What are the chances of discovering alien life?

a reply to: Blue Shift

If you are going to lie through then why say/show/or tell them anything at all?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Blue Shift

If you are going to lie through then why say/show/or tell them anything at all?

Exactly! Now you're getting it. If you're a super-advanced "alien" from another planet, why abduct the Hills at all? Why mess with their minds and conduct crude experiments on them? Why do any of that? And why the Hills specifically? See what I'm getting at?

If your answer is that we can't expect to know the logic and motivations of aliens or compare them to ours because they're aliens, then that is my answer, too. Because we don't know jack about aliens, how can we attribute specific behaviors to them that somehow "prove" they're aliens?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Think there is some speculation as to parallel universe existing only a few millimeters away from our own comparatively speaking.

The stars being rather far away in both distance and time, i imagine if Aliens do exist then they hail from another dimension as opposed to being extraterrestrial in nature.

Then again, any entity that fits the bill of being extradimensional might not have the same problems navigating space-time as we seem to have.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Oh, not this old saw again.

Yeah, but it is still viable, nearly proven theory that is backed up with real world data, so...

But consider this. Even assuming that the map is accurate (which, as you say, is still debated) how do you know for sure that the "little people" who allegedly abducted Betty and Barney Hill weren't just flat-out lying? They never specifically said where they were from, and I recall them being quite cagey about it.

Well, ya got me, I don't know if they were lying, but, it doesn't matter. I do know this, they were not from Earth. I know this because there are stars on the map that weren't known until the early 1990's. So Betty didn't know they existed, neither did Ms. Fish, and neither did Dr. Sagan! Yet, they are on the map. Along with several other stars, and 20 or so planets.

And, for what its worth; I'm not so sure they were from Zeta Reticuli; that is just what "fits". It could be that they are from HIP 26737 another class G2V star...and the "point of view" for the map.

Has alien life or alien activity been detected on or near any of the points of the map? What would that even constitute?
To make the jump from "A" (the map) to "B" (aliens), you have to make a whole lot of assumptions that aren't backed up by any evidence at all.

So tell me exactly what assumptions "have" to be made?

That the map is of extraterrestrial origin? That is readily demonstrated.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Blue Shift

If you are going to lie through then why say/show/or tell them anything at all?

Exactly! Now you're getting it. If you're a super-advanced "alien" from another planet, why abduct the Hills at all? Why mess with their minds and conduct crude experiments on them? Why do any of that? And why the Hills specifically? See what I'm getting at?

If your answer is that we can't expect to know the logic and motivations of aliens or compare them to ours because they're aliens, then that is my answer, too. Because we don't know jack about aliens, how can we attribute specific behaviors to them that somehow "prove" they're aliens?

Actually if you look at thousands of abduction reports and do research on it, one will immediately notice that the reported so called "aliens" are a lot like selfish and self serving humans in many ways, even more so by far. Lacking in compassion and other higher virtues as well in a majority of cases. Of course that is assuming the phenomenon is real. If you don't believe that it is occurring, then the matter is moot anyways so it is irrelevant.

There are many obvious reasons why many "aliens" (that we know about because of reports taken at face value) will behave in ways that are similar to humans. One of those reasons is the instinct for survival being a universally shared trait causing life forms to act on their own self interests just like humans often do.

a reply to: R1CK3O

You might find this TED video interesting:

www.ted.com...

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Archivalist
Yeah, no. There is evidence, depending on where you set your bar. Whether you're an actual astronomer, chemist, astrophysicist, biologist, or just a "ufology" researcher, there is a lot of supporting evidence in any of those fields.

Zero evidence. Lots of conjecture.

Life exists on Earth.
1 Data point

Extrapolate for all planets.

You imply life on any given planet has quite a ridiculous occurrence rate, that can be justifiably rounded to zero.

Well... I'm alive. So I can't round that to zero. Maybe when I'm dead though.

Planets with similar circumstances are being found every few weeks now.

Organic matter is present across multiple planets in our own solar system. Organic matter doesn't mean active life, but everywhere that we DO know life exists, has it.

Titan has big ol' methane pools. Quite a nice thing if you were a bacteria that ate methane.

We have found these facts, with scientific instruments, tangible data, and actual research. To call it a "conjecture" is a disservice to all those involved.

I don't paint in only black and white, with my brush.

a reply to: Archivalist

Remember to factor in how many times high intelligence evolved on Earth, the perfect host for high intelligence. 1 over how many billions of species? If it was likely to occur and an outcome or product of evolution, where is it besides humans? Basic life is most likely to exist on other planets, high intelligence, not so much.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: TrueBrit

We must use inference from scientific advances in telescopes and spectroscopy as a starting point.
Throwing all your effort into propulsion technologies would not make sense. Where to actually go and look instead of looking everywhere will be vital to the success or failure of any search (assuming life does exist somewhere out there).

I disagree here. You use that propulsion technology to start exploring our solar system with a lot more ease. If not for the search of life then for understanding what’s in your neighborhood.

Then you can worry about using the satellites to point us in a direction much further away.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Archivalist

Remember to factor in how many times high intelligence evolved on Earth, the perfect host for high intelligence. 1 over how many billions of species? If it was likely to occur and an outcome or product of evolution, where is it besides humans? Basic life is most likely to exist on other planets, high intelligence, not so much.

The only thing that makes that a tough argument is that you’re assuming other planets have a similar number of species (and we have 8.7 million known species - maybe 11 on the high end). What if a planet was 500x larger than earth and had trillions of species (or even a billion species!) - suddenly the probabilities shift in favor of intelligent life existing.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

How long did it take "high intelligence" to arrive on Earth?

How old is the universe?

If your argument hinges on life probably exists, but probably isn't smart, that is the most correct viewpoint, but is not a 100% certainty. It doesn't negate that some would still have intelligent life, and when factoring in that life may have existed or WILL exist eventually of high intelligence, the numbers change again in favor.

All that needs adjusting, to accommodate my point, is time. We have had and will have a lot of time. (Drake Equation had relevant timings factored in.)

a reply to: oldcarpy

I think you are right to a degree.

However, lets say that a scope discovers a planet that can support life, shows signs of it, but no confirmed sightings of actual creatures of any kind. Now, that puts us in a tricky position, because we have trace evidence, but no confirmation, and here we are, sitting on our planet, not going anywhere or able to send any kind of mission to actually observe the planet from ground level.

We could easily miss sentient beings if they were not carbon based, as we are, or if they expressed their intelligence in a different manner. For example, say a species had realised well in advance of becoming technological, that altering their planet would render it eventually uninhabitable, or feared the effects of conflict on the environment, enough to absolutely refuse to progress technologically, and instead decided to pump all its resources into advanced evolution, taking control over the way cells divide and how they are programmed, without the need for medical intervention. They could meld directly into the environment, become part of their planet in a more intrinsic fashion. Perhaps incredibly advanced fungal life, capable of altering its environment for its own benefit, without destroying its inherent properties, could have developed recognisable intelligence, and again, we would not know without being PRESENT on the planet to find out, because fungus just reads as simple life from a chemical perspective. It does not mine resources, does not use nuclear fuel, does not burn fossil fuel. No scope would tell us anything about that species, no matter how smart and advanced.

a reply to: UKTruth

But we already have starting points. The closest star, then the next closest star, then the one after that, in every direction and all directions, starting right here in our solar system, and working outward.

We must explore everything we can physically reach, regardless of what our scopes say, or the possibility of finding life. There is more to discover out there in any case, than other sentient life. Examining the dynamics of other solar systems up close, no matter what they contain, will be far more educational than looking at them from a distance. There is data to glean from such examination, that cannot be acquired from here on Earth, even allowing for a thousand more years of telescopy development.

Perhaps when our scopes can perform the same tasks as as scanning electron microscope, telling us the contents of every small particle on a planets surface, or see right to the guts of every star, protostar, gas giant, solid body and energy field, that will change. But right now, and for the foreseeable future (by which I mean the future as foreseen by futurists and scientists, not the ordinary individual on the street) the only proper means of exploring this universe, is to go out into it and look under the rocks we find there.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Archivalist

Remember to factor in how many times high intelligence evolved on Earth, the perfect host for high intelligence. 1 over how many billions of species? If it was likely to occur and an outcome or product of evolution, where is it besides humans? Basic life is most likely to exist on other planets, high intelligence, not so much.

You're right...although in such estimates I've tended to go with stellar class, type, and age when it comes to higher intelligence. With age being a "big" factor.

It took Earth 4.6 billion years to evolve a nearly space faring species, and most of the big steps happened because of a nearly extinction level event. We don't have much data available for other planets, but, I think that using Earth's 4.6 billion as a sort of guide may work...for now.

Doing a quick query into Hipparcos I found that out of 118,000 stars there are only about 2439 or so that are within the age range. If we limit that to the appropriate stellar class and type and limit distance to 35 parsec the number becomes 241. So, out of 118,000 stars, there are approximately 2% that might evolve the kind of life we are looking for...and be close enough to interact with someday.

originally posted by: james1947
That the map is of extraterrestrial origin? That is readily demonstrated.

You have a low threshold for proof because you want it to be true.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: james1947
That the map is of extraterrestrial origin? That is readily demonstrated.

You have a low threshold for proof because you want it to be true.

No, not really...

What you "see" as a low threshold is in reality science and mathematics in action...or I could say that you have "data bias"; but, that doesn't get us anywhere...

So how about you enumerate those assumptions you spoke of (if they really exist), and attempt to use real logic, science, math, etc. to show where I'm wrong...seriously man, I get kind of tired of y'all trying to use baseless BS against science and math. in an attempt to build a foundation for your fantasies. If y'all are so sure the map isn't of ET origins; kindly prove it!!!

And, I suppose that brings us back around to where this started; You insisting I'm wrong, but unable to demonstrate it, and me stating an unpopular, and inconvenient reality, and providing proof in the form of Computer science, Astronomy, Astrophysics, and mathematics...tell me which is better; a collection of words with no backup, or foundation? Or scientific data and mathematics? Which of those two should One believe?

"What are the chances of discovering alien life?"

Guaranteed, if you go to the U.S. southern border, with a pair of night vision binoculars.

a reply to: R1CK3O

I've met the aliens thousands of times & the obstacle preventing the world from knowing about them is forums like this on the internet where critics silence every person who has had contact. Every forum is dominated by critics who break all the forum rules & abuse the abductees or people who have encountered something from out of this world.
Every forum without any doubt is owned & run by evil ignorant cockroaches who sit back & smile as every bit of knowledge is destroyed by critics. And critics have nothing of their own to give except darkness & ignorance.
This site is no doubt exactly the same. The mods & admin are complete ignorant monsters who allow people to be abused & molested if they come forth with stories of their encounters & abductions. This is possibly the worst site in the world for such abuses & it is sites like this that keep the world in the terrible state of ignorance that it is in.
So as my first posting here I would like to tell the Admin & Mods that they are the worst people in the world & I am sure they will burn in Hell

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: james1947
That the map is of extraterrestrial origin? That is readily demonstrated.

You have a low threshold for proof because you want it to be true.

He might but I Have a hard time logically deducing we’re the only game in the universe. It’s a really big place - really big. So big we can’t really grasp the bigness - that makes me say law of large numbers applies and somewhere there’s life at minimum as intelligent as we are in terms of advancement. Doesn’t mean we’vd Found them/that they’ve been here. Just that they’re out there.

Question/comment.

Question: are you all approaching this from the assumption that intelligent life would behave/look/etc. similar to us and that habitable planets are like earth?

Statement: I wonder if that is how people think about it - that they end up with similaraties to us that drive our thoughts for what it should look like. For instance, I’ve thought about the notion that maybe space isn’t exactly a friendly place and maybe life doesn’t want to be found - stays tucked away because they know something we don’t. I do make the assumption that all living things posses the innate desire to live and defend themselves, however. If that’s the case, imagine a universe full of intelligent life that’s fighting for resources on a cosmic scale against other intelligent life - it would be a constant state of defense/offense. So, if you want to grow your population and survive, you stay as undetected as possible.