Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Waspie_Dwarf

Hawking backs venture to listen for aliens

215 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

kartikg

Invading a single country here on Earth is very costly, so I think we can safely assume that invading a planet in another solar system would be rather expensive.

Why don't you answer my initial question and give me a scenario where it would make sense to launch an interstellar invasion of Earth ?

For fun , for hunting , for testing weapons on live subjects , for using it has a refuelling and relaxingspot becbecause of good climate etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg

I am willing to bet 100$ that this project will not detect any ET generated signals ( the period lets keep till 2025)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Yes, this topic is about INTELLIGENT life, as the "I" in SETI indicates.

I am well aware, nowhere have I stated otherwise.

But whether you believe that life started here, or that it exists everywhere but we're the only intelligent ones, makes no difference really, both make you a geocentric flat-earther.

And how is that so? Please do elaborate. Because I do not subscribe to your ET visitation belief that has no evidence whatsoever?

Would be interested in your explanation for the obvious increasing of complexity in the universe, instead of the degradation suggested by thermodynamics (as outlined in my post #77), and why science pretends it doesn't exist.

Your post #77 is a mishmash of beliefs and pure ignorance. What is there to comment on? You obviously don't want to listen and learn anyways given your history of willful ignorance here at UM.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldthisexist

Just an analogy, I remember when Hawking was speaking about the improbable possibility of time travel into the past, because we have not been visited by "tourist time travelers" (and that you can't travel to a date, before the time machine was built).

We could apply a similar logic with wormholes? And if these things exist, Why don't we have been visited by aliens?

Unless, we count UFOs as proof of that lol

By the way! I don't know almost nothing about these things, so I come here to learn (ignore the jokes)

Haha you misunderstood me just a little bit. I'm not using wormholes to say aliens or time travelers have visited us. I'm saying they alternatives for us to travel the universe. Theoretically anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

Worm holes and gravity hopping neither are faster than light per say.

Also gravity hopping is how the cosmologist explained it. I can't remember the correct term I apologize I will search for it.

ETA: I'm a little rusty, FTL requires infinite energy correct?

Yes, infinite energy is required. And wormholes are unstable and could destroy anything inside them...theoretically of course as we have never found one, but some say that a wormhole would be tiny and only exists for seconds... or less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomalocaris

Haha you misunderstood me just a little bit. I'm not using wormholes to say aliens or time travelers have visited us. I'm saying they alternatives for us to travel the universe. Theoretically anyway.

Then let's pretend that nothing happened :whistle:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldthisexist

Yes, infinite energy is required. And wormholes are unstable and could destroy anything inside them...theoretically of course as we have never found one, but some say that a wormhole would be tiny and only exists for seconds... or less

Yes like small enough to send data through! But it's a risk we would have to examine. I was asking because I know to open and keep one open you theoretically need tons of energy.

Have you ever heard of the theory of contracting space then releasing it as a form of travel? I found that quite interesting .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldthisexist

Then let's pretend that nothing happened :whistle:

Hmmm what where we talking about again ponies??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomalocaris

Hmmm what where we talking about again ponies??

quite right

30_min_challenge__alien_pony_by_wolfyomega-d639q0u.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

I thought Hawking had warned us about searching for Alien life, lest we should draw the bad ones on us.

Now he's spending 100k to do exactly that. I applaud his efforts, now that he seems to have softened his position.

Edited by Phenix20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

I thought Hawking had warned us about searching for Alien life, lest we should draw the bad ones on us.

Now he's spending 100k to do exactly that. I applaud his efforts, now that he seems to have softened his position.

He warned about actively contacting ET, not just looking for them.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

I thought Hawking had warned us about searching for Alien life, lest we should draw the bad ones on us.

Now he's spending 100k to do exactly that. I applaud his efforts, now that he seems to have softened his position.

First off, its 100 MILLION....He is not spending anything, his net worth is about 16 million..... He simply 'backs' the idea, and is on the team, the Russian billionaire has the purse

.

Edited by seeder
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder
badeskov

Against better judgement I will reply to this post of yours.

Indeed, there are those few that will finally admit, or have come to the point that they had to admit in the past that, yes, there is probably life out there somewhere, possibly even widespread, but no intelligent life. These folks are a slightly different category.

Since every single scientist and even poster on this board (except for one that I know of) has openly professed that life is most likely abundant and have done so for many years, your statement is one of willful ignorance as anyone actually having followed this topic would know this to be the case. But that seems to be your excuse.

These ones actually believe that the emergence of intelligence is something that's allowed for by the laws of physics, yet it's somehow special to Earth.

This makes absolutely no sense and is a display of knowing absolutely nothing of the topic at hand. Whatsoever. Nothing.

In their minds, they see endless billions of planets with all sorts of life roaming them, but somehow, throughout billions of years, the forces of evolution on them have somehow managed to avoid the development of the intellect, of consciousness. They choose to believe this in spite of the most obvious thing in the world, namely that there is a force in the universe, so far not discussed by science, but staring all of us in the face.

This makes absolutely no sense. Who says so and why? Nobody does and this is obviously all made up in your mind to satisfy your system of belief and has no anchor in objective reality.

This force, that drives physical systems into states of higher and higher complexity (which flies right in the face or the first law of thermodynamics, although certainly not violating it), has been at work right from the moment the Universe was born. It transformed an energy soup into a buzzing world of particles, rather than leave it as it was. How? You say, temperature dropped, and the condensation was a direct consequence of the laws of physics. Ok, we'll get back to that. Then, instead of having a world of hundreds of different particles, which was orders of magnitude more exotic than an energy soup, turned into even more exotic structures, atoms, and eventually, with the addition of heavier elements, into a wide variety of molecules. For which, of course, you needed to have laws governing their bondage, whether it would be covalent, ionic, metallic, etc. Why there would be laws governing atoms bonding in different ways is another question. When did these laws form exactly, or did they exist right from the beginning, even though there was no sign that atoms will ever exist? Why would a law for atom bondage exist in a universe that has never had atoms?

This is basically you not understanding physics whatsoever.

Finally this mysteriouss force results in the emergence of life out of the lifeless.

No mystery force. Where did you get that silly idea from? Some ridiculous religious idea?

Another unavoidable consequence of the laws of physics? Or an accident? If all just an accident, then where exactly do results end and accidents begin? Particles, atom, molecules, stars, galaxies and planets are all necessary results that could be predicted right from the Big Bang, if all the laws are known, but life, evolution, intelligence and conciousness are all on the other side of an arbitrary line drawn by God knows whom, and readily accepted and embraced by all the rest without question? Is it really that hard to see the pattern, that the Universe is all about creating higher and higher orders of complexity, which then become platforms for even further complexity to be built upon? No atoms without particles. No molecules without atoms. No life unless matter exists. No self-aware life without complex biology (central nervous system). Also, how hard is it to notice that each of the steps are universal, not restricted to "special", "privileged" regions of space? You have galaxies all across space and time. An endless sea of stars and planets.

You obviously do not understand neither the Universe nor physics. You are merely making yourself look like a fool.

It took time for humans to realize what a galaxy is, that there are many of them. It took even more time to find exoplanets. Not to say they didn't exist until we found them. Just like it will take time to find life. And that includes all the intelligent life. The obvious question is, why haven't they found us?

Because of the distances involved, perhaps?

And this leads to the next step. Or did you honestly think that you are the final product, the peak accomplishment of complexity in the universe?

Who on Earth ever aired such an idea outside of religious circles?

Do you really think that after producing life, intelligence and self-awareness, and all that it comes with - culture, arts, history, technology, politics, etc. - the Universe has all of a sudden run out of ideas for further complexification? Think about it for just a second. Where would an intelligent race evolve? What's the next step after self-reflection? Keep in mind that each step was unimaginable from the perspective of the previous level of achievement. The buzzing of life, with features like evolution, natural selection, spreading, competition, diversification, etc. is infinitely more exotic compared to a lifeless, dead universe, governed mostly by gravity, mostly just stuff spinning and orbiting. And human life, in turn, is wildly different from what the "laws" of evolution dictate. We have emotions like love and compassion. Raising disabled children, spending resources on the elderly, are polar opposites of what natural selection has been trying to do for billions of years, and we simply override it, perpetuating less-than perfect gene pools, all in the name of love, which is what exactly?

What a ridiculous strawman. Nobody ever argued for such.

It is open for speculation what the next step is, but it's likely to involve exopolitics, concepts like Star Trek's "prime directive". Any sufficiently civilization will have come to the point of recognizing the importance of a delicate system of protocols, and even though it is possible that a few species will develop intergalactic travel before developing such systems of protocols, or the morality they're based on (funny we should have that, that the universe even produced something of that sort), there will be those civilizations that will have attained these higher levels of moral values in conjunction with the abilities to enforce them as deemed necessary, providing protection to infant civilizations like ours. Which would include a serious limitation of contact from outside, possibly even a shield filtering artificial external signals from the natural background. All to allow a natural unfoldment of our own evolution, so it is uninfluenced, original and unique. Obviously they have a much better understanding of the importance of the diversity of life, and complexity in general, as, possible, some kind of purpose the Universe seems to have. Indeed, why the complxifcation? And why the embarrassing lack of the acknowledgement of the obvious in our sciences?

Seriously, you need to read up on physics and scale down on the SciFi movies.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

Yes, infinite energy is required. And wormholes are unstable and could destroy anything inside them...theoretically of course as we have never found one, but some say that a wormhole would be tiny and only exists for seconds... or less

Light speed requires infinite energy. Beyond light speed nothing makes sense any more. It could be argued that beyond light speed, mass and energy become negative. More likely, because of the maths involved, they become imaginary (because the square root of a negative number is imaginary). Either way, it ain't going to happen!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

And who told you that "I'm doing" ufology?

Nobody needs to tell us that, that is what you are promoting whether you like it or not.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Invading a single country here on Earth is very costly, so I think we can safely assume that invading a planet in another solar system would be rather expensive.

Why don't you answer my initial question and give me a scenario where it would make sense to launch an interstellar invasion of Earth ?

For fun , for hunting , for testing weapons on live subjects , for using it has a refuelling and relaxingspot becbecause of good climate etc etc.

So what you are really saying is that you got nothing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

Invading a single country here on Earth is very costly.

Invading Andorra wouldn't cost much - their army has only twelve men. I reckon some of the guys from my local bar could manage that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Invading Andorra wouldn't cost much - their army has only twelve men. I reckon some of the guys from my local bar could manage that.

Yes but some countries are rather more heavily militarised. :innocent:

Do you know which country has by far the largest army compared to its population ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

Yes but some countries are rather more heavily militarised. :innocent:

Do you know which country has by far the largest army compared to its population ?

Hmm, Israel?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

Yes but some countries are rather more heavily militarised. :innocent:

Do you know which country has by far the largest army compared to its population ?

The obvious answer would be somewhere like North Korea, but I'm guessing that isn't the one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

The obvious answer would be somewhere like North Korea, but I'm guessing that isn't the one.

The answer is: the Vatican. :innocent:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

The answer is: the Vatican. :innocent:

Ha! And Jebus said "turn the other cheek".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

The obvious answer would be somewhere like North Korea, but I'm guessing that isn't the one.

If you discount the Vatican, it is indeed North Korea that has the largest army in relation to it population. Eritrea is second and Israel is third.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

So... what if after all the searching has been done... and we find nothing? What next?

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.