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

originally posted by: Harte
Turns out tidal locking isn't much of a problem - for two reasons - both laid out here.

Harte

The problem with Class "M" stars; they are too small, too cold to support advanced evolution...and while I only have mathematics (probability) to use here; the probability of any sort of advanced life on an "M" class is about 1/8 of a percent (~0.122%)

You should hasten to understand that this does not mean there is no life, just not anything like Humans...though I'd bet the farm that what ever is found is interesting!

The same holds for the larger hotter stars...even with their shortened life span, the still begin the process of evolution.

originally posted by: Harte
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.

?? That has nothing to do with my post.

You were saying that there's no reason ET would be here at our planet in particular. You said, for example, "[T]here'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."

It doesn't matter how many exoplanets we'll be able to visit as soon as the first clues come in. My point was that highly intelligent extraterrestrials would likely be able to analyze planets from afar for signs of life, given that we, in our infancy, have already started doing the same thing.

Why would aliens randomly hunt for a "needle in a haystack" when they could just build a needle detector?

There's every reason to expect that alien zoologists have known about our planet and its lifeforms for a very long time.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets


There's every reason to expect that alien zoologists have known about our planet and its lifeforms for a very long time.

Agreed.
If we take ancient history into account, that's not even the half of it.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
Turns out tidal locking isn't much of a problem - for two reasons - both laid out here.

Harte

The problem with Class "M" stars; they are too small, too cold to support advanced evolution...and while I only have mathematics (probability) to use here; the probability of any sort of advanced life on an "M" class is about 1/8 of a percent (~0.122%)

You should hasten to understand that this does not mean there is no life, just not anything like Humans...though I'd bet the farm that what ever is found is interesting!

The same holds for the larger hotter stars...even with their shortened life span, the still begin the process of evolution.

I don't see how you get to that number.

I think if life exists, there are other factors that could possibly lead to intelligent life. Given that the climate on any planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf would be quite stable (even moreso if it is tidally locked,) and the star itself is one of the most stable we know about - lasting a trillion years or more- I think it's as least as likely as any other locale.

However, 1/8 of one percent..., IMO the chances of intelligent life evolving anywhere at all are less than that.

Harte

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

originally posted by: Harte
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.

?? That has nothing to do with my post.

Actually, it does. If there are 50 life bearing planets within 20 ly of Earth, would we look beyond that, even given the technology to travel there?

My point should be taken in context with the statement that ETs may have come here because they could find us. If that's not what you were alluding to (it was a different poster that raised the point) then fine.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
There's every reason to expect that alien zoologists have known about our planet and its lifeforms for a very long time.

If there is "every reason," could you list some of them? I'm not aware of a single reason to believe that.

Harte

a reply to: amazing

Fair enough, it seems you thought this through. Just so long as you don't exclude science from your investigation, keeping it on board as your "fact checker" so you can maintain some honesty, then perhaps your approach would work. Nevertheless, I maintain a skepticism that our "visitors" come from another world. UFOlogy has railed at the extraterrestrial hypothesis for over half a century now and hasn't come any closer to proving it.

I think its time to consider some of the other hypotheses I've suggested, or possibly come up with something else altogether.

originally posted by: Harte
I don't see how you get to that number.

Really?!!?? So, you don't read my posts, just jerk our knee as a response or something?

go look at this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think if life exists, there are other factors that could possibly lead to intelligent life. Given that the climate on any planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf would be quite stable (even moreso if it is tidally locked,) and the star itself is one of the most stable we know about - lasting a trillion years or more- I think it's as least as likely as any other locale.

However, 1/8 of one percent..., IMO the chances of intelligent life evolving anywhere at all are less than that.

Harte

After you have viewed the image there you may begin to understand what the hell I've been talking about...and right now; we ain't even on the same page.

You should also understand that right now I'm actively researching such things, as opposed to finding an article I barely understand and using it as some sort of, well I'm not sure what that was all about. Anyway, please try to understand what I'm saying before responding.

The view here is an agnostic one, thus all factors to intelligence are equally non-applicable.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
I don't see how you get to that number.

Really?!!?? So, you don't read my posts, just jerk our knee as a response or something?

go look at this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course I read your post. In it I see that you know how to paste an image into your post.

That doesn't give the image (your bell curve) any validity, however. There is more to the development of intelligent life than climate.

I also noted that in the same post you revealed you were unaware of recent findings concerning the climates of tidally locked planets with atmospheres, and that the mere fact of having an atmosphere helps prevent tidal locking.

Given that it has been shown that even a tidally locked planet near a red dwarf can have a temperate climate, I'd say it's time to discard your bell curve.

That's why I don't see where you get that number. Apparently, you're not reading my posts.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
If there is "every reason" [to expect that alien zoologists have known about our planet and its lifeforms for a very long time], could you list some of them? I'm not aware of a single reason to believe that.

I didn't think it would be so difficult.

Your statements were that any aliens who might exist would have no reason to be especially attracted to our solar system.

I say, yes they would.

Here's why:
1) Humanity is young, being a mere 100 years past its first powered flight.
2) Despite being so young, humanity has already begun analyzing distant exoplanets for signs of or probability of life.
3) Alien civilizations able to traverse the stars can probably accomplish most anything that humans (just a few hundred years into their scientific revolution) are already doing.
4) Therefore, any aliens would know quite a bit about us before even getting here.

I'm definitely not the most concise writer, but I'm not sure how to make that much clearer.

originally posted by: Harte

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

Harte

It can be grim either way...


1. Lots of space faring aliens: If life follows set patterns then there is no reason to spend a ton of resources to come to us since life is everywhere.

2. Few space faring aliens: they will most likely never find us since they got billions of planets to explore. Maybe probes at best.

I keep asking two questions...why do they need to come to us, and why if they did would they ever stay hidden after spending all that time and resources to do it?

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

Here's why:
1) Humanity is young, being a mere 100 years past its first powered flight.
2) Despite being so young, humanity has already begun analyzing distant exoplanets for signs of or probability of life.
3) Alien civilizations able to traverse the stars can probably accomplish most anything that humans (just a few hundred years into their scientific revolution) are already doing.
4) Therefore, any aliens would know quite a bit about us before even getting here.

I'm definitely not the most concise writer, but I'm not sure how to make that much clearer.

So you are assuming they just came to us in the very resent past then and are somewhat close to us. Also, determining if a planet can support life is much different than knowing what kind of life is on the planet. We are on such space faring species in 4.5 billion years of earths history, and these aliens just happen to know we are here at the right time too? They also never had a need to leave anything even a mark on the moon? For some reason it seems people think an alien will have a human like brain, I would guess that intelligence can go a billion directions.

originally posted by: Harte

Of course I read your post. In it I see that you know how to paste an image into your post.

Yet you failed utterly to even notice that the probabilities I gave were relative...If you believe you read my posts; you're the only One.

That doesn't give the image (your bell curve) any validity, however. There is more to the development of intelligent life than climate.

Your knowledge and understand of mathematical and probabilistic method, and principals is amazing!

As is amply indicated by your understanding here...

I also noted that in the same post you revealed you were unaware of recent findings concerning the climates of tidally locked planets with atmospheres, and that the mere fact of having an atmosphere helps prevent tidal locking.

Given that it has been shown that even a tidally locked planet near a red dwarf can have a temperate climate, I'd say it's time to discard your bell curve.

That's why I don't see where you get that number. Apparently, you're not reading my posts.

Not so fast...all you are doing is demonstrating that very cold and small stars can indeed support life, that was never in question...unless the star is also very young...what is in question is the level of complexity...

a reply to: Animula

Are you here to have fun?

Obviously. Aren't you?

If you don't think what you saw was extraterrestrial, why bring it up? No-one is denying the reality of unidentified flying objects.

a reply to: largo

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

Yes, this does indeed suggest a limited understanding of the -- ahem -- matter.

originally posted by: tanka418

Looking at earth as example, it seems that the reptilian type life tends to be the bigger evolutionary direction and if we didn't have the extinction event there is a good chance mammals would not have had the chance to evolve as they have done on earth. Also it seems that our species has been rather unique in the evolutionary process, so on your bell chart I'm not understanding what you mean by advance sentient life. Besides humans there isn't much on our planet that one would suggest is on a path of achieving space fairing. Even when you look at apes and monkeys most have not changed much in the last 10 million years. Orangutans as example, broke off from chimps about 10 million years ago and their path is not going very well in the direction of what we would suggest is a space faring species.

I really think a combination of physical and mental attributes to achieve advancement is something that is rather rare even when a planet might be like earth that can allow evolution billions of years to do its thing.

Intelligence is something I feel is not a needed evolutionary trait passed a point of carnivore skill level unless there are circumstances that drive it. In our case we are slow and weak and develop extremely good language abilities along with our opposable thumbs that allowed us to evolve our intelligence more, or go extinct. I really can't say this would be a typical norm for evolution to follow, and really has not been the case at all in 4 billion years of earth's evolutionary history.

I feel like I've spent a lot of time looking at the UFO topic and the case's that raises my eyebrow, if true, are when nuclear missile sites are allegedly disarmed. The explanation I come up with, is that it was Cold War propaganda. That the US was actually working on tech to disarm Russia's nukes and used the alien cover to hide behind. That the US may have had some sort of drone capabilities with an EMP device or something. They tested in on NATO allies/in the USA under the UFO cover and then sought to use it on Russia in order to neutralize their nuclear capabilities. Which the USG has been obsessed with since Russia obtained nukes. They still are.

Since computers have progressed, digital imaging etc I find it hard to even seriously consider all the new video footage out there. There would have to be a very reliable source/back story. I've gone through everything from Bob Lazar to the so called UFO ranch. Nothing has really jumped out at me as verifiable alien technology. I suppose if this proof existed it wouldn't even be debatable.

Is there a thread on here containing what "believers" consider to be the best available evidence? Consolidated into one thread. I've read about the school in Africa, various pilots, the Phoenix lights, Roswell, the missile sites, a couple of the popular abduction stories, Bob Lazar etc.

What I hear a lot is 95% of the UFO reports are hoaxes or people are simply mistaken. What I'd like to see is a centralized/consolidated list showing the other 5%.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

Of course I read your post. In it I see that you know how to paste an image into your post.

Yet you failed utterly to even notice that the probabilities I gave were relative...If you believe you read my posts; you're the only One.

That doesn't give the image (your bell curve) any validity, however. There is more to the development of intelligent life than climate.

Your knowledge and understand of mathematical and probabilistic method, and principals is amazing!

Even more amazing is the amount of confidence you invest in a claim because someone has given their opinion of the distribution of intelligent life across various star classifications.

One thing I didn't mention - you failed to cite your source. Why is that?

Who on Earth "knows" the probability of occurence for "advanced sentient life" in the universe?

Do you believe that evolution naturally leads to advanced intelligence?

Please give me the source of your bell curve.

I pointed out that recent findings basically blow the entire idea you promoted completely out of the water.

If I was a believer, I'd say you have a closed mind and can't "think outside the box."

originally posted by: tanka418As is amply indicated by your understanding here...

I also noted that in the same post you revealed you were unaware of recent findings concerning the climates of tidally locked planets with atmospheres, and that the mere fact of having an atmosphere helps prevent tidal locking.

Given that it has been shown that even a tidally locked planet near a red dwarf can have a temperate climate, I'd say it's time to discard your bell curve.

That's why I don't see where you get that number. Apparently, you're not reading my posts.

Not so fast...all you are doing is demonstrating that very cold and small stars can indeed support life, that was never in question...unless the star is also very young...what is in question is the level of complexity...

No, what is in question is any form of life at all.

Can you explain the reasons you limit "complex life" to the types of stars you prefer?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

One thing I didn't mention - you failed to cite your source. Why is that?

Who on Earth "knows" the probability of occurence for "advanced sentient life" in the universe?

My source...you are right I didn't mention that did I?


My source: Logic, common sense, an understanding of advanced mathematics and probability, decades of statistical analysis, my own research.

How much research are you doing? What is the nature of your research?

I pointed out that recent findings basically blow the entire idea you promoted completely out of the water.

Your "recent findings" aren't actually findings, they are theoretical statements based on physics...you think I haven't included such concepts!?!! Think again!

The "things" you think of as "findings" are at the very same level of actual science as my bell curve. The reason is that science currently has no way to measure the effect you are referring to, just as it will be difficult to measure my theory...they both are theories, and until I see better technology for the remote measurement of stars and their planets, I ill continue to be a wee bit skeptical of such things as you have presented. Please remember, I'm currently working with the best technologies for finding these sort of thing...you are not!

What sort of technologies are you employing in your research?

Or do you rely on just about any ole scientist that says what you want to hear?

Can you explain the reasons you limit "complex life" to the types of stars you prefer?

You are aware, I hope, that certain processes, such as chemical reaction, and other physical events can depend on the amount of available energy. The smaller, colder, dimmer a star is; the less energy it contains. It appears that the more complex a life form is, or can be, the greater the energy from that life form's "Star" (energy source) is required for evolution.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Intelligence is something I feel is not a needed evolutionary trait passed a point of carnivore skill level unless there are circumstances that drive it. In our case we are slow and weak and develop extremely good language abilities along with our opposable thumbs that allowed us to evolve our intelligence more, or go extinct. I really can't say this would be a typical norm for evolution to follow, and really has not been the case at all in 4 billion years of earth's evolutionary history.

Intelligence is a naturally occurring phenomenon; it appears as a consequence of living, and survival. Predators must become more intelligent in order to "out wit" their prey. Prey, if they wish to survive, must become more intelligent in order to "out wit" the predators.

Predators necessarily must work harder to catch and kill their dinner, so...the race begins. What is interesting is that, based on observation, limited as it is, the predators seem to come out on top...

originally posted by: JeanPaul

I feel like I've spent a lot of time looking at the UFO topic and the case's that raises my eyebrow, if true, are when nuclear missile sites are allegedly disarmed. The explanation I come up with, is that it was Cold War propaganda. That the US was actually working on tech to disarm Russia's nukes and used the alien cover to hide behind. That the US may have had some sort of drone capabilities with an EMP device or something. They tested in on NATO allies/in the USA under the UFO cover and then sought to use it on Russia in order to neutralize their nuclear capabilities. Which the USG has been obsessed with since Russia obtained nukes. They still are.

The problem is that neither the military, nor tech industry would test anything in that manner.

The military would not use their hardware for such a test...not knowing the outcome it would be considered too risky...after all; what do you do if it works to well...all that hardware now dead, for ever!