UFO sighting in Texas...

[Alleya]

Do you guys think that all the life forms in the entire universe reside on our tiny planet? Im not advocating these videos of spaceships and such, just posing a question.

I fully believe the universe is positively teeming with life. Do I believe that mile-long spaceships hover aimlessly over Texas skies and are only observed by 2 people and not picked up on any sort of instrumentation or credible sources? No.

[Mizango]

Amazing how in a world where you can't buy a blender that doesn't have a camera on it, no one got a picture.

Also, maybe I just zoned out while watching the video because of texan accents, but uh...wouldn't an object that big maybe kinda be picked up by radar? I think it would be kind of a concern to airports/the military if there was an object over a mile in length obscuring the sky. Also kind of makes me wonder how such a physics-defying object could even exist.

Because the aliens have invented magic

Wrong! Jesus invented magic, how else you so many be convinced by something they have never seen?

[Neosutra]

Do you guys think that all the life forms in the entire universe reside on our tiny planet? Im not advocating these videos of spaceships and such, just posing a question.

Like alleya said, Universe has a shit ton of life, if even just using basic common sense or statistics. Difference comes down to beleiving that:

1. The % of species in our galaxy advanced enough to travel faster then the speed of light (if even possible) would actually visit us, know/care we are here.

2. They would constantly visit us, and never -ever- be recorded.

3. They LOVE rednecks whom dont possess cameras.


I personally beleive 2 options:

1. We are confined to our material limitations and organic species are stuck at below c speeds and thus no one has visited our rock.

2. There is a way to travel faster then light and the few species that have discovered it are busy with their sector of the galaxy and have no interest in exploring billions of star systems in the outer rings of this galaxy in an attempt to say "hi".

If you travelled across an entire galaxy, wouldnt you get out and say hi? Or buy a coke? Or have a picnic.

[Khamsin]

Maybe "life" isn't all that special, and it only seems so to us because we're alive. Maybe all the life in the universe does reside on this tiny planet, and it's just simply not as significant as we'd like to believe.

[Neosutra]

Maybe "life" isn't all that special, and it only seems so to us because we're alive. Maybe all the life in the universe does reside on this tiny planet, and it's just simply not as significant as we'd like to believe.

No. Besides what you said is contradicting.

[Khamsin]

Maybe "life" isn't all that special, and it only seems so to us because we're alive. Maybe all the life in the universe does reside on this tiny planet, and it's just simply not as significant as we'd like to believe.

No. Besides what you said is contradicting.

It's not contradicting, it's just saying maybe there's no real significance in life to the universe as a whole. Afterall, even if the entire universe is barren of life, the universe will still carry on with it's business. Why is life important, other than just because we're alive? It's a bit of a selection bias. We care because we're alive. Stuff that isn't alive doesn't really care about anything. If we are the only life in the universe, after we're gone, what will it matter? 99.99999% of the universe won't even notice.

[Andarvi]

Maybe "life" isn't all that special, and it only seems so to us because we're alive. Maybe all the life in the universe does reside on this tiny planet, and it's just simply not as significant as we'd like to believe.

No. Besides what you said is contradicting.

It's not contradicting, it's just saying maybe there's no real significance in life to the universe as a whole. Afterall, even if the entire universe is barren of life, the universe will still carry on with it's business. Why is life important, other than just because we're alive? It's a bit of a selection bias. We care because we're alive. Stuff that isn't alive doesn't really care about anything. If we are the only life in the universe, after we're gone, what will it matter? 99.99999% of the universe won't even notice.

I would say we care because anyone who honestly thinks that earth is the only spot of life in the vast universe is extremely narrowminded and self-centered. Just my opinion. They are most likely not aware of how big the KNOWN universe is and if they do know are just...ridiculous.

There are an estimated 100 billion stars per galaxy and an estimated 10 billion galaxies in the universe. Multiply those together and assume that each star has just one planet (some have none, some have many). Thats a lot of chances for life to exist.

[Khamsin]

Maybe "life" isn't all that special, and it only seems so to us because we're alive. Maybe all the life in the universe does reside on this tiny planet, and it's just simply not as significant as we'd like to believe.

No. Besides what you said is contradicting.

It's not contradicting, it's just saying maybe there's no real significance in life to the universe as a whole. Afterall, even if the entire universe is barren of life, the universe will still carry on with it's business. Why is life important, other than just because we're alive? It's a bit of a selection bias. We care because we're alive. Stuff that isn't alive doesn't really care about anything. If we are the only life in the universe, after we're gone, what will it matter? 99.99999% of the universe won't even notice.

I would say we care because anyone who honestly thinks that earth is the only spot of life in the vast universe is extremely narrowminded and self-centered. Just my opinion. They are most likely not aware of how big the KNOWN universe is and if they do know are just...ridiculous.

There are an estimated 100 billion stars per galaxy and an estimated 10 billion galaxies in the universe. Multiply those together and assume that each star has just one planet (some have none, some have many). Thats a lot of chances for life to exist.

I fully comprehend how big the universe can be, and am not doubting that there may be life elsewhere. My main point was just that life may not really even be important to the universe, and is a rather unimpressive and mundane aspect of the whole. Given the vastness of the universe, life makes up an infintesimal percentage of everything and it is that which makes life seem unimportant. It's also possible we're the only pocket of life, an insignificant little tidepool in the greater span of the universe. It's like finding a rare rock with patterns that look like Abe Lincoln's head. There's billions of rocks out there, there could certainly be another that resembles Abe Lincoln. But maybe it's the only one, and on the whole, isn't really that special. There's no propensity for nature to form rocks that look like Lincoln, it just happened. There doesn't have to be another, but there could be.

There's other stuff out there, life is only one of them.

[Saga]

Maybe "life" isn't all that special, and it only seems so to us because we're alive. Maybe all the life in the universe does reside on this tiny planet, and it's just simply not as significant as we'd like to believe.

No. Besides what you said is contradicting.

It's not contradicting, it's just saying maybe there's no real significance in life to the universe as a whole. Afterall, even if the entire universe is barren of life, the universe will still carry on with it's business. Why is life important, other than just because we're alive? It's a bit of a selection bias. We care because we're alive. Stuff that isn't alive doesn't really care about anything. If we are the only life in the universe, after we're gone, what will it matter? 99.99999% of the universe won't even notice.

I would say we care because anyone who honestly thinks that earth is the only spot of life in the vast universe is extremely narrowminded and self-centered. Just my opinion. They are most likely not aware of how big the KNOWN universe is and if they do know are just...ridiculous.

There are an estimated 100 billion stars per galaxy and an estimated 10 billion galaxies in the universe. Multiply those together and assume that each star has just one planet (some have none, some have many). Thats a lot of chances for life to exist.

I hope we somehow get to explore all that, I always found the concept of infinity to be fascinating. I just want someone else to do the work for the rest of society.

[Andarvi]

Maybe "life" isn't all that special, and it only seems so to us because we're alive. Maybe all the life in the universe does reside on this tiny planet, and it's just simply not as significant as we'd like to believe.

No. Besides what you said is contradicting.

It's not contradicting, it's just saying maybe there's no real significance in life to the universe as a whole. Afterall, even if the entire universe is barren of life, the universe will still carry on with it's business. Why is life important, other than just because we're alive? It's a bit of a selection bias. We care because we're alive. Stuff that isn't alive doesn't really care about anything. If we are the only life in the universe, after we're gone, what will it matter? 99.99999% of the universe won't even notice.

I would say we care because anyone who honestly thinks that earth is the only spot of life in the vast universe is extremely narrowminded and self-centered. Just my opinion. They are most likely not aware of how big the KNOWN universe is and if they do know are just...ridiculous.

There are an estimated 100 billion stars per galaxy and an estimated 10 billion galaxies in the universe. Multiply those together and assume that each star has just one planet (some have none, some have many). Thats a lot of chances for life to exist.

I fully comprehend how big the universe can be, and am not doubting that there may be life elsewhere. My main point was just that life may not really even be important to the universe, and is a rather unimpressive and mundane aspect of the whole. Given the vastness of the universe, life makes up an infintesimal percentage of everything and it is that which makes life seem unimportant. It's also possible we're the only pocket of life, an insignificant little tidepool in the greater span of the universe. It's like finding a rare rock with patterns that look like Abe Lincoln's head. There's billions of rocks out there, there could certainly be another that resembles Abe Lincoln. But maybe it's the only one, and on the whole, isn't really that special. There's no propensity for nature to form rocks that look like Lincoln, it just happened. There doesn't have to be another, but there could be.

There's other stuff out there, life is only one of them.

I see, good point, I agree.

[Slapper]

ALIENS ARE JUST THE EVOLVED FORM OF HUMANS GUYZ, THEY JUST WENT BACK IN TIME FOR VACATION.

[Amele]

life in the visible universe (as we understand life) might be very rare indeed.

some reference to life being statistically likely was made in this thread, but even the basic inputs to that sort of problem are highly disputed. (for instance, given a finite number of stars (our galaxy), what percentage of those stars have planets in the habitable zone, what is the percentage of those planets that have the necessary chemical makeup to allow for the generation of life, what percentage of those planets remain stable for sufficient time to generate life (and what is that minimum time) and what is the probability that, given the necessary conditions, life is generated. then find the % of such life that becomes sentient/sapient/space-faring.) the answer, of course, is by definition >=1 but there's no reason necessarily to believe (statistically) that the answer must be >1.

on the other hand, if you buy into any of the strong anthropic principles (especially the 'final' anthropic principle) the generation of 'intelligent' information-processing structures in the universe is inevitable, but this does not at all guarantee the existence of other intelligent information-processing structures beyond ourselves; nor does it indeed require that such structures meet the classic definition of life. (beyond of course the fact that most SAP's are really tautologies that basically say: because humanity exists, we must therefore live in a universe in which humanity exists.)


it is important to remember that there are two parts to the likelihood of life in the universe: firstly, the number of 'chances' (this is presumably quite large, based on current estimates of the size of the visible universe and the approximate number of stars and estimated percentage of those stars with planets of any type). and secondly, the probability that any given chance will result in life.

the second number is much harder to estimate, and there isn't any basis to call more conservative estimates (those that place total number of planets supporting life at or near 1) ridiculous any more than there's basis to call more optimistic estimates (those placing total number of planets supporting life as a significant percentage of all planets.) ridiculous. although, thus far, there is more evidence for the former than the latter, at least with respect to intelligent life. (see: fermi paradox).

[Woozie]

Amazing how in a world where you can't buy a blender that doesn't have a camera on it, no one got a picture.

Also, maybe I just zoned out while watching the video because of texan accents, but uh...wouldn't an object that big maybe kinda be picked up by radar? I think it would be kind of a concern to airports/the military if there was an object over a mile in length obscuring the sky. Also kind of makes me wonder how such a physics-defying object could even exist.

What's funny is that most people who report huge objects in the sky that move away with amazing speeds never report hearing a sonic boom either.

[Woozie]

some reference to life being statistically likely was made in this thread, but even the basic inputs to that sort of problem are highly disputed. (for instance, given a finite number of stars (our galaxy), what percentage of those stars have planets in the habitable zone, what is the percentage of those planets that have the necessary chemical makeup to allow for the generation of life, what percentage of those planets remain stable for sufficient time to generate life (and what is that minimum time) and what is the probability that, given the necessary conditions, life is generated. then find the % of such life that becomes sentient/sapient/space-faring.) the answer, of course, is by definition >=1 but there's no reason necessarily to believe (statistically) that the answer must be >1.

The drake equation'd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[Belkin]

You guys act as if every single "world" (I guess that is what you would call it) follows our rules of physics. Now I'm not physics major, but maybe they have technology far different from ours that doesn't produce such byproducts as sonic booms?

Also, it wasn't just two people that saw it, it was around 30. And they seem like credible people, not some ravening lunatics screaming "IVE SEEN ALIENS".

Just my take on it.

[Correction]

Also, it wasn't just two people that saw it, it was around 30.

Texas...

[Khamsin]

You guys act as if every single "world" (I guess that is what you would call it) follows our rules of physics. Now I'm not physics major, but maybe they have technology far different from ours that doesn't produce such byproducts as sonic booms?

Also, it wasn't just two people that saw it, it was around 30. And they seem like credible people, not some ravening lunatics screaming "IVE SEEN ALIENS".

Just my take on it.

Even if other "worlds" had different laws of physics, they were operating in our "world" at the time.

[Belkin]

Maybe the technology still works in our world though. I dunno, I'm just throwing shit out there.

[Woozie]

Maybe the technology still works in our world though. I dunno, I'm just throwing shit out there.

Well, another problem with assuming that the laws of physics are different in their world is that it violates certain principles such as the translational invariance of the Hamiltonian operator and by extension those of the quantum mechanical state vectors. Certain symmetries in nature are vital to our universe to exist the way that it does exist. If allow other "worlds" to have different laws of physics, you eliminate these symmetries (namely the translational invariance of the Hamiltonian Operator) and this invalidates practically every known law of physics in some direct or indirect fashion since we build our understanding of the universe on quantum mechanical principles (which, by it's very nature, is subject to translational invariance). But without quantum mechanics, our world couldn't exist the way it does.

See:
"Principles of Quantum Mechanics" by R.Shankar, second edition, chapter 11.
"Quantum Mechanics", by Franz Schwabl, second revised edition, chapter 8.
"Quantum Mechanics. Fundamentals and Applications to Technology" by Jasprit Singh, chapter 6.
"Quantum Mechanics", by Eugen Merzbacher, third edition, chapter 8 (on page 165 it's very briefly discussed under "The Periodic Potential".

Or any other Graduate level text on Quantum Mechanics.

[Tajin]

Or, if they can after all travel at speeds above light, maybe they possess technology to avoid radar and makes cameras to record on shitty quality.

Personally I just hope they don't think like humans.