How our space Brothers/Sisters etc. get here.

Stryder

07-30-06, 07:03 PM

You're right to an extent redarmy11 (Perhaps not the six-breast amazon thing, but your guess is as good as mine to what might be out there).

I mean our planet has limited resources and although we are slowly starting to work out what needs worrying about (Environmentally and Economically), I doubt we'd have anything to offer any space travelling aliens other than a giant "Rat Maze" for them to pick the prize one and do weirdo tests on them.

Simply it would be like Indians with beads offering them in trade for a state of the art car or Games console. What we value and consider necessary isn't necessarily of value to them.

In fact if you were to look how us humans tend to put prices on things that are both in demand and limited (Oil, Diamonds, Platinum etc) if you were to apply the same logic to space, then "Life" is a commodity since in the sparseness of space we have yet to have irrefutable proof of life elsewhere other than here pretty much making it Rare and obviously it's in demand if you look analyse Darwin's point of Natural Selection and life's attempt to survive in the most hostile of places.

I just don't believe we could ever have the world unified under an authoritarian society because thats exactly what you'd have to contemplate to have a unified world. Pick any subject and there will always be people with a difference of opinion, this isn't just about being right or wrong, or antagonising the person but is key to an individuals statement of them expressing their own individuality through their own opinion, rather than sheepishly "Ayeing" with a herd of others in unison.

JDawg

07-31-06, 12:07 PM

Prov that the spped of light limitiation is bunk then, smartarse. the IS a way around it!

I can't believe we're having this discussion. The proof is in the pudding; the fastest speed ever observed in the universe is the speed of light. And no, that doesn't refer to just light, either. The speed of light is a definition, not a theory. The speed of light is the fastest anything can go. There are little tricks, such as things appearing as if they're moving faster than lightspeed, but those observations are based on the witness's frame of reference. Anyway, there's no point arguing it.

But wait one second, partner...How are you going to ask me to prove anything? You're the one making the claim, so why don't you prove to me that there is such a thing as faster than light travel? What's that? Oh, you can't? Oh, your claims are all baseless and without a single shred of evidence? Oh, I see...well then...

I was saying IF an object had a device that affected its magnetic gravity field causing it to have no weight or momentum(discs and/or orbs have been seen stopping on a dime from thousands of mph) then maybe Einstiens Law might not apply(if the object weights nothing its mass cant be multiplied im thinking)

OK, there is a problem with that statement. You are basing your theory on something which hasn't been proven...meaning, you are basing the idea of the possible mechanics of faster than light travel on the mechanics of...a friggin UFO?? C'mon, man! We don't even know if UFOs exist (and they most likely do not) so how are you going to base your claim of FTL travel on them? It's not sound, man.

Or instant teleportation(lab tests are being done where tiny things like protons are being teleported)

Now this stuff is interesting. I've done some light reading on the subject, and I think there is some very, very interesting stuff in there, but we are so far from knowing to what extent this branch of science can be of use to us, that it's not even worth discussing.

Or perhaps it is set up so only sufficiently spiritually evolved peoples will be able to travel the stars, we atm are not, we are to trigger happy and war oriented. Once we evolve past all that i have no doubt we will recieve help from our Allies in space spiritually and techology wise so as to be able to travel the universe helping others and exploring.

That's cute. No, really, it is. But it's stupid and childish, as well. No, really, it is.

"Spritually evolved"? I'm sorry, pal, but again, you are equating science to spirituality, and there is no connection. The human spirit, as it were, is merely a fantasy. Consider the human spirit, and all the good that comes along with it, an equal to the human emotions of the "heart". Now, we know the heart's true function, but that does not stop us from continually equating our loves and passions to it. When we fall in love, we say that we "gave our heart to someone", and when we do kind things and charitable things, it is said that we have a "Kind heart", when in fact, all our hearts do is pump blood, man. The root (and practice and apllication) of our emotion lies in our brain. Nowhere else.

The same can be said of our spirit. If you are a follower of God, you follow with your brain, not your spirit. If you are a good person, it is because your brain chemistry allows it. The same applies if you are a bad person.

To be "spiritually evolved" is a matter of the brain, my friend. There is no spirit, as you believe it.

But anyway, you're losing credibility with this post.

And here is another reason...

Do you mean that you do not believe humans to still be evolving(if not physically at least consciously?) Or that you dont believe we will one day evolve into peacefull beings?

Exactly. Our genetic makeup does not call for peace. We are animals. To believe that humanity will one day have no use for war or for fighting is a romantic fancy that has no base in reality. We are possessive, territorial creatures who will always fight for what we believe to be ours. And why? Because there will always be someone who will try to take what is ours!

The seperation between Man and the rest of the animal kingdom is small. We share 97% of our DNA with a certain chimpanzee, I believe, so what makes you think we are so far superior? At least in the sense of doing away with what comes so naturally? We have become what we are thanks to our intelligence, and the physical tools which we were given. Thanks to our deductive reasoning, we were able to take control of land and animal and become what we are today. If it was not for the very things you are condemning us, we would not be around today.

And don't think that because we are here we should abolish it. First of all, we can't; it's in our genes, and it will always be there. Secondly, if we were to lose the instinctual desire to take, we would lose society and structure.

Think of it this way; the rest of the animal kingdom we see today is in a form that is best suited for life in this environment. Tigers look and act the way they do because it bests suits them. Elephants look and act the way they do because that way works. Humans look and act the way they do becuase that way works. I'm not saying that Man won't someday evolve further, but you must understand that there is no reason to change. Our physical and mental makeup works, there's no better way to say it. Evolution occurs so that a species can survive in a certain environment, and what we see today is just that: A species that can survive. There has not been a significant change to the Human physical structure since the rise of the Homo Sapien, most likely because that is the epitome of what Man needs to be.

JD

snake river rufus

07-31-06, 01:38 PM

There are many theories as to how ET's gets here. The most common thing i hear about ET visitation from skeptics is its to far and it would take forever even at the speed of light. Well i would just like you too think about it all for a second.... i personally dont think the universe was created unintelligently or by shear chance. IMO something intelligent enough to create a universe with sheer mental power or will would be intelligent enough to know we would want to travel the universe and make it a possibility(and it not take generations to do so). We are explorers by nature, we have explored most of the surfaces of Earth and lots of ocean, IMO the Creator knows explorers would get bored with nothing else new to explore. Therefore something within me tells me that the speed of light limitation is bunk, the IS a way around it or some other faster means of transit. Just figured id share my thoughts.
Peace

BTW heres a interesting video with info on interstellar travel.
http://tinyurl.com/rolru
Theres lots more on youtube.com or google.com
I'd just like to see 1 shred of evidence that "they" have ever been here.

barehandkiller

07-31-06, 03:08 PM

Its simple, some of you seem have a materialistic view, mine is spiritual. I do believe when we die some part of us keeps existing(soul, astral body, etc). I think the brain and body a mere shell, tool, interface etc for our souls, astral body or whatever you want to call it to experience this realm of duality. :) You will ask for proof, i do not care to even try(there probably is no physical proof, but theres plenty of supporting non physical information, NDE, Astral Traveling, OBE, Edgar Cayce's readings carry weight in my book), we both believe what we believe. Im simply shareing my views, they will absorb into your subconscious and one day they may pop up into your conscious mind and you might find some worth in them(maybe not, oh well).

As for proving the speed of light theory wrong i am not saying it is in the first place. Im saying theres probably alternate ways which are faster than linear travel. Which if you read my previous post with an open mind you would see that is what im trying to convey.

I can see by the way you reply to me the state of your mindset, very ego driven. Why do you find the need to insult? Can you not carry on a conversation with someone of opposing views in a calm and decent way? This imo is the next step in our evolution, to overcome the ego and react to situations in a more centered way. Instead of taking an opposing view as a direct attack on one's self(because subconsciously the ego can tie beliefs into itself), we can calmly discuss matters and not let the more animalistic reactive part of our brain let emotion take over(example the mob mentality). Not to say this part of our brain or consciousness hasnt been nessesary or that we wont need it in our lives. But overall concouring the ego would help bring peace to the world i think.
Peace

barehandkiller

07-31-06, 03:37 PM

As for credibility i care nothing about it, i expected remarks similar to what i have gotten, its the same with all materialistic views ive been exposed to.
Peace :)

Btw heres a really great site that might give you a different perspective on what the limits of what we will evolve into are. Also maybe on where older ET civilasations might already be.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_ra.htm

snake river rufus

08-01-06, 06:56 AM

What does "materialistic views" have to do with credibility?

phlogistician

08-01-06, 09:13 AM

What does "materialistic views" have to do with credibility?

Barehand killer thinks that hard science can be circumvented using hard drugs.

It doesn't matter to him if science says we cannot exceed the speed of light, as long as he can drop some good stuff and hallucinate his way to Alpha Centauri each weekend.

Stryder

08-01-06, 09:31 AM

Well just for discussions sake lets say there always has been space peoples out there(theres been lots of ufo sitings). Then lets assume they have the technology to get here.

You guys missed that Barehanded had stated "Just for discussions sake". I'm sure he realised that as absurd as his suggestions of things seem, he is just theorising in the "What If's" and Acknowledged that.

I know people are attempting to cut him down like a Wacko and barehanded knew that some of you would be attempting that which he's mentioned in a more recent post.

The reason I mention all this is because in certain respects he's theorising and poseing questions for discussion and I'm guessing after a discussion not abuse/flaming.

Some of you should realise by now that if someone has a point of view that is absurd abusing them through personal attacks and flaming doesn't cause that person to re-evaluate their view or take in any information embedded within a flame, instead the individual is more likely to turn to a community of people that have been displaced by such attacks and flamings for support. So rather than re-establishing their basic understanding of science to either support or undermine their original claim, they are forced into circles of people that do not have those understandings either that "support" the persons theory just because it might support their own (building quite a large house of cards of misconstrude theory based on the facts of other misconstrude theories).

So I ask you give the guy a break, let him pose his theories and rather than flaming try to explain why those theories aren't necessarily built on accurate facts.

JDawg

08-01-06, 10:59 AM

You know, I was reading barehand's replies, and before I even got to Styrder's post, I knew what I wanted to say to him.

Its simple, some of you seem have a materialistic view, mine is spiritual

And I can appreciate that. I apologize if I can across as an asshole. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions. I didn't realize (though I should have) that you were merely stating your point through the eyes of a spiritual person.

You will ask for proof, i do not care to even try(there probably is no physical proof, but theres plenty of supporting non physical information, NDE, Astral Traveling, OBE, Edgar Cayce's readings carry weight in my book), we both believe what we believe. Im simply shareing my views, they will absorb into your subconscious and one day they may pop up into your conscious mind and you might find some worth in them(maybe not, oh well).

I will say something else in your defense here as well...when confronted with the matter of "proof" you simply stated that you have none, only your belief which is supported (at least in a sense of you aren't the only one who thinks this stuff) in writings, which you link here for our viewing.

That is a much better, more honest approach to this than some others have taken. Guys like Norval (I know I always bring him up, forgive me) will state only "You guys are aliens and carrying on the lie!" when in truth he should say exactly what you said. People who have beliefs which cannot be backed (if even at least not yet) by scientific method should say something to that effect, rather than claim that they have the ultimate knowledge and insight to the whole matter, including "proofs" which they refuse to show.

As for proving the speed of light theory wrong i am not saying it is in the first place. Im saying theres probably alternate ways which are faster than linear travel. Which if you read my previous post with an open mind you would see that is what im trying to convey.

And there may be. But you struck a chord with us all by saying so, because you are taking your unalienable right to a belief and trying to merge it with science fact, which is never going to sit well in a forum such as this.

To your point, however, I will discuss with you at length. The reason we believe that the speed of light is the fastest possible speed anything in the universe can go is simply because there are so many theories which hold true to that single limit. Even ones that do not directly correlate with measuring the speed of light, such as measuring the speed of other things in the universe. Not only has light never traveled faster than its own speed limit, but nothing that we have witnessed has. So it seems very, very unlikely that any medium can travel faster than light.

If you want to believe that perhaps there is some alternate method, then that is fine. I would myself like to believe that there is a way around it, simply because even at the speed limit of the universe, the distances between things are far too great to travel. I wish there was a way to travel faster than light, because then we would be able to discover so many new things, even if none of them happened to be extraterrestrial civiliaztions. There is so much plain, vanilla, boring stuff to be seen, heard, and learned that it boggles the mind.

There would be extreme benefits to it, as well, such as mining resources from other planets, or finding a home "in a galaxy far, far away..." for Humanity once our Earth has been depleated, or the Sun dies. But unfortunately, I believe strongly that there is not a way to circumvent this unfortunate limit.

But anyway, if your spiritualistic approach to life makes you happy, then that's great. And it's also great to know that you at least have some sort of an interest in science, and are not completely blinded by the dogmas of religion. I wish you would take more to heart the known things about the universe, because I believe that understanding one thing is the key to understanding the next thing, and when you miss a step in that pattern, you kind of cut yourself off to a real knowledge of a subject. But either way, it's good to know that you're not a defensive prick about your belief system; actually, it's the oposite. You feel rather enlightened, and you're willing to openly discuss this topic without the fear or typical lashing back reflex that most here have.

JD

Communist Hamster

08-01-06, 11:56 AM

This imo is the next step in our evolution
There are no "steps" in evolution. Evolution is a random process of gene mutations, and those individuals who have the most suitable genes for the situation become more successful and breed.

barehandkiller

08-01-06, 12:22 PM

There are no "steps" in evolution. Evolution is a random process of gene mutations, and those individuals who have the most suitable genes for the situation become more successful and breed.

I should have been more clear in what i meant, which was a step in consciousness evolution(or the way we think), not really physical. I dont think we will be evolving an extra set of arms or legs(no matter how cool it might be). But as we get more knowledge about genetics and dna we could learn how to use more of our brain power, having better if not perfect memory, better processing power, maybe even mental power to affect our enviroment.
Peace

JDawg

08-01-06, 02:50 PM

barehandkiller

08-01-06, 03:27 PM

The question about that kind of evolution, barehand, is if it is even possible. Again, it is fine for "discussion's sake" to wonder if maybe we'd be able to use "mind powers" to have total power of our environment, but that kind of thing is pretty much science fiction, today and in the future.

I remember something from the Bible which Jesus said, paraphrased it was "These things which i do(healing, making the blind see etc i assume) you will do and more". Most likely some of you may not believe he did these things or even existed, but personally i do. Edgar Cayce did some amazing psychic things supposedly(i have read into it and if true he had an amazing gift). I do believe lots of fakes are out there but i doubt all are. Has anyone saw that David Copperfield video where he flies around doing acrobatics? they even put him in a covered crate while doing this and waving stuff above him and to the sides. If it was a trick it was the best ive ever seen! I'll try to find it for ya.

edit here it is. If theres strings i sure cant figureout how they worked in that box.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzqjWDOOTeg&search=david%20copperfield

JDawg

08-01-06, 04:23 PM

barehandkiller

08-01-06, 05:00 PM

Wow...OK, man, so, David Copperfield isn't really flying. Bro, you're starting to sound like a little kid, just believing everything you see...

David Copperfield's levitation stunt is very, very good...the best in the world, actually. But sorry to break it to ya: He's isn't really flying. U.S. Patent 5,354,238 describes the harness system in which he uses. Also, if you really closely watch the video, he never actually goes through the hoops. They definately pass under him, but never completely over him. And the box is a very neat construction, but neither the lid, nor the person who walks above the box is in a position to disturb the wires. Also, you'll notice that Copperfield doesn't turn around in the box.

JD

Well darn, i guess i was really hopeing it to be true. I want paranormal abilities myself so bad hehe, ive always read fantasy books(magic, wizards, warriors,dragons etc). I would like to hear any comments about this video.
http://tinyurl.com/lerm5
Its about a man useing his Chi supposedly to be able to send an electrical charge out of his body(he uses it in accupuncture healing) as well as starting fire. It loads slow(very slow) so id just put it in a seperate window or tab and let it do its thing.
Peace

moementum7

08-02-06, 01:46 AM

You find some great info and links Barehanded...thanks.
I like the Qi energy.

As for some of those magicians, they are without a doubt ggod at what they do.
Some of their tricks are amazing.

For instance, check these out, I'm sure you'll like em.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rIfaFC-oGj0&search=magic%20angel
&
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gsq8qMi9_J0&mode=related&search=magic%20angel

enjoy:)

This one is fun too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIdJftwWxvM&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeGq6YkY9ms&mode=related&search=

Novacane

08-03-06, 04:35 PM

There are many theories as to how ET's gets here. The most common thing i hear about ET visitation from skeptics is its to far and it would take forever even at the speed of light. Well i would just like you too think about it all for a second.... i personally dont think the universe was created unintelligently or by shear chance. IMO something intelligent enough to create a universe with sheer mental power or will would be intelligent enough to know we would want to travel the universe and make it a possibility(and it not take generations to do so). We are explorers by nature, we have explored most of the surfaces of Earth and lots of ocean, IMO the Creator knows explorers would get bored with nothing else new to explore. Therefore something within me tells me that the speed of light limitation is bunk, the IS a way around it or some other faster means of transit. Just figured id share my thoughts.
Peace

BTW heres a interesting video with info on interstellar travel.
http://tinyurl.com/rolru
Theres lots more on youtube.com or google.com

Next time you travel to Vega, take the space subway. Lot's of exits. :D

sderenzi

08-03-06, 04:41 PM

I don't think there are aliens anymore, I'm to tired of this nonsense. I bet you the the government is just messing with us.

If there are aliens I have heard they are similar to insect like beings but not identical.

Novacane

08-03-06, 05:07 PM

john smith

08-04-06, 03:28 PM

Thats a good point, and a hard one too dispute, however, not everything needs 'evidence' to be proven, evidence that can be censored, pursuaded and often twisted.

just a thought...

JDawg

08-04-06, 05:41 PM

Um, by definition, yes, everything DOES need evidence to be proven.

By evidence, we mean empirical evidence. Stuff that isn't refutable. Stuff like, "Jesus, that spaceship landed on our lawn."

JD

JoojooSpaceape

08-04-06, 11:58 PM

Technologically enhanced cultures don't standardly follow religion, or really morals for that matter. Morals put a stop to the fullbodied path of science, the problem that you're going to find with your assumptions (barehand) is that you're not only bringing a religious aspect, but one that is very new age, and most people will find it quite a bit ludicrous, the video you link is also .... Well, quite frankly verging on a cult style video.

john smith

08-05-06, 05:54 AM

Um, by definition, yes, everything DOES need evidence to be proven.

By evidence, we mean empirical evidence. Stuff that isn't refutable. Stuff like, "Jesus, that spaceship landed on our lawn."

JD

oh, okay. I stand corrected! :cool:

Ophiolite

08-05-06, 06:58 AM

The most common thing i hear about ET visitation from skeptics is its to far and it would take forever even at the speed of light.Point 1: I suspect by skeptics you mean people who do not accept the likelihood of UFOs being alien spacecraft. This is the weakest argument against that conclusion by far.
Point 2: Skeptics who use this argument are displaying a singular lack of logic, knowledge and intellect. Why do I say this?
a) They assume that the lifespans of aliens would be of a comparable order of magnitude to ours.
b) They assume that alien races would share our remarkable ability to think long term means a few years, or at most a century.
c) They assume that alien races would vest the same importance in the individual's life and achievements and goals as we, rather than in the goals etc of the species.
If any or all of these assumptions are invalid (and they probably are) then the time taken to cross interstellar distances becomes incidental.

The skeptics who use this argument have forgotten, or have never understood what the word alien means.
IMO something intelligent enough to create a universe with sheer mental power or will would be intelligent enough to know we would want to travel the universe and make it a possibility(and it not take generations to do so).What makes you think a creator would have more than a passing interest in the ambitions of a bunch of primates with ego problems?
Therefore something within me tells me that the speed of light limitation is bunk, the IS a way around it or some other faster means of transit.Ah, if only it were bunk. A noted physicist once remarked that many a fine theory had been blown away by the first hard fact. The same thing happens to wishes even more frequently.

JDawg

08-06-06, 08:58 PM

Point 1: I suspect by skeptics you mean people who do not accept the likelihood of UFOs being alien spacecraft. This is the weakest argument against that conclusion by far.

You know, I've never really considered that before. I've never taken into account that maybe an alien race visiting us might share a lifespan of hundreds of years. I suppose it's possible. Maybe not likely, but possible.

But even so, you have to imagine that if the origin of supposed Energizer Alien is 1 million light years away, we're still talking insurmountable distances.

The skeptics who use this argument have forgotten, or have never understood what the word alien means.

I really don't even know how to tackle this whole thing. If you want to say that these aliens are visiting from Planet Zenon which lies 200 million light years away because these aliens have lifespans around the 6 billion year range, then why dont' we just say that aliens are also living among us, riding unicorns, with leprechauns on their shoulders while they blow the horn they were given when they went on vacation to Atlantis? I mean, it's the same thing. There's probability, and then there's fantasy. Sure, it's a possibility that there is some race of alien that lives to be 500 years old or so, but c'mon, man...you're really reaching on that one.

Ah, if only it were bunk. A noted physicist once remarked that many a fine theory had been blown away by the first hard fact. The same thing happens to wishes even more frequently.

Kind of speaks against your long-lasting alien theory, doesn't it? The hard fact is that light speed is the speed limit of the universe, and there just ain't a way around it.

JD

Ophiolite

08-07-06, 02:51 AM

JDawg,
it is apparent that even after being told that the word alien means different in possibly unimaginable ways, that you still don't grasp it.
What a geocentric world view you have to assume the lifespans present on Earth are somehow representative of all life spans, everywhere in the Universe.
Moreover, life on Earth displays much larger lifespans than the three score years and ten of humans.
a) Turtles and crocodiles can live well past one hundred.
b) The oldest living thing is a few thousand years old.
c) Bacteria, which reproduce asexually just like the cells in your body, are arguably immortal.
d) Within the next few hundred years medical science may find ways of extending human life indefinitely.
To say that I am reaching to suggest a lifespan of five hundred years is showing as much imagination as a barbequed armadillo. I had really thought, based upon reading of many of your posts, that you had more imagination than that.

Beyond that you have completely ignored the other points: that alien life may take a long term view, spanning many generations; that alien life may not perceive of the individual as being of significance, only the species, so that setting off on a journey thatg will see the demise of many generations would be quite natural.

Novacane

08-07-06, 03:29 AM

Ophiolite

08-07-06, 04:16 AM

Absolutely. It is the only sensible way to prepare armadillo. However, I think you will concede, which is the point I was making, that throughout this process the armadillo itself displays very little evidence of a currently active imagination.
I could have said barbecued aardvark, but these are more difficult to obtain, plus I am working my way through the alphabet of dead, unimaginative creatures that may be cooked to advantage. (I'm sorry you missed the avocado and anaconda delight.)

JDawg

08-07-06, 09:23 AM

it is apparent that even after being told that the word alien means different in possibly unimaginable ways, that you still don't grasp it.

Says who? Who says that intelligence can come in just about any form you can think of? Perhaps intelligence is the result of the most successful design. If you look at Earth, there have been two species to reach intelligence: One was the Homosapien, the other was the Nieanderthal. To me, the most logical theory is that the bipedal form with opposable thumbs is the absolute best design for intelligence. So what makes you think that just because this supposed race might be from another planet that they'd be THAT much different? Look at all the designs on Earth which haven't reached intelligence...

I personally think that there is a limit to what we should expect from an alien race.

a) Turtles and crocodiles can live well past one hundred.
b) The oldest living thing is a few thousand years old.
c) Bacteria, which reproduce asexually just like the cells in your body, are arguably immortal.
d) Within the next few hundred years medical science may find ways of extending human life indefinitely.
To say that I am reaching to suggest a lifespan of five hundred years is showing as much imagination as a barbequed armadillo. I had really thought, based upon reading of many of your posts, that you had more imagination than that.

.

OK, so see my first reply. I still don't see why we should just assume that aliens are these long-living things. You can't just mold the argument to fit your own side, man. You're just taking the fantasy side of it and shaping it in your view to try to make me wrong, but it's not gonna work. It just isn't.

Everything you're saying is complete and total speculation. Nothing you've said has any basis in reality.

Beyond that you have completely ignored the other points: that alien life may take a long term view, spanning many generations; that alien life may not perceive of the individual as being of significance, only the species, so that setting off on a journey thatg will see the demise of many generations would be quite natural.

Yes, and they might also have a death ray aimed at our planet, and they might be able too poop ice cream from their nipples. Don't you see that you are just making shit up now? We can't have this discussion, because you are using complete and total fantasy as your argument...fantasy...there is no fact to back you up here...you just thought it up all on your own...so we can't discuss this, man. Because no matter what I say, you'll just say "Well, what if this is the case? What, are you stupid that you can't see that these aliens might be a thousand feet tall? I mean, duh!"

Sorry.

JD

Ophiolite

08-07-06, 09:56 AM

I must offer you my sincere apologies JDawg. I had no idea you were young, unimaginative, and, the most debilitating point, wholly uninformed.

I do wish I could claim credit for the ideas I have presented here, but I rather think none of them are original. Anyone working in the field of exobiology recognises the limitations when we are faced with a sample size of one for life.

You may be correct. The human design may be the most efficient and effective, but if you know anything about evolution you know that we came about by a concatentation of many chance events. The likelihood that life on another planet would chance through a similar series of events is likely very restricted. This is broadly recognised within any writings on the subject. Your ignorance of this suggests you have done little or no reading in this area.

That's fine. Ignorance is correctable, but please don't take the fatuous line that I am building clouds in the air and trying to land a 747 on them. My reasoning is perfectly in line with current informed thinking on the topic. Do some research. You may be surprised. Alternatively you can bask in the comfort of your ignorance. I rather hope you opt for the former, then we can have an intelligent discussion.

JDawg

08-07-06, 04:11 PM

I must offer you my sincere apologies JDawg. I had no idea you were young, unimaginative, and, the most debilitating point, wholly uninformed.

I never once made a personal insult towards you. I simply said you were arguing with fantasy, which you are, but I never said anything about your own personal character. I'm reporting your post to the moderators, if they haven't already seen it. I don't need this fucking shit when I'm discussing. You simply cannot handle the fact that someone is pointing out to you that you're being completely irrational about this, and you jump down their throats with personal insults? That's not only immature, but reeking of the ignorace you so blatantly accuse me of.

Funny that a man who spends enough time on this forum that it has actually prevented him from ever kissing a girl comes at me with a smug attitude. That's really funny.

I do wish I could claim credit for the ideas I have presented here, but I rather think none of them are original. Anyone working in the field of exobiology recognises the limitations when we are faced with a sample size of one for life.

But you rather think none of them are original? Bullshit. You just told me that aliens live for thousands of years and still dont' think in terms of their own lifespans. You really did just make it up, so stop saying it's a shared sentiment.

We haven't even seen an alien yet, Ophie. I'm sorry, but we haven't. And you're already giving them attributes to overcome the cosmos with. You're going to have to make your peace with that. And then shove it up your ass.

You may be correct. The human design may be the most efficient and effective, but if you know anything about evolution you know that we came about by a concatentation of many chance events. The likelihood that life on another planet would chance through a similar series of events is likely very restricted. This is broadly recognised within any writings on the subject. Your ignorance of this suggests you have done little or no reading in this area.

If you read my post, I never said that any intelligent alien life had to look exactly like us. What I am saying is that for intelligence to develop, there are prerequisites. Tool manipulation, which requires the freeing of at least two appendages, is a fairly concrete requirement. And that would lend to bipedal locomotion, would it not? Less (or at least more focused) bodily hair growth lends to the ability to sweat, as opposed to panting, which can open the door for the larynix to decend and speech to arrise.

As it stands, the earliest Human has built more advanced structures and used more advanced tools than any other species on the planet. They have also formed the most advanced speech. Do you find these complete coincidences in the theme of intelligence?

What I'm saying is that apparently what Homo Sapien (and to an extent, Nieanderthal) has the design which works, and the only design which has allowed for intelligence, despite the fact that we have been around for less time and spent less time dominating our environment than other species on the planet.

Take the Crocodile, for example. Their ancient lineage lies back with the Dinosaurs, and it said that they have changed very little since then. Now, a species that dominant, that successful in their environment, and they have not evolved into an intelligent speicies. Why is that? To me, that says that no matter how great the Crocodile is, they are not of a form that allows for intelligence. They never developed hands as we know them, nor thumbs which can oppose the fingers, and hence have never been able (or had the need) to manipulate the world around them.

And I agree with you that our form came thanks to events which cannot be predicted all throughout history. Chance encounters with events that caused mass extinctions and population bottlenecks, and the ancestors of Humanity survived every single one of them. It is an extraordinary example of luck that we are here today, and with all that said, the possibility of finding a race on another world that resembles us must be fairly low.

But all that says to me is that the chances of finding intelligent civilizations on other worlds is even lower than that. I really do believe that our intelligent counterparts in outter space, if they exist, will be remarkably similar to us at least in physical structure. If I am to be proven wrong someday, then so be it, but as of right now, there are no examples from space to either support or contradict that. What we do have, however, are prime examples on Earth of what it takes to be inteligent, and many more of extremely successful designs that still exist today that are not intelligent.

The evidence, in my opinion, speaks for itself.

JD

Ophiolite

08-08-06, 06:36 AM

JDawg, your entire posts have been filled with belligerent attacks on the fantasies I have dreamed up . You have implicitly called me a liar and decried my logic and knowledge in a field that I have been studying, albeit it in a casual way, for a couple of decades.

Then you have the gall to say you have not indulged in personal insult, and further show you are completely unable to handle a lighthearted poke at your pretensions. Please report away: you have me quaking in my shoes at the consequences. :rolleyes:

For the future, since you are unable to deal with vigorous exchanges, I shall limit myself solely to facts and clearly focused speculation. Let me deal with some of your contentions:

Item 1:
You just told me that aliens live for thousands of years and still dont' think in terms of their own lifespans. You really did just make it up, so stop saying it's a shared sentiment.
First Point:
This is not at all what I said. I clearly stated that aliens may live for thousands of years: that is not the same thing, at all, as saying they do live for thousands of years.
It is inaccurate and limiting to believe that the human life span is somehow representative of the lifespan we can expect aliens to adhere to. I have little idea how long aliens may live for, but I certainly do not place artificial limits upon the possible lifespans that are based upon an anthropocentric viewpoint.
Lifespans are quite closely related to body mass: the examples of the shrew, dead at two, and the elephant, lving as long as humans, are typical. There are, however, quite clear exceptions. Birds live three as long as mammals of a similar mass. Humans live four times as long as may be expected for their average mass: that is almost an order of magnitude difference. Bats, about the same mass as a shrew, can live to over thirty.

It is thought that equally as important as mass is the risk of dying before achieving successful reproduction. Animals, that by their character, can survive readily (they are the target of few predators, for example, or like humans are endowed with intelligence) will tend to have long life spans. That is not a tautology. There is a trade off between fecundity and longevity. You can inform yourself about this through the work of Austad, Holmes and others. (For example, The Evolution of Senescence and Post-Reproductive Lifespan in Guppies (Poecilia reticulata), Reznik, et al, PLoS Biology, January 2006.)
So, on this planet we have animal species living to over two hundred years (ranging from the quahog clam to the bowhead whale). We have plants living for thousands of years - a bristlecone pine in California is 4,700 years old.
Moreover, we see an order of magnitude difference in age for a given mass is entirely natural.

Given all that, is is no stretch at all to postulate that alien life may have a longevity greater than humans, by an order of magnitude. That yields natural lifespans in the range of several hundred years.
And all this without considering that just as we are investigating ways of delaying or ameliorating the onset of aging, so too may alien species. An alien species with a seven hundred year lifespan, that through the application of medical and genetic science doubles or triples that lifespan, it would be alive for over 2,000 years. Are you seriously contending that there is no way humans will be unable to double or triple their lifespan in the next hundred, thousand, or ten thousand years?

And in all of this I have not even considered the immortality of many prokaryotic life forms. Bacteria, which reproduce by simple cell division, produce two identical daughter cells indistinguishable from the original. If that isn't immortality, I don't know what is. It is only when asymmetric cell division is present that we see evidence of aging in one of the daughter cells. (Ackermann, M., Stearns, S. C., and Jenal, U. (2003) "Senescence in a bacterium with asymmetric division." Science 300(5627):1920) Aging is something that came in with the eukaryotes and is associated, intimately, with sexual reproduction. A multi-cellular prokaryote that did not elect to take the sexual route, could be effectively immortal. (It would, incidentally, look quite unlike anything you would think of as capable of interstellar travel. A smart slime mold would be a good starting point.)

Second Point:
You state that I have claimed that aliens live for thousands of years, yet don't think in terms of their own lifetimes. I did not do so. I presented these as alternative scenarios: the aliens may live a long time, compared to humans, or, they may be indifferent to their individual lives, subsuming that interest for the good of the species or tribe. The example of colony species, such as ants or bees springs immediately to mind.

Third Point:
You state I am alone in this belief that aliens may live for a long time.
Here is a member of another discussion forum who shares the view:
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2677&sid=c3a9eeb97c095eac8d777f05e5f57f29

Or this comment “… and who is to say that they do not have a "warp drive" or 10,000-year life spans?” from http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8148/glass.html

Or this, “Plus, who says ETs have to have lifetimes limited to a few decades...?” from
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1030426/posts

Here the notion is explored in some detail:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/nov/m01-007.shtml

The likelihood of lifeforms based on ammonia as the active solvent, rather than water are explored here. The consequence of extended lifespans associated with the lower temperatures of ammonia based biochemistry are noted.
http://geog-www.sbs.ohio-state.edu/courses/G820.01/Schulze-Makuch%20and%20Irwin_20%202.pdf

And in passing we might note that there are some who claim that man, as detailed in the Bible, lived for spans of nine hundred years. Nonsense, of course, but it serves to demonstrate that what you think of as my personal ‘delusion’ is rather widespread.
Fazale R. Rana, Hugh Ross, and Richard Deem, "Long Life Spans: Adam Lived 930 Years and Then He Died; New Discoveries in the Biochemistry of Aging Support the Biblical Record," Facts for Faith, no. 5 (Q1 2001)

Not directly related to lifespans, but as illustrative of the sort of thinking that has gone into issues of alien character, consider this tongue in cheek piece, with a serious undertone, from Omni in the 1970s.
http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/IllegalAliens.htm

I trust the point is made and you will feel it appropriate to retract your earlier remarks.

That is sufficient for the moment. I can pursue the other points you have raised later in your post. In each instance you are failing to apply the imagination and vision that seems to me a commonplace. That is not a personal attack on you, but an objective statement of fact. I believe I have adequately demonstrated that my ideas are not original, are not unique to me, and are founded on reasonable projection of our current scientific knowledge.

JDawg

08-09-06, 01:04 AM

OK, well, let's talk about this, then, eh?

I simply took issue with you repeatedly telling me that I was unimaginative and uninformed. I said that you made up what you said, and you made personal (and false) observations about my character and personality. That's all. I don't appreciate it.

I shall limit myself solely to facts and clearly focused speculation

Well, that would be nice, and a first in this thread on your part. As a matter of fact, this is the first post you made that wasn't completely whacko.

clearly stated that aliens may live for thousands of years: that is not the same thing, at all, as saying they do live for thousands of years.

Well, forgive me, then. But in your first post, you pointed out specifically that the "even at the speed of light, it is too far for them to traveL" was the weakest point of contention against UFO visitation. I may be wrong, but the way you said that made me believe that you felt these longer lifespans were strongly probably, not a matter of "they merely might". Again, I could be wrong, but when you say that the distances required to travel are too great is not only a weak, but the weakest argument, I tend to believe that you're making a stance for your theory.

It is inaccurate and limiting to believe that the human life span is somehow representative of the lifespan we can expect aliens to adhere to. I have little idea how long aliens may live for, but I certainly do not place artificial limits upon the possible lifespans that are based upon an anthropocentric viewpoint

You're absolutley right. There is no reason to limit a hypothetical species to merely a few decades, when in fact, they might have a life expectancy of 300 years. I'm not going to say that it's not possible, as we do have instances of long-lasting lifespans on this planet. It's interesting, because I only learned of the bowhead whale the other day, and I found it amazing that there is a non-plant being on this planet that so far outlives Humans. I mean, this isn't even close!

That said, I still think you're asking for a lot. You've said yourself that the "distances" argument is weak, when in fact, it isn't. Pick a random place in the universe, and it's pretty damn far from Earth. Even at the most generous alotted lifespan your imagination can muster, you'd be pushing the limits. I think that if an alien race lived a hundred thousand light years away, you're talking far beyond a realistic lifespan of an alien visitor.

That isn't to say aliens don't live in the Andromeda Galaxy, because that's fairly close at light speed. But that brings up the whole argument if anything can even go that fast that isn't radiation! Imagine the power involved in that? I could not imagine (and no, that isn't to say it's impossible) how any species could manage to gather the energy needed to power a light-speed travel from one galaxy to the next. I just can't see it.

You state that I have claimed that aliens live for thousands of years, yet don't think in terms of their own lifetimes. I did not do so. I presented these as alternative scenarios: the aliens may live a long time, compared to humans, or, they may be indifferent to their individual lives, subsuming that interest for the good of the species or tribe. The example of colony species, such as ants or bees springs immediately to mind.

You're splitting hairs now. I'm sorry I misread your post, or misspoke my own. It wasn't intentional.

I do agree with the colony idea, and that's a possibility. I think Humanity would be well served to sacrifice a generation or two of space-farers for the sake of science on a trip to, I dunno, Andromeda. Just to see what it looks like up close. I think if Humans thought in the same way, then perhaps we'd know things about the universe that we normally wouldn't for centuries or millenia, if ever.

You state I am alone in this belief that aliens may live for a long time.

I will dig right in following this reply. Thanks for the links.

And in passing we might note that there are some who claim that man, as detailed in the Bible, lived for spans of nine hundred years. Nonsense, of course, but it serves to demonstrate that what you think of as my personal ‘delusion’ is rather widespread.

I'm not saying the delusion is your own, and I apologize if you took it that way. There are plenty of people who not only speculate it, such as yourself, but who truly believe it and won't budge from their stance. It's non-scientific and absurd to be that way.

And of course the ages in the Bible were nonsense. Nobody ever considers that a good deal of it was written as works of fiction. Nobody ever assumes that perhaps this may have been a compliation of some of the earliest works of science fiction in Human history.

I trust the point is made and you will feel it appropriate to retract your earlier remarks.

Retract? No. I still believe that you are reaching (as are the others) in your stance that the immense distances between Earth and other potential civilizations don't matter. I think that no matter the lifespan, the universe is too big to traverse. I will say that if we have a close neighbor who lives in our galaxy, then perhaps, but even then, the galaxy is huge, and I can't see aliens zipping back and forth with the regularity that UFO believers claim. I just can't see it. That doesn't make me unimaginative, it just makes me a realist.

As a matter of fact, I don't see why there can't be hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions, of intelligent species on planets all across the universe. If we are here, then there must be others as well; that just makes sense. But again, we are a small speck of a planet in a rather mediocre star system, and it would truly surprise me if these aliens even knew we existed.

But again, that's speculation. I hope that there's an alien race closeby who has some interest. I would love to know that we aren't alone, and that there is hope for a civilization who, by nature and circumstance, has a shelf life. I would love to know that the technology exists to perhaps draw resources from another planet when the need arises, or even leave this planet altogether when the time comes.

JD

Ophiolite

08-09-06, 02:48 AM

in your first post, you pointed out specifically that the "even at the speed of light, it is too far for them to traveL" was the weakest point of contention against UFO visitation. I may be wrong, but the way you said that made me believe that you felt these longer lifespans were strongly probably, not a matter of "they merely might". It is the weakest point in the argument, but at the risk of the boredom that comes with repetition I offered several reasons why this might be so, of which long lifetimes was merely one. For wahtever reason you chose to zero in on one of that suite of explanations and headed of down a dark corridor of your own making.
Even at the most generous alotted lifespan your imagination can muster, you'd be pushing the limits. I think that if an alien race lived a hundred thousand light years away, you're talking far beyond a realistic lifespan of an alien visitor. It is as if you have read nothing I have written. You certainly do not appear to have understood it. [No, that is not a personal attack. I know what the fuck I meant, and I know just as surely that you haven't grasped it. So, I'll take responsibility for that and keep trying, but really put in some effort yourself, if you don't mind.]
Firstly, I have indicated that some life forms might have no interest in the survival of the individual through the end of the voyage, merely the survival of the species. The individual lifespan, which you appear to have got hung up on, would be irrelevant.
Secondly, I have indicated that some lifeformes may be immortal. Stop. Don't deny the possibility. We already have, and I have already discussed, lifeforms on this planet that are immortal.
Thirdly, while we have no way of knowing how close, if at all, an alien race may live, 100,000 light years places it way to heck on the other side of the galaxy. You are therefore declaring, in such a scenario, that there are no more than two civilisations per galaxy. Maybe yes, maybe no, but that falls way below the popular estimates.
That isn't to say aliens don't live in the Andromeda Galaxy, because that's fairly close at light speed.No it isn't. It's two and a half million light years away. And that is not close at the substantially sub-light speeds we are envisaging.
I could not imagine (and no, that isn't to say it's impossible) how any species could manage to gather the energy needed to power a light-speed travel from one galaxy to the next. I just can't see it.Do you know how frustrating that is JDawg. You object to me calling you unimaginative, then - in your own words - you write down that you cannot imagine something that others have imagined. What word do I use to describe that if it is not unimaginative? If you have not read the works of Kardishev or Zubrin, what is the alternative word to uninformed? I trust you see my difficulty.
I think Humanity would be well served to sacrifice a generation or two of space-farers for the sake of science on a trip to, I dunno, Andromeda.Once again, if you hope to do the 2.5 million light year trip in a couple of generations you are going to have to go at relatavistic velocities, which I am assuming in this discussion are not practical: that is one of the premises that was established before I even became involved in this. So the trip to Andromeda is off for conventional spacefarers.

At this point it is worth introducing an alternative method of exploration and colonisation. We send out robot craft, loaded with AI, and equipped with sperm banks and ova, that will allow a new generation of humans to be born when a hospitable planet is found by the robot craft.
I think that no matter the lifespan, the universe is too big to traverse. I will say that if we have a close neighbor who lives in our galaxy, then perhaps, but even then, the galaxy is huge, and I can't see aliens zipping back and forth with the regularity that UFO believers claim. I just can't see it. That doesn't make me unimaginative, it just makes me a realist. Firstly, you are still hung up on the lifespan.
Secondly, where have I spoken about aliens zipping back and forth? I'll give you a clue. Nowhere. My posts have not been in support of UFO believers, but have been decrying a single weak argument used by the skeptics. I vehemently object to weak arguments when they come from pseudoscientists and crazies. I become apoplectic when such arguments are proffered by individuals who should know better.
Finally, trust me on this one JDawg, you are unimaginative. It can be corrected, but the solution is in your hands.

Novacane

08-09-06, 04:53 AM

'Why' would any advanced alien space travelers want to travel hundreds of light years to visit planet Earth at all? For a good hamburger maybe? Doubtful. To see Niagra Falls? Doubtful. To shake hands with GWB? Very very Doubtfall. To exchange technology? Doubtful. What would be a logical reason for their visit? You tell us. We're waiting for your answer. O.K?

Ophiolite

08-09-06, 05:45 AM

Why would we, with our primitive technology, send space probes to Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, and to the comets and asteroids of our system. Curiosity.

If intelligent aliens exist it is arguable that they are also curious. If we do not destroy ourselves in the next couple of centuries we shall be sending out interstellar probes. As our technology and science advance, so will the sophistication of those probes. It is not any kind of a stretch to envisage that in this regard aliens may behave in a similar way. [On Earth, morphology differs much more than motivation. A signature feature of life?]

JDawg

08-09-06, 10:34 AM

Maybe yes, maybe no, but that falls way below the popular estimates.

But since we have no idea if intelligent civilizations live AT ALL outside of Earth, "popular estimates" can go fuck themselves. I think it's insane that people are actually putting numbers on something like that. How can you even estimate something like that? It's impossible to even guess, and yes, I've seen the mathematical equation used by that guy (don't remember his name) but it's all bunk. You may be able to put a probable number on how many planets could support life, but not how many have civilizations. Not possible.

No it isn't. It's two and a half million light years away. And that is not close at the substantially sub-light speeds we are envisaging.

You're right, it's not close. But it's the closest galaxy to us. But I concede, it is a poor example.

Do you know how frustrating that is JDawg. You object to me calling you unimaginative, then - in your own words - you write down that you cannot imagine something that others have imagined. What word do I use to describe that if it is not unimaginative? If you have not read the works of Kardishev or Zubrin, what is the alternative word to uninformed? I trust you see my difficulty.

First of all, enough of this. I have plenty of imagination, and I do not have to prove it to you. I don't have a degree in anything related to the field, so yes, I am uninformed. I've done some reading, though, and while I am not even close to being able to say I fully understand it all, I can tell you that I have yet to read anywhere that light speed travel is possible. I have, on the other hand, read in many places that the chances of us being able to do so are very slim. Someday, I will read these works by Kardishev and Zubrin, and hopefully others, but as it stands, the "popular estimates" state that it's going to be a tough sell to get Humans to travel that fast.

Once again, if you hope to do the 2.5 million light year trip in a couple of generations you are going to have to go at relatavistic velocities, which I am assuming in this discussion are not practical: that is one of the premises that was established before I even became involved in this. So the trip to Andromeda is off for conventional spacefarers.

Again, I wasn't taking the actual distance into account...I was merely pulling a name out of the hat. Maybe we should travel to the closest star...is that better?

At this point it is worth introducing an alternative method of exploration and colonisation. We send out robot craft, loaded with AI, and equipped with sperm banks and ova, that will allow a new generation of humans to be born when a hospitable planet is found by the robot craft.

I agree. I don't know if the ova and sperm are neccessary, but whatever. Let's get this damned robot in the air and get it going.

Firstly, you are still hung up on the lifespan.
Secondly, where have I spoken about aliens zipping back and forth?

I'm hung up on the lifespan because it makes sense to be. And as far as the "zipping" aliens, I never once said that you said that. I stated that "UFO believers" say that.

My posts have not been in support of UFO believers, but have been decrying a single weak argument used by the skeptics. I vehemently object to weak arguments when they come from pseudoscientists and crazies. I become apoplectic when such arguments are proffered by individuals who should know better.

Of course not. But I still dont' see how it is a weak argument. It isn't. It's a good argument. Even if you take into account the possibility that aliens may live for longer times, or have different approaches to life and, in turn, spacetravel, you have to accept that the distances still play a strong part in where these aliens go.

I could accept that it might not be so strong of an argument if the aliens may be close to us, as in a nearby star, but not because of these supposed lifespans or goals. I just don't think it's fair to argue that point, because it's purely conjecture. Yes, I suppose it's all conjecture, but still.

Finally, trust me on this one JDawg, you are unimaginative. It can be corrected, but the solution is in your hands

For the last time, get over it. I'm trying my best to understand this stuff, and in doing so, I'm trying to stay away from the fantastical flights of fancy. If I'm taking the wrong approach, fine, but trust me, Ophie, it's intentional. I'm purposely trying not to make these vague assumptions, or just throw wild ideas in the air. I could all day say that perhaps the aliens use a fossil fuel that we can't produce on Earth which provides more than enough energy for extended lightspeed travel, and that they use forcefields to protect their vessels against space debris that would normally rip to shreds their craft at that speed.

I choose not to because I would be called a baseless whackjob for doing it. I'm trying to stick to the few things I know and understand in an effort to understand more. Can you understand that?

JD