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: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

dragonridr
reply to post by tanka418
 


Actually life may have started on mars and transferred to earth so there isnt two places it happened only one if this is correct. If true this means life on earth was a cosmic fluke and wasnt meant to be here.More to the point however due to the requirements of life it will be a very rare thing indeed.

www.bbc.co.uk...


It doesn't make sense to think of Earth as special. From all we know so far, there is nothing particularly special about the solar system and Earth.

I always say, if you found a fish in a pond, you wouldn't think it was the only one.
If you found a coconut tree on an island, you wouldn't think it was the only one in existence.

It's far more likely that we are part of a bigger and common galactic ecosystem than a unique part of it.




posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   

tanka418

dragonridr
reply to post by tanka418
 


Actually life may have started on mars and transferred to earth so there isnt two places it happened only one if this is correct. If true this means life on earth was a cosmic fluke and wasnt meant to be here.More to the point however due to the requirements of life it will be a very rare thing indeed.

www.bbc.co.uk...


interesting hypothesis. However, I'm not so sure. I suppose Mars could have gotten a bit of a "head start" due to the formation of the Moon, but, according to the research (admittedly quick) did today; Mars lost it atmosphere at around 700 million years, coincidently, that is around when life supposedly arose on Earth.

The Mars rock that contained the fossil was supposed to have been ejected from Mars some 15 million years ago. I would think that the probability of ejecta from Mars transporting life to earth would be something less than independent abiogenesis.




Billions of years ago the solar system was a far more violent place, therefore exchange of material was factors higher than modern times. Back then Mars had an atmosphere and bodies of liquid water, successful transfer of biological material from such closely proximated bodies seems likely, especially if you understand the diverse environments that bacteria can thrive in.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ManInAsia
 


Good point.


We have yet to rule out life on multiple bodies within our own solar system.

Not likely to be intelligent life just like us tooling around in UFOs, though. USOs, perhaps. :-)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
if any ETs are somewhat similar to us on Earth... perhaps they did not take the technology path that humans took--- they instead took the path that developed telepathy, mind-reading, clairvoyance, astral projection/remote viewing and all other Psychic abilities which some few of us earthlings develop to a very elementary level



so that excludes/deletes the use of radio to transmit info ...or autos for transportation, or spaceships for interstellar voyages


ETs might exist on a planet where the normal-for-us physics is very different, i.e.: a high gravity world, a high atmospheric world etc.


on Earth we have dolphins & whales that 'sing songs' as communication over vast distances in oceans... those types of ETs would be completely diinterested in exo-planet visitations...


no... the only ETs we have on Earth are the one's created by our individual or collective ID, Ego, Super-Ego...SEE:
examples.yourdictionary.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ManInAsia
 



It doesn't make sense to think of Earth as special. From all we know so t far, there is nothing particularly special about the solar system and Earth.

I always say, if you found a fish in a pond, you wouldn't think it was the only one.
If you found a coconut tree on an island, you wouldn't think it was the only one in existence.

It's far more likely that we are part of a bigger and common galactic ecosystem than a unique part of it.


I don't disagree with this. My thought is that we know intuitively that life is common throughout the universe, even intelligent life, but we cant determine anything like "likeliness". Even likeliness implies the possibility that we are indeed unique and alone. There just doesn't seem any way to determine mathematically or logically one way or the other. Based on our current knowledge, we are unique, and at the same time it doesn't make sense intuitively.

As has been correctly pointed out, when we find real tangible evidence of life outside of earth, we can only then "Begin" to understand in terms of math and logic. Sadly, we may never find this evidence and will be only left with our feelings on the matter.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 



If you think your audience consists of anyone more than draknoir and myself, you are more deluded than I thought. Im not going to speak for anyone else, but I am certainly an interweb dreg and if the way you speak to others is any gauge, you certainly don't consider them much more than that either.

Oh, a few of us watching. The Colesium's closed today, so we dregs must take what we can find in the way of blood-sport.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Oh, a few of us watching

of those few, how many actually give a poop? Anyway, he has since stopped promoting his incorrect ideas with the realization of utter wrongness and has instead been flooding my inbox with messages which I delete before reading. The last message I read of his contained what appeared to be a hex of some sort. So you may have to watch 'Gladiator' for your entertainment today.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

ManInAsia
Billions of years ago the solar system was a far more violent place, therefore exchange of material was factors higher than modern times. Back then Mars had an atmosphere and bodies of liquid water, successful transfer of biological material from such closely proximated bodies seems likely, especially if you understand the diverse environments that bacteria can thrive in.


Such conditions could also allow Earth to be the common location of Abiogenesis for both planets, as well. We would all do well to remember that by the time that there was liquid water and atmosphere, most of the "impacting debris" was gone, hence the planets cooled off enough to allow for liquid water. Thus significantly reducing the probability of an impact that could eject a piece of Mars. And, remember, the only evidence of any material from Mars on Earth is a 15 million year old rock.

t is thought that abiogenesis happened n Earth at about the time Earth became col enough to allow liquid water; around 700 million years. It seems logical to think that this event occurred on Mars at around the same time. If this s the case, then it becomes reasonable to think that life is ubiquitous in the universe.

As for visiting ETs; The whole "life on Mars" has significant implications, as "Life on Mars" significantly impacts the probability of life and may effect the "kind" of life probabilities as well. In any case, it does seem that abiogenesis occurs about as soon as planetary conditions allow, and from the variety of life right here on earth, including extremophiles, the conditions required for life appear broader than most think.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ManInAsia
 


You are absolutely correct; Earth should be thought of as average / common until better data comes along.




posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



As for visiting ETs; The whole "life on Mars" has significant implications, as "Life on Mars" significantly impacts the probability of life and may effect the "kind" of life probabilities as well.

As for visiting ETs, if you are using life on Earth as your model, then we have exactly ZERO known life forms that can get past their own moon and exactly ZERO intelligent life forms that have discovered other intelligent life forms. So finding a microbe on Mars will increase your probability of life and even intelligent life existing elsewhere but visiting ET will still be an unknown since we don't even know if such a thing has ever occurred. The numbers game is a dead end for hoaxers because it doesn't take much for the majority of people to get it and real academia has a pretty good foothold on it anyway. A better strategy might be to "channel" ET. Academia will ignore you, it will be much harder to disprove and it will be way cooler.



edit on 9-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


I'd just point out that we have at least 124 samples of rocks from Mars on Earth, not just one. That of course is still a very small proportion of all meteorites ever found, so Mars rocks are still extremely valuable and rare.

www2.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


It will be an unknown but the factual odds of ET existing and of visiting will have increased. ET intelligent life needs to start somewhere.
At the same time it's not well appreciated by many that evolution has no direction, multicellular lifeforms could also evolve to single cellular life forms



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ManInAsia
 

If you do not know if something is possible, then you can't put any real probability on that. Once life is found outside of earth, then we know its does occur and we now have a sample to work with. We also agree that life evolves so the probability of life evolving into intelligent life may increase. What we don't know is that life can evolve to the point of interstellar space travel to visit other worlds where other intelligent life exists.

I'm not sure what you mean by "factual odds"
edit on 10-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Concerning Martian meteorites and life outside Earth.

As has been pointed out, there are 124 samples of Martian rock extant here on Earth; that's about 0.2% of all meteorites.

Of those 124 samples of Mars, one stands out; ALS84001. Found in Antarctica in 1984 (or so), and examined in detail around 1996. What was found in this rock has been the subject of controversy.

ALS84001 was found to contain nano structures that some say are fossilized nano-bacteria. The controversy is over whether these structures are biological in origin, or non-organic. It seems they could be either. But work done as recent as 2009 indicates that these structures are of an organic origin; hence high probability of life on Mars, at least in the distant past. It is said that there are similar structures in other Martian rock samples.

These links will do a better job of describing this rock than I can...
Allan Hills 84001
Mars Meteorites
Fossil microbes on Mars
Fresh clam for fossil life in Mars rock
NASA: Office of Planetary Protection


This rock's impact on Terrestrial life...

It's probably not indicative of life being transplanted from Mars to Earth, though this hypothesis can not be ruled out entirely. But, it is probably indicative of "Panspermia". It seems this rock is about 4 billion years old, which is also about how long ago abiogenesis was occurring on Earth. It seems logical, and probable that abiogenesis happened on Earth and Mars at the same time; Mars failed as a life sustaining planet, so no advanced life.

Given this data, the "idea" of "Panspermia" becomes much more probable. The inference of the "rarity of life" is updated to a rather "not rare" status. If Earth were to find evidence of life on Venus or one or more of the Jupiter or Saturn moons, as I have predicted; the status of life will become virtually ubiquitous.



edit on 10-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
If you do not know if something is possible, then you can't put any real probability on that.


I'm sorry man; This is completely untrue! Further we (Earth) does know if life outside Earth is possible. Only a closed, narrow mind could deny the probability of Extraterrestrial life. Logic and reason demand there be extraterrestrial life; some of it very advanced (most...not so much).

And, it is more and more accepted by main stream science.


edit on 10-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 




You are absolutely correct; Earth should be thought of as average / common until better data comes along.

that seems backwards to me. The average should be thought of as unknown until we get actual numbers. That's how it works. The first time you go up to bat, your batting average is .000 not .300



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



I'm sorry man; This is completely untrue!


please by all means give me an example of how to calculate the odds on something when it is not known to have ever occurred. Simple.
I'm planning a trip to Vegas soon so i need to know how to do this. Help a brother out.


Further we (Earth) does know if life outside Earth is possible. Only a closed, narrow mind could deny the probability of Extraterrestrial life.

sounds like you are mixing up probability and possibility which tells me something.
edit on 10-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

tanka418

ZetaRediculian
If you do not know if something is possible, then you can't put any real probability on that.


I'm sorry man; This is completely untrue! Further we (Earth) does know if life outside Earth is possible. Only a closed, narrow mind could deny the probability of Extraterrestrial life. Logic and reason demand there be extraterrestrial life; some of it very advanced (most...not so much).

And, it is more and more accepted by main stream science.


edit on 10-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



Sorry we dont know this your making whats called an assumption based on beliefs.I to would like to believe we arent the only game in town.However we dont know the odds of intelligent life starting we could have been the ultimate cosmic fluke defying odds of trillions and trillions to one. This could have happened because there's trillions of universes and our number came up we dont know. I believe intelligent life is going to be very rare it might even be rarer it happens at the same time in the same galaxy considering the number and of course time periods involved.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



Further we (Earth) does know if life outside Earth is possible. Only a closed, narrow mind could deny the probability of Extraterrestrial life.

Probability and possibility are not interchangeable terms. Of course I am completely missing your point, don't understand English (should be "we do know" not "we does know" btw), purposely misleading everyone, unable to understand, yada, yada, yada...

I am only denying the possibility of determining a probability of alien life. However, it certainly is possible that intelligent alien life exists and has even visited us. But since we do not know of any Alien life here, there or anywhere else, no probability can be calculated but it still remains very possible. Determining alien life to be impossible is not possible but people probably do that.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   

dragonridr
Sorry we dont know this your making whats called an assumption based on beliefs.I to would like to believe we arent the only game in town.However we dont know the odds of intelligent life starting we could have been the ultimate cosmic fluke defying odds of trillions and trillions to one. This could have happened because there's trillions of universes and our number came up we dont know. I believe intelligent life is going to be very rare it might even be rarer it happens at the same time in the same galaxy considering the number and of course time periods involved.


But we do! I'm not basing anything on what I want it to be, but rather on carefully thought out conclusions taking literally decades. Even your "trillions and trillions" to one probability is wholly insignificant compared to the number of F, G, K class stars in this universe.

The reality of where we find ourselves is that life arose simultaneously in at least two places close to each other. Around 22% of the stars in this galaxy are F, G, and K class stars, and many of those are billions of years older than Earth. And, I'm sorry, but thinking of Earth as something "special" is just as egotistical as thinking Terrestrials are the only intelligence in the Universe; simple logic demands otherwise.

For further evidence of ET you might think about the Betty and Barney Hill case. And of course the "map" that came from all that. That map is rather remarkable, and does seems to defy probability.



edit on 10-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join