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 8
seeder

Ancient Alien theory

1,233 posts in this topic

Given that there are people who firmly believe it is scientific fact that something just slightly more complex than a molecule somehow became alive, and through the offices of extreme lengths of time, fantastic luck in compiling just the right mutations in just the right sequences and combination, and pure random chance called "natural selection" is the common ancestor of all life on the planet and that this same process must have taken place in countless planets throughout the universe despite the ridiculously huge coincidences required, your argument that AA Theory is not valid due to the coincidences required seems weak.

OK we could be discussing different things here, but so as Im clear, the AA theory, as proposed in the AA series is about ancient visitation by the aliens who did little else but build or help build ancient structures, then leave without trace. Thats the purpose of this thread, to examine that scenario. I have no doubt as stated in post 1, that life is not unique to earth, and could even be common...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Given that there are people who firmly believe it is scientific fact that something just slightly more complex than a molecule somehow became alive, and through the offices of extreme lengths of time, fantastic luck in compiling just the right mutations in just the right sequences and combination, and pure random chance called "natural selection" is the common ancestor of all life on the planet and that this same process must have taken place in countless planets throughout the universe despite the ridiculously huge coincidences required, your argument that AA Theory is not valid due to the coincidences required seems weak.

OK heres a great vid about how common we could be. (He's a great scientist by the way, makes science fun and understandable)

Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson: A fascinatingly disturbing thought.

Segment of Cosmic Quandaries Dr. DeGrasse Tyson talked about Alien Life in a simple but informative way. And makes many good points and leaves you with something to think about.

Great quote from the vid:

"Are we alone in the universe? We're made of the most common ingredients there are. And our chemistry is based on carbon, the most chemically active ingredient i the periodic table. If you were to find an ingredient on which to base life.. you would use carbon. Carbon is the 4th most abundant ingredient in the universe, not rare"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDRXn96HrtY

Edited by seeder
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK heres a great vid about how common we could be. (He's a great scientist by the way, makes science fun and understandable)

Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson: A fascinatingly disturbing thought.

Segment of Cosmic Quandaries Dr. DeGrasse Tyson talked about Alien Life in a simple but informative way. And makes many good points and leaves you with something to think about.

Great quote from the vid:

"Are we alone in the universe? We're made of the most common ingredients there are. And our chemistry is based on carbon, the most chemically active ingredient i the periodic table. If you were to find an ingredient on which to base life.. you would use carbon. Carbon is the 4th most abundant ingredient in the universe, not rare"

I agree to a point with this guy but he makes it sound as if all intelligent life would be that extra 1%. Imagine if we humans in the next hundred years managed some sort of FTL travel. I cannot see that we would be so much different than we are now. Of course this is all speculation and JMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to a point with this guy but he makes it sound as if all intelligent life would be that extra 1%. Imagine if we humans in the next hundred years managed some sort of FTL travel. I cannot see that we would be so much different than we are now. Of course this is all speculation and JMO.

Personally, Im not sure we will ever travel faster than light. Can you imagine the g-forces? Heck even on a fun-fair there are some rides that thru their speed or spinning will stick you to the chair! Ever been in the "Rotor"? The one where you spin round, the floor goes down and youre left sticking to the wall? :w00t: Imagine being in that - accelerated by just a couple hundred mph? Then to the speed of light!

But as the theory goes...'As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises precipitously. If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light'.

and heres another snippet

"We experience higher or lower g forces when we are rapidly changing speeds or directions. Normal humans can withstand no more than 9 g's, and even that for only a few seconds. When undergoing an acceleration of 9 g's, your body feels nine times heavier than usual, blood rushes to the feet, and the heart can't pump hard enough to bring this heavier blood to the brain. Your vision narrows to a tunnel, then goes black. If the acceleration doesn't decrease, you will pass out and finally die. The Air Force's F-16 can produce more g's than the human body can survive. We're forced to limit the acceleration of planes and spacecraft to a level humans can survive.

If we need to accelerate for extended periods, the level we can withstand is even lower. We can withstand 5 g's for only two minutes, 3 g's for only an hour. For the sake of argument, though, let's try to tough it out at 3 g's for a little longer. For Han Solo to take off from and accelerate at 3 g's to half the speed of light would take him two and a half months—hardly the makings of an exciting movie. Even at 9 g's, it would take him nineteen days to reach half the speed of light, though he'd be dead long before the ship reached that speed.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=star-wars-science-light-speed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to part two. I once beieved in AA but then you realize everyone lies and when money is to be made people will add a little spice to sell more copies. I still have a copy of Chariots of the Gods but now smile when I come across it on my bookshelf.

Why don't you post under your real name seeder? Why have two ID's? Isn't that deceptive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why don't you post under your real name seeder? Why have two ID's? Isn't that deceptive?

Oh no Im being stalked... again. Go post 'more on' the other thread. Or are you realizing people had enough of it by now? Two ID's indeed.... scraping the barrel eh?

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, Im not sure we will ever travel faster than light. Can you imagine the g-forces? Heck even on a fun-fair there are some rides that thru their speed or spinning will stick you to the chair! Ever been in the "Rotor"? The one where you spin round, the floor goes down and youre left sticking to the wall? :w00t: Imagine being in that - accelerated by just a couple hundred mph? Then to the speed of light!

But as the theory goes...'As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises precipitously. If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light'.

and heres another snippet

"We experience higher or lower g forces when we are rapidly changing speeds or directions. Normal humans can withstand no more than 9 g's, and even that for only a few seconds. When undergoing an acceleration of 9 g's, your body feels nine times heavier than usual, blood rushes to the feet, and the heart can't pump hard enough to bring this heavier blood to the brain. Your vision narrows to a tunnel, then goes black. If the acceleration doesn't decrease, you will pass out and finally die. The Air Force's F-16 can produce more g's than the human body can survive. We're forced to limit the acceleration of planes and spacecraft to a level humans can survive.

This problem is completely bypassed by warping space around the ship and then stretching the space in the direction you want to travel while constricting space in the opposite direction.

No inertial forces at all.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no Im being stalked... again. Go post 'more on' the other thread. Or are you realizing people had enough of it by now? Two ID's indeed.... scraping the barrel eh?

It's easily provable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, Im not sure we will ever travel faster than light. Can you imagine the g-forces? Heck even on a fun-fair there are some rides that thru their speed or spinning will stick you to the chair! Ever been in the "Rotor"? The one where you spin round, the floor goes down and youre left sticking to the wall? :w00t: Imagine being in that - accelerated by just a couple hundred mph? Then to the speed of light!

But as the theory goes...'As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises precipitously. If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light'.

and heres another snippet

"We experience higher or lower g forces when we are rapidly changing speeds or directions. Normal humans can withstand no more than 9 g's, and even that for only a few seconds. When undergoing an acceleration of 9 g's, your body feels nine times heavier than usual, blood rushes to the feet, and the heart can't pump hard enough to bring this heavier blood to the brain. Your vision narrows to a tunnel, then goes black. If the acceleration doesn't decrease, you will pass out and finally die. The Air Force's F-16 can produce more g's than the human body can survive. We're forced to limit the acceleration of planes and spacecraft to a level humans can survive.

If we need to accelerate for extended periods, the level we can withstand is even lower. We can withstand 5 g's for only two minutes, 3 g's for only an hour. For the sake of argument, though, let's try to tough it out at 3 g's for a little longer. For Han Solo to take off from and accelerate at 3 g's to half the speed of light would take him two and a half months—hardly the makings of an exciting movie. Even at 9 g's, it would take him nineteen days to reach half the speed of light, though he'd be dead long before the ship reached that speed.

http://www.scientifi...nce-light-speed

I agree that based on what we know now FTL travel is unlikely BUT what we knew 100 years ago to be true has changed a bit. Even if we cannot go FTL if there was some way to overcome the g-forces. Who knows? My point was mainly that I do not believe an intelligent species would completely ignore another less intelligent species. After all we study the hell of of chimps, gorillas and dolphins etc. If intelligence is rare then ANY would be worth a look and study. Not that I believe we are being studied mind you. JMO

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easily provable.

Knock yourself out then mate and try prove whatever you like....is it so hard to think someone actually agrees with me on this subject? I can feel your envy seeing as no-one ever agrees with your posts... Now kindly stop posting if you're only here to take swipes, you are so irritating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure wouldn't mind a machine that can cut, bounce an stack me a pyramid in a month, hell if I had me one of dem machines I probably would stack one so high you can scoop ice off the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't they bring some cool metals to build with instead of using stupid rocks?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK we could be discussing different things here, but so as Im clear, the AA theory, as proposed in the AA series is about ancient visitation by the aliens who did little else but build or help build ancient structures, then leave without trace. Thats the purpose of this thread, to examine that scenario. I have no doubt as stated in post 1, that life is not unique to earth, and could even be common...

What I am pointing out is that your argument to invalidate AA theory seems to rest on the idea that the number of coincidences required to have had an extraterrestrial race find, land on, and be able to function on the Earth is so high that it is too ridiculous to even consider that as a viable scientific theory; but yet the number of coincidences required for that to happen have to be significantly fewer than the number of coincidences required by the "descent from a common ancestor" theory and yet that is supposedly a valid scientific theory. So, if descent from a common ancestor through time, "beneficial" mutations and "natural selection" is a valid theory despite the coincidences required, then your argument for refuting AA theory due to the required coincidences is a weak argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets push this thread up to, and pass, zosers thread page count.

Whos with me!!?? :tsu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that based on what we know now FTL travel is unlikely BUT what we knew 100 years ago to be true has changed a bit. Even if we cannot go FTL if there was some way to overcome the g-forces. Who knows? My point was mainly that I do not believe an intelligent species would completely ignore another less intelligent species. After all we study the hell of of chimps, gorillas and dolphins etc. If intelligence is rare then ANY would be worth a look and study. Not that I believe we are being studied mind you. JMO

take a read of this, it does offer a glimmer of hope

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136408-nasa-working-on-faster-than-light-travel-says-warp-drives-are-plausible

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knock yourself out then mate and try prove whatever you like....is it so hard to think someone actually agrees with me on this subject? I can feel your envy seeing as no-one ever agrees with your posts... Now kindly stop posting if you're only here to take swipes, you are so irritating

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easily provable.

Provable? Yes.

Logistical? Nah.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets push this thread up to, and pass, zosers thread page count.

Whos with me!!?? :tsu:

YAY! :clap::tsu:

Im defo up for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets push this thread up to, and pass, zosers thread page count.

Whos with me!!?? :tsu:

You might do If I contribute,

As soon as I have time I'll post some findings here so that no one misses out with there being dual threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, sweet crap...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You might do If I contribute,

As soon as I have time I'll post some findings here so that no one misses out with there being dual threads.

Now be a good boy and dont encourage more haters for yourself.

.

Edited by seeder
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am pointing out is that your argument to invalidate AA theory seems to rest on the idea that the number of coincidences required to have had an extraterrestrial race find, land on, and be able to function on the Earth is so high that it is too ridiculous to even consider that as a viable scientific theory; but yet the number of coincidences required for that to happen have to be significantly fewer than the number of coincidences required by the "descent from a common ancestor" theory and yet that is supposedly a valid scientific theory. So, if descent from a common ancestor through time, "beneficial" mutations and "natural selection" is a valid theory despite the coincidences required, then your argument for refuting AA theory due to the required coincidences is a weak argument.

But Ive not completely made my argument yet. As said there will be a few sections! Each building on the previous...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You might do If I contribute,

As soon as I have time I'll post some findings here so that no one misses out with there being dual threads.

If you do,PLEASE.... present something with a little more substance that the tired old "I dont see how, therefor alienzz" crap.... The other tread is filled with it.

If you want to do that.... go back to the crappy thread and do it there.

Edited by DBunker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you post under your real name seeder? Why have two ID's? Isn't that deceptive?

accusing people of deliberately breaking the rules in order to troll? That's scraping the barrel of desperation, isn't it?

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

accusing people of deliberately breaking the rules in order to troll? That's scraping the barrel of desperation, isn't it?

exactly right. I think he feels this thread threatens the other and its the sour grapes stuff coming into play now with the negative slurs....

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 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.