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 7
Saru

Is proof of alien life a risk to society ?

425 posts in this topic

Heck, we haven't even made it to the moon!

Ah, you're one of those....

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My money is on the facts,the Fact that not even a Bolt has been found ! SO Risk ? THe only risk is If and when they Land, Are we going to be nice,or are they going to be Hungry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, we haven't even made it to the moon!

Did you forget the sarcastic smiley? If not, would you be so kind as to take this over to an Apollo denial thread, with evidence? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some posts have been removed due to personal attacks. Stick to discussing the subject matter, not one another. If you feel someone's post violates UM rules please use (click) the report button (bottom left).

Do not personally attack others. Refer to UM rules:

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's still not even near a neighboring star.

No, to be fair, I did not know you meant "other systems" just "space" But we do have viable plans for craft that could reach other stars, even manned. We just have not taken the leap yet. The theory is there though. I am severely disappointed we have not tried any, the longe we wait, the less chance of hearing about another planet from the first person perspective in my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Still thinking small. What movie do you think he's plagiarising btw, and how?

Ah, you must be who Lilly is talking about. Your reputation precedes you. Why bother speaking to me when we do not like each other one bit? I have not bothered you in your thread, do you miss me do you?

Plagiarising? You should read the thread. Had you read the previous 2 pages, you would have seen:

snapback.pngAbramelin, on 05 February 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

I have another question: why do we think we know what's necessary to travel great distances in space?

Because we've done it.

To which I said, I do not mean to nitpick, but would not the Voyager probes be considered a great distance in space, and seeming as they are entering Interstellar space. I woud consider that a reasonable distance. An entire solar system is nothing to sneeze at.

If you miss me so much, maybe copy my Avatar to your desktop. You can open a text document and type all sorts of nonsense and feel good about it, heck, you might get the replies you so desire from me that way!

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am severely disappointed we have not tried any, the longe we wait, the less chance of hearing about another planet from the first person perspective in my lifetime.

Same here and that window closes more and more every day. I ain't getting any younger... :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we sure don't, since we've never been far enough from this small area to have any idea what velocity light travels in different parts of the universe. At this point my impression is that we are in and have never been able to get out of and area where the velocity of light is "adjusted" by some thing(s) since all tests indicate that it always travels at the same velocity relative to THIS PARTICULAR PLANET. Most likely it's not this particular planet but this particular area, however large that area may happen to be. If light travels significantly faster outside of such an area it would explain why it appears that light from all sources impacts this area at the same velocity relative to the area but regardless of the velocity of the emitter relative to Earth/this area....

Is there any indication that physics is not the same across the universe? How would you even know? Without substantiation for your physics altering 'bubble' that we supposedly exist in then it is nothing more than a useless thought experiment, which ultimately only serves to muddy the waters. Unless that is your intention.

Furthermore, I fail to see what this has to do with visitation to begin with. Even if aliens use a different iteration of physics than we do by being outside the 'bubble' they would have to adhere to any physics restrictions once they entered. So what exactly is your point?

Edit: Actually, never mind. Your inability to understand physics and general logic has been a death knell for too many threads in the past already.

Edited by Slave2Fate
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we sure don't, since we've never been far enough from this small area to have any idea what velocity light travels in different parts of the universe. At this point my impression is that we are in and have never been able to get out of and area where the velocity of light is "adjusted" by some thing(s) since all tests indicate that it always travels at the same velocity relative to THIS PARTICULAR PLANET. Most likely it's not this particular planet but this particular area, however large that area may happen to be. If light travels significantly faster outside of such an area it would explain why it appears that light from all sources impacts this area at the same velocity relative to the area but regardless of the velocity of the emitter relative to Earth/this area....

OK, but what would photons be doing in this region outside of our space? If dark matter or the fabric of space-time is indeed resistive, and controls the speed of light, then yes, I could see that as plausible, but not sure how or why our space would interact with this other type of space. To make sure I understand exactly what you propose, would it be something like a Photon travelling the expanse between theoretical multiverses? If that is the case, the the speed of light would also be dependant on that medium meaning the next Universe over could have a different speed of light to that which we have, probably based upon the most abundant matter created it this hypothetical "Other Universes" big Bang. We do not know the fabric of space time well enough to say if the Big Bang, or the most abundant element in the Universe has an impact on that. If it does, then yes, the speed of light would be considered a variable.

Or perhaps are you suggesting something like the fabric of space time having different densities in differing regions of space? That too, I admit might well have an effect on the speed of light. We have no reason to think so, but the idea seems plausible.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any indication that physics is not the same across the universe? How would you even know? Without substantiation for your physics altering 'bubble' that we supposedly exist in then it is nothing more than a useless thought experiment, which ultimately only serves to muddy the waters. Unless that is your intention.

Furthermore, I fail to see what this has to do with visitation to begin with. Even if aliens use a different iteration of physics than we do by being outside the 'bubble' they would have to adhere to any physics restrictions once they entered. So what exactly is your point?

Edit: Actually, never mind. Your inability to understand physics and general logic has been a death knell for too many threads in the past already.

Gidday Mate

Rather then let these guys relish in some long winded banter, I have to say I am afraid that a suspicion exists but not confirmed.

LINK - Laws of physics may change across the universe

New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is "just right" for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos.

If correct, this result stands against Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. "This finding was a real surprise to everyone," says
of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Webb is lead author on the new
, which has been submitted to
Physical Review Letters
.

Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a "preferred direction", or axis, across the cosmos. That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Sections of sky

At the centre of the new study is the fine structure constant, also known as alpha. This number determines the strength of interactions between light and matter.

A decade ago, Webb used observations from the Keck telescope in Hawaii to analyse the light from distant galaxies called quasars. The data suggested that the value of alpha was very
when the quasar light was emitted 12 billion years ago than it appears in laboratories on Earth today.

Now Webb's colleague Julian King, also of the University of New South Wales, has analysed data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, which looks at a different region of the sky. The VLT data suggests that the value of alpha elsewhere in the universe is very slightly bigger than on Earth.

The difference in both cases is around a millionth of the value alpha has in our region of space, and suggests that alpha varies in space rather than time. "I'd quietly hoped we'd simply find the same thing that Keck found," King says. "This was a real shock."

It is a long way form being widely accepted, and indeed, the best minds today will say that Physics are indeed the same across the Universe, Michio Kaku recently said exactly this in Through The Wormhole.

Like I say, a long way form convincing, but the idea is indeed out there. But then again, I seem to remember something about Neutrino's being faster than light recently.................. did not hold up.

Heck, sometimes these guys strike a lucky guess LOL.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Mate

Rather then let these guys relish in some long winded banter, I have to say I am afraid that a suspicion exists but not confirmed.

[/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color]

It is a long way form being widely accepted, and indeed, the best minds today will say that Physics are indeed the same across the Universe, Michio Kaku recently said exactly this in Through The Wormhole.

Like I say, a long way form convincing, but the idea is indeed out there. But then again, I seem to remember something about Neutrino's being faster than light recently.................. did not hold up.

Heck, sometimes these guys strike a lucky guess LOL.

From your link:

A spatial variation in the fine-structure constant would be "truly transformative", according to Lennox Cowie, who works at the Institute for Astronomy in Hawaii. But, he adds, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: "That's way beyond what we have here." He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing.

It is an interesting quandary, I'll admit. I think it best to err on the side of caution though and see what further research reveals. As I said though, I'm not sure what this has to do with visitation per se, Indeed, if what the article says is correct then there may be huge areas of the universe where life (as we know it at least) is unable to propagate due to a stars inability to produce carbon, or other necessary elements. This seem like it would be more of an argument against visitation, even if indirectly. I'm betting nopeda hasn't even considered that lit bit in his hypothesis.

Edited by Slave2Fate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your link:

It is an interesting quandary, I'll admit. I think it best to err on the side of caution though and see what further research reveals. As I said though, I'm not sure what this has to do with visitation per se, Indeed, if what the article says is correct then there may be huge areas of the universe where life (as we know it at least) is unable to propagate due to a stars inability to produce carbon, or other necessary elements. This seem like it would be more of an argument against visitation, even if indirectly. I'm betting nopeda hasn't even considered that lit bit in his hypothesis.

I would bet you would be right, like I mentioned also, we seemed pretty sure Neutrino's were faster than light last year. But yes, it means life might well be far less abundant than we ever realised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To which I said, I do not mean to nitpick, but would not the Voyager probes be considered a great distance in space, and seeming as they are entering Interstellar space. I woud consider that a reasonable distance. An entire solar system is nothing to sneeze at.

If you miss me so much, maybe copy my Avatar to your desktop. You can open a text document and type all sorts of nonsense and feel good about it, heck, you might get the replies you so desire from me that way!

????????

This is what I said:

I have another question: why do we think we know what's necessary to travel great distances in space?

We have not the faintest clue, and we base our ideas and fantasies on what we are capable of now.

It's like asking a Neanderthal about what he thinks is needed to use lightning ("electricity") as a source of energy.

WE know, but he would not have had any idea what the hell we were talking about.

And Voyager has been traveling for 45 years and only recently reached the heliopause.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

????????

This is what I said:

And Voyager has been traveling for 45 years and only recently reached the heliopause.

.

????????

This is what I said:

And Voyager has been traveling for 45 years and only recently reached the heliopause.

.

Nah, not you, I was talking to noidea mate :D

He said

:lol: Still thinking small. What movie do you think he's plagiarising btw, and how?

So I just laid out the entire conversation for him, I have no idea where he got that from. I was just letting him know that you and I seem to be talking about something completely different to what he seems to be. But with that poster, that seems rather common. Sorry for the confusion but if you check the post again, hopefully it is clearer. I just put your words in a box to separate it from my reply to him. I had not intended to reply to you directly. Not sure why Scowls name did not show in the reply, that would have made it clearer.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one couldn't fail to generate a juicy thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nonsense and arrogance that make some people think that we are alone in te universe.

And for some it's the absence of evidence that we aren't alone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldn't that rather be the other way round? like....if life IS everywhere, it must be a common thing to happen? If we would turn out to be alone, wouldn't that be more "miraculous"?

Life is not everywhere. It's only on our little planet.

For reasons we don't understand, there is lots of life on Earth and has been for a long time. In comparison, Venus is a similar sized planet with similar composition yet is a boiling inferno and probably never had life. From what we've seen in our solar system, planets tend to form into gas giants or rocky wastelands. What caused Earth to be adequate for the formation and continuation of life may have been a series of extremely unlikely circumstances that have never been repeated anywhere in the universe.

Keeping life going is another tricky thing. Earth has gone through some major changes since life formed but it has survived. Fortunately Earth didn't turn into a greenhouse oven like Venus did. It also didn't lose its atmosphere like Mars did. It may be more common for life to exist on planets for a short period and then die after the conditions that promoted it have changed.

We don't know how uncommon Earth is. Some people want to believe there's an Earth in every other solar system. For all we know there could an Earth-like planet in only one in a million solar systems. Or a billion. Or none at all. We just don't know how lucky we are.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meeeehhhhh. I don't think it would be a big deal. Most people already think intelligent life Ives somewhere else, I think it would just confirm what we pretty much think is true anyway. If alians showed up on our doorstep, I think it's the scientific community that would be in an uproar. The aliens might say, you dumbasses, get rid of those nuclear power plants, what the hell are you doing to your oceans and atmosphere?, No! You got everything wrong because you screwed up what redshifts are all about. Here is the cure for cancer, all you have to do is stop eating pesticides and plastics and you won't have to worry about it. and please quit fleecing good hearted people for chemo therepy and "pink ribbon" cancer "research".

Nuclear weapons are a BAD idea!!!

Then the powers that be that want to hold onto their grip would declare that the alians are demons and all the abrahamic faiths would follow. Then in discust the aliens would wipe us off the face of the earth and say.

"oh we'll, we will come back in a few mil, Mabey the raccoons or octopi will get it right."

Edited by Seeker79
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life is not everywhere. It's only on our little planet.

For reasons we don't understand, there is lots of life on Earth and has been for a long time. In comparison, Venus is a similar sized planet with similar composition yet is a boiling inferno and probably never had life. From what we've seen in our solar system, planets tend to form into gas giants or rocky wastelands. What caused Earth to be adequate for the formation and continuation of life may have been a series of extremely unlikely circumstances that have never been repeated anywhere in the universe.

Keeping life going is another tricky thing. Earth has gone through some major changes since life formed but it has survived. Fortunately Earth didn't turn into a greenhouse oven like Venus did. It also didn't lose its atmosphere like Mars did. It may be more common for life to exist on planets for a short period and then die after the conditions that promoted it have changed.

We don't know how uncommon Earth is. Some people want to believe there's an Earth in every other solar system. For all we know there could an Earth-like planet in only one in a million solar systems. Or a billion. Or none at all. We just don't know how lucky we are.

compared to the vastness of space, the part we have observed yet (including the voyager travel) is so tiny, we just don't know what's out there and what's not. And not only this, but lately, the possible existence of multiple universes is not a topic left to fringe scientists alone anymore. In my opinion, there IS life out there, other civilisations or just microbes. Wether we find it or not is a whole different story though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nopeda, on 05 February 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

:lol: Still thinking small. What movie do you think he's plagiarising btw, and how?

Ah, you must be who Lilly is talking about. Your reputation precedes you. Why bother speaking to me when we do not like each other one bit? I have not bothered you in your thread, do you miss me do you?

Plagiarising? You should read the thread. Had you read the previous 2 pages, you would have seen:

To which I said, I do not mean to nitpick, but would not the Voyager probes be considered a great distance in space, and seeming as they are entering Interstellar space. I woud consider that a reasonable distance. An entire solar system is nothing to sneeze at.

Who's Lilly?

When I suggested that beings who could travel between star systems would most likely NOT bring their only way of existing down to a planet like this but instead send remotely controlled probably bioligical beings of some sort so they wouldn't be likely to get killed here you accused me of plagiarising some movie. Then later I mentioned some other likely possibility I forget which one it was and you accused me of plagiarising it from a movie I've never seen.

A solar system is nothing. It's a lot when that's all you're capable of since it's as much as you can do, but in reality it's nothing and certainly not even close to a great distance, and it's a gross distortion of reality to try pretending that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nopeda, on 05 February 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

we've never been far enough from this small area to have any idea what velocity light travels in different parts of the universe. At this point my impression is that we are in and have never been able to get out of and area where the velocity of light is "adjusted" by some thing(s) since all tests indicate that it always travels at the same velocity relative to THIS PARTICULAR PLANET. Most likely it's not this particular planet but this particular area, however large that area may happen to be. If light travels significantly faster outside of such an area it would explain why it appears that light from all sources impacts this area at the same velocity relative to the area but regardless of the velocity of the emitter relative to Earth/this area....

OK, but what would photons be doing in this region outside of our space? If dark matter or the fabric of space-time is indeed resistive, and controls the speed of light, then yes, I could see that as plausible, but not sure how or why our space would interact with this other type of space. To make sure I understand exactly what you propose, would it be something like a Photon travelling the expanse between theoretical multiverses? If that is the case, the the speed of light would also be dependant on that medium meaning the next Universe over could have a different speed of light to that which we have, probably based upon the most abundant matter created it this hypothetical "Other Universes" big Bang. We do not know the fabric of space time well enough to say if the Big Bang, or the most abundant element in the Universe has an impact on that. If it does, then yes, the speed of light would be considered a variable.

Or perhaps are you suggesting something like the fabric of space time having different densities in differing regions of space? That too, I admit might well have an effect on the speed of light. We have no reason to think so, but the idea seems plausible.

I don't believe that space or time exist, and of course also not any sort of fabric of spacetime or anything like that. People used to call it the ether, and I believe that idea is what some people think of as dark matter. To me dark matter is just matter that doesn't either give off enough electromagnetic radiation that we can detect it, or reflect enough that we can detect it. That being the case I certainly have no problem at all believing there's a lot more dark matter than visible, and it doesn't involve any fabric or ether or whatever...

It seems most likely to me that whatever makes the adjustment is influencing our local area and however far away. Maybe the influence of magnetospheres. I wouldn't be surprised if it's something else, but that's all I've been able to think of so far that might do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nopeda, on 05 February 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

we've never been far enough from this small area to have any idea what velocity light travels in different parts of the universe. At this point my impression is that we are in and have never been able to get out of and area where the velocity of light is "adjusted" by some thing(s) since all tests indicate that it always travels at the same velocity relative to THIS PARTICULAR PLANET. Most likely it's not this particular planet but this particular area, however large that area may happen to be. If light travels significantly faster outside of such an area it would explain why it appears that light from all sources impacts this area at the same velocity relative to the area but regardless of the velocity of the emitter relative to Earth/this area....

Is there any indication that physics is not the same across the universe? How would you even know? Without substantiation for your physics altering 'bubble' that we supposedly exist in then it is nothing more than a useless thought experiment, which ultimately only serves to muddy the waters. Unless that is your intention.

Furthermore, I fail to see what this has to do with visitation to begin with. Even if aliens use a different iteration of physics than we do by being outside the 'bubble' they would have to adhere to any physics restrictions once they entered. So what exactly is your point?

Edit: Actually, never mind. Your inability to understand physics and general logic has been a death knell for too many threads in the past already.

There are significant velocities between Earth and many objects that it receives light from. Some of those objects are moving toward the Earth at significant velocities, and some away from it. Yet the light from all of those objects is found to impact this planet and the few other places humans have been able to test at the same velocity relative to this planet. That means something MUST make adjustments to the velocity of light. That much is not in question, and in fact that is the starting line. If you can't get that far, then you can't get to the starting line. If you can, then maybe you can at some point comprehend that if light moves much faster than we think outside of the adjustment area, that could explain how even light from objects moving away from us still arrives at the same velocity relative to Earth, so it is still slowed down instead of speeded up as it seems it might need to be, when it enters the adjustment area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A spatial variation in the fine-structure constant would be "truly transformative", according to Lennox Cowie, who works at the Institute for Astronomy in Hawaii. But, he adds, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: "That's way beyond what we have here." He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing.

. . .

It is an interesting quandary, I'll admit. I think it best to err on the side of caution though and see what further research reveals. As I said though, I'm not sure what this has to do with visitation per se, Indeed, if what the article says is correct then there may be huge areas of the universe where life (as we know it at least) is unable to propagate due to a stars inability to produce carbon, or other necessary elements. This seem like it would be more of an argument against visitation, even if indirectly. I'm betting nopeda hasn't even considered that lit bit in his hypothesis.

No I haven't. What do you think might make significant variations to what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Voyager has been traveling for 45 years and only recently reached the heliopause.

psyche tends to think small, from my past experiences with him. A dozen lightyears is nothing, even if no beings in the universe have ever been more than 2 lightyears away from home. I don't have any trouble believing there are beings who can get around a lot more than that though. From my pov reaching ftl velocities wouldn't be the biggest problem. The biggest problem would be preventing obliteration from contact with even pebble or smaller sized objects when moving at such high impact velocities, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping life going is another tricky thing. Earth has gone through some major changes since life formed but it has survived. Fortunately Earth didn't turn into a greenhouse oven like Venus did. It also didn't lose its atmosphere like Mars did. It may be more common for life to exist on planets for a short period and then die after the conditions that promoted it have changed.

Something I saw recently said that Earth would have lost its atmosphere long ago if life had not begun. It would probably take something like a system we have to maintain it, where one type of life like plants supports the atmosphere by transformations in one way, and another type like animals supports it by transformations in another way as our system does.

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 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.