Stanford Professor warns massive UFO disclosure is around the corner.

[KrisZ]

I never rule out it could be nothing at all and that we are alone in the universe. It remains a mystery.

We may not be alone, and statistically probably we are not alone, but the universe is so massively huge that statistically they have little chances discovering our planet, and even less chances to have the tech to make the trip.

So even if all the sightings, testimonials and stories could categorically be proven to be 100% false beyond any shadow of a doubt, it still doesn’t mean we are alone in the universe.

 

[MolaKule]

There are a few celebrities that one would think are extra-terrestrial

Yes, it's entirely Fiction but funny nonetheless. See about 2.3.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Google ‘Fermi Paradox’. I suspect that we are alone in the universe and that intelligent life is unique to our planet. I of course could be wrong but that’s my guess.

I never rule out it could be nothing at all and that we are alone in the universe. It remains a mystery.

The more that humans discover and know about the Universe and technology, the more they should realize how ridiculous it is to conclude Earth is the only place with life, and even intelligent life.

If Earth is really the only planet with intelligence life, and humans are the culmination of the Universe, then they should start acting less like animals and more like the supposed pinnical intelligent life they are.

 

[stormgol]

and yet there is about 30 billions G type stars like the sun in the milky way alone... claiming with certainty we are alone in the cosmos is just as arrogant as the people who lived at the time of christopher colombus and claimed there was nothing and nobody across the seas. i agree we have currently no evidence, but let's just say the odds are pretty high.

 

[ZeeOSix]

But we do! How? There aren't a whole lot of things happening in our universe that we can't explain. Look I don't mean to be condescending here but if you speak to people who are experts in science, PhDs in physics and cosmology, the people who really know what we know, they disagree with you. The fact is there are VERY FEW natural phenomena that we can't explain with our current knowledge and for those we can't we at least have very good educated guesses. Our ability to figure those out definitively is more a technical challenge than a does our current state of knowledge explain it challenge.

Can I tell you we are a 96.4 on a scale of 0 - 100? Nope. Can I say we're not sitting at 20 out of 100? Yes. How? 80% of the natural phenomenon in the universe are NOT unexplainable with our current understanding. It's really not more complicated than that.

Nobody really knows where we ultimately are at on the knowledge scale. Humans are always striving to grow scientifically and technologically. My point is there are probably some technological unknows still out there to be discovered, like discovering how to control a gravitational field. I can think of all kinds of ways that could be applied. All it takes is a new scientific break through to keep on becoming more technologically advanced. Ref post 386 again.

One key point in physics is nothing is in isolation and everything affects everything else. I love reading a physics book where the author talks about how just a 0.1% change in this physical constant would result in atoms never condensing into matter, stars never forming, galaxies never forming, and instead of our current universe, you'd have a bunch of free-floating atoms. When you are talking about fundamental physics it has such profound and wide-ranging effects that everything around you becomes a way of assessing whether or not you understanding is accurate.

It also makes most people realize it all can't just be an "accident" or just a "coincidence". But that's a whole other conversation.

 

[PWMDMD]

Nobody really knows where we ultimately are at on the knowledge scale. Humans are always striving to grow scientifically and technologically. My point is there are probably some technological unknows still out there to be discovered, like discovering how to control a gravitational field. I can think of all kinds of ways that could be applied. All it takes is a new scientific break through to keep on becoming more technologically advanced. Ref post 386 again.


It also makes most people realize it all can't just be an "accident" or just a "coincidence". But that's a whole other conversation.

As stated science is not technology - science is used to make technology. Let's agree to disagree with respect to how much we know.

As for your second statement - look up the anthropic principle by Robert D-i-c-k-e - basically, the constants of nature aren't "tuned" to life - they are what they are and we are only here to think about it because we got lucky enough to live in a universe with these particular constants. Applied to earth - the earth was "placed" in the goldilocks zone where water was liquid and life is possible. The earth developed where it did and we're only here to contemplate it because in this zone life is possible.

 

[ZeeOSix]

As stated science is not technology - science is used to make technology. Let's agree to disagree with respect to how much we know.

I already said that if you'd actually read what I say. Why would say "Humans are always striving to grow scientifically and technologically." and "All it takes is a new scientific break through to keep on becoming more technologically advanced." if I didn't know that they are not the same, but are related. Go all the way back to post 371.

As for your second statement - look up the anthropic principle by Robert D-i-c-k-e - basically, the constants of nature aren't "tuned" to life - they are what they are and we are only here to think about it because we got lucky enough to live in a universe with these particular constants. Applied to earth - the earth was "placed" in the goldilocks zone where water was liquid and life is possible. The earth developed where it did and we're only here to contemplate it because in this zone life is possible.

Re: Bold parts. And I highly doubt humans have thought of every aspect yet ... that's my whole point. There are many things that humans don't fully know or fully understand yet, and that will hold true for probably as long as humans are around.

Was Earth "placed" here by pure coincidence or by design? If it was placed here by design, then many other "Goldilocks planets" could also be "placed" elsewhere by design. It's pretty obtuse to believe the whole Universe is all just some crazy haphazard "coincidence".

 

[JeffKeryk]

Have our guests arrived yet?

Don't be silly. Elon is well into his assignment of taking over the world.

 

[PWMDMD]

I already said that if you'd actually read what I say. Why would say "Humans are always striving to grow scientifically and technologically." and "All it takes is a new scientific break through to keep on becoming more technologically advanced." if I didn't know that they are not the same, but are related. Go all the way back to post 371.


Re: Bold parts. And I highly doubt humans have thought of every aspect yet ... that's my whole point. There are many things that humans don't fully know or fully understand yet, and that will hold true for probably as long as humans are around.

Was Earth "placed" here by pure coincidence or by design? If it was placed here by design, then many other "Goldilocks planets" could also be "placed" elsewhere by design. It's pretty obtuse to believe the whole Universe is all just some crazy haphazard "coincidence".

I have a question - when I suggest you read about the anthropic principle which IS part of modern cosmology and physics - do you actually go and read anything about it and think about it in an attempt to understand it or do you just fire off a response? There are many books, including popular books written for non-scientist consumption, that at least devote a chapter or two to the anthropic principle including detailed discussions by really smart scientists who make their livings thinking about this stuff full-time and they discuss the pros and cons of the idea and the evidence for and against it.

You can call the anthropic principle whatever you want, I happened to think it's acute and not obtuse, and while it's not my idea it IS the idea of a Princeton/University of Rochester PhD who was nominated for the Nobel prize in Physics several times and who did receive the National Medal of Science.

 

[Wolf359]

and yet there is about 30 billions G type stars like the sun in the milky way alone... claiming with certainty we are alone in the cosmos is just as arrogant as the people who lived at the time of christopher colombus and claimed there was nothing and nobody across the seas. i agree we have currently no evidence, but let's just say the odds are pretty high.

Well it ranges from 7.5 million up to 30 million. But keep in mind a few things that make our planet unique. Supernova explosions have a kill radius of about 50 light years, if you're within the kill radius, all life gets wiped out. Same with red dwarfs, they always flare so don't expect to find any life on a red dwarf which is about 75-85% of the galaxy. Then there's also gamma ray bursts. And of course life may just be like dinosaurs which lived for 165 million years before becoming extinct 65 million years ago. So you have life but not intelligent life or so we think. You basically have a limited time to develop life. As the sun fuses more hydrogen into helium, the output of the sun increases so that in about a billion years the earth will be so hot that the oceans will boil off. So anyway, you probably have to be in the outer rim of the galaxy which is where we are, closer to the center, there's probably more radiation which would kill life so that also eliminates a lot of life. Then you have to calculate how many planets would be in the goldilocks zone. I think over 5000 exoplanets have been found so far, but none exactly like earth.

And for the record, no one is actually saying that we're definitely alone. Just that there's no evidence so far that there are others out there so far. It doesn't seem like it so far is different than saying we're certain we're alone.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I have a question - when I suggest you read about the anthropic principle which IS part of modern cosmology and physics - do you actually go and read anything about it and think about it in an attempt to understand it or do you just fire off a response? There are many books, including popular books written for non-scientist consumption, that at least devote a chapter or two to the anthropic principle including detailed discussions by really smart scientists who make their livings thinking about this stuff full-time and they discuss the pros and cons of the idea and the evidence for and against it.

You can call the anthropic principle whatever you want, I happened to think it's acute and not obtuse, and while it's not my idea it IS the idea of a Princeton/University of Rochester PhD who was nominated for the Nobel prize in Physics several times and who did receive the National Medal of Science.

If someone believes the theory of the "Anthropic Principle", then they should also believe that there is life, and even intelligent life that could be way technological beyond ours depending on when it developed in the Universe and how it evolved. This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. I didn't say the Anthropic Priciple and that the possibility of other life in the Universe is "obtuse". I said that if someone thought the Universe (and also life on Earth) was all just some crazy haphazard "coincidence", then that would be obtuse. Do you really think the only intelligent life in the whole Universe is only right here on planet Earth? ... that too would be obtuse.

Anthropic Principle
"In cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the Universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life. Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the Universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist."

If that theory is true, then why would Earth be the only planet with life or even intelligent life on it?

 

[stormgol]

Well it ranges from 7.5 million up to 30 million. But keep in mind a few things that make our planet unique. Supernova explosions have a kill radius of about 50 light years, if you're within the kill radius, all life gets wiped out. Same with red dwarfs, they always flare so don't expect to find any life on a red dwarf which is about 75-85% of the galaxy. Then there's also gamma ray bursts. And of course life may just be like dinosaurs which lived for 165 million years before becoming extinct 65 million years ago. So you have life but not intelligent life or so we think. You basically have a limited time to develop life. As the sun fuses more hydrogen into helium, the output of the sun increases so that in about a billion years the earth will be so hot that the oceans will boil off. So anyway, you probably have to be in the outer rim of the galaxy which is where we are, closer to the center, there's probably more radiation which would kill life so that also eliminates a lot of life. Then you have to calculate how many planets would be in the goldilocks zone. I think over 5000 exoplanets have been found so far, but none exactly like earth.

And for the record, no one is actually saying that we're definitely alone. Just that there's no evidence so far that there are others out there so far. It doesn't seem like it so far is different than saying we're certain we're alone.

Comparison of G, K, and M Stars for Habitability

hubblesite.org

Milky Way - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

all m type, k type and g type stars have the potential for habitable zone. but k type is potentially the best type of star for advanced life development.

the milky way has anywhere between 100 to 400 billions stars.

73% of stars in the milky way galaxy are M type wich amount to anywhere between 73 billions to 292 billions M type stars in the milky way.

there is about 13% of K type stars in the milky way. the best candidate stars for life. wich amount to about 13 billions to 52 billions K type stars in the milky way.

there is about 7,6% of G type stars in the milky way. stars like our own sun. wich amount to about 7.6 billions to 30,4 billions G type stars in the milky way galaxy.

i have no idea where you have taken that number of 7.5 to 30 millions, but you seriously need to revise your calculations. 7.6 percent of 100 billions is 7.6 billions. and 7.6 percent of 400 billions is 30.4 billions.

 

[MolaKule]

Robert Lamb on Stenger's Paper:

"...In 1974, astronomer Brandon Carter tackled this quandary by introducing the anthropic principle. Carter hypothesized that anthropic coincidences are part of the universe's very structure and that chance has nothing to do with it. He proposed two variants:

• Weak anthropic principle: This response to anthropic coincidence may sound like a slice of common sense. Simply put, Carter pointed out that if our universe weren't hospitable to life, then we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. As such, there's no sense in asking why.
• Strong anthropic principle: In this version, Carter draws on the notion of the Copernican Principle, which states that there's nothing special or privileged about Earth or humanity. He states that since we live in a universe capable of supporting life, then only life-supporting universes are possible.

Cosmologists have devised more than 30 additional takes on the anthropic principle [source: Stenger]. They include the quantum physics-flavored participatory anthropic principle, which states that no universe can be real until it is observed, and the final anthropic principle, which holds that intelligence is a necessary property of the universe; once created it can never be destroyed."

So we must narrowly define WHICH anthropic principle is being discussed.

@PWMDMD BTW, The Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy that does nothing for your premise's.

​

 

[MolaKule]

We may not be alone, and statistically probably we are not alone, but the universe is so massively huge that statistically they have little chances discovering our planet, and even less chances to have the tech to make the trip.

So even if all the sightings, testimonials and stories could categorically be proven to be 100% false beyond any shadow of a doubt, it still doesn’t mean we are alone in the universe.

And it still doesn't mean we are NOT alone.

 

[Wolf359]

all m type, k type and g type stars have the potential for habitable zone. but k type is potentially the best type of star for advanced life development.

the milky way has anywhere between 100 to 400 billions stars.

73% of stars in the milky way galaxy are M type wich amount to anywhere between 73 billions to 292 billions M type stars in the milky way.

there is about 13% of K type stars in the milky way. the best candidate stars for life. wich amount to about 13 billions to 52 billions K type stars in the milky way.

there is about 7,6% of G type stars in the milky way. stars like our own sun. wich amount to about 7.6 billions to 30,4 billions G type stars in the milky way galaxy.

i have no idea where you have taken that number of 7.5 to 30 millions, but you seriously need to revise your calculations. 7.6 percent of 100 billions is 7.6 billions. and 7.6 percent of 400 billions is 30.4 billions.

We're not even sure if the Milky way galaxy has 100 billion or 400 billion stars, it's a range. So you want me to be more precise than 7.5 to 30 million? The entire range is an estimate. Other sites basically quote different numbers. We're basically in the same ball park.

You might have missed my point that M type stars, red dwarfs, flare all the time so while you might have planets in the habitable zone, they're probably devoid of life because those suns flare frequently and are not stable so they will wipe out any life that develops or basically blow away any atmosphere. Then you have the issue of planets being tidally locked so that only one side faces the sun, super hot on one side, cold on the other but maybe something in the middle but it's a small slice.

 

[stormgol]

We're not even sure if the Milky way galaxy has 100 billion or 400 billion stars, it's a range. So you want me to be more precise than 7.5 to 30 million? The entire range is an estimate. Other sites basically quote different numbers. We're basically in the same ball park.

You might have missed my point that M type stars, red dwarfs, flare all the time so while you might have planets in the habitable zone, they're probably devoid of life because those suns flare frequently and are not stable so they will wipe out any life that develops or basically blow away any atmosphere. Then you have the issue of planets being tidally locked so that only one side faces the sun, super hot on one side, cold on the other but maybe something in the middle but it's a small slice.

and yet we have this on earth.

Extremophiles - Extreme Organisms

Extremophiles are extreme organisms that live in conditions that are not optimal for supporting life. They thrive in habitats like hydrothermal vents.

www.thoughtco.com

m type star can have over 100 billions years lifespan. there are organism on earth that survive pretty much anything.

never underestimate life capacity to adapt to very hostile environments.

 

[Wolf359]

Was Earth "placed" here by pure coincidence or by design? If it was placed here by design, then many other "Goldilocks planets" could also be "placed" elsewhere by design. It's pretty obtuse to believe the whole Universe is all just some crazy haphazard "coincidence".

It's sounds like you've answered the question. Others have not answered the question. There's no current answer. You think that it has to be either or, but the answer is unknown. Basically saying you're wrong for believing in one or the other. It just appears to be pure coincidence, but is the evidence completely solid on that and 100%? Can't really say that for now.

Remember depending on what you read, there could be up to 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe and if the universe is flat, the unobservable universe could be 1000 times greater which means you times 2 trillion by about a million. Yeah, in that number, there may be other intelligent life, but nobody broke the speed of light and it may be that you can't get there from here.

You need to look at the forest for the trees. Think of the lottery. Very low odds of actually winning it personally. If enough people play, there's a certain amount of certainty that someone will win, it's just that it probably won't be you. To the person who wins, it will certainly appear to be a miracle, but mathematically it was a certainty that someone was going to win if every combination was played.

Basically so far all data seems to indicate that we beat some long odds. Data to support design hasn't really been there. Just some deductions that don't really have any facts to back that up.

 

[Wolf359]

and yet we have this on earth.

Extremophiles - Extreme Organisms

Extremophiles are extreme organisms that live in conditions that are not optimal for supporting life. They thrive in habitats like hydrothermal vents.

www.thoughtco.com

m type star can have over 100 billions years lifespan. there are organism on earth that survive pretty much anything.

never underestimate life capacity to adapt to very hostile environments.

It's kinda hard to adapt to a hostile environment when there's no atmosphere. The radiation from solar flares also tends to sterilize all life. That's why a blast from a supernova within 50 light lights will kill all life in it's radius. But no worries, the closest one to us is over 100 light years away and might not go supernova for several million years.

But we think there might be microorganisms below the surface on some of the moons out there if it's warm enough. I'm just not sure that's enough to lead to intelligent life.

 

[ZeeOSix]

It's sounds like you've answered the question. Others have not answered the question. There's no current answer. You think that it has to be either or, but the answer is unknown. Basically saying you're wrong for believing in one or the other. It just appears to be pure coincidence, but is the evidence completely solid on that and 100%? Can't really say that for now.

It would actually be more logical to believe there is some design behind it rather than it's all 100% pure random "coincidence". But people will believe whatever their logic and hearts tell them.

Remember depending on what you read, there could be up to 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe and if the universe is flat, the unobservable universe could be 1000 times greater which means you times 2 trillion by about a million. Yeah, in that number, there may be other intelligent life, but nobody broke the speed of light and it may be that you can't get there from here.

Nobody on Earth has, but that's a narrow field of view. So how can you conclude (not knowing every technological secret in the Universe) that no other possible advanced intelligent life elsewhere in the entire Universe hasn't? As you just said above: "There is no current answer". Applies here too.

All based on what mankind knows at this point in time - that's what puts blinders on people IMO when it comes to the possible scientific and technological knowledge left to discover. Check back in 300~500 years.

You need to look at the forest for the trees. Think of the lottery. Very low odds of actually winning it personally. If enough people play, there's a certain amount of certainty that someone will win, it's just that it probably won't be you. To the person who wins, it will certainly appear to be a miracle, but mathematically it was a certainty that someone was going to win if every combination was played.

Basically so far all data seems to indicate that we beat some long odds. Data to support design hasn't really been there. Just some deductions that don't really have any facts to back that up.

Have to get into another discussion about the design or not aspect ... but again, logic points way more towards some sort of design vs just pure 100% random "coincidence". It's the bases of the every lasting search for where we came from.

 

[Wolf359]

It would actually be more logical to believe there is some design behind it rather than it's all 100% pure random "coincidence". But people will believe whatever their logic and hearts tell them.


Nobody on Earth has, but that's a narrow field of view. So how can you conclude (not knowing every technological secret in the Universe) that no other possible intelligent life elsewhere in the entire Universe hasn't? As you just said above: "There is no current answer". Applies here too.


All based on what mankind knows at this point in time - that's what puts blinders on people IMO when it comes to the possible scientific and technological knowledge left to discover. Check back in 300~500 years.

It's not at all logical to believe that there's some design. To believe it requires evidence. There's no evidence. It basically doesn't require that there be design so while it's hard to believe it's coincidence, it's very possible for it to be coincidence. It could also be design, but there's no data to support that, just some desire that there has to be a logical reason for it, but no evidence.

Based on the science we know, nothing goes faster than the speed of light, if you somehow do, the formulas say you go back in time. But you can't go back in time. All I'm saying is that maybe the speed of light really is the maximum speed and it would make sense that even if there is intelligent life out there, it takes too long to get here and we've only really been here to advertise our existence since radio and as radio waves fade by the square of the distance, you're pretty much limited to a radius of about a hundred light years and not too many candidates are in the 100 light year radius. Of course they could have come much earlier just on speculation but it's still a pretty long journey.

Just exactly what do you know about physics? There are basic things that I think will never change no matter how advanced we get. The value of pi won't change, the speed of light won't change, etc., There's a lot of engineering that's left to be done, in theory we could build a Dyson swarm/sphere at some point. But the basic science on how to do it is already there. Remember, even Scotty couldn't change the laws of physics and what everyone here is trying to tell you is that we know a lot about physics and that isn't really going to change much. Gravity has pretty much been the same for the last 2,000 years, our understanding of it has been refined but we haven't done anything to change it.