Hawkings says Aliens are certain...

[awake]

Volcanoes, tornadoes, wars and earthquakes, melting ice caps and disappearing glaciers all are not bad enough these mad, latter times; now, planetary Uber brain, Stephen Hawking tells us not to count on any heavenly encounters of the extraterrestrial kind to pull this weary race's fat out of the fire.

Hawking tells the London Times, not only are alien races mathematically certain, they're just as likely too to be marauding remnants of dead planets, desperately seeking an island of refuge in a very large sea. He suggested, should Earth be visited by such a crew, the results would be far from welcomed, saying;

"If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans." - S. Hawkings


Other than the I hate humans slant, I would like to point out that only a peaceful capitalistic society in a free division of labor could ever get off their planet to begin with. To sustain that kind of out worldly action, unbridled freedom could only achieve it. The task is so grand that it could only be a result of free minds who do not destroy wealth through war and welfare.

They tried to make us believe we would all die from a 3 degree rise in temperatures 50 years from now. All to institute a global framework of bureaucrats and politicians. That has flopped hard, now the dealers in fear are thinking, lets roll the alien threat card and see if it can get us our precious world league of liars, thieves and murders.

[torchbearer]

well, with what people think of illegal aliens in this country, i'm pretty certain the hostility will be coming from us.

[awake]

Well if they do exist and they know where we are, that would make them non interventionists. Fine in my book.

I think I already know what Dr. Paul would say - trade with em'.

[zach]

from what I've read, most of the 'good' ETs practice non-intervention in part to respecting free will that we as humans have.

[Brian4Liberty]

I agree with Hawking...

There is absolutely life on other planets. A lot of it. Not too worry though, it's so far away they will probably never be visiting us.

[tpreitzel]

Stephen Hawking,

Please contact Dr. J. Vallee or read his book, Messengers of Deception. Don't delay!

[torchbearer]

lizard people are already here, and they aren't friendly unless you are a productive slave that doesn't question.

[zach]

lizard people are already here, and they aren't friendly unless you are a productive slave that doesn't question.

http://www.globalpov.com/images/pelosilizard.jpg

[awake]

Photosohp is mightier than the sword.

[South Park Fan]

I guess Hawking has never seen District 9.

[silus]

"If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans." - S. Hawkings
Awesome line. haha.

[Fox McCloud]

One day humans will be the aliens scouring for resources, devouring planets.

while I do not personally believe in intelligent life "out there", I find it incredibly humorous that this is never mentioned; it's always assumed that if/when we contact an alien race it will be the alien race doing the contacting and it will be them that are the advanced ones; they hardly ever take into consideration that it could be us that's the one that makes contact with another race or us that goes from planet to planet conquering and enslaving (speaking hypothetically for a second that aliens do really exist).

either way, the consensus has been, for a long time that "there's so many planets and galaxies and stars out there there just has to be life, mathematically", but, in more recent times, I've noticed a slight shift (hasn't become mainstream yet though) that argues that the conditions for life are insanely rare and that the mathematical estimates are way overblown at best and highly optimistic for there being "life out there".

[silus]

either way, the consensus has been, for a long time that "there's so many planets and galaxies and stars out there there just has to be life, mathematically", but, in more recent times, I've noticed a slight shift (hasn't become mainstream yet though) that argues that the conditions for life are insanely rare and that the mathematical estimates are way overblown at best and highly optimistic for there being "life out there".
I've heard the exact opposite. That only now are we starting to see how likely it is for intelligent life to exist elsewhere...:shrug

[speciallyblend]

if we are the smartest thing in the universe. then someone screwed up!!!

[Anti Federalist]

if we are the smartest thing in the universe. then someone screwed up!!!

Why all the self hate?

For all our fuckups, humanity really is something.

I don't see a toad or a dog inventing a computer or space station anytime soon.;)

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.globalpov.com/images/pelosilizard.jpg

Holy crap that made me laugh.

:D

[Scofield]

Why all the self hate?

For all our fuckups, humanity really is something.

I don't see a toad or a dog inventing a computer or space station anytime soon.;)

I also don't see toads or dogs exterminating, en masse, their own kind. Nor do I see toads or dogs destroying the Earth for material gain.

That said, not counting the negatives of humanity, humans are pretty neat.

[WorldonaString]

If they run into me first saying, "Take me to your leader." I'm giving em Dr. Paul's card!

[devil21]

There's been a lot of "alien" stuff on the tv networks lately. There were even shows on the History Channel last nite about the Great Pyramids being used as communication and power towers for alien crafts. That stuff is always reserved for tin foil websites, not the History Channel.

[JeNNiF00F00]

One day humans will be the aliens scouring for resources, devouring planets.

Maybe the aliens people are always talking about, are US from the future. :P

[nate895]

"Thus sayeth Stephen Hawking"

Given naturalistic presuppositions, yes, there is certainly other sentient life our there. Given Christian supernatural presuppositions, there is certainly not any sentient life outside of the human race.

[Bman]

Maybe the aliens people are always talking about, are US from the future. :P

Maybe they're US from the past. :eek:

Ever wonder what may be buried under all those wonderful monuments in Egypt?

[torchbearer]

my future self is a complete dick. he won't even allow himself to be seen with me in public. what a prick!

[Bman]

my future self is a complete dick. he won't even allow himself to be seen with me in public. what a prick!

Your's also? I've been telling my future self to bring me money from the future for years with no results. Total dick!

[torchbearer]

Your's also? I've been telling my future self to bring me money from the future for years with no results. Total dick!

I've gotten to the point I won't even talk to my future self.
I don't know what i'm about to do to my future self, i just hope its so devious as to earn the cold shoulder i am getting.

[Reason]

I love listening to Hawkings' books on mp3, much more fascinating/enlightening/interesting than any religious shenanigans.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Maybe they're US from the past. :eek:

Ever wonder what may be buried under all those wonderful monuments in Egypt?

oh noes my mind is going to explode now!

[Pete_00]

He should use his mathematical skills and fame to wake up the masses to what is happening...he is instead wasting his time on Aliens :rolleyes:

If he cant figure out what is happening on Earth, why should i listen to him regarding what is happening above ground?

Scientists are the biggest pack of dupes and airheaded robots around...


I love listening to Hawkings' books on mp3, much more fascinating/enlightening/interesting than any religious shenanigans.

And what is religion doing here? Does that hatred for beleivers derive from the fact that you keep thinking about travelling to Planet Uranus?

[Liberty Stud]

Well the aliens will almost certainly be sentient mechanical "robots", not biological, by the time they are advanced enough to visit here. There is no way to know what they would do to us. Probably put us in a zoo, or just make the entire planet a sort of "natural preserve" and mainly leave us alone.

[0zzy]

He should use his mathematical skills and fame to wake up the masses to what is happening...he is instead wasting his time on Aliens :rolleyes:

If he cant figure out what is happening on Earth, why should i listen to him regarding what is happening above ground?

Scientists are the biggest pack of dupes and airheaded robots around...



And what is religion doing here? Does that hatred for beleivers derive from the fact that you keep thinking about travelling to Planet Uranus?

Why do religious people like yourself look down on scientist? And science lovers like the one you quoted look down on religion?

As a great Rodney King once said, why can't we all get along?

[BenIsForRon]

They tried to make us believe we would all die from a 3 degree rise in temperatures 50 years from now. All to institute a global framework of bureaucrats and politicians. That has flopped hard, now the dealers in fear are thinking, lets roll the alien threat card and see if it can get us our precious world league of liars, thieves and murders.

Are you serious? You think that Hawking is part of a global conspiracy to make us afraid of an alien invasion?

[devil21]

Are you serious? You think that Hawking is part of a global conspiracy to make us afraid of an alien invasion?

I don't necessarily agree with the conspiracy theory aspect but this isn't anything particularly new. Lots of interesting links if you search around.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2009m2d17-Ronald-Reagan-and-Russian-leader-Gorbachev-promoted-a-future-UFO-alien-false-flag-invasion


Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev and the “UFO Alien” extraterrestrial invasion

Like the Star Wars ionosphere space-based weapons system, the “UFO alien” false flag invasion appears to be a joint product of an international command and control network within both the U.S., Russia, and other entities. We now know from data collected by Canadian researcher Grant Cameron that during the period 1985-87, Ronald Reagan as U.S. president and Mikhail Gorbachev, actively inter-promoted the “UFO invasion” meme as part of the U.S.-USSR dialogue.

A master strategic salesman, Reagan had sold the weaponization of space as part of the dialectic of terrestrial enemies, in this case the dialectic of the USA versus the USSR Soviet Union, the “archenemy” that the war economy had created for hypercapitalism.

Although billed as a personal “fantasy,” Reagan promoted the weaponization of space and a global “friendly fascist” state with the meme of a “UFO alien” false flag invasion, at least 4 times during his presidential career. Reagan injected the “UFO alien” invasion meme into the Nov. 19, 1985 summit with Michael Gorbachev. The U.S. Department of State Memorandum of Conversation reports that:

"Reagan said that while the General Secretary [Gorbachev] was speaking, he had been thinking of various problems being discussed at the talks. He said that previous to the General Secretary’s remarks, he had been telling Foreign Minister Shevardnadze (who was sitting to the President’s right) that if the people of the world were to find out that there was some alien life form that was going to attack the Earth approaching on Halley’s Comet, then that knowledge would unite all the peoples of the world."

In a February 16, 1987, speech the "Survival of Humanity," Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev gives explicit public long-term credence to the future “UFO alien” extraterrestrial invasion meme:

"At our meeting in Geneva, the U.S. President said that if the earth faced an invasion by extraterrestrials, the United states and the Soviet Union would join forces to repel such an invasion. I shall not dispute the hypothesis, although I think it’s early yet to worry about such an intrusion. It is much more important to think about the problems that have entered in our common home."

As the heads of state for the then super powers, Gorbachev and Reagan are laying the psycho-social infrastucture for a future “UFO alien” invasion, and mutually creating the economic market for a space-based weapons arms race that has dominated the 21st century thus far.

Reagan at the UN:
YouTube - Regan's ALIEN speech to UN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag44dRO8LEA&feature=player_embedded)

[BenIsForRon]

Ok... it's something two dumb politicians brought up in personal chats, as a scenario where our two countries would work together. Does not lead any credence to Awake's paranoid delusion.

[awake]

Are you serious? You think that Hawking is part of a global conspiracy to make us afraid of an alien invasion?

No conspiracy, just a statistical opportunity by political minded folks. Have you seen polls regarding the beliefs in life on other planets lately? They are starting to climb up there which means it can be a usefull vehicle for the "monopoly protection rackets".

"The bigger the lie, the easier the sell".

[BenIsForRon]

No conspiracy, just a statistical opportunity by political minded folks. Have you seen polls regarding the beliefs in life on other planets lately? They are starting to climb up there which means it can be a usefull vehicle for the "monopoly protection rackets".

"The bigger the lie, the easier the sell".

Sooo.... you actually do think Stephen Hawking is helping the elites set up a protection racket under the guise of an alien invasion?

Pull yourself together man.

[noxagol]

I don't think I agree with the, aliens are always our enemies, line of thinking. I mean, if they are that advanced, I'm sure that trading with us would be a shit ton easier since we would value their technology greatly. Plus, if they are so advanced, they could just as easily harvest planets that are crappy to us, unless they need water. Then, they could easily trade with us some tech for lots of ocean water. As I hear it, we are going to be flooded to death with it anyways :rolleyes

[Bruno]

No conspiracy, just a statistical opportunity by political minded folks. Have you seen polls regarding the beliefs in life on other planets lately? They are starting to climb up there which means it can be a usefull vehicle for the "monopoly protection rackets".

"The bigger the lie, the easier the sell".

Did they start the Big Lie thousands of years ago? There have been sightings for eons.

"Alexander the Great purportedly gave a description of "dozens of silver disk-like objects" entering and leaving the Jaxartes River in 337 BC. Alexander, so the story goes, then became obsessed with the craft and spent many hours in a primitive diving bell searching for them. (Source: History Channel "Unidentified Submarine Objects")

[MelissaWV]

Other than the I hate humans slant, I would like to point out that only a peaceful capitalistic society in a free division of labor could ever get off their planet to begin with. To sustain that kind of out worldly action, unbridled freedom could only achieve it. The task is so grand that it could only be a result of free minds who do not destroy wealth through war and welfare.

They tried to make us believe we would all die from a 3 degree rise in temperatures 50 years from now. All to institute a global framework of bureaucrats and politicians. That has flopped hard, now the dealers in fear are thinking, lets roll the alien threat card and see if it can get us our precious world league of liars, thieves and murders.

Who were we engaged in the Space Race against?

[paulitics]

I disagree with the aliens absolutely do exist, unless you include unintelligent life forms, or micro organisms in that category. We just don't know.

The earth has not been invaded by aliens yet, but we hae existed for millennia. It was just as likely the earth could be invaded back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, than now. From a statistical standpoint, it is very unlikely we will be invaded in our lifetimes.

[Bruno]

I disagree with the aliens absolutely do exist, unless you include unintelligent life forms, or micro organisms in that category. We just don't know.

The earth has not been invaded by aliens yet, but we hae existed for millennia. It was just as likely the earth could be invaded back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, than now. From a statistical standpoint, it is very unlikely we will be invaded in our lifetimes.

They have likely been here for thousands of years, as sightings indicate throughout history.

[paulitics]

They have likely been here for thousands of years, as sightings indicate throughout history.

There have been sightings of aliens on earth for thousands of years? If you mean, UFOs, then that can be explained by many different possibilities.

People have also always wanted to believe that spaceships are floating around, , and that they were the ones to first see it, even thousands of years ago.

[Bruno]

There have been sightings of aliens on earth for thousands of years? If you mean, UFOs, then that can be explained by many different possibilities.

People have also always wanted to believe that spaceships are floating around, , and that they were the ones to first see it, even thousands of years ago.

Yes, I mean UFO sightings, but yes, I also believe those sightings have been visitors from other planets who have been here for thousands of years. That's my belief.

I'm not sure I follow you on your 2nd paragraph. Are you saying that for thousands of years people have dreamed of other technologies travelling through the stars to visit us, and therefore explained them that way?

[paulitics]

Yes, I mean UFO sightings, but yes, I also believe those sightings have been visitors from other planets who have been here for thousands of years. That's my belief.

I'm not sure I follow you on your 2nd paragraph. Are you saying that for thousands of years people have dreamed of other technologies travelling through the stars to visit us, and therefore explained them that way?

What do you mean as been here for thousands of years? Do you mean our congress critters might be aliens afterall? lol.

And what I was saying is people thousands of years ago, may have seen or imagined UFOs in the sky. They may not have understood technology, but may have belived what they saw to be an alien encounter instead of a comet or some other natural occurance.

I'm sure the thought of life existing elsewhere has been with us since the beginning of mankind. Man has always wanted to believe.

[Bruno]

What do you mean as been here for thousands of years? Do you mean our congress critters might be aliens afterall? lol.

And what I was saying is people thousands of years ago, may have seen or imagined UFOs in the sky. They may not have understood technology, but may have belived what they saw to be an alien encounter instead of a comet or some other natural occurance.

I'm sure the thought of life existing elsewhere has been with us since the beginning of mankind. Man has always wanted to believe.

What I mean by that is that it is plausible that sightings from thousands of years ago were in fact visitors from other planets that have been observing us for some time. They may have been the basis for many religions around the world.

If we can in the span of 100 years learn to take flight, travel to the moon, operate remote vehicles on Mars, and have our own spacecraft exit out solar system, it is plausible that other civilizations within our without of our galaxy may have mastered space travel thousands of years ago.

Fifteen years ago we couldn't even confirm the existance of any planets outside our solar system. We have now discovered 450 planets within a tiny segment of the Milky Way. There are likely billions of planets in the Universe, many much older than ours.

check out the video below, especially the encounters with Alexander the Great and his army. He reportedly developed a diving bell to use to find the craft that kept disappearing into the sea.

http://www.cosmicnewsnetwork.com/wordpress/?p=10107

[ChaosControl]

We'd have no way of knowing if they'd be hostile or not.

I think aliens probably exist, but I doubt they'd ever want to come into contact with humans one way or another. And who is to say our climate would even be welcoming to them anyway?

[Bruno]

We'd have no way of knowing if they'd be hostile or not.

I think aliens probably exist, but I doubt they'd ever want to come into contact with humans one way or another. And who is to say our climate would even be welcoming to them anyway?

I agree that we have no way of knowing if they would be hostile or not. Some theories are that some of them are, some of them are not.

Why do you think they would not want to come in contact with us? We study extensively every single organism we encounter on earth. Why would such an advanced life form from another planet not have the same curiousity about our primitive ways and want to study us?

[werdd]

There's been a lot of "alien" stuff on the tv networks lately. There were even shows on the History Channel last nite about the Great Pyramids being used as communication and power towers for alien crafts. That stuff is always reserved for tin foil websites, not the History Channel.

The ancient astronaut theorist are about as tin foil as they come.

[Arklatex]

We've had contact for decades, I bet Hawking knows this. We've even shot some of them down after they came here to answer what they thought was a signal of distress, when really we were just shooting a radar beam to the moon for the first time, in 1946. It was picked up all across the system, they replied, when we didn't they came here.

We've had plenty contact since then, 1946, but even before our time, back even before Sumeria and Atlantis there were civilizations here who knew very well of our brothers and sisters.

Believe it or not they look almost just like us, the human form is the rule not the exception. It existed even before Earth was born. This is all true my friends and how funny it is when you know this to look at how mislead we are by our churches and governments. Every nation on this planet has witnessed them, it's truly a grand coverup to keep control of the people, because if the people knew the truth, which they have and will again, they have no alliance to any church or government but to creation itself. It is so beautiful my friends. Seek for yourself, if you truly consciously seek you will find my friends. Ask your higherself to communicate with you in your dreams, the language of the soul.

We are metaphysical beings, who basic workings are electrical. The composite of your thoughts can give you a charge, just like a magnet. This determines your harvest - your charge. Most are not polarized and they will repeat 3rd grade again until they do.

alleulah like bob Marley says give praise and thanks, smile my brothers for you are eternal and are a god, infants we are here.

[damiengwa]

Steve Hawking is a fraud... How in the hell can he calculate the probability of there being life in the universe, nevertheless intelligent life, nevertheless concepts about an alien society and how they would behave in an encouter with human's. And by what technology can this race travel through the harshness of an irradiated empty and vast universe?

He's just talking shit to get attention because his brilliant mathematical discovery are over. The man has long since past his intellectual prime. People only bother paying attention b/c he's in a wheel chair and can hardly move...

[Arklatex]

If asked, I can explain very well how they get here and travel across space. its simple

Also I can explain the sun, and how modern science can not explain how our sun can heat up pluto, and create an environment very suitable to us. All these planets we are told are at absolute zero.... they are wrong. I can explain it in very simple terms and you'll know it's the truth. This has been known and told to the public back in the 50s by George Adamski.

[Theocrat]

Volcanoes, tornadoes, wars and earthquakes, melting ice caps and disappearing glaciers all are not bad enough these mad, latter times; now, planetary Uber brain, Stephen Hawking tells us not to count on any heavenly encounters of the extraterrestrial kind to pull this weary race's fat out of the fire.

Hawking tells the London Times, not only are alien races mathematically certain, they're just as likely too to be marauding remnants of dead planets, desperately seeking an island of refuge in a very large sea. He suggested, should Earth be visited by such a crew, the results would be far from welcomed, saying;

"If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans." - S. Hawkings


Other than the I hate humans slant, I would like to point out that only a peaceful capitalistic society in a free division of labor could ever get off their planet to begin with. To sustain that kind of out worldly action, unbridled freedom could only achieve it. The task is so grand that it could only be a result of free minds who do not destroy wealth through war and welfare.

They tried to make us believe we would all die from a 3 degree rise in temperatures 50 years from now. All to institute a global framework of bureaucrats and politicians. That has flopped hard, now the dealers in fear are thinking, lets roll the alien threat card and see if it can get us our precious world league of liars, thieves and murders.

I'd like to see the mathematical equation he used to know that alien races are certain. After all, an equation is not the same as the presence of the aliens themselves. It sounds an awful lot like faith in the cosmos...

[Pete_00]

Why do religious people like yourself look down on scientist? And science lovers like the one you quoted look down on religion?

As a great Rodney King once said, why can't we all get along?

Not just scientists...poets, painters, writers, musicians, actors, comedians, philosophers, psychologists, movie directors/producers, sculptors, intellectuals, etc, etc...they think they are Gods-on-Earth, they think they have the duty to guide the rest of us but where are they when it comes to this monstrous conspiracy that is destroying Mankind? They are nowhere, excepting collaborating with it willingly or unwillingly. To make things worst the few that try to warn us and fight against this conspiracy are cast aside and ridiculed by their peers.

The "intellectual/artistic class" are the scum of the Earth for the most part. Mostly arrogant absent-minded dimwitts, easily corrupted and manipulated by the powerful and yet think the masses have to worship them.

[mczerone]

Believe it or not they look almost just like us, the human form is the rule not the exception. It existed even before Earth was born. This is all true my friends and how funny it is when you know this to look at how mislead we are by our churches and governments. Every nation on this planet has witnessed them, it's truly a grand coverup to keep control of the people, because if the people knew the truth, which they have and will again, they have no alliance to any church or government but to creation itself. It is so beautiful my friends. Seek for yourself, if you truly consciously seek you will find my friends. Ask your higherself to communicate with you in your dreams, the language of the soul.

So do humans independently evolve from apes on each planet, or is our fossil record a plant by the dastardly aliens trying to trick us?

Why is our DNA so closely related to other mammals, and likewise to the rest of earth's organisms?

I don't doubt that there are aliens out there - and I could even be convinced that they have visited our rock. But some of these claims that you make are blatantly falsifiable. I'm not misled by a church or govt - so don't try to respond by claiming I'm just not seeing what you see. I am a free thinker that evaluates the verifiable evidence to form my opinions - and you have no evidence outside of your dreamworld.

[Pete_00]

Steve Hawking is a fraud... How in the hell can he calculate the probability of there being life in the universe, nevertheless intelligent life, nevertheless concepts about an alien society and how they would behave in an encouter with human's. And by what technology can this race travel through the harshness of an irradiated empty and vast universe?

He's just talking shit to get attention because his brilliant mathematical discovery are over. The man has long since past his intellectual prime. People only bother paying attention b/c he's in a wheel chair and can hardly move...

Maybe he should start going for the wheelchair tunning business. Pimp my Ride with 1000volt motors and high-tech lithium batteries, crazy paintjobs, 100psi pneumatic drool extractors, 5000watt stereo systems, wheelchair drag racing and all that :cool:

[mczerone]

Steve Hawking is a fraud... How in the hell can he calculate the probability of there being life in the universe, nevertheless intelligent life, nevertheless concepts about an alien society and how they would behave in an encouter with human's. And by what technology can this race travel through the harshness of an irradiated empty and vast universe?

He's just talking shit to get attention because his brilliant mathematical discovery are over. The man has long since past his intellectual prime. People only bother paying attention b/c he's in a wheel chair and can hardly move...

Harsh. But true.

I'd say that Hawking is a well respected, and well intentioned theorist - but he's not only out of his element here; he's lacking a sufficient background in evolutionary biology, sociology, and even basic physio-neural-psychology (i.e. organic thinking machines).

There are two way to interact with other actors, human or otherwise, by force and by agreement. Until we deal with expunging the use of force amongst ourselves, why should we worry about the potential for force from beyond? Maybe a voluntarily helping hand would be the best thing for us!

In fact, because the logistics of physical space travel are daunting, the only relationship we may ever be able to enter with alien intelligence is one of information - inventions, theories, and philosophies. And if this is the case, what is there to be scared of? The truth is discoverable by reason - and if these beings have reason, they should have the same truth. So lets open up, share, and show the alien races that we are only interested in peace by rejecting the use of force amongst ourselves.

"Take me to your leader" is a propaganda tool developed to indoctrinate a subservient population. The likely first interaction with a new being would be "I can offer you X, what can you offer me?" To assume one has a leader is to assume that he is a slave and cannot do as he wishes with his own property. I'd bet that if there are aliens observing us now, they refuse to deal with us until we abstain from coercion upon each other, at least institutionally.

[torchbearer]

Steve Hawking is a fraud... How in the hell can he calculate the probability of there being life in the universe, nevertheless intelligent life, nevertheless concepts about an alien society and how they would behave in an encouter with human's. And by what technology can this race travel through the harshness of an irradiated empty and vast universe?

He's just talking shit to get attention because his brilliant mathematical discovery are over. The man has long since past his intellectual prime. People only bother paying attention b/c he's in a wheel chair and can hardly move...

Drake Equation is a good place to start-


http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

[Keller1967]

Hawking is simply stating the obvious.

[Brian4Liberty]

Maybe the aliens people are always talking about, are US from the future. :P

I am 99% sure that "time travel" (into the past) is not possible and will never occur. The "speed" of time is relative though. It can go slower and faster in different situations, but this does not allow travel into the past. We travel into the future every day though. I just did it. ;)


Yes, I mean UFO sightings, but yes, I also believe those sightings have been visitors from other planets who have been here for thousands of years. That's my belief.


I am 99% sure that aliens from other planets have not visited our planet. From other continents, yes, other planets, no.


We'd have no way of knowing if they'd be hostile or not.


It doesn't have to be one way or another. Why couldn't they be just like humans? Might be good, might be bad.


I'd like to see the mathematical equation he used to know that alien races are certain. After all, an equation is not the same as the presence of the aliens themselves. It sounds an awful lot like faith in the cosmos...

There is no mathematical equation (there might be a statistical one based on current, but limited knowledge). It is a theory. It is a "belief". The theory is derived in the same way that someone sitting on an isolated island would theorize that there is some sort of life on other islands. (With the knowledge that there are a lot of other similar islands).

[Mini-Me]

I agree with Hawking that the existence of sapient aliens is as certain as almost anything, but I definitely disagree with him about their motives on contact. I think Hawking is presupposing several extremely unlikely conditions to reach his conclusion:
He's presupposing that an alien species will be technologically advanced enough to travel hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of light years to reach us...but be incapable of harvesting resources anywhere except for a "garden world" (to borrow Mass Effect's terminology). Come on, seriously? ;) First, they will obviously not need Earth for energy, because there are much better sources which would be much easier to access than a garden planet thousands of light years from home. Even aside from the fact that stars are easier to find than Earth-like planets (solar power), we'll be mining Uranus of helium3 (for cold fusion) long before conquering planets we haven't even heard of today. Second, they will not need Earth for its water or a living environment, either. Water is relatively common in ice form (it's on our next-door neighbor, Mars), and taking advantage of that would require much less technology than traveling thousands of light years. Plus, we're already talking about beginning to colonize planets like Mars, in our current technological state, which is far less advanced than anything visitor aliens would possess. Finally, we're even discussing the possibility of terraforming Mars (etc.) over the course of thousands of years. Even if aliens don't like colonizing non-garden planets, and if they're also too stupid to plan ahead sufficiently, they'd probably be able to quickly "skip" a few thousand years anyway: Unless they reached Earth by almost instantaneous travel (through a wormhole, folded dimensions, and Alcubierre drive, etc.) without having yet developed relativistic travel, they'd probably be able to start terraforming a planet, fly elsewhere at relativistic speeds, and fly back immediately to "quickly" spend a few millenia...and bam, they just terraformed a world on fast-forward.
He's presupposing that a society could become technologically advanced enough to scour the galaxy for planets, without first advancing enough in the cultural sense to become peaceful and generally benevolent. This is a stretch. First, a warlike society constrained to a single home is likely to annihilate itself before developing the extremely advanced technology required to travel thousands of light years looking for other planets (...and if a warlike society is not constrained to a single planet, that means they found other places to live less remote than Earth). Second, as someone else mentioned, only a mostly free (and largely non-coercive) society is likely to develop that kind of technology at all. The economic inefficiency of socialism and other coercive systems would make it extremely unlikely for a non-free society to continually produce enough wealth to continually advance their technology, without eventually stagnating. Only a true hive-mind with instantaneous access to all information regarding supply and "demand" (need, in the case of a hive mind) would be likely to overcome this.
He's presupposing that an extremely advanced society would be likely to run around "exhausting" planets of their resources, but this is, frankly, ridiculous. First I'll address the population argument: The Malthusian idea of overpopulation is total bullshit, because it disregards economic factors. Barring coercion, moral hazard, and non-industrial tribes (like in Africa) - which would likely be minimal or nonexistent in a sufficiently advanced alien society (see above) - population growth naturally tapers off as people decide it's economically unviable to provide for more children. The economic reality is this: Either resources are too scarce to make more human or alien babies, or resources are not too scarce to make more human or alien babies. If they are too scarce, then smart people/aliens won't reproduce more than they can, and the stupid ones won't have enough resources to survive, bringing the population back down to a sustainable level. This economic reality is logically necessary and will not change across cultures/species. (There's another economic reality which might change across species, but which might not: We can empirically determine that prosperous industrial societies only reproduce at replacement rate, barring immigration.)
Second, I'll address the "climate change" argument: First, let's pretend like the human-caused global warming argument is valid, even though it isn't. In that case, global warming apologists claim that it's caused by burning fossil fuels, correct? Well...what kind of advanced alien society, capable of reaching Earth from their home planet, is still going to be burning fossil fuels and ruining their current settlements? Give me a break! We've only been burning them for a couple hundred years, and we're already transitioning to alternative energy sources. We'll be relying on solar power, nuclear fusion, etc. long before we're capable of traveling interstellar distances. Using helium3 as fuel would sure as hell be more efficient than using petroleum. Even if it weren't, it's not like fossil fuels are likely to last forever anyway...especially if you ask the peak oil crowd.
Third, I'll address the argument of pollution: Humans are known to pollute rivers, the air, the ground, etc. However, even in our technologically primitive state, we've already realized that we can't just dump toxic chemicals into our water, and we've begun to rectify that. Any society long-lived enough to develop interstellar travel would also be smart enough to figure that out. We're slowly realizing that our sewage system is polluting our drinking water as well, and solutions aren't terribly hard to come by (composting, on-site treatment Earthship style, etc.). Does anyone think an alien society could develop the technology to reach Earth without finding a similar solution to this problem? Finally, we're all aware that terrestrial landfills are not sustainable indefinitely, and they're also leaking toxins at times...and solutions are forthcoming here too. If nothing else, an alien society capable of reaching Earth would be capable of cleaning up their own planet and dumping their waste on some totally barren moon. Finally, air pollution comes back to the fossil fuels argument, and again, an alien society is going to outgrow those long before setting out to colonize new plants.

Long story short: It is unlikely for an alien society to be hostile, and it is absolutely ridiculous to think an advanced alien society would environmentally ruin its home world (let alone successive planets) and desperately scour the galaxy for new worlds to consume.

I think it's very important for people to understand something: World-renowned scientists like Hawking are extremely intelligent, but they also tend to be extremely naive politically, and they tend to be equally naive when it comes to believing the "scientific establishment" outside of their fields. The reason should be obvious: Within their own fields, leading scientists ARE the scientific establishment. Because they are the scientific establishment, they'll naturally agree with its consensuses, and this makes them much more likely to implicitly trust the consensuses reached in other scientific fields. (Plus, there's also the idea that leading scientists in one field will want to trust the authority of another field's consensuses, because that gives them emotional validation of their own authority.)

In Hawking's case, he's an expert physicist...which means he's likely to blindly adhere to establishment views in economics and climatology/"ecology." That's making him carry a lot of faulty economic assumptions into any speculation that is not strictly contained in his field...such as his comments here. Although the fields of economics, climate science, etc. are almost entirely dominated by political motivations, I think it's a huge stretch to think the field of physics is the same, but that still doesn't prevent physicists like Hawking from being blinded by the idiots and frauds in neighboring fields.

Although Hawking's argument is pretty absurd, I haven't yet addressed three other possibilities:
What if an alien society is peaceful with itself but xenophobic towards others? Such a society would be able to advance technologically without stagnating or annihilating itself. Still, I think xenophobia would be highly unlikely in such a society; xenophobic attitudes come from a position of weakness and fear, and I imagine an extremely advanced society would be pretty confident in its superiority over us, and it wouldn't bother with a preemptive attack.
What if an alien society is simply dismissive of the value of "lesser" beings? It's possible that they'd view us as cattle or lab rats, much like we view cattle as cattle and lab rats as lab rats. ;) Although the long-term trend on Earth points towards increasing respect for other animals (especially the more intelligent ones), I don't really know what equilibrium we'll finally settle at (in a few hundred years or so)...and besides, it would be presumptuous to think an alien society would develop culturally in the same way. Nevertheless, if a hostile alien society reaches Earth anytime soon (i.e. anytime we're still constrained to Earth), we're going to be pretty defenseless. We wouldn't be enemies; we'd be ants. Exterminating us, turning us into lab rats, etc. wouldn't realistically be a huge logistical issue for them. In this sense, we might as well be optimistic about their morals, because if the worst happens, we're screwed anyway.
What if a peaceful, advanced society ends up developing a violent rogue element over time? In this case, they might actually be weak/small enough to fight by the time they reach us, even barring defensive intervention by the peaceful faction. Still, in this unlikely scenario - where we'd actually have a fighting chance against a hostile society - everyone on Earth would unite to fight them regardless of political differences...and the way to ensure the best possible technology by this hypothetical future point is by allowing our economy to grow as quickly as possible (i.e. legalize liberty ;)). Of course, if their numbers were small and they tried to overcome us by deception, then all bets are off...although I think the David Icke types might provide some decent speculation about what kind of deception they'd use. ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

Drake Equation is a good place to start-


http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

Now there's a good statistical equation. Most of those variables are unknowns, so it can't actually be "solved" though.

[torchbearer]

Now there's a good statistical equation. Most of those variables are unknowns, so it can't actually be "solved" though.

as we get info, we update the variables.
wasn't that long ago that we didn't even have proof other planets existed outside our solar system. we knew by probability of a googol star systems other planets should exist. now we know they do and in great number. just looking at our own lil' neighborhood.
as our instruments get better, our data gets better.
I'm with Carl Sagan on this one. I have a many worlds view.

[Theocrat]

Drake Equation is a good place to start-


http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;

How does one know if there are any civilizations "with which communication might be possible"? Is that verified mathematically, or is it based on an assumption?

and


R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets

Once again, has it ever been observed that each of those stars have planets? Even so, how do we know that each of those planets can even support life? It's based on assumptions not tested by empirical means of science.


ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

"Potentially support life"? How is the potential of life even measured from something which is billions of light years away?


fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

Once again, has that been observed? If so, where is the evidence?

[torchbearer]

theo, post above yours.
probability is not faith.

[Keller1967]

I agree with Hawking that the existence of sapient aliens is as certain as almost anything, but I definitely disagree with him about their motives on contact. I think Hawking is presupposing several extremely unlikely conditions to reach his conclusion:
He's presupposing that an alien species will be technologically advanced enough to travel hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of light years to reach us...but be incapable of harvesting resources anywhere except for a "garden world" (to borrow Mass Effect's terminology). Come on, seriously? ;) First, they will obviously not need Earth for energy, because there are much better sources which would be much easier to access than a garden planet thousands of light years from home. Even aside from the fact that stars are easier to find than Earth-like planets (solar power), we'll be mining Uranus of helium3 (for cold fusion) long before conquering planets we haven't even heard of today. Second, they will not need Earth for its water or a living environment, either. Water is relatively common in ice form (it's on our next-door neighbor, Mars), and taking advantage of that would require much less technology than traveling thousands of light years. Plus, we're already talking about beginning to colonize planets like Mars, in our current technological state, which is far less advanced than anything visitor aliens would possess. Finally, we're even discussing the possibility of terraforming Mars (etc.) over the course of thousands of years. Even if aliens don't like colonizing non-garden planets, and if they're also too stupid to plan ahead sufficiently, they'd probably be able to quickly "skip" a few thousand years anyway: Unless they reached Earth by almost instantaneous travel (through a wormhole, folded dimensions, and Alcubierre drive, etc.) without having yet developed relativistic travel, they'd probably be able to start terraforming a planet, fly elsewhere at relativistic speeds, and fly back immediately to "quickly" spend a few millenia...and bam, they just terraformed a world on fast-forward.
He's presupposing that a society could become technologically advanced enough to scour the galaxy for planets, without first advancing enough in the cultural sense to become peaceful and generally benevolent. This is a stretch. First, a warlike society constrained to a single home is likely to annihilate itself before developing the extremely advanced technology required to travel thousands of light years looking for other planets (...and if a warlike society is not constrained to a single planet, that means they found other places to live less remote than Earth). Second, as someone else mentioned, only a mostly free (and largely non-coercive) society is likely to develop that kind of technology at all. The economic inefficiency of socialism and other coercive systems would make it extremely unlikely for a non-free society to continually produce enough wealth to continually advance their technology, without eventually stagnating. Only a true hive-mind with instantaneous access to all information regarding supply and "demand" (need, in the case of a hive mind) would be likely to overcome this.
He's presupposing that an extremely advanced society would be likely to run around "exhausting" planets of their resources, but this is, frankly, ridiculous. First I'll address the population argument: The Malthusian idea of overpopulation is total bullshit, because it disregards economic factors. Barring coercion, moral hazard, and non-industrial tribes (like in Africa) - which would likely be minimal or nonexistent in a sufficiently advanced alien society (see above) - population growth naturally tapers off as people decide it's economically unviable to provide for more children. The economic reality is this: Either resources are too scarce to make more human or alien babies, or resources are not too scarce to make more human or alien babies. If they are too scarce, then smart people/aliens won't reproduce more than they can, and the stupid ones won't have enough resources to survive, bringing the population back down to a sustainable level. This economic reality is logically necessary and will not change across cultures/species. (There's another economic reality which might change across species, but which might not: We can empirically determine that prosperous industrial societies only reproduce at replacement rate, barring immigration.)
Second, I'll address the "climate change" argument: First, let's pretend like the human-caused global warming argument is valid, even though it isn't. In that case, global warming apologists claim that it's caused by burning fossil fuels, correct? Well...what kind of advanced alien society, capable of reaching Earth from their home planet, is still going to be burning fossil fuels and ruining their current settlements? Give me a break! We've only been burning them for a couple hundred years, and we're already transitioning to alternative energy sources. We'll be relying on solar power, nuclear fusion, etc. long before we're capable of traveling interstellar distances. Using helium3 as fuel would sure as hell be more efficient than using petroleum. Even if it weren't, it's not like fossil fuels are likely to last forever anyway...especially if you ask the peak oil crowd.
Third, I'll address the argument of pollution: Humans are known to pollute rivers, the air, the ground, etc. However, even in our technologically primitive state, we've already realized that we can't just dump toxic chemicals into our water, and we've begun to rectify that. Any society long-lived enough to develop interstellar travel would also be smart enough to figure that out. We're slowly realizing that our sewage system is polluting our drinking water as well, and solutions aren't terribly hard to come by (composting, on-site treatment Earthship style, etc.). Does anyone think an alien society could develop the technology to reach Earth without finding a similar solution to this problem? Finally, we're all aware that terrestrial landfills are not sustainable indefinitely, and they're also leaking toxins at times...and solutions are forthcoming here too. If nothing else, an alien society capable of reaching Earth would be capable of cleaning up their own planet and dumping their waste on some totally barren moon. Finally, air pollution comes back to the fossil fuels argument, and again, an alien society is going to outgrow those long before setting out to colonize new plants.

Long story short: It is unlikely for an alien society to be hostile, and it is absolutely ridiculous to think an advanced alien society would environmentally ruin its home world (let alone successive planets) and desperately scour the galaxy for new worlds to consume.

I think it's very important for people to understand something: World-renowned scientists like Hawking are extremely intelligent, but they also tend to be extremely naive politically, and they tend to be equally naive when it comes to believing the "scientific establishment" outside of their fields. The reason should be obvious: Within their own fields, leading scientists ARE the scientific establishment. Because they are the scientific establishment, they'll naturally agree with its consensuses, and this makes them much more likely to implicitly trust the consensuses reached in other scientific fields. (Plus, there's also the idea that leading scientists in one field will want to trust the authority of another field's consensuses, because that gives them emotional validation of their own authority.)

In Hawking's case, he's an expert physicist...which means he's likely to blindly adhere to establishment views in economics and climatology/"ecology." That's making him carry a lot of faulty economic assumptions into any speculation that is not strictly contained in his field...such as his comments here. Although the fields of economics, climate science, etc. are almost entirely dominated by political motivations, I think it's a huge stretch to think the field of physics is the same...but that still doesn't prevent physicists like Hawking from being blinded by the idiots and frauds in neighboring fields.

I think we should consider two other possibilities though:
What if an alien society is peaceful with itself but xenophobic towards others? Such a society would be able to advance technologically without stagnating or annihilating itself. Still, I think xenophobia would be highly unlikely in such a society; xenophobic attitudes come from a position of weakness and fear, and I imagine an extremely advanced society would be pretty confident in its superiority over us, and it wouldn't bother with a preemptive attack.
What if an alien society is simply dismissive of the value of "lesser" beings? It's possible that they'd view us as cattle or lab rats, much like we view cattle as cattle and lab rats as lab rats. ;) Although the long-term trend on Earth points towards increasing respect for other animals (especially the more intelligent ones), I don't really know what equilibrium we'll finally settle at (in a few hundred years or so)...and besides, it would be presumptuous to think an alien society would develop culturally in the same way. Nevertheless, if a hostile alien society reaches Earth anytime soon (i.e. anytime we're still constrained to Earth), we're going to be pretty defenseless. We wouldn't be enemies; we'd be ants. Exterminating us, turning us into lab rats, etc. wouldn't realistically be a huge logistical issue for them. In this sense, we might as well be optimistic about their morals, because if the worst happens, we're screwed anyway.

The history of humanity goes against most of what you said,
humans developed technology to scour the oceans for land, and now we are beginning to search through space. This is all before having "enough in the cultural sense to become peaceful and generally benevolent", in fact the lack of that cultural sense is the very reason this forum is here - we are a species ruled by violence.

[Theocrat]

theo, post above yours.
probability is not faith.

Actually, probability is based on faith. It assumes that because occurrences have happened a particular way in the past, that they will most likely happen that way in the future. The faith aspect of that comes from the assumption of uniformity in nature. Any appeal to the past to project future occurrences already assumes that the future is like the past. It inevitably begs the question, and so an appeal to probability is an act of faith.

[0zzy]

Not just scientists...poets, painters, writers, musicians, actors, comedians, philosophers, psychologists, movie directors/producers, sculptors, intellectuals, etc, etc...they think they are Gods-on-Earth, they think they have the duty to guide the rest of us but where are they when it comes to this monstrous conspiracy that is destroying Mankind? They are nowhere, excepting collaborating with it willingly or unwillingly. To make things worst the few that try to warn us and fight against this conspiracy are cast aside and ridiculed by their peers.

The "intellectual/artistic class" are the scum of the Earth for the most part. Mostly arrogant absent-minded dimwitts, easily corrupted and manipulated by the powerful and yet think the masses have to worship them.

wow. you sound like an arrogant collectivist to me :).

[torchbearer]

Actually, probability is based on faith. It assumes that because occurrences have happened a particular way in the past, that they will most likely happen that way in the future. The faith aspect of that comes from the assumption of uniformity in nature. Any appeal to the past to project future occurrences already assumes that the future is like the past. It inevitably begs the question, and so an appeal to probability is an act of faith.

faith requires no facts, you just believe.
probability requires facts, that is how you determine the ratio.

[torchbearer]

for example- take a penny and toss it 1000 times. count the heads and tails.
probability tells you that you will have 500 times landing on head and 500 times landing on tails.
this does not mean that it will be 500 each, but it will be close. the probability of the coin landing on heads is 50%.

[Arklatex]

mczerone, don't get snooty with me. Be thankful someone is willing to explain something so grand to you.

Your question is regarding the human form and apes here on planet Earth. Yes, we are humans who came from apes. On this planet our logos chose apes to spark, but out there in infinity there are human forms that came from non apes. Why he chose apes is not known to me and others but it is hypothesized, PM me if you really care. Each logos, our sun, is a sub creator of the one, on down the line to you even, a sub creator. Yes you are a god, a creator. All life and inanimate matter even is made up of the same "stuff" - from this you may can guess how in 4th grade, there is no money system. That one racked my brain for awhile I couldn't grasp it but i was given he answer, and how beautifully simple it is.

Imagine how a society without money could work. They have everything they need, things get done, yet there is no money exchange or money at all. It's a humdinger, but ask and I am grateful to tell.

[Brian4Liberty]

Nice post by Mini-Me! A few comments...




[LIST] Second, they will not need Earth for its water or a living environment, either. Water is relatively common in ice form (it's on our next-door neighbor, Mars), and taking advantage of that would require much less technology than traveling thousands of light years.



Once you are in space looking for water, comets are very convenient...



The Malthusian idea of overpopulation is total bullshit, because it disregards economic factors. Barring coercion, moral hazard, and non-industrial tribes (like in Africa) - which would likely be minimal or nonexistent in a sufficiently advanced alien society (see above) - population growth naturally tapers off as people decide it's economically unviable to provide for more children.


But would alien civilizations have welfare? ;)



I think we should consider two other possibilities though:
[LIST] What if an alien society is peaceful with itself but xenophobic towards others? Such a society would be able to advance technologically without stagnating or annihilating itself. Still, I think xenophobia would be highly unlikely in such a society; xenophobic attitudes come from a position of weakness and fear, and I imagine an extremely advanced society would be pretty confident in its superiority over us, and it wouldn't bother with a preemptive attack.

Assuming evolution is a constant, they will be xenophobic to a certain extent (survival trait). If they are far superior, it would not be fear that would drive them to do bad things. It would be greed. :eek:

[Theocrat]

faith requires no facts, you just believe.
probability requires facts, that is how you determine the ratio.

Actually, faith is based on facts, at least Biblical faith is. Christians do not believe just for the sake of belief; it is grounded on revelation, personal experience, and objective preconditions in reality, knowledge, and morality.


for example- take a penny and toss it 1000 times. count the heads and tails.
probability tells you that you will have 500 times landing on head and 500 times landing on tails.
this does not mean that it will be 500 each, but it will be close. the probability of the coin landing on heads is 50%.

How do you know it will land 50% of the time? Why not assume that it can equally land on heads 100% or 0% of the time? You're assuming an eventuality that just because there are two possible outcomes, that those two possible outcomes will always come about. On what basis does that dual-eventuality become apparent, especially if you project it into future cases of flipping coins?

[Mini-Me]

The history of humanity goes against most of what you said,
humans developed technology to scour the oceans for land, and now we are beginning to search through space. This is all before having "enough in the cultural sense to become peaceful and generally benevolent", in fact the lack of that cultural sense is the very reason this forum is here - we are a species ruled by violence.

You say "most of what you said," but it appears that you must have read point #2 in isolation from everything else. If you want to criticize my post, I'd suggest taking the rest of it into account.

Heck, even point #2 by itself is enough to address your counterargument: Especially in the case of a warlike species, the specific technology to travel thousands of light years would naturally be acquired very long after the technology to annihilate your own species. You're providing examples like ocean exploration, etc., but we've only had the ability to annihilate our own species with nuclear weapons for less than a century, and even more destructive technology will naturally be acquired long before FTL travel. Either we will learn to live peacefully by that point, or we'll be very unlikely to reach it.

Although this was one of my weaker (i.e. less certain) points in the first place, I stand by it: An alien society is extremely unlikely to be able to reach Earth before advancing enough in the technological sense to become peaceful and generally benevolent.

[torchbearer]

Actually, faith is based on facts, at least Biblical faith is. Christians do not believe just for the sake of belief; it is grounded on revelation, personal experience, and objective preconditions in reality, knowledge, and morality.



How do you know it will land 50% of the time? Why not assume that it can equally land on heads 100% or 0% of the time? You're assuming an eventuality that just because there are two possible outcomes, that those two possible outcomes will always come about. On what basis does that dual-eventuality become apparent, especially if you project it into future cases of flipping coins?

the probability is 50% because the coin can only land in two different states.
either heads or tails. if you don't understand statistics and probability, i'm not about to give you a free remedial course. You should pay for your education.

[Brian4Liberty]

Drake Equation is a good place to start-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png



Torch, you are making some of my old brain cells fire, I may get a headache! I always tell people that the worst part about advanced (probability) math is that you have pages of equations without a single number to be found anywhere. Didn't like that class in college...

Newtonian physics is so applicable to the everyday world that you can't help but love it. Einsteinian physics not so much (not that it isn't helpful).

[evilfunnystuff]

YouTube - MC Hawking - A Brief History of Rhyme Commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjgYbcErf9g)

[Theocrat]

the probability is 50% because the coin can only land in two different states.
either heads or tails. if you don't understand statistics and probability, i'm not about to give you a free remedial course. You should pay for your education.

I understand statistics and probability fairly well, and I agree with what you've stated. However, I'm showing you how probability is based on faith, by which I mean hope that a certain outcome will always take place based on past cases in our experience that we have not yet seen in the future.

My point is that your saying it's 50% assumes that it cannot ever be 100% heads or tails, because you've flipped coins (in the past) where it has landed on either heads or tails. Who's to say in the future that one person will flip a coin, and it will always and only land on heads? If you say it's not possible, you only have past occurrences of flipping coins to draw back on. Your faith comes in when you assume (before it's ever happened) that a coin flipped in the future will never be 100% heads of 100% tails from the first time flipped.

I hope you see my point.

[torchbearer]

Torch, you are making some of my old brain cells fire, I may get a headache! I always tell people that the worst part about advanced (probability) math is that you have pages of equations without a single number to be found anywhere. Didn't like that class in college...

Newtonian physics is so applicable to the everyday world that you can't help but love it. Einsteinian physics not so much (not that it isn't helpful).

there are alternative expressions of the same formula:

The number of stars in the galaxy now, N*, is related to the star formation rate R* by
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/1/0/910753167fad20256dacdd8983101e7d.png

where Tg = the age of the galaxy. Assuming for simplicity that R* is constant, then and the Drake equation can be rewritten into an alternate form phrased in terms of the more easily observable value, N*.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/c/3/0c37795c9852444997db9eac0a0ee2b3.png

R factor
One can question why the number of civilizations should be proportional to the star formation rate, though this makes technical sense. (The product of all the terms except L tells how many new communicating civilizations are born each year. Then you multiply by the lifetime to get the expected number. For example, if an average of 0.01 new civilizations are born each year, and they each last 500 years on the average, then on the average 5 will exist at any time.) The original Drake Equation can be extended to a more realistic model, where the equation uses not the number of stars that are forming now, but those that were forming several billion years ago. The alternate formulation, in terms of the number of stars in the galaxy, is easier to explain and understand, but implicitly assumes the star formation rate is constant over the life of the galaxy.

[torchbearer]

I understand statistics and probability fairly well, and I agree with what you've stated. However, I'm showing you how probability is based on faith, by which I mean hope that a certain outcome will always take place based on past cases in our experience that we have not yet seen in the future.

My point is that your saying it's 50% assumes that it cannot ever be 100% heads or tails, because you've flipped coins (in the past) where it has landed on either heads or tails. Who's to say in the future that one person will flip a coin, and it will always and only land on heads? If you say it's not possible, you only have past occurrences of flipping coins to draw back on. Your faith comes in when you assume (before it's ever happened) that a coin flipped in the future will never be 100% heads of 100% tails from the first time flipped.

I hope you see my point.

get out your penny and start tossing it. let me know how it comes out.

[Fox McCloud]

I'd also like to mention that the coin analogy is essentially false--with the coin, we already know everything about--its dimensions, weight, and the possible outcomes of flipping it; all of which are known in advance and are directly observable and repeatable.

Drake's equation is based almost purely on assumptions, most of which haven't been totally observed---and that's why there's a number of us who are highly skeptical.

[Brian4Liberty]

My point is that your saying it's 50% assumes that it cannot ever be 100% heads or tails,

Flip a coin once, and it will be "100% heads or tails"... ;)

[torchbearer]

I'd also like to mention that the coin analogy is essentially false--with the coin, we already know everything about--its dimensions, weight, and the possible outcomes of flipping it; all of which are known in advance and are directly observable and repeatable.

Drake's equation is based almost purely on assumptions, most of which haven't been totally observed---and that's why there's a number of us who are highly skeptical.

i don't think anyone said the formula was meant to give you an exact number of intelligent life in the universe.
it is to give a probable number.
the output is only as valid as the input.

[Theocrat]

Flip a coin once, and it will be "100% heads or tails"... ;)

Now which is it? 100% heads, or 100% tails? You're assuming that the two sides of the coin are equal outcomes. On what basis can that be known into the future without faith as well as without experiences of the past?

Also, in my scenario, I said in the future (if we don't rely on past experiences of flipped coins) it could be possible that a coin flipped will always and only land on heads, not just a first-time trial.

[Brian4Liberty]

there are alternative expressions of the same formula:

The number of stars in the galaxy now, N*, is related to the star formation rate R* by
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/1/0/910753167fad20256dacdd8983101e7d.png



You are trying to give me a headache now! I took calculus before I took physics. It scarred me for life.

[damiengwa]

How does one know if there are any civilizations "with which communication might be possible"? Is that verified mathematically, or is it based on an assumption?

and

Once again, has it ever been observed that each of those stars have planets? Even so, how do we know that each of those planets can even support life? It's based on assumptions not tested by empirical means of science.

"Potentially support life"? How is the potential of life even measured from something which is billions of light years away?

Once again, has that been observed? If so, where is the evidence?

The Drake equation is something that is referred to as being tautologically correct (tautology) because, within its own world, and by its own definition it is correct. Meaning that IF one could determine the inputs (and you point out the difficulties in doing so) then the formula would be correct. Its useful only as a jumping off point for considering a question with a mathematical methodology.

[damiengwa]

Actually, probability is based on faith. It assumes that because occurrences have happened a particular way in the past, that they will most likely happen that way in the future. The faith aspect of that comes from the assumption of uniformity in nature. Any appeal to the past to project future occurrences already assumes that the future is like the past. It inevitably begs the question, and so an appeal to probability is an act of faith.

Theo, your icon really bugs me out man. Whats the whole illuminated cross behind the flag thing? Those are two icons that should not be intermingled. Its blasphemous.

[Mini-Me]

Nice post by Mini-Me! A few comments...
Thanks :)


Once you are in space looking for water, comets are very convenient...
That too!


But would alien civilizations have welfare? ;)
Not if they hope to get anywhere worth going. ;) The moral hazard and inefficiency involved would eventually lead to technological stagnation, as the welfarism increased and more and more resources were diverted towards it (i.e. as downward-spiraling conditions became tighter). I guess an alien society could have periods of socialism on and off like we do, which prevents stagnation through periods of market rejuvenation, but a society with the political infrastructure for that kind of coercion would necessarily also have the political infrastructure for corruption and all other kinds of unspeakable stupidity, like unnecessary war...which again brings the prospect of self-annihilation and/or stagnation to very high levels.

That said, some colony of an advanced society could still conceivably go rogue and become violent and coercive after already having access to advanced technology. If they're too advanced, we're screwed no matter what (unless the benevolent faction intervenes on our behalf, because they value the beauty of intelligent life or for some other reason). If they're in a weakened state, we could have a shot at fighting back...but our own best shot will come from advancing quickly economically up to that point, which points to the free market.


Assuming evolution is a constant, they will be xenophobic to a certain extent (survival trait). If they are far superior, it would not be fear that would drive them to do bad things. It would be greed. :eek:
Maybe, but greed of what? They'd already have plenty of water sources, and they'd already have plenty of energy sources. Maybe they just like the idea of acquiring garden planets, but if they're able to reach Earth, they're also extremely likely to have "shake and bake insta-terraforming" technology, from their perspective (i.e. start terraforming, travel away at relativistic speed, and come back at relativistic speed).

There's really nothing we have that a sufficiently advanced alien society could possibly want that badly...except us. If they come here to use us as lab rats or exterminate us for unknown purposes, then all bets are off, but it's again a matter of praying they're weakened enough already that we can fight back at all...which only seems possible if they're already in a weakened state or we've become much more technologically advanced than we are today (and the fastest way to get there is by having the most efficient economy possible, so we not only have enough resources to easily live comfortably, but to blow tons of money on private R&D).

All that said, there's another possibility I overlooked: If advanced alien technology somehow fell into the hands of a primitive race, which did not develop it themselves...then, again, all bets are off, and we'd better hope we can fight back.

[tsopranos]

Kind of on topic... check out this Youtube playlist of Graham Hancock talking about his book "Supernatural"...

YouTube - Graham Hancock - Supernatural Pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Za8fMjo8U&feature=PlayList&p=3B96948763D51186&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1)


Researcher and author Graham Hancock discussed how humanity received a jump start some 40,000 years ago, when our ancestors took psychoactive plants and had contacts with non-terrestrial beings who served as teachers. Their visions and encounters were depicted on cave paintings, he said. The Amazonian hallucinogenic brew known as ayahuasca is being used today, and its active ingredient DMT, is naturally made in the human pineal gland. People who have spontaneous visions may produce higher levels of this chemical in their bodies, he noted.

In Dr. Rick Strassman's experimental studies of DMT, users reported experiences similar to alien abduction scenarios, Hancock reported. In fact, aliens, fairies, and spirit beings may all be the same thing, just construed differently based on cultural frameworks, Hancock suggested. He argued that hallucinogens such as ayahuasca should be made legal, as they help to advance the freedom of consciousness.

Hancock touched on some of his other areas of research, detailing how a lost civilization predating the Egyptians, created the megalithic structures on the Giza Plateau. This civilization was destroyed in a global cataclysm-- something that we may face in our own time as part of a recurring cycle of destruction, he warned. The ancient Mayans created a calendar that is strikingly accurate, more so than the Gregorian one we use today, he added.

[Theocrat]

Theo, your icon really bugs me out man. Whats the whole illuminated cross behind the flag thing? Those are two icons that should not be intermingled. Its blasphemous.

To me, it symbolizes the Christian heritage of our republic. The 50 stars are illumined only by the light of God's word and His providence in giving us our rights and privileges. The avatar is an actual photo taken in real life, and that's how the picture came out. Interestingly peculiar, nonetheless...

[Brian4Liberty]

Not if they hope to get anywhere worth going. ;) The moral hazard and inefficiency involved would eventually lead to technological stagnation, as the welfarism increased and more and more resources were diverted towards it (i.e. as downward-spiraling conditions became tighter).


That sounds familiar for some reason...



Maybe, but greed of what? They'd already have plenty of water sources, and they'd already have plenty of energy sources. Maybe they just like the idea of acquiring garden planets,


The Richard Bransons and Larry Ellisons of space would like a nice vacation planet to themselves. The Goldman Sachs of space would sell us bad investments and then foreclose the planet.


There's really nothing we have that a sufficiently advanced alien society could possibly want that badly...except us.


Cheap labor is a universal commodity.

Or this: :D

YouTube - "Twilight Zone" promo for "To Serve Man" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x0BSgLKnSk)



All that said, there's another possibility I overlooked: If advanced alien technology somehow fell into the hands of a primitive race, which did not develop it themselves...then, again, all bets are off, and we'd better hope we can fight back.

Obama better rethink the NASA budget. We need fully armed Starships ASAP! ;)

[Mini-Me]

That sounds familiar for some reason...



The Richard Bransons and Larry Ellisons of space would like a nice vacation planet to themselves. The Goldman Sachs of space would sell us bad investments and then foreclose the planet.
That comes back to shake-and-bake terraforming. :) Sure, it requires wasting thousands of years with respect to friends/family outside of their ship, but so does getting here...unless they have instantaneous travel and really dislike wasting time. There are several ways that might be technologically possible, but the more and more advanced technology we're talking about, the lower and lower the probability that a species would be so utterly hostile or reckless.


Cheap labor is a universal commodity.
That's true too, assuming they haven't mechanized all labor by the time they can reach us. Judging by our own likely technological path, mechanized labor seems quite possible before galactic conquest...but I guess we can't assume that would necessarily hold for all species (or even for us maybe). We may have to add that to the possibilities of lab rat experimentation and mysterious plans for extermination. Hawking's speculative motive is still ridiculous though. :p


Or this: :D

YouTube - "Twilight Zone" promo for "To Serve Man" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x0BSgLKnSk)



Obama better rethink the NASA budget. We need fully armed Starships ASAP! ;)

That's why it's so necessary to hammer home the importance of a free market for long-term technological progress...otherwise, people will panic at the hypothetical threat and piss a lot of [everyone else's ;)] money into NASA, which is a slower route in the long run. At best, having a huge state will gradually stagnate our own progress...and at worst, it'll lead us to self-destruction. Assuming it's possible to indefinitely keep a state big enough for NASA without it becoming a welfare/warfare state in any other way (which it's really not), we actually would be able to continually advance technologically with NASA...but it'd likely take longer than necessary, and it rests on an impossible assumption anyway.

[tangent4ronpaul]

"Communication With Extraterrestrial Intelligence" by Lambros D. Callimahos

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/communication_with_et.pdf

The article basically says it's s statistical impossibility for us to be alone in the universe, but ever meeting them in person is impossible [ed - with current technology] however communicating with them might be possible with some of the nearest ones - if you are willing to wait 200 or so years for a reply...

It then goes in to a discussion of communications protocols for communicating with a civilization you've never met and who doesn't speak your language. Interesting read.

The author was one of the heavyweights at NSA during it's hayday and wrote the Military Cryptanalytics textbooks.

-t

[Bruno]

"Communication With Extraterrestrial Intelligence" by Lambros D. Callimahos

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/communication_with_et.pdf

The article basically says it's s statistical impossibility for us to be alone in the universe, but ever meeting them in person is impossible [ed - with current technology] however communicating with them might be possible with some of the nearest ones - if you are willing to wait 200 or so years for a reply...

It then goes in to a discussion of communications protocols for communicating with a civilization you've never met and who doesn't speak your language. Interesting read.

The author was one of the heavyweights at NSA during it's hayday and wrote the Military Cryptanalytics textbooks.

-t

I scanned through that. Extremely interesting text, thanks!

Your addition of "with current technology" is the key. Additionally, if they have been here for thousands of years, our need to spend the time to go to them is removed.

[Meatwasp]

Haven't you ever heard of the Watchers? The ancient Egyptians always talked about them. Colored disks that were other souls or aliens watching us.
I have believed in alien life being out there all my life
As for a planet being adaptable for human life. What's wrong with us changing our bodies to adapt to any enviroment??

[awake]

Sooo.... you actually do think Stephen Hawking is helping the elites set up a protection racket under the guise of an alien invasion?

Pull yourself together man.


No, I am saying that polls are the devices of politicians and bureaucracies to help identify new voting blocks to manipulate. Polls are used to shape promises and policy.

My point is this: when politicians have no clue what to do next and they want to look like they do something important, to maintain their hold on their ruling status, they start looking for a strong consensus anywhere they can find it. Statistical polls are their main means to guide them. With these polls they fan fear and uncertainty then place themselves as saviors to solidify their position in office.

Hawking's view is a popular view that will be capitalized on at some point, nothing more nothing less.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Given that Hawking believes in the fairy-dust called Dark Matter, Black Holes, Neutron Stars and other bits of falsified mathematical constructs, I'd say intelligent alien life is not certain. The scientific method says that a theory can only be falsified (proven false), so there are no 'certainties'.

[torchbearer]

Given that Hawking believes in the fairy-dust called Dark Matter, Black Holes, Neutron Stars and other bits of falsified mathematical constructs, I'd say intelligent alien life is not certain. The scientific method says that a theory can only be falsified (proven false), so there are no 'certainties'.

here is a neutron star:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/16/nasa_neutron_star_2.jpg
do you know why its called a neutron star?

[Keller1967]

You say "most of what you said," but it appears that you must have read point #2 in isolation from everything else. If you want to criticize my post, I'd suggest taking the rest of it into account.

Heck, even point #2 by itself is enough to address your counterargument: Especially in the case of a warlike species, the specific technology to travel thousands of light years would naturally be acquired very long after the technology to annihilate your own species. You're providing examples like ocean exploration, etc., but we've only had the ability to annihilate our own species with nuclear weapons for less than a century, and even more destructive technology will naturally be acquired long before FTL travel. Either we will learn to live peacefully by that point, or we'll be very unlikely to reach it.

Although this was one of my weaker (i.e. less certain) points in the first place, I stand by it: An alien society is extremely unlikely to be able to reach Earth before advancing enough in the technological sense to become peaceful and generally benevolent.

So how far does this benevolence go? Are they vegetarians? But what about the plants? Would they be benevolent to plants as well? What do they even eat? Do they even need to eat?

Regardless of how super advanced they are with how they treat other member's of their own species, they could still look at us and see a bunch of hamburgers.

Thinking that space faring advancement equals benevolence to foreign and unknown species is absurd, especially when the human model of exploration has always been shoot first and discover later.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Close the earth borders!!!!:d

[archangel689]

One day humans will be the aliens scouring for resources, devouring planets.

You ever consider that space is so vast that the resources are nearly unlimited.

Also, if you have the technology to travel great distances as such speeds, its almost certain you can terraform a planet to your liking. Why bother us? We are nothing but a speck in a dust bunny in space.

It is actually more likely that we entrap ourselves on earth in a prison of space junk stuck in orbit. At high speeds the smallest piece of junk can screw up a shuttle something fierce.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

here is a neutron star

I see a star surrounded by a plasma discharge. I see no proof of a star composed solely of neutrons.


do you know why its called a neutron star?

Do you know that Neutron Stars violate the Island of Stability principle of nuclear chemistry?

[torchbearer]

I see a star surrounded by a plasma discharge. I see no proof of a star composed solely of neutrons.



Do you know that Neutron Stars violate the Island of Stability principle of nuclear chemistry?

all that is left of that star i had shown is the packed dense matter at its core.
do you know what that core consist of?

[Mini-Me]

So how far does this benevolence go? Are they vegetarians? But what about the plants? Would they be benevolent to plants as well? What do they even eat? Do they even need to eat?

Regardless of how super advanced they are with how they treat other member's of their own species, they could still look at us and see a bunch of hamburgers.

Well, it's pretty unlikely that we'd specifically be made into hamburgers. We don't taste particularly good to other terrestrial animals, probably because our diet is so varied, and we're unlikely to be edible at all to alien life. The latter point goes for just about everything else on Earth. Plus, a species with the energy to cross the galaxy is extremely unlikely to have food problems.

The only exception is if we ARE somehow edible to them, and if we're so delicious to their senses that we're irresistable. ;) It's also totally possible that we'd be lab rats or ants to be exterminated. I mean, those scenarios are still pretty unlikely, because an advanced and internally peaceful society is also more likely to be benevolent towards lesser life-forms*, but I do agree that they're possible. In that case, we'd better hope they reach us in a weakened state or that we've advanced enough to fight back...and if we're still stuck on Earth, odds are we just have to pray for the former, because being stuck on Earth means we're still a long way from competing with an interstellar civilization on even footing.

*Even today, very early in human society from the perspective of advanced life, we're already talking about humane treatment of animals. Because these very discussions are taking place, it's clear to see that we will be more respectful in the future than we are today or have been in the past, especially towards the animals we view as most intelligent. I'm not sure if we'll ever all become vegetarians, and I know I sure like my meat, but deep down I kind of think we might all be giving that up over the next few hundred years. Even if we're still meat-eaters though, it looks like the general amount of respect we afford other animals is only going to go up over the long term. (Over the short term, I'm not so sure; if humanity is forced through the hell on earth that would be "one world government," the resulting conditions are probably going to bring about a pretty dark and cruel time for almost everyone, like a global Gulag Archipelago.)

Continuing along that line of thought, think about this: An advanced alien species is not going to rise up straight from the primordial soup in possession of super-duper advanced technology. Instead, any extremely advanced alien species will necessarily have passed through a similar level of advancement to ours as a single species (not just through evolution). They will have had their equivalent of the "stone age," "bronze age," etc. depending on the resources of their home world, and they would have discovered flight before space travel. This would apply even if they're significantly brainier than us, like a civilization of non-autistic savants. It wouldn't even be like humans looking at cows: We know that cows, as a species, will always be cows. They will never learn calculus, and they will never rise up to our level. Even if we didn't exist, cows still wouldn't build civilization; at best, they'd evolve over millions of years into other species, one of which might eventually be capable of civilization. However, aliens looking at us would very likely be able to recognize an intelligent species capable of eventually rising to their level, because they would have historical perspective on their own society. If you were in their position, and you were a super-advanced human in the year 3000 coming across a species that vaguely resembled humanity 1000 years prior, how would you treat them? Sure, tribes of humans have historically been known to slaughter the unknown enemy tribes we've come across, but we've had a lot of time for reflection since then, and what colonists did to Native Americans is no longer looked upon too highly. No matter how fugly the primitive aliens looked, I doubt you'd really look at them with a predatory gleam. At this point, we're sitting here talking about how awful it would be for an advanced but unfeeling alien species to come and treat us without mercy. That kind of thing gets you thinking about empathy, and any remotely similar alien species would have had similar conversations (or if they're some kind of hive mind, similar...thoughts...;)).

Of course, an alien species could be truly unknowably alien in temperament and motivation, so perhaps they really wouldn't have anything even remotely resembling empathy...but the odds of them having it do look pretty favorable, especially since widespread intra-species empathy is a practical requirement for building civilization (even if many of us lack it).


Thinking that space faring advancement equals benevolence to foreign and unknown species is absurd, especially when the human model of exploration has always been shoot first and discover later.
Again, you're ignoring the most crucial point: You simply cannot compare the morality of advanced alien species with the morality of Christopher Columbus, because alien species would have necessarily made it through far more taxing trials than humans had up to that point (or this point). Humanity has a sordid past, but much of it was during a time of widespread illiteracy and ignorance as well. It may not seem like it, but we've come a long way since then. We still have a long way to go, but it will become easier as we become more literate, educated, and economically advanced enough for more people to take an interest in philosophy, morality, etc. If we can manage to achieve lasting liberty (not necessarily now, but probably sometime in the future after the "one world government" idea fails miserably), I'm optimistic that we will gradually wisen up.

More importantly, we've only been in possession of extinction-level technology for a few decades, and it's still pretty primitive compared to the technology we're comparing it with...yet we've literally come hours or even minutes to an apocalyptic nuclear war at least three times that I can remember off the top of my head, and one of those has been during my lifetime. It will be at least hundreds (possibly thousands) of years before we actually have the technology to cross the galaxy and colonize extragalactic planets, assuming we have to develop it ourselves, and in the meantime, the technology we develop on the way will probably have the potential to kill us even quicker and easier than the nukes we already have. Think about that for a second.

Unless we change culturally and politically, we are extremely likely kill ourselves off before achieving the far-off milestone of routine interstellar travel. You cannot say the same about any of the other milestones we've had, such as ocean travel, sending a single manned shuttle to the moon, etc., because there was literally no existential danger of advancing technology up until World War II (obviously walking on the moon came after that, but you get my point). From here on out, we must either grow beyond violence and coercion as a species, or we're going to be toast. Either our culture will evolve with our technology, or we will die out before becoming a threat to anyone else. The same is VERY likely to apply to any other sapient species.

The point is not that alien species are guaranteed to be benevolent or benign towards us; I never said that. It's possible that we'll be considered lab rats or a pesky infestation that must be exterminated. It's just very unlikely, given the cultural sophistication that would be necessary to survive with truly advanced technology for an extended period of time.

In any case, the main point of my first post was to point out that Hawking's particular scenario is ridiculous. It's possible, however unlikely, for aliens to be hostile. However, given the technology they'd necessarily require to reach Earth, it's extremely obtuse to think aliens would be fleeing planets they've foolishly ruined, desperately scouring the galaxy for new homes to devour. They'd be far beyond that kind of mundane self-destruction (and so will we; if we destroy ourselves, it will be spectacularly), for all the reasons I gave in my earlier post...which basically boil down to the fact that a civilization would be able to easily make new living environments for themselves, and they'd only use environmentally destructive energy sources and waste management systems for a relatively short evolutionary time period anyway before finding better solutions. That time period would pass long before achieving interstellar spacefaring status. It's a "toddler thing," and even we are already preparing to outgrow it. ;)

(All that said, if some primitive alien species obtains advanced alien technology from another species without discovering it themselves, they could be arbitrarily destructive...but they'd still probably kill themselves with it first before finding us.)

[tangent4ronpaul]

You ever consider that space is so vast that the resources are nearly unlimited.

Also, if you have the technology to travel great distances as such speeds, its almost certain you can terraform a planet to your liking. Why bother us? We are nothing but a speck in a dust bunny in space.

It is actually more likely that we entrap ourselves on earth in a prison of space junk stuck in orbit. At high speeds the smallest piece of junk can screw up a shuttle something fierce.

A planet has to be the right distance from a star to support organic life - otherwise you fry or freeze. Granted, life has been found on earth living at tremendous temperatures and pressures, so that is't as hard and fast a rule as it seems - and we have found many candidates that fit the profile of a good planet.

Amino acids - the building blocks of lije, have been found on comets that have hit earth - it's no wonder how life spreads through the universe. Some have suggested hitching rides on comets as a cost effective way of space travel.

Us - the new aliens? - well, what is alien? - perspective? Where do humans start and end? We rely on all sorts of bugs to live, to clean our skin and hair, etc. The result of successful negotiations between species. When the negotiations don't go so well, one or both usually don't survive.

I want my chidren to grow gills! :)

You are probably right about space junk, but the volcano's got me thinking with the grounded aircraft. Maybe a little orbital warfare would be a good thing - slow down communications, prevent very accurate precision guided bombs... Might make the world a more peaceful place.

But yeah, orbit would be a real headache of a superfund site to clean up...

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Too perfect for this thread not to post:

Saucers over Chicago (LPD lyrics)

This is Scoutship number one calling ships 2 through 3,5,4,6.
Fellow citizens of Shoeg, we have discovered a, well, quite a cute little planet beneath us.
There's lots of water down there.
The Air is reasonable or at least it could be reasonable.
There seems to be something a bit strange about it, but we think we can breath it.
We're thinking of going in.

Well on closer inspection, there's something a bit odd about it.
Are we focusing on this place?
Now there's a small building and there's beings outside.
They are quite strange, but they've got 2 arms and they've got 2 legs, so they are like us.
And thy are standing, huddled outside – obviously distressed with the cold. They have black sticks in their mouths. Even more curious – they seem to set fire to the sticks.
These people seem to be outcasts in some way, we don't know what it is that they have done, but if you look at the people inside the place – your not going to believe this – they seem to be eating things that used to be alive! They are eating things that used to walk around, just like us.
There's a big M on the top of the building. I guess it stands for murders or something like that.

But the thing is, what are we going to do?
Are we going to go in there? They might eat us!
I mean we could get down on the planet and give them a friendly intergalactic greeting and they might go: “Oh yum! - lets have a feast!, lets cut them up and put them between...” - well, brown things. I don't know what you'd call that. It's like they're round and brown and white on the inside and they put some white stuff and they pick a few leaves from a field and they put it on the living things and they eat them... Bizarre... - They are really, truly bizarre..

Scout calling ships 2 though 3,5,4,6
Do we leave the vastness alone?
Do we just fly off somewhere nice or do we try to toil more freely now? Give them a good choking of some kind – you know...

Oh-Oh! - they've seen us! Good Rammo! – They've seen us!
And they seem to be a little agitated...
There's a guy pointing out into the sky and he seems to be shouting... “The saucers are coming!”
Oh Oh! - That's us!

-----------------
Saucers #1 (LPD lyrics)
The saucers are coming. Get under the table. Hide yourself in the cellar. Take as much food and water with you as you can. We do not have everything under control. I repeat, we do not have everything under control.

The saucers are coming. Thousands of them. There is no moon tonight, but the sky is silver. Lock your doors. Turn off all the lights. Turn off your radios, turn off your TVs, pull the curtains. We do not have everything under control. I repeat, we do not have everything under control.

The saucers are coming. We do not know if their intentions are friendly but we are preparing for the worst possible scenario. We are attempting communication but there has been no response. We do not have everything under control. I repeat, we do not have everything under control.

Stay inside. Keep out of sight. Don't even whisper. The saucers are coming. Make no sound at all. Switch me off, now! This is a taped message. Switch me off, now! The saucers are coming, and we do not have everything under control! We do not have everything under control!

-t

ps: should be available via torrent

[Pete_00]

"Captain, i have a profound sense of...geekness" - Doctor Spock (Science Officer, USS Interprise NCC-1701)

[purplechoe]

Which one is the alien?

http://totallywiredradio.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/et.jpg

[Arklatex]

they are vegetarians, will eat meat if they must. there is root that taste alot like steak. difference is apple wants to be eaten, lamb doesn't. you have a much higher vibration from vegs and fruits than eating meat.

they will allow themselves to die before killing another human

they are on Venus, yes. I know all the reasons this is not possible,,, what you have been told is wrong. they are even on Pluto, which is very earth like..

this is possible because light and heat don't come from the sun, it's radiation. That radiation excites our own ionosphere and atmosphere that produces each planets heat and light. these are positive vibrations that are attracted to negative. As this radiation leaves the sun and depletes, it is re energized like a cathode ray tube CRT the energy is sped back up through asteroid belt to middle planets, which is then pulled through by the next asteroid belt to the outer planets. This is true even at the atomic level. It is very perfect.

George Adamksi told the truth, he rode in scout ships and the mother ship. He said you feel a jerk on takeoff sometimes and another at docking, otherwise even though you may be traveling at faster than the speed of light you have no idea when inside the ship because you are in your own gravity field of the ship. The ship must be capable of fluctuating pressure for the inhabitants just like our own submarines can make it comfortable at the surface or down very very deep at extreme pressure.

Life is a classroom. It's perfect in every way. This will be common knowledge to earthlings once again if we can keep from destroying our civilization over and over with war, its been a recurring theme here.

they are very concerned with our nuclear explosions, even our testing as it alters space. They have lanes they travel, just like the ocean has currents. Our rockets, space travel, and war explosions effect our planet, the space around us, and even other planets, so has you can see they are concerned with us. They do not look down upon us. Earth is very beautiful even more so than planets who's people have advanced much more quickly by way of avoiding war. They do so... you won't believe how lol, i'll save it for another day.

our spectrograph of Venus is worthless because to get accurate results it must be under that planets ionosphere. even these satellites turned towards earth pick up no traces of oxygen or moisture because the ionosphere blocks them out. =) this is useful science of stars but not planets. You can tell the age of a planet by it's CO2 level, from what i understand its very high on Venus and they live much longer than us there.

on the travel..

travel is done on waves, they don't fight them but use available electromagnetic and geomagnetic forces, they aren't anti-gravity but pro gravity, by riding one wave they come towards the planet, while riding the other they are pushed away, they surf. When they allow in both waves they hover and are weightless.

they can seem invisible by operating at a frequency higher than visible light, also they can pull light around them making them appear invisible when they are really there.

there is a mini gravity around their ship, it conforms to the frequency necessary to blend in with the surrounding gravity and ride the waves. they glow because the particles that come into contact with the field are excited. they may appear to be alive and breathing because like heat waves bend so is space around their ship. this is how they avoid particles at warp speed destroying their ship. They can even turn up this force that bullets and rockets won't touch them, but we are capable of shooting them down and have. They stay far enough away, but close enough they can observe. they are down at the ocean floor studying our planet, our world's navies encounter them frequently. Argentina tried their damndest to bomb one in a tiny cavern connected to the ocean by narrow canal - couldn't do it even with USA help. They thought they were 2 submarines but really they were two spaceships. They are monitoring for earth changes that show up on ocean floor before dry land, earth is changing as natural.


once we progress we can travel without causing harm to our planet and space. But we are far from that, that is the price of progress. Until then there will be growing pains, they are eager to be our friend and help our travel, but can not do so until WE learn our ways. We must change or it'll be back to the drawing board until we do so. We coming up on a special time that is natural for all planets where there is a forced change coming for the entire system, and earth is due for the most change as we are apart of the whole.

My friends, there is a truth. There is an infinite amount of ways to come across the same truths. George Adamski gave a lot of information. I've gotten info from all sorts of places and first hand witnessed myself. The info is all out there, its very spiritual and mind blowing. There are the simple answers to everything out there, but no mind is paid. Just as Ron Paul had all the answers, no one paid any mind. The same goes for all our truths. It's out there seek it, the answers are out there for everything already, people know and they make it public but you'd never hear about it if you don't seek

[mczerone]

My friends, there is a truth. There is an infinite amount of ways to come across the same truths. George Adamski gave a lot of information. I've gotten info from all sorts of places and first hand witnessed myself. The info is all out there, its very spiritual and mind blowing. There are the simple answers to everything out there, but no mind is paid. Just as Ron Paul had all the answers, no one paid any mind. The same goes for all our truths. It's out there seek it, the answers are out there for everything already, people know and they make it public but you'd never hear about it if you don't seek

You mean this Adamski?



Adamski said that the photographs of the far side of the Moon that were taken by the Soviet lunar probe Luna 3 in 1959 were fake and that there were cities, trees, and snow-capped mountains there instead

Really, I must imagine that more people haven't been railing on you merely because they've all already ignored you.

[2young2vote]

I think it is certainly possible, and i am not going to say that they do or do not because i do not have the proof. I think the biggest problem we could face is something similar to War of the Worlds which had little bacteria killing the aliens, except i think it would be both ways. I think we would get sick from the aliens, and they would get sick from us.

If they are intelligent beings, should they be given the same rights as humans?

If we visited their planet, that would make us the aliens. So what would we call them in that circumstance? They aren't martians because they are not from Mars, so what would they be?

[Imperial]

lizard people are already here, and they aren't friendly unless you are a productive slave that doesn't question.

thread win

[silentshout]

Not just scientists...poets, painters, writers, musicians, actors, comedians, philosophers, psychologists, movie directors/producers, sculptors, intellectuals, etc, etc...they think they are Gods-on-Earth, they think they have the duty to guide the rest of us but where are they when it comes to this monstrous conspiracy that is destroying Mankind? They are nowhere, excepting collaborating with it willingly or unwillingly. To make things worst the few that try to warn us and fight against this conspiracy are cast aside and ridiculed by their peers.

The "intellectual/artistic class" are the scum of the Earth for the most part. Mostly arrogant absent-minded dimwitts, easily corrupted and manipulated by the powerful and yet think the masses have to worship them.

<deleted, my response is not worth it>

[Pete_00]

<deleted, my response is not worth it>

I´m the intellectual-philosopher of the anti-intellectuals...a true intellectual of the People.


wow. you sound like an arrogant collectivist to me :).

On the contrary! The people can only be trully free when they brake the chains that bound them to this elitist class of ideological/cultural imperialists and mind enslavers!

[reardenstone]

Volcanoes, tornadoes, wars and earthquakes, melting ice caps and disappearing glaciers all are not bad enough these mad, latter times; now, planetary Uber brain, Stephen Hawking tells us not to count on any heavenly encounters of the extraterrestrial kind to pull this weary race's fat out of the fire.

Hawking tells the London Times, not only are alien races mathematically certain, they're just as likely too to be marauding remnants of dead planets, desperately seeking an island of refuge in a very large sea. He suggested, should Earth be visited by such a crew, the results would be far from welcomed, saying;

"If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans." - S. Hawkings


Other than the I hate humans slant, I would like to point out that only a peaceful capitalistic society in a free division of labor could ever get off their planet to begin with. To sustain that kind of out worldly action, unbridled freedom could only achieve it. The task is so grand that it could only be a result of free minds who do not destroy wealth through war and welfare.

They tried to make us believe we would all die from a 3 degree rise in temperatures 50 years from now. All to institute a global framework of bureaucrats and politicians. That has flopped hard, now the dealers in fear are thinking, lets roll the alien threat card and see if it can get us our precious world league of liars, thieves and murders.

It is colonization of scale....
If we reached the New World for resources and slowly began to aggress on the natives, then aliens might at first form a minor alliance with one nation or two before using us against each other to our combined detriment.
Its what the Europeans did to the Native Americans.


The Western Europeans were the first to finance multiple voyages to the New World financed by imperialism and rampant corporo-mercantilism.

[Mini-Me]

You mean this Adamski?



Really, I must imagine that more people haven't been railing on you merely because they've all already ignored you.

To be perfectly honest, I thought Arklatex was just having a good troll. Now, I've realized he may be serious. His claims are so extraordinary that they really require extraordinary evidence, especially considering how much they sound like wishful thinking and how "religious" his delivery sounds...and I'm definitely not seeing the extraordinary evidence at this point. For one thing, the DNA record of our planet would be hard to explain from his point of view, as you said before.

[Reason]

YouTube - Should We Fear Extraterrestrials? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J03wow2M66U)

[MelissaWV]

I´m the intellectual-philosopher of the anti-intellectuals...a true intellectual of the People.



On the contrary! The people can only be trully free when they brake the chains that bound them to this elitist class of ideological/cultural imperialists and mind enslavers!

I see you find the English language to be too constraining as well.

[NiceGoing]

Question: Is spelling the be-all and end-all?

:confused:

[ninepointfive]

I just hope we penetrate the ice on Europa and see if there's life underneath.

Please! Within my lifetime!

[Pete_00]

I see you find the English language to be too constraining as well.

When you have french, spanish, portuguese and little italian on your curriculum please say something to me, until then... ;)

[Aratus]

I'd like to see the mathematical equation he used to know that alien races are certain. After all, an equation is not the same as the presence of the aliens themselves. It sounds an awful lot like faith in the cosmos...


the way it breaks down percentages, the way Hubble collects up
the light from galaxies, even those that are from 600,ooo years
just after the big bang and are so close to its 13 billion origin point!

[Deborah K]

Question: If you had a rocket (or whatever - don't get technical) that could travel forever without stopping and you shot it straight out into space - where would it end up (assuming of course, it went around anything in it's path). Where would it end up?

[Deborah K]

"Thus sayeth Stephen Hawking"

Given naturalistic presuppositions, yes, there is certainly other sentient life our there. Given Christian supernatural presuppositions, there is certainly not any sentient life outside of the human race.

Yes, but how do you know they aren't one and the same?

[SWATH]

Question: If you had a rocket (or whatever - don't get technical) that could travel forever without stopping and you shot it straight out into space - where would it end up (assuming of course, it went around anything in it's path). Where would it end up?

You would end up at the same point from which you started. How long it would take is anybodies guess, probably many billions of years assuming close to light speed, but the universe is finite as far as we know. Since space is curved, for a 2 dimensional example, it would be like a person on earth walking in one direction until he ends up where he started from. Though to his perceptions it would have seemed an astonishing impossibility. In space it is the same principle but in 4 dimensions.

[Deborah K]

You would end up at the same point from which you started. How long it would take is anybodies guess but the universe is finite as far as we know. Since space is curved, for a 2 dimensional example, it would be like a person on earth walking in one direction until he ends up where he started from. Though to his perceptions it would have seemed an astonishing impossibility. In space it is the same principle but in 4 dimensions.

This is my opinion as well.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Question: If you had a rocket (or whatever - don't get technical) that could travel forever without stopping and you shot it straight out into space - where would it end up (assuming of course, it went around anything in it's path). Where would it end up?

Well, after a decade or so, you would leave our solar system, then go through deep space until you ran into another solar system - except you probably won't live that long. So till your great, great, great grand kids ran into another solar system, Keep going and you would eventually leave the galaxy. who knows what's between galaxies. and eons later run into another galaxy. Repeat.

-t

[SWATH]

This is my opinion as well.

Since our laws of physics are unique to this universe, we cannot go beyond this universe, thus you cannot travel a sufficient distance to escape it. However being that it is finite and its origin can be traced back to point in time you can however travel a sufficient amount of time to overcome its expansion horizon. Given that one cannot escape, every single point in the universe must curve back on itself from every direction just as departing from every single point on the surface of the earth will result in your return to that exact spot after some time. There is no distance that one can travel in any 2 dimensional direction on earth to escape it.

[SWATH]

Well, after a decade or so, you would leave our solar system, then go through deep space until you ran into another solar system - except you probably won't live that long. So till your great, great, great grand kids ran into another solar system, Keep going and you would eventually leave the galaxy. who knows what's between galaxies. and eons later run into another galaxy. Repeat.

-t

If one could travel very close to the speed of light it would take roughly 4.5 earth years to travel to the nearest star. However to the traveler only about 55 days would have elapsed. To him he would have experienced and aged only 2 months.

[Brian4Liberty]

Question: If you had a rocket (or whatever - don't get technical) that could travel forever without stopping and you shot it straight out into space - where would it end up (assuming of course, it went around anything in it's path). Where would it end up?

Nobody knows. You'll get nothing but theories for that question. Anywhere you point a telescope in space you just keep finding more galaxies.

How fast you are traveling is important. If you subscribe to a single "big bang", you need to outrun the bang itself. Theoretically, you can't travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way to travel fast enough to get to the "edge".


You would end up at the same point from which you started. How long it would take is anybodies guess, probably many billions of years assuming close to light speed, but the universe is finite as far as we know. Since space is curved, for a 2 dimensional example, it would be like a person on earth walking in one direction until he ends up where he started from. Though to his perceptions it would have seemed an astonishing impossibility. In space it is the same principle but in 4 dimensions.

That is a popular scientific theory. Also in that theory, "space" itself is expanding, so the distance you need to travel is always increasing (exponentially?).

My personal theory: if you could go outside the bounds of physics and travel far enough, you might just run into more "big bangs"...Newtonian physics was limited by it's relative context of being on the surface of the Earth. Current physics may be limited by the relative context of being within a big bang. You never know.

[Deborah K]

Nobody knows. You'll get nothing but theories for that question. Anywhere you point a telescope in space you just keep finding more galaxies.

How fast you are traveling is important. If you subscribe to a single "big bang", you need to outrun the bang itself. Theoretically, you can't travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way to travel fast enough to get to the "edge".



That is a popular scientific theory. Also in that theory, "space" itself is expanding, so the distance you need to travel is always increasing (exponentially?).

My personal theory: if you could go outside the bounds of physics and travel far enough, you might just run into more "big bangs"...Newtonian physics was limited by it's relative context of being on the surface of the Earth. Current physics may be limited by the relative context of being within a big bang. You never know.

As to the theory of 'Big Bangs' being the beginning of life and the Universe, from where did the components come that created the bang in the first place?

[SWATH]

As to the theory of 'Big Bangs' being the beginning of life and the Universe, from where did the components come that created the bang in the first place?

That is where philosophy/religion and astrophysics converge. I think it is impossible to know given that our universe is like an inescapable bubble. No data can come in or out, although there was some theory about a particle called a graviton that could theoretically give evidence of itself between universes or something.

[Brian4Liberty]

As to the theory of 'Big Bangs' being the beginning of life and the Universe, from where did the components come that created the bang in the first place?

Any answer is pure theory.

My personal theory: Universes have always existed, and always will. Expansions, contractions, multiple big bangs and all...

Single big bang theory doesn't have an answer to that question.

[Deborah K]

Any answer is pure theory.

My personal theory: Universes have always existed, and always will. Expansions, contractions, multiple big bangs and all...
Single big bang theory doesn't have an answer to that question.

Agreed. The average human brain has a lot of trouble intellectualizing that.

[Fox McCloud]

Any answer is pure theory.

My personal theory: Universes have always existed, and always will. Expansions, contractions, multiple big bangs and all...

Single big bang theory doesn't have an answer to that question.

this is one theory...while I do not agree with a lot of big bang cosmology, it's still quite an interest to me, surprisingly.

Currently, one of the most accepted models of the "ultimate fate of the universe" is a big freeze or heat death. Assuming for a minute the big bang is correct and true and given current models, this would generally not allow for an "infinite universe".

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

all that is left of that star i had shown is the packed dense matter at its core. do you know what that core consist of?

Did you NOT understand that a Neutron Star violates the Island of Stability principle of nuclear chemistry? You cannot have an object solely composed of neutrons.

[RedStripe]

That has flopped hard, now the dealers in fear are thinking, lets roll the alien threat card and see if it can get us our precious world league of liars, thieves and murders.

Haha yea hawking is part of the grand conspiracy!

I KNEW IT!!!

[torchbearer]

Did you NOT understand that a Neutron Star violates the Island of Stability principle of nuclear chemistry? You cannot have an object solely composed of neutrons.

and?

[awake]

Haha yea hawking is part of the grand conspiracy!

I KNEW IT!!!


No conspiracy. There isn't any international effort to save the world from the weather. Its all in my head.


Politicians would never purposely induce a crisis or sow fear amongst the populace to shape public opinion in favor of their own interests... That's frik'n insane man.

For an Anarchist of the left, why do you have such a problem understanding basic political strategy to gain, hold , and maintain state power? Do you mind expanding on Free Market Anti-Capitalism?

Something about uninhibited sharing or giving. One person shares goods or labor with another person without expecting anything in return?....What if I do not want my property shared with anyone, then what?

[ClayTrainor]

My personal theory: Universes have always existed, and always will. Expansions, contractions, multiple big bangs and all...

Single big bang theory doesn't have an answer to that question.

I also think that's highly likely, and consistent with modern theories of physics.

YouTube - From Universe to Multiverse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qmbl7mpJQ)

[RedStripe]

No conspiracy. There isn't any international effort to save the world from the weather. Its all in my head.


Politicians would never purposely induce a crisis or sow fear amongst the populace to shape public opinion in favor of their own interests... That's frik'n insane man.

For an Anarchist of the left, why do you have such a problem understanding basic political strategy to gain, hold , and maintain state power? Do you mind expanding on Free Market Anti-Capitalism?

Something about uninhibited sharing or giving. One person shares goods or labor with another person without expecting anything in return?....What if do not want my property shared with anyone then what?

Um, to suggest that hawking is saying these things to somehow further some conspiratorial agenda of the "elite" is just hilarious. That's my point.

Of course there are conspiracies and the abuse/creation of turbulent times - but most conspiracies are simply a byproduct of the social system - a system that concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a few. The modern elite did not create the social system, the social system created them.

As for free-market anti-capitalism, it's too much of a derail of this thread. Capitalism != free market. It's a system of quasi-markets with government intervention on behalf of, you guessed it, the capitalists. Hence the name. But that's another thread.

[awake]

Um, to suggest that hawking is saying these things to somehow further some conspiratorial agenda of the "elite" is just hilarious. That's my point.

Of course there are conspiracies and the abuse/creation of turbulent times - but most conspiracies are simply a byproduct of the social system - a system that concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a few. The modern elite did not create the social system, the social system created them.

As for free-market anti-capitalism, it's too much of a derail of this thread. Capitalism != free market. It's a system of quasi-markets with government intervention on behalf of, you guessed it, the capitalists. Hence the name. But that's another thread.

Well, I guess we see eye to eye on one thing: there should be no state . As for the rest , I will open the new thread.

[Brian4Liberty]

I also think that's highly likely, and consistent with modern theories of physics.

YouTube - From Universe to Multiverse

Interesting video!

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

and?

::sigh::

I'll let FascistSoup explain it better than me.

Einstein was wrong (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34860)


Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics. The proposed density of neutrons in these stars by the standard model violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. Neutrons can not be packed together that densely without having them fly apart instantaneously. Also, in pulsars, rotation rates have been observed on the order of 1200 hz. This also flies in the face of standard theory. It is impossible that a star can rotate that fast. The outer edges of the star would be approaching appreciable speeds of light. Healy and Peratt offer a far simpler explanation that doesn't violate any laws of physics.

[torchbearer]

::sigh::

I'll let FascistSoup explain it better than me.

Einstein was wrong (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34860)

and the speed of light isn't the fastest an object can travel. a lot of things you think are facts without exception, are not so.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

and the speed of light isn't the fastest an object can travel.

No kidding, considering they've clocked 'light' traveling 300x what is normally thought of as 'the speed of light'.


a lot of things you think are facts without exception, are not so.

Which doesn't change one goddamned thing I said in relation to Neutron Stars.

[aravoth]

I love you guys.... I really do.

Do you undertsand?

[torchbearer]

I love you guys.... I really do.

Do you undertsand?

are you trying to say i'm racist? /jk

[Mini-Me]

::sigh::

I'll let FascistSoup explain it better than me.

Einstein was wrong (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34860)

Whooaaaaaaaa there, that was WAY over my head. A few questions...
Did you write that yourself?
Are you a physicist by profession, or is it more of a hobby?
Assuming the latter, where did you obtain all of your physics knowledge?
Whether you're right or wrong, I'm in awe of the sheer wealth of information in that link. (I'd like to think you're right though. I've always suspected there was something...off...about both relativity AND quantum mechanics, but I never really learned enough about physics to fully comprehend either of them, let alone to be able to empirically demonstrate flaws. It's really just the sheer arbitrariness of modern physics, with dark matter and all that, that doesn't sit well with my intuition and prejudices, and I've always figured it's just a matter of time before someone will clean the whole mess up. Hopefully, you're that guy. Besides, relativity is somewhat depressing for someone who likes space operas. ;))

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Did you write that yourself?

Nope. In fact, FascistSoup got all of his information from peer-reviewed articles and such.


Are you a physicist by profession, or is it more of a hobby?

Nope. Its just a hobby.


Assuming the latter, where did you obtain all of your physics knowledge?

Do a Google search for Plasma Cosmology and/or Electric Universe. Some very interesting work to read up on.


Whether you're right or wrong, I'm in awe of the sheer wealth of information in that link. (I'd like to think you're right though. I've always suspected there was something...off...about both relativity AND quantum mechanics, but I never really learned enough about physics to fully comprehend either of them, let alone to be able to empirically demonstrate flaws. It's really just the sheer arbitrariness of modern physics, with dark matter and all that, that doesn't sit well with my intuition and prejudices, and I've always figured it's just a matter of time before someone will clean the whole mess up. Hopefully, you're that guy. Besides, relativity is somewhat depressing for someone who likes space operas. ;))

Not me, just a fellow knowledge seeker. FascistSoup has some interesting vids on Youtube.

YouTube - Einstein Was Wrong - Falsifying Observational Evidence Presented 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y09KQxcSjc&playnext_from=TL&videos=K_Nbzp6HO70)