Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
Smart enough clown, to pick you as a fraud.
What are the odds of an ET visitation?
- Thread starter Ivan Seeking
- Start date
Smart enough clown, to pick you as a fraud.Oh, well, that's how l realized that the circus had left, but the clowns remained. You're funny, but alas, you're dumb. Is it hard to become smart living in the "ass of the world"?
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
Nice to see you post in English! Just a shame that you are such a rude ignorant racist person. Now back on topic. What evidence do you have that Earth has been visited by Aliens?
I'm too lazy to write in English. Guess what and why.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
Not interested in your condition, either mental or physical. Just answer the question and back on topic....What evidence to you have that earth has been visited by Aliens?
Are you stupid? I explained it to you in English: guess for yourself.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Agree unfortunately. We have tried to explain vaccines and mathematics to you but you rejected that input.
You seem to be ok with Aliens though, for which there has been exactly zero confirmed cases.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
No, not stupid at all, I just understand the fraud and side stepping you are fond of doing. Again what evidence do you have the Earth has been visited by Aliens? Have you seen an Alien yourself in your wonderful free, open country?
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
That's OK then. Just as I thought. On enemies though, Russia is here own worst enemy! Byeee!
We don't give a shit about you.
Ivan Seeking
Valued Senior Member
The correct answer is that we have no idea what the chances of a visitation might be. It ranges from 0% to nearly 100%.
If it is possible to beat the SOL limitation from SR through concepts from GR or perhaps through physics we can't imagine, for all we know, highly advanced civilizations might be zipping all around and a visitation is virtually guaranteed. Remember also, it is the THEORY of Relativity, not the LAW of Relativity.
Also, if there is or are civilizations that have been spreading throughout the galaxy for a billion years or more, they may not even need the SOL to be here. They may be all around and have been for millions of years. Again, visitation might be virtually guaranteed.
On the other hand, maybe the SOL from SR really is an absolute limit and there is no chance of ever making contact.
So, Sagan's logic was flawed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but we don't know if the idea of an ET visitation is an extraordinary claim! It might just be an ordinary claim we don't expect.
Finally, the argument that the odds of exceeding the SOL are extremely small is also flawed logic. There are no odds. Either it is possible or it isn't. Just because we can't know, that doesn't mean it is a statistical argument. The truth already exists and it is either true or false, nothing more. There are no odds.
Two other schools of thought exist:
There is the notion of ultra terrestrials that have been here on earth longer than we have.
Finally, if time travel is possible, we might be seeing time travelers. They may be us. Some physicists have argued this is a simpler explanation than is ETs traversing the cosmos. Faster that SOL travel and time travel are intimately connected and somewhat a wash logically.
Claims that ET visitations are definitively, extremely unlikely or impossible, are flawed logic. We don't know.
If it is possible to beat the SOL limitation from SR through concepts from GR or perhaps through physics we can't imagine, for all we know, highly advanced civilizations might be zipping all around and a visitation is virtually guaranteed. Remember also, it is the THEORY of Relativity, not the LAW of Relativity.
Also, if there is or are civilizations that have been spreading throughout the galaxy for a billion years or more, they may not even need the SOL to be here. They may be all around and have been for millions of years. Again, visitation might be virtually guaranteed.
On the other hand, maybe the SOL from SR really is an absolute limit and there is no chance of ever making contact.
So, Sagan's logic was flawed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but we don't know if the idea of an ET visitation is an extraordinary claim! It might just be an ordinary claim we don't expect.
Finally, the argument that the odds of exceeding the SOL are extremely small is also flawed logic. There are no odds. Either it is possible or it isn't. Just because we can't know, that doesn't mean it is a statistical argument. The truth already exists and it is either true or false, nothing more. There are no odds.
Two other schools of thought exist:
There is the notion of ultra terrestrials that have been here on earth longer than we have.
Finally, if time travel is possible, we might be seeing time travelers. They may be us. Some physicists have argued this is a simpler explanation than is ETs traversing the cosmos. Faster that SOL travel and time travel are intimately connected and somewhat a wash logically.
Claims that ET visitations are definitively, extremely unlikely or impossible, are flawed logic. We don't know.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. The extraordinary claim is framed within the context we have.
In the context we have, there are zero civilizations, as far as we are able to see.
An entire civilization farcmorexadvanced than we is an extraordinary claim, based on the evidence we have.
Ivan Seeking:
As I noted there, we do have a several-thousand year record available to us, which shows zero confirmed alien visitations, however. So it's reasonable to conclude that the frequency of confirmed alien visitations to Earth is currently rarer than one every 5500 years.
Calling something a "theory" in science is high praise, not a criticism. Theories are the best science we have.
If an alien shows up on my doorstep tomorrow, that will be quite extraordinary, from my point of view. I don't know about you.
The evidence I personally would require for you to convince me that aliens showed up on your doorstep yesterday would qualify as "extraordinary evidence", in the straightforward sense of being convincing evidence that something extraordinary (out of the ordinary) occurred at your house yesterday.
So, for example, your mere assertion here on sciforums that, last night, you sat down to share a pizza with some aliens who landed their saucer in your back yard, would not be sufficient to convincing me that such an event actually occurred. I would need more. If you sent me some photographs of the aliens dudes and you chowing down on the pizza in your living room, that might move me in the direction of accepting your claim. If you collected some DNA from the aliens and had it analysed in a reputable lab and the results showed that the DNA was like nothing terrestrial, that might move me even further in the direction of believing you. If you put the alien spaceship on a truck and took it for display in some prominent location where competent investigators could check it was a legit, that would move me towards believing your tale about your pizza night.
Notice that, taken individually, none of these pieces of evidence might individually strike you as "extraordinary". A photograph is not extraordinary, in itself. But an undoctored photograph clearly showing you chowing down on a pizza in the company of six-armed gelatinous blob-like creatures, with a giant freakin' flying saucer visible through the window to the back year would strike me as quite extraordinary.
Have you noticed the paucity of undoctored photographs showing reliable witnesses chowing down on pizza with some bona fide space dudes, Ivan? What does that suggest to you? Shouldn't there be more of that kind of thing, if the aliens are visiting?
For example, consider a poll of voting intentions. 1000 people, let's say, are asked who they intend to vote for, for President, in the upcoming election. The result is data (statistics) that contains known information about the intentions of that particular group of people.
Now, you might argue that a sample of 1000 people can't tell you anything useful about how people in general are likely to vote in the upcoming election. After all, can 1000 people really "speak" for millions of potential voters, with any level of accuracy.
The answer, in fact, is: yes, they can. As long as the 1000 people are a "representative sample" of the larger population of voters, their voting intentions can (within mathematically rigorous uncertainty bounds) tell us with some confidence how the general population is likely to vote. If this was not true, companies and political parties wouldn't spend money conducting opinion polls.
It is true that every voter for President in 2020 either voted for Trump or voted for some other candidate. But it is also true that polls prior to the election accurately (within calculated uncertainty bounds) predicted the outcome of the election, without having to ask 100 million people, individually, how they intended to vote.
That's more or less what I said back in post #41, which it seems you missed, or maybe just ignored.
As I noted there, we do have a several-thousand year record available to us, which shows zero confirmed alien visitations, however. So it's reasonable to conclude that the frequency of confirmed alien visitations to Earth is currently rarer than one every 5500 years.
That's a logical possibility, certainly. We have no evidence of any aliens zipping around, so far, though.
A theory, in science, means a highly evidenced and well-established explanation of a set of observed natural phenomena. Scientific laws, on the other hand, tend to be merely statements of observed regularities in nature.
Calling something a "theory" in science is high praise, not a criticism. Theories are the best science we have.
Might. May. Sure. But also: there's no evidence that they are visiting or that they have visited in the past 5500 years.
Maybe.
Which logic of Sagan's?
We all go about our lives seeing no aliens last week, no aliens this week, no aliens last year, no aliens 2 decades ago, no aliens today.
If an alien shows up on my doorstep tomorrow, that will be quite extraordinary, from my point of view. I don't know about you.
The evidence I personally would require for you to convince me that aliens showed up on your doorstep yesterday would qualify as "extraordinary evidence", in the straightforward sense of being convincing evidence that something extraordinary (out of the ordinary) occurred at your house yesterday.
So, for example, your mere assertion here on sciforums that, last night, you sat down to share a pizza with some aliens who landed their saucer in your back yard, would not be sufficient to convincing me that such an event actually occurred. I would need more. If you sent me some photographs of the aliens dudes and you chowing down on the pizza in your living room, that might move me in the direction of accepting your claim. If you collected some DNA from the aliens and had it analysed in a reputable lab and the results showed that the DNA was like nothing terrestrial, that might move me even further in the direction of believing you. If you put the alien spaceship on a truck and took it for display in some prominent location where competent investigators could check it was a legit, that would move me towards believing your tale about your pizza night.
Notice that, taken individually, none of these pieces of evidence might individually strike you as "extraordinary". A photograph is not extraordinary, in itself. But an undoctored photograph clearly showing you chowing down on a pizza in the company of six-armed gelatinous blob-like creatures, with a giant freakin' flying saucer visible through the window to the back year would strike me as quite extraordinary.
Have you noticed the paucity of undoctored photographs showing reliable witnesses chowing down on pizza with some bona fide space dudes, Ivan? What does that suggest to you? Shouldn't there be more of that kind of thing, if the aliens are visiting?
Who calculated the odds of exceeding the SOL?
Okay. So some hypothetical person who says they are calculating those odds is using flawed logic? That's what you're saying? So what?
Statistical arguments are often made in circumstances where we "can't know" or don't know. That's actually why statistics can be useful. We can use them to extrapolate from a small sample to a general conclusion, for instance.
For example, consider a poll of voting intentions. 1000 people, let's say, are asked who they intend to vote for, for President, in the upcoming election. The result is data (statistics) that contains known information about the intentions of that particular group of people.
Now, you might argue that a sample of 1000 people can't tell you anything useful about how people in general are likely to vote in the upcoming election. After all, can 1000 people really "speak" for millions of potential voters, with any level of accuracy.
The answer, in fact, is: yes, they can. As long as the 1000 people are a "representative sample" of the larger population of voters, their voting intentions can (within mathematically rigorous uncertainty bounds) tell us with some confidence how the general population is likely to vote. If this was not true, companies and political parties wouldn't spend money conducting opinion polls.
It is true that every voter for President in 2020 either voted for Trump or voted for some other candidate. But it is also true that polls prior to the election accurately (within calculated uncertainty bounds) predicted the outcome of the election, without having to ask 100 million people, individually, how they intended to vote.
"Odds" are based on the information we know now, not on the future outcome we are trying to predict. The pollsters who were polling people on voting intention before the 2020 election did not know who would win the election, though it was true at the time of the polling that one of the candidates would certainly win.
What do they look like? Are they detectable?
Where might we be seeing time travellers? Are you talking about time travellers who disguise themselves so well that nobody can tell that they are time travellers?
I don't remember travelling though time (except forwards, at the usual rate of one second per second). Do you?
Which physicists?
What do you mean by "a wash", in this context?
We know that no alien visitations have been confirmed in the past 5500 years, though.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I hope no one here is saying they are definitively impossible.
Can you show us that?
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Many claim to know for sure, but they are called delusional, liars or worse.
So much for the present self-appointed guardians of our knowledge.
Last edited:
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Everything you try to explain I have already learned and gone beyond.
Confirmed but called many derogatory names and cast aside.
"Confirmed"? What has been confirmed? Or, at least, what do you think has been confirmed? Aliens? If you think so, detail the confirmation, please. Or is this just another claim that you're either unwilling or unable to support?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
We would never cast aside confirmed accounts.
We must have missed something. Please illuminate us.