Aliens (the kind from outer space)

[guava_wrench]

We can speculate on many things, but it is hard to take seriously the idea of objects the size of a human travelling near the speed of light.

Having a million extra years won't change the underlying physics. Regardless of references to folding paper like in the movie Event Horizon.

Without any good reason to think that anyone can travel that fast, there really isn't anything to debate on that front.

Here's how I look at it:

It's hard to take seriously (from my perspective) the thought that everything in the entire universe started from condensed matter roughly the size of a pinhead.

It's hard to take seriously the thought that life spontaneously went from not alive to alive.

It's hard to take seriously that single celled organisms eventually mutated enough times, in a perfect way, to form complex creatures like humans, with their own interior organ systems that work perfectly in conjunction.  It's hard to take seriously that male and female forms of these creatures mutated at the same pace, to allow reproduction.

And yet, mainstream science tells us that all of those things happened, and many people accept them, despite those concepts being foreign 200 years ago.  What's to say that our own views of physics won't change drastically in the future?

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

We came to those understandings by encountering the evidence, not through wishful thinking based on science fiction movies and wanting to meet aliens.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I won't address the tangential misunderstandings you show in your science references since they aren't pertinent to this thread.

[Roy H.]

We can speculate on many things, but it is hard to take seriously the idea of objects the size of a human travelling near the speed of light.

Having a million extra years won't change the underlying physics. Regardless of references to folding paper like in the movie Event Horizon.

Without any good reason to think that anyone can travel that fast, there really isn't anything to debate on that front.

Here's how I look at it:

It's hard to take seriously (from my perspective) the thought that everything in the entire universe started from condensed matter roughly the size of a pinhead.

It's hard to take seriously the thought that life spontaneously went from not alive to alive.

It's hard to take seriously that single celled organisms eventually mutated enough times, in a perfect way, to form complex creatures like humans, with their own interior organ systems that work perfectly in conjunction.  It's hard to take seriously that male and female forms of these creatures mutated at the same pace, to allow reproduction.

And yet, mainstream science tells us that all of those things happened, and many people accept them, despite those concepts being foreign 200 years ago.  What's to say that our own views of physics won't change drastically in the future?

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

We came to those understandings by encountering the evidence, not through wishful thinking based on science fiction movies and wanting to meet aliens.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I won't address the tangential misunderstandings you show in your science references since they aren't pertinent to this thread.

Simplifying the argument:

Our physics tells us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Yet, *something* created the matter from which the universe was derived, right?  Either that, or it was always there, which defies human understanding.

Our view of physics is, at best, incomplete.  There are tons of things we don't know, and I'm surprised that anybody would assume that our basic scientific understanding will remain static into the future.  Just because light-speed travel seems impossible now doesn't mean it always will.

[bdm860]

I always thought this topic was interesting (and am surprised so many people here seem to be pro-alien).  Based on other threads, it seems we have a fair share of religious people present on the blog, so I think it comes down to this:

If you don’t believe in intelligent/divine design, a God created universe, then the possibility of other life forms seems very reasonable and possible (for the reasons many have already listed, like how big the universe is, why would earth contain the only life forms formed from the big bang, etc.).

BUT, if you believe in God (which includes a lot of religions), I think you have to ask yourself why would God put life on other planets?  What would this accomplish?  Of course, if you believe in God, a popular answer whenever someone questions God’s rationale is that you can never understand the reasons God does something, he’s too intelligent, and God’s reasons are beyond our human understanding.  Ok, but for Christians, it seems the basic beliefs go: God created man in God’s image to worship him, then sent his son Jesus to earth to die on the cross to save man.  So if there’s life on other planets, did God send Jesus to multiple planets, or maybe there were multiple Jesus’s (I guess God could have more than one son)?  Of course maybe the life on other planets isn’t “intelligent” just cells or at best animal-like, but then I think you’d have to ask yourself what would this accomplish?  I think it just adds an interesting wrinkle for those who believe in God.

(Hopefully this post doesn’t lead to others bashing or mocking religion or another's beliefs, but it’s more of a post for those who believe in religion AND alien life).

[dpaps]

We can speculate on many things, but it is hard to take seriously the idea of objects the size of a human travelling near the speed of light.

Having a million extra years won't change the underlying physics. Regardless of references to folding paper like in the movie Event Horizon.

Without any good reason to think that anyone can travel that fast, there really isn't anything to debate on that front.

Here's how I look at it:

It's hard to take seriously (from my perspective) the thought that everything in the entire universe started from condensed matter roughly the size of a pinhead.

It's hard to take seriously the thought that life spontaneously went from not alive to alive.

It's hard to take seriously that single celled organisms eventually mutated enough times, in a perfect way, to form complex creatures like humans, with their own interior organ systems that work perfectly in conjunction.  It's hard to take seriously that male and female forms of these creatures mutated at the same pace, to allow reproduction.

And yet, mainstream science tells us that all of those things happened, and many people accept them, despite those concepts being foreign 200 years ago.  What's to say that our own views of physics won't change drastically in the future?

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

We came to those understandings by encountering the evidence, not through wishful thinking based on science fiction movies and wanting to meet aliens.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I won't address the tangential misunderstandings you show in your science references since they aren't pertinent to this thread.

How can you possibly think that your understandings of the universe are so complete?

[guava_wrench]

We can speculate on many things, but it is hard to take seriously the idea of objects the size of a human travelling near the speed of light.

Having a million extra years won't change the underlying physics. Regardless of references to folding paper like in the movie Event Horizon.

Without any good reason to think that anyone can travel that fast, there really isn't anything to debate on that front.

Here's how I look at it:

It's hard to take seriously (from my perspective) the thought that everything in the entire universe started from condensed matter roughly the size of a pinhead.

It's hard to take seriously the thought that life spontaneously went from not alive to alive.

It's hard to take seriously that single celled organisms eventually mutated enough times, in a perfect way, to form complex creatures like humans, with their own interior organ systems that work perfectly in conjunction.  It's hard to take seriously that male and female forms of these creatures mutated at the same pace, to allow reproduction.

And yet, mainstream science tells us that all of those things happened, and many people accept them, despite those concepts being foreign 200 years ago.  What's to say that our own views of physics won't change drastically in the future?

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

We came to those understandings by encountering the evidence, not through wishful thinking based on science fiction movies and wanting to meet aliens.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I won't address the tangential misunderstandings you show in your science references since they aren't pertinent to this thread.

Simplifying the argument:

Our physics tells us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Yet, *something* created the matter from which the universe was derived, right?  Either that, or it was always there, which defies human understanding.

Our view of physics is, at best, incomplete.  There are tons of things we don't know, and I'm surprised that anybody would assume that our basic scientific understanding will remain static into the future.  Just because light-speed travel seems impossible now doesn't mean it always will.

Who assumes "that our basic scientific understanding will remain static into the future"? Since you mention this in a reply to my post, I'll assume you are referring to me and that you are still missing my point.

In science, we take things seriously when there is evidence. You can hypothesize all you want, but you need to test empirically to be taken seriously.

Yes, science is provisional. This does not mean that we take fantastical speculations seriously.

You gave examples of things we have learned about the world by collecting data/evidence and used them as an analogy for evidence-less speculation about possible travel speeds. That is not a good analogy.

Nevermind that the phrases "life spontaneously went from not alive to alive" and "work perfectly in conjunction" make me question the level of exposure you have to what the body of science knowledge actually says or even to how the body actually works. I have yet to come across the human body where all organs "work perfectly in conjunction".

Is that 'perfect' statement anything more than a tautology where 'perfect' is essentially defined as the meaningless 'doing what we see it do'?

[guava_wrench]

We can speculate on many things, but it is hard to take seriously the idea of objects the size of a human travelling near the speed of light.

Having a million extra years won't change the underlying physics. Regardless of references to folding paper like in the movie Event Horizon.

Without any good reason to think that anyone can travel that fast, there really isn't anything to debate on that front.

Here's how I look at it:

It's hard to take seriously (from my perspective) the thought that everything in the entire universe started from condensed matter roughly the size of a pinhead.

It's hard to take seriously the thought that life spontaneously went from not alive to alive.

It's hard to take seriously that single celled organisms eventually mutated enough times, in a perfect way, to form complex creatures like humans, with their own interior organ systems that work perfectly in conjunction.  It's hard to take seriously that male and female forms of these creatures mutated at the same pace, to allow reproduction.

And yet, mainstream science tells us that all of those things happened, and many people accept them, despite those concepts being foreign 200 years ago.  What's to say that our own views of physics won't change drastically in the future?

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

We came to those understandings by encountering the evidence, not through wishful thinking based on science fiction movies and wanting to meet aliens.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I won't address the tangential misunderstandings you show in your science references since they aren't pertinent to this thread.

How can you possibly think that your understandings of the universe are so complete?

Who claimed it was complete???

My point is that idle speculation is just speculation. Maybe the universe is made of marshmallows!

We develop scientific knowledge by challenging ideas and seeking evidence, not by whimsical fantasy.

[Master Po]

guava ....always talking down to people.....no matter the subject.....you're consistent anyway

[boom]

guava_wrench, are you serious? How can you sit behind your monitor talking down to people in this thread? You act like you're the almighty when it comes to science. I'm sorry, but I'm going to side with Roy H. on this one.

You say that you dont take hypothesis seriously? Only if it's backed by data? Then what do you say about the countless scientists working on this very topic and producing ground-breaking information at an unbelievable pace.

Look how far the human race has come in the past 200,000 years.

Regardless, I dont really know why I'm responding to you. Everyone here is having a nice conversation, and you're just nit-picking at words here and there. For example:

"Nevermind that the phrases "life spontaneously went from not alive to alive" and "work perfectly in conjunction" make me question the level of exposure you have to what the body of science knowledge actually says or even to how the body actually works. I have yet to come across the human body where all organs "work perfectly in conjunction"."

So you're saying that the human body, where all the organs work in unison to keep us living and functioning, do....the opposite?

If you dont mind, please leave this thread.

[jackson_34]

I hope this video I post contributes to the thread.

I think it's one of the best comments on our place in the Universe. I really, really recommend it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re66MWWl8q8

Also,

[Roy H.]

Please stay civil, guys, even when you disagree strongly.

[fairweatherfan]

Nice video Jackson.  Here's one of my favorites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg&feature=channel

Really shows how vast the universe really is.  Hard to believe there isn't something else out there somewhere.

As for aliens visiting us...as it's been mentioned the universe as we understand it wouldn't allow for anything with mass traveling at anything near the speed of light, meaning unless they're already in the solar system it's unlikely anyone's made it here in any physical sense.

But, the universe is an old place, and humans show that sentient species can develop relatively quickly.  If there are loopholes in the rules of space-time, it's possible someone's been around long enough to figure them out.  Still the evidence seems against it.

[boom]

A++++ on the vids, they're great. TP for both.

[Master Po]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6QNzH4x1rY&feature=related

Not saying it's true but once you hear the testimony of many many retired Air Force and other well respected military people it's hard to simply dismiss it.

[boom]

Never heard of this Disclosure Project. TP! Going to do some research on it now..thanks!

[Eja117]

I was under the impression that whimsical fantasy is a major component of science along with economics and good showmanship.  No seriously