Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by StrangerInAStrangeLand, Jul 24, 2014.
Familiar? I live there!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The UFO mythology is acceptable to many people, because faith in UFO's is consistent with logical inferences condoned by science. In other words, there is no direct proof or hard evidence for life elsewhere in the universe, period. Animo acids are not life anymore than water. However, there is enough circumstantial evidence to extrapolate and conclude it must be out there. The same is true for big foot, zombies and vampires. These can be inferred by perturbations of legitimate genetic and random theory inferences. Why not a mutation that forms big foot since this theory is used all the time for evolution?
The bridge between the limits of what is provable, with direct evidence, and what can be, based on logical and theoretical inference, is usually spanned by contrivance in the lab. Man made things span the gap between naturally occurring and that inferred image of what is possible; sky scraper. The formation of the contrivance occurs outside the box of proof. This position outside the box of proof, tends to get the imagination and the unconscious mind involved, through an intuitive connection based on faith. The inventor will not give up is vision, until he can see his invention in reality; formula for success.
Asking for lab proof for other life in the universe, or lab proof of God, run into the same problem. Neither can provide it and neither will give up the position because the right brain is generating an intuitive conviction. It can sense a contrivance that will bridge the gap. Mythology is useful because it gets the right brain to trigger this feeling that something lies beyond proof in the box of knowledge. This feeling beyond proof is important because this helps to motivate humans to build bridges beyond the box of what eyes can see, into what the mind's eye can see (imagination).
Manmade global warming makes use of mythology, via doom and gloom projections without proof. These are logical inferences supported by science, but which have yet to pan out with hard data; melted down of the poles. The fear (places one outside the box of what is known) helps to trigger the right brain for the conviction overlap needed to for the contrivance. This helped science to rebrand the entire mythology from global warming to climate change.
There is no law or rule in science, like the scientific method, that requires calibration of the mind. It allows the science pot to call the religion kettle black, so it can slip under the mythology radar due to extrapolation of theory it deems absolute.
Here is an interesting thought that came to me last night, connected to relativity. According to GR or general relativity, the mass of the earth will cause a local space-time well with space-time most contracted toward the core of the earth. The space-time well will expand as we reach the surface and then move into space outside the earth.
The question becomes, since most of the new data we get from space comes from satellites orbiting the earth, like the Hubble Telescope, aren't these in a different space-time reference than the telescopes of the surface, according to GR? Since space-time is more expanded in orbit, won't this reference see more red shift and could this reference change look like a sudden acceleration?
Conversely, proof of GR should require the orbit reference be different from the surface reference and we should see the difference with the orbit reference making the expansion look faster due to red shift enhancement.
Perhaps this will help:
See especially from 3:33, but it's all relevant to your query.
Every FoR is as valid and legitimate as any other.
I didn't say there is. I said that calling alien contactees /abductees nutty is a biased mischaracterization. The main reason some are called nutty & the only reason most are called that is that some people who have no possible way of knowing what did or did not happen simply made up their minds that it is a nutty notion. You & I do not know what happened to them.
Nonsense. Evidence is evidence & proof is proof.
There are barely signs humans have improved. There are as many signs it would not take much for most to revert to savagery. Humans continue to be biased, prejudiced, fearful, unmerciful, invading conquering barbarians & it looks as if they will be so if they ever come across less powerful aliens. They'd probably try it against more powerful aliens with little reason other than that they are alien.
You do not know what to expect of alien needs, desires, motives, thinking processes, plans & behavior. You are certain about something you do not know.
You seem to think aliens could land tomorrow at the White House or Sydney Opera House but they could not have done it yesterday out in the forest or in a pasture. That does not add up.
So your beef is me calling them nutty? What about claims that fairies exist, that have been made on this forum?
I'll withdraw the term nutty then....Let's call them delusional, OK?
They are in my opinion, just as delusional as some of our conspiracy pushers, and those that think they have a ToE.
No, as I said, extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. [and they are not my words]
When some real evidence ever comes to light of Aliens having landed on Earth, like some Alien artifact, or a crashed star ship, or even a dead Alien, certainly not what we see now, star ships landing, and Aliens appearing to individuals [in the main] out in the middle of nowhere, no other witnesses, etc.
Ask yourself, why would they do it that way?
Slow, yep certainly its slow, but it has and is happening. We as a species have improved somewhat, although at this time isolated elements may seem to contradict that on face value.
My opinion is, that any species advanced enough to undertake star travel, would not really want for anything, and would be beyond our own present shortcomings.
No, I don't believe they would be aggressive.
Yes. possible, but not probable. They still need to overcome those two great barriers to inter-species contact...Time and Distance.
With landing in the middle of nowhere, you forget any evidence. Why would evidence not be left....why would they not make an effort to contact more than an occasional "delusional" "isolated" individual?
They would naturally be in advance of us, more Intelligent obviously....why would they not ask, "Take me to your leader!"
NASA has known for 75yrs that we are not alone
The populous just haven't caught up
NASA started in 1958
exists for 56 years, so 75 is a tad over the top there river
Yet another undirected hand wave.
We've already established, conclusively, that I'm more wide-read than you are - even on the woo topics that YOU seem to specialise in.
Regardless of what certain nutcases have claimed in print your assertion is factually unsupported.
NASA WAS founded in 1958 , which makes it , 56yrs old
And before NASA was , NACA
Formed in 1915
So your point here is that not only is your claim unsupported but that it's also IMPOSSIBLE for it to be correct.
And you think that helps your case... how?
And you had to use someone else's post to come up with that.
The *cough* depth of your knowledge is astounding... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The point is that NASA has known for a very long time that we are not alone
Factually unsupported claim.
They're not the only one.
Yep, but river's loves conspiracies.
It's a wonder some people have the nerve to get out of bed of a morning with all these governmental conpiracies running our lives.
I certainly without doubt believe for many reasons I have stated many times, that we are not alone.
If we were, it would raise far many more questions.
But the scientific fact at this time, is that we have no hard evidence, to support the belief we are not alone.
Other then the vast numbers involved and extent of the Universe.
Separate names with a comma.