Well, the best source of energy for that is already exhausted.Simon F said:
Ufo The Smoking gun video
- Thread starter L_i_n_k
- Start date
Basic,
ROFL! Damn, that's some weird sh-... Stuff.
ROFL! Damn, that's some weird sh-... Stuff.
Captain Chickenpants said:It isn't certain, the biggest mistake scientists make is beleiving that they have reached the final answer to something (although they don't tend to make this mistake anymore).Druga Runda said:oh come on, what says that the knowledge about the universe that we have got to this point is so certain... who knows what can be done in reality, and how fast one can travel... esp if travel is a function of time, if you live infinitley what is to stop you to travel around at will
Eh,... I have that at home, but didn't watch it, might do tonight...
But assuming that you do get instantaneous travel between two points who is going to take the time to visit all those points, lets face it you are going to travel between two distant points and not care what is inbetween, their could be a whole civilisation that you never see because you zoom right past it and never stop.
What will stop you travelling around at will? Boredom! After a while of looking at barren lifeless rocks you are going to decide , 'Sod this!' and head off to your holodeck to 'interface' with Seven of Nine. After all, as soon as any civilization reaches the point that it has develope the 'holo-deck' or its equivelant all further progess and exploration will stop, as their will be no need
CC
well instantaneous travel cuts on the need to go on and on, who knows what motivates beings that have developed further... do you?
Does an ant know what motivates a human? Surely not, and many things humans do are neither plus or a minus for an ant, as he doesn't get them in the first place. So what might motivate those highly developed aliens, pfft... no way we will find out, short of Jonathan Ross having an interview with one of them
Other than that... pfft life multiplies on an exponential scale, so if there is advanced life that has gone past the point of infinte living/ reason to kill each other for whatever reason - universe should be full of life, and well earth could be just some gory holiday destination. More like going to watch some good war drama in the cinema. Go there if you want to study how primitive species with some intelligence evolve. They still kill each other for no reason, or for power or resources instead of cooperating and benefiting together. But than their whole society based on power projections of some of its members would collapse.
They have .00001% chance to succeed to go past this point in their development without causing a global catastrophe.
Who knows maybe some space betting agency is offering good odds on us getting blown up sooner rather than later.
Well, it certainly *is* possible that we are the first or only intelligent life in the universe. The universe's size only seems large until you consider the extraordinary chain of events and time needed to produce intelligent life (not just bacterial)
Go read an article on anthropic reasoning, which will help explain why we observe the universe to be the way it is. For example, our star is a second generation star, and we are made of elements that did not exist in the early phases of the universe (elements > hydrogen/helium), therefore, we must observe the universe to be atleast 10-15 billion years old, because we simply could not have existed any earlier. Likewise, we cannot observe the universe to be significantly older than it is now, because our star would be dead. Since the universe's size grows with age, we also observe the universe to be unfathomly huge, because it took 15+ billion years for us to arrive.
It is not logically implied that intelligent life co-evolved all at the same time in parallel across the universe. It is possible that we are indeed, the first, and that other planets haven't "gotten lucky" yet, despite their massive numbers. It simply too very long for Earth to get life, meanwhile, the rest of the universe kept expanding outwards.
The only way life could be parallel evolved so that we all exist at roughly the same time (ET's came first, and haven't died off yet) is if evolving not just biological life, but intelligent life, is "easy". Even today, we have questions as to whether abiogenesis is determined by chemistry and happens frequently, or, happens very infrequently.
We don't know. But the idea that extraterrestial life *must* exist because of the sheer number of stars is fallacious reasoning.
Even an infinite set can still be missing elements.
Go read an article on anthropic reasoning, which will help explain why we observe the universe to be the way it is. For example, our star is a second generation star, and we are made of elements that did not exist in the early phases of the universe (elements > hydrogen/helium), therefore, we must observe the universe to be atleast 10-15 billion years old, because we simply could not have existed any earlier. Likewise, we cannot observe the universe to be significantly older than it is now, because our star would be dead. Since the universe's size grows with age, we also observe the universe to be unfathomly huge, because it took 15+ billion years for us to arrive.
It is not logically implied that intelligent life co-evolved all at the same time in parallel across the universe. It is possible that we are indeed, the first, and that other planets haven't "gotten lucky" yet, despite their massive numbers. It simply too very long for Earth to get life, meanwhile, the rest of the universe kept expanding outwards.
The only way life could be parallel evolved so that we all exist at roughly the same time (ET's came first, and haven't died off yet) is if evolving not just biological life, but intelligent life, is "easy". Even today, we have questions as to whether abiogenesis is determined by chemistry and happens frequently, or, happens very infrequently.
We don't know. But the idea that extraterrestial life *must* exist because of the sheer number of stars is fallacious reasoning.
Even an infinite set can still be missing elements.
PC-Engine said:
Uh, emergency? UFOs don't come equipped with comprehensive sensor equipment?
A wonder they made it here at all then!I would think what whatever is shown in that video isn't something even remotely similar to what you describe. For starters, as cameras are 2D in nature, it's impossible to tell if two objects are on the same plane or not. Look up "forced perspective" on the web if you want some infos, or watch the extras on the extended cut version of The Fellowship of the Ring.
DemoCoder said:
while this might be true, don't you think it is unlikely - as you said correctly Sun~ 4 bn years old, second generation star - universe billions of galaxies, our galaxy many billions of stars - sun = average star = billions of likely solar systems = billions of likely earths = billions of likely life producing planets via evolution.
I think given the normal numbers, while it is possible that we are first, given that we got to be in about 4bn of years, and that the universe is at least 15bn years old + vast size, it is more than very likely that there are many many more like us or better out there. It is similar to the likelyhood that 123456 will be drawn as the winning lottery numbers, it is possible (that we are first) but not very likely at all. So I think we should opt for the simpler explanation and that is that we are not the only one. (which might be faulty given that we don't have known "aliens" amonth us) but a much more likely assumption given what we assume to be true about the universe.
but lets go forward with my view of evolution - if we are, which we are, and if evolution is true than a being that knows all about universe that is to know about it is just a matter of time, as knowledge increase in intelligent life is exponential, while number of laws governing universe seems to be static, with finite number of results.
which circles me back to the point that evolution might not be neccessary at all. One way or another UFO -why not? It seems far more logical for them to be here than not, looking just at pure numbers
Not all stars live for as long as our sun will. Larger, hotter stars die (sometimes MUCH) sooner, within the space of a few million years or possibly even less in some cases. Paradoxically enough - or not perhaps - a slower-burning sun like our own won't produce any heavy elements anyway as it's below the chakandrekar limit or whatsitscalled and hence won't go supernova when it dies. Hence we can forget the theory put forth by Demo in his post about the age about the universe, etc...
Umm, "my" theory (not my theory, the predominant theory by cosmologists who study the "anthropic coincidences" that exist in our universe) is correct by the very reasons you cited above.
To get earth, you need a second generation star in its main sequence. Why second generation? Because you needed a first generation of stars to die and create the heavier elements.
To get earth, you need a second generation star in its main sequence. Why second generation? Because you needed a first generation of stars to die and create the heavier elements.