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.
uncommitted
amazing
bastion
amazing
bastion
reply to post by amazing
The science is the Universe had to expand enough to cool for all the stars to form and produce elements stable enough that life could evolve from them without rapidly reacting (see Carbon on Earth for example) or for the supernovae to explode to create elements heavier than iron.
There simply hasn't been enough time for life to be in significant a number and progression in the Universe for it to have visited Earth. From the vast majority of the Universe Earth doesn't even exist yet as light since its formation hasn't reached there, let alone cooled down enough to look as if it could support life and prompt a visit.edit on 25-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)
Not sure how you can say that. How long is long enough? Are you saying that every planet is exactly the same age as earth when it comes to how long they've been cooled down enough to support life. Are you saying that no planet in the universe could be million or billions of years older than earth?
Nobody really knows the answers to these questions. Again, using science and math, it is very possible that some planets could have cooled down hundreds of millions if not billions of years earlier than earth did and it also is very possible that life evolved in completely different ways and on a completely different timescale than that of earth. You must keep your mind open to the possibilities.
No there's certainly ones out there older than Earth. The problem comes from the way various elements are created, there simply aren't many elements until supernovae start exploding so there's a cut off point before there are enough stable elements and a large variety if different elements before intelligent life can exist. The available time frame and minuscule size of the Earth in relation to the Universe and planets more suitable for life pretty much rule out it having visited here.
edit on 25-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)
We can't be certain of that though. Therefore you can't say that you are ruling out other life forms visiting earth based on just an opinion. That's the furthest thing from science. You're not using science. You're using skepticism as a religion. eh?
No, you apparently are using belief without fact as a religion are you not? Is that really enough for you?
JadeStar
This could have implications for a form of interstellar propulsion as envisioned by NASA's Alan C. Holt. See his Field Resonance Propulsion papers from the 1980s. He describes something that would need exactly this type of discovery in order to work.
Incidentally, his work was the subject of a cover story in Science Digest in May of 1982.
edit on 16-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)
Some excerpts from the paper:
The relevant conclusion which this latest discovery now helps with (since Field Resonance Propulsion was based on the assumption that what was found in the original post, would be found)
edit on 16-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)edit on 16-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)
immoralist
The OP says Skeptic as though it were a dirty word. In no fashion is being a skeptic a BAD thing inherently, Now if one remains a skeptic in the face of insurmountable data (that is actual HARD DATA, not opinions or theories or presumptions of any kind) then they are just a curmudgeon like what the OP seems to blanket all skeptics as being.
These 'skeptics' however are the causality behind why we are no longer burning 'outsiders' at the stake, and why most of the rationally minded people around no longer believe in fanciful superstitious causality for diseases and meteorological/astronomical events. Skepticism is an inherently GOOD thing, not the inverse.
Mamatus
While it is mathematically not possible to be alone in the Universe it is also mathematically likely that we will never meet anyone else living in it. The picture below shows just how far out into the universe our radio signals have moved (200 light years).
game over man
The skeptical side of the alien debate represents "there is no evidence"
game over man
Is there really no evidence?
game over man
15. I agree we do not have any evidence [...]
game over man
Edit: My personal stance on the debate:
1. Our planet is perfectly capable of being visited
wmd_2008
game over man
Edit: My personal stance on the debate:
1. Our planet is perfectly capable of being visited
Lets look at our nearest large galaxy Andromeda which is 2.5 million light years from Earth so we see it as it was 2.5 million years ago had any itelligent life evolved there they could be long gone by now , even a race at the other side of our galaxy the Milky Way is 75,000 light years from us so if we could see their star it was as it looked 75,000 years ago that and any race could be gone now.
Its the vast scale of distance and time that is the real problem with this.