Forgan concludes by stating:


our results confirm that a fleet of self-replicating probes can explore the Galaxy in a timescale commensurate with those normally assumed when posing the Fermi Paradox (Hart, 1975), with powered flight at the upper limits of the timescale and slingshot flights at the lower end. Both are still orders of magnitude less than the age of the Earth, proving that the question underlying the Fermi Paradox is well-posed.

Ref: arxiv.org...

Essentially, Nicholson and Forgan are saying that yeah, the Fermi Paradox seems to be valid, even though previous assumptions about the paradox are false. The paradox holds-up because if beings could build probes to explore all the galaxy (and there has been the time to do so), then it is fair to assume that they would do so, yet, apparently we have not yet detected any such alien exploration.

So, given that enough time has passed and that such an exploration is technically possible, where are the alien probes? We have not discovered any, thus we think that there are none. There should be but there appear to be none. Incidentally, I cannot find anywhere in the research paper that poses the possibility of invisible probes in the Milky Way... even in reference to the Fermi Paradox.

Theorists who seek to disprove the Fermi Paradox try to get around the mathematical evidence by simply claiming that the probes are invisible. They may or may not be correct, but what explanation will they supply if we unlock that particular tech and actually disprove the "invisible probe" assertion?



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
First I must say that this kind of report and analysis is not exactly new.

The reason why we have not detected these 'probes' or 'alien artifacts' are most likely our technological limitations. Therefore why refer to a paradox where none exists?

Before microscopes bacteria could not be resolved and people did not understand how to culture and isolate them, so was that a paradox that they could not be detected? Or was it a technological limitation.

It was a technological limitation.

Similarly alien probes, unless in near Earth orbit or close to the Earth or a large size, will remain 'invisible' to us until our ability to resolve AND recognize such objects improves.

There are also regions on Earth which are rich in some forms of life and poor in others. But it must be said that there is life all over Earth, and we are finding that it extends far down into the crust. Have we actually TESTED to see if there is life in the crust on Mars? Have we TESTED for life on the moons of our solar systems beyond our own.

No.

So no paradox, thank you. Let's bury it.

May I finally suggest it's highly possible that we are the descendants of aliens. The answer could be staring us in the face, in the trees, in the ocean, in the mirror. And no I am not joking. Life was established on Earth over 4.5 billion years ago, and all genetic trees point to a single unicellular ancestor back then. There is absolutely no reason at this point to weight towards Earth life having started 'de novo' on Earth rather than having landed on Earth.


edit on 18-7-2013 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Whats the point of discussing invisible anythings?
If its invisible, its not proveable.

Once they show up, I will be far more interested...until then, like elvis, I won't be buying tickets to a concert he is meant to be at but is unable to come to because is dead (or unwilling to come to because he wants people to think he is dead)....either way, paying for the ticket leads only to a empty stage...and discussing invisible aliens is the same as listening to the music of an empty stage



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Interesting article, although I found this bit rather unimaginitive:


In 1952, the physicist Enrico Fermi posed the question ‘Where is everybody?’ The new paper shows that it is technically possible, at least, that alien probes could be here - once again begging the question of why they have not communicated with us.


The paper linked below is a really good read if you're interest is piqued by the article in the OP.

Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by Druscilla
 


The test is only as good as the one administering it.

YOU gave me the glass.
YOU told me it was full.

Are you a liar?


And how is that any kind of productive to the advancement of the conversation at all?

In reality, metaphorically, the Article, the OP gave you the glass (our solar system. our galaxy).
The "you" YOU should be getting all caps happy about is the whole Fermi Paradox.

The glass should be full?
Fermi says it should be full?

So far, all evidence indicates there is no evidence; the glass is empty.

Invisible undetectable coffee in my glass does absolutely nothing for me.
Speculating about whether there's coffee in my glass doesn't help either.

If I can't see it, smell it, taste it (detect it), it's worthless to me.

So tell us, are you admiring that new invisible cloak and crown in the mirror, or, are you going to put down the Emperor's New Clothes and quit thinking what and how everyone else tells you to think until you actually have something?



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by DaTroof
 


Or it could be that the Aliens tech is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than our own.
If we could go back in time just fifty years, our current tech would probably be considered magic.


No, not at all. Fifty years ago, at least to well-educated scientists, all of our current technology would be quite predictable and entirely understandable. How much do you think scientists understood in 1963? They were designing the Saturn V at that time. I was sending email in 1985, across computer networks.

Our lack of progress in nuclear power, space and air travel would be a severe disappointment, but progress in communications and computers would be as they expected.

Here's 45 years ago, the Mother of all Demos, 1968. sloan.stanford.edu...
Heck, here's some computer code from 1968 which is still as effective as today, a real-valued FFT.

www.netlib.org...


Non-computer and non-communication technology is not substantially different from JFK's era. He rode in a petroleum powered Cadillac. Today's president rides in a petroleum powered Cadillac. He flew in a jet. Today's president flies in a jet. Only difference is that the food is worse today and you can watch cartoons.
edit on 18-7-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Ok then let me say - I was addressing the ones that are clearly ignorant. I am not speaking on behalf of all but there are lots who would not think outside the box. The point is, one should always put things with a question mark as long as there is possibility.

Example: We have lots of UFO cases, are aliens here? No one can say yet but is it possible out of all these cases to have something true? Why not? Then if there is such possibility, why not have an invisible probe.

Science would say: There is no evidence, no such things have been found, so no, there are no probes.

But the lack of knowledge about something, does it exclude it - just because Cassini hasn't zoomed in and has no invisibility detection, does it mean someone may not be watching the planet - based on the existence of UFO documents which are some big enough to not be proven wrong, not based on pure 'I believe the flying spaghetti monster'

I've given another example in the past: I have a secret base, someone has worked there and decided to blow the whistle. His testimonies are fake or do not convince the public that there is such a base. Does this change the fact of the base's existence? No - then, lack of evidence does not always suggest not always suggest non-existence.

Of course there needs to be some sort of clues like the UFO documented cases to make a possibility, without it - that would be normal to doubt.

I do not believe in 'invisible alien probes' but theoretically, why is it impossible to be already happening - because we have no evidence? See this is the meaning of objective and open-minded, even though I do not think there are such around, I do not exclude it especially based on the existence of secrecy about ufos and what they are... the latter is the reason to be open for such a possibility, without it, I would probably laugh as well.
edit on 18-7-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfootgurl
 


Oops. Wanted to include a clip of the paper in that last post.




link



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by Druscilla
 


The test is only as good as the one administering it.

YOU gave me the glass.
YOU told me it was full.

Are you a liar?


And how is that any kind of productive to the advancement of the conversation at all?

In reality, metaphorically, the Article, the OP gave you the glass (our solar system. our galaxy).
The "you" YOU should be getting all caps happy about is the whole Fermi Paradox.

The glass should be full?
Fermi says it should be full?

So far, all evidence indicates there is no evidence; the glass is empty.

Invisible undetectable coffee in my glass does absolutely nothing for me.
Speculating about whether there's coffee in my glass doesn't help either.

If I can't see it, smell it, taste it (detect it), it's worthless to me.

So tell us, are you admiring that new invisible cloak and crown in the mirror, or, are you going to put down the Emperor's New Clothes and quit thinking what and how everyone else tells you to think until you actually have something?



I think you're overlooking the fact that, in your analogy, we should be able to detect the coffee in your glass, knowing what we know about glasses of coffee. Coffee is visible and detectable to us.

Knowing what we know about "alien probes" - which is nothing - we have no reason to suspect we would be able to detect them. That is not to say we should believe that they are there. It's not to say that there is any evidence of their presence, only that their potential existence is not inconsistent with the universe as we know it.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
What if we are the true infants of the universe..everyone else is so far along we just cant see or detect anything they do, they have long ago left fossil fuels behind and probably nuclear..they may be trans dimensional even living just out of this reality..but general science loves to think they are exactly the same..using fossil fuel rocket technology. What a joke.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Ok then let me say - I was addressing the ones that are clearly ignorant. I am not speaking on behalf of all but there are lots who would not think outside the box. The point is, one should always put things with a question mark as long as there is possibility.

Example: We have lots of UFO cases, are aliens here? No one can say yet but is it possible out of all these cases to have something true? Why not? Then if there is such possibility, why not have an invisible probe.




IMPOSSIBLE argument!
I could just as easily say there are invisible pink elephants in my bedroom.
OK, go ahead and prove me wrong.

I do have proof, as every once in a while there's a bad elephant-dung smell, ha, ha!



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
This guy knows all about the "probes" ask him!





posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 



My answer is as productive to the conversation as your original statement.
I responded to your example, not what you were, metaphorically, attempting to state. Your analogy was weak, and I was pointing it out

If the solar system is the glass then the OP didn't give it to us. Who or what did is a different question and one for each person to decide for themselves, because it is beyond our knowledge, at least at this point.

Feel free to invoke Ferni, if you'd like. He makes more assumptions than you are, regarding my views on the matter.

I hope you felt really clever while writing those last couple sentences. Don't get it twisted, I have to desire to quarrel with you. What you think in these matters really is of little consequence to me, I was merely responding to your error in thinking, regarding your analogy.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join