Aliens and UFOs

[max power 21]

Considering the fact everything is just energy vibrating at different frequencies resulting in manifestation of energy.

String theory is a theory. What they have proof of is sub atomic particles, nothing more.

E = mc². Energy can never be destroyed, only converted, so therefore everything must have been in existence, infinitely?

No.

The way we experience reality is limited to the capabilities of our senses. Maybe the reality we experience looks completely different if experienced with different senses. Maybe there are senses that can pick up energy waves making you see through the limits of three dimensional space?

Let's put it this way. Imagine a blind man sitting on top of a mountain. What is real to him is the image of the surrounding created by his brain based solely upon what his senses can register. Now, what if he suddenly could open his eyes and see?

What if we are blind?

"What is ‘real’? How do you define ‘real’? If you mean what we can taste, smell, hear and feel then what’s ‘real’ is nothing more than electrical signals interpreted by your brain." -Morpheus, The Matrix

\

By bringing up philosophical skepticism, you just undid everything that you posted above. "Considering that everything is just energy vibrating at different frequencies" is mutually exclusive with "How do you define 'real'?".

[walker 0]

Hi all

The only method of discussing ET at the moment that is worth a Damn is the Drake Equation.

That said recent findings have pushed the value well above 2 for the Milkyway Galaxy. And if civilizations become immortal then it is significantly above the tens of thousands. So we may get a call.

Kind regards walker

[NoRailgunner 0]

Aliens who are able to travel through space and time are imo not so interested in human race. Why they should save or even teach human beeing? Those aliens are by far too advanced and too occupied with better things to do than wasting their time/energy with planet earth and its residents/population.

[-Puma- 2]

NVM

5 characters

Edited February 3, 2012 by SPC.Puma_FIN

[maddogx 13]

This sounds like battlestar galactica (awesome show BTW)

On that note anyone care to spoil and tell me did they find earth in the end??

Yes, but it was Earth a few hundred thousand or even million years in the past. It was hinted that the half-human half-cylon girl Hera was "mitochondrial eve".

[Dead3yez 0]

Aliens who are able to travel through space and time are imo not so interested in human race. Why they should save or even teach human beeing? Those aliens are by far too advanced and too occupied with better things to do than wasting their time/energy with planet earth and its residents/population.

What if it's the first planet they come across which has life on? :P

[Fenrisulven 1]

String theory is a theory. What they have proof of is sub atomic particles, nothing more.

Correction. The formula E = mc ² in theoretical physics is about the relationship between energy (E) in all its forms in addition to mass, and mass (m) using the speed of light in vacuum ©.

String theory on the other hand is a model of physics that describes matter and it's tiniest building blocks. The fundamental building block within the "string theory" is a one-dimensional vibrating "string" which means that they have a spatial dimension unlike previous physical models that were based on zero-dimensional particles.

No.

Care to elaborate why this is incorrect? :j:

By bringing up philosophical skepticism, you just undid everything that you posted above. "Considering that everything is just energy vibrating at different frequencies" is mutually exclusive with "How do you define 'real'?".

Clearly you misunderstood. I used a different approach to explain the very same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but, the topic of this thread "Aliens and UFOs" is to discuss the possibility of extra-terrestrials visiting us and whether interstellar travel is possible or not.

[NoRailgunner 0]

What if it's the first planet they come across which has life on? :P

Without any evidence of warp drives or similar technology they would simply move to another planet or galaxy.

[mondkalb 1087]

I guess they'd do the same we would do if we were to find life on Mars:

Take a few specimens and bottle them up.

[-Puma- 2]

Yes, but it was Earth a few hundred thousand or even million years in the past. It was hinted that the half-human half-cylon girl Hera was "mitochondrial eve".

thanks for info :) sorry for going abit offtopic but found an intersting link where the actors explain abit about the show and storyline after the finale

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2009/03/20/battlestar-galactica-watched-the-finale-still-got-questions-weve-got-answers/

To me the universe seems too quiet for me. When thinking all the hundreds of millions of stars and planets ,I bet what we see and feel dosent even come close to explain whats really happening in the universe. Maybe all the others are in different dimension and/or outside our understanding and senses. What im trying to say is there should be hell of alot more intelligent activity than what we are experiencing right now. I mean not even a single one radio transmission.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Care to elaborate why this is incorrect? :j:

Invoking the first law of thermodynamics to suggest something that would be in violation of the second law - it's bold to say the least.

The second law is such that entropy of a system will always go from an ordered (low entropy) state to a more chaotic (high entropy) state unless external energy is provided to a system. Therefore there must be natural causality, so long as the universe has a finite amount of energy through the whole system, and only rearranges its distribution to affect internal change. The low entropy universe could not exist after the high entropy universe and the high entropy universe could not exist without having been a low entropy universe to begin with.

[-martin- 10]

Oh man, my brain hurts :crazy_o:

[-Puma- 2]

Invoking the first law of thermodynamics to suggest something that would be in violation of the second law - it's bold to say the least.

The second law is such that entropy of a system will always go from an ordered (low entropy) state to a more chaotic (high entropy) state unless external energy is provided to a system. Therefore there must be natural causality, so long as the universe has a finite amount of energy through the whole system, and only rearranges its distribution to affect internal change. The low entropy universe could not exist after the high entropy universe and the high entropy universe could not exist without having been a low entropy universe to begin with.

I thought the theory was that when something is mixed it, lets say water and salt it adds the chaos (high entropy) state of the universe. So in the beginning everything is organized and in the end everything is chaotic. This is a old theory, which has nowdays been challenged. I might talk completely bollocks, because of bad memory and i read finnish articles.

-martin- I know how u feel. I allways like to read and watch stuff about universe and physics, but in the end im allways like WTF did I just read/watched:j:

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I thought the theory was that when something is mixed it, lets say water and salt it adds the chaos (high entropy) state of the universe. So in the beginning everything is organized and in the end everything is chaotic.

That's part of it; derived from the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics: that an isolated system has no preference for the organisation of its microsystems - therefore the arrangement of microsystems that creates an organised system is the result of random chance.

Since entropy is a measure of the number of ways that the microsystems can be organised within a system to produce the same system, high entropy is more probable than low entropy, because while you can pull apart and rearrange a chaotic system in many millions of ways and still come out with a chaotic system (high entropy); you can only pull an organised system apart and rearrange it in an organised fashion in a few ways (low entropy). However you can pull apart an organised system and rearrange it in a less organised way, and there are lots of possible outcomes for that (low entropy to higher entropy). As such, it normally takes external energy directed at the system to rearrange it in an organised fashion to overcome simple probability.

If we understand the universe to be the ultimate system in isolation with no energy being created or destroyed within it (first law); there cannot be an external system providing the energy to affect high-entropy to low-entropy change in the net system of our universe. Therefore net entropy can only ever be observed to be decreasing on a universal scale. To travel back in time would be going from a universe that had high entropy to one where it had lower entropy which can't be done without applying energy to the universal system.

I am aware of the challenges to the second law of thermodynamics - I was just pointing out the particular irony of using the first law to suggest something that is impossible under the second law. I think almost all scientific models of the universe either require both to be true, or neither to be true. This particular one can relate to the 'heat death' of the universe.

Edited February 3, 2012 by da12thMonkey

[ProfTournesol 956]

That's part of it; derived from the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics: that an isolated system has no preference for the organisation of its microsystems - therefore the arrangement of microsystems that creates an organised system is the result of random chance.

Since entropy is a measure of the number of ways that the microsystems can be organised within a system to produce the same system, high entropy is more probable than low entropy, because while you can pull apart and rearrange a chaotic system in many millions of ways and still come out with a chaotic system (high entropy); you can only pull an organised system apart and rearrange it in an organised fashion in a few ways (low entropy). However you can pull apart an organised system and rearrange it in a less organised way, and there are lots of possible outcomes for that (low entropy to higher entropy). As such, it normally takes external energy directed at the system to rearrange it in an organised fashion to overcome simple probability.

If we understand the universe to be the ultimate system in isolation with no energy being created or destroyed within it (first law); there cannot be an external system providing the energy to affect high-entropy to low-entropy change in the net system of our universe. Therefore net entropy can only ever be observed to be decreasing on a universal scale. To travel back in time would be going from a universe that had high entropy to one where it had lower entropy which can't be done without applying energy to the universal system.

I am aware of the challenges to the second law of thermodynamics - I was just pointing out the particular irony of using the first law to suggest something that is impossible under the second law. I think almost all scientific models of the universe either require both to be true, or neither to be true. This particular one can relate to the 'heat death' of the universe.

All this proves me wrong on one point : all the Brits don't get drunk at the pub on Friday evening

[-martin- 10]

All this proves me wrong on one point : all the Brits don't get drunk at the pub on Friday evening

Because on Friday evening the pub is occupied by Eastern Europeans, cheers :cheers:

[PELHAM 10]

To me the universe seems too quiet for me. When thinking all the hundreds of millions of stars and planets ,I bet what we see and feel dosent even come close to explain whats really happening in the universe. Maybe all the others are in different dimension and/or outside our understanding and senses. What im trying to say is there should be hell of alot more intelligent activity than what we are experiencing right now. I mean not even a single one radio transmission.

The evolution of intelligent life is linked to the evolution of the universe. The conditions have to be right. 1st we had to wait for stars to convert all that H2 into larger elements. Then we had to wait for those stars to novae and spew it out so planets could form around 2nd generation stars. Then we had to wait for planetary systems to stabilise. Then we had to wait for the levels of radioactivity to decrease, the earth was once strewn with radioactive elements that took billions of years to decay. Then we had to wait for an atmosphere of the right composition, liquid water etc.

In short, just because the universe is old doesn't mean the conditions have always existed for intelligent life. It's possible much of it is at the same stage as us.

[froggyluv 2136]

We're still discovering new species here on Earth so it's pretty foolish to think we can determine what else is out there as we're just fleas on a toenail - croutons in the salad bowl of life... Do we really know exactly how big the Universe is and more importantly -whats outside of it if it has boundries?

[PELHAM 10]

Well organisms of any kind have to be made out of something. For life to exist in the known Universe you have to wait for the stars to make other elements apart from hydrogen, which was the only element to exist after the big bang. Then you have to get that stuff of life out of the 1st generation stars (novae) and give enough time for that stuff to be in a usable state and for the right conditions to exist. Evolution of life is linked to stellar and planetary evolution, very few people realise this fact. As for other dimensions, energy beings, ghosts and goblins, I'll leave that for the writers of science fiction. The periodic table is reasonably small and the elements in it that can be used to generate living organisms amount to only a handful. You might say it's not possible to know what's out there, I would disagree. Start with the building blocks the universe gave us, the periodic table, and the choices are fairly limited.....

[-Puma- 2]

Well organisms of any kind have to be made out of something. For life to exist in the known Universe you have to wait for the stars to make other elements apart from hydrogen, which was the only element to exist after the big bang. Then you have to get that stuff of life out of the 1st generation stars (novae) and give enough time for that stuff to be in a usable state and for the right conditions to exist. Evolution of life is linked to stellar and planetary evolution, very few people realise this fact. As for other dimensions, energy beings, ghosts and goblins, I'll leave that for the writers of science fiction. The periodic table is reasonably small and the elements in it that can be used to generate living organisms amount to only a handful. You might say it's not possible to know what's out there, I would disagree. Start with the building blocks the universe gave us, the periodic table, and the choices are fairly limited.....

Yes I understand this, but what we have discovered recently seems that all things are not so simple. Even the preiodic table might need a third dimension as the element ,such as aluminium can organize in a state that it behaves similar to other other element in periodic table (super atom). Yesterday I read that they found fourth earth-like planet circling a dwarf M star, wich has no heavy elements in it. and scientists are baffled as they tought that star like that cant have rock planets. But they found one, and that planet is sofar the best candidate to have liquid water in it. I believe, like einstein himself sayed, that its amazing, that nature could behave so constant and u could make so complex and accurate calculations and laws out of it. Maybe the theory of everything is that there is no theory in the first place? I know this is far fetched, but the universe is truly a confusing place. and the more we learn about it, more confusing it gets

Edited February 4, 2012 by SPC.Puma_FIN

[dmarkwick 261]

Yes I understand this, but what we have discovered recently seems that all things are not so simple. Even the preiodic table might need a third dimension as the element ,such as aluminium can organize in a state that it behaves similar to other other element in periodic table (super atom). Yesterday I read that they found fourth earth-like planet circling a dwarf M star, wich has no heavy elements in it. and scientists are baffled as they tought that star like that cant have rock planets. But they found one, and that planet is sofar the best candidate to have liquid water in it. I believe, like einstein himself sayed, that its amazing, that nature could behave so constant and u could make so complex and accurate calculations and laws out of it. Maybe the theory of everything is that there is no theory in the first place? I know this is far fetched, but the universe is truly a confusing place. and the more we learn about it, more confusing it gets

You cannot second-guess the universe, it will be what it will be. A while ago, I was in a position where I had to think of algorithms to generate random objects on a landscape, in a "realistic" way, meaning that spawnings had to have a filter to prevent nonsensical scenery.

Later that same week, I was driving across the countryside and I saw a ploughed field. In the middle of that ploughed field, for no apparent reason, was a green Hillman Imp car. And next to the Hillman Imp car was a sleeping duck.

[PELHAM 10]

Yes I understand this, but what we have discovered recently seems that all things are not so simple. Even the preiodic table might need a third dimension as the element ,such as aluminium can organize in a state that it behaves similar to other other element in periodic table (super atom). Yesterday I read that they found fourth earth-like planet circling a dwarf M star, wich has no heavy elements in it. and scientists are baffled as they thought that star like that cant have rock planets. But they found one, and that planet is sofar the best candidate to have liquid water in it. I believe, like einstein himself sayed, that its amazing, that nature could behave so constant and u could make so complex and accurate calculations and laws out of it. Maybe the theory of everything is that there is no theory in the first place? I know this is far fetched, but the universe is truly a confusing place. and the more we learn about it, more confusing it gets

Clusters of atoms behaving as a superatom are unique to metals, already known for their habit of sharing electrons and would not have much influence on the creation of life. The periodic table would remain unaltered because atoms are defined by the constituents of the nucleus not the number of electrons in the electron shell.

Planets around class M stars are very rare as they are 1st generation stars. Typically the planets are gas giants mainly consisting of hydrogen. In rare cases of other types of planet being present it is thought that the material either comes from somewhere else, e.g the star was part of a binary system and the larger twin went nova. Or, that the material was ejected from the star itself. Class M stars are small and fully convective and the planets orbit very close and have orbital periods measured in days and weeks. A gas giant in close orbit can disrupt the stars magnetic field and causes huge solar flares.

I believe you may be talking about Gliese 581 or Gliese 667 C? Saying the planets are earth like and rocky is actually a bit of ill informed press speculation designed to sell more copies. All they can determine is that some of the planets have a similar mass to the earth (most are larger). They don't actually know what they are made of or what radius they are. As always, don't believe the hype.....

Edited February 4, 2012 by PELHAM

[-Puma- 2]

Clusters of atoms behaving as a superatom are unique to metals, already known for their habit of sharing electrons and would not have much influence on the creation of life. The periodic table would remain unaltered because atoms are defined by the constituents of the nucleus not the number of electrons in the electron shell.

Planets around class M stars are very rare as they are 1st generation stars. Typically the planets are gas giants mainly consisting of hydrogen. In rare cases of other types of planet being present it is thought that the material either comes from somewhere else, e.g the star was part of a binary system and the larger twin went nova. Or, that the material was ejected from the star itself. Class M stars are small and fully convective and the planets orbit very close and have orbital periods measured in days and weeks. A gas giant in close orbit can disrupt the stars magnetic field and causes huge solar flares.

I believe you may be talking about Gliese 581 or Gliese 667 C? Saying the planets are earth like and rocky is actually a bit of ill informed press speculation designed to sell more copies. All they can determine is that some of the planets have a similar mass to the earth (most are larger). They don't actually know what they are made of or what radius they are. As always, don't believe the hype.....

No need for hyped up Science press here. all the news services are factual and informative :) I maybe just explaining wrong as english isn´t my frist language :o Anyways thanks for info, actually as I read thru the news it didnt state, that the planet was a rocky planet, all it said its propably smaller than earth and more study is needed. All im saying though is sometimes truth is stranger than fiction ...

@marvic what the hell is "green Hillman Imp car" :confused:

Edited February 4, 2012 by SPC.Puma_FIN

[dmarkwick 261]

@marvic what the hell is "green Hillman Imp car" :confused:

[froggyluv 2136]

The periodic table is reasonably small and the elements in it that can be used to generate living organisms amount to only a handful. You might say it's not possible to know what's out there, I would disagree.

I really don't understand what your saying here -that because humans have a periodic element table we or you specifically know whats out there :crazy_o:

Just because we know something about the building blocks of life (on Earth) -and even that can evolve such as the discovery of multi celled organisms that don't require oxygen -doesn't mean we know jack about the almost infinte possiblities of different species. Heck, we don't fully know what Dark Energy and Dark Matter is (of course there are theories) and asking an astrophysicist about the environment around the Big Bang you'll hear theories as wild as the craziest Religious types.

Edited February 4, 2012 by froggyluv