Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why haven't extraterrestrials made their presence known?

Page 6 of 14 [ 210 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Why haven't aliens made themselves known to us en masse?
They actually have but most people refuse to accept it 25%  25%  [ 20 ]
They think we are not ready for it 5%  5%  [ 4 ]
They think we are cruel/violent and don't deserve to know 9%  9%  [ 7 ]
They have a reason not to disclose that is unclear 6%  6%  [ 5 ]
Aliens have never visited Earth silly 56%  56%  [ 45 ]
Total votes : 81

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

06 Feb 2012, 6:32 pm

Vigilans wrote:
I farted


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX4cGhQW5Ec[/youtube]



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

06 Feb 2012, 6:32 pm

shrox wrote:
Fnord wrote:
"Apes See a Tall Slab" is from a SCIENCE-FICTION movie that was based on a SCIENCE-FICTION book. In other words, the claim that "Extraterrestrials were here so far in the past that they can not be remembered clearly, if at all" is speculation - pure, unmitigated speculation. Only this, and nothing more.
Good god man, can you see nothing as a metaphor?! Geez!

Hello? Aspie over here! Metaphors make little or no sense to me - literal terms only, please?



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

06 Feb 2012, 6:33 pm

Fnord wrote:
shrox wrote:
Fnord wrote:
"Apes See a Tall Slab" is from a SCIENCE-FICTION movie that was based on a SCIENCE-FICTION book. In other words, the claim that "Extraterrestrials were here so far in the past that they can not be remembered clearly, if at all" is speculation - pure, unmitigated speculation. Only this, and nothing more.
Good god man, can you see nothing as a metaphor?! Geez!

Hello? Aspie over here! Metaphors make little or no sense to me - literal terms only, please?


Damn, and I am artist too!



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

06 Feb 2012, 6:35 pm

Fnord wrote:
Hello? Aspie over here! Metaphors make little or no sense to me - literal terms only, please?


Your response was actually pretty funny, can you see that? Do you care for puns?



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

06 Feb 2012, 7:20 pm

shrox wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Assigning the word "god" to anything but a god (as defined by TM) is pointless. If gods are simply extremely advanced aliens or extradimensional life forms, they are not gods imho. It is the same as calling the universe god, or the entire biosphere of our planet, or the sum of all human minds. You are merely renaming something entirely natural. Gods are supernatural by definition.


I don't mean simply an extradimensional life form, I mean one that has an interest in us. Jesus even said repeatedly he was not from here:

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

1611 King James Version of John 18:36

I don't think it's heresy to "classify" Jesus as an extradimensional life form, simply that he is the extradimensional life form of extradimensional life forms, The king of kings.


I think there might have been a historical Jesus, just like there probably was a historical figure that inspired the legend of King Arthur. The problem with those legends is that they are greatly exaggerated, and there is no way to know if Jesus and Arthur did really say and do all the things that are ascribed to them. It seems very unlikely that Jesus walked on water and raised the dead, or that Arthur had a magic sword.

While Jesus was a great philosopher for his time and I overall agree with his message (aside from the supernatural bits about heaven and hell, that is), I don't see the gospel stories as evidence that he did anything supernatural or that he was more than a human being.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

06 Feb 2012, 7:25 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
... While Jesus was a great philosopher for his time and I overall agree with his message (aside from the supernatural bits about heaven and hell, that is), I don't see the gospel stories as evidence that he did anything supernatural or that he was more than a human being.

Have you read the Jefferson Bible yet? It omits all of the supernatural events found in the KJV, but retains Ye Olde English style.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

06 Feb 2012, 7:52 pm

Fnord wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
... While Jesus was a great philosopher for his time and I overall agree with his message (aside from the supernatural bits about heaven and hell, that is), I don't see the gospel stories as evidence that he did anything supernatural or that he was more than a human being.

Have you read the Jefferson Bible yet? It omits all of the supernatural events found in the KJV, but retains Ye Olde English style.


No, but I like that idea :) Except for the Olde English bit. Thomas Jefferson was a pretty cool guy. The USA could use a few politicians like him nowadays.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

06 Feb 2012, 10:35 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Fnord wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
... While Jesus was a great philosopher for his time and I overall agree with his message (aside from the supernatural bits about heaven and hell, that is), I don't see the gospel stories as evidence that he did anything supernatural or that he was more than a human being.
Have you read the Jefferson Bible yet? It omits all of the supernatural events found in the KJV, but retains Ye Olde English style.
No, but I like that idea Except for the Olde English bit. Thomas Jefferson was a pretty cool guy. The USA could use a few politicians like him nowadays.

It's kinda like reading Shakespeare, only not so original.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Feb 2012, 1:14 pm

shrox wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The simplest explanation is presumably the best explanation, all other things being equal.

The reason why we have not seen an aliens is because none have arrived in this planet.

ruveyn


Not in recently enough to be remembered clearly if at all. Or before we even came along.



There is no practical difference between that and saying aliens never were here.

There is absolutely no evidence that non-terrestrial aliens have ever visited this planet. Not a bit, Not a crumb, not a smidgin.

ruveyn



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

07 Feb 2012, 1:23 pm

ruveyn wrote:
shrox wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The simplest explanation is presumably the best explanation, all other things being equal.

The reason why we have not seen an aliens is because none have arrived in this planet.

ruveyn


Not in recently enough to be remembered clearly if at all. Or before we even came along.



There is no practical difference between that and saying aliens never were here.

There is absolutely no evidence that non-terrestrial aliens have ever visited this planet. Not a bit, Not a crumb, not a smidgin.

ruveyn

Well, yeah. Pack your trash with you. Eco friendly interstellar exploration.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,660
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

07 Feb 2012, 1:41 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Jono wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Furthermore, the massive galaxy M87 has a jet of matter spewing out of its center that appears to be moving 6-8 times the speed of light. Some astrophysicists try to explain this away as an optical illusion caused by the curvature of space-time around the galaxy itself; but even that explanation is problematic because special relativity predicts that nothing can even appear to move faster than light since the speed of light is a universal reference frame in its own right!


Not some astrophysicists but all of them agree that this is an illusion but it's not due to the curvature of space-time. The jet is actually moving slower than light and is therefore not superluminal. In fact, no experiment or observation has ever shown anything to be traveling faster than light, other than the recent OPERA experiment at CERN which has yet to be verified.


I beg your pardon, but the theory of special relativity is based on the principle that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames(that is, the same for all observers). For something to give the illusion of moving faster than light to observers on Earth violates this fundamental principle of special relativity and ultimately undermines that notion that superluminal motion violates causality. This still however, does not imply that it's possible to travel faster than light by brute force.


Incorrect. This not violate the special principle of relativity and in fact actually falls within it. You see, unlike you, I have actually studied special and general relativity at university and this was one of the examples given in my undergraduate course. The effect is due to the jet moving almost directly towards us, in which case as time goes on, light from the jet has a shorter distance to travel to reach our telescopes. I can even give you a reference to the textbook which contains the derivation if you so wish.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

07 Feb 2012, 4:25 pm

simon_says wrote:
Investments are relative. It took resources to send the Voyager probes, which are just now leaving our solar system. To an ancient culture that was an unimaginable investment in time, wealth and knowledge. But that was just a tiny drop in the bucket to a 20th century economy. As technology advances it's difficult to predict costs for a given activity.

As for destinations. I think it would be unlikely to be a random visit. Just as NASA is looking for Earth like environments it's not difficult to imagine 02 based life looking for places like Earth. They'd see them from far away without having to visit. Assuming they exist.


Of course they are--but the laws of physics and the fundamentals of organic chemistry are not.

Chucking a giant, sophisticated transistor radio out into the solar system and then seeing where it goes is pretty unsophisticated. But sending a craft, capable of sustaining life, on an interstellar journey is a whole different ball of wax.

Even if we accept the proposition that we can develop the ability to create such a craft and maintain as self-sufficient biosphere within it, we still have to get it across interstellar distances and back again within a reasonable timeframe. Special relativity tells us what happens as velocity approaches c, and its consequences are inescapable. There is a technological barrier that is impenitrable, and no amount of wishful thinking and science fiction will make it otherwise.


_________________
--James


AspieRogue

07 Feb 2012, 4:27 pm

Jono wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Jono wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Furthermore, the massive galaxy M87 has a jet of matter spewing out of its center that appears to be moving 6-8 times the speed of light. Some astrophysicists try to explain this away as an optical illusion caused by the curvature of space-time around the galaxy itself; but even that explanation is problematic because special relativity predicts that nothing can even appear to move faster than light since the speed of light is a universal reference frame in its own right!


Not some astrophysicists but all of them agree that this is an illusion but it's not due to the curvature of space-time. The jet is actually moving slower than light and is therefore not superluminal. In fact, no experiment or observation has ever shown anything to be traveling faster than light, other than the recent OPERA experiment at CERN which has yet to be verified.


I beg your pardon, but the theory of special relativity is based on the principle that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames(that is, the same for all observers). For something to give the illusion of moving faster than light to observers on Earth violates this fundamental principle of special relativity and ultimately undermines that notion that superluminal motion violates causality. This still however, does not imply that it's possible to travel faster than light by brute force.


Incorrect. This not violate the special principle of relativity and in fact actually falls within it.



Alright....This time I will concede. I stand corrected.


Quote:
You see, unlike you, I have actually studied special and general relativity at university and this was one of the examples given in my undergraduate course.




Me too, actually. But it's been 11 years and in the mean time I'm far more focused on set theory than relativistic physics. :P

I did a little bit of research and found the mathematical derivation of the astrophysical explanation you offered. Which makes perfect sense given that according to special relativity one cannot accelerate faster than light by brute force because that would require an infinite amount of energy which even black holes don't have as their mass is finite.


Since you(or they) cannot travel fast enough to distant stars to reach them in any reasonable amount of time, the only option is to exploit general relativity by reducing the distance between you and the place you wish to reach(but only in a small, localized region of space).



cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

07 Feb 2012, 6:01 pm

shrox wrote:
No one believes me...


I'll entertain the idea.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Feb 2012, 7:44 pm

shrox wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The simplest explanation is presumably the best explanation, all other things being equal.

The reason why we have not seen an aliens is because none have arrived in this planet.

ruveyn


Not in recently enough to be remembered clearly if at all. Or before we even came along.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y15NnGZIBuM[/youtube]


2001 is a work of fiction. Please do keep that in mind.

ruveyn



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

07 Feb 2012, 7:50 pm

Oh, I am so glad that people are so thought fully reminding me that 2001 is fiction. I could just look at the moon today and know that...no lights in Tycho crater.