New idea about UFO's!

[Thunderbird]

Two different things. You use your logic to prove that something is not true, but you have no evidence.

 

It is a valid scientific hypothesis to claim that since there is life on Earth, there may be life elsewhere in the universe (ie, we have evidence of life in the universe since we exist within it). We cannot, however, use that knowledge to claim that we can know for certain anything about life elsewhere until we find it.

 

Do you think maybe our expansion in universe being a physical one could be a false assumption ?

 

It seems to me our explorations physically are not only impractical but also unnecessary .

 

The real resources needed for an advanced civilization is information, and we are trending toward this more than any other technology. I have an intuitive sense that when we evolve past the restrictions of fear hate, ignorance, greed and all the other consciousness wasting concerns, and start using our minds full potentials we would expand our awareness of the vastness and complexity of the universe, and in doing so open up new vista’s not yet dreamed of.

 

Logically there is no reason to rule out the possibility universal information and worlds are all already connected in ways we cannot yet imagine.

[Tormod]

We have never been visited by anyone/anything from other solar systems. The reason can be found by looking at our own society and the earth. This happens to all civilizations.

 

There are several fundamental flaws in your logic right there.

 

1) Assuming that the Earth has never been visited by anyone from other solar systems *because* they will kill their own planet or kill themselves. You do not explain why this is the case.

 

2. Extending a basic assumption into a generalization ("all civilizations") without having any evidence for either the basic assumption nor the generalization (how would you test this hypothesis?)

 

So no civilization anywhere in the universe has ever made it to the point of being able to travel to different solar systems.

 

There is nothing in what you have written that leads to this conclusion.

 

If we are talking about a hypothesis, then I'll restated it and it will be up to you to prove it wrong. Until then, mine too is a valid scientific hypothesis.

 

No, you have not offered a hypothesis but an assumption. This assumption is not based on scientific evidence (or on any evidence at all, as far as I can tell).

 

Following the current trend of the degridation of the Earth due to technilogical advances (batteries, chemicals, polution, ect.) and the rate of increase in population on th Earth it is proposed that the human population will cease prior to interstellar space travel.

 

By whom? References please.

 

Applying this logic as a model society I can therefore say the this is the typical scenereo in all places in the universe and thus there is no life other then on Earth. Or at lease no life that has found it's way here.

 

How do you apply it and what was the result of the experiment? How did that experiment lead to your claim that you can know anything about typical scenarios in the universe?

 

The burden now lies on you and anyone else that want's to disprove it incorrect.

 

Quote the contrary. Until you show us a viable hypothesis that is falsifiable, you have not provided us with anything to disprove.

 

Wasn't it you that stated you needed real evidence concerning "The Final Theory"? But here you assume there is life elsewhere with no evidence?

 

I have made no such statement regarding life in the universe. I have said that we know that there is life in the universe (because we exist). We therefore know that we live in a universe that harbors life. We do not have any evidence of life elsewhere, but (as has been discussed many times here at Hypography) the existence of life on Earth means that the existence of life in the universe is 100% certain. Whether it exists elsewhere is a possibility but it cannot be proven until life is found elsewhere.

 

It should be assumed there is no life elsewhere until prove there is. It should not be, there is life else where. How could we ever disprove that?

 

Because you are twisting the argument. Nobody here is saying "there IS life elsewhere". My argument was that "given that there is life on Earth, there may be life elsewhere". It is a valid assumption based on the uncertainty of how life arose on Earth.

 

One way to falsify this assumption would be to prove that life can only exist on Earth. I know of no such evidence.

 

Seach every single square inch in the universe and until all space is search the hypothesis that there is life elsewhere is true? Think about it!

 

Claiming that something "may be true" is not the same as claiming it to be true. In fact, it is one of the major differences between science and religion.

[Moontanman]

We have never been visited by anyone/anything from other solar systems. The reason can be found by looking at our own society and the earth. This happens to all civilizations. Before the civilization can mature enough to master interstellar travel, the civilization passes through an "almost there" technology. This technology kills their planet. Or the civilization kills itself fighting for the resources to feed this technology.

 

So no civilization anywhere in the universe has ever made it to the point of being able to travel to different solar systems.

 

I sincerely hope you are wrong, personally I am quite sceptical about our chances to move out into space. Not because it's not possible but because we are so easily distracted by the fear of the tecnology required to do it. I hope that recent moves by several world goverments and groups of goverments is an indication we might be making tenitive steps in the correct direction.

[johnfp]

WOW....LOL!

 

I could counter but you win, I'm wrong!

 

Peace?

[johnfp]

I sincerely hope you are wrong, personally I am quite sceptical about our chances to move out into space. Not because it's not possible but because we are so easily distracted by the fear of the tecnology required to do it. I hope that recent moves by several world goverments and groups of goverments is an indication we might be making tenitive steps in the correct direction.

 

I too love the idea of space travel and am seriously optimistic that science will help the human race survive forever and colonize the universe.

[Tormod]

WOW....LOL!

 

I could counter but you win, I'm wrong!

 

Peace?

 

I wasn't aware that this was a personal contest...:evil: If you have a counter argument then that is why we have a *discussion* forum, no?

[johnfp]

Well, I can see that no matter how I present my case I am going to be wrong in your eyes. I respect that and thus I am done.

 

BTW, see 2 below.

 

hypothesis

n 1: a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations

2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that

is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain

facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives

experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he

proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted

in chemical practices" [syn: possibility, theory]

3: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

[syn: guess, conjecture, supposition, surmise, surmisal,

speculation]

[Moontanman]

It's no more flawed then saying there are other beings living in space without having indisputable evidence of them. :evil:

 

While I am a sceptic I wanted to start this discussion because of what I saw as a disrespectful attitude often taken by people trying to debunk the existence of UFO's. Even if someone is having a hallucination or misinterpreting a other wise identifiable craft. To say that someone could mistake comet for an alien space craft has grated on me every time I see this statement. It is common statement by debunkers. Another thing that has always bothered me is how do you get undisputable evidence of a sighting of an alien space craft? Does anyone really expect alien space craft to be falling out of the sky? Would pieces fall off an advanced space craft? Pictures or films would almost certainly be the best we could hope for. In recent years all photos have become suspect due to things like photo shop. My brother is a graphic artist, he is a pretty good judge of what is and what isn't real in a photo. He can create photos that look as real to me as a real photo. But if you go back to the 60's and 70's things become a little more difficult to fake. And interestingly enough fakes seem to stick out even more then because they are so unsophisticated. But there are really good photos and sighting that really cannot be explained away. Then you have photos and sightings from before UFO's were part of pop culture. These things while not absolute proof, they indicate a phenomenon that I think justifies real study and not an off hand dismissal that is insulting anyone of any intelligence.

[Tormod]

Well, I can see that no matter how I present my case I am going to be wrong in your eyes. I respect that and thus I am done.

 

I think you're misunderstanding me. I am trying to discuss the validity of your arguments, not what a hypothesis is/isn't. :evil:

 

You were twisting *my* argument in order to say that it is a valid claim that there is *no* life in the universe.

 

I showed you that my claim that there is a *possibility* for life in the universe can be backed up with evidence.

 

You have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim that since we cannot prove the existence of life, we *must* assume it does not exist.

[johnfp]

Well, if some type of beings had the technology to visit us, we then have to ask why are they visiting us? If beings are able to travel the stars then surely their science does not stop there and their technology must be great.

 

Are they probing us to see when they can take over our planet?

Are they waiting for our self extinction to use our Earth resources?

Are they waiting for out technology to catch up somewhat to theirs before they reveal themselves?

 

What motive do they have to visit us yet not want to contact us?

 

I say contact would be pretty indisputable.

[Moontanman]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I am trying to discuss the validity of your arguments, not what a hypothesis is/isn't. :evil:

 

You were twisting *my* argument in order to say that it is a valid claim that there is *no* life in the universe.

 

I showed you that my claim that there is a *possibility* for life in the universe can be backed up with evidence.

 

You have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim that since we cannot prove the existence of life, we *must* assume it does not exist.

 

 

You are of course correct but maybe it can be explained in a simpler way. To me what this boils down to is "you can't plot a curve from one point" One data point is as meaningless as seeing one bird and concluding those birds are rare because you only saw one. (I know, I used to work in statistical analysis and it still crawls out of me from time to time!)

[Tormod]

You are of course correct but maybe it can be explained in a simpler way. To me what this boils down to is "you can't plot a curve from one point" One data point is as meaningless as seeing one bird and concluding those birds are rare because you only saw one. (I know, I used to work in statistical analysis and it still crawls out of me from time to time!)

 

I agree with this in principle. But how do we define this "one point" of data? The history of life on Earth does not show us whether life arose once or multiple times. We have found evidence of many of the building blocks of life in our solar system, and even in interstellar gas - recently even around a planet orbiting another star.

 

New Organic Molecule in Space

 

Astronomers Detect First Organic Molecule on an Exoplanet

 

This implies that while we only know about the existence of life on Earth, we know that

 

1) the precursors for molecular organisms exist elsewhere

2) water exists in vast amounts in the solar system (on planets, on moons, in comets, in the Kuiper belt, in the Oort cloud), and around remote planets

 

We also know of many planets within the "habitable" zone around a star (if we also assume that this is a requirement for life, which is not necessarily relevant to the discussion).

 

So I would argue that we do not have just one piece of data. We have many *varying* pieces of a puzzle.

[Moontanman]

Well, if some type of beings had the technology to visit us, we then have to ask why are they visiting us? If beings are able to travel the stars then surely their science does not stop there and their technology must be great.

 

Are they probing us to see when they can take over our planet?

Are they waiting for our self extinction to use our Earth resources?

Are they waiting for out technology to catch up somewhat to theirs before they reveal themselves?

 

What motive do they have to visit us yet not want to contact us?

 

I say contact would be pretty indisputable.

 

First if you read the opening thread you would know that the idea was if star travel is very difficult then the only way we would have aliens around would be if they had colonized the solar system in large movable colonies. Such colonies could travel from start to star in a few hundred years. It would not require hugely advanced technology and stars like our sun would be target not because of Earth like planets but because of things like asteroids and comets. Such a civilization could exist inside our solar system for hundreds or even thousands of years and we would not be the wiser. If this was true then their interest in us could be several things but the most obvious would be that the rise of a space faring intelligence could affect their colonies. As for why they would be so secretive would depend on their own physiological make up. The motives of an alien would be difficult to predict but contact with us at first would have been unnecessary but as civilization advanced we would start to show the possibility of being at worst a threat and at best competitors for the resources of the solar system. Since they would have no use for planets taking over the earth would not be on their agenda. Observation and studying our reaction to their presence would be enough of a motive for them to appear and disappear unannounced. Real contact as in landing on the White House lawn could be very dangerous for the reasons mention in the beginning post.

[Tormod]

Such a civilization could exist inside our solar system for hundreds or even thousands of years and we would not be the wiser.

 

This made me think of something: If I recall correctly, the existence of an alien race whose sole purpose is to "weed" out civilizations who gain the ability to travel among the stars, is one of the recurring themes in Alastair Reynolds Revelation Space science fiction series.

[Moontanman]

I agree with this in principle. But how do we defined this "one point" of data? The history of life on Earth does not show us whether life arose once or multiple times. We have found evidence of many of the building blocks of life in our solar system, and even in interstellar gas - recently even around a planet orbiting another star.

 

Hypography - Science for everyone - New Organic Molecule in Space

 

Hypography - Science for everyone - Astronomers Detect First Organic Molecule on an Exoplanet

 

This implies that while we only know about the existence of life on Earth, we know that

 

1) the precursors for molecular organisms exist elsewhere

2) water exists in vast amounts in the solar system (on planets, on moons, in comets, in the Kuiper belt, in the Oort cloud), and around remote planets

 

We also know of many planets within the "habitable" zone around a star (if we also assume that this is a requirement for life, which is not necessarily relevant to the discussion).

 

So I would argue that we do not have just one piece of data. We have many *varying* pieces of a puzzle.

 

Very good points, I was making an unfounded assumption. I was thinking of a space faring civilization, not life in general. I honestly think that the argument for life else where is very close to being a given due to the very facts you mention. I could argue that life is simply a chemical reaction that occures anywhere conditions are right for it's developement. Complex life on the other hand, muticelluar animals and plants are not as much of a given. I am in agreement with the Rare Earth theory of life that states that complex life is rare because the conditions that it requires is also very rare. That is of course another thread entirely.

[Tormod]

Complex life on the other hand, muticelluar animals and plants are not as much of a given.

 

True, it is difficult to claim that complex life arises without a (currently unknown) specific setting.

 

I am in agreement with the Rare Earth theory of life that states that complex life is rare because the conditions that it requires is also very rare. That is of course another thread entirely.

 

Yes, it is. We had some very heated debates about that (although they mostly got way off topic) in the past.

 

Here's one:

http://hypography.com/forums/space/502-what-life.html

[Moontanman]

This made me think of something: If I recall correctly, the existence of an alien race whose sole purpose is to "weed" out civilizations who gain the ability to travel among the stars, is one of the recurring themes in Alaistair Reynolds Revelation Space science fiction series.

 

I've never heard of that author but I did hear a similar idea from a scientist on one of the science channels. He said the advanced civilizations might see it as a good idea to beat down any new upstarts to avoid them becoming advanced enough to be seen as competion. "Playing a game of cosmic whack-a-mole" is the way he put it. That would also limit the number of space fairing civilizations in our galaxy