twisted_steel2 wrote:

OkieHawk wrote:I also find it very egotistical to think that we are it, that there is nothing out there in an infinite universe. Maybe that's my faith to a certain extent, but I'm not going to join the Church of Scientology because of it though

Off-topic

I saw they have a booth at Southcenter mall now. Doesnt say Scientology but its the whole 'free stress test' thing.

Just think, $200,000 later and you get to hear a really weird sci-fi story!

If I had $200k I think I could find much better ways of spending it than brain washing

12evanf wrote:Unless they are our gods. The original master race that produced half-monkey/half original alien creatures that could use half their brains and come up with rudimentary, yet complex ideas by building upon each previous generations success.

You think if there is a God of some kind in the traditional sense of the word, that he's anything like any major religion describes? I highly doubt it.

OkieHawk wrote:If I had $200k I think I could find much better ways of spending it than brain washing

Go with the tried & true?

RolandDeschain wrote:

12evanf wrote:Unless they are our gods. The original master race that produced half-monkey/half original alien creatures that could use half their brains and come up with rudimentary, yet complex ideas by building upon each previous generations success.

You think if there is a God of some kind in the traditional sense of the word, that he's anything like any major religion describes? I highly doubt it.

If there's a god or gods why do you believe it so unlikely that they'd have revealed some information about themselves to the creatures it (they) created? Just curious.

Zebulon Dak wrote:

RolandDeschain wrote:

12evanf wrote:Unless they are our gods. The original master race that produced half-monkey/half original alien creatures that could use half their brains and come up with rudimentary, yet complex ideas by building upon each previous generations success.

You think if there is a God of some kind in the traditional sense of the word, that he's anything like any major religion describes? I highly doubt it.

If there's a god or gods why do you believe it so unlikely that they'd have revealed some information about themselves to the creatures it (they) created? Just curious.

I don't think it's unlikely. What I think is unlikely is that God would be all visible, performing miracles, and generally up in everybody's faces like he is in the Bible, then nowhere to be seen for thousands of years. Why's he only out & about a couple thousand years ago? There's no reason for it. If you believe in the God in the Christian Bible, he wants you on your knees praying and does all kinds of stuff to prove he's real. Well, if he's so hard-up for attention, (and he is, per the Christian Bible) why doesn't he give us a speech floating above New York City, or something? He managed to spread his word throughout the land back before we could even print a book. People had to make copies by writing another one by hand. With that kind of "communication" system in place, he managed to make a significant portion of the world believe, if you believe in the Christian Bible. Nowadays, performing one little miracle in front of a news crew anywhere in the world would get 20 billion hits on YouTube in a week if he came out and performed even one honest-to-God miracle. Yet, we have nothing.

So...

Well, God did say he created us in his image Zeb if you believe in that stuff.

The more I think about it, the more I'm buying the whole "god was an ancient astronaut" thing. I think it makes more sense than the "always has been always will be" scenario. At least from a practical standpoint.

Zebulon Dak wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm buying the whole "god was an ancient astronaut" thing. I think it makes more sense than the "always has been always will be" scenario. At least from a practical standpoint.

BLASPHEMY! BURN HIM!!!!!!!!!!

RolandDeschain wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm buying the whole "god was an ancient astronaut" thing. I think it makes more sense than the "always has been always will be" scenario. At least from a practical standpoint.

BLASPHEMY! BURN HIM!!!!!!!!!!

But, does he weigh as much as a duck?

OkieHawk wrote:But, does he weigh as much as a duck?

RolandDeschain wrote:

OkieHawk wrote:But, does he weigh as much as a duck?

Man, figured you'd run with that one. Since blasphemers were once considered witches...it loses everything if I have to explain my use of a Python reference

Ah, now I get it. I totally didn't catch it, though. Haven't watched that in like 15 years...lol.

OkieHawk wrote:Alright, after reading about the Fermi Paradox (glad to have learned about it at least) there is a slight flaw in it's assumption. This flaw is that we are applying our knowledge of human technology and trying to use it as the basis for alien technology. If there is intelligent life elsewhere, isn't there the possibility that they have a way of shielding their transmissions from us? Or, it may be something that we have heard, but didn't realize what it really was.

I realize that this is part of the counterpoint to Fermi, and one that I agree with.

The problem with this solution to the paradox, and there is more than one..but I will address one..is that it requires massive uniformity of motive and approach. Optimists believe the galaxy may be the home of a million civilizations (a number that will surely increase with the new Red Dwarf idea). Perhaps SOME of them would "shield" themselves from us, put us under a kind of Star Trek-ian quarantine. But the explanation requires all civilizations to behave the same way. It also requires, if youre saying they shield themselves from us, more advanced civilizations. What about the onces that arent? The galaxy "should" have thousands and thousands of civilizations that have billions of years of head starts on us..

Actually, the problem may be even worse. It may not just require uniformity among all cultures, but among individuals. In hyper advanced (K3) level of civiliazations presumably individuals would have the capability to communicate with the stars.

As far as the objection that we see UFOs.. well.. the extraordinary claims about UFOs are never provided hand in hand with extraordinary evidence. Certainly there are some things we cant explain.. of course. Not all murders are are solved either. But its a big jump from "lights in the sky" to "oh, must be aliens".

If there are indeed super advanced civilizations out there they very likely find us inconsequential. If there is a sort of "galactic police" so to speak it's also possible that they keep the lesser species from messing with each other.

A new design of the alcubierre drive has apparently been worked out at least mathematically and could launch mankind into the stars. Maybe that would get the attention of the big kids on the block and maybe then they'd let us know what the ground rules were for peaceful coexistence.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ ... plausible/

But we won't know until/unless we go.

Vetamur wrote:
The problem with this solution to the paradox, and there is more than one..but I will address one..is that it requires massive uniformity of motive and approach. Optimists believe the galaxy may be the home of a million civilizations (a number that will surely increase with the new Red Dwarf idea). Perhaps SOME of them would "shield" themselves from us, put us under a kind of Star Trek-ian quarantine. But the explanation requires all civilizations to behave the same way. It also requires, if youre saying they shield themselves from us, more advanced civilizations. What about the onces that arent? The galaxy "should" have thousands and thousands of civilizations that have billions of years of head starts on us..

Actually, the problem may be even worse. It may not just require uniformity among all cultures, but among individuals. In hyper advanced (K3) level of civiliazations presumably individuals would have the capability to communicate with the stars.

As far as the objection that we see UFOs.. well.. the extraordinary claims about UFOs are never provided hand in hand with extraordinary evidence. Certainly there are some things we cant explain.. of course. Not all murders are are solved either. But its a big jump from "lights in the sky" to "oh, must be aliens".

Veta, we are still using our theories and limitations on this though. The thing is we don't know either way, but to use our limited understanding of the universe as the guide to the conclusion of the lack of intelligent life out there is absurd. Fermi only hypothesized this problem around 1950, in the big scheme of things that isn't so long ago. Hell, people used to believe that if you traveled faster than a horse via car your lungs would explode. What will we realize in another hundred years or so that we were wrong about?

So in the meantime... Just ignore the observed facts we have?
Yes, I could be wrong. I've me mentioned many times in different threads this is the thing I most want to be wrong about. But that doesn't mean I am just going to blindly ignore the situation as is.
And people are very fond of saying we know nothing, etc.. That everything will change, etc. I disagree. Science in 2013 is far more mature and refined than in its infancy. Whole fields etc are no longer struck down, rather things become more and more refined.
In any case, the theory that is most supported at the moment is that we are alone. If evidence comes along that contradicts this my opinion will change on a dime. If aliens land on the White House lawn tomorrow, if Pulsars end up bring Dyson Spheres.. No one will be as excited as me. Except Todd maybe.
But science isn't about mixing what we want to be true with observation.

Typing on my phone, sorry.. It should have read pulsars end up being Dyson Spheres.

SacHawk2.0 wrote:If there are indeed super advanced civilizations out there they very likely find us inconsequential. If there is a sort of "galactic police" so to speak it's also possible that they keep the lesser species from messing with each other.

A new design of the alcubierre drive has apparently been worked out at least mathematically and could launch mankind into the stars. Maybe that would get the attention of the big kids on the block and maybe then they'd let us know what the ground rules were for peaceful coexistence.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ ... plausible/

But we won't know until/unless we go.

Yeah, this is theoretically possible, but practically not a possibility for us right now. We have no way to produce the amount of exotic matter it would take to create the 'warp bubble' where one doesn't already exist, and there's still no theory as to how to a) get a vessel inside the 'bubble' without destroying it or b) interact with the space outside the bubble once the vessel has been placed inside the bubble and the bubble is set in motion. In other words, how to we make is go and how do we make it stop? The Alcubierre drive is intriguing, but still an absolute pipe dream.

Zebulon Dak wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm buying the whole "god was an ancient astronaut" thing. I think it makes more sense than the "always has been always will be" scenario. At least from a practical standpoint.

I agree. But then I'm like, "wait, then where did the aliens come from? Damnit!"

Or perhaps:

Seahawk Sailor wrote:

RolandDeschain wrote:It's a big assumption to think life in another part of the galaxy is based on carbon, though.

That's the most interesting part of the equation to me. Theoretically non-carbon based life forms are possible, but it would take a very carefully constructed balance to achieve anywhere close to what we see on Earth. Carbon is by far the preferred base for life, just based on all the surrounding and supporting chemicals and chemical constructs.

And every time I think of this, it always reminds me of the movie Evolution. Their aliens used a base one up from our construct, thus the selenium used as arsenic.

This is true for our STP, other planets might have perfect conditions for other chemistries to work, chemistry is wacky like that!

-SH