Do you think aliens/UFOs exist?

[annunaki]

Give me a little time, I have to find my stuff. It has been some time. That, and I just moved last week.

 

[Bryguy]

As for the Speed of light

I am a monthly reader of Astronomy and Sky and Telescope Magazine, and have been for about 20+ yrs. Several months ago both magazines printed an article about some particles they observed (specialized equipment) from one of the largest solar flares in man's recorded history that propelled these particles past the speed of light. The science of physics changes daily now due to the advancement of technology.

As for extraterrestrial life, yes. Extraterrestrial homanid life I can't answer or speculate. It is odd that man speculates all ET's will have arms, legs, eyes, mouth/s and so on.

The scientific groups are really purshing for more exploration of the moons Io, Europa and Titan for good reason. Those harsh environments do hold certain properties that can sustain certain types of life. Whether it be single or multi cell that would not matter. Life is life as long as it can function on its own or within a group (hive / colony).

Many big schools with large physics and astronomy departments have opened new departments called astrobiology for a reason.

As for god and miracles, if god does exist wouldn't he/she/it be considered an extraterrestrial since he is not an earth resident. Some miracles of the past have now been debunct by scientific fact but religion still keeps going. So does the killing in the name of religion. Always has and always will. No one belief can be right when it is a belief and not a tangible fact that can be held within your hands.

I could go on and on but I will not want to bore you or end up sounding like Mulester.

I need a beer.

Bryguy

 

[racquetman]

Aliens and UFO's, huh? Interesting thread for a bunch of audiophiles. Since most of us want facts and proof about our consumer electronics, why isn't everyone applying that to this topic?

I see a lot of people trying to apply logic and reason to this question, but we are making big assumptions in the process. One assumption is that we are the smartest life forms in the universe and that no other life can possible be smarter than us (God, I sure hope that's not true ). All this talk about the speed of light and wormholes and bending space is great, but just because someone smarter than you and I came up with a theory that we don't completely comprehend doesn't mean they're right. Isn't it possible that the aliens are actually smarter than us and have found a way around all these problems that are plagueing are space travel aspirations?

An example is the thought that we accurately know the distance to all these stars. Crazy numbers are thrown around all the time. This star is 1.8 gazillion light years from Earth. Don't just assume this is true. This is just as debatable as the whole carbon dating process (this fossil we found is 300 million years old). I realize there is a much greater debate over carbon dating than the distance to stars theory (probably because carbon dating brings up the whole evolution vs. creation thing which brings up the whole God issue which is near and dear to all of us), but many people don't believe we can accurately calculate either correctly. Calculating the distance to a star involves a process of triangulation called parallax. The 3 corners are formed by the earth at 2 points in our orbit of the sun and the star in question. Just think for a second what kind of crazy *** skinny triangle must be formed in this process (barely a triangle at all - almost a straight line). Parallax angles have measurements in tiny fractions of seconds of arc. The uncertainty in these calculations can lead to wildly different numbers for these measurements (here is a site with a good explanation - http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sparalax.htm). Believe me, I'm no expert in this area, but some evolutionists out there have compelling arguments why we should not so easily take these numbers as fact (just as we shouldn't necessarily be convinced that carbon dating is accurate). I'm a man of science. I have a degree in chemistry. I have a bias that makes me want to side with all the scientists out there. The problem is that once you get more education on a lot of these topics, you start to find out that there is a lot of holes in these theories that are thrown around like facts.

Anyway, my point is that we talk about a lot of ideas like they are facts (you can't go faster than light, the nearest galaxy is so many light years away, etc . . .). These are not necessarily facts. People used to sit around thinking that the world was flat (seems silly now, but was a fact to them then), but I'm sure a lot of today's facts will sound ridiculous in retrospect as we continue to learn more and more. I find it entertaining that people talk about bending space like it is some sort of reality that happens all the time. Just because it was proposed by some other person like you or me doesn't make it true. Do people just want this to be true because it will help the aliens get here faster? I'm sure in a few hundred years people will have a good chuckle about all of us and our crazy notions.

Realize that things are much easier in theory than in execution. That's the one thing I managed to pick up in my college studies .

 

[furrycute]

Particles traveling faster than the speed of light?

If that were true, and had been observed, I'm sure it would have been a HUGE news topic. But I haven't heard anything about that in the news recently.

Light has no mass (whether you use the wave or the particle theory). But subatomic particles do. If a solar flare can propell some subatomic particles (with mass) to speeds greater than the speed of light, then it would be FANTASTIC, that means we may just have a solution for faster than speed of light travel.

But I really think that may just be a mis-print or a mis calculation of the data.




As to the distances among the stars. So what if you are off by a few million light years, you still have all those millions upon millions of light years left. If you travel at the speed of the light, it will still take you millions upon millions of years to get there.



As to evolution vs. creation, I'm strictly in the evolution camp. It is just silly to assume that someone waved a magic wand and suddenly all life on earth appeared out of nowhere.

 

[racquetman]

As to the distances among the stars. So what if you are off by a few million light years, you still have all those millions upon millions of light years left. If you travel at the speed of the light, it will still take you millions upon millions of years to get there.

I'm not talking about being off by a few million light years. I'm talking about being completely wrong about these stars being anywhere near that far away. Just like many don't believe that the Earth is millions or billions of years old (only thousands), some question the huge distances that are thrown around for some of these stars. The topic is so complex, however, that to have an intelligent conversation about it you literally have to be an astrophysicist (start reading the link I posted about parallax and you'll see what I mean - the mathematics become very challenging very quickly). This is why this topic is rarely debated. Few can have a decent argument about it (as opposed to the creation of Earth which everyone has an opinion about). Anyway, just realize that when you see a star you are seeing light. Light is a tricky subject (wave/particle duality and all that stuff). It changes speeds through different mediums and can be deflected (which it is through our atmosphere). Who knows what other forces are acting on it as it travels great distances towards Earth (blackholes supposedly can pull at light).

I want to think we have this stuff all figured out, but who knows for sure. When you start reading about how they try and come up with numbers for objects far away (outside our galaxy), it becomes apparent that these numbers are questionable. I mean it's not like you can get a tape measure out and verify any of these numbers!!

Also, like I said, why are you so convinced that the speed of light cannot be surpassed? Who walks around and claims to be an expert on that subject???

 

[Bryguy]

The "new" solar physics

Furrycute,

"If that were true, and had been observed, I'm sure it would have been a HUGE news topic. But I haven't heard anything about that in the news recently."

It did make HUGE news and was plastered on Spaceweather.com which is associated with NASA and made large headlines in "Astronomy" and "Sky and Telescope" which are geared towards astronomy and astrophysics. Do you really thing your ordinary everyday non scientific yahoo is going to give a rats *** about this. No! They would rather read which public figure is banging that public figure and what sports star is committing which crime. Some sci-fi buffs maybe but most of their heads are into what they see in scientificly nonsense movies and tv shows. Kind of like what people see on CSI. They expect DNA to be found in minutes and the results to come back from the labs in hours. This is now the downfall of jury trials. Everyday yahoos who consistantly watch these type of shows think this is the standard, which obviously, to you and me, is not.

Just remember 10-20 yrs ago people laughed at the possibility of solar nuetrinos shooting through the earth as if the earth didn't exist. Those sceptics were eventually proven wrong. As long as our technology keeps getting better so does our knowledge about the world and universe around us.

Also, think back to when people thought scientists were nuts when the said they can place a single atom in a tube and propel it to about the speed of light so they can collide it with another different type of atom so they can create new, undiscovered elements. That usually doesn't make the newspapers either since it is not interested reading or change peoples worth.

If you archive spaceweather.com, NASA, Astronomy or Sky and Telescope magazine you may find the article. I trust these guys a hell of lot more than the people who recite the news on tv. The tv guys are just out for ratings and publicity, the scientists are not.

I hope this didn't sound too harsh for you.

Bryguy

 

[mtrycrafts]

As long as our technology keeps getting better so does our knowledge about the world and universe around us.
Bryguy

Not if King George has his way. We'll be taught Intelligent design, altered research papers to fit his belief system, no science when it is contrary to his points

 

[mtrycrafts]

Some miracles of the past have now been debunct by scientific fact but religion still keeps going. Bryguy

The reports of such miracles are always second hand, time removed from the events, no corroboration by independent witnesses, not any verification by credible sources. Mythology of the mind, nothing more.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Just like many don't believe that the Earth is millions or billions of years old (only thousands), some question the huge distances that are thrown around for some of these stars. The topic is so complex, however, that to have an intelligent conversation about it you literally have to be an astrophysicist (start reading the link I posted about parallax and you'll see what I mean - the mathematics become very challenging very quickly). ??

Yes, you are correct, we are most likely not astrophysicis, but those numbers do come from them, a pretty good approximation of the huge distances of space. The stars are certainly not in our back yard, nor the other galaxies. I have no problem with Carl Sagans works. Nor th ecounless others in the profession. I will certainly not accept data from nobodies just because they are doubters without evidence.

Yes, some also believe in psychics and being abducted by space aliens. How much credence do we give them? Same amout as we give those who doubt the age of the planet more than some thousands as they have zero tangible evidence to support their beliefs.



I'd rather accept the real professionals in teh filed, until the time comes that they are proven wrong. Simple.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I thought a scientific theory has to be based on evidence, not just from a postulate, hypothesis?
So, how can there be a scientific theory about God's existance?
Oh, a theory used by non scientists, a guess, you mean

Be careful there. Many scientists are afraid to touch that one. They actually practice religion. Do a google search on theories of Gods existence. You'll find plenty of scientists theorizing the topic. Any reason you capitalized God? (you know I had to ask that, right?)

 

[mulester7]

Be careful there. Many scientists are afraid to touch that one. They actually practice religion. Do a google search on theories of Gods existence. You'll find plenty of scientists theorizing the topic. Any reason you capitalized God? (you know I had to ask that, right?)

.....(dare the knave Mtrycrafts respondeth?)....(remain fixedly tunedethed!).....

 

[Rob Babcock]

Some scientists are religion, but formulating theories about God, with a big or little "G", is pure junk science.

 

[mulester7]

Some scientists are religion, but formulating theories about God, with a big or little "G", is pure junk science.

.....thoughts of being careful to give God credit for "everything", through either direct act, or allowance thereof, come to mind.....

 

[Rob Babcock]

BTW, I'd be completely shocked if we humans on Earth were alone in the Universe, but I seriously doubt that UFO's have an extraterrestrial origin. There is life "out there," I think, but they aren't dropping by to visit. At least I've seen no credible, compelling reason to think so.

Or am I part of the conpiracy? Mwahahaha!

 

[Rob Babcock]

God or gods could be "up there," but s/he or it isn't talking, at least not to the sane people. Science deals in things we can measure and quantify, not how many angels can do a jig on the head of a pin. That's for theologians and philosophers- they've got nothing more useful to do.

 

[mulester7]

.....Guys, should we believe EVERY claim of temporary alien-abduction that has been reported was/is false?....have we not seen film of unexplained phenomena that we really believe deep-down was actually UFO's?.....

 

[Rob Babcock]

I dunno, Mulester- try subbing in "Santa Claus" as see if your question sounds about the same. Argumentum ad populum is among the most widely used logical fallacies, but it's folly nonetheless. If any physical evidence was ever left behind it might be more compelling... At any rate, interestingly enough researchers have been able to induce the precice same sensations and experiences in test subjects with certain EM fields...can't recall all the specifics, but many things like abductions and near death experiences seem to be recreatable with the correct "playback parameters." Take it fwiw.

 

[mulester7]

Argumentum ad populum is among the most widely used logical fallacies, but it's folly nonetheless.

.....not speaking in majorities, Rob, can EVERY report be discounted?....not in my view, as I've seen what I felt was evidence of possibilities....oh well, phone home. haha.....

 

[Rob Babcock]

Beats me. I really can't say as I've examined them all. All of the ones I've seen seemed pretty dubious, to say the least. Still, while I can't disprove all of them with certainty, you must admit with equal certainty that there are more possible explanations than 1) they were really abducted or 2) they were in a fugue state. There's probably myriad explainations for their experiences.

Personally, I don't think any of them really happened, but maybe the aliens have just been very successful in wiping my memories!

 

[mulester7]

Personally, I don't think any of them really happened, but maybe the aliens have just been very successful in wiping my memories!

.....them big-headed little green farts are slick, Rob....I been up a few times....that machine that puts out the purple sound waves is the one you gotta' watch out for....made a soprano out of me.....