Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Harte

So it seems that Earth with all it problems would be rather high on the discovery/exploration list...and NOT some "back water" planet that nobody notices. In reality Earth and Sol would stand out like a sore thumb in the cosmos as a place to look for advanced complex life...

Again...all of this is based on Hipparcos data, and not the conjecture contained within a wiki...

I don't mind a little criticism of wiki, since two different pages there give you two different estimates of the red dwarf population in the Milky Way.

However, I disagree with your basic premise, summarized in the quote above.

Because there are planets around red dwarfs, and red dwarfs make up the large majority of Milky Way stars, there is no reason to think that our Solar System is one that would be particularly singled out for exploration by space faring aliens.

These aliens, in fact, could come from a Red Dwarf system themselves.

My point is, there's nothing "special" about our system that could possibly draw aliens here rather than elsewhere.

I maintain that we wouldn't "stand out" at all, much less like a sore thumb.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

I don't mind a little criticism of wiki, since two different pages there give you two different estimates of the red dwarf population in the Milky Way.

However, I disagree with your basic premise, summarized in the quote above.

Firstly; thank you for an intelligent response...

Please understand that I would not likely use a wiki to get an estimate of stars...if I wan an estimate I'll ask an Astronomer. Alternately, I will use a dataset like Hipparcos, or 2MASS, and the value I come up with is not an estimate...

Because there are planets around red dwarfs, and red dwarfs make up the large majority of Milky Way stars, there is no reason to think that our Solar System is one that would be particularly singled out for exploration by space faring aliens.

These aliens, in fact, could come from a Red Dwarf system themselves.

The problem with "M" class stars is that they are small and cold, for stars anyway. Thus the planets they have are all "close In", and the typical Habitable Zone is so close that the planets become "tidally locked" in their orbits...like Earth's moon.

With only one side of the planet facing the star problems arise...One side becomes to hot to support much by way of evolution, and the other side becomes too cold. This leaves at best a narrow band around the planet where temperatures are within a range that can support the evolution of life. It is this phenomenon that prevents "M" class stars from becoming an "Earth", or indeed even Earth like.

Astronomers talk about the "Habitable Zone" around a star, that area where liquid water is possible. The same sort of thing apples to the planet, in that there must be an area of the planet, a "zone", where water is liquid...on a "tidally locked" world this zone is necessarily small.

This will tend to limit the kinds of life and the extent and progress of evolution.

At the other end of the spectrum we have "F" and "A" class stars; both large and hot...the problem with large and hot is that the longevity is severely impacted, and stars like that simply don't live long enough to evolve the kinds of life we are looking for (Advanced sentient, space-faring).

My point is, there's nothing "special" about our system that could possibly draw aliens here rather than elsewhere.

I maintain that we wouldn't "stand out" at all, much less like a sore thumb.

Harte

Well, while I would tend to reject the notion of "special", it is still true that the properties of Sol, and Earth are not shared by all of the Universe.

But, it is still those properties that are going to determine the kinds of life and how evolution of that life progresses.

Larger, warmer, "K" class stars will have a better chance of developing the kind of life we are looking for. A larger, warmer "K" class star is far less likely to have an HZ that is "too close" to the star, and more likely to produce an HZ where planets are not tidally locked, thus allowing for a more uniform temperatures, and a significantly increased probability of evolution toward what we are looking for.



Here is the "typical" bell curve from statistics, "fitted" at the high end because we can better quantify the probabilities of "advanced. complex" when we can have a "limiting" factor; in the case of large/hot stars that limit is time...We know that "large and hot" stars simply don't have a long enough life span...

The "Fitting" on the low end happens as a consequence of nature. And, at first, I'll admit, it didn't make much sense that small and cold "M" class stars should be so handicapped when it comes to life...but, that handicap plays out in the form of tidally locked planets, that never get the chance to evolve "advanced and complex".

So...while life certainly isn't gong to be unique to Earth, and life is equally probable around every star; from "M" class to "A" class, it is the nature of that life that should be considered when talking about exploration, and, life as it is found on Earth, in my opinion, can be far more interesting...

Then of course there is the simple probabilities involved; AND, "G" class stars are going to exhibit greater probabilities than any other class...period.

originally posted by: Harte
My point is, there's nothing "special" about our system that could possibly draw aliens here rather than elsewhere.

I maintain that we wouldn't "stand out" at all, much less like a sore thumb.

Keep in mind that humanity itself is already analyzing and cataloguing thousands of nearby stars, simultaneously, with Kepler. And we'll very soon be able to analyze the atmospheres around the thousands of distant extrasolar planets we're finding, to determine if there's life there. We've been planning and doing all of this a mere 100 years after our first powered flight.

So, even though this will be so much woo woo for some people in here, I'll risk it and put the crazy idea out there anyway: maybe, just maybe, intelligent beings near other stars would've figured out how to do the same thing, long ago? They might've pinpointed our star as a likely abode for intelligent life millions or even billions of years ago.

Is this really that hard for some people to comprehend? Or is it that they'd prefer not to comprehend it? Mainstream science (astronomy and exobiology, especially) has updated itself extremely rapidly over the last 20 years, and it seems that some people haven't been able to keep up.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
Keep in mind that humanity itself is already analyzing and cataloguing thousands of nearby stars, simultaneously, with Kepler. And we'll very soon be able to analyze the atmospheres around the thousands of distant extrasolar planets we're finding, to determine if there's life there. We've been planning and doing all of this a mere 100 years after our first powered flight.

Twinkle on fast-track mission to unveil exoplanet atmospheres

A team of scientists and engineers have announced plans for a small satellite, named ‘Twinkle’, that will give radical new insights into the chemistry, formation and evolution of planets orbiting other stars. The mission will be launched within four years.

Astronomers are detecting high winds on some planets, on others they are able to forecast the weather...

Weather forecasts made for planets beyond our solar system

Using sensitive observations from the Kepler space telescope, astronomers have uncovered evidence of daily weather cycles on six extra-solar planets seen to exhibit different phases. Such phase variations occur as different portions of these planets reflect light from their stars, similar to the way our own moon cycles though different phases. Among the findings are indications of cloudy mornings on four of them and hot, clear afternoons on two others.

And, as of last count (Tue. 12 MAY, 2015) there are 2015 confirmed explanets...according to the Open Exoplanet Catalog. (You can find the list on my site blow)

a reply to: neoholographic

Well Aliens, EBEs or ETs are the post modern fairies and witches and vampires, (or God *caugh*my inner catholic threatens me with hell which may or may not exist as the agnostic in me answers*)
There is something, nobody knows what it is. All evidence just says exactly that. No recording of Shaimlod Xepver from Omecron8 attending Bills birthday party, or something undeniable, just a huge: we don't know.
And at this point in history, we have more important issues than ET-vangelising sceptics...

There's plenty of evidence, but give the nay-sayers some slack. Some people want to go along with the official narrative because it makes them feel more comfortable. But consider this: we assume a universe teeming with life. We assume inter-stellar travel is something we will master in the near future. And then say, we have not been visited? Doesn't make sense.
a reply to: neoholographic

a reply to: Astyanax
From my limited understanding of what is 'known' about DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY, I have no recollection of anything PROVING their existence.

What I think is known is that various asymmetries exist. These are differentiated from 'normal' behavior as predicated by commonly held theory. These observations indicate that these theories WILL be supplanted as they are inadequate explanations of what is readily perceived.

The terms used to express the mysterious aspects of the observations DEMONSTRATE ONLY A VOID IN KNOWLEDGE. Other than that they are as useless a nomenclature as Uncle Bob and Aunt De-Dee for this set of phenomena.

Many have decided that somehow naming a class of sightings is identical to identifying them.

originally posted by: yourignoranceisbliss
a reply to: neoholographic

ATS isn't friendly to UFO discussion anymore. Hasn't been for quite some time. It is, however, a great place to study the disinformation campaign though.

Accepting this, you will find it best to move that type of discussion elsewhere.

Don't lose faith.
I have noticed long ago that some things do "stand out" in regards to your first sentence and I'm sure others have noticed it too but don't let that deter you. It comes with the territory.

Lately though, our movement (the pro side) is picking up steam from what I can see. We have a lot of new interesting and articulate members who frequent the alien/ufo forum in support of the pro side. It's an interesting time we are in right now.

With each passing day the veil over this phenomenon is becoming increasingly more and more transparent.
To all those dedicated to bringing the truth to light keep up the good work.

a reply to: Harte
In fact we are blatant in announcing ourselves. We, at certain EM frequencies, are the brightest object in the heavens and have been for some time.
One of the poo-pooers favorite devices for explaining this beacon aspect away is to mention the Inverse Square Law. What they then explain is that due to normal background (cosmic and local) radiation, our signals are buried in that scrap heap after a few light years.

In the service I was an electronic tech who worked on microwave transmitters of a thousand watts or so. The antenna used had a gain of more than 40 DB. Highly directional. While the various rotations of the gimbal Earth will make any detection short, the signal will punch through. Any species with interest in detecting 'others' would have the scent.

I was doing this nearly fifty years ago. The detection envelope is expanding. It might take some time to respond but we ARE trawling the Universe for these clues so we KNOW that motivations exist to do this type of survey. It wouldn't be difficult for a conceptional overlay of similar concerns for an alien culture with curiosity to perform the same actions.

a reply to: largo

Really? Because this telecommunications engineer (and civil rights activist), Scott Bidstrup, disagrees:

www.bidstrup.com...

I have to agree with him.

And to continue being the Devil's Advocate, considering that we're moving on to narrower, cheaper, and more energy efficient transmission technologies, our so-called "beacon" status is running out of time. We'll soon be just as quiet as all of the other stars out there.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Lately though, our movement (the pro side) is picking up steam from what I can see.

I'm noticing too. Its interesting that you call it a "movement". I'm not sure that's what I would call it. I'm interested in why you see it that way.

a reply to: neoholographic

This again.....

If someone tells you anything.. there must be evidence to support their claims, whether it's ufo
related or homicide!!
You don’t get a free pass because it's what you believe.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Lately though, our movement (the pro side) is picking up steam from what I can see.

I'm noticing too. Its interesting that you call it a "movement". I'm not sure that's what I would call it. I'm interested in why you see it that way.

I call it the truth movement. At least that's how I feel about it.

I think we look at the UFO/ET thing the wrong way. We look at it as a scientist would who studies something and comes up with observable theories etc.

But, what we should really be doing is like a criminal investigation. In a criminal investigation, an incident is reported and you send out an investigator to see what happened. You interview the "Victim" or reporter of the incident then you talk to any witnesses, you get background information, you look for evidence of any kind, perhaps a broken window, a camera, a fingerprint, blood, shoe prints in the snow and then you make your determination.

Science and the scientific method come into it when needed.

The second thing we do sometimes but not enough is compile the meta data. How many people reported this "crime" in this area. Which areas have the most incidents? Which States? Which times? Which days of the week? Which countries? How many people or serial reporters/victims? compiling and analyzing that data is science.

Just a thought. But I really think every incident should be a separate invistigation when that's concluded you draw your conclusions and then that data is put in a large database with all the other incidents for further evalutation.

a reply to: amazing

A fair point, but how many times has the investigator gotten it wrong? How often do we hear stories now of how a person on death row was at the last moment found innocent because science uncovered something that the investigator screwed up on?

Ergo, the way criminal investigation has worked in the past hasn't been particularly very reliable.

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: amazing

A fair point, but how many times has the investigator gotten it wrong? How often do we hear stories now of how a person on death row was at the last moment found innocent because science uncovered something that the investigator screwed up on?

Ergo, the way criminal investigation has worked in the past hasn't been particularly very reliable.

Good points and yes, use science to the investigation whenever you can to make sure that doesn't happen.

But what I mean is this. Someone claims to have been abducted, so you should investigate the claim and not just debunk it with science first with blanket statements like, there has never been concrete proof of an ET on earth and they would need to travel impossibly fast to get here. Nah...slow it down. Let's investigate first.

Interview the abductee. What happened? Get it all written down or video recorded. Give them a lie detector test. Give them a mental evaluation. Find out if any of their claims can be substantiated. Look for witnesses that can corroborate any part of their story and then look at the meta data. Where there any strange sightings by anyone else on that date and time? Is there any physical evidence. That's what needs to happen in ET/UFology.

perhaps because sceptics are an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.
thats the definition of a sceptic, so without concrete proof there is no point in presenting such tales as UFO's to a sceptic, a reply to: neoholographic

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: neoholographic

This again.....

If someone tells you anything.. there must be evidence to support their claims, whether it's ufo
related or homicide!!
You don’t get a free pass because it's what you believe.

Eye witnesses. They may have zero proof otherwise.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

I don't mind a little criticism of wiki, since two different pages there give you two different estimates of the red dwarf population in the Milky Way.

However, I disagree with your basic premise, summarized in the quote above.

Firstly; thank you for an intelligent response...

Please understand that I would not likely use a wiki to get an estimate of stars...if I wan an estimate I'll ask an Astronomer. Alternately, I will use a dataset like Hipparcos, or 2MASS, and the value I come up with is not an estimate...

Because there are planets around red dwarfs, and red dwarfs make up the large majority of Milky Way stars, there is no reason to think that our Solar System is one that would be particularly singled out for exploration by space faring aliens.

These aliens, in fact, could come from a Red Dwarf system themselves.

The problem with "M" class stars is that they are small and cold, for stars anyway. Thus the planets they have are all "close In", and the typical Habitable Zone is so close that the planets become "tidally locked" in their orbits...like Earth's moon.

With only one side of the planet facing the star problems arise...One side becomes to hot to support much by way of evolution, and the other side becomes too cold. This leaves at best a narrow band around the planet where temperatures are within a range that can support the evolution of life. It is this phenomenon that prevents "M" class stars from becoming an "Earth", or indeed even Earth like.

Turns out tidal locking isn't much of a problem - for two reasons - both laid out here.

Harte

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

originally posted by: Harte
My point is, there's nothing "special" about our system that could possibly draw aliens here rather than elsewhere.

I maintain that we wouldn't "stand out" at all, much less like a sore thumb.

Keep in mind that humanity itself is already analyzing and cataloguing thousands of nearby stars, simultaneously, with Kepler. And we'll very soon be able to analyze the atmospheres around the thousands of distant extrasolar planets we're finding, to determine if there's life there. We've been planning and doing all of this a mere 100 years after our first powered flight.

So, even though this will be so much woo woo for some people in here, I'll risk it and put the crazy idea out there anyway: maybe, just maybe, intelligent beings near other stars would've figured out how to do the same thing, long ago? They might've pinpointed our star as a likely abode for intelligent life millions or even billions of years ago.

Is this really that hard for some people to comprehend? Or is it that they'd prefer not to comprehend it? Mainstream science (astronomy and exobiology, especially) has updated itself extremely rapidly over the last 20 years, and it seems that some people haven't been able to keep up.

When we find 50 within 20 light years, and we develop the tech to go there, how many do you think we'll decide to visit?

Remember - what your talking about is the possibility of life. The probability for intelligent, spacefaring life cannot be calculated.

Harte