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.

 

Venus Species vs. Orion Species

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sled735
reply to post by ArdenWolf
 


There is NO life on Venus...as we know it.
The life that used to exist there was in a higher dimension on that planet, according to Ra.

There! Argument settled!


You've said several times that you don't necessarily believe this stuff, but then you make comments like the above....

Ra is confused.

Ra signing out.
edit on 9/5/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: sp




posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


Just trying to put an end to the argument of Science vs. life on Venus.

I believe it is possible. Yes, I do.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Concerning life in this solar system. We don't see everything there is, number one. And its a multiverse, number two. Those above us can see and interact down, and those below to a certain proximity, we're not that far from the bottom of the testing ground. In our realm however, things are not what we think. Even a hostile system can be terraformed, ie. worlds within, cities in space, floating cities above planets. The solar system is probably very populated on a multi level, multi frequency realms.

But when we look out into space, we can only see on our level and lower, so the universe is a hodge podge of near hellzones and hellzones really, to our naked eye.

Better to go within and connect to Soul/Source and Higher Love Frequency. Hero's are always here to lend a helping hand. Wherever there is a strong presence of negativity, a very strong presence of positivity and Love is there as well. Always.
edit on 5-9-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Thank you, Unity_99.


Good to know someone here understands. Trying to get people to comprehend this is wearing me out.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Look at it mathematically my friend....Flipping a coin....2 sides....2 possibilities....50% probable for either outcome
Dropping a cubed object....6 sides...6 possibilities....16.6% probable for any given outcome....


Actually, y'all shouldn't use these simplistic probability models in this instance; they are far too simple.


Now the hard one...

Probability of intelligent life in the Universe....


Monkeywrench time!

Son, the probability of intelligent life in this universe is exactly "1" (as in 100%) For proof I invite you to look in a mirror.




How vast is the Universe? Does the Universe behave uniformly throughout it's entirety? Is the Universe an open or closed system? Are there unknown particles or elements that may affect the possibility of "life"? Is it possible for life to exist on a different dimensional plane? etc etc..

You don't have the variables or constants to accurately say what is probable and what isn't....Therefore we are reduced to stating that anything is possible, because otherwise, we're stating that there is something in particular that is NOT possible....and our understanding of the universe at the given moment in time does not allow us to throw anything at all out of the equation....


Have you ever read the Emerald Tablet Or looked at any of the teachings of Hermes? These will tell you what to expect when you venture into the unknown; "As above, so below." Please don't scoff, any of yall. the teachings of good ole Hermes have not been put aside by any science, ever. And, One can actually gain a basic understanding of modern physics by reading and understanding Hermes.

Now then, we actually do have quite a lot of the data, and "kinds" of data we need to start making predictions on what may be "out there".

For instance; we know what kind of star is capable of supporting intelligent life (Class G).
We know how many of said stars are there (65 within 50 ly), and we also know how old that star needs to be (3+ billion yr).

Life on other planes...A large and perhaps contentious question. However, we all know, and many will admit, that life as we know it can and does exist on many levels, not just the physical. We are all more or less aware that our individuality comprises several orders of existence, even when we maintains that our subtler principles are merely symptomatic of the changes in our gross vehicle. A similar order may be assumed to extend throughout nature.

So, life on other lanes of existence? Sure, but how difficult is it for the higher to manifest on the lower? Hmmm, ever try to stuff an Elephant into a VW Bug?

Now, IF we are through kicking that dead horse. We have determined that life as it is known and thought of by advanced life forms on Earth, does not, can not, exist on Venus. That in no way prevents life from existing on Venus.

We were talking about Venus life vs Orion life. So, if we were to continue in a logical direction then the theoretical possibilities of life existing outside Earth is what needs to be considered.

As I have already pointed out; there is little reason to think that there could be no advanced life near by. Firstly, there is an abundance of appropriate stars; 65 "G" class stars within 50 light years. Many are of sufficient age (3 billion years or more), that's something I should do; properly add star age to my database.

Even all of the "mythical" aliens (Grays, Reptilians, etc) have real stars that can support the kind of life they purport to be. So, supposing that there IS life "out there" should be the default state of thought. Thinking that some of this life is at least on ar with Earth should also be a default. The actual probabilities are far too great to think otherwise.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by Spiro
 


So you are basically saying that what we measure asa meter now is only a fact until someone comes along and tells us what a better meter is? Do you realize how you've obfuscated the argument with that logic? I am gonna go ahead and right you off as an intentionally obtuse person.


Well get yourself and good pen and note pad my friend, because what I say and present does not correlate with everyone.

And no, that's not what I'm saying, this is just how you percieve it becuase your so closew minded.

Fasts are never facts because they always get ruled out by someone else that comes along with something that washes it away.

The peoblem with humanity is we ALL think we are right, have the right approach and are ignorant when we come up with a figure or theory. We are ALL human and we make MANY mistakes. Our lives are based on mistakes to learn, hence one fact being over-ruled to introduce a new fact.

Get it?


Close mindedness is worse than depression.

Be safe be well

Spiro



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiro
 


I am not sure you know what the definition of a fact is. I went ahead and got a pen and paper, but when I tried to right down your logic the paper killed itself.


A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.


You are spouting philosophical viewpoints which shouldn't be applied to facts. There are actual, verifiable scientific facts that do not seem to change and no matter who did the measurements over that last few hundred years came to the same general result. These are called "Constants" So you are either extremely confused about science in general and how it works, or have intentionally convoluted the debate.

if there were no facts or constants in science we would have never made it to and landed on the moon, much less mars.
edit on 5-9-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


He is saying the things that facts are based on can change, therefore making it no longer a fact.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 




How can life in a higher dimension occupy a planet in this dimension ?


They are ethereal according channeling from DK



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sled735
 


And that is scientific fallacy. What exactly is going to change the speed of light? What is going to change the length of a meter? Even if we eventually come up with a new measuring system a meter will always be a meter, there is no deviation. What about gravity? Etc etc. People who try the argument of "facts change" only fall back on it when facts don't support their idea.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

bowtomonkey
reply to post by gortex
 




How can life in a higher dimension occupy a planet in this dimension ?


They are ethereal according channeling from DK



Ethereal are they!?

Ethereal:

1 a : of or relating to the regions beyond the earth
b : celestial, heavenly
c : unworldly, spiritual

2 a : lacking material substance : immaterial, intangible
b : marked by unusual delicacy or refinement
c : suggesting the heavens or heaven

3 : relating to, containing, or resembling a chemical ether (Webster's Dictionary)

I suppose they are trying to mean #1; spiritual.
I like #2 better; lacking material substance.

They both work; but, "spiritual"? Spiritual is an "element" that applies to things of a rather subtle nature. Typically far exceeding anything that can manifest in a simple séance such as a channeling. I mean seriously, using that conclusion seems almost a slap-in-the-face to your own immortal spirit, don't you think?

Course, to be fair; most channelers truly do believe that the "voice" is something "external" to themselves, they do not realize that they are channeling themselves.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


Excuse me sir, but may I ask....

If the probability of intelligent life in this Universe were "1" or 100% as you say....Wouldn't SETI be a huge waste of millions of dollars? Wouldn't intelligent life be found F'N EVERYWHERE. Instead, we see it only on this tiny little insignificant needle in the universal haystack....

You may want to rethink your statement and try again. Just sayin...

A2D



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


Also sir...


For instance; we know what kind of star is capable of supporting intelligent life (Class G).
We know how many of said stars are there (65 within 50 ly), and we also know how old that star needs to be (3+ billion yr).


No, we don't KNOW this. We can only deduce this from observing what type of star supports intelligent life AS WE KNOW IT. We don't know jack diddly squat about any other forms of life that may or may not exist....That's all there is to it.

We don't know what can or cannot support them.
We don't know what kind of biological processes may or may not occur.
We don't even know what "intelligent life" LOOKS LIKE.

Again, we don't know a damn thing about "intelligent life"...So please, please, stop spouting your know everything nonsense and accept your humble place with the rest of us down at the very very VERY bottom of the knowledge ladder....

A2D



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Agree2Disagree

While what you say makes sense...there is no evidence to support any of your hypotheses....nor mine for that matter.

Look at it mathematically my friend....Flipping a coin....2 sides....2 possibilities....50% probable for either outcome
Dropping a cubed object....6 sides...6 possibilities....16.6% probable for any given outcome....

Now the hard one...

Probability of intelligent life in the Universe....


The problem is the burden of proof rests with the person making extraordinary claims, and not the person who doesn't believe him...

Lets talk odds...earth 4.5 billion years old, after 4 billion years of evolution ( a rather large chunk of the age of our universe) earth in all its ability has produced 10s of billions of different life forms and only one to make it to the moon.

Can't says the odds are there...




How vast is the Universe? Does the Universe behave uniformly throughout it's entirety? Is the Universe an open or closed system? Are there unknown particles or elements that may affect the possibility of "life"? Is it possible for life to exist on a different dimensional plane? etc etc...


Well how about just starting with our Galaxy before we go to the vastness of the universe. I would doubt that if we do not find other advance life in our own Galaxy then talking about the entire universe is moot.



You don't have the variables or constants to accurately say what is probable and what isn't....Therefore we are reduced to stating that anything is possible, because otherwise, we're stating that there is something in particular that is NOT possible....and our understanding of the universe at the given moment in time does not allow us to throw anything at all out of the equation....


Well we do....


We can look at earth.... well unless you want to invent a new life form to meet your needs that has zero anything backing it up. To keep it simple lets just look at earth...

The universe was making stars for a long time before planets formed so about 9 billion years ago what we call a solar systems stared to form. This means we have about 9 billion years for life, and it took earth about 4 plus billion years to make us, so I think with this alone it rules out "anything is possible".

When you look at what it takes for advance life to evolve it makes one wonder if advance life is just a short lived very narrow band type of life. If our sun wasn't a G series star not much life, binary stars are more common too...not good for life. Mars is a good example of a planet without a liquid core...solid core not good for life, If we didn't have the moon we would not be here....if we didn't have Jupiter then life would reset much quicker on earth and so evolution would not have the time it needs for advance life...

Life without the use of water would most likely be so alien to us that we would be hard press to call it life much less communicate with it or consider if it is intelligent or not, so this really puts a very narrow band for life to happen if water needs to be a part of it in it liquid state.

We can ignore all this and just say how about lava people...but then again one must provide something and not just a statement to suggest this is anything more than letters in a post.



edit on 5-9-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   

bowtomonkey

You can tell by my vagueness that I'm not interested in primitive science


You got to start somewhere and any kind of science is better than no science at all, as it is in your case.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


None of your definitions are what I am talking about when I say ethereal.

You have a limited view point accepting only academically accepted 'facts'. Maybe later you will loosen up a little because it's tiring having to control your own view point, let alone channel academia every time you have a thought.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Science wins with hypocrisy again. The world sinks an inch.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


You are really not getting the conversation.

There isn't any search for scientific proof needed here. Before empirical evidence is ever established, someone has to speculate.

The whole thread is about symbolism.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by tanka418
 


Excuse me sir, but may I ask....

If the probability of intelligent life in this Universe were "1" or 100% as you say....Wouldn't SETI be a huge waste of millions of dollars? Wouldn't intelligent life be found F'N EVERYWHERE. Instead, we see it only on this tiny little insignificant needle in the universal haystack....

You may want to rethink your statement and try again. Just sayin...

A2D


Nope, no re-think required.

I'm absolutely certain that there is intelligent life in this Universe!

I'm guessing that you don't quite get it. IF "intelligent life" c be found anywhere, that makes the probability of finding it "1" or 100%

It kind of like asking; "What kind of star can support intelligent, Human, life?" Again the answer is very simple; "Class G"

I'm hoping you are seeing how that works.

Now then; just who said intelligent life isn't found virtually everywhere?!!? Y'all should round him up and brand 'em fer the liar he is.

The probabilities of finding other, even intelligent, life on other worlds is great, and it seems all of yall don't want to see the reality of it.

Why do you berate yourselves and your world so? Just how did Earth become so insignificant? I've seen those who seem to think the Earth is a rare gem in the cosmos, that would seem far from insignificant. Earth supports a natural intelligent life form, is actually the only planet you know of that can; yet you call it insignificant.

So, anyway; the probability of finding intelligent in this Universe is: 1 (100%)



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bowtomonkey
reply to post by tanka418
 


None of your definitions are what I am talking about when I say ethereal.

You have a limited view point accepting only academically accepted 'facts'. Maybe later you will loosen up a little because it's tiring having to control your own view point, let alone channel academia every time you have a thought.


Since when does a practicing "Ceremonial Magician" limit his view to academia? Rather, I'm asking, perhaps demanding, that you use some sort of convention.

We can not go off and redefine words at our whim. Works have relatively fixed definitions for a reason; effective communication. You are trying to communicate are you not?

So anyway; as you have not yet indicated; What is your definition of Ethereal?




top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join