The silence of ET

JadeStar

Dynamitrios
reply to post by JadeStar

 

hmmmm, really? how can we say that, if we only have earth as comparison?

Because since Copernicus the trend has been that if it has happened here it has happened elsewhere.

We used to think the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around us, we then thought our solar system was unique and everything revolved around it, then we learned we were just one star in a huge galaxy and then that that galaxy was part of a cluster of galaxies and even later still that that cluster was part of a supercluster and that that supercluster was only a tiny part of the structure of the universe.

We thought water and organic molecules, the stuff that makes up life, were unique to the earth and found they are actually some of the most common molecules in the universe.

So it's simple logic, that there is no reason it hasn't happened elsewhere across many worlds in similar ways. And we know a bit more what to look for even though it is "only based on one example" that one example is probably more common than any of us realize.

Of course we might look for it and find something completely different but still a form of life.

An example from the exoplanet world was that the two guys who looked for planets around other stars in the US were not the ones who made the first discovery. They made an assumption that their technique would take several years to produce useable data because they based it on our solar system. Since they could only detect planets the size of Jupiter they were going to look for them in Jupiter type orbits.

Lo and behold a Swiss team made no such assumption and found these oddball planets the size of Jupiter and larger orbiting very close to their star. So they were the first to make the discovery of another planet around a normal, sunlike star.

The two US guys went back through their data to see if they had detected the same planet and sure enough, it was there.

Had they not made their assumption that it would take many years before they had a couple full orbits of potential planets then they would have looked at their data much sooner, and made the first discovery.

Instead, they confirmed the Swiss team's discovery.

It should be noted that they went on to make plenty of discoveries of their own and are among two of the leading figures in that research.

The above story tells us two things: One -should- look for stuff close to the one example we have, otherwise its hard to design an experiment. You can only look for what you know. However, you should go one step beyond that if possible and be careful not to make any assumptions that cause you to miss what's actually detectable.

everything else is unproven theory... so we can determine the way the universe works by only observing earth and it s conditions? agian ... too earth-centric

The laws of physics and chemistry are the same throughout the universe. I thought that was common knowledge.

edit on 26-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

Haha you have hit one of my other favourite subjects, the power of Perspective.

Imagine you had a looking glass, and you move that glass in and out in front of your eye to look at something in your hand.. Things become blurred or focused. Then you love that glass closer to the ground, and move your eye up and down to the glass. And the world becomes clear again.

Perspective is a powerful thing. To learn fundamentally new things we often have to alter our perspective.

The problem is that most people, including scientists, always see things first from the Earth's perspective.

Well that doesn't make a lot of sense when you figure out that Earth is 1 of at least 10 billion planets in the Milky Way Galaxy!

There's a hell of a lot more perspective to go around.

Here's an interesting example I was thinking about recently. Look at your friend or your work colleague. Maybe they are much older than you , or a different sex or race, uglier or prettier, taller or shorter. They are different to you. Very different you think. We all know that we are a unique mix of genes and that makes every one of us unique. Yes, we are unique.

But what happens when an alien arrives on our planet? What does he see? A bunch of animals that all look pretty much the same and the same biological limiations. They look at our DNA and discover that our DNA, far from being very different, is 99.9% the same.

We are essentially clones. Pick one for your research, it ain't important which what with 7 billion walking around to choose from.

Whoops. There's perspective.

JadeStar

Please read this paper.
arxiv.org...

One of our favorite stars is on it. I think it will help you understand why things seem so "illogical" to you.

Ya know it would really help If the words "theoretical", "hypothetical", "expected", etc. weren't there The presence of such language leads one to think hat y'all really have little idea what's going on.

No the article didn't do much to address my "fears" rather seemed o support the notion that "star age" is at present; VERY hypothetical.

In fact; I should like to ask, "What are you sing as a "standard" when measuring / computing chronological age?

Also, answer this: "Why do you seem to accept the oldest possible age, as the "working" age of a star? Data analysis would prefer something a bit less radical, the reasons I use the average age (computed from a stars extreme age limits).

You'll note, our favorite target is no less than 4 billion years old.

And quite likely older than that but no more than 8 billion years old.

No, actually I noted that one age of our star was 2.06 billion, another says 1.5 billion, yet another say 8 billion. I'm saying 4.75 billion ((1.5 + 8)/2)

In my opinion, as a data analysis, 4.75 billion is right on the mark; until we have better data.

There is a chrospheric age and a kinematic age. Usually these don't disagree but in some cases they do. Its the job of astronomers and astrophysicists to understand why.

A color age and a movement age? So, do old stars need a walker like I will in 15 yrs? Somehow I doubt it. So what's the deal with old stars and the way they move?

Does a stars color fade with age? I know that with age a star can become dimmer, we have plenty of examples of stars growing old and burning up their fuel, But how much is actually known about that process, has it ever bee observed? Perhaps the Zeta(s) Reticuli began life as "K" class star, and cooled off over their 8 billion yrs. Any other stars like that?

Dynamitrios
reply to post by tanka418

 

thats cyclical logic... an old star doesn t warrant life... even a habitable planet does nt neccessarily bring forth life... thats a too terrestrial approach.. also.. what exactly is "alien" life? of course we don t recognize it, if we are looking for life similar to us... life can take on SO many forms, even such we caNt recognize as such...


good thread btw.

Did I say that an old star won't have life? Or did I indicate that an old star might not have advanced space faring life?

And, if a planet can even remotely support life; it has life! Life is ubiquitous.

If you look at all the diverse life forms extant right here on Earth, you will notice one thing right away; now similar they all are to each other.

Out in space; ET, in what ever form he manifests; will share all of the fundamental properties that life here on Earth have. The physical requirements won't change, even IF some of the properties do. For instance; ET will still need an some sort of environmental support system, ET will still need to consume food (energy), ET will need water, warmth, probably atmosphere. He will at some point begin to worry about the supply of these needs, he will recognize the need to reproduce.

He will likely fight wars over resources, and perhaps one day be as advanced as Terrestrial Humans. Or maybe he already is.

The thing is that there really aren't that many possibilities. Nature right here on Earth did not take the "random" route to evolution, it would be somewhat illogical to think that other worlds were completely random.

Life, all life, even extraterrestrial life is based on DNA; that being one of the very best ways to encode "life data", though it would appear that error correction is a bit lacking. There are a finite number of ways these elements can encode; after all there are only 4 elements, and even with the double helix, the combinations are quite limited.

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


Were you planning on eating him?

Besides occasional amazing otherworldly aerial display's of vastly technological superior starships in our skies --- the otherworlder's have been noted by me --- too communicate with the carving of geoglyphs, laser holographic imagery, possible hydroponic wave experiment's on isolated seashores and subtle forms of mental telepathy.

reply to post by ForteanOrg


'Aliens' often look human because they are hybrids employed by aliens. Even if there are aliens here we cannot attribute all paranormal phenomena (ghosts) to them. Some paranormal events are caused by native spirits. It gets complicated. We seem to have-

1. Native human spirits
2. Humans living physical lives
3. Alien spirits
4. Alien spirits living physical lives in bodies appropriate to their nature
5. Hybrids

I personally agree with the ants analogy, although to us they do seem smart in their own ways, yet we don't go explore a remote ant hill somewhere wasting time and resources.


If aliens or whatever do have capabilities to travel the universe/multiverse, they might be more interested in learning rather than teaching. The same way us humans want to learn what else is out there, rather than waste time/energy/universe resources on teaching whats already been taught or will be learned.

Think about this, if we were to discover 2 different civilizations living on 2 total different/opposite planets on opposite sides of the universe, one of them hundreds or thousands of years more advanced than us with mindblowing technology/knowledge, and the other very primitive, sticks and stones kind of civilization, and due to budget constraints and limited resources (energy needed to travel) we could really only reach out to 1, which race would we go for? I would think we would go for the one more advanced to try and learn.

I would think that aliens travelling the universe would view us as primitive compared to them, and possibly we are hundreds or thousands of the same species scattered around the universe, nothing new to them perhaps.

We have answers from Et..but it depends on You and your state of being.. if you believe it or not.


Its a kind of game we are playing.

We are masters of limitation..and forgetfullnes.


They will make contact if mass consciousness is ready.

IN DEPTH explanation of ET ...

why they did not make contact yet


Please listen to it..even if you think Channeling is not real...its at least a good explanation

JadeStar

Puzzuzu
reply to post by yourignoranceisbliss

 

Another good way of understanding our ET situation.

However, I've never been a fan of this analogy that is repeatedly used of ants vs humans, in relation to humans vs aliens. Ants are a tiny form of biological life which limits their intelligence, but they also exist and operate as a hive mind. And while yes they are stupid in some respects, they are far more advanced in so many other respects. Look at our malfunctioning society compared to their uniform and perfectly functioning one.
We as humans might like to big ourselves up, but we also are ignorant to our own stupidity, and to the fact that we could learn a lot from species we consider to belong under us.

When you are talking about a species that is likely a few million to several billion years ahead of us in terms of biological and/or technological evolution you really ARE talking about the difference between ants and humans.

There are solid science based reasons to suspect advanced aliens won't simply be a few hundred or a few thousand years ahead of us. Mainly because our Sun and our solar system are fairly young compared to most of the stars in our Galaxy.

It's far less likely that we'd encounter someone close to our level than someone as far beyond us as we are from ants.

That doesn't mean we wouldn't be of interest to them but we don't go trying to make contact with ants. We wouldn't even know how to "talk" to a hive they are that alien to us and we are that alien to them.

There's your answer.

Consider the way Indigenous Australians have been treated by the White colonizes... They believed them stupid and un-evolved humans, whereas in reality, they had knowledge of other things that the Western mind can't comprehend or come to terms with.

Anthropomorphizing human - alien contact by using a human - human contact is automatic fail in my book.

The gulf between white colonizers and the indigenous Australians in reality was very little. From an ET perspective they pretty much would be one and the same just with slightly different technologies.

At the end of the day, both were human with the same human needs, motivations, environmental stressors, and mortality. There was a commonality of the human condition between them.

This is nothing like what the gulf between two species which evolved on two different planets light years apart with perhaps very different environments and separated by a billion years would be.

Throw in the fact that one species might be immortal or a machine intelligence and you have even less in common.

This has long been an argument used by UFOlogists. But times have changed and with it so have theories!

Mankinds science on earth has advanced enough for us to understand that time-travel or faster than light travel is not so black n white.

I believe that we fail to comprehend that maybe this universe and it rules (that apply to us), aren't the end-all/be-all of existence. Have you ever wondered what if aliens/ufo's are simply from a different dimension and not just from far far away?

Just watch this

Puzzuzu
1. There is no such thing as ET and what many have recorded and claimed to see are in fact natural
phenomenon that can be explained with science. - I know this not to be true, because I have seen one at close range. So let's start with the assumption that there are UFO's

2. Aliens are observing us, yet are staying hidden because:
a) They know how the human race reacts in confrontation with anything foreign and how cross-cultural interactions have been played throughout history.
b) They want to see how humans evolve without a superior species messing with a natural progression
c) The human race is their creation/experiment and to involve themselves is to ruin the experiment
d) They are learning everything about us to either kill us, enslave us or know how to interact with us.

I have always had a problem with the "They are here and observing quietly" aka the Prime Directive Argument. In my mind, the Cosmos is 99.9999% bare in terms of life and 99.9999% of any life found would be so basic as to have no communicative value. A species so advanced as to be able to travel to another star and so driven with ambition to even attempt that wouldn't hide once they found something even remotely capable of communicating.

3. They have made contact with world leaders/Illuminati/TPTB etc. and they are:
a) in cahoots with them
b) They know disclosure would dismantle the establishment

I just reject this argument based on the fact that the Government can't hide or even manage anything competently.

4. ET is really the human race in the future who have developed time travel and they cannot interact with the present 'us' without influencing 'them'.

Such an interesting theory. Unfortunately there is no supporting evidence and it's just a theory, you could make up any theory and it'd be as plausable as this one. I could say that Aliens are actually dry land avatars of Dolphins, who have a mega advanced structure at the bottom of the ocean and are observing us using things they've created. Equally as interesting and equally as baseless.

5. Aliens are trans-dimensional beings/ spiritual beings that have limited agency over this realm of existence either by their own limitations or the limitations enforced by a Creator.

If we were playing Horseshoes, this one would probably be the winner...the closest. To me the Fermi Paradox is very strong. It's not a "where are they all? well we just haven't heard them yet" type of argument. IMO the conditions for intelligent life in a sustained environment able to create advanced technology is far more scare then most of us would like to admit. I know people like to think that of the billion stars in our galaxy there must be 1000's of advanced species. No basis for this assumption, but if I had to wager if there were 1000 advanced species per galaxy or just 1, I'd pick 1 every time. Nature if nothing else has a consistency of logic to it. The galaxy is a womb, millions of possibilities and one winner. I'd guess we are the winner and we can ponder all of these advanced questions because we are around to do so. NOW there could be one winner per dimension in a given space, in which case we will never come into contact with intelligent life in our dimension...but interdimensional communication and interaction, I wouldn't rule that out and probably where I'd put all of my stock as the closest thing you have here to the answer.

Let me know what you think ATS. Do you agree with one or many of them? Or do you have others? I'd like to know

Don't know why I decided to make this my first post after lurking here for so long, but I felt a strange compulsion to, so hopefully it yields some nice results.

kauskau
IN DEPTH explanation of ET ...

why they did not make contact yet


Please listen to it..even if you think Channeling is not real...its at least a good explanation

So that's Bashar...I'd never listened to him before. I just sorta thought "a channel; must be full of ..."

I should have listened to myself; that was the biggest load of rubbish I've heard this year. Not a single statement made in that bit of audio was even remotely true; on any level.

By the way; ET made first contact over 66 years ago.

reply to post by tanka418


he is not talking about individual contact.. Than you are wrong..they made contact thousands of years ago..


Its about contact that the majority will know about...and: no ..no contact yet in that sense.

I give it maximum 10 years from what i know...

reply to post by kauskau


8000 years ago there was general contact with Earth, there were colonies, cities built by ET, and used by all.

For some reason all this failed, and the course of Terrestrial development changed and slowed.

And, I would give the return of "general contact" till spring.

MadHatter364
This question of yours is pretty much the same one Enrico Fermi asked himself at one point in his life: "Where are they ?"

The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.

Here are 11 of the weird solutions to the Fermi Paradox

Its funny but they ignore one other possibility, what if we or our far far distant ancestors wiped all other life out of our stellar or galactic neighborhood, came to earth and settled down... then did something stupid that threw us back into primitiveness.

There may be no aliens because we killed em all, it would be an interesting development.

They are following space treaties (politics) not to interfere with developing civilizations. Some have broken the rules or have been careless though.

again another good answer

reply to post by combatmaster


It doesn't matter if the aliens are from a different dimension or far far away.

That doesn't really change anything. Being from a 'different dimension' doesn't mean anything anyway. You cannot 'come from a different dimension' other than come from another universe or some other point in time. Read some physics books.

This other dimension stuff is just mumbo-jumbo. All things have to obey the local physical laws. The need to add this pseudo-mystical explanation is an extreme wrong turn in ufology. Complete waste of time.


We already know time travel exists, it's a natural function of the speed of light, however the problem is going fast enough to exploit the effect and it is relative i.e. you don't go back in time so much as speed up or slow time relative to each other.

So many people don't understand this, that if you travel at close to the speed of light you can easily travel to the stars and back in your lifetime, but the people you left at home may all be dead. Time passed at different rates relative to the observer.

ManInAsia
reply to post by combatmaster

 

This other dimension stuff is just mumbo-jumbo. All things have to obey the local physical laws. The need to add this pseudo-mystical explanation is an extreme wrong turn in ufology. Complete waste of time.

Lol... hahaha

You DO know that the motto here is 'Deny ignorance'.

What if something is not 'local'. Does it then have to obey the physics laws? Even if this something is not physical?

Calling something mumbo-jumbo just because you cannot comprehend the idea is ignorant IMHO!

ManInAsia
reply to post by combatmaster

 

This other dimension stuff is just mumbo-jumbo. All things have to obey the local physical laws. The need to add this pseudo-mystical explanation is an extreme wrong turn in ufology. Complete waste of time.

edit on 29-11-2013 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2013 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)

oh my god....."other dimension stuff-mumbo jumbo"..."physical laws"..

You are not ready son