Extra-Terrestrials [Archive] - weebls-stuff forums

Reddig

15-11-2003, 02:06 PM

Lololol. I could do better with photoshop. Actually, I could do better with paint. How come it was possible to put in Forrest Gump into JFK movie or Nixon movie, and make it look real then? Magic...

From one side i don't belive in all that UFO crap, circles in the crops and all that (why are the circles in the crops made mostly in USA I wonder...). Just think logically - what would we - the human race - do, if we found a new planet with life on it? We'd land a walking robot thingie there and generally present ourselves on the first possible occasion. Why would the "extra-terrestrials" hide away from us? Besides, space is so giant, that the chances of bumping into a life-form planet are like 1/almost infinity (unless it's in your own galaxy). And if they are so advanced, that they are able to travel between galaxies in short ammounts of time how come they are so unadvanced and clumsy to be so easly detected? And what's with the crop circles atually? If they are so advanced, why do they do something as simple as leaving sings in crops. And why are they doing it only in crops? As if they couldn't do signs in forests, meadows, glaciers... whatever.

On the other side, naturally I believe that there is life somewhere in other galaxies, and loads of it.

Ouroboros

15-11-2003, 02:24 PM

Chances are that there are at least 1000 other sentient races in the universe besides us. And there is a possibility of about 0.8% that the human race will EVER encounter any of them before it becomes extinct.

I believe in aliens. We'll just never meet them.

ZekeyLizard

15-11-2003, 02:31 PM

Anal probes?
Stupidest idea I have ever heard.
Unless ther aliens are looking for polyps.
Yet, I doubt they are...

Destrukto

15-11-2003, 04:04 PM

One of the funniest (and lazy) mistakes the WTC vid makes...

Last frame before end-splash by Scifi:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ubu365/wolk.jpg

Notice the cloud?

Now this is a shot of the SAME sky not 3(!) seconds before

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ubu365/geenwolk.jpg

:eek: Where did that cloud go??
Conclusion: Either clouds move at terrible speeds, or they manipulated stuff...

And as to the expert: an independent expert is much more reliable :D (that guy works for the site, they even say so)

As to ET's, statistics for me too...
I believe life outside earth exsists, but only when someone proves Einsteins equations can be surpassed, I don't think we'll ever meet them (Patrick Moore is with me on this ;) )

squealpiggy

15-11-2003, 04:47 PM

I think that interstella travel will not come about from proving Einstein wrong, but if we could get close to the speed of light then time would slow right down enabling a multiple light year journey to be made in months. Of course years would pass on earth but on the craft itself time would pass far more slowly.

Destrukto

15-11-2003, 05:05 PM

Also fro E=mc2 comes that

At 99.9999% of the speed of light, your ship has almost infinite mass. It has become humongously heavy. Since it takes a lot of rocket juice to make something like that speed up, you eventually reach the point where it would take an infinite amount of power to make it go one mile per hour faster. No gas station offers fuel of infinite octane rating, so it can't be done. Nothing made of ordinary matter can attain lightspeed while remaining in the state we call ordinary matter.

It's not the time that is a problem...it's mass and energy...

Fruiterian

15-11-2003, 08:53 PM

http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-03/cover/

that's an interesting article 'bout a recent theory about the speed of light, however, at the end it connects into space travel. thought that would be applicable here.

as for aliens, they're out there. i can't imagine living in a universe full of stars that don't have planets and maybe life forms of their own.

crop circles were always a hoax. it was a prank orginally, and i have a feeling it still is a hoax. it's not too difficult to do either: i saw a tv show on it once following a bunch of guys creating one.

Hydralisk

15-11-2003, 10:14 PM

I'm with destrukto on this.

If we can find a way to get to the speed of light(99.999% is enough, it'll only take an extra week or so to get where your going.) or even beyond, then we wil be able to get to new solar systems.

Until then, I believe that aliens ARE out there, but well never meet them.

ANAL PROBES?! Id kill the E.T rubber ducker that tried it!

I'm semi-immune to all tranquillisers/depressents....:rolleyes:

squealpiggy

16-11-2003, 02:13 AM

The thing is that one would only need to accelerate to that speed, one wouldn't need to maintain it because in a vacuum there would be no inertia.

EDIT there would be inertia but no friction so nothing to slow the craft down... Bleh my fun state of it being 3 in the morning, I saw a wack film today and my Hockey team lost...

ZekeyLizard

16-11-2003, 07:23 AM

Not speed friends!

Teleportation.
Scientists have already invented it. They have only tested the teleportation device on light so far. Next, animals.

Ouroboros

16-11-2003, 07:47 AM

Wouldn't they need a reciever placed where they need to go, or doesn't it need one? If it did, we would still have to get there to place a teleportation "reciever", which would be impossible. But I have no idea if you need one or not, so I may be talking out of my arse.

*scuttles back to dark corner*

Shpox

16-11-2003, 08:43 AM

Think about it . There are 1000 billion stars out there. Most of them with planets circuling around them. Were just one star and out of all these planets we have one of life. Think of those stars and one planet with life. 1000 billion planets with living people thingies. I think there has to be life but what im against is that the UFO shapes things. I bet they wouldn't look like that. Think about ships. Think about what they would look like. There is a possibly of ET but we could all be wrong.

squealpiggy

16-11-2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Dumples
Wouldn't they need a reciever placed where they need to go, or doesn't it need one? If it did, we would still have to get there to place a teleportation "reciever", which would be impossible. But I have no idea if you need one or not, so I may be talking out of my arse.

*scuttles back to dark corner*

True, you cannot teleport without somewhere to teleport too. Plus teleportation appears to deconstruct you and then reconstruct you. So you may not come back as "you" at all.

Wormholes are a possibility but would require a tremendous amount of energy. Antimatter would have to be captured and usuable befre we had anything like the potential...

malcolio

16-11-2003, 12:17 PM

Seraph etc for finding the site, but now its a fake?? Now I don't know what to believe. I love watching the X-Files, so now I'm all paranoid about aliens and government coverups. ARGHH, an alien!!! Oh, no, its a sock. Easy mistake to make. :D

SemiCircle

16-11-2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Hydralisk
I'm with destrukto on this.

If we can find a way to get to the speed of light(99.999% is enough, it'll only take an extra week or so to get where your going.) or even beyond, then we wil be able to get to new solar systems.
...

oops. i think you've misunderstood what destrukto said.

speed itself isn't the solution to quick travel. the key is in shortcuts: wormholes. rightho, i shall now attempt to explain how wormholes could enable us to beat light without actually moving faster than it.

imagine a sheet of paper: this sheet of paper represents the universe as we percieve it. we can travel all over the paper, but we cannot leave its surface. now screw the percievable universe up into a ball. it's still the same paper, and from our silly 2 dimensional perspective there's no difference. however, it's obvious that, since the paper is now in a ball, if we were able to leave its surface we'd be much closer to parts of it than we are if we cannot, if you see.
a wormhole is that kind of shortcut. it's a link between two bits of the universe that in out dimension don't seem to be anywhere near each other, but in the next one up they're virtually touching. light is confined to the same dimensional space as us, and so if we were to find some tricky way of opening a wormhole, we'd be able to effectively travel faster than light. plus we'd be avoiding all this dodgy relativity stuff, as we wouldn't need to move that quick.
the only problem is working out how to open a wormhole, and then opening one and keeping it open, and then finding some way of going through it. i have no idea how you'd do this; probably something to do with quasars.
it's all a pie in the sky, really. not theoretically impossible, as i understand it, though.

doesn't mean i believe in aliens, though. i voted instinctively for no, as i find it highly implausible that there is intelligent life as we understand it anywhere else in the known universe. but i have a sneaking suspicion that i only believe this because it makes me feel special.

squealpiggy, antimatter isn't the problem antimatter is easy, we get it all the time. not that hard to store it, too, with a magnetic field. it's bloody useless exept for matter/antimatter annihilation, though. what we want, i believe, is something with negative inertial mass. now that would be some weird shit...

ZekeyLizard

17-11-2003, 01:54 AM

Hippie voice:

Dude, you just blew my mind...

squealpiggy

17-11-2003, 07:18 AM

<Neo>WHOA!</Neo>

Antimatter contains potential energy which if it could be tapped could become part of a continuous energy source, potentialy limitless. Although entropy laws state otherwise, could antimatter reverse the entropy?

But yeah opening a wormhole is the trick to fast travel but I think it would be plausible for slow travel if we could accelerate to 99.9999% of the speed of light due to time dilation. Though one confusing thing is that speed is reative, so if you blasted off from earth on a rocket and travelled at 99% of the speed of light, the earth would be moving away from you at the same rate, so why would you experience time dilation and earth not?

I know that time dilation is fact as it has been measured using atomic clocks on airplanes, what I don't understand is how.

Damn that Heisenberg!

Scribbly

17-11-2003, 10:36 AM

I think only an idiot would deny that there is SOME sort of life in the infinity of space. So yes, I think there are 'aliens'. They could be just worms on the planet Omigron Perseai Eight, or an advaced species; I wouldn't know. And I'm pretty sure that I won't find out in the next 80/90 years (that's about max. time before I'll die).

Destrukto

17-11-2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
so if you blasted off from earth on a rocket and travelled at 99% of the speed of light, the earth would be moving away from you at the same rate, so why would you experience time dilation and earth not?

I know that time dilation is fact as it has been measured using atomic clocks on airplanes, what I don't understand is how.

Damn that Heisenberg! [/B]

It's all in the term 'relative'

Time dilation occurs because the speed of light is *constant*.

If you imagine a trainstation with an observer on the platform and one in a moving train and you shoot a photon straight down, what would happen?

the person IN the train sees the photon doing this:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ubu365/dilation2.gif

The person on the platform sees the photon doing this due to the train moving:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ubu365/dilation1.gif

As the second trajectory is longer and the speed of light is constant, more time needs to have passed outside the train to keep the equation "distance travelled=speed x time" valid.

The faster you go, the longer the line will be perceived for the person outside, while the person inside will still see the line going straight down, hence inside time moves slower...

squealpiggy

17-11-2003, 01:42 PM

Thanks for that!

I've read a few layman's books on this kind of thing, How to Build a Time Machine, A Brief History Of Time etc...

I'm Jim Too

17-11-2003, 01:57 PM

Do I think life exists in space? No not really. The equation which shows that - life has a probablity of existing so given an infinite universe it must exist - can also be used to prove life will not exist.

I also understand that modern space-time theory indicates that "faster than light"* travel is possible if you accept the possiblity of movement through wormholes. (*although you would be travelling slower than the speed of light the wormhole would bend you through space to a distant point quicker than light would be able to travel the same distance.)

Anyway extra dimensional life is where it's at today. String theorist would have you believe that there are 11 dimensions, some closer than a 1mm away from our own, which may contain conventional physics not to dissimilar from our own. If this is true it means that there could be an additional 7 universes all capable of sustaining life.

However only gravitons (tiny particles of gravity) would be able to travel between them.
And gravitons may or may not exist.

My last 2pence: The argument that "I think they're out there but we'll never meet them" is more religion than science. Dont believe the hype childs.

SemiCircle

17-11-2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by I'm Jim Too
...
Anyway extra dimensional life is where it's at today. String theorist would have you believe that there are 11 dimensions, some closer than a 1mm away from our own, which may contain conventional physics not to dissimilar from our own. If this is true it means that there could be an additional 7 universes all capable of sustaining life.
...

what a big pile of donkey poop. i think you may just have totally misunderstood the string theorists.

do you actually know what a dimension is? if so, why on earth did you say "closer than (a) 1 mm away"?

a dimension isn't, like people seem to believe, a plane of reality. whenever a scientist uses the word "dimension", he means it in the spacial sense, ie a length or a height or a width or somesuch. time can be said to be the fourth dimension because we can measure it, sort of, and it seems also to be inter-related with the spacial ones in some weird way which i don't understand.

but most importantly, when a scientist says "there are 11 dimensions, and they're all curled up in a ball", he's interpreting some random complicated vector equations into non-mathematical speech, and on no account should any non-scientist attempt to understand what he's talking about because it really doesn't make sense in real life.

squealpiggy

17-11-2003, 03:55 PM

I hve managed to think in 5 dimensions before, after managing to understand 4 dimensional graphs and thinking about a furter dimension, but it didn't last very long and it gave me a nasty headache...

Wahoo

17-11-2003, 07:23 PM

the only real way to go back in time is to go faster than the speed of light, because for example, if we look at another star, we are looking at it from maybe several hundred or thousands of years earlier, i dunno tbh. So if we travelled faster than light, we could go forward or back in time to go to that planet.

squealpiggy

17-11-2003, 07:42 PM

Nah time travel is possible as far back as the invention of the first time machine.

Reddig

17-11-2003, 08:33 PM

Err... call me an ignorant, but i don't understand what light speed has to do with traveling in time. I do know, that because light travels at certain speed through space we see stars which aren't there anymore, but this has nothing to do with something being earlier or later - it just means, that the image came to us after some time, doesn't it? If one could travel with the speed of light it would mean... err... that he travels fast? And maybe that his image wont be able to keep up.

"If you wake up in a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person?"

squealpiggy

17-11-2003, 08:57 PM

The theory is that as you near the speed of light time slows down, so if you were to surpass the speed of light and fly aroung the room you would theoretically get back to earth before you set off. But once you reach the speed of light your mass becomes infinite so this is impossible. Theoretically.

fat bear

17-11-2003, 10:06 PM

look, it is impossible for their to not be life outside of our own. it might help if you look at it from an astronomical point

1 our planet out of nine(debatable 8) planets orbiting one star
2. one star out of about 500 million stars in the milky way galaxy
3. one galaxy out of about 500,000 known galaxies in our local group
4. one local group out of alot(do not know estimated value) known in our local supercluster
5. one known supercluster in the galaxy

i mean c'mon, the odds are not that bad as to where life on other planets does not exist
and for those of you who do not think that the sun is a star

non star= stupid person= very possible

SemiCircle

18-11-2003, 12:27 AM

all very well, until you realise that most stars don't actually have any planets. having looked very carefully at just about every star visible in the sky, they think they've found one with a planet. but the planet's a gas giant, so there's no chance of any life like us on it.
even if they did have planets, stars like ours are a real rarity: most stars are either too big, in which case every planet in orbit is toasted dry, or too small, in which case they're all too cold for liquid water. quite seriously, i'd be suprised if there's many more than about 5 planets in our galaxy that COULD support life. even when they can, the chances of life actually happening are tiny too.
the other thing to bear in mind is that life goes against nature. think about this: some lumps of (mainly) rock are floating around, orbiting a nice burning (yes, i know squealpiggy) sphere of hydrogen/helium, when, all of a sudden (ie over several million years), one of the lumps of rock starts flinging tiny bits of itself off into space for no apparant reason. some of the bits even come back! to the cosmic observer, NASA must be a real conundrum.

squealpiggy

18-11-2003, 07:17 AM

Current theories suggest that life is not against nature, and that the formation of complex chemicals is in fact something which nature tends to lean towards. If complex chemicals are a certainty then it is only a matter of time, assuming that elements such as carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are present, before organic molecules begin to be formed and it follows that self replicating complex carbohydrates are the next thing along. This is where life begins.

I'm Jim Too

18-11-2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by SemiCircle
what a big pile of donkey poop. i think you may just have totally misunderstood the string theorists.

do you actually know what a dimension is? if so, why on earth did you say "closer than (a) 1 mm away"?

I think you are very good at poo-pooing things beyond your understanding. If you can't get space-time theory through your head...

Originally posted by SemiCircle
time can be said to be the fourth dimension because we can measure it, sort of, and it seems also to be inter-related with the spacial ones in some weird way which i don't understand.

... then perhaps your grasp on reality is a little weak. Perhaps the information in my previous post is totally accurate and perhaps you're a bit simple.

squealpiggy

18-11-2003, 11:37 AM

Yeah you idiot, you can't even understand superstring theory!

SemiCircle

18-11-2003, 01:25 PM

i think you're asking for a bit of a rant.

well, i must say that most of the information in your post is correctish, as i understand things. i stand by comment about the ridiculousness of dimensions being millimetres away, though.

i know i really don't understand string theory. hell, i don't fully understand quantum theory. however, i know what i know about it, and what you're saying about it is utter gibberish. sounds strangely reminiscent of david icke...

anyhow, so you don't hate me, i shall say that i agree about the gravitons being somewhat hypothetical. the in-thing seems to be to explain everything with exchange particles nowadays, so most non-string theorists who don't like the rubber sheet stuff would go with the gravitons. some of them are decidedly schitzophrenic about the whole thing, and decide that gravitons DO exist, but they are vibrations in strings, and on top of that, that they manifest themselves in such a way that they appear to distort reality like the whole rubber sheet poo. some people :rolleyes:.

squealpiggy

18-11-2003, 04:10 PM

I was being sarcastic when I made my comment, thought you ought to know ;)

Wally

18-11-2003, 04:13 PM

Hey.. your avatar is that aardvark dude.. with the racoon dudes... right?

squealpiggy

18-11-2003, 05:06 PM

Cyril Sneer, yes!

Wally

18-11-2003, 05:12 PM

ooooooh, so thats his name!
I remember there is allot of singing in that show.. and there where three pigdudes too...
How was it called again?

fat bear

18-11-2003, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by SemiCircle
all very well, until you realise that most stars don't actually have any planets. having looked very carefully at just about every star visible in the sky, they think they've found one with a planet. but the planet's a gas giant, so there's no chance of any life like us on it.
even if they did have planets, stars like ours are a real rarity: most stars are either too big, in which case every planet in orbit is toasted dry, or too small, in which case they're all too cold for liquid water. quite seriously, i'd be suprised if there's many more than about 5 planets in our galaxy that COULD support life. even when they can, the chances of life actually happening are tiny too.
the other thing to bear in mind is that life goes against nature. think about this: some lumps of (mainly) rock are floating around, orbiting a nice burning (yes, i know squealpiggy) sphere of hydrogen/helium, when, all of a sudden (ie over several million years), one of the lumps of rock starts flinging tiny bits of itself off into space for no apparant reason. some of the bits even come back! to the cosmic observer, NASA must be a real conundrum.

1.actually, about half the stars have planets and have do not

2. there are way too many stars and planets to there not be life out there

3. life does not go against nature, that would be impossible. nature has always stayed the same and life exists within nature

4. a lump of rock(a rocky planet) just does not explode like that unless it is hit by a meteor. planets are formed after the star is born and rock, frozen gas, and other materials going around the sun crash into each other to form planets

5. yes, youre right. life is a rarity, but it still has to be out there

Mexican Pie

19-11-2003, 09:27 AM

You know with black holes and such, are they supposed to suck in time? I thought time was just a measurement for events and such, so therefore blackholes absorb only matter.

However, what about an "Event Horizon"?- that is, when you are in the slight area surrounding a black hole which absorbs time, while you are in that space from not being too close to the Black Hole. It seems to me that everything is only explained by equations, trial and error, and not knowing enough. So lets just send a ship to a "Black Hole" and see if they exist.

squealpiggy

19-11-2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Wally
ooooooh, so thats his name!
I remember there is allot of singing in that show.. and there where three pigdudes too...
How was it called again?

It was called The Raccoons.

There is no point in sending a spacecraft into a black hole. The nearest one is light-years away, no craft has ever successfully left our solar system, and even if we could snd a craft that would arrive in the black hole within our lifetime, a black hole is a body with a gravitational mass so large that nothing can escape rom it. This means no light, no radiowaves, nothing. There would be no way that we could find out what was in the black hole, even if it were simple enough to send a probe.

squealpiggy

19-11-2003, 11:04 AM

And the even horizon is the point at which mass becomes infinite...

Sorry for th DP

Dude

19-11-2003, 11:06 AM

Has anyone ever seen an UFO? I saw one in 1998 i think, at the solar eclipse, at first everyone thought it was the herculese(sp) but then it vanished.

SemiCircle

19-11-2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
I was being sarcastic when I made my comment, thought you ought to know ;)

not you, him.

i know perfectly well what scientists say about planet formation. chaos theory dictates that there are only very few possible situations in which a semi-stable situation of the collection of space dust into planets is allowable; 99.999 (lots of nines) % of the time, the lumps of rock fling themselves away into space again. they have to come exactly into a particular orbit around the star. even our own solar system isn't fully stable: because of the difficulties of the three body problem, they can only estimate the orbits of the planets. it is perfectly possible that in 50 years time the whole damn thing has collapsed and we're floating free through the bare universe. very unlikely, though.

i think if they'd found that many planets there wouldn't be such a fuss whenever they found another one. maybe 5 is a bit of an underexageration, though.

you missed my point for the "exploding planet" paragraph. i was pointing out that the fact that life on our planet has caused the planet itself to seem, to the ouside observer, to be randomly throwing bits of itself, known to us as "satelites" or possibly "space shuttles", out into space.

you can't absorb time, any more than you can absorb height. black holes distort time, yes.
actually, the event horizon is the point of no return. it is the point at which the escape velocity becomes larger than the speed of light.

Mexican Pie

20-11-2003, 09:14 AM

It is possible to go faster than the speed of light. Light is just the fastest speed ever recorded, not to say we cant go 10 times faster than it. And get crushed.

squealpiggy

20-11-2003, 09:27 AM

No it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light, and light speed has never been "recorded" so to speak, it has been calculated. The reason that it is imporrible to go beyond th speed of light is that mass increases with greater speed and if you reach the speed of light your mass will become infinite which would be messy.

malcolio

20-11-2003, 11:50 AM

Hmm the last 17 posts haven't had anything to do with extraterrestrials. Interesting. Is there any intelligent life on this planet, before we start askign if there is any intelligent life out there?? :D

SemiCircle

20-11-2003, 11:57 AM

the speed of light is sufficiently relavant to the topic to justify being mentioned here, as whether or not it can be exceeded determines whether it is possible or likely that aliens visit our planet.

malcolio

20-11-2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by SemiCircle
the speed of light is sufficiently relavant to the topic to justify being mentioned here, as whether or not it can be exceeded determines whether it is possible or likely that aliens visit our planet.

Not if aliens have other means of tranpsortation that doesn't require speed or movement. Also, why can't aliens be on planets close to us, and us not to notice. If aliens are intelligent enough to make ships that can travel to Earth, they may have been able to invent shields, warp engines, and all the other cr@p from Star Wars and Star Trek. The speed of light may not be a problem, is what I'm getting to.

squealpiggy

20-11-2003, 12:26 PM

Exceeding the speed of light doesn't necessarily require moving faster than the speed of light, it just means setting off from one point and arriving at the destination before light setting off at the same time does. This could be acheived by wormholes, or by using a super yo-yo device with a superstring.

SemiCircle

20-11-2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by malcolio
Not if aliens have other means of tranpsortation that doesn't require speed or movement. Also, why can't aliens be on planets close to us, and us not to notice. If aliens are intelligent enough to make ships that can travel to Earth, they may have been able to invent shields, warp engines, and all the other cr@p from Star Wars and Star Trek. The speed of light may not be a problem, is what I'm getting to.

precisely the point of the past posts.

i find it unlikely that there are any aliens on planets near us, mostly for the simple reason that we couldn't live there. if we can't live there, then we can be pretty damn sure that they can't live here. and if they can't live here, then it almost certainly isn't them coming along and abducting people and drawing in the corn and things. nobody ever claims to see aliens in spacesuits, do they?

haha, super yo-yo. nice.

Mexican Pie

22-11-2003, 06:21 AM

Or have they?

Clicky. (http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Spaceman.html)

Alien in suit or man who is lost?

eidderf

22-11-2003, 11:03 AM

Ooooooooooooo
Wow maybe a bee keeper thought are just have a walk
and got captured in the photo and look there is so many fake alien pictures and videos out there we could not be sure unless we sent some sort of rocket deep into space until we find something or it stops working or if an alien lands in front of someone and they grab it .Not old photos not second film .

squealpiggy

22-11-2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Mexican Pie
Or have they?

Clicky. (http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Spaceman.html)

Alien in suit or man who is lost?

Or could it be AN ATLANTEAN SUPERBEING STICKING OUT OF HER HEAD!?

I hope it's the alien ;)

eidderf

22-11-2003, 12:54 PM

Its not an lien its a man in a suit you can see that I can see that
Hey I believe in aliens but thats not one of them why would an alien come to earth to get its picture taken with a little girl
Wow those bee keepers get everywhere

Mister Ben

22-11-2003, 02:50 PM

On the subject of planets, we can only really detect the gas giants as they are the only ones big enough to make any difference to our readings. Therefore there could be planets round every star and we just don't know it - it is extremely unlikely that aliens could detect our solar system if it were not for the regular signals we send out - in fact even those would be hard to hear.

But the main point everyone seems to be missing is - how do you define aliens? How do you define life? If we were to turn up on a planet, how could we say for certain that there are no life forms on that planet? They could just be so different to us that we do not recognize them as life.

I absolutely do not believe in little green men, and do not believe that anyone has ever been on this planet who was not born on it, but I do believe there may be a sentient being somewhere out there, but it's probably so different from us that communication would be almost impossible.

About the travelling, even if we could get to the nearest planet in, say, a month, how would we know where it was? And how would we know if it was the one with life on it? It'd still take thousands of years to properly find life or disprove it's existance. Even if we had the power to travel to this alien homeworld, how are we going to know that's the one to go to? It could be shouting at the top of it's voice, but we're not watching everywhere on every wavelength...

fat bear

22-11-2003, 03:33 PM

here Ben, let me inform your uninformed statements

We can determine if planets have a planet around them, by looking at the wobble of a star. If a star is showing a slight wobling motion when we look at them using the Hubble Space Telescope(HST), we can deduce that the star has something making it wobble, like a planet! Plus, about half of the stars have another star orbiting with it and the signals that we send out are all in the language of math!

Aliens are defined as something outside a given culture. We can tell that it is life by looking at ours. Life has to be somewhat like ours because we can determine the certain things life must have like DNA and RNA.

Okay listen here. Do you all of those probes and satillites we send out? We pack them all with special messages written in math saying stuff about our planet and our cosmic address. It may seem difficult to understand how to write out words using math(it is for me anyways), but math is also known as the universal language, and it is the most universal to us.

We know where a planet is by LOOKING AT IT!!! How do you think we sent satillites to all of the planets around us, or did we just guess!?! We can probably guess that their might be life on a planet if it is in the "Cinderella Zone." This is the space from about .7 to 1.5 AU's away from an average sized sun like ours. An AU, if you did not know, is and Astronomical Unit which is the distance of the earth from the sun, which is about 93,000,000 miles or something like that. Plus we do track all incoming waves at all times. We have observatories collecting radio, uv, sound, static, and waves that signal a black hole. Plus, the odds are to great for there not to be life outside our own planet because of the size of the universe, which seems to be, according to one theory, expanding at the moment.

It's ok though that you did not know this because your only like 13 years old right?

Mexican Pie

23-11-2003, 06:32 AM

Scary Shit. (http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/TV_Alien.html)

What else could it be? I'm scared shitless.

DON'T TURN OFF THE TV OR YOU WILL TURN INTO THIS!!!!!!! (http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/CaveBeing.html) ARGH!!!! HOLY FUCK!

Wahoo

23-11-2003, 07:10 AM

this face doesn't have to be an extra terrestrial, it might not even be real, tv fakes a lot of things that it says is true good old tv just to make shows more interesting to the public and to get people to watch them. The extra terrestrial face could just be a deformed skull, we cannot tell this because it is in black and white, so it is very hard to tell the texture of the object in question.

squealpiggy

23-11-2003, 08:09 AM

The first picture is admiral ackbar from star wars!

I find it amazing how gullible people are. All these pictures that have not been tampered with in any way, how do we know? Because it says so on the website? The below picture I took I was trying to take a picture of an empty room. When I got the pictures developed look what happened? This only happened in one picture... I used to think that aliens were a load of garbage but now I'm not so sure:

http://www.imj.org.il/images/resources/press/alien.jpg

See how easy it is to completely lie about a picture?

Mexican Pie

23-11-2003, 08:46 AM

Oh my gawd... the paintings are alive!

Mister Ben

23-11-2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by fat bear
here Ben, let me inform your uninformed statements

We can determine if planets have a planet around them, by looking at the wobble of a star. If a star is showing a slight wobling motion when we look at them using the Hubble Space Telescope(HST), we can deduce that the star has something making it wobble, like a planet! Plus, about half of the stars have another star orbiting with it and the signals that we send out are all in the language of math!

Aliens are defined as something outside a given culture. We can tell that it is life by looking at ours. Life has to be somewhat like ours because we can determine the certain things life must have like DNA and RNA.

Okay listen here. Do you all of those probes and satillites we send out? We pack them all with special messages written in math saying stuff about our planet and our cosmic address. It may seem difficult to understand how to write out words using math(it is for me anyways), but math is also known as the universal language, and it is the most universal to us.

We know where a planet is by LOOKING AT IT!!! How do you think we sent satillites to all of the planets around us, or did we just guess!?! We can probably guess that their might be life on a planet if it is in the "Cinderella Zone." This is the space from about .7 to 1.5 AU's away from an average sized sun like ours. An AU, if you did not know, is and Astronomical Unit which is the distance of the earth from the sun, which is about 93,000,000 miles or something like that. Plus we do track all incoming waves at all times. We have observatories collecting radio, uv, sound, static, and waves that signal a black hole. Plus, the odds are to great for there not to be life outside our own planet because of the size of the universe, which seems to be, according to one theory, expanding at the moment.

It's ok though that you did not know this because your only like 13 years old right?

12, actually, but I did know almost all of what you said.

Only supermassive gas giants have anywhere near the size or gravity needed to have an effect on their parent star, the planets in our solar system are so close that the reflected light from our sun means we can see them, but other solar systems we can only detect those planets large enough to have a detectable effect on their parent stars.

Who says things have to have DNA or RNA to live? Maybe they can carry all the signs of being alive, reproduction, sensitivity etc. without anything similar to our instructional DNA.

The distance of aliens may be so great that by the time we have both evolved sufficiently to send our signals and by the time the signals have actually reached us or them, we could be dead, or the signals could have been distorted as there are many other forms of radiation in space.

I understand about writing messages without language, but the symbols we use and the methods we use would still not easily be decodable, and even if an alien got them and understood, it would take many hundreds of years for their signal to get back, if it got back.

Oh and our cosmic "address" is written by using triangulation: so our distance and direction from the surrounding 50 or so stars is given, and we are the only people in that exact configuration, as long as it doesn't change before the message gets to our friends.

Why would the aliens listen in our direction, in our frequency? And we certainly aren't sending signals everywhere, so the chance of them being received is very small. If the aliens are not in our galaxy, the concept of cross-galaxy communication is pretty much ridiculous, considering the huge distances and number of targets. All in all, the probability of contact is, I'd say, very small.

SemiCircle

23-11-2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by fat bear
here Ben, let me inform your uninformed statements

We can determine if planets have a planet around them, by looking at the wobble of a star. If a star is showing a slight wobling motion when we look at them using the Hubble Space Telescope(HST), we can deduce that the star has something making it wobble, like a planet! Plus, about half of the stars have another star orbiting with it and the signals that we send out are all in the language of math!

Aliens are defined as something outside a given culture. We can tell that it is life by looking at ours. Life has to be somewhat like ours because we can determine the certain things life must have like DNA and RNA.

Okay listen here. Do you all of those probes and satillites we send out? We pack them all with special messages written in math saying stuff about our planet and our cosmic address. It may seem difficult to understand how to write out words using math(it is for me anyways), but math is also known as the universal language, and it is the most universal to us.

We know where a planet is by LOOKING AT IT!!! How do you think we sent satillites to all of the planets around us, or did we just guess!?! We can probably guess that their might be life on a planet if it is in the "Cinderella Zone." This is the space from about .7 to 1.5 AU's away from an average sized sun like ours. An AU, if you did not know, is and Astronomical Unit which is the distance of the earth from the sun, which is about 93,000,000 miles or something like that. Plus we do track all incoming waves at all times. We have observatories collecting radio, uv, sound, static, and waves that signal a black hole. Plus, the odds are to great for there not to be life outside our own planet because of the size of the universe, which seems to be, according to one theory, expanding at the moment.

It's ok though that you did not know this because your only like 13 years old right?

quite right, but also quite wrong.
a wobble in the star's motion (motion relative to what, pray tell?) isn't necessarily caused by a planet. as you said, lots of stars are in pairs. and ben is absolutely right about the gas giant stuff. i could show you the maths if you like, or you could just take my word for it, but the acceleration of the sun caused by the earth's pull on it is equal to the ratio of the masses of the sun and earth multiplied by the acceleration of the earth caused by the sun. since the sun is 300000 times bigger than the earth, that means its movement due to the earth is 1/300000 that of the movement of the earth due to the sun. that's not very much.

(whilst looking up figures for this, i chanced upon a happy little website which said that scientists are hopeful that one day soon they will be able to detect earth-sized planets using some clever new technology which had a fancy name that meant nothing to me. i hate the discovery channel, it tells you nothing beyond the bare bones of facts. this means that they can't yet.)

i thought life was defined by, now what was it? there's some contrived acronym that they teach 11 year olds. i don't think dna is essential, but it's hard for us to think of anything alive that doesn't have it.

the "cinderella zone", as you call it (never heard that one before. sounds plausible; scientists have awful senses of humour. where's the pun?), is utterly pointless if we can't yet see any planets that are small enough to support life. which we can't, yet. it's not really a perfect system for determining if life is there, either. venus is in that band, and it'd be a strange sort of life that could live on venus.

i shall stand by my opinion that until you show me extraterrestial life, i shan't believe in it. unlike god, there's no advantage in having faith in aliens.