UFO's and extra-terrestrial life
 

I've always found this an interesting topic, and usually pretty much everyone seems to have an opinion on whether UFO's and extra-terrestrials exist or not.

Do UFO's exist? Did something alien really crash at Roswell? Did something strange really land at Rendelsham Forest? (Sp?) Have aliens colonised this planet before? Have they visited? Are abductions real? Did the US government reverse-engineer alien technology and incorporate it into experimental airctraft?

Or are aliens and extra-terrestrial life forms nothing more than our modern-day fairies and goblins? Figments of wild imaginations and paranoia?

Discusions please.

of course ets exist. the universe is so friggin immense its pretty much a given that theres litterlly millions of civilizations out there.


the bad news is that einstiens probaly right about faster than light travel. which means in effect, that all those civilizations are forever effectivly isolated from one another. the well known fermi paradox seeems to back this line of reasoning.

+1

Einstein's theory that we can't go faster than the speed of light in the conventional space as we have it now has apparently recently been confirmed by a Cambridge researcher, it's all about experimenting with new dimensions.

Maybe one day we will receive their radio waves, but either we haven't been able to decipher them again or they're still too far.

As for Unidentified Flying Object, yes, they exist for sure, let's not forget that they aren't necessarily related to alien life though.

Yeah, a distinction should be drawn between the two. A UFO doesn't neccessarily mean alien, just unidentified.

well... we could not go through mountains until the tunnel was invented either right?

i bet there are more than 4 dimensions out there in space and one of em will have different rules for space time and matter...

subspace FTW!!

one day, im sure humanity will GTFO of this rock... unless we destroy ourselves due to greed before that happens :P

no smartass comments please :P im only a humble welder with my own oppinions :P

so if black holes can break the speed of light rule with gravity, so can we

I guy I grew up with- his dad was a B-52 jockey towards the end of the war- the first time a rocket propelled cannon platform came up thru their formation, took out a bomber and vanished, panic does NOT quite cover the hysteria that over took the entire groupe.
After debriefing none of the crews were allowed to talk about it, but they did, initially it was simply assumed the germans had some futuristic buck rogers rocketship type thing, maybe they had a base on the moon, the theorys were wild and speculative to say the least, but we were all doomed, lol.

UFO

It all depends. If we live in an infinite universe, then everything that is possible exists so the answer is yes BUT if we live in a finite universe then there is a possiblity that we are alone.

I think that the reason we haven't met haven't met any ET's is that they saw us first and have put us on their ignore list.

Cheers!

There is but one problem pondering the infinite.
We are finite creatures.
Therefore nearly incapable of understanding, let alone relating to the infinite.

All belief systems are reliant on an absence of proof.

Without establishment of truth via all of the five human senses any thought construct can be deemed to be therefore untruth.

See Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' for reference to the a priori continuance of a particle from second to second.

The universe is demonstrably finite and expanding, for about 13 - 14 billion years.

Although we are finding an abundance of extra-solar planets, many of which reside in the potentially "habitable" zone, we are also learning that there is an increasingly daunting number of factors that must coincide to form life as we have defined it, and exponentially more still for it to evolve even to our point. Even then, with intelligence and technology do they even want to reach out to anyone else?

Black holes don't do anything that breaks the speed of light.

Our universe may be an expanding bubble amongst other bubble universes but even if we could travel to them we'd likely die instantly if physics principles vary even slightly to those defined in the birth of our own.

Perhaps in lieu of traveling faster than the speed of light (even approaching it slows time and increases mass) these "aliens" could bend space-time to get around but good luck with that. Possible, perhaps. Likely, not a chance.

Now, consider the past say, 10 years pretty much everyone and their grandmother has a cellphone with a camera in it. Consider the past 40-50 years since the UFO first became popularized and made us want to be believers. No definitive photos or video. I can understand it being rare but not one video of a craft landing in a field with a big-eyed lanky grey alien stepping out to take a two-stream piss on their way to some Tatooine canteen.

Conclusion: unless you are religiously attracted to the alien phenomenon by faith and ignore logic and statistical data, one has to conclude that alien visitation to this planet is very unlikely.

To each their own but some people with little money and sense, and a faith in things like destiny and fate, love to spend money on lottery tickets as well.

Faster than light not possible?

Try this... imagine a train carriage hurtling along at the speed of light and you are just a passerby watching this.
At the rear of the carriage is a chap who throws a ball to another chap at the front of the carriage; that ball is travelling faster than the speed of light.
As an observer, within the carriage, it would appear that there is just one chap throwing a ball to another chap.

There "relativity" was born

A similar thing can be seen with a carousel and two people at opposite sides throwing a ball to each other. To a viewer on the Carousel, the ball appears to go straight, but, when viewed from above, the ball travels in a curve. (corioli effect)

The Fourth dimension is time and us 3 dimensional criters see the shadow of that as "inside/ outside" (but it is both at the same instant - no beginning, no end)

yeah, imagine you're in the Batmobile with Wonderwoman.. that's pretty much the same grounds in terms of that theory's validity..

What Charvel just said plus;

Out of the millions of species on this planet, homo sapiens is unable to communicate in an intelligible way with any but their own species. Some might even debate that point.

Yet we seem to think we can communicate with so called 'alien life forms'. SETI? Ridiculous waste of time, money and brainpower. What are the chances of anything out there being at exactly the right point in its technological development to receive and/or respond to any electromagnetic signal? Out of the billions of years since the formation of the universe, the Human race has had radio technology for what, 110 years? Just seems a bit naive to me. Come to that, what if all alien life is vegetable or viral? Or pink elephants?

If life comes about so easily, then why is our entire solar system devoid of life but for here? They also spend untold amounts of cash going back to Mars again and again in the search for evidence of the potential for life in the past, present or future. It isn't there.
Then the theorists turn to a warm ocean under the ice of Europa as being the next inline for a visit. Then to Titan as being a future life bearing moon with its alternative life-friendly chemistry.

It all boils down to people being unable to accept that this is it. This is all there is. Life's a bitch and then you die etc.

Fairies and goblins is bang on.

Having said that, my bookshelves are full of science fiction. I love it, but that's what it is, fiction.

Blimey, I think I just had a bit of a rant. Sorry chaps!:-D

The B-52 would have been quite a surprise for the Germans, too!
:-D

Nope, sorry. Doesn't work like that. For one, as you approach the speed of light your mass becomes infinite. Time will adjust so that the speed of light is never exceeded.

If you are talking relative to another object, sure. a light beam going one way compared to a light beam traveling the other will add up to twice the speed of light but the point is neither in themselves will exceed it. You cannot throw the ball any faster than the speed of light in your example.

The experimental evidence for this is already out there.

erm, we can have forms of basic communication with other animals actually.

lol that's a bit generic man! Considering that the faster way of transmitting data that we have at the moment in space is light and radio waves, I reckon it's worth a try. Our first radio waves are roughly 80 light years away from our planet as we speak, not much, but it's a start.

it's all fascinating speculation, they're not gonna go nowhere anytime soon. If by 2030 they really make it to mars I'd be well impressed, not for the achievement per se, but because I expect modern society to fail way before that date.
it's obvious that our society is not ready for space exploration, simply because we can't live in peace on this planet as it is. But it's within human nature to ask questions: 1000 years ago they couldn't explain what a lightning is, so it was "god", now we have different horizons. You can't just sit back and relax, I find the research they do very fascinating, and worth spending more money than wars for sure.

It's ok, it's friday, time to hit the pub me thinks! ;-)

I disagree about human civilization destroying itself. That's an echo that reverberates through the generations past the sixties when it was hip to emote self-loathing. These subsequent generations also tend to be myopic, understandably just as any generation, without anything to compare their times with.

Humanity is far more resilient than we give ourselves credit for, and has progressed in too many positive ways that the doom-and-gloom crowd choose to ignore when forming their world views.

However, with that said, technology advancement has not only grown but accelerated over the past 100 years which makes society's response time too "laggy" to adjust and react quickly enough. Also, it will take some time to settle out as a pan-global society that largely polices itself, not out of moral or religious values (actually a negative force against stability as it's used inevitably for control by few individuals over the many) but out of economic practicality.

lawl :grin:
See what happens when you listen to pop rock groups from Georgia while posting?

two words

dee troit

Catwoman would get jealous though...

now to the point... when you can't plausably discredit the fact you resort to ridiculing it. Its an age old human trait, indicating a closed mind.
Ridicule it all you want, but you'll never change the fact that the ball has to travel faster than the carriage in order to travel from the rear to front along the carriage's line of travel.

PARDON!!! YOU'LL HAVE TO SPEAK UP!!!

:-D well, it reminded me of the film where a nuclear flat-top goes back in time to ww2 ...etc... etc... Can't remember the name, but you know...

Frankly I'm comfortable ridiculing things I dont understand. I'm white, middleclass and under educated... Probably something to do with it right there
Was self defecating humor in the rules section?

I can now blame you for not being able to remember.
they just promoted that on the tv channel...dammit...it was..ah..
splash the zeros...pffft.. I got nothing now...
edit: wait...nope..gone.. martin somebody was in it...

'The language of the Universe is mathematics' - can't remember who I'm quoting, but have you ever tried to explain differential equations to a dolphin?

If so, what would you say was the dolphin's overall aptitude for calculus?;-)

But I agree with the pub part.:)

It was a good rant though. :)

To be honest, I've always been a bit of a fence-sitter on this subject, which is why I thought I'd create the topic and see what others think.

Not to sound like a loony, but I saw a UFO (as in, unidentified) once, and it was a pretty amazing experience. Never seen anything like it, nor do I expect to ever again.

equal and opposite reaction, the throw of the ball will create just enough opposite force to slow the train enough so the balls travel is never faster than light.

My dog knows Sit! Stay! And wait! Especially when we're in the pub!
Now, if only my wife understood me :rolleyes:

Respectfully, you speak of facts without actually determining them. It's a difficult concept to wrap your head around, I know it was for me too, but this concept you are using is hardly new, and Einstein himself postulated it in the early part of the century, and subsequently managed to explain it using his theory of special relativity.

At the time it wasn't possible to test this particular aspect (your example, not every aspect of his theories) experimentally but over the years it has.

If I'm going 50mph in a car and turn my headlights on, the beams still go the speed of light to the observer at the side of the road. The 4th dimension of time adjusts.

This will help explain it for you...

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/hillis/hillis_p2.html

Final Countdown? No... That sounds lame...

Dang Dawg, does it matter, mate... Have another pint on me!

Happy Friday! :-D

lol easy man, it was just a joke. The point is that your theory is flawed cos you can't recreate those conditions, and even if you did, it wouldn't work ;)

I remember reading that too and thinking "typical human presumption" ;)

mathematics is the language of nerds, it's just a form that we use to interpret what's around us, but it's a key of reading that we invented.

As for communication skills, the day you'll be able to use your sinuses as a sonar I'll agree with you ;)

..can I have a pint of Bombardier now please?!

Most certainly sir. I find it a little strong for my pallette I'm afraid.

It's a nice warm soapy pint of Theakston's Best Bitter for me I should say.

All this 'extra cold' nonsense. It's just not British.;-)

... So we're out camping (as in tents) in the middle of the Black Rock Desert in Nevada.
It's pitch black for real, and all of a sudden the weirdest, strangest looking light starts soaring up on the horizon...

Missile test? Maybe, as it was unidentifiable, no one got abducted, but everyone in the group thought it was one of the most amazing experiences...

The world is amazing beyond belief when you consider that there's not even a flea living anywhere else outside of our atmosphere ( that we know of )

But, the thought of something being out there is just plain interesting...
It's the wonder of it all!

Anyway, if a civilization was capable of getting here, they would probably take one look at our mess and do a U-turn! Why waste their time! Unless they want to use and abuse us!.... Oh, that's right, they already are!!!
:-D

It has been shown also, that in some cases, particles can and do TFL
(Quantum Tunnelling)


light travels faster than the headlights producing it do, so it makes it hard to understand yourthing there

Link for the Tunnel Diode effect please. If it's what I'm thinking of, there is no actual travelling FTL here but another effect I believe is called quantum tunneling.

The light from the headlights to an observer would not go any faster than the headlights themselves although to you (in the car) it may appear so. Time, in this sense is different for the observer than yourself.

Read the article or do your own googling and you will get a better explanation than from me. :)

We have a winner!

What happens if the light source starts in say, America, then crosses into Canada, would that metric thing make something blow up?

Is the light properly regulated and received proper approval from the regulatory body that controls it's function?

Apologies Sternjaeger, a bit sharp yes, but not directed totally to you. It was more a statement on the "consensus/ heretic" thing which has plagued the world since Adam was a boy.... the catwoman jealousy was in direct reply though ;)




yes, you are correct there (post amended and no more Coopers for me tonight :) )


(I believe you mean 'L'ight - point taken ;) )

correct in that the headlights aren't travelling as fast as the light they are outputting and we agree (it seems) that the viewport of the observer does have effect on that which is observed

the thing about time is; a (us) 3 dimensional person cannot understand the 4th dimension, any more than a 2 dimensional critter can understand the 3rd dimension.

I'll explain it this way: all we see/ understand of the 4th dimesnion is as a shadow of what that dimension is. eg draw a cube on a sheet of paper (2 dimensional x / y that paper is for this purpose). Now try to explain what height is (Z) to that which has no concept of "up" to explain what a cube is.


In the 5th dimension, gravity isn't valid



EOR plays out in the shoulder and hips... even if some made it through, the ball still travels from the rear to the front of the carriage

try again :)

Which transfer the force to the train... Bongo nailed it.

Wouldn't a car travelling at the speed of light and the light from its headlamps simply arrive at their destination at the same time?

Yep...just like the ball and train.

in considering that the car would have to get up to speed, after leaving Point A, and then slow down at the other end, before arriving at Point B... it could be safe to say no.

http://www.freewebs.com/calvin-hobbe...dadandtime.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/calvin-hobbe...cordplayer.jpg

UFOs or ASCs ?
 

"Do UFO's exist? - Yes but they aren't alien
Did something alien really crash at Roswell? - No
Did something strange really land at Rendelsham Forest? - Maybe but not alien.
Have aliens colonized this planet before? - No
Have they visited? - No
Are abductions real? - No
Did the US government reverse-engineer alien technology and incorporate it into experimental aircraft? - No

Or are aliens and extra-terrestrial life forms nothing more than our modern-day fairies and goblins? - No
Figments of wild imaginations and paranoia? - No"

No, just plain Americans pilots sworn to secrecy about even the fact that they are pilots, living in Nevada an otherwise normal life, flying what they probably call an ASC (for Alternative Space Craft).

So what is the U.S. Air Force Space Command for...special shuttle payloads...and a few rockets...come on. The Pentagon shelved the SR-71, and never officially replaced it and the shuttle program is over. So what do they care, they have ASC's.

I had two honest to God UFO sightings (well 3 actually, but I id'ed one, so now its a IFO..., but interesting too), two different types:

1- April '98, just looking at the sky at sunrise, one, then two ruddy colored (but not shining, apparently just reflecting sunrise colors), just literally materialized in the area of Cassiopea (from my vantage point of course, the most brilliant stars were still visible), imagine an American penny seen at 3 or 4 meters and about the same color. The objects starting moving together towards the east, the first object was moving smoothly and accelerating, the second was madly bobbing all around the first, and the bobbiness augmented as the smooth moving object was accelerating...then they just faded out like they had faded in, moving quite fast at the end. That lasted for about 15 seconds

2- The night the Canadien hockey team won against Pittsburg, at the 2010 Stanley Cup quarter finals, I was at a local café with a friend and everybody walked outside to celebrate...I mean a substantial fraction of the population of Montreal. Just as I walk outside I notice a strange orange flickering light in the sky, immobile...just like a little campfire in the sky. So I asked my friend what he thought it was and of course he answered "a helicopter...duh". Well this was no chopper, not a sound, no navigation light to speak of, and this strange flickering as if it was a giant orange star low on the horizon, but it was high is the sky. Suddenly two more campfires joined in - in a nice smooth two-ship formation - and I ask my friend again, and its so funny, he said there was probably a helicopter school having a party because of the Canadien's win...:grin: And all that time, not a sound...Then two more joined in!!! In a nice two-ship formation like the other pair. So now we had 5 little campfires in the sky silently flickering in a slight circle formation. They stayed there a good while, maybe 15 minute IIRC. I found 3 YouTube videos about it the next day, but of course all you saw was a few dots of light...not convincing at all, you would have needed a very good telephoto lens to get a convincing image, which of course I did'nt have.:(.

But those guys thought they saw something weird too.

I reported both sightings to Mufon, they rejected the first one, because I reported it too long after the fact IIRC.

The third sighting is certainly military: at night, a low flying totally silent all black aircraft passed me at about 1500 feet. It was flying between two decks of low clouds, lit by the sodium glow of Montreal street lights, and there was a clearing on top of my house...I saw it almost from the side and below...No navigation lights (or cockpit lights for that matter), I didn't see any tail. Imagine an F117 but rounded like the B2. Pretty slick if you think about it, it would be stealthier than an F117 (newer B2 stealth technology) and you could use the F117 as decoys !!!

Now...it was totally silent. So that is a three tier stealth technology: Black so difficult to see for ground observers , Radar stealth of course and absolutely silent.

I may have revealed a few American state secrets here, but what the hell, the Chinese have everything already...

Louis

"The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but was gradually replaced from the late 16th century onward by the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the transition between these two theories met much resistance, not only from the Catholic Church and its reluctance to accept a theory not placing God's creation at the center of the universe, but also from those who saw geocentrism as a fact that could not be subverted by a new, weakly justified theory."

- wiki

consensus/ heretic

That's beside the point. The fact is that the light from the car and the light from the car's headlights would reach the destination at the same time. But to the driver the light from the cars headlights would also be traveling away from the car at the speed of light, for the same reason that the person throwing the ball in the carrige can see the person they are throwing the ball to. So the time of the people traveling is slowed down to make this posible. The ball doesn't travel faster than light. It travels at the same speed as it does when thrown when the carrige is stationary.

lol... its not beside the point and something which had to be taken into account. If there wasn't any slowing down, things could get ugly trying to disembark, eh?

If you really meant, 'whilst travelling at", you could be quite right about the headlights, but the ball travelling "It travels at the same speed as it does when thrown when the carrige is stationary." still applies in motion at any speed, depending on the observer's viewport :) Observed on the carriage, the ball would possibly be as you suggest, but, observed from outside (as a passerby) you get something different.

Dayglow's cartoon (frames 5, 6 and 7) explains "observer" and "viewport" rather well

haha yes ok, very messy..

About the thrown ball, I didn't explain it well. Of course if a stationary observer could see inside a carridge going past at light speed. He would see everthing almost completely frozen in time with the ball hovering in mid air between the two peaple. So at no point would the actual ball be going FTL.

That would depend on if "time" played into it as claimed, bearing in mind that time is another dimension and can't be fully grasped by a 3rd dimension entity. Does it necessarily mean that if "time" stops or slows that motion must slow or stop as well?
Like this... you're at your favourite pastime and "wow, didn't time fly, I never realised it was so late" and another occasion such as a yukky job, "where time just seemed to drag".

Some witnesses have noted that they have seen UFO's make sharp 90degree turns at seemingly high speed - how would this be possible?

Because the witness was stoned out of his/her mind?

lol maybe some. But I doubt that is the case for the many aircraft pilots that have witnessed the foo fighters.

Tired, sleeping or poor visibility.

or just wanted the attention.

Hey Louis, thanks for sharing.

My experience (at night at 21:30, 11th April 2007*) was of a completely silent, boomerang type shape in the sky clearly visible flying between low-lying clouds. One key difference between my experience and yours was that the craft I saw was an off-white colour, about the same colour as clouds at night.
I only noticed it only by pure blind luck...had I not looked up at the sky at that specific moment and exact spot I would have missed it, but once I saw it, it was impossible to mistake the clearly boomerang shape. The shape was so clearly outlined against the night sky, and it was also easier to discern the shape as it basically flew right overhead.
The shape, combined with the complete lack of any sound of any sort, strongly reminded me of a manta ray gliding through the water, and I have to tell you it was a surreal experience for sure.
I watched it for about 20-30 seconds before it disappeared over the horizon.
It goes without saying that I have wondered many times what exactly it was I saw, and whatever it was, it certainly is nothing that exists officially.

*I remember the date and time so well because it was the day before my brother's birthday, and I had taken a stroll in the garden to get some fresh air just before the TV program Fight Quest was about to start.

Or the money for selling the story.

Patrick Moore and his ilk have watched the skies continually in visible light, radio, infra-red, gamma, microwaves etc for a career and have never reported an alien spacecraft.

The people who see them the most appear to be impoverished South American farmers, who in fact had simply fallen asleep in the sun and got sunburned on one side of their head.

And all of the tripe spinners since Erich Von Daniken and his kind are simply waxing fat on the gullibility of the poor sods who go in for all this 'backward engineered, Roswell, Aliens stole my baby' etc rubbish and they're rubbing their hands with glee all the way to the bank.

Ooh, it makes my blood boil.

Now I'm ranting again.

Do you realise that in an infinite universe there is another CharveL identical to you in every resepect down to the spin of the atoms that just posted the complete opposite? ;)


Cheers!

Sorry mate, but it's quarks that have spin.;-)

Luckily we do not live in an infinite universe then.

I was obviously refering to the internal constiuant parts not the atom as a whole. Just as you would refer to an engine spinning clockwise or anti clockwise.

Your copy didn't say that either!

Oh! And an exact copy of tree just posted that he loved COD and won a 100 page debate by posting a page long essay that finally proved beyong a measure of a doubt that Cliffs of Dover is the BEST WWII Combat Flight sim ever produced in the Multiverse.

Peace and happyness infused all the members of the community and an infinately long period of bliss enveloped the forum!

Cheers! :)

This is a fallacy, albeit an easy one to commit, especially when combined with a flawed understanding of probabilities as objective as opposed to subjective qualities.

Even if the universe were infinite it does not follow logically that every possible combination of events must exist. There are many examples of infinities where every term in them is identical or a repeating sequence - eg the fraction one third expressed in decimals = 0.333333333..., the coupon on a perpetual FRN.

I'm with you with Erich Von Daniken, but I'm affraid you are throwing the baby with the bathwater. Its not because there are ***holes like Von Daniken, that nothing will ever happen.

Also nobody here is saying the pilots are ETs. Not every word on UFOs comes from ***holes or cretins. A lot comes from retired airline pilots, who can now speak as their job is not at stake.

As a former physics student, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of physicists and astronomers are convinced that in this universe, we are not alone.

But none of them believe that ETs ever came here. And I am one of them. The distances and the time scale are just too great. See the Fermi paradox. And to think ETs are from another dimension is even worse, "Where are the tourists":)

But technology marches on. And never revising you opinion is both dangerous and a sign of old age.

Sincerely,

Louis.

PS: The universe is made of two types of particles, bosons and fermions, what distinguishes one from the other is that bosons have integral spin (1 or -1) and fermions have fractionnal spin (-1/2 and 1/2). An example of boson is a photon, and an example of fermion is an electron. But ALL particles, and even groups of particles, like a nucleus made of many protons and neutrons, are one or the other. To find if a group of particles is a fermion or a boson, you add all the spins, if it ends up integral (whole number), congratulation, its a boson. As for quarks, which are sub-particles, they have lot more than spin, they also have "charm", "color", etc...It is very important to know if a particle is one or the other as these particles don't follow quite the same rules, for instance fermions (ex an electron) cannot be more than one of same spin in a single orbital, its called the Fermi exclusion rule. But bosons can congragate without problems. This allows for very sophisticated materials research.

Oh and you will never see a UFO in a telescope anymore than you will see a beautiful girl in a microscope, it doesn't cover a lot of angle...also many astronomers don't know the constellations, unless they were amateurs. I was surprised by that at first but they really don't need to. My point here is that most of them don't watch the sky much. They ask the tech to slew the scope and study the pictures ans spectra and what have you but rarelly watch the sky in its entirety. Mr Moore is a great guy, but if he spoke of UFOs positively, he would be discredited.

No, your statement is an argument that the universe is finite. If the universe is truely infinte then every possiblity no matter how small must be otherwise it would be impossible and not part of the equation.

In an infinte universe an exact copy of you is (or will or has been) trying to convince a copy of me that the universe is infinite and I've just told you that your logic is flawed. Even if there is a 1 in infinity chance of it happening then it will.

Of course some people say that inifinity is just an idea that mathematicians made up just because they needed a very large number that was bigger than anything else to make maths easy for them to understand, in which case I could keep on telling you that in infinite universe an infinite number of identical copies of myself were putting their fingers in their ears and shouting 'I can't hear you!' from now until the universe ends and it wouldn't really matter to anyone in the long run.

Entropy will get us all in the end! Most likely I get bored before then!

Cheers!

Put it another way, your argument is the same as saying that if A is possible, then A must be true. But this is obviously nonsense - possible existence does not mean the same as necessary existence. Possible existence implies the possibility of non-existence. So given that you have derived a contradiction, you either have a false premise or have made a false step of logic (or both!)

We find the mistake easily: if you take some estimated finite probability of, say, life on another planet, or clones of us having this argument on another planet, and multiply by infinity, the answer is not one, but infinity. And an infinite probability has no meaning - a probability cannot exceed 1.

You can only get 1 in your argument by assuming that the probability is 1/infinity to get the equation 1/infinity X infinity/1 = 1 which is trivial.

If you want to have a universe where all sorts of bizarre things are happening you would be better of believing that the universe is not infinite, but very very large, since you can then multiply your prior probability by a large number and then at least get a meaninful answer.

If you like thinking about these sorts of things you might consider reading up about the Bayesian concept of probability, which focuses on probability as the subjective assessment of available evidence, rather than the objectivist concept you appear to use.

That's true... and the basis of parallel universes, with the switch (creator) being "choice".

Arrive at a 4way intersection, with which there are three (baisc) directions to move forward in... straight/ left or right, at this point there is a choice as to which direction to take and at that instant the outcome of the three possiblities exist equally (there are a few more options but we'll use the three basic ones for simplcity). The choice is made to turn right, which means the left possibility and the straight ahead possibilty fade off and the turn right option takes the focus (there's no pause while the tape loads for the turn right choice) but at the same time, the other two possiblities still continue.

There is a you which has turned right which is the focus, as well there is also a you which turned left - focus diminished, faded... and there is also a you which has continued on the straight ahead, albeit with the focus diminished, faded but with that all three exist.

I completely agree, which is why I went from being one of the people who affirm that probability points to the existence of life elsewhere, to one of the people who affirm that the conditions and components necessary to accidentally lead to DNA or a similar complex chain are as unlikely as the universe is vast. ;-)

If it doesn't then we are in a finite universe as Charvel has stated, not an infinite one.

What I would like to know is if infinity doesn't exist why would you as a mathematician multiply something by it?

You are funny! Where in any of my posts have I stated that I want or I would like or I believe I live in an infinite universe? (I'll leave that up to one of my or your selves! ;) )

We can only know what we can observe; I doubt that neither you nor I will live long enough to find out the answer.

There are men called scientist that are much more intelligent than either me or yourselves that think about how the universe is made. Some of these BIG thinkers are as we type having the same debate, neither group will determine the answer, neither will we with any certainty!

Cheers!

They can also speak due to the lure of the mighty dollar. Retired airline pilots also have debts and bills to pay. If any of them really are retired airline pilots that is.

Using retired airline pilots is simply trying to lend an air of professional credibility to the arguments and is swallowed wholesale by the same gullible people I was referring to.

the world was created last thursday by the alien :)

And yet here we are living in a vast universe, It seems earth-centrist (had to make up a word) to believe we are the only planet with life in the whole of the universe. (Not taking a shot at you, but saying that it's so terribly unlikely that it can not happen when we only have 1 reliable data point [it happened at least once] it's difficult to follow the reasoning).

earth is the only inhabitable planet of the universe

but by different species in different time lines

that methorite was a genocide of the hot green women(yes martians are green)

then theres the machines, pure love

the discusting cyborgs, the borg from fiction

the homo sapiens ruling this time line

the neanderthal

and finally in sometimlines the homo angelis whom is binaural contrary to us simple mononeurals :), a globally enlightened humanity

so guess what a war is going on and tghe truth kepts secret

the cyborgs can live million years as the machines, the rest of us dont fear death nad just live 100 years, unless you trun a borg yourself

you just have to insert a chip in your brain, theyre around hollywood knows:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WRfzPDOFQs..._recall_12.jpg

When one takes into account the number of stars in a galaxy, the number of galaxies in a local group, the number of local groups in a larger group, and then realize that this is a pinprick in the scale of the the universe then it becomes very difficult to believe it is unlikely for life to exist elsewhere.

Given these scales it seems likely there is even intelligent, social, communicative civilizations out there.

Unfortunately, for all intents and purposes anything out beyond a few hundred light years is irrelevant (mostly) because there is no way to interact in a practical way given the laws of physics, so that doesn't leave much to focus on.

Being the greatest question for humanity it's worthwhile looking for extra terrestrial life in whatever form it may take though.

There is always the possibility that there is some way to...circumvent...the currently understood laws of physics that some tourist alien race has discovered but that's too much of a long shot by logical reasoning, although it can't be completely discounted. Instead I think the "UFO" phenomenon is fascinating insofar as it shows a larger social dynamic (even if there really are a few "real" sightings, whatever that entails, amongst them).

The thing is to not only keep an open mind to the chance that a low probability option may turn out to be reality, but more so to keep an open mind that just because you can't explain an experience, despite what you know, does not mean that you are interpreting it right.

the theories involving " the law of physics" are subject to questioning though


asked earlier: some witnesses have stated they've seen UFO's perform sharp 90 degrees turns at high speed, or zip off at extremely high speed... how would this be possible?

they said it because it is a more unexplainable description of the behaviour of the 'alleged' sightings, it's hardly going to sound as interesting if they described them as moving just like aircraft, like saying you saw a ghost and describing it as just like some guy wearing an old bedsheet with eye holes.....

once i saw a light aproacching from the sea while at the beach at night at low height coming towards me , it disappeared right above me during half second i lokk down

next day i peed 40 times and was all heat up in an supreme mood

the previous day to this i had managed to see withthe peripheral view as well as with central, after the event it stopped

did they give me antipromicine?

edit:

the aliens are doing something funny:

1st we are mononeural we just have psudosteroscopy

if tv showed perfect 3d you would think it flat

i know tv is really 3d, the famous crystal ball

ive manages to see tv in 3d and i can tell the paralax of my eyes change when objects change distance

and ive managed to see normal tv in 3d

the aliens have some sick sense of humour and have a blast laughing at us

in fact id say im the blind in the land of oneyeds

After attempting to discern logic from this post I'm sure they're not the only ones.

oh im not telling lies nor trying to laugh other if you laugh

i cant tell these in rl its nice i can her with no trouble

Seeing how every life form we know of EATS something else, do we really want to ever meet aliens...just a thought:grin:

what is so extra about extra terrestrial?

wow thats a very good one

[QUOTE=Wolf_Rider;320337]the theories involving " the law of physics" are subject to questioning though


QUOTE]



this is true. but even if faster than light travel is possible, civilizations could still be effectively isolated by the shear number of planetary systems out there.

in other words even if an advanced civilization has faster than light travel, the odds would still be extremely long against them stumbling upon our little blue world.

Other dimensions are certainly a critical part in traveling to further reaches of the universe.
The thing is we are 3-dimensional beings with time as the 4th dimension sort of tacked on and taken for an unchangeable constant. Introducing other dimensions is something that we will probably not be able to comprehend.

For example, take a 2-dimensional critter, maybe and ant, and put it on a ball.
It will run and run and never ever be able to understand that it is running on a ball, a 3-dimensional object.

Something that puzzles me is also, if the universe is finite one should be able theoretically to reach it's end and to look at it from the outside. But what is on the outside, another finite universe, infinite space, nothing? How, as a 3-dimensional, spacewise, being can you wrap your head around the concept of a finite or infinite universe?

I think that the ant would run down to the base of the ball, once on the table he would make a bee line for your sandwich. :grin:

You guys should read Zacharia Sitchin's theory (there's a series of books about it) and read about the Phobos incident..

Then we can talk about UFO's :)

That really depends upon

A) do they have big teeth?
and
B) What do they taste like?

Cheers

However it cannot comprehend the dimensions of the sandwich since it's a 3-dimensional sandwich and upon approaching the sandwich anyway my 3-dimensional hand would turn the 2-dimensional ant into a 1-dimensional ant......uhhh yeah, stone cold killer here :rolleyes:

Actually I agree with what you say about observation - I am simply pointing out that an infinite universe does NOT imply that every possibility is actualised. This just incorrect logic and mathematics.

(Which I think I might be able to demonstrate in another way which avoids having to multiply be infinity....

Suppose that we agree that, if we go to any other single solar system, the probability of finding "unreasonable" and "Skoshi Toger" debating the universe is less than 1.00 - lets say it is 0.10 ;-)

Then we go to the first solar system we come to and look. The probability of NOT finding the debaters is 0.90 so let us assume we do not find them.

We go to the next planet - the probability is again 0.90

So from the beginning the probability of NOT finding the debaters on any planet of the first two is 0.90 x 0.90 = 0.81

We can continue this process infinitely - 0.90x0.90x0.90 etc

The point is that while the product approaches zero, it never actually reaches zero. So we can never be 100% certain that we will find the debaters. So the argument that an infinite universe must necessarily contain every possibility fails.)

As for the BIG THINKERS - I went to university with many of these scientists (in fact I started out as one myself) and I can assure you that hardly any of them are much more intelligent than you or I, and even the best of them are just as prone to poor reasoning and category mistakes as anyone else when they step away from their narrow fields of enquiry. Stephen Hawking for instance is a famously lousy philospher despite having a brain the size of a planet. He is wasted on physics - we should kidnap him and put him to work on CloD's AI!

All you've done there is explain logic as...

At this moment:
Are you at the front door? - no
Are you in the kitchen? - no
If you aren't in the kitchen or at the front door, you must be somewhere else(?) - yes
If you are somewhere else, you cannot be at your computer reading this.


there is, as you offer, a 0.1 chance of finding and an equal 0.9 chance of not finding... in that moment, you have two posbilities... there in, there is a universe in which you do find and equally existant is a universe in which you do not find, and that is just for the planet you chose to look on first, in the solar system you chose to look in first = a multitude of parallel universes just involvolving; will I find?

That is just so true!...even Stephen Hawking agrees to stay hidden because humans can be great on the plasma grill:grin:

Now this is mixing up multiple possible observations of a single actual universe (finite or not) with the actual possibility of observing multiple universes :confused:

The mistake here is your phrase "equally existent". The possibilities only exist as logical objects, they are not actual. The actual outcome is there whether or not we look, the looking just finds out what is already there. It is just a fluke of language that we can use the word "exists" about logical objects and physical objects, it really does not mean the same thing in the two cases.

This is for classical objects like flight simmers, BTW

no... all possiblities from a choice exist equally at the same moment up until the choice is made to proceed along one branch... at which point that branch taken becomes the focus and the other possibilites fall into disfocus - yet they still exist. (the same as the other 2 forward paths extending from a 4 way intersection still exist, with only one forward, the third, path being travelled on)
Its not mixing up the possibilites of a single univers... the "single universe", is the one which is in "focus" - "logic" has nothing to do with it, as there is nothing logical about choice. At the moment of a choice, all possibilities extending from that choice exist equally.

No, no, no no...;) I am sounding like "David Hayward"!

What you are saying implies that you think you exist in some solopsistic world in which your choices define not only your own universe but that of everyone else.

I know some people do actually believe this sort of stuff, even after medication, but it does make discussing reality with other sentient beings a little difficult.

now there's no need to be like that.....
you might like to revisit your use of solipsism as well ;)



don't confuse the probability of a spinning coin coming up heads or tails, with the possibility of winning or losing at the landing of it, but while the coin is spinning - both winning or losing exist equally

Exactly....nothing exists until the timeline reaches it......once a choice is made or an action taken or an event happens all other possibilities also cease to exist, I do not exist in an alternate universe taking a dump right now just because I decided to go to the bathroom instead of returning to the computer.

basically, except one choice leads to another choice and so on (lust like one traffic intersection leads to another one, etc)... but the other possibilities do still exist (in parallel) to the possibility you elected to go with... so while you chose to go take a dump on the way back, in parallel, you also returned to your computer.

Only theoretically I would argue, but I don't buy the paralell theory.....too much infinity for my liking, it would mean every particle that has ever existed since the creation event has created an infinite number of existences which in turn create more of the same in each new event.....seems somehow ineficcient and uncharacteristic of a finely ballanced set of rules that I believe the universe runs on.

Yes, right about the spelling, if nothing else. I blame a late night and too much booze and rugby, although it could not just be that I am an ignorant slob. The Wallabies were disappointing, though I am amazed that the All Blacks managed to win twice in one day.

" but the other possibilities do still exist (in parallel)" Well they exist as logical (or mathematical) objects (in our universe) indeed, but where is the evidence that they "exist" anywhere else? There is'nt any. This illustrates the danger of taking mathematical models and trying to create normal language versions - the words have so much baggage that it is easy to make inferences that mislead even the scientists who are supposed to know better - often especially the scientists, most of whom seem not to understand the difference between a logical object and a physical object.

parallel universes exist in parallel to this universe, not as mathematical objects in this universe though

there would have to be an infinite number of universes for every particle that ever existed.......makes no sense.

According to classical physics, velocities will sum up and you will get more than speed of light. However, according to theory of special relativity, only small velocities can be summed in simply way. Higher velocities must be summed using special formula: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/0...12b6a57779.png. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula