Close Encounter?

Well, if the universe is as old as many scientists think it is, then some races on distant planets could be millions of years more advanced than us, and travel by thought alone, or other means that would seem magical to us. Life would definitely have evolved at different rates, and in different ways than life on our little chunk of rock.

And these far more advanced races might be curious about our passionate and barbaric ways, or may see in us something they lack or wish to understand. Or they may just like screwing around with us. Anything is possible.

Of course it could all be wishful thinking on our part that there are aliens visiting our planet (and hopefully will stop us from destroying ourselves, ala The Day The Earth Stood Still). But there are sure a hell of alot of very reliable sources that claim to have seen them. I've even had a couple of occasions where I've seen very vivid and very unexplainable things in the night sky.

Of course, hard to prove one way or the other untill they come and say "hi" to me.

I'm agnostic on the issue.

But consider this: When we go out to study, say, black bear, we do so in a way that makes us as unobtrusive as possible in the environment. No need to scare off the subject. So, we hide behind the bushes. Sure, Mr. Bear could see us if he looked in the right place at the right time, but we're not standing there with flashing neon lights over our head, either.

And then, when he's asleep in winter, we come to his cave, shoot him up full of tranquilizer, take him out of the den, probe him, put a tag in his ear, do whatever else it is that gets done to bears in the winter, then take him back home and put him back in bed.

Now, image what happens in spring. Mr. Bear meets up with all his friends and says, "You wouldn't believe what happened to me last night! These aliens came to my bedroom, and I couldn't move. And then they took me to their lab and performed experiments on me and brought me back home. I'm honest, I swear!"

And you know what all the other bears say when they see Mr. Bear coming their way? "Psst! There's crazy Charlie again. Says he was abducted by aliens. HAH!"

Just, you know, a thought

You sure make a lot of baseless assumptions in your premise. Why do you say that it's “likely that they have created means of traveling great distances in little time (like wormholes)” Likely? Why is that? What do you base that on? What is it exactly that makes it “likely”? If we can imagine that they had that kind of technology isn't it just as “likely” that they have a way to just scan us from where they are? Why bother coming all that way?



Why does it seem like similar evolutionary processes would happen elsewhere? Different planets would have different environmental pressures guiding the evolutionary processes. It actually seems very unlikely that similar evolutionary processes would happen. Do you think there would be humanoids under the ice on Europa? If the Earth hadn't been struck by that asteroid (a purely random event), doesn't it seem "likely" that the sentient beings on the planet would be reptilian instead of humanoid?

We can speculate endlessly if we want, but in the end wishful thinking isn't reality. The only way I will ever believe that aliens are visiting our planet is when a UFO lands in my backyard. Even then I would be skeptical that it was really a UFO until the aliens actually walked (slithered, floated, hoped, crawled, whatever) up and shook my hand...and maybe took me for a ride to the moon.

Then I might believe it.

Well, I live here and I dont even want to be on the planet
Like what was posted- if they're SO advanced, why do they have to stick things up human asses?? Even Dr. McCoy on Star Trek didnt go that far! At least without dinner & a movie first.

Aint NG that magazine with all them nekked native chicks?

1) Given the expodential growth/advance of technology and the fact they've probably existed for thousands, tens of thousands or millions of years more than we have.... I'd say they could find a way to both locate us and get here.

2) Perhaps they look human because we're so accustomed to seeing humans, the mind sees what it's used to see, what it wants to see, what it doesn't scare it to see. That and if you were visiting such a warlike race as the Humans, wouldn't you do it in disguise? Humans have problems accepting even those of different skin colour or different sexuality... if you were an alien, would you really, really want to risk being shot at everywhere you went simply because you're green?

3) Evolution, the principle behind life, implies that life always evolves to be as productive and capable as possible, over time. It might be that the humanoid form is, frankly, the most efficient way of building complex organisms on planets like ours which support complex life.

4) Having said all of the above, I still believe that the vast majority of UFO sightings are simply normal objects mis-identified. I do believe aliens exist, and I think there is enough evidence to assume they are visiting Earth, though... all the material from project Blue Book, for example.

5) Despite #4, I don't believe it's useful to try to communicate with any aliens that do visit Earth, because given their intelligence they could obviously communicate with us if they wanted to, yet they don't, and we can't force them to communicate if as it seems they don't want to. Therefore, we should probably just ignore them and go about our lives. This policy has the double bonus that if *all* UFO sightings turn out to not be really cases of UFOs at all, we don't look like fools for believing in them.

ALIENS DO EXIST, I saw them in a movie

Look at the roof at the building in the background.. I took the pic and no Photoshop used - true!

I dident meet them but they was still at the top when we left Shanghai... no panic..

/Tina

that building looks like the "Daily Planet" building from all the Superman movies/tv/comics

Ah thats why I felt like home when we stayed at it - its ”Radisson New World” in Shanghai -. a PERFECT place to stay at.. Peoples Sq in front.. subway and buses.. loads of taxis..

The spaceship are a restaurant that moves when you have diner in it.. one turn in every two hors.. (not scary)..

/Tina

If you want to use that reasoning(?) then it's just as easy for me to say that perhaps to some people trashcans (or trees, or shadows, or their mother-in-laws) look like aliens because those people are accustomed to seeing too many sci-fi movies and tv shows. Or else those people are wasted. Or both.

And for those who claim they were anally probed (and who are so often named Bubba or Cletus)...well, the mind sees what it wants to see...

There was an interesting article in Scientific American a couple of years ago, asking why the SETI program hadn't found anything yet. In it, the author reasoned that it could also be possible that WE are one of the more advanced civilizations in the galaxy.

He mathematically demonstrated that it should take roughly 250,000 years from first recording of spoken symbols (writing) until a reproducing species could explore and populate most of the galaxy. His graph had a very sharp spike toward the end of it, after interstellar flight is mastered (assuming it can be).

Given that possibility, I seriously question whether another species has been here. Excluding the more brain-cramping possibilities (like dimensional time travel), it's just as likely that the other species within 100 light years of us are still sharpening stones and sticks -- or have been wiped out by meteor strikes.

People take UFO seriously not necessarily because there is good evidence UFOs are

associated with aliens, but because such ideas are entertaining. People tend to

believe things that are amusing and entertaining, and tend to reject things that’s

boring even though they are true. That’s psychology. The same thing could explain

why string theoretists so believe in their theory religiously, even though there hasn’t

been any evidence their theory has anything to do with nature.

Sounds to me like you need to read up on string theory.

And psychology.

You got both questions wrong on that test. You'll have to take this semester over again, I'm afraid.

That's so depressing...interesting, yet really depressing. Do you have a date for that issue?


Or their own hate, arrogance, and stupidity.

I believe it was 2004, probably around March through July. I've looked all over for that episode but I think I cleaned out our magazine rack.


Hate doesn't kill people. Hateful people with guns kill people.

before we travel down this road any further...tell me Cin...are you a proponent of the 10th dimension ie: String theory...I only ask so we can be "clear" on the rest of our"conversation"...

Before we travel further down this road, I'd like to know what your definition of string theory is -- specifically why you believe "there hasn’t been any evidence their theory has anything to do with nature".

ok since you seem to have a problem with answering even the simplest of yes or no questions..which was...are you a proponent of string theory..ill start our "conversation here"...there's a big problem: nobody can give a
precise description of these "general principles and exact rules
of string theory". So what you're doing here is describing the
DREAM of string theory rather than REALITY.

To be a bit more precise: you can give me exact rules for doing string
theory calculations in lots of specific backgrounds. I would like to
call these "specific string theories". There are lots of them. You
can also tell me a bunch of duality transformations that relate various
limiting cases of these specific string theories. While suggestive,
these dualities are not usually powerful enough to calculate everything
in one specific string theory starting from some other specific string
theory. There is also no background-free formulation of string theory
from which you can derive all the specific string theories.

So what you actually have - as opposed to what you *hope* you'll have
someday - is a bunch of background-dependent specific string theories
together with tantalizing relationships between them. The specific
string theories are pretty well-defined mathematical objects, so we
ask precise questions about them and get precise answers, like: "what
is dynamical and what is not?" The unified string theory you dream
of is NOT sufficiently well-defined yet for us to answer these
questions... although it may be someday, and we can always hope and
guess what it will be like now.

You see, I am just trying to be serious about the difference between
hopes and actual hard knowledge. Physicists must have hopes, and it's
often psychologically to talk to each other as if these hopes are bound
to be realized, but when they are addressing a group of nonexperts -
as you are now - it is important to distinguish between hopes and what
has actually been done so far.

A nonexpert reading what you wrote might think that somewhere there is
a paper listing the "general principles and precise rules of string
theory", so that if I read this I can say: THIS STUFF is nondynamical,
but EVERYTHING ELSE is dynamical.

Unfortunately, no such paper exists, so you can't tell me exactly what
"this stuff" is, or what "everything else" is.

If you wished to convince me that I'm wrong about this, you would tell
me what the "exact rules of string theory" are - not vaguely, but in a
precise way. Which, you and I both know ..you cant...

The string theory or the fact that we have a string world are one of the most interesting thing we human has discovered lately...

I dont fully ustand it - but the part I (maybe?) ustand are more than OK with me...

And yes the question was not to me...

Many question we ask are to find in our own mind / bodys.. al the time.. the fact we dont use that knowledge are that we dont like the answers we already are aware of.. as we want other answers..

/Tina

I don't take bait like that. You made a pretty sweeping statement that sounded like you knew nothing about string theory and I called you on it -- it's up to you to clarify your assertion, not for me to answer 20 questions.


Ignoring your misuse of the word "Dream" in reference to mathematical theory, maybe the reason for that is because string theory is still an ongoing work. It's nowhere near as finished as something like Evolutionary Theory, specifically if you're focusing on supersymmetry (which is only one part of the field, not the total). It holds a great deal of promise and offers some answers which Standard Model physics can not. Why is that sufficient reason to abandon it because it doesn't meet your criteria? Where would the fields of scientific research be if everyone had your viewpoint?


I'm not talking about doing calculations. I'm talking about your original assertion, claiming that "there hasn't been any evidence that string theory has anything to do with nature". None of your subsequent comments back your statement up at all. In fact, even the most cursory search on string theory will tell a layperson that it is an attempt to define a sensible theory of quantum (as in sub-atomic level) gravity -- last I checked, gravity was indeed a part of nature.


So you're dismissing the entire field (despite what it CAN currently do) based on the fact that it isn't completely researched and experientially supported yet? Whoa. I'm glad daVinci and Einstein didn't think like that.


Whoever said anything about UNIFIED string theory? You're drifting far afield here, Maerle -- come back to your original assertion. What is it about string theory that "doesn't have anything to do with nature"?


Absolutely, but I have never read a single thing that claimed string theory was a proven irrefutable fact. Everything I've read by knowledgable scientists talked about ongoing work, the promise it held, and the dazzling mental gymnastics it may take one day for our 3-dimensional minds to grasp 10, 11, or 26 dimensions. "Fascination" and "curiousity" are the harbingers of discovery and scientific advancement, you know.


You're imagining things. The only thing I wrote was to ask you what led you to believe that string theory "had nothing to do with nature". You're projecting too much. I said nothing of the kind.


You're not going to get away with this, Maerl. YOU are the one who made the preposterous assertion, so the burden of proof is on YOU to show how string theory has "nothing to do with nature". Don't try to turn it around on me. It's not going to work.

I await your answer. No arm waving please.

LOL..all YOU had to do was answer one simple question...you refused that request...so i gave you my ideas on the subject...just because you THOUGHT i knew nothing doesnt mean i baited you..just dont jump to the conclusion that everyones "less intelligent " than Cin..mmkay??

My opinions on it weren't the question. You tried to turn it around on me, and that's as transparent a debate tactic as there is. Not gonna work. I'm not the one who made the assertion. You were.


In other words you aren't going to defend you original assertion. Mmmmkay.

I personally find it laughable to say that a theory that is intended to explain pretty much all of nature has nothing to do with nature...

Also, Maerl, I'd like you to be more specific as to what you mean by "evidence".

Oh, and Maerl...what you said about not being able to settle on one specific formulation could apply to psychology, too. Yet you had no problem with an absolute "That's psychology."