Discussion
There is a bit of science really. Understanding why the genuine claims and why they think they saw etc. The eye brain combination is not as solid for evidence gathering as people think and some do take umbrage when this is pointed out.
I also think that so many camera's and so little evidence points to no aliens. For various reason.
And mentions of Billy Meier, jeepers, seriously?
I also think that so many camera's and so little evidence points to no aliens. For various reason.
And mentions of Billy Meier, jeepers, seriously?
Bedazzled said:
jmorgan said:
...I also think that so many camera's and so little evidence points to no aliens.
Life just needs the right set of circumstances to get started; there are thought to be 200-400 billion planets in our galaxy (average 1 per star), and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies out there. What is unique about the Earth? Even if the probability is low, life must be commonplace in such a vast universe.If (when) we discover another planet with life we will go there and investigate; if aliens discovered our world and were curious, they would probably do the same. I don't think the technology to visit another star system is that far beyond us, and we only achieved powered flight for the first time just over 100 years ago.
Aside from the UFO pranks and profiteers, it's interesting to consider the implications of life elsewhere, but maybe that's for another thread.
Indeed, it is not life out there question, it is questioning the lack of solid evidence saying the lights in the sky are aliens. I think camera's provide a lot of evidence with every shutter release. Billy Meier is a prime example of fakery.
To put it another way the eye can be fooled in a moment and so can a camera to some extent, but to get a convincing shot it has to be good and if it is good it will show up the fakers. Granted there are a few oddies but the money shot is not there.
To put it another way the eye can be fooled in a moment and so can a camera to some extent, but to get a convincing shot it has to be good and if it is good it will show up the fakers. Granted there are a few oddies but the money shot is not there.
I think if there was a genuine close up it would. And that is why I think shots that exist fail. Especially digital, there are many clues in the exif data, focus in the image, distance to out of focus, using the exif you can work out sizes of stuff in the image to some extent working on the focal length. So to fake it will take lot. They tried to fake an image for the Belgian wave, its authenticity was questioned for certain aspects and now admitted a fake. A recent attempt in Jerusalem was shown as shonky. Then onto to CGI. Even then there are clues.
Methuselah said:
Now that every human being on earth has a camera phone, where are all those UFO pictures? Remember you used to see those crappy always slightly out of focus pictures.
Some guy just happened to have a Polaroid when the UFOs appeared?
"Either it was all bulls
t or my theory is that the martians have decided, "Don't go down there man. All those fkers have cameras now.
The quality of them are very low. It's bad enough getting a pic of 20 feet away, let alone stuff in the sky.Some guy just happened to have a Polaroid when the UFOs appeared?
"Either it was all bulls
t or my theory is that the martians have decided, "Don't go down there man. All those fkers have cameras now. 
Bedazzled said:
If (when) we discover another planet with life we will go there and investigate; if aliens discovered our world and were curious, they would probably do the same. I don't think the technology to visit another star system is that far beyond us, and we only achieved powered flight for the first time just over 100 years ago.
As impressive as our progress in travel has been in the last 100 years, interstellar flight is a vast and probably insurmountable challenge. The distances involved and the time it would take are simply too large. Sadly we are pretty much limited to our own solar system in terms of physically going anywhere. The same is likely to be true for aliens, hence why UFOs are extremely unlikely to be from other WorldsBedazzled said:
We are at a stage now when we need a fundamental technology breakthrough, and it's difficult to see beyond that, but I think technology and science will overcome the distances involved. People who were setting out to explore the New World in wooden boats a few hundred years ago would look at what we can do now and consider it magic; we would probably think the same thing if we could see what is possible in a few thousand years (assuming we don't destroy ourselves).
Been a year or two since I read it now, but Nick Cook's Hunt for Zero Energy steps into the world of NASA and their different plans for vast journey's into space, some pretty esoteric stuff being talked about...probably even more so behind closed doors.It's more than just 'we can go fast". Where would we go? Who would go? Would it be a generation ship? If so, that would be a vast undertaking. Would it's aim be exploration, or colonization? If we got where we were going, how long would it take to colonize? Where would supplies come from? Lots, and lots of issues even if we got ship speed to a decent enough rate of knots.
Bedazzled said:
We are at a stage now when we need a fundamental technology breakthrough, and it's difficult to see beyond that, but I think technology and science will overcome the distances involved. People who were setting out to explore the New World in wooden boats a few hundred years ago would look at what we can do now and consider it magic; we would probably think the same thing if we could see what is possible in a few thousand years (assuming we don't destroy ourselves).
On Earth multi-cellular life took 3 billion years to evolve; humans have only been around for a few million years, and we only started using rudimentary tools in the last few thousand years and electronic technology in the last 100 years, a mere blink of the eye on a cosmological clock (amazing when you think about it); why would you consider the science and technology we have now as being the pinnacle of everything that's possible?
Technology will never overcome the fundamental laws of physics.the analogy with crossing the atlantic a few hundred years ago doesnt hold water.the leap from wooden ships to faster metal ones isnt the same as bending time and space to our willOn Earth multi-cellular life took 3 billion years to evolve; humans have only been around for a few million years, and we only started using rudimentary tools in the last few thousand years and electronic technology in the last 100 years, a mere blink of the eye on a cosmological clock (amazing when you think about it); why would you consider the science and technology we have now as being the pinnacle of everything that's possible?
tuscaneer said:
Bedazzled said:
We are at a stage now when we need a fundamental technology breakthrough, and it's difficult to see beyond that, but I think technology and science will overcome the distances involved. People who were setting out to explore the New World in wooden boats a few hundred years ago would look at what we can do now and consider it magic; we would probably think the same thing if we could see what is possible in a few thousand years (assuming we don't destroy ourselves).
On Earth multi-cellular life took 3 billion years to evolve; humans have only been around for a few million years, and we only started using rudimentary tools in the last few thousand years and electronic technology in the last 100 years, a mere blink of the eye on a cosmological clock (amazing when you think about it); why would you consider the science and technology we have now as being the pinnacle of everything that's possible?
Technology will never overcome the fundamental laws of physics.the analogy with crossing the atlantic a few hundred years ago doesnt hold water.the leap from wooden ships to faster metal ones isnt the same as bending time and space to our willOn Earth multi-cellular life took 3 billion years to evolve; humans have only been around for a few million years, and we only started using rudimentary tools in the last few thousand years and electronic technology in the last 100 years, a mere blink of the eye on a cosmological clock (amazing when you think about it); why would you consider the science and technology we have now as being the pinnacle of everything that's possible?
uktrailmonster said:
I think there is almost certainly life out there, but it's unlikely that life ever comes into contact with other life on planets outside of its own solar system. The vast distances see to that.
This is based on our current development of technology and understanding.What about civilisations thousands, maybe millions of years ahead of us ?
I think it's extremely naive to say that right now because we can't travel to the stars neither can anyone else nor will be able to do so in the future.
Bedazzled said:
Anyhow we don't fully understand the laws of physics yet, our current theories can't account for 75% of the mass in the universe without fudging the maths with dark energy; so I think all bets are still on, really. Ever the optimist.
I doubt we ever will, but we'll no doubt get better at trying to fill the gaps.I don't think distances will be a problem for long. A couple of thousand years could easily gives us fully bioengineered or non-biological bodies, and therefore immortality. Travel close enough to the speed of light and timespan is very bearable by the perception of anyone on the craft - go fast enough and a hundred thousand light years might only take a few months. Think far enough ahead and the advances of science are literally unthinkable.
carmonk said:
I don't think distances will be a problem for long. A couple of thousand years could easily gives us fully bioengineered or non-biological bodies, and therefore immortality. Travel close enough to the speed of light and timespan is very bearable by the perception of anyone on the craft - go fast enough and a hundred thousand light years might only take a few months. Think far enough ahead and the advances of science are literally unthinkable.
I think we are theoretically closer to that now, if we can find the right bit of DNA that be flipped. There are investigations into those creatures that are 'immortal' going on.wormholes are also real.
I find the idea of bio-engineered bodies (a fan of Stargate here) fascinating. But even with my keen interest in sci-fi, I don't see how we could transfer consciousness, it being a real transfer and not a copy.
Halb said:
carmonk said:
I don't think distances will be a problem for long. A couple of thousand years could easily gives us fully bioengineered or non-biological bodies, and therefore immortality. Travel close enough to the speed of light and timespan is very bearable by the perception of anyone on the craft - go fast enough and a hundred thousand light years might only take a few months. Think far enough ahead and the advances of science are literally unthinkable.
I think we are theoretically closer to that now, if we can find the right bit of DNA that be flipped. There are investigations into those creatures that are 'immortal' going on.wormholes are also real.
I find the idea of bio-engineered bodies (a fan of Stargate here) fascinating. But even with my keen interest in sci-fi, I don't see how we could transfer consciousness, it being a real transfer and not a copy.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff