Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
ali smack

are aliens likely to exist or not?

130 posts in this topic

@OnereaderOne: Timetravel, in the way you are referring to or as in "Back to the future" would not be possible.

The universe is expanding agree? so if you are at the edge of the expansion you are in the future in relative position to the earth, if you were then to travel at the speed of light towards the center of the universe you would, in essence, be travelling back in time and vica versa. But keep in mind, that while you are travelling stars are born and destroyd, civilizations rise and fall with the rotation of their planets, comets/asteroids hit planets and extinguish life, sun's go supernova etc. and all these things are happening eveywhere in the universe simultaneously.

Since the expansion started all these things have been happening, so to say that you can, for instance, go back to the beginning of our planet's creation and change something, whatever that may be, is impossible as it has already happened.The earth is no longer in the position, relative to the universe expansion bubble, it was when it emerged as a planet.

There may be cycles of civilizations on a planet that repeat themselves, but everything that has happened, has happened, theres no way to literally go back in time and change anything.The earth ofcourse does not travel at the speed of light, so it will always stay in its relative position in the galaxy/universe untill influenced by cosmic events.

This is my opinion mind you, care to refute it?

The rolling film paradox :D Nice to see someone discuss it, and understand it!

However, that does not prevent travel as far as I can see, it simply does not change history. If I am reading it wrong, could I ask you to extrapolate please.

Here is some food for thought. What if one "time travels" to a point in the past where space does not exist yet. I wonder what we would encounter. Not before the big bang mind you, but say maybe 10 billions kilometers in fornt of the expansion border. I wonder what we might find?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very pleased to see the notion of Time travel being considered seriously and not just denied out of hand, as usually happens with any kind of 'out of the box' thinking, although I still can't help thinking that a spacecraft from (perhaps) another planet in the solar System might not be a more straightforward suggestion, on the much-abused principle of the Razor of the good William of Ockham, since we know that space travel (at sublight speeds, at any rate) is in fact possible, and that spacecraft can in fact exist, since we've made some ourselves .... :innocent:

Anyway, on the subject of Time travel, I think the idea that what was in the past has already happened, and so that can't be altered, but that you could go back an watch it, seems entirely reasonable. That might mean that someone could go back to any given place and any given point in time, but they wouldn't be able to change history (e.g. they wouldn't be able to assassinate some major figure in history), since, if they went back to that point in Time, then they were already there at that time. It wouldn't be as if they weren't there before, they were all along. Anyway, it's an interesting subject for discussion, isn't it, even if it need not replace ET ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not before the big bang mind you, but say maybe 10 billions kilometers in fornt of the expansion border. I wonder what we might find?

Um, there is no "expansion border." Either the universe we live in is infinite or it curves in on itself (perhaps in a fifth dimension, but it has been shown that this is not necessary -- that the four we have could curve in).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very pleased to see the notion of Time travel being considered seriously and not just denied out of hand, as usually happens with any kind of 'out of the box' thinking, although I still can't help thinking that a spacecraft from (perhaps) another planet in the solar System might not be a more straightforward suggestion, on the much-abused principle of the Razor of the good William of Ockham, since we know that space travel (at sublight speeds, at any rate) is in fact possible, and that spacecraft can in fact exist, since we've made some ourselves .... :innocent:

Out of the box thinking is never denied, nonsense is. I am not sure why, but some people, not you specifically, but many people seem to think if they come up with a whacky alternative to a mainstream ideal, this is "out of the box thinking" and pople are "open minded" if they accept it.

When what is really happening is that someone made some crap up, another ignorant person who cannot understand science goes "Ohh yeah, that sounds good" and then the two collude to believe they have some major breakthrough in science, and the academic world is ignoring them, when all they have is a pile of tosh. Before you know it, half a dozen ignoramuses get together, someone makes a website, and then more ignoramuses think this tosh it fact.

Thusly, we have AA and the media version of the ETH.

If someone has an out of the box ideal, all they need to id explain themselves in detail. If the claims is valid, it will stand up to any set of questions. Fact will not be denied, and most certainly not by a skeptic. Physics and analysis will prove if something is workable, if it is, then one will be heralded with accolades but if it is a pile of tosh, then people will laugh at you. That is just the real world, and not really anything to do with out of the box ideas at all.

One has to know the box to get out of it I reckon. Some people just leap out and stick their heads in the clouds.

Yes, spacecraft can exist, yet spacecraft too has to be realistic to be workable. Making stuff up on the spot solves nothing, but I imagine gives some a warm fuzzy feeling. A few simple and basic question often indicate of we are dealing with out of the box thinking, like the Lost Shaman Roswell Hypothesis, or just full of crap, like the stupid garbage about stacking rocks in the AA thread. One is genuine, one is painfully stupid.

Anyway, on the subject of Time travel, I think the idea that what was in the past has already happened, and so that can't be altered, but that you could go back an watch it, seems entirely reasonable. That might mean that someone could go back to any given place and any given point in time, but they wouldn't be able to change history (e.g. they wouldn't be able to assassinate some major figure in history), since, if they went back to that point in Time, then they were already there at that time. It wouldn't be as if they weren't there before, they were all along. Anyway, it's an interesting subject for discussion, isn't it, even if it need not replace ET ...

That be the rolling film paradox. Just like a movie film, each day could be considered (or hour, minute or second for that matter) as one frame of this film. You can go back and shoot who you want, but the film is already shot so to speak. so the next day, everything is as it happened already. I groundhog day type scenario, but we do not know if that applies or the Grandfather paradox, whereby if you go back and shoot someone, you change history.

Of course the Novikov self-consistency principle says that the time traveler was always in he past, and the future, so nothing has changed no matter what.

And that is merely scratching the surface, variants of the above, and many other exist to.

It is an interesting discussion, but I feel ET best replace it before the thread is closed for being off topic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to the view that time is not really a dimension (I know general relativity treats it as one, but the theory works mathematically without this -- treating it as a dimension just helps with mental picturing).

My view is that there is no travel in time, even in the ordinary sense. What there is is the present, but it constantly changes. The "past" is not a place, but just the traces of the way the present was, and the future is similarly not a place, but what the present becomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, there is no "expansion border." Either the universe we live in is infinite or it curves in on itself (perhaps in a fifth dimension, but it has been shown that this is not necessary -- that the four we have could curve in).

Yes, of course you are right, the Universe can be finite, but have no edge, I worded that badly, I mean being able to observe that from a distant point, such as God is suggested to do perhaps, or something like a Multiverse. Any observational outside point, hence my wonderment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to the view that time is not really a dimension (I know general relativity treats it as one, but the theory works mathematically without this -- treating it as a dimension just helps with mental picturing).

My view is that there is no travel in time, even in the ordinary sense. What there is is the present, but it constantly changes. The "past" is not a place, but just the traces of the way the present was, and the future is similarly not a place, but what the present becomes.

Would you not consider time dilation a form of time travel?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you not consider time dilation a form of time travel?

I think you are referring to the observation that clocks slow down when they are accelerated relative to other things.

This is a counterintuitive but well-demonstrated consequence of relativity. All it implies is that if you are accelerated the changes that the universe experiences slow down compared to elsewhere. As a result you return from your long trip younger than your twin who stays behind.

This works fine whether or not you consider time a dimension, as it has to do with rate of change in different reference frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh.

Come again, over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rolling film paradox :D Nice to see someone discuss it, and understand it!

However, that does not prevent travel as far as I can see, it simply does not change history. If I am reading it wrong, could I ask you to extrapolate please.

The rolling film paradox is nothing but a science fiction speculation, yes? There are no scientific proof. I thoughts you believe in scientific facts, not fiction, Psyche.

From what I can understand, the time traveler cannot change anything no matter what actions he take. Events have already been set, there can be only one outcome no matter what he does. Let say a person goes back in time, met a women, fall in love and get married. Would the marriage have happened, will they be able to have kids? In another scenario. If the time traveler got into a gun fight, and he loses, would he died right there? If he won, would the other person died? If non of these events changes anything, would its still be considered reality? Or is it a fantasy? Can he throw away all morality because no matter what he does, it wouldn't make any difference because all these people life wouldn't be affected by it? In another example of Groundhog Day you gave in another post. If a person chose to relive the happiest day of his life over and over again, obviously it's just one day to the people around him, but he would still carry the memory over to the next groundhog day. He continued to accumulate the memory of each repeating days, but does he get old physically? If he doesn't is he an immortal? if he does, would the people around him will notice that he's much older than they are?

If it is a fantasy because he can't changed anything, then isn't this akin to the holodeck of in Star Trek? The holodeck can be program to create real life event to the detail and allow the user to immerse into the game. They can make different decisions in the game but once they step out of the holodeck, they're back to reality. In this case, the universe timeline can be considered an infinite program, or time frames of the past, present and future that will allow the time traveler to access to and immerse himself in it. But no matter what this time traveler does, the course had been set, he can't change it.

If we are to prescribe to this rolling film paradox, does we have to accept that everything in the universe is predetermined? All events and outcome have been set, no time travelers can affect it? Isn't this sound familiar? There's quite a few religious fanatics that believe everything is predetermined. Everything in their life happened for a reason, it is a "test" from above. Isn't this attribute to some unknown higher power? I know how much you hate it, Psyche.

Here is some food for thought. What if one "time travels" to a point in the past where space does not exist yet. I wonder what we would encounter. Not before the big bang mind you, but say maybe 10 billions kilometers in fornt of the expansion border. I wonder what we might find?

If space doesn't exist, then how can ones be in space? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come to think of Time Travel as being like rail travel.

Basically, you can't travel where there aren't tracks on a train, and so with time travel you can't travel to a place where there was no time travel (so you can go back to the day the first time machine was turned on, but not a second before).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come to think of Time Travel as being like rail travel.

Basically, you can't travel where there aren't tracks on a train, and so with time travel you can't travel to a place where there was no time travel (so you can go back to the day the first time machine was turned on, but not a second before).

Kind of like a telephone isn't it? you can call someone if they don't have a phone.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are referring to the observation that clocks slow down when they are accelerated relative to other things.

This is a counterintuitive but well-demonstrated consequence of relativity. All it implies is that if you are accelerated the changes that the universe experiences slow down compared to elsewhere. As a result you return from your long trip younger than your twin who stays behind.

This works fine whether or not you consider time a dimension, as it has to do with rate of change in different reference frames.

Time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses. I am sure we agree on that much. However, I think this conversation might be more suited to the astronomy section? It is an interesting subject with many aspects to be discussed for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rolling film paradox is nothing but a science fiction speculation, yes? There are no scientific proof. I thoughts you believe in scientific facts, not fiction, Psyche.

From what I can understand, the time traveler cannot change anything no matter what actions he take. Events have already been set, there can be only one outcome no matter what he does. Let say a person goes back in time, met a women, fall in love and get married. Would the marriage have happened, will they be able to have kids? In another scenario. If the time traveler got into a gun fight, and he loses, would he died right there? If he won, would the other person died? If non of these events changes anything, would its still be considered reality? Or is it a fantasy? Can he throw away all morality because no matter what he does, it wouldn't make any difference because all these people life wouldn't be affected by it? In another example of Groundhog Day you gave in another post. If a person chose to relive the happiest day of his life over and over again, obviously it's just one day to the people around him, but he would still carry the memory over to the next groundhog day. He continued to accumulate the memory of each repeating days, but does he get old physically? If he doesn't is he an immortal? if he does, would the people around him will notice that he's much older than they are?

If it is a fantasy because he can't changed anything, then isn't this akin to the holodeck of in Star Trek? The holodeck can be program to create real life event to the detail and allow the user to immerse into the game. They can make different decisions in the game but once they step out of the holodeck, they're back to reality. In this case, the universe timeline can be considered an infinite program, or time frames of the past, present and future that will allow the time traveler to access to and immerse himself in it. But no matter what this time traveler does, the course had been set, he can't change it.

If we are to prescribe to this rolling film paradox, does we have to accept that everything in the universe is predetermined? All events and outcome have been set, no time travelers can affect it? Isn't this sound familiar? There's quite a few religious fanatics that believe everything is predetermined. Everything in their life happened for a reason, it is a "test" from above. Isn't this attribute to some unknown higher power? I know how much you hate it, Psyche.

Well I do hope our recent conversations have inspired you to learn some more about the concept of time travel :D It is not everyone's bag, and lets face it, hardly the thing one wakes up and thinks "I am going to read about time travel today" so most people are likely to be a bit fuzzy on detail's, hell I do not claim to be an expert myself, but like to think I have a basic understanding.

But again, I am not sure if I read you right, but are you saying someone is perdisposed to the above paradox? I did mention many exist, which one is correct be the biggest question here I think? Do any? Do the dimensions in string theory allow for dimensions that allow parallel alternatives to exist? Was thew Grandfather paradox right all along? All I have stated is that waving to someone, even yourself, in different time frames as far as I know creates no paradox.

If space doesn't exist, then how can ones be in space? :unsure:

Now your catching on!!!!!!!! ;)

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of like a telephone isn't it? you can call someone if they don't have a phone.

Yes!!

As WOH pointed out, one hypothesis says you can only go back as far as when a species learns to time travel, and your analogy is spot on!

31314451.jpeg

Stehen Hawking tried to test this, and left invitations for time travellers from Cambridge to join him for afternoon tea and discussion. No kidding. He set up the tea and goodies, and waited, and nobody showed up. That seems to indicate that at least contact is not something that is likely to happen, and just might support the above notion!

article-0-13E7B274000005DC-52_634x416.jpg

This is the methodology. Break it into little pieces, and see what we can lay out on the table.

LINK - The party that didn't go off with a Big Bang: Stephen Hawking held a party for time-travellers - but no-one turned up..

.

In the interview with Ars Technica, Hawking said: 'We are all travelling forward in time anyway. We can fast forward by going off in a rocket at high speed and return to find everyone on Earth much older or dead.

'Einstein's general theory of relativity seems to offer the possibility that we could warp space-time so much that we could travel back in time.

'However, it is likely that warping would trigger a bolt of radiation that would destroy the spaceship and maybe the space-time itself.'

Still, if at some time in the future (or back in the past), you find yourself talking to Prof Hawking at a party, you may ask him his views on people who have seen UFOs.

The response he gave to Ars Technica is: 'Evidence that intelligent life is very short-lived is that we don't seem to have been visited by extra terrestrials.

'I'm discounting claims that UFOs contain aliens. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?

You think I am confusing? Read the above, and then this.

LINK - STEPHEN HAWKING: How to build a time machine

All you need is a wormhole, the Large Hadron Collider or a rocket that goes really, really fast

Hello. My name is Stephen Hawking. Physicist, cosmologist and something of a dreamer. Although I cannot move and I have to speak through a computer, in my mind I am free. Free to explore the universe and ask the big questions, such as: is time travel possible? Can we open a portal to the past or find a shortcut to the future? Can we ultimately use the laws of nature to become masters of time itself?

Time travel was once considered scientific heresy. I used to avoid talking about it for fear of being labelled a crank. But these days I'm not so cautious. In fact, I'm more like the people who built Stonehenge. I'm obsessed by time. If I had a time machine I'd visit Marilyn Monroe in her prime or drop in on Galileo as he turned his telescope to the heavens. Perhaps I'd even travel to the end of the universe to find out how our whole cosmic story ends.

To see how this might be possible, we need to look at time as physicists do - at the fourth dimension. It's not as hard as it sounds. Every attentive schoolchild knows that all physical objects, even me in my chair, exist in three dimensions. Everything has a width and a height and a length.

Is it possible or not? Even the smartest man in the world can give you both sides of that coin.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes!!

As WOH pointed out, one hypothesis says you can only go back as far as when a species learns to time travel, and your analogy is spot on!

31314451.jpeg

Stehen Hawking tried to test this, and left invitations for time travellers from Cambridge to join him for afternoon tea and discussion. No kidding. He set up the tea and goodies, and waited, and nobody showed up. That seems to indicate that at least contact is not something that is likely to happen, and just might support the above notion!

article-0-13E7B274000005DC-52_634x416.jpg

This is the methodology. Break it into little pieces, and see what we can lay out on the table.

LINK - The party that didn't go off with a Big Bang: Stephen Hawking held a party for time-travellers - but no-one turned up..

.

You think I am confusing? Read the above, and then this.

Is it possible or not? Even the smartest man in the world can give you both sides of that coin.

I don't blame Hawking for dreaming about time travel. Unfortunately, a dream will sometime remain just that, a dream. Many great scientists before him had ,and many after him will come up with many, many hypothesis. Some will proven correct, many will fail.

His opinion on aliens or time travel is just his opinion. It's as relevant as any other person. In the case of ETs, perhaps even less. Many people know more about ETs or UFOs than him.

'I'm discounting claims that UFOs contain aliens. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?

I find the above statement quite arrogance. Why would they appear to him and not "cranks and weirdos"? Is it because he's a famous scientist and they're nobody? I though he would be smart enough to figure out why. If we see a bunch of chimpanzee frolicking around, would we give a damn if one is smarter than the rest? To us, they're all chimp!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Universe is littered with life.

In a infinite Universe (where time never stops) any and every possibility will happen an infinite amount of times. Meaning you or I will be "alive" an infinite amount of times. Every atom of our body and every memory of our soul will repeat, guess how many times? (infinite). There will be an infinite amount of versions of us that aren't the same, with an infinite amount of different memories. Even those will have an infinite amount of copies. The same would apply to anything, anywhere in the Universe or Universes. Aliens abundant.

The question is Rhetorical, but so are all the most important questions. Too bad we will never possess the ability or technology to learn everything there is to know. If we could, we would create a black-hole that would swallow everything before we even had a chance to know. To detect even the smallest of "things", one would need a machine which is billions of times larger then it. We would basically have to bring all the matter in the Universe into one location, to possibly know anything. Which in turn would create a singularity. Which is impossible, obviously. :P

Edited by Mentalcase
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame Hawking for dreaming about time travel. Unfortunately, a dream will sometime remain just that, a dream. Many great scientists before him had ,and many after him will come up with many, many hypothesis. Some will proven correct, many will fail.

He also came up with the theoretical possibility. He is not "dreaming" he is exploring. Massive difference. That will tell us if a thing is a dream or not. And this man is taking those initial steps. Ironic that he is in a wheelchair hey!

His opinion on aliens or time travel is just his opinion. It's as relevant as any other person.

Forgive me for dismissing your smug reply, but do you honestly claim to have the understanding of space, time, quantum mechanics, physics and math's that Professor Hawking does, and therefore are just as qualified to offer workable hypotheses on these subjects do you? How many types of singularity or singularity emissions have you discovered (which is required for wormhole style travel) ? Do you know what "Hawking Radiation" is?

Do you really feel you are on a level playing field with Professor Hawking do you?

Professor Hawking Colluded on the docufiction called Alien PLanet. Have you seen it by any chance?

In the case of ETs, perhaps even less. Many people know more about ETs or UFOs than him.

I just do not believe that. Please offer a name. If you say Stanton Friedman though, be warned I am going to punch you in the mouth before I die. No matter how far I have to go to do it. I think some here would hold you for me to be honest. The UFOlogy gurus that are heralded as brilliant are quite often very much the opposite. And simply riding a wave of ignorance. It is why UFOlogy wears a tin foil hat.

In his book, TOP SECRET/MAJIC, Friedman discusses his early UFO lectures:

"As I gave more lectures, I found that I enjoyed speaking, and that people believed me no matter what I said. After all, I was a nuclear physicist for Westinghouse…"

IMHO, Kevin Randle runs rings around Friedman.

I find the above statement quite arrogance. Why would they appear to him and not "cranks and weirdos"? Is it because he's a famous scientist and they're nobody?

Well, yes of course. Bloody hell, we can communicate, it is not like we a re chimps, we have not only mastered fire, we have left our own Solar System. Damn you UFO hippies like to put a downer on the human species as a whole! It is not arrogant one bit! It is arrogant to think some backyard hick who claims to have had sex with an Alien that turned into Pamela Anderson is telling the truth and that is how first contact would be made. If one is to believe the most outlandish stories, why stop there? Lets go back to Santa and the Easter Bunny, and Greek Gods.

Intelligent species implies some intelligence, and as we have mastered language and math there is no reason to consider that an Alien species cannot fathom a hierarchy. Surely someone that can cross space is not a complete idiot.

That Aliens could not tell the difference between a president, and some backyard hick says to me that Aliens are pretty stupid. Even we can pick a Queen Bee out of a colony of thousands.

I though he would be smart enough to figure out why. If we see a bunch of chimpanzee frolicking around, would we give a damn if one is smarter than the rest? To us, they're all chimp!

It seems you not smart enough, and are on the same downer ETH'ers all are. Even my 8 year old can pick the queen ant in an ant farm. The ETH seems to make people also turn on their own species, and always consideres us the idiots of the Galaxy. No space faring species needs to be more advanced than us the possibility exists that they could be less advanced going by our own historical record.

It;s just another silly ETH assumption that ET would be so advanced that we would not be worth considering. It's not about "Us" it's about knowledge, and if a species is nto concerned with knowledge I do not think they will be intelligent will they. ETH'ers try to bury this under a claim of vanity, but that is because they cannot see past their own noses. There is more to life than the human species, but that does not mean we are not part of it, and therefore as Apex predators on the planet, intensely interesting from any study angle of life on this planet.

ETA Links. Hope you can use them.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks for my tin foil hat ! It always helps with the fermage under my skull ! But as for Hawkings and his opinion on E.T !

Really ? Really ! you guys dont know yet ?

Hawkings is an Alien you remember that right !JUst look at the facts !THe CT`s are all over this topic some where out there. Im sure of that ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did all this 'time travel' stuff come up? *Don't tell me, I think I know*

Are aliens likely to exist or not?

I maybe be wrong (correct me if you will) but the stars in the Universe are measured in the sextillions (i.e. that's a bowl full of cheerios). Most, not all, have planets that they host.

If you accept that all life forms don't have to be carbon based then there will be millions of life forms out there. Are they rudimentery life forms, life forms like us, or advanced life forms like we can't imagine?

If there are advanced life forms, have they already contacted us, don't care to contact us, don't know that we're even here, or are as yet unable to contact us because of the great distances?

ET contact could happen tomorrow, 1000 generations from now, or maybe never.

I do believe other life forms exist out there, just because of the statistical average. For the Earth to contain the only life in the Universe (while theoretically possible), is with all probability, impossible.

Edited by Likely Guy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also came up with the theoretical possibility. He is not "dreaming" he is exploring. Massive difference. That will tell us if a thing is a dream or not. And this man is taking those initial steps. Ironic that he is in a wheelchair hey!

Forgive me for dismissing your smug reply, but do you honestly claim to have the understanding of space, time, quantum mechanics, physics and math's that Professor Hawking does, and therefore are just as qualified to offer workable hypotheses on these subjects do you? How many types of singularity or singularity emissions have you discovered (which is required for wormhole style travel) ? Do you know what "Hawking Radiation" is?

Do you really feel you are on a level playing field with Professor Hawking do you?

Professor Hawking Colluded on the docufiction called Alien PLanet. Have you seen it by any chance?

I just do not believe that. Please offer a name. If you say Stanton Friedman though, be warned I am going to punch you in the mouth before I die. No matter how far I have to go to do it. I think some here would hold you for me to be honset. The UFOlogy gurus that are heralded as brilliant are quite often very much the opposite. And simply riding a wave of ignorance. It is why UFOlogy wears a tin foil hat.

Where in my post do you see me claiming to be as smart as Hawking? In his field, people can say he's the best and I wouldn't disagreed with it. But somehow claiming he's an authority on ETs and UFOs is bs. Have he met any ETs? have he seen UFOs up close? As for the time travel stuff, it's a whole lot easier to think it's possible than actually making it a reality. If he can make it a reality, I will kiss his ass and proclaim him the smartest human of all time. Please excuse me If I respect a person that discovered a medication that save millions of life more than Dr. Hawking.

To be honest, there's a few person on this forum that know more about ETs and UFOs than Hawking.

Well, yes of course. Bloody hell, we can communicate, it is not like we a re chimps, we have not only mastered fire, we have left our own Solar System. Damn you UFO hippies like to put a downer on the human species as a whole! It is not arrogant one bit! It is arrogant to think some backyard hick who claims to have had sex with an Alien that turned into Pamela Anderson is telling the truth and that is how first contact would be made. If one is to believe the most outlandish stories, why stop there? Lets go back to Santa and the Easter Bunny, and Greek Gods.

Intelligent species implies some intelligence, and as we have mastered language and math there is no reason to consider that an Alien species cannot father a hierarchy. Surely someone that can cross space is not a complete idiot.

That Aliens could not tell the difference between a president, and some backyard hick says to me that Aliens are pretty stupid. Even we can pick a Queen Bee out of a colony of thousands.

It seems you not smart enough, and are on the same downer ETH;er are. The ETH seems to make people also turn o their own species, and always consideres us the idiots of the Galaxy. No space faring species needs to be more advanced than us the possibility exists that they could be less advanced going by our own historical record.

It;s just another silly ETH assumption that ET would be so advanced that we would not be worth considering. It's not about "Us" it's about knowledge, and if a species is nto concerned with knowledge I do not think they will be intelligent will they. ETH'ers try to bury this under a claim of vanity, but that is because they cannot see past their own noses. There is more to life than the human species.

Reality is reality. The weirdos in the wood have seen more UFOs than Hawking. Maybe they are more interesting than a guy in the wheelchair?

To somehow think that Hawking have more to offer ETs is quite arrogance. Maybe he can teach them a thing or two about space travel? Maybe there's some secret math equation that they need him to teach them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did all this 'time travel' stuff come up? *Don't tell me, I think I know*

Are aliens likely to exist or not?

I maybe be wrong (correct me if you will) but the stars in the Universe are measured in the sextillions (i.e. that's a bowl full of cheerios). Most, not all, have planets that they host.

If you accept that all life forms don't have to be carbon based then there will be millions of life forms out there. Are they rudimentery life forms, life forms like us, or advanced life forms like we can't imagine?

If there are advanced life forms, have they already contacted us, don't care to contact us, don't know that we're even here, or are as yet unable to contact us because of the great distances?

ET contact could happen tomorrow, 1000 generations from now, or maybe never.

I do believe other life forms exist out there, just because of the statistical average. For the Earth to contain the only life in the Universe (while theoretically possible), is with all probability, impossible.

I agree contact could be tomorrow or never. But I sure hope the former applies, I just think communications will be the answer, not physical presence.

Other life froms have to exist, and considering we are looking for Earth Based Worlds, for life as we know it, I feel it is likely we will find Aliens rather familiar, considering convergeant evolution in our pool of one.

On non carbon based life froms, many studies have been undertaken. In fact. this idea goes back as far as 1891.

Silicon biochemistry?

At first sight, silicon does look like a promising organic alternative to carbon. It is common in the universe and is also a p-block element of group IV, lying directly below carbon in the periodic table of elements, so that much of its basic chemistry is similar. For instance, just as carbon combines with four hydrogen atoms to form methane, CH4, silicon yields silane, SiH4. Silicates are analogs of carbonates, silicon chloroform of chloroform, and so on. Both elements form long chains, or polymers, in which they alternate with oxygen. In the simplest case, carbon-oxygen chains yield polyacetal, a plastic used in synthetic fibers, while from a backbone of alternating atoms of silicon and oxygen come polymeric silicones.

Conceivably, some strange life-forms might be built from silicone-like substances were it not for an apparently fatal flaw in silicon's biological credentials. This is its powerful affinity for oxygen. When carbon is oxidized during the respiratory process of a terrestrial organism (see respiration), it becomes the gas carbon dioxide – a waste material that is easy for a creature to remove from its body. The oxidation of silicon, however, yields a solid because, immediately upon formation, silicon dioxide organizes itself into a lattice in which each silicon atom is surrounded by four oxygens. Disposing of such a substance would pose a major respiratory challenge.

Life-forms must also be able to collect, store, and utilize energy from their environment. In carbon-based biota, the basic energy storage compounds are carbohydrates in which the carbon atoms are linked by single bonds into a chain. A carbohydrate is oxidized to release energy (and the waste products water and carbon dioxide) in a series of controlled steps using enzymes. These enzymes are large, complex molecules (see proteins) which catalyze specific reactions because of their shape and "handedness." A feature of carbon chemistry is that many of its compounds can take right and left forms, and it is this handedness, or chirality, that gives enzymes their ability to recognize and regulate a huge variety of processes in the body. Silicon's failure to give rise to many compounds that display handedness makes it hard to see how it could serve as the basis for the many interconnected chains of reactions needed to support life.

The absence of silicon-based biology, or even silicon-based prebiotic chemicals, is also suggested by astronomical evidence. Wherever astronomers have looked – in meteorites, in comets, in the atmospheres of the giant planets, in the interstellar medium, and in the outer layers of cool stars – they have found molecules of oxidized silicon (silicon dioxide and silicates) but no substances such as silanes or silicones which might be the precursors of a silicon biochemistry.

Even so, it has been pointed out, silicon may have had a part to play in the origin of life on Earth. A curious fact is that terrestrial life-forms utilize exclusively right-handed carbohydrates and left-handed amino acids. One theory to account for this is that the first prebiotic carbon compounds formed in a pool of "primordial soup" on a silica surface having a certain handedness. This handedness of the silicon compound determined the preferred handedness of the carbon compounds now found in terrestrial life. An entirely different possibility is that of artificial life or intelligence with a significant silicon content.

LINK - Silicon Based Life

This line of reasoning is founded on two major assumptions; the first being that complex carbon chain molecules, the building blocks of life as we know it, have been detected throughout the interstellar medium. Carbon’s abundance appears to stretch across much of cosmic time, since its production is thought to have peaked some 7 billion years ago, when the universe was roughly half its current age.

The other major assumption is that life needs an elixir, a solvent on which it can advance its unique complex chemistry. Water and carbon go hand in hand in making this happen.

While the world as we know it runs on carbon, science fiction’s long flirtation with silicon-based life — “It’s life, but not as we know it” — has become a familiar catchphrase. But life of any sort should evolve, eat, excrete, reproduce, and respond to stimulus.

And although non-carbon based life is a very long shot, we thought we’d broach the issue with one of the country’s top astrochemists — Max Bernstein, the Research Lead of the Science Mission Directorate at NASA headquarters in Washington,D.C.

Bruce Dorminey — IS IT WRONG TO ASSUME THAT LIFE COULD BE BASED ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN CARBON?

Max Bernstein — It’s important for us to keep an open mind about alien life, lest we come across it and miss it. On the other hand, carbon is much better than any other element in forming the main structures of living things. Carbon can form many stable complex structures of great diversity. When carbon forms molecules containing cxygen and nitrogen, the carbon bonds to nitrogen and oxygen are stable. But not so much so that they can’t be fairly easily undone, unlike silicon-oxygen bonds, for example.

LINK - Why Silicon-based Aliens Would Rather Eat our Cities than Us: Thoughts on Non-carbon Astrobiology

Main problem seems to be that Carbon is just better. More flexible, more compatible, easier to work with. As such, it is likely to be the basic form of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where in my post do you see me claiming to be as smart as Hawking?

Unless you claim you do not come under the title of "Any Other Person" and I believe that you do, then right here

His opinion on aliens or time travel is just his opinion. It's as relevant as any other person.

If your opinion is just as relevant, then I figure in this field, you figure you are just as smart.

In his field, people can say he's the best and I wouldn't disagreed with it. But somehow claiming he's an authority on ETs and UFOs is bs.

How so? He has the knowledge to know what propulsion systems can do the trip, he spends his life trying to understand this stuff with a University at his beck and call. He has worked on Alien physiology and as mentioned colluded with other great minds to come up with a likely scenarion for alien life under similar conditions to Earth.

How do you figure all this work in this very field accounts for nothing? Like I said, he discovered Hawking Radiation, a byproduct of a black hole, and the sort of power that is required to do things like make wormholes. He understood the principals of these major power sources so well that he defied conventional thinking to prove Hawking Radiation exists. He is already working with the hypotheses you and I are discussing. And paving the way.

Have he met any ETs? have he seen UFOs up close?

Well you know what, I do not believe anyone has, but he has studied the WOW! signal, and this is as close as one can come in the real world where evidence matters. When you put all what we really have on the table, he is the closest candidate we have.

As for the time travel stuff, it's a whole lot easier to think it's possible than actually making it a reality. If he can make it a reality, I will kiss his ass and proclaim him the smartest human of all time.

Pucker up balloon boy. Because he is probably the smartest human of all time.

Are you not saying warp is just around the corner? But you are not cherry picking are you! ;)

Please excuse me If I respect a person that discovered a medication that save millions of life more than Dr. Hawking.

There you go again with preferences. Common thing with believers. Many Doctors have saved lives, the most important IMHO being Ignaz Semmelweis. The saviour of mothers. Very different men, very different field, all outstanding accomplishments. As they have really nothing to do with each other, I see them as being brilliant in their own right in their own fields. I do not see why they need be compared at all to be perfectly frank. Or why one would choose preference? Is admiration metered?

To be honest, there's a few person on this forum that know more about ETs and UFOs than Hawking.

BS. Go ahead, name one.

That is just arrogance, and in my opinion a lie in order to flamebait. Not to mention something of a joke. And nothing honest about that statement at all. Not one thing.

Reality is reality. The weirdos in the wood have seen more UFOs than Hawking. Maybe they are more interesting than a guy in the wheelchair?

They make that claim, I do not believe it. In fact I think it shows poor judgement to believe it.

That is where you logic took you? Really? I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

dang.jpeg

And you know how you said above "To us they are all Chimps" well you are wrong about that too. You do not even look at zoology do you? One Chimp in history did have a Bipedal gait. He was bald, and looked very human like. He had no desire for female chimps, but took a powerful interest in human females. So much so that he had to be separated from some. He has been a focus of intense study and interest. His name is Oliver. Have you heard about him? He kinda blows your sentence out of the water. Many thought he was a human-chimp hybrid, but DNA revealed that he is 100% Chimp.

2880.gif

To somehow think that Hawking have more to offer ETs is quite arrogance. Maybe he can teach them a thing or two about space travel? Maybe there's some secret math equation that they need him to teach them?

Another ridiculous thing to say. Can you really not fathom why the smartest man in the world would be a good individual for an Aliens species, be they advanced or not? Do you only see humans in one direction? That we are here to speak out, show others, and pave the way? Have you no idea what being a student is? If we are dealing with an advanced species, would you not try communications with the individual that is most likely to understand you?

Nah, this chimp will do. My, that is not sounding very intelligent!

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"'Evidence that intelligent life is very short-lived is that we don't seem to have been visited by extra terrestrials.

'I'm discounting claims that UFOs contain aliens. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?"

What an extraordinary thing to say. It does seem extraordinarily arrogant to describe every single person who's ever had an experience with UFOs as a crank or a Wierdo. I'd really thought better of him, I thought that he wasn't the kind of arrogant "populariser of science" like Richard Dawkins. And "'Evidence that intelligent life is very short-lived is that we don't seem to have been visited by extra terrestrials"? Sorry? Does that make anys ense at al? We haven't (as far as he is concerned) been visited by extra Terrestrials, so that's evidence that intellignt life is very short lived? However does he draw that conclusion? :unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.