Discussion
In my opinion, "life" is a very vague concept. And for every person or other reasonable, the concept is determined by him. For some, life is a complex combination of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. atoms. For some, the stars are also alive .. Or by living you can understand only that which has abstract thinking. I also want to note that being, in essence, is the interaction of the "environment matrix" with the "determinant of the final states", where the "environment matrix" is a set of uncertain values "state uncertainty function" (for example, such as cause-effect, wave-particle, etc. .p.) interconnected with absolute values-superpositions (number Pi, gravitational constant, etc.), and the "final state determinant" is consciousness (meaning the abstract component). The interaction of these two "matrices" is the being in which we realize ourselves and generate it. I hope that the set of words I have stated above will still be understood by someone.
Therefore, I would answer the question this way: we ourselves determine the presence / absence and prevalence of life in the Universe.
Therefore, I would answer the question this way: we ourselves determine the presence / absence and prevalence of life in the Universe.
DaviBrons said:
In my opinion, "life" is a very vague concept. And for every person or other reasonable, the concept is determined by him. For some, life is a complex combination of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. atoms. For some, the stars are also alive .. Or by living you can understand only that which has abstract thinking. I also want to note that being, in essence, is the interaction of the "environment matrix" with the "determinant of the final states", where the "environment matrix" is a set of uncertain values ??"state uncertainty function" (for example, such as cause-effect, wave-particle, etc. .p.) interconnected with absolute values-superpositions (number Pi, gravitational constant, etc.), and the "final state determinant" is consciousness (meaning the abstract component). The interaction of these two "matrices" is the being in which we realize ourselves and generate it. I hope that the set of words I have stated above will still be understood by someone.
Therefore, I would answer the question this way: we ourselves determine the presence / absence and prevalence of life in the Universe.
Firstly, I would say that brevity is a virtue, and that clarity of expression is of prime importance. Word salads are rarely of benefit to anybody, and if nobody understands what you are saying that is your fault and not theirs..Therefore, I would answer the question this way: we ourselves determine the presence / absence and prevalence of life in the Universe.
To your last point, yes the definition of "life" is under constant review and there are edge cases. But the basics are pretty well understood: a continuous energy transfer (we eat, and we excrete); some kind of a lifecycle (we are born, we grow, we die); and reproduction. There are others, YMMV, but those are largely non-contentious. For our purposes in this thread, and this is a more tricky one, we should add that we are largely interested in life that is aware. Consciousness. Self-awareness. Which is a whole other discussion. Now by any measure, an asteroid isn't alive. A star, again probably not. A microbe - yes, absolutely, is alive. But it's not conscious, and it's unlikely to build a starship and arrive fly around the US buzzing fighter pilots.
So yes, whilst we ourselves, clearly, determine what we call life. There are certain parameters that constrain us to consider only those which are useful to the discussion.
Likely already mentioned by this thread, but always good to bear in mind that numerous nations are now actively developing UAVs, and I presume with autonomy built in to avoid detection or being fired up on.
When it comes to the likes of Iran, Russia, China, North Korea etc. , (even NATO members), it could be anyone's guess as to how they test these things. Some tests may be that they fly near to commercial, military, private aircraft, for whatever reason there may be to do such a move in the eyes of the developing technology.
UAVs also don't have to conform with traditional aircraft shapes or limitations on acceleration or maneuvering that are built for a pilot.
So its likely that typical idea held by many of sci-fi 'UFO' shapes could already be in use (such as the case with the F-117 and the B-2 "flying UFO triangles" that people used to report seeing).
I'm yet to be convinced of a reason as to why a little green man would (a) want to visit in 'person', or (b) have a reason to send a 'drone' to fly around in the atmosphere, for data that can be obtained simply by receiving TV/radio signals that have been transmitted for decades.
I'm also yet to see any clear photo or video evidence of any ET technology. Everything is always sufficiently blurred or has an answer for it which can be easier explained (Occam's razor) by current technology or natural events. Basically I've not yet seen any reason to turn to a "leap of faith" to encourage a reason for an ET/UFO.
When it comes to the likes of Iran, Russia, China, North Korea etc. , (even NATO members), it could be anyone's guess as to how they test these things. Some tests may be that they fly near to commercial, military, private aircraft, for whatever reason there may be to do such a move in the eyes of the developing technology.
UAVs also don't have to conform with traditional aircraft shapes or limitations on acceleration or maneuvering that are built for a pilot.
So its likely that typical idea held by many of sci-fi 'UFO' shapes could already be in use (such as the case with the F-117 and the B-2 "flying UFO triangles" that people used to report seeing).
I'm yet to be convinced of a reason as to why a little green man would (a) want to visit in 'person', or (b) have a reason to send a 'drone' to fly around in the atmosphere, for data that can be obtained simply by receiving TV/radio signals that have been transmitted for decades.
I'm also yet to see any clear photo or video evidence of any ET technology. Everything is always sufficiently blurred or has an answer for it which can be easier explained (Occam's razor) by current technology or natural events. Basically I've not yet seen any reason to turn to a "leap of faith" to encourage a reason for an ET/UFO.
GroundZero said:
I'm yet to be convinced of a reason as to why a little green man would (a) want to visit in 'person', or (b) have a reason to send a 'drone' to fly around in the atmosphere, for data that can be obtained simply by receiving TV/radio signals that have been transmitted for decades.
I have a picture of a UFO parked just above earth and little green men watching David Attenborough, Jim Al-Khalili and Brian Cox documentaries to learn everything they need to know. 
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
No... Parallax error. Combination of aircraft travelling at speed whilst tracking an object using a gimbal mounted camera.
They mocked up it using models and got the same camera result.
What was their explanation for how the tictac travelled 60 miles from it's position to the F18's CAP point in a matter of seconds?They mocked up it using models and got the same camera result.
mike74 said:
What was their explanation for how the tictac travelled 60 miles from it's position to the F18's CAP point in a matter of seconds?
They didn't. It was an analysis of the film. Asking the question, could the film be either faked or explained as something other than aliens / technology beyond what is current. Watch it... https://youtu.be/jHDlfIaBEqw
Was just out in the garden putting the bunnies to bed. Looked up and could see a plane, pretty high, could see its beacon. But not its nav lights.
But behind it there were two bright lights, moving, slower than the plane, and much higher it seemed.
Grabbed my phone, nothing showing on FlightRadar
Kept looking, very odd.
Yeah anyway they were stars and they were moving because of clouds being blown in the other direction.
But behind it there were two bright lights, moving, slower than the plane, and much higher it seemed.
Grabbed my phone, nothing showing on FlightRadar
Kept looking, very odd.
Yeah anyway they were stars and they were moving because of clouds being blown in the other direction.
Ivo Shandor said:
A friend of my friend tells him he sees 'stuff' all ze time, he's a pilot, flies out of Manchester. He won't be mentioning it to anyone outside of his circle until he's retired.
My pilot friend tells me he's seen nothing unexplainably odd in three decades of flying. Maybe it's a manchester thing?
.Has there been any further information on what 'Off-World Vehicles Not Made On This Earth' actually are?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/explosive-u...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff