Quote :

"Again, with the End of History of Science. Humankind does not and cannot define what may or may not be according to the Universe. Such a stiflingly ignorant statement makes more sense coming out of the mouths of religious zealots. What makes us qualified today to make these reasonable determinations? A couple hundred years of applying math to our powers of observation? "

I think it's more zealous to assert that something is likely inevitable when the evidence is pointing the opposite way. Sure, something can change the flip things around, but that's the more faith-based angle.

Quote :

"Is that so unbelievable? It's simply presuming that the universe can operate according to principles yet undiscovered by mankind. Whether due to our limited recorded observations in our history, limited sophisticated experimentation, or even more broadly, the VERY limited portion of the electromagnetic spectrum we as a species can perceive; the argument is not an embracing of any particular theory so much as a recognition of our limitation to accurately understand, perceive, and describe the universe. "

Is hyperspace unbelievable? In the scope of physics, yes. In fact, there's kind of an adage in physics where whenever you come across an infinity in an equation, it represents a gap in understanding. The areas in physics where alternate dimensions (slightly different than an alternate universe) come up are gaps in understanding. It takes a leap of faith to presume that it would allow for an actual real-world space-time gate.

I would LOVE to see new evidence that changes this, but it is just not rational to put hope above reason.

Quote :

"The Cesium experiment is one of many like it. Do what you will. It's a proximate field, and there are other examples like it on Google. "

Other examples using group velocity though.

I'm not saying it can't or it won't happen. I'm saying the way things are going now, it's more likely to be not-possible than to actually be possible, and when discussing aliens, it doesn't make more sense to say they must have FTL drives, over saying they don't (it doesn't necessarily make less sense either though).

I think it's extremely likely there's other life out there, but it's extremely unlikely that other life has visited Earth.

Quote :

"Here's a great one where physicists literally stopped light nearly a decade ago. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/lightstop_010119.html "

That is a legitimate experiment but has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

4/9/2008 1:52:00 AM

Quote :

"I think it's more zealous to assert that something is likely inevitable when the evidence is pointing the opposite way. Sure, something can change the flip things around, but that's the more faith-based angle."

You say inevitable here again as though FTL methods required our observation, or even understanding, to exist. Astronomers could have said the same thing about black holes in the 1960s for the same reason.

Quote :

"moron: In fact, there's kind of an adage in physics where whenever you come across an infinity in an equation, it represents a gap in understanding."

So...about that c and why FTL travel is impossible again.

Tell the class (or feel free to Wikipedia it if moron doesn't come through):

What would happen to any object's mass if it accelerated to light speed?

Quote :

"moron: It takes a leap of faith to presume that it would allow for an actual real-world space-time gate."

Why?

It takes a similar leap of faith to think a bunch of primates would get together and build a functioning rocket ship from scratch given a few thousand years.

Quote :

"moron: I'm not saying it can't or it won't happen. I'm saying the way things are going now, it's more likely to be not-possible than to actually be possible,"

Wat.

I'm pretty sure the inertia of human understanding has absolutely zero influence over the laws of nature.

Quote :

"moron: and when discussing aliens, it doesn't make more sense to say they must have FTL drives, over saying they don't (it doesn't necessarily make less sense either though)."

As I've already observed, they're not required to. But it makes a big difference when considering the odds they may be aware of our planet or our existence.

Quote :

"moron: I think it's extremely likely there's other life out there, but it's extremely unlikely that other life has visited Earth."

Why?

Are the aliens too dumb to leave their planet in any significant capacity like us?

Not curious enough to explore beyond their own solar system?

Not enough species to have reached our area?

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 2:16 AM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2008 2:15:03 AM

Quote :

""I think it's more zealous to assert that something is likely inevitable when the evidence is pointing the opposite way. Sure, something can change the flip things around, but that's the more faith-based angle." You say inevitable here again as though FTL methods required our observation, or even understanding, to exist. Astronomers could have said the same thing about black holes in the 1960s for the same reason. "

We are currently in the process of studying the underlying physics, and what it says now (and the foreseeable future) is that it's not possible. It's not like this is something we can't even begin to speculate on, from the physics angle.

Quote :

"What would happen to any object's mass if it accelerated to light speed? "

At asymptotically approaches infinity. The gap in understanding is just that: a gap. The filling may be that the universe turns to grape jelly, for all we know. But it does nothing to support the idea of FTL being possible, when we even know that to even approach light on a material scale is impossible.

Quote :

"It takes a similar leap of faith to think a bunch of primates would get together and build a functioning rocket ship from scratch given a few thousand years. "

Not really, if you were studying those primates and tracking their evolution and biological capabilities.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure the inertia of human understanding has absolutely zero influence over the laws of nature. "

Yeah, but the laws of nature have a profound influence on our understanding.

Quote :

"Why? Are the aliens too dumb to leave their planet in any significant capacity like us? Not curious enough to explore beyond their own solar system? Not enough species to have reached our area? "

Primarily, there's no good evidence aliens have visited us.

4/9/2008 2:33:04 AM

Quote :

"Primarily, there's no good evidence aliens have visited us."

4/9/2008 7:31:59 AM

WARNING: Words.

Quote :

"moron: I think it's more zealous to assert that something is likely inevitable when the evidence is pointing the opposite way."

Who said it was inevitable?

Possible has a totally different definition. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Quote :

"moron: We are currently in the process of studying the underlying physics, and what it says now (and the foreseeable future) is that it's not possible."

Simians with Tarot Cards and calculators do not define the laws of the Universe. The Universe has never cared a bit for what you, me, or the Scientific Apostles consider impossible.

As best we can tell to date, the Universe exists in 7 dimensions humans cannot perceive (M-theory), beyond the human illusion of forward-moving time itself (look it up), and hides 96% of its total energy density in forms that we aren't able to detect (dark matter/energy).

Yet, you postulate that after only a couple hundred years of white Cro-Magnons applying math to their observations from only the surface of one unremarkable planet, that we've figured this inconceivably large and complex system out well enough to be able to dictate what it can and cannot do?

Really?

We must be a lot smarter than our behavior indicates. Or the universe a lot less complex.

Maybe I just live in a different universe. I sure don't know how to make a rock arrive somewhere before I throw it. But, I see that as a limitation of my understanding, not a limitation on the Universe's capacity for it to be possible.

Quote :

"moron: It's not like this is something we can't even begin to speculate on, from the physics angle."

I agree, but speculation's a totally different story. Rational speculation, I'll argue, is about the best humanity's ever been able to accomplish; and it's always had the ability to describe, but never to define the laws of nature. That's just fundamental science.

There's no finality in any established scientific dogma. Sorry.

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." - Niels Bohr

That's the philosophy here.

Quote :

"moron: At asymptotically approaches infinity."

Wrong, but close enough. The Lorenz equations actually reveal it equals infinity at c.

Infinite mass at the speed of light. Rocks, trucks, atoms. Anything.

Seems like a pretty big fucking gap.

Bohr would've said: "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress!"

Quote :

"moron: But it does nothing to support the idea of FTL being possible,"

Never said it did. Of course, it does wonders to attack your hypothesis (admittedly, generally accepted dogma) that FTL travel for massive bodies is impossible. Heavier than air flight was viewed the same way little more than a hundred years ago.

Possibility is a big word in my vocabulary, and I don't think it's something human beings ever define so much as speculate on.

Quote :

"moron: when we even know that to even approach light on a material scale is impossible."

Oh we know this, do we?

How?

Bonus points if your answer doesn't resemble Edison declaring the incandescent light bulbs impossible after attempt number 9,999.

The existence of phenomena can precede human measurement of it, right?

Quote :

"moron: Not really, if you were studying those primates and tracking their evolution and biological capabilities."

Excellent answer. Still doesn't explain why we shouldn't believe hyperspace, wormholes, or as-yet-undiscovered similar phenomena can be technologically exploited to create real-world space-time gates. Even if we die off long before we can figure it out. But maybe now you'll address this question:

Quote :

"Gamecat: What makes us qualified today to make these reasonable determinations?"

Also note the similar leap of faith in the belief in wormholes, even though Einstein's theories implied their existence. Same with black holes before they were "observed." Likewise the existence of the outer planets before they were directly observed. All three conclusions were mathematically derived. Only 1 has been directly observed, another indirectly, and the other remains on the "probably true" drawing board.

But really...did Neptune manifest into existence just because some asshole pointed a telescope at it? Or black holes?

Quote :

"moron: Yeah, but the laws of nature have a profound influence on our understanding."

Obviously. So does our limbic system.

You've still yet to remove yourself from the "our understanding of the laws of nature" = "the immutable laws of nature" cult. And you consistently lean back on the inertia of scientific discovery for cover on this point. Hazardously, I'll add.

You're playing the part of Einstein a hundred years ago, arrogantly proclaiming that God doesn't "play dice" or allow FTL travel for massive objects. I'm simply playing the part of Bohr, and insisting that you--monkey man--stop telling God (in my case, the Universe) what to do.

Quote :

"moron: Primarily, there's no good evidence aliens have visited us."

Well and good, and I see agentlion has tagged along, so I hope the both of you pay close attention to this. It bears repeating that this was your reply to my request for clarification when you said "I think it's ...extremely unlikely that other life has visited Earth."

If that's all it takes for you to call an event extremely unlikely, then after a few million years it'll be extremely unlikely that you visited the Earth at all, unless of course, you're lucky(?) enough to end up fossilized AND your fossils are observed.

What "good evidence" would be left that you ever visited Earth? Or Disney World?

And don't give me this nonsense about other people's remains or some evolved offshoot of humanity's continued existence proving that you were ever around. That'd be quite irrelevant to the question.

Taken one step further, let's say you become an astronaut in the future and Dave Chapelle sends you to Mars (bitches). You land, you experiment, you leave your footprints, dig up a soil sample or two, then return home.

What "good evidence" would be left that you ever visited Mars?

I ask because the surface of Mars is subject to some pretty violent, widespread, and recurring dust storms. Your footprints, landing gear prints, and soil sample holes would likely be long gone within the span of your own lifetime. It'd take an exhaustive survey of that planet from dust grain to dust grain for anyone to stumble on the type of evidence it'd take to convince an otherwise rational scientist that the planet had been visited by an intelligent species.

After the Earth is fried when the Sun goes Red Giant, they'd also have no reason to believe any life nearby could've been responsible for anything they could find in the first place.

---

I'll be up front with you.

I don't know whether it's extremely unlikely, or even unlikely that other life has visited Earth. I have no doubt in my mind that it's possible.

The abundance of life on Earth and our own species' ability to "personally visit" the Moon (with the capacity to go further) given only a few thousand years make me even a little bullish on the possibility that others could do it better, faster, and billions of years before we evolved. What's more, we didn't even need to be here when they visited.

I just find your simultaneous belief in the extreme likelihood of extraterrestrial life, but the extreme unlikelihood that it could have visited Earth hypocritical given the generally accepted "age" of the Universe. Maybe it's just an outgrowth of some arrogant belief that we're the swiftest kids in the Universe, too. I don't know.

The ET-visitation hypothesis is the boogeyman, I suppose. Your own personal scientific heresy.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 2:29 PM. Reason : looks as good as it's gonna]

4/9/2008 2:26:37 PM

It would be pretty fucking hilarious if Religion started with two aliens and one of them going like:

"Hey Xritchukkiikuaaakkaakaka, watch this."

4/9/2008 2:30:17 PM

Quote :

"The Universe, you'll need to remember, is not only stranger than you imagine. It's stranger than you can imagine."

Hey. It's possible.

That reminds me of a short story I outlined but never wrote. It postulated our universe began as a much broader version of The Sims. The opening line was:

When Snarfat clicked Run...

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2008 2:53:57 PM

Quote :

"As best we can tell to date, the Universe exists in 7 dimensions humans cannot perceive (M-theory), beyond the human illusion of forward-moving time itself (look it up), and hides 96% of its total energy density in forms that we aren't able to detect (dark matter/energy). "

Oh man, I feel like i'm watching a bad History channel documentary on time travel.

String theory is purely mathematical and has no observational basis, and AFAIK, has yet to actually predict anything. It's an interesting idea, but also has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

And in all of physics, even string theory (which goes up to 11 or 12 dimensions), there is only 1 temporal dimension, and all rational theories showing it moving in 1 direction (although most theories work out mathematically going both ways-- which is not surprising at all).

Quote :

"Still doesn't explain why we shouldn't believe hyperspace, wormholes, or as-yet-undiscovered similar phenomena can be technologically exploited to create real-world space-time gates. Even if we die off long before we can figure it out. But maybe now you'll address this question:"

I didn't say we shouldn't believing. What i'm saying is its highly improbable for macroscopic FTL travel to exist. In normal space, you're not going to break the light barrier, period. There's not a shred of research that suggests otherwise. There's not theoretical basis for hyperspace (that i've ever come across). There IS a theoretical basis for wormholes, but it involves moving one end to your locations using conventional means (which means < c) first, then you can go FTL through the wormhole.

Quote :

"You're playing the part of Einstein a hundred years ago, arrogantly proclaiming that God doesn't "play dice" or allow FTL travel for massive objects. I'm simply playing the part of Bohr, and insisting that you--monkey man--stop telling God (in my case, the Universe) what to do. "

Ha, i'm not saying it's impossible. What i'm saying is that it's foolish to think that FTL travel is an easy thing, which is what you're saying when you imply that matter being infinite is an easy obstacle to over come. As easy as flight, breaking the sound barrier, or theorizing relativity. And this is not based on nothing, this is based on what the majority of physicists will tell you today. They could all be wrong, but they have a lot of good evidence, both from research and theory, that points to it being unlikely.

Quote :

"What "good evidence" would be left that you ever visited Earth? Or Disney World? And don't give me this nonsense about other people's remains or some evolved offshoot of humanity's continued existence proving that you were ever around. That'd be quite irrelevant to the question. Taken one step further, let's say you become an astronaut in the future and Dave Chapelle sends you to Mars (bitches). You land, you experiment, you leave your footprints, dig up a soil sample or two, then return home. What "good evidence" would be left that you ever visited Mars? I ask because the surface of Mars is subject to some pretty violent, widespread, and recurring dust storms. Your footprints, landing gear prints, and soil sample holes would likely be long gone within the span of your own lifetime. It'd take an exhaustive survey of that planet from dust grain to dust grain for anyone to stumble on the type of evidence it'd take to convince an otherwise rational scientist that the planet had been visited by an intelligent species. "

These are interesting questions, but have nothing to do whether good evidence exists of aliens visiting us or not (unless you mean they were here billions of years ago before anything remotely primate-like). The fact is, there is no good evidence aliens were here, at least not to visit or tamper with us. And especially not any good evidence that aliens have been here in the past few hundred years.

Quote :

"I don't know whether it's extremely unlikely, or even unlikely that other life has visited Earth. I have no doubt in my mind that it's possible. "

I've never disputed it wasn't possible, because it certainly is. Just not likely, given what we know.

Quote :

"I just find your simultaneous belief in the extreme likelihood of extraterrestrial life, but the extreme unlikelihood that it could have visited Earth hypocritical given the generally accepted "age" of the Universe. Maybe it's just an outgrowth of some arrogant belief that we're the swiftest kids in the Universe, too. I don't know."

I'm still not clear on what you think I think, but this is not an issue that people haven't thought about. I would even be willing to bet that we've spent millions of dollars (literally) researching this same question.

The primary reason it seems unlikely is the scale of the universe. It's BIG, really, really, really, really BIG. Another factor you have to consider is that our solar system is pretty run of the mill in terms of its chemistry, and the formation of celestial bodies is kind of a bell-curve distribution of types of planets (with the center curve being normal stuff that we can see everywhere in space, and the outlier being crazy things that we can't even conceive of), which means that things that are the same age are going to undergo similar developmental cycles. Which means a planet a billion years developmentally ahead of ours (the planet/solar system itself, not the life) is a billion light years away from us. Which also means, considering "Big Bang" theory (universe expands outwards), that as the probability of advanced life developing increases, so does the probability that life will be farther away from us.

And even if you assume that this alien society does develop hyperspace travel, considering the probability of how far away they are from us, what makes you so arrogant to think they'd pick us to visit, instead of a very-likely-to-exist nearer neighbor, that will be closer to them technologically, or perhaps some planet more interesting than ourselves?

Sure, on this distribution, there could be outliers that just advance amazingly quickly. But the most likely case, looking at just the numbers, suggests we haven't been visited.

4/9/2008 9:17:17 PM

Quote :

"moron: Oh man, I feel like i'm watching a bad History channel documentary on time travel."

I'd think you could do a better job refuting my arguments or answering my questions then.

Quote :

"moron: String theory is purely mathematical and has no observational basis, and AFAIK, has yet to actually predict anything. It's an interesting idea, but also has absolutely no bearing on this discussion."

You raise an interesting point with this. And I'll grant what you say with respect to it making no predictions as of yet is absolutely true.

The point first: From what physical model do you hypothesize that the Earth hasn't been visited by alien species in the past?

As a seeming from ignorance argument, I think we ought to clarify your position before granting you the title of King Scientist.

Secondly, though String Theory posits 11 dimensions, I'd argue we perceive 4 of them--a.k.a. the space-time continuum--which leaves 7 we do not.

As for time, from Wikipedia:

Quote :

"In physics and other sciences, time is considered one of the few fundamental quantities.[2] Time is used to define other quantites – such as velocity – and defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition.[3] An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, has a high utility value in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured."

Time doesn't flow. We notice entropy and call the distance between our "notices" time.

Also from Wikipedia (Arrow of Time):

Quote :

"The psychological arrow of time is thought to be reducible to the thermodynamic arrow: it has deep connections with Maxwell's demon and the physics of information; In fact, it is easy to understand its link to the Second Law of Thermodynamics if we view memory as correlation between brain cells (or computer bits) and the outer world. Since the Second Law of Thermodynamics is equivalent to the growth with time of such correlations, then it states that memory will be created as we move towards the future (rather than towards the past)."

We're still stuck describing the undefinable Universe.

You also manifestly failed to refute the fact that according to your own current Church of Physics about 96% of the Universe is unobservable mass and energy.

Pride in our achievements shouldn't give way to false confidence in the completeness of any scientific model. This is especially true when that model is based on only relative comprehension of 4% of the reality itself. Quantum theory never would've moved an inch had the "clockwork" views of the prior millenia not been drowned in the lake.

Quote :

"moron: What i'm saying is its highly improbable for macroscopic FTL travel to exist."

Based upon what conclusion?

This is more "trust" the inertia of our understanding. Frankly, our current understanding of FTL travel's prospects could prove, due to the blessed gift of objective scientific skepticism, flatly incorrect. Any day.

That's just life in a Universe that human understanding doesn't control.

Quote :

"moron: In normal space, you're not going to break the light barrier, period. There's not a shred of research that suggests otherwise."

Nah. No research. Just the implications of General Relativity, again, like Wormholes.

Quote :

"An important point to note is that in general relativity it is possible for objects to be moving apart faster than light because of the expansion of the universe, in some reasonable choice of cosmological coordinates. This is understood to be due to the expansion of the space between the objects, and general relativity still reduces to special relativity in a "local" sense, meaning that two objects passing each other in a small local region of spacetime cannot have a relative velocity greater than c, and will move more slowly than a light beam passing through the region. (See Option F below)"

Quote :

"moron: There IS a theoretical basis for wormholes, but it involves moving one end to your locations using conventional means (which means < c) first, then you can go FTL through the wormhole."

Did you just pwn yourself here?

My argument here is that if the Universe provides the possibility, technology can exploit it to a species (or one of its members') will over a long enough timeline. That's just innovation.

Quote :

"moron: Ha, i'm not saying it's impossible."

Quote :

"moron: when we even know that to even approach light on a material scale is impossible."

Your account getting hijacked or something?

Quote :

"moron: when you imply that matter being infinite is an easy obstacle to over come"

Citation plz.

Quote :

"moron: And this is not based on nothing, this is based on what the majority of physicists will tell you today. They could all be wrong, but they have a lot of good evidence, both from research and theory, that points to it being unlikely."

The weight and inertia of our ignorance again defines rather than describes the laws of the Universe.

Now, about those other intelligent species out there--whom you've already admitted exist, even if they don't give a fuck about us.

What qualifies you to speak on behalf of their scientific discovery about the laws of the Universe?

Backing up a tad, what physicists of the 18th Century have been able to speak on the technological possibilities of the present era?

What doth thou meanest "particle accelerator?"

Quote :

"moron: These are interesting questions, but have nothing to do whether good evidence exists of aliens visiting us or not (unless you mean they were here billions of years ago before anything remotely primate-like)."

1) If they're interesting, please answer them.

2) Yes, they have a lot to do with the absence of evidence of alien visitation on Earth. Or on any astronauts visitation on Mars. All I've done is taken the concepts out of a vacuum and introduced a time variable. Hardly hack science.

3) They could very well have been here before anything remotely primate-like and for reasons having nothing to do with humankind.

But wait.

Why is that such a key in your mind?

Why is it so much more logical to presume aliens could've visited us in a theoretically less technologically-advanced time for them?

You tryin' to call ET a simian hater?

Quote :

"moron: The fact is, there is no good evidence aliens were here, at least not to visit or tamper with us."

That's a hell of a qualifier. It changes your entire argument. Please explain.

Quote :

"moron: And especially not any good evidence that aliens have been here in the past few hundred years."

Like most things, it depends on who you ask. Further, it also depends on who would have access to whatever qualifies as good evidence.

Mind, sufficiently intelligent species could visit--I'd think--without leaving evidence.

Quote :

"moron: Just not likely, given what we know."

Quote :

"Gamecat: Oh we know this, do we? How?"

We don't need to discover evidence for evidence to exist. We didn't need to calculate the orbit of Neptune for it to be a part of our Solar System either.

Quote :

"moron: I would even be willing to bet that we've spent millions of dollars (literally) researching this same question."

Oh wow. Millions? We've spent HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS trying to Democratize a certain Middle Eastern country. Not going so well. Throwing money at a problem and accomplishing results are two wholly different, and oftentimes, sadly unrelated issues.

Quote :

"moron: The primary reason it seems unlikely is the scale of the universe."

I argue the exact opposite. The scale is what makes it possible, and even likely. See below:

Quote :

"moron: Another factor you have to consider is that our solar system is pretty run of the mill in terms of its chemistry"

Exactly! And yet, it produced grand ol'humanity! WOOHOO! PARTAY!

The Universe has got to be absolutely teeming with living species. I'm glad you recognize this much. Adding other life means opening up the possibility--again--that an intelligent species could've evolved millions of years ahead of us. All it takes is a more stable system. We could've evolved by now and been literally a million year-old species.

Imagine another million years worth of Bohrs, Einsteins, Newtons, Gausses, and other giants upon which to advance our ability to describe the laws of the Universe. Another millions years worth of Edisons, Teslas, Fultons, Wrights, and Von Brauns to figure out how to practically exploit their descriptions of those laws to accomplish what many basically stupid people preceding them once called impossible.

Quote :

"moron: Which also means, considering "Big Bang" theory (universe expands outwards), that as the probability of advanced life developing increases, so does the probability that life will be farther away from us."

INTERSTELLAR SPECIES CLUB: SIMIANS ONLY (NO TRESPASSING)

:sigh:

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 10:56 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 10:47:21 PM

Quote :

"moron: And even if you assume that this alien society does develop hyperspace travel, considering the probability of how far away they are from us, what makes you so arrogant to think they'd pick us to visit, instead of a very-likely-to-exist nearer neighbor, that will be closer to them technologically, or perhaps some planet more interesting than ourselves?"

Once again, monkey-man. I'm not in the business of telling the Universe how to operate. That's church's job.

Might I humbly suggest that they, like we, may grow tired of their own neighborhood eventually?

That's all the speculating I'll do for now.

After all, why should I speak for an alien species?

Ask them when you find them. But first, you'll have to acknowledge their existence consciously enough to look for them. That seems to be quite the big step as it's required many KB of ASCII (sorry everyone) on the topic to get you to come to the point of curiosity.

Quote :

"moron: Sure, on this distribution, there could be outliers that just advance amazingly quickly. But the most likely case, looking at just the numbers, suggests we haven't been visited."

1) I've already made quick work of your "amazingly quickly" shit. Other planets mean other ecologies, other orbital systems entirely. I can literally substitute "human" with "dinosaur" from our own template and give us another moon to prevent the K/T asteroid from impacting us.

2) Let's not ignore the biological fact that human evolution has been geological and especially cosmological LIGHTNING in terms of its timescale.

3) What numbers?

4/9/2008 10:48:48 PM

Quote :

"Once again, monkey-man. I'm not in the business of telling the Universe how to operate. That's church's job. Might I humbly suggest that they, like we, may grow tired of their own neighborhood eventually? "

I'm not asking you to tell the universe what to do. Merely acknowledge what the universe has shown us thus far.

You can choose to throw your hands up and say "oh we'll never know," or attempt to take an educated guess.

Quote :

"Other planets mean other ecologies, other orbital systems entirely. I can literally substitute "human" with "dinosaur" from our own template and give us another moon to prevent the K/T asteroid from impacting us."

This is a whole 'nother issue entirely, heavy related to thermodynamics. But i'm sure you're not interested in hearing about that either. Just more "we'll never know, so why bother even trying thinking about it?" I guess we'll hear from you.

4/9/2008 10:59:59 PM

Quote :

"moron: I'm not asking you to tell the universe what to do. Merely acknowledge what the universe has shown us thus far."

Space-faring Simians. I get it. Why not space-faring non-Simians?

Quote :

"moron: You can choose to throw your hands up and say "oh we'll never know," or attempt to take an educated guess."

Like this one?

Quote :

"Gamecat: Might I humbly suggest that they, like we, may grow tired of their own neighborhood eventually?"

Which you laughably included in your quote, but obviously didn't read?

Quote :

"moron: This is a whole 'nother issue entirely, heavy related to thermodynamics. But i'm sure you're not interested in hearing about that either. Just more "we'll never know, so why bother even trying thinking about it?" I guess we'll hear from you."

Quote :

"Gamecat: 3) What numbers?"

I've thrown you a battery of questions for a reason.

You've copped out for a completely different one.

You seem to have mislabeled me as some ignorant fuckwit just because I don't slavishly worship at the Holy Church of Currently Accepted Scientific Understanding when I rather obviously have more than a basic command of the underlying scientific mechanisms--even if a more humble view of their completeness. If I've been wrong at any point in this thread, I've provided you (and any physics / bio major you can muster) ample opportunity to prove such.

Good day.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 12:03 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 11:45:09 PM

I'm not disputing that aliens could theoretically have visited us, or will visit us.

I'm saying it's just not likely that they have because:

1) There'd be more clear evidence we've been visited
1a) If a species had a million years or 2 million years on us, and had FTL travel, their tech would have a bigger signature or they'd have a bigger presence
2) Universe is too spread out
2a) Even with FTL travel, there's no good reason to think they'd find us at our current level

4/9/2008 11:56:14 PM

1) Why?

I've already given you a perfectly reasonable example that requires no leaps or bounds in understanding involving Mars and the future discovery through some rather rigorous sifting of their soil to find our "footprints."

1a) Why on both counts?

As good old Arthur Clarke observes, sufficiently advanced technology would look appear to be magic. Why a bigger signature? Rocketry isn't the end of propulsion, I hope.

Also, the nature of an alien species--going back to nutsmackr's point much much earlier--is incalculable. This raises lots of questions about whether they'd necessarily have a bigger presence on our planet. Maybe they aren't territorial. There's a thought.

Besides, as you've already wisely observed, what makes us, or even Earth, so damned special?

2) Too spread out? Considering two things:

- "Let's not ignore the biological fact that human evolution has been geological and especially cosmological LIGHTNING in terms of its timescale."

- If current technology (let's call it vacuum tube propulsion to illustrate the point), can get the space-faring simians to their nearest neighboring star in a measly few thousand years, what could technologically-produced wormholes (or a series of them) could do for a non-simian spacefaring species a few million years ahead of us?

- Even limited at c, WE would be able to make Alpha Centauri in 4.2 years flat. That's quite a compressed timeline to establish colonies. Especially when we consider building and sending multiple ships in multiple directions on a constant basis. ET doesn't even have to be close by in a cosmological sense when you take this into account.

2a) What does "our current level" have to do with any of this? Also what do "we" have to do with any of it? They could've been mining for gold for all I care. Something we seem to take pretty seriously on Earth anyway. We may have just been part of the scenary to them, if we were even here at all.

4/10/2008 12:15:27 AM

Quote :

"1) Why? I've already given you a perfectly reasonable example that requires no leaps or bounds in understanding involving Mars and the future discovery through some rather rigorous sifting of their soil to find our "footprints." "

If you're saying that aliens have come here long ago but didn't do anything, then I can't really argue with that. It seems to be a pointless thing to argue about. It would be like wondering if magical unicorns existed once upon a time.

But then where are they now? Why didn't they at least leave a space buoy? Of if they used wormholes, why'd they move the wormholes? Why not continue to visit us? Certainly we'd have been an interesting planet by the time our planet had been around for about 1-2 billion years? It still seems far-fetched to think this. But i guess stranger things have happened.

Quote :

"1a) Why on both counts? As good old Arthur Clarke observes, sufficiently advanced technology would look appear to be magic. Why a bigger signature? Rocketry isn't the end of propulsion, I hope. Besides, as you've already wisely observed, what makes us, or even Earth, so damned special? "

FTL is impossible with rocketry. But I'd think some type of hyperspace bubble (which is an extremely broad category of devices) would have a stronger momentary EM signal than pretty much anything we've ever discovered to date (except maybe a plasma jet from a black hole pointed right at us or a close super-nova explosion). It takes a LOT of energy to bend space-time.

They wouldn't have to be territorial. Considering the myriad of things that could obliterate life (which you noted in teh other thread), it makes sense to spread out, if you can.

Quote :

"Also, the nature of an alien species--going back to nutsmackr's point much much earlier--is incalculable. This raises lots of questions about whether they'd necessarily have a bigger presence on our planet. Maybe they aren't territorial. There's a thought."

And the nature of alien life is far from incalculable.

It'd most LIKELY be based on elements that are produced naturally and abundantly (which are a fairly small set of elements). It would have to have some self-replicating mechanism (an even smaller set of these substances). And it would also have to have an metabolic mechanism capable of sustaining a higher order life form (an even smaller set of those substances). Considering as well that organic molecules thought to be the precursor to DNA have just recently been found on comets and Enceladus (which means its probably all over the universe), it's not too far-fetched to think their guts might look vaguely similar to ours.

If you mean the political and social structures of their society, then that's more uncertain, oddly, but you can still make some reasonable guesses about that.

Quote :

"- If current technology (let's call it vacuum tube propulsion to illustrate the point), can get the space-faring simians to their nearest neighboring star in a measly few thousand years, what could technologically-produced wormholes (or a series of them) could do for a non-simian spacefaring species a few million years ahead of us? "

If someone were moving spaceship-sized wormholes around at near-light speeds, and sustaining them with energy, and they were near us, i'd think we'd detect them. Especially if they've been at it for millions of years (because that's enough time for us to detect a persistent energy signature of that magnitude). At the very least, it wouldn't be too hard to design an instrument to detect them (maybe in the next 30 years when we know more about what a wormhole might be, if it's possible).

Quote :

"- Even limited at c, WE would be able to make Alpha Centauri in 4.2 years flat. That's quite a compressed timeline to establish colonies. Especially when we consider building and sending multiple ships in multiple directions on a constant basis. ET doesn't even have to be close by in a cosmological sense when you take this into account. "

I'll have to check but that 4.2 years is AT c. We're no where close to c. And I recall reading something that even if we used anti-matter reaction, which has the best efficiency possible with conventional matter (the next step before hyperspace/warp drive), we'd still only be able to reach about 40% the speed of light using a relatively ungodly amount of antimatter, and it'd take at least 10 years.

Quote :

"Despite its problems, the Beamed Core drive seems a very promising way to get to other star systems, since it would allow accelerations of moderate payloads up to 40% light speed. This is sufficient to make the 40 ly journey to Alpha Centauri in 10 years. Obviously, though, it is a technology still many years in the future. "

-http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott%20Kircher/beamedcore.html

The fastest objects we've put in to space are apparently the helios craft at 250,000 km/h. The speed of light is 1.07925285 × 10^9 km/h . So you're looking at a very difficult and long journey for even 4 ly at sub-light speeds. Basically, without something that works outside the laws of physics of the universe, even near-light travel is too energy prohibitive with conventional matter.

Considering the Drake Equation conservatively puts the nearest likely intelligence at 100 lya, a civilization looking for other intelligent life would just be finding out about us to take a peek. A civilization looking for other habitable planets could possibly have found us a long time ago, and we might be on the list of places to visit. Assuming they had FTL technology, they could have visited us already and left (without making a mark), but they're not visiting us now.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 1:04 AM. Reason : ]

4/10/2008 12:52:58 AM

Quote :

"moron: If you're saying that aliens have come here long ago but didn't do anything, then I can't really argue with that. It seems to be a pointless thing to argue about. It would be like wondering if magical unicorns existed once upon a time."

Why?

You've said yourself you believe in ET. What's so "magical" about an advanced extraterrestrial life form that may have dropped in long enough to take a measly soil sample?

Quote :

"moron: But then where are they now?"

*shrug*

Wish I knew.

Quote :

"moron: Why didn't they at least leave a space buoy?"

Great question. Can't speak on behalf of anyone but myself, and being a simple Cro-Magnon and all, my capacities to abstract the thoughts and policies of unrelated species is understandably limited.

But maybe...just maybe...they have a map?

Or maybe they did. Maybe we just don't see it. Maybe it's made of dark matter (seriously).

Quote :

"moron: Of if they used wormholes, why'd they move the wormholes?"

Again, we're still speculating. But seems that leaving a bunch of wormholes around a populated universe might be as hazardous as leaving guns without trigger locks around children. They might have some sense of ethics preventing them from seeing that as a desirable outcome like we do. Maybe not, though.

Quote :

"moron: Why not continue to visit us?"

We can't be so species-centric. I know being a human and standing over the other animals gives us the warm fuzzies, but to a scientifically knowledgeable interstellar species, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if: (a) they didn't visit "us," but our planet, (b) if they did visit us, we weren't interesting enough to justify a lot of study, or even (c) they still visit us and we're either largely or totally clueless about it (as the fish are largely clueless about us until we yank them out of the water) by their own design, our design, or some combination of the two.

Quote :

"moron: Certainly we'd have been an interesting planet by the time our planet had been around for about 1-2 billion years?"

Maybe just interesting enough to catalogue. I don't know, really.

Quote :

"moron: It still seems far-fetched to think this. But i guess stranger things have happened."

Marinate on those numbers (or post them) for a while. It's not really that far-fetched. And in an extraordinarily large enough Universe, only possibility and probability are required.

Quote :

"moron: FTL is impossible with rocketry."

Oh.

Well yeah.

Quote :

"moron: But I'd think some type of hyperspace bubble (which is an extremely broad category of devices) would have a stronger momentary EM signal than pretty much anything we've ever discovered to date (except maybe a plasma jet from a black hole pointed right at us or a close super-nova explosion). It takes a LOT of energy to bend space-time."

There we go. If the natural equivalents or components exist, my argument is that technology can exploit it.

I'm sure it requires a lot of energy to travel the distances and time frames I'm talking. But I'm also convinced that "burning shit until its gone" and steam-turbines are not the end-all of power harnessing techniques. Otherwise, we may really be fucked with global warming.

Quote :

"moron: They wouldn't have to be territorial. Considering the myriad of things that could obliterate life (which you noted in teh other thread), it makes sense to spread out, if you can."

If that's the case, no need for a beacon. You may as well ask why dogs don't leave toilet paper lying around.

Quote :

"moron: And the nature of alien life is far from incalculable."

Eh? You've got the biological part nailed down. I didn't mean it that way.

Quote :

"moron: If you mean the political and social structures of their society, then that's more uncertain, oddly, but you can still make some reasonable guesses about that."

Whoa. This is what I actually meant. Can you? How?

Quote :

"moron: If someone were moving spaceship-sized wormholes around at near-light speeds, and sustaining them with energy, and they were near us, i'd think we'd detect them. Especially if they've been at it for millions of years (because that's enough time for us to detect a persistent energy signature of that magnitude)."

What energy signature?

Further, if they've been at it for a while, perhaps they've learned to put that signature into part of that dark part of the spectrum we don't notice. Maybe even part of the spectrum we know about, but can't directly observe. The electromagnetic spectrum is far vaster than the pictures of it on the wall in our high school Chemistry classes.

Quote :

"moron: At the very least, it wouldn't be too hard to design an instrument to detect them (maybe in the next 30 years when we know more about what a wormhole might be, if it's possible)."

Agreed fully. With the caveat that it's as possible as the existence of Neptune. Or black holes.

I'd honestly like to shed some light on this vast unknown mass that makes up more of the Universe than the part I'm familiar with. I wish I could even fathom what possibilities solving those puzzles unlock.

Quote :

"moron: 40% the speed of light using a relatively ungodly amount of antimatter, and it'd take at least 10 years. "

Well, again, I'm talking about a species that would look at rocketry like we look at vacuum tubes. But 10 years is still a cosmological blink, so I'll take it. Given the abundance of amino acids in space, even 10 year starhops as a fair enough indicator that somebody has to have stopped in and at least checked out a cloud, sniffed a tarpit, or something. At least once.

Quote :

"moron: Considering the Drake Equation conservatively puts the nearest likely intelligence at 100 lya, a civilization looking for other intelligent life would just be finding out about us to take a peek."

If they were even concerned with us at all. Even well-meaning believers in extraterrestrials often make the mistake of thinking we'd be more than goldfish to an advanced extraterrestrial species. Even with all our satellites and Internet.

Also, the Drake Equation, like any scientific law, just describes reality as best its originator, Frank Drake understood it. Not necessarily how it is. Like any equation, it can give bad results if you plug bad data into it. By current estimates, it says we ought to be communicating with 2.3 advanced civilizations right now. I don't see a lot of alien going on when I flip from channel to channel. I respect his work quite a bit, though.

Enrico Fermi's, too. In fact, this whole discussion would make him proud.

Quote :

"moron: A civilization looking for other habitable planets could possibly have found us a long time ago, and we might be on the list of places to visit. Assuming they had FTL technology, they could have visited us already and left (without making a mark), but they're not visiting us now."

Totally agreed. In fact, I've kinda been saying this from the beginning.

Given the short span of time humans have been writing things down (less than 10,000 years) in comparison to cosmological timescales, they could've even stopped in to hover over the Pacific for a hundred thousand years ago, disturbed nothing, then gone on the equivalent of summer vacation and missed the part of our evolution that differentiates us from the rest of the animal mob.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 1:42 AM. Reason : if only i didn't have to catch the flu to devote time to this discussion]

4/10/2008 1:34:46 AM

I approve of this thread. Please don't let this sidetrack your current scientific debate (or is it ).

I said on page 1,

Quote :

" I see no logical problem with the existence of aliens from a Christian perspective. We already know of the existence of aliens in scripture. Moreover, we already have partial evidence that their eternal fate is separate from that of mankind. I believe 1/3 of the angels followed Lucifer aka the Devil and the other 2/3 followed God. It appears to me that may be a permanent allocation of allegiance, but the Bible is not really written for angels so I can't be certain. Jesus Christ specifically came to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve. Hence, that sacrifice was for their progeny. If there are aliens then they may or may not be fallen races, if they have chosen to reject God as we humans did then it may well be that God finds a way to offer them salvation as He has done for us. Of course the Bible is silent on this issue because perhaps there are no aliens and even if there are the Bible is written for us not aliens. All of this said, the God of the Bible is far from anthropomorphic, so perhaps I digress from the point of the thread. As far as being made in God's image, there are a variety of understandings of that verse. I would like to think we are a homomorphism of God. We are an unfaithful representation, there is much that is lost in the portrait and only part of the structure is maintained. "

To which 392 responded (but I didn't notice till you guys started this epic sci-fi debate)

Quote :

"392 right, but are they also created "in God's image" like humans are?"

Not necessarily. He could create them lots of other ways.

Quote :

"mathmanCause how would people on other planets be saved from damnation by a messiah on our planet when their civilization had no knowledge and never heard of Jesus of Nazereth 392 exactly, if jesus is the son of god, then other alien "fallen races" must have their own [non-human] "god offspring" prophets, right? iow, IF aliens exist, and at least one is a "fallen race" (like us,) and the god of the bible is the only god, then isn't god "sleeping around" in that "he" "fathered" half-mortal "children" with other [non-human] beings? or do some christians then believe that if there are aliens, they must be human, like us and god? "

I have no idea how God would choose to interact with other races. The only example I have is with Angels. They also seem to have free will and the ability to choose to stay with God or follow Lucifer, aka Satan. Would other "aliens" also follow this pattern? I can't say.

Quote :

"mathman"All of this said, the God of the Bible is far from anthropomorphic" 392 how do you figure? the god of the bible is referred to as "he", "him", "father", etc. and "he" had a [half?-]human son, born of a human and even before that, "he" created (and presumably designed,) the first two humans "in his own image", right? that's pretty damn anthropomorphic anyway, I know that many christians do believe that god is human, that humans are the center of everything, and that if there are aliens, then they're also human, (like us, god, jesus, satan and angels, etc.) or that this means there can't be any aliens. (?) can any of you that happen to be literal creationists clarify this? (I know some of you lurkers disbelieve in evolution) (is this apparent inconsistency a major factor in some christians' belief or non-belief in aliens?) "

GrumpyGOP already addressed most of the misconceptions above. I'll add(or repeat as may be the case) that the "he", "him" etc... may not have as much weight as you give it. For example, angels are referred to as males but apparently do not procreate. The bigger point is that God is all powerful, all knowing, existing outside our infantile notion of time, etc... Moreover, the Holy spirit exists without bodily form. Sure their are aspects which appear human, but there are certainly many more which defy human experience.

I suspect the reason many literal creationist-types reject aliens is that they don't see evidence for them in the Bible. That is the Bible does not mention them. This is probably the biggest reason.

I am a fairly literal creationist type myself, but I wouldn't be bothered by the discovery of aliens for the reasons I have laid out already.

Now, please resume FTL debate, but be careful not to start again yesterday.

4/10/2008 3:57:16 AM

Ok, I should really sleep, but first a few questions/comments

1.) how does one calculate the probability of life from nonlife? Genuine question.

2.) for the wormhole technology, they could have a sort of space-muffler which shields the astronomical E&M radiation. Also maybe the energy is already trapped in spacetime's extra dimensions... you don't need fuel, you just need to help the vacuum reach a lower state. The muffler might be as simple as opening a pair of wormholes juxtaposed, perhaps they would mostly cancel each others' unwanted radiative signatures.

3.) I must agree with moron that current physics does not allow for FTL communication or travel, however I must also agree with Gamecat that current physics is woefully incomplete even by its own estimations.

4.) I love this thread. No comment tomorrow, I'm on the road sans TWW.

4/10/2008 4:12:11 AM

Quote :

" Why? You've said yourself you believe in ET. What's so "magical" about an advanced extraterrestrial life form that may have dropped in long enough to take a measly soil sample? "

I think moron's point is that this is an unknowable question, so there's really no point in attempting to argue definitively about it one way or another.
So say you're right - an alien being came to our earth 70 million years ago, took some pieces of dinosaurs, some soil and air and water, then left. So what? What the hell are we supposed to do with that information? I think we would mostly agree that the knowledge of alien visitation would really only do us any good if we learned something useful about them on their visit because of something they left behind or if they made communication with humans before leaving.

4/10/2008 6:44:37 AM

Quote :

"1.) how does one calculate the probability of life from nonlife? Genuine question."

ask a Christian. Scientists have no need or use for such foolish calculations.

As far a science is concerned, the probability that life has can can form from non-life is 1.

I will say, though, that one calculates this probability mostly by using made up numbers and unrealistic and biased assumptions, then using dubious mathematics to combine them all together

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 7:54 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2008 7:50:16 AM

Quote :

"mathman: 1.) how does one calculate the probability of life from nonlife? Genuine question.""

Two steps:

1) Look in a mirror,
2) If the answer doesn't immediately STRIKE YOU IN THE FACE, meditate on it.

Hint: The probability is always 1.

Quote :

"mathman: I suspect the reason many literal creationist-types reject aliens is that they don't see evidence for them in the Bible. That is the Bible does not mention them. This is probably the biggest reason."

Jung would go all out here explaining the parallels between Angels and Aliens. I've read extensively on this, but have yet to see a critical mass "holy SHIT they really were aliens!" point on anything I've come across. The Nephilim are suggestive. Ezekiels' wheels, too. Drawing scientific conclusions from that data is an incredibly risky business, though, if it's even possible at all.

Quote :

"agentlion: So say you're right - an alien being came to our earth 70 million years ago, took some pieces of dinosaurs, some soil and air and water, then left. So what? What the hell are we supposed to do with that information?"

Know that we aren't alone in the Universe? (Or even its prime time attraction.)

Know that they could come back? (Whether it has anything to do with us or not.)

Know that they could be here? (Same.)

Hypothesize that it's possible we're "being watched," so maybe we ought straighten up and represent our species better.

It's similar to how people may have reacted to Copernican theory. It didn't change the way the heavens operated, so nobody really needed to "do" anything differently after Ptolemy's theory went kaput. It's just changes your orientation, or conception of yourself and your species' role in a much MUCH larger Universe.

Quote :

"agentlion: I think we would mostly agree that the knowledge of alien visitation would really only do us any good if we learned something useful about them on their visit because of something they left behind or if they made communication with humans before leaving."

It'd be of greater utility, sure. But then, why would they care about being useful to us?

Again, we're the goldfish.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM. Reason : ...]

4/10/2008 11:46:49 AM

This is all very interesting.

I've always just assumed that I was created in the image of god, so if god ever appeared to me i wouldn't be shocked and staring at an alien. I also don't believe in 1/2 of what the bible says, b/c it's been screwed up too many times throughout the years by people who want money and power.
example: i don't believe in the 7 'day' creation periods. more like 7 eons of time.

In conclusion, I'm fairly certain that the creators of life on this earth aka 'gods', left life in many other places as well.
And it makes sense to be able to communicate with the life you created, so you make guys like noah/moses/ and other miracle workers or prophets to tell people about it and that talk w/ god.

/words

4/10/2008 1:59:18 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "agentlion: So say you're right - an alien being came to our earth 70 million years ago, took some pieces of dinosaurs, some soil and air and water, then left. So what? What the hell are we supposed to do with that information?" Know that we aren't alone in the Universe? (Or even its prime time attraction.) Know that they could come back? (Whether it has anything to do with us or not.) Know that they could be here? (Same.)"

my point was - say they did all that, but they didn't leave any evidence of such a visit. I guess my last hypothetical sentence and the word "information" threw that off.
i agree, though, that if we had evidence of such a visit, this would be a huge boon to science and humanity. But if that happened and we have no way of knowing about it and it doesn't affect our lives as humans today, then for all intents and purposes, it didn't happen. The only question then would be what would the aliens end up doing with the information they gathered on earth 70M years ago, but as far as we're concerned right now, it doesn't really matter.

Quote :

"Hypothesize that it's possible we're "being watched," so maybe we ought straighten up and represent our species better."

to refute my own previous sentence - yeah, ok. maybe this is true.

but this entire line of argument sounds a lot like the arguments for an against the existence of God. There is no evidence whatsoever that God exists, just like there is no evidence that aliens visited earth at any point in the past or present. Therefore to come to any probability that such a thing did or is happening, in the complete absence of evidence, is foolishness. Furthermore, this leaves us little reason to change anything we're doing now because we may or may not be being watched. i.e. an alien race who visited us in the past and left no record of doing so, who is still monitoring us so we might as well straighten up is exactly the same as saying there is a god watching us with his finger on the trigger to send us to hell if we don't get our act together.

4/10/2008 2:20:47 PM

wow, this thread has taken some interesting turns....

----------

so if we defenestrate the whole literal adam and eve thing, and view creationism as evolutionary,

then where in the transition from "soulless animal" to human was "god's divinity" involved?

and where you draw the line? at primates? mammals? dinosaurs? sea sponges? why stop there?

since it's so easy to accept the possibility, if not the likelihood, of extraterrestrial life,

couldn't god(s) or aliens be responsible for some sort of directed panspermia? or some other form of exogenesis?

or, on a different note, wouldn't it be possible for a sufficiently advanced alien or aliens to, in essence, be god(s)?

Quote :

"Jung would go all out here explaining the parallels between Angels and Aliens"

very interesting; like what?

4/10/2008 3:07:45 PM

Quote :

"if not the likelihood, of extraterrestrial life, couldn't god(s) or aliens be responsible for some sort of directed panspermia"

i don't think the idea of panspermia answers any significant questions, except of course how life got on this planet. But all that answer does is pass the buck on to another planet, so the question still remains how life got on that planet - so it doesn't really answer anything. Just a Russian Doll.

Quote :

"so if we defenestrate the whole literal adam and eve thing, and view creationism as evolutionary, then where in the transition from "soulless animal" to human was "god's divinity" involved?"

are you supposing here that evolution occurs, but is designed originally and is guided by a god, with the ultimate goal of humans? I guess that's a question for the theists or theologists to answer, and I'm sure they can find some passage somewhere that will satisfy themselves.
Of course, in a purely evolutionary/materialistic/humanistic world view, this doesn't matter because there is no such thing as a soul anyway, in humans or any other animal.

4/10/2008 3:58:19 PM

i love thinking about this stuff but it is definitely overwhelming at times. the idea that no matter what either 1) this universe (in some way shape or form) has always existed with no beginning or 2) there was absolutely nothing and then at some point spontaneously there was something, out of nothing...both of those are pretty hard to wrap my mind around.

4/10/2008 4:02:20 PM

Glad you're enjoying it, Rat.

For the record, so am I.

What you described about 'gods' leaving life in many other places sounds a lot like panspermia. It's a not-so-crazy theory about interstellar seeding of life. The less controversial side doesn't consider whether it's a directed process or not (asteroids are so full of amino acids that leaving it to a random process is all you really need). The more controversial side credits the aliens as directing the seeding of specific planets with the building blocks, or even RNA/DNA itself.

It's like Intelligent Design, but with aliens as the intelligence.

---
agentlion:

Read more about panspermia. I just read you post. No.

Quote :

"i agree, though, that if we had evidence of such a visit, this would be a huge boon to science and humanity. But if that happened and we have no way of knowing about it and it doesn't affect our lives as humans today, then for all intents and purposes, it didn't happen."

What?

This is still the equivalent of claiming Neptune doesn't exist because you haven't found it, yet.

Granted, I'd prefer we had a museum full of solid evidence of a visit. That'd make it a hell of a lot easier for everyone. But again, consider that aliens may not leave evidence of their visit. After all, when I left the cruise ship in Alaska last summer, the only evidence I was there were financial transactions.

But let's open the question properly before going over a cliff.

What qualifies as good evidence?

It's murkier territory than you'd think. Where do you start? What do you look for?

If these questions were given the scientific scrutiny they deserved--rather than being dismissed out of hand by the academic community, as has been policy since the late 1960's--we may even have some by now rather than foolishly waiting for vacuum tube waves. Who knows?

Quote :

"Therefore to come to any probability that such a thing did or is happening, in the complete absence of evidence, is foolishness."

So is it foolish then to assert the existence of God as most understand the term?

Scientists wouldn't know where to begin looking for proof of God or what they'd be looking for.

Scientists know pretty well what life looks like. We've got a mirror, a window, and a microscope for that. They won't give us the whole spectrum of possibilities, but at least they give us a start.

SETI's a joke, but it's only our first sophisticated try.

Quote :

"Furthermore, this leaves us little reason to change anything we're doing now because we may or may not be being watched. i.e. an alien race who visited us in the past and left no record of doing so, who is still monitoring us so we might as well straighten up is exactly the same as saying there is a god watching us with his finger on the trigger to send us to hell if we don't get our act together."

It presents a more rational basis for the idea than pointing at a many-times-retranslated-and-censored text that many academics can't relate to.

That said, I have no concerns with viewing the idea of belief in aliens or their visitation to Earth, humans, dogs, or trees as irrational. To such a tiny life form in a such an overwhelmingly huge Universe, I'd expect the irrational.

392

Good post. I don't know what a soul is. I've read many interesting theories.

I also try not to draw lines. Ask GrumpyGOP how many times I've reminded him that nations are enclosed by imaginary lines on a map.

Could god(s) or aliens be responsible for directed panspermia? Sure. It could also be random.

Could aliens be god?

Well. It's possible.

Have to get into Jung later. It's time to go gather bananas at the factory.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 4:09 PM. Reason : gone]

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 4:10 PM. Reason : ...]

4/10/2008 4:08:44 PM

Quote :

"So is it foolish then to assert the existence of God as most understand the term?"

ummm..... yes

foolish, irrational, illogical - whatever, pick your word. Point is, there may be a god, sure. And aliens may have visited us in the past or may be watching us now, sure. But to assert that either is true without any evidence or proof is [foolish, irrational, illogical]. Just as the assertion that none of these things could be true.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 4:18 PM. Reason : . ]

4/10/2008 4:16:19 PM

^ One's a testable hypothesis. Hence the question:

Quote :

"Gamecat: What qualifies as good evidence?"

When you answer that question, we can consider whether you've got any justification for claiming the two ideas are similar at all. You prefer conventionalism, I get it. But it's definitely an unconventional Universe. Ask a particle physicist.

You learned anything about panspermia, yet?

Also note that I haven't asserted anything. I've rationally speculated on possibilities.

I happen to believe some of them are likely, but what do I know? I'm just a simian goldfish on a sand pellet.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 1:18 AM. Reason : ...]

4/11/2008 1:05:02 AM

Why people debate this, I'll never know


You either believe in God or you don't.

You either have faith, or you don't

And you're either willing to risk your eternal soul in what I consider to be an arrogant, blasphemous, cowardly enterprise, or you aren't.

4/11/2008 1:09:55 AM

Eternal whodeewhatzit?

4/11/2008 1:19:16 AM

Quote :

"^ One's a testable hypothesis. Hence the question: Quote : "Gamecat: What qualifies as good evidence?""

hey, "good evidence" is like porn - "i know it when i see it", right?
anyway - in the case of alien visitation, I'll accept any plausible and verified evidence. The basis of my argument, though, was that "aliens visited here in the past but left no evidence of their visit". Therefore, asking for evidence against that statement is contrary to the premise of the statement to begin with. If aliens did or have visited here in the past, though, and they did leave evidence that we are able to discover, of course then it can be studied scientifically just like any other natural phenomenon.

but the claim of alien visitation, just like the claim of an existence of god, must be proved by the claimant, not by the dissenter. You (the collective you - i'm not accusing you) are making the claim, therefore it's up to you to prove that claim. You can't make an unverified claim based on no evidence, then leave it up to the non-believers with the impossible task of trying to prove a negative.

Quote :

"You learned anything about panspermia, yet?"

no, i haven't. If my previously held beliefs that panspermia is simply a sort of cross-planet-seeding of life is wrong, then I guess so too are my statements on it. judging from the length of the wikipiedia page on it, i guess there's a lot more to it, but I'm not that interested in reading it all right now.

4/11/2008 9:27:28 AM

Quote :

"hey, "good evidence" is like porn - "i know it when i see it", right?"

Funny, and somewhat true. But I question whether we'd even know it when or if we saw it. Hell, we could be seeing it now. But if we think it's a toaster, then dammit, it's a toaster. Just ask us. We'll break out diagrams and shit to "prove it."

Quote :

"anyway - in the case of alien visitation, I'll accept any plausible and verified evidence."

What types of "plausible" evidence?

Who legitimately verifies evidence?

I don't have any idea what you're looking for besides consensus opinion. That's never going to provide evidence of anything. Like I said, the problem here is that you have to define where to start. SETI, for example, thinks repeated patterns of interstellar radio wave transmissions work and limit their focus to that sliver of the EM spectrum.

What, for instance, could a person see that would evidence alien existence?

What could they hold in their hand?

What could someone actually measure and rationally conclude, "Y'know, this proves an alien stood on this spot/took a shit in the woods/whatever?"

Quote :

"the basis of my argument, though, was that "aliens visited here in the past but left no evidence of their visit"."

Gotcha. I was a little confused. So that hypothesis, while rationally valid, doesn't present a scientific question. This is definitely in ether/god territory as a result. Note how that doesn't discount its factual possibility whatsoever, though.

It's disturbing, but nonetheless true. Science simply doesn't define the terms of reality because of possibilities that exist beyond its domain.

Quote :

"If aliens did or have visited here in the past, though, and they did leave evidence that we are able to discover, of course then it can be studied scientifically just like any other natural phenomenon."

Maybe. We've still got to identify it as an alien artifact and worthy of further study. When does something normal or natural cross over into this territory?

If we think we've found a broken toaster, but it has a hidden button we never find that turns it into a black hole generator, all we'd conclude is that we found a piece of garbage. The farce illustrates the point.

Quote :

"but the claim of alien visitation, just like the claim of an existence of god, must be proved by the claimant, not by the dissenter. You (the collective you - i'm not accusing you) are making the claim, therefore it's up to you to prove that claim. You can't make an unverified claim based on no evidence, then leave it up to the non-believers with the impossible task of trying to prove a negative."

Right. This is why I don't assert. I speculate on possibilities.

I'm simply asking what types of evidence would satisfy the conditions of "proof." When you get around to answering that, as I said before, we'll move the discussion forward.

Quote :

"no, i haven't. If my previously held beliefs that panspermia is simply a sort of cross-planet-seeding of life is wrong, then I guess so too are my statements on it."

Planets are the destination in panspermia. You have that much correct.

The origin is interstellar space (asteroids, clouds, comets, etc.) where the amino acids are quite abundant. They arrive on different planets via collisions and passing within the reaches of atmospheres and gravity. The specific types that become prominent players on the planet are driven by evolutionary processes and basic ecology.

For example, 92 amino acids were found on an meteorite that crashed in the US in 1969. Big whoop, right? They probably climbed on after the meteor crashed. Except, only 19 of the acids discovered could be found on Earth.

Extrapolate from there. Even by random process, it's a fairly solid scientific theory surrounding genesis. No aliens needed or necessary.

4/11/2008 1:42:51 PM

Searching for your "plausible evidence" would result in little need for faith. Faith is needed to have the relationship with God.

You keep asking God for evidence, like He has something to prove to you. You either believe in Him or you don't, but be prepared for the unholy fires of Hell if you pursue a life of blasphemy.

4/11/2008 1:46:42 PM

^ Why?

I'd think it would just free us up to move on to bigger questions. That's the beauty of a permanently incomplete body of knowledge.

I suppose you could say that I have "faith" that aliens are real and have visited Earth before. I've certainly never seen an alien (to my knowledge).

Also, I don't ask God for evidence. Or much. Maybe a little help when my team's down with a few seconds to go. The occasional appeal for a curse on objects and people when they piss me off. In my experience, those requests are usually ignored.

No. When I want evidence, I go look for it. I just want to know what to look for.

4/11/2008 1:53:27 PM

Aliens never left you any gifts on Earth like God did.


His only son, our Lord Jesus Christ died on a cross for our sins and for you to be able to explore God's amazing creation.

you should just give a little credit where its due

4/11/2008 2:00:45 PM

The only "plausible evidence" that will be delivered in our time is evidence of a changed life in the people around you. What's really unfortunate, is the kind of static seen here ^^^ in response to someone earnestly looking for God.

4/11/2008 2:02:41 PM

Are you saying you deny the existence of God and the sacrifices of our Lord Jesus Christ?

4/11/2008 2:06:21 PM

Are you kidding?

4/11/2008 2:07:28 PM

That's like asking if I'm a communist.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:15 PM. Reason : i'm not going to fall for your religion-baiting, dude]

4/11/2008 2:09:36 PM

Gamecat you strike me as more than a little pink

and honkyball, you either tow the line for the gospel or you get out of the way

4/11/2008 2:10:50 PM

Quote :

" For example, 92 amino acids were found on an meteorite that crashed in the US in 1969. Big whoop, right? They probably climbed on after the meteor crashed. Except, only 19 of the acids discovered could be found on Earth. Extrapolate from there. Even by random process, it's a fairly solid scientific theory surrounding genesis. No aliens needed or necessary. "

ah, ok. well that changes everything. In passing, i had thought that panspermia was the seeding of full life on an otherwise lifeless body.
but if it's actually just the combining of the building-blocks of life (proteins, acids) that have originated in different parts of the universe under their own geological and evolutionary pressures, then combining them in one place like Earth, which then come together to eventually form life, then yeah - sounds as reasonable as any other creation-of-life theories.

4/11/2008 2:12:21 PM

^^ Which is hilarious because it's about as close to the polar opposite of my political philosophy as you can guess. Likewise asking Honkeyball about doubting God, the Christian gospel, anything Jesus-related, etc.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM. Reason : it's like it's permanently opposite day with you]

4/11/2008 2:12:42 PM

Quote :

"His only son, our Lord Jesus Christ died on a cross for our sins "

you know, as much as Christians repeat that line, it really makes absolutely no sense.
Of course, neither does almost anything else in Christian mythology, but i guess that never stopped anyone from believing it.....

4/11/2008 2:14:24 PM

May God have mercy on your blasphemous soul you godless monster

4/11/2008 2:15:00 PM

Quote :

"you either tow the line for the gospel or you get out of the way"

Then tow the line for the gospel my friend. Jesus Christ has had a greater impact on my life than any human being ever could. I've seen addictions recovered, marriages reconciled, and several lives changed through the work of Him on the cross and through his Word.

What I do deny is your two-faced portrayal of Christianity to the people around you. You are the one who should be ashamed of yourself. On the one hand you're professing a personal belief in Christ and on the other you're spitting vitriol and judgment on those around you. As if that's not enough you turn around spitefully tell people to turn or burn.

I'm not advocating watering down the gospel, and I'm not saying that we're not all sinners in need of a savior. What I'm telling you is that if you intend to come on here professing yourself a follower of Christ, do the rest of us a favor and act like one.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 2:15:40 PM

Quote :

"May God have mercy on your blasphemous soul you godless monster"

monster? Come on dude, how about a little compassion here?

4/11/2008 2:16:31 PM

God IS compassion, and for you to slap that away, well, be prepared for the fruit of your actions.

As for me seeming harsh, I am trying to let people understand the full weight of their choices, for you to accept their abandonment of the Lord speaks volumes about your shaky faith

4/11/2008 2:31:38 PM

I'm unsure at what point in our conversation you feel I've "slapped away" God's compassion... but you're misunderstanding me. I don't take issue with your statement about the need for faith in order to have a relationship with God. I take issue with your "be prepared for the unholy fires of Hell if you pursue of blasphemy" stuff.

Has it been so long that you don't remember what you were like before knowing the Lord? How about a little compassion for your fellow sinners? God leads people unto himself, and he doesn't need your or my help in convicting people's hearts about their own sins. The Holy Spirit does that all by Himself.

What God calls us to do, is to be open and honest about our faith... and to share with people our experience of His saving grace.

4/11/2008 2:40:48 PM

^^ Maybe he just understands people aren't static entities.

You won't damn your way into believers in the Soap Box. Similarly, you won't kill your way to peace, consume your way into abundance, etc.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ^ SEE? TOLD YOU.]

4/11/2008 2:40:57 PM