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 -

Elon Musk discusses alien life and UFOs at conference in Los Angeles


Recommended Posts

Inhabitable planets by our standards are rare but what about inhabitable planets by other standards?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Inhabitable planets by our standards are rare but what about inhabitable planets by other standards?

What other standards are there, other than our own?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha! Love that part especially:

Quote

"For some reason, a lot of the same people who think there are aliens among us don't think we went to the moon, which, I'm like:

'Think about that for a second'," he said.
 

All Hail to our King Elon the Musk.

otherwise: interesting too. So the Falcon explosion where it looked like a projectile was a bug or indeed sabotage by the competition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Inhabitable planets by our standards are rare but what about inhabitable planets by other standards?

I would agree. Sounds very reasonable to me.

Seems it would be ludicrous to demand that any "life" beyond what is currently known or believed to be possible must exist only by whatever standards one sets.

Life is not scripted to conform to our experiences, bias or perceptions of it. Rather, it conforms to the laws of local Nature, and we just don't know everything about how local Nature works.

Well, unless you're some kind of freaky narcissist, then I suppose one can entertain delusions of "everything is only as I say it is"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pallidin said:

Well, unless you're some kind of freaky narcissist, then I suppose one can entertain delusions of "everything is only as I say it is"

And there you have it: the soft underbelly of much of skeptical "inquiry".  The search for truth - what is, and what is not - is secondary to the maintenance of your (authoritative) status, and the status quo at least until you can benefit.  Egocentrism has replaced geocentrism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, joc said:

What other standards are there, other than our own?

I guess there are other life forms not like ours or having the same environmental and organic qualities as we have. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

I guess there are other life forms not like ours or having the same environmental and organic qualities as we have. 

I'm guessing there aren't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

I guess there are other life forms not like ours or having the same environmental and organic qualities as we have. 

Explain please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

So, the article is entitled Would Aliens Look Like Us?

First sentence right out of the box...wham....The universe is teeming with earth-like planets.

That is just the biggest statement of lie...I have ever read.  The statement is a lie.  A falsehood.  And yet it is presented by a mainstream news media outlet NPR as fact.  It isn't even fact.  It isn't even anywhere near anything resembling a fact!

And yet, it is presented as fact.  That is why I say it is so easy to fall into a a Star-Trekkian Belief System with regards to Astro-Physics.  

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, joc said:

So, the article is entitled Would Aliens Look Like Us?

First sentence right out of the box...wham....The universe is teeming with earth-like planets.

That is just the biggest statement of lie...I have ever read.  The statement is a lie.  A falsehood.  And yet it is presented by a mainstream news media outlet NPR as fact.  It isn't even fact.  It isn't even anywhere near anything resembling a fact!

And yet, it is presented as fact.  That is why I say it is so easy to fall into a a Star-Trekkian Belief System with regards to Astro-Physics.  

 

 

Hey Joc, are you aware of the fact that earth-like planets have already been discovered? You must know, everyone knows!

Or do you argue that too?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pallidin said:

Hey Joc, are you aware of the fact that earth-like planets have already been discovered? You must know, everyone knows!

Or do you argue that too?

Do you know the difference between facts and fiction?  Here is a fact:

To date, scientists have discovered 55 planets that could be Earth-like. link

Fact:  We don't know if they are really Earth like or not...but of all the planets we have discovered...over 4000 I think...we have found 55 that fit into the habitable zone factors.

This is  NOT a fact:  The universe is teeming with earth-like planets.

 That statement is pure speculation.  But it is presented as though it were fact.  It is a rational speculation based on our having found 55 planets that could be Earth like.  Is the universe teeming with Earthlike planets?  Possibly.  Possibly it is teeming with Earthlike planets that not only have life but have intelligent life such as ours.  But we don't KNOW that is true.  There are things we Know and there are things we Don't Know.  Everything else is belief.  

It's perfectly legit to say that many Astro-physicists and Cosmologists believe that the universe is teeming with Earthlike planets.  But FACTS are things that we KNOW to be true.  And the only facts we have are the planets that we have found.  Extrapolate all  you want...but just keep in mind what the facts are.  That's all I'm saying.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Or do you argue that too?

The only thing I ever argue is with regards to the truth.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, pallidin said:

Life is not scripted to conform to our experiences, bias or perceptions of it. Rather, it conforms to the laws of local Nature, and we just don't know everything about how local Nature works.

Actually, yes it is.  Life is entirely scripted to conform to our experiences, biases, perceptions whatever.   We do know everything about how local Nature works.  We are looking for carbon based life forms.  That is the only 'life' that is in existence as far as we know.  

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would it be proven a distant planet is "earth like" and then being earth like means what? It could have life like on earth?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, joc said:

Actually, yes it is.  Life is entirely scripted to conform to our experiences, biases, perceptions whatever.   We do know everything about how local Nature works.  We are looking for carbon based life forms.  That is the only 'life' that is in existence as far as we know.  

I fully get your point but good luck getting others to understand

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, the13bats said:

How would it be proven a distant planet is "earth like" and then being earth like means what? It could have life like on earth?

The planets considered Earth-like are rocky on their surface and about 0.5 to 1.5 times the size of Earth. They also land in the "habitable zone" of their orbiting stars, meaning they fall in the sweet spot of orbital distance — not too close and not too far away — and therefore have the potential to be able to support liquid water on their surfaces. The ability to support water is huge, as it means the planet could have the potential to support life. link

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, the13bats said:

How would it be proven a distant planet is "earth like"

 Using telescopes and observatories, astronomers can detect an exoplanet by looking for a small dip in light, called a "transit," shining from a star as the planet orbits in front of it. link

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. I see that you are simply explaining in another way what they already said. That it's speculation based on extrapolation. NPR addressed that at the beginning.

So I guess I don't see any problem with NPR on this since it's otherwise blatantly obvious (to me) that it's based on assumptions. And I think fair one's too, IMHO.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Ok. I see that you are simply explaining in another way what they already said. That it's speculation based on extrapolation. NPR addressed that at the beginning.

So I guess I don't see any problem with NPR on this since it's otherwise blatantly obvious (to me) that it's based on assumptions. And I think fair one's too, IMHO.

 

 

 

 

I most likely said what I said because of my bias against NPR.  I didn't even read past the first sentence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Inhabitable planets by our standards are rare but what about inhabitable planets by other standards?

What other standards are useful in preserving the human race?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

What other standards are useful in preserving the human race?

I realize that is addressed to UT, but allow me to offer this in the meanwhile...

The standards you are asking have been addressed and defined by scientists and layman alike for countless years, so I can't begin to fathom why you are even asking.

But whatever. Here you go, straight from NASA:

https://seec.gsfc.nasa.gov/what_makes_a_planet_habitable.html#:~:text=The standard definition for a,water%2C energy%2C and nutrients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, pallidin said:

I realize that is addressed to UT, but allow me to offer this in the meanwhile...

The standards you are asking have been addressed and defined by scientists and layman alike for countless years, so I can't begin to fathom why you are even asking.

But whatever. Here you go, straight from NASA:

https://seec.gsfc.nasa.gov/what_makes_a_planet_habitable.html#:~:text=The standard definition for a,water%2C energy%2C and nutrients.

If you can see that I was responding to UT, then it should be clear.

UT inhabitable planets are rare by our standards; and then asked about other standards. You have just posted our standards.

In the OP, Musk is talking about preserving the human race.  Why is UT raising the prospect of other than human standards?  How are they useful for preserving the human race?

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

If you can see that I was responding to UT, then it should be clear.

UT inhabitable planets are rare by our standards; and then asked about other standards. You have just posted our standards.

In the OP, Musk is talking about preserving the human race.  Why is UT raising the prospect of other than human standards?  How are they useful for preserving the human race?

Ok. Fair enough. I think.

🤔

 

Edited by pallidin
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
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.