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.

 

We Haven't Been Visited? Examining Arguments Against ET Visitation.

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

RUInsane
This blog post had me thinking that people may be conflating two related, but distinct issues here on the Alien/ET hypothesis, or "ETH". The basic idea is that we haven't found signs of intelligent societies (e.g. radiation leaks that could be attributed to advanced societies, such as a specific radio frequency band), therefore we probably haven't been visited.

I think this is hasty reasoning.


I would agree with that. Just because they have maintained a fairly low and ambiguous profile in their survey doesn't mean they aren't visiting.




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   
My guess is that skeptics think detection of ETI implies its effective existence. If ETI hasn't been detected, it can't visit us...because we have no way of confirming their existence otherwise. It's a Catch-22. But of course, that logic doesn't explain the numerous close-encounter reports we've had post-WWII. So, I'm wondering if there's other ways to establish visitation aside from ETI detection.
edit on 2-2-2014 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

RUInsane
My guess is that skeptics think detection of ETI implies its effective existence. If ETI hasn't been detected, it can't visit us...because we have no way of confirming their existence otherwise. It's a Catch-22. But of course, that logic doesn't explain the numerous close-encounter reports we've had post-WWII. So, I'm wondering if there's other ways to establish visitation aside from ETI detection.


I think that depends on "HOW" you view the Universe...

Two possible views: Relativistic.. the most common view. Everything is "relative" to everything else. AND, absolute proof is required and thought to be found (for many things anyway).

Quantum view: every thing is probabilistic. Which also means that there is no such thing as "absolute"...not absolute proof for anything; just very good probabilities.

If we all were to examine the Universe around us in a truly "Honest" manner we would all realize that the Universe is in fact "Quantum" in nature; thus...no absolute proof for anything, and everything has it very own set of probabilities

If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

tanka418
If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).



Funny - none of my math teachers ever gave credit for "near proofs".



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
for aliens to take over earth would be fairly simple...no great battles or conflicts will take place, here's my scenario...
abduct representatives of humans from all around the earth from various geographical areas, and of different humanoid subsets. find out a "disease" and or "chemically-enhanced biological mutation" that will kill all of them within a short time. produce an airborne version of it, and simply introduce it into our atmosphere, sit out by the moon or wherever and wait. all other life on the planet remains intact, not one alien dies, and besides from the development and deployment of the biological kill agent, not much in resources used.

this idea of great battles and heroic sacrifices by humans against an evil alien race, is all in the minds of movie producers and not-very-bright people....in my opinion, of course.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

draknoir2

tanka418
If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).



Funny - none of my math teachers ever gave credit for "near proofs".


Sorry man; MathTeacher + ClassRoomExpirence != RealWorld.

All a teacher can do is attempt to prepare you for the real world, thus they teach what they already know...it is up to YOU to apply what you have learned to discern reality.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

draknoir2

tanka418
If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).



Funny - none of my math teachers ever gave credit for "near proofs"
.


Have you heard about network theories or calculus?
Never owned a slide rule?
How about telling that the NASA and see if you get hired!



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

tanka418I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).



Yeah, that pesky "logic" component.

Fortunately you remain unimpeded.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

waltwillis

draknoir2

tanka418
If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).



Funny - none of my math teachers ever gave credit for "near proofs"
.


Have you heard about network theories or calculus?
Never owned a slide rule?
How about telling that the NASA and see if you get hired!


I've owned both a slide rule and abacus. Excellent "near" point, though.

And I'm already gainfully employed in a real-world engineering position, thank you.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

draknoir2

tanka418I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).



Yeah, that pesky "logic" component.

Fortunately you remain unimpeded.


Yes, well some of us live with logic 24/7/365 as it were, others; not so much I guess.

Software is very demanding in that regard.

BTW: It seem obvious you have the "Relativistic" POV.
Good luck with that; just understand, that it will not allow you to grow and evolve very much...it is very limited.



edit on 2-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 




Yes, well some of us live with logic 24/7/365 as it were, others; not so much I guess.

Software is very demanding in that regard.

BTW: It seem obvious you have the "Relativistic" POV.
Good luck with that; just understand, that it will not allow you to grow and evolve very much...it is very limited.


It really strikes me as odd that every other post is about how you are a programmer. As if this is some remarkable credential that gives more weight to your claims. I can tell you that it does not.

the real world is flooded with programmers and coders. They are a dime a dozen. This is my world too and yet I don't feel the need to remind you on every post or at all. Programming, designing software, databases, interfaces and whatever else is thrown at me is something i do for a living and yet i had very little formal training in any of that. It is not rocket science. In fact anyone can learn it.

you also keep talking about "Bayesian inference" as if it is some high level statistical math. It is not. It is actually rather simplistic. I have asked you to provide some examples where you can infer an unknown based on an unknown set of outcomes. You can't. In fact Bayesian inference requires a sample of known outcomes. Once you have your set of known outcomes, you can then "infer" an outcome based on a new unique set of information where the outcome is unknown.

what you seem to be doing is inferring life on another planet based on guesses and speculation as your sample data instead of known outcomes. You then claim that you can do this with some high degree of accuracy. You can't. If you can, please give an example of how you can with a real world example. Why do you avoid this?

there is nothing wrong with guessing and speculating but there is something wrong with passing that on as "real" data. Guessing and speculating does contribute to scientific progress but they call it guessing and speculating not proof.
edit on 3-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418
 




Yes, well some of us live with logic 24/7/365 as it were, others; not so much I guess.

Software is very demanding in that regard.






BTW: It seem obvious you have the "Relativistic" POV.
Good luck with that; just understand, that it will not allow you to grow and evolve very much...it is very limited.


It really strikes me as odd that every other post is about how you are a programmer. As if this is some remarkable credential that gives more weight to your claims. I can tell you that it does not.

the real world is flooded with programmers and coders. They are a dime a dozen. This is my world too and yet I don't feel the need to remind you on every post or at all. Programming, designing software, databases, interfaces and whatever else is thrown at me is something i do for a living and yet i had very little formal training in any of that. It is not rocket science. In fact anyone can learn it.

you also keep talking about "Bayesian inference" as if it is some high level statistical math. It is not. It is actually rather simplistic. I have asked you to provide some examples where you can infer an unknown based on an unknown set of outcomes. You can't. In fact Bayesian inference requires a sample of known outcomes. Once you have your set of known outcomes, you can then "infer" an outcome based on a new unique set of information where the outcome is unknown.

what you seem to be doing is inferring life on another planet based on guesses and speculation as your sample data instead of known outcomes. You then claim that you can do this with some high degree of accuracy. You can't. If you can, please give an example of how you can with a real world example. Why do you avoid this?

there is nothing wrong with guessing and speculating but there is something wrong with passing that on as "real" data. Guessing and speculating does contribute to scientific progress but they call it guessing and speculating not proof.
edit on 3-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


Imagination is more important than mathematical skills.

Counting and playing with beans represents only about one half
of the equation to the discoveries in science.

In fact, the quantifying of most scientific discovery is done after
there has been a factual observation in new science.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by waltwillis
 



Imagination is more important than mathematical skills.

Counting and playing with beans represents only about one half
of the equation to the discoveries in science.

In fact, the quantifying of most scientific discovery is done after
there has been a factual observation in new science.

I don't disagree but lets not confuse imagination for actual data. saying "I imagine that life exists on planet x" is different than saying "I have calculated with high degree of certainty that life exist on planet x". Math being math, you need to show your work.

One uses imagination, speculation and some assumptions to assert an interesting idea for further investigation. The other is BS.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

RUInsane
My guess is that skeptics think detection of ETI implies its effective existence. If ETI hasn't been detected, it can't visit us...because we have no way of confirming their existence otherwise. It's a Catch-22. But of course, that logic doesn't explain the numerous close-encounter reports we've had post-WWII. So, I'm wondering if there's other ways to establish visitation aside from ETI detection.

Without verifiable proof, the close encounter reports don't add up to anything, and they don't really even point toward extraterrestrials. There is evidence, but evidence of what? Don't know. That's the real logic of the matter. How do you get from EVIDENCE OF ODD THINGS HAPPENING to EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFEFORMS?

The flaw in your reasoning is a common one, which says, "Because we don't know what something is, it came from outer space."

The funny thing is, there have been numerous close encounters where the "aliens" actually came out and told people that they were from other planets. But even if we accept the reports as accurate and true, we still can't prove the aliens aren't big, fat liars!



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

draknoir2

tanka418
If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).

Funny - none of my math teachers ever gave credit for "near proofs".

I want to communicate with these nearly living aliens. Ride in their 83% spaceships, maybe. I'm sure they would have a lot to teach me about what it's like to exist as a probability.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 



I'm sure they would have a lot to teach me about what it's like to exist as a probability.


"probability" implies a calculation based on "knowns". Since there are no known aliens they can only exist as a possibility. Is it possible the next card is an ace? Yes. Knowing the number of aces, we can calculate a probability. Is the next card an alien card from space? It is possible but since I know of no other alien cards from space, there is no probability that can be determined.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by waltwillis
 



Imagination is more important than mathematical skills.

Counting and playing with beans represents only about one half
of the equation to the discoveries in science.

In fact, the quantifying of most scientific discovery is done after
there has been a factual observation in new science.

I don't disagree but lets not confuse imagination for actual data. saying "I imagine that life exists on planet x" is different than saying "I have calculated with high degree of certainty that life exist on planet x". Math being math, you need to show your work.

One uses imagination, speculation and some assumptions to assert an interesting idea for further investigation. The other is BS.



100% THIS

You are excellent making an incredibly important point.

A good example of what you said is the following.

We know that there is a good statistical likelihood (94%) of a warm habitable planet like the Earth within 10 lightyears of our solar system....

We know this thanks to NASA's Kepler spacecraft




ηEarth (eta Earth) = frequency of Earth-like planets per star (also called fraction or occurrence).
δEarth (delta Earth) = mean distance between stellar systems with Earth-like planets.
p10Earth 10 ly = probability percentage of an Earth-like planet within 10 light years from Earth.

What Tanka doesn't get is that saying: "There is a 94% chance that there is a planet like the Earth within 10 light years around an M-dwarf star." is far, Far, FAR different from saying "There's a planet like the Earth around Barnard's Star, and there are intelligent aliens from there visiting the Earth on a regular basis."

edit on 3-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by waltwillis
 



Imagination is more important than mathematical skills.

Counting and playing with beans represents only about one half
of the equation to the discoveries in science.

In fact, the quantifying of most scientific discovery is done after
there has been a factual observation in new science.

I don't disagree but lets not confuse imagination for actual data. saying "I imagine that life exists on planet x" is different than saying "I have calculated with high degree of certainty that life exist on planet x". Math being math, you need to show your work.

One uses imagination, speculation and some assumptions to assert an interesting idea for further investigation. The other is BS.


Imagination allows good science to investigate and you don’t know
what you don’t know until you begin the observations and only then
run the calculations.

I prefer to think of the possibilities rather then work to avoid them
with all that negative banter.

To question is good, but to resist, obstruct, and delay in the
search is bad…very bad!

Do you believe in God? Have you ever seen God?

Many people lack the faith of a mustard seed.

Now if your answer to the two questions is no, then that would
put you in the vast minority of the world population.

“Just the facts ma’am” is also how I think too, but I don’t need
no sticking proof that aliens exist…I’ve seen them! UP CLOSE and
in my face!



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I will agree, however, that consensus is more important than statistics. There is absolutely no hard evidence that dreams exist. If I was the only person who dreamed and I told people I had pictures play out in my head when I sleep, they'd think I was insane. But since pretty much everybody dreams, then we all pretty much agree that they exist.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Blue Shift
 



I'm sure they would have a lot to teach me about what it's like to exist as a probability.


"probability" implies a calculation based on "knowns". Since there are no known aliens they can only exist as a possibility. Is it possible the next card is an ace? Yes. Knowing the number of aces, we can calculate a probability. Is the next card an alien card from space? It is possible but since I know of no other alien cards from space, there is no probability that can be determined.


Not True.



1: the quality or state of being probable

2: something (as an event or circumstance) that is probable

3 a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to
the total number of possible outcomes
(2) : the chance that a given event will occur

b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities

4: a logical relation between statements such that evidence confirming one confirms the other to some degree
-- www.merriam-webster.com...

Probability is simply (though frequently not so simple) a statement of "likelihood". Using anything "known", while making the whole process much simpler, is not required.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join