lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: The Pseudoscience of UFOs
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-27-2006, 01:36 AM   #1
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142
I just saw the movie Outfoxed today, it's a documentary/examination of Rupert Murdoch's "media empire". Besides being funny as hell (Bill O'Reilly needs to take a f***in' pill or something), it also reveals various memos and policies of FOX News regarding it's journalistic integrity (or lack thereof).


My question: what's your stance on journalism and the integrity of FOX News, or the media in general at this point in time?
I just don't trust the media or the goverments of this planet. I think they both lie about 80% est. of the information that they convey to the public in general. I don't trust the media no more then I my experiance on this planet and I surely don't trust anything the goverment have to say be they run by Republicans or Demorecrats.

The hate & don't the goverments of this planet because they continue lying about the greatest information to humankind, the existence of life in the galaxy.

I am extremely pist off with the media for their lack of vigilance in investigating the f****ing goverment lies about life in the galaxy.
You just don't see any investigations in the ET phenomenon on ABC,BBC,CBS ,CNN,NBC or that bias Fox News which should be called the Republican News channel and of course other media news outlits are suspected of miss information.

I believe the media is in lead with the this goverment U.S.A and other goverments on this planet about the miss information campaign about extraterrestrial life.

Also to all you people out there who thank that I am a UFO nut or a conspiracy nut. Then I say seeing ,feeling, smelling, tasting or hearing is not always believing.

Last edited by windu6; 06-27-2006 at 06:28 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-27-2006, 12:05 PM   #2
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
The hate & don't the goverments of this planet because they continue lying about the greatest information to humankind, the existence of life in the galaxy.

I am extremely pist off with the media for their lack of vigilance in investigating the f****ing goverment lies about life in the galaxy.
You just don't see any investigations in the ET phenomenon on ABC,BBC,CBS ,CNN,NBC or that bias Fox News which should be called the Republican News channel and of course other media news outlits are suspected of miss information.

I believe the media is in lead with the this goverment U.S.A and other goverments on this planet about the miss information campaign about extraterrestrial life.

Also to all you people out there who thank that I am a UFO nut or a conspiracy nut. Then I say seeing ,feeling, smelling, tasting or hearing is not always believing.
It might just be that the media doesn't investigate the "ET phenomenon" for the same reason science doesn't investigate it: there's nothing substantial to investigate. There's no evidence, only a bunch of nutbars claiming to be abducted and "probed" or Jethro claiming to see a "craft."

Interestingly enough, the availability of cameras has increased significantly in the last 20 years but the frequency of UFO photos has decreased. Reason: there wasn't anything to photograph to begin with.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-27-2006, 11:33 PM   #3
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
It might just be that the media doesn't investigate the "ET phenomenon" for the same reason science doesn't investigate it: there's nothing substantial to investigate. There's no evidence, only a bunch of nutbars claiming to be abducted and "probed" or Jethro claiming to see a "craft."

Interestingly enough, the availability of cameras has increased significantly in the last 20 years but the frequency of UFO photos has decreased. Reason: there wasn't anything to photograph to begin with.
I always hear the claim that if science say it not true then then it can't true ever.

This another example of the public ingorance of science and of objective reality.
Science is not always right even when it apparenly seem to be. Some scientists believe ET not to be real because have no evidence of the alien or the spaceship so they believe they have'nt been visting Earth over the past 59 years.

This is wrong use of inductive logic, they don't have all the facts to
form a complete conclusion because the major governments of this planet that some of those scientist trust in are carelessly lying & selling miss information to them as well to the public of this planet.
So to this effect the public today trust in science like in the past they trusted in religion,which so I am discussed with.

Like for example of the governments cover up when some of the people who do investigate UFOs ask the government of this country and other countries for the evidence on their past UFO investigations the investigators recieve documents that is about that is 80% ink out ,so prove to me there is no cover up sceptic.
My belief is if their is nothing there why ink out most of documents
or at lease be smart enough to not ink out the documents to curtail the belief in a cover up, by replacing the ink out information with false info if don't want
no press about it.
So prove to the public at large sceptic that your government that you strongly believe in and of those scientists who I believe are probably in lead with the goverment miss information campagin are't lying to the the public at large?

Also to all you sceptics out there who are convince that the good old government is not lying to its public, I will direct you to watch a program that can viewed on the History Channel called UFO files watch for a episode name ''The Presidents''.

Watch that show until the episode get around talking about the idiot Bush and that evil person Cheney where Dick Cheney is ask by a caller on a radio station that was a UFO investigator, about the government evidence on the UFOs his response was," If I was told about it it was probably classified information and I could'nt talk about it.(Dick Cheney).

Now prove once again that current government is not out right lying to us sceptics now today about UFOs and ET?

Also prove sceptics that the media is not in lead with the government lies? I challenge you sceptics on this, because why are none of those news organisations like CNN,ABC,CBS,PBS,NBC and BBC including other news organisations have not interviewed him when they had Cheney as a "guest" about that radio question he had ask with the response," If I was told about it it was probably classified information and I could'nt talk about it.


Last edited by windu6; 06-27-2006 at 11:54 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2006, 04:58 AM   #4
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
I always hear the claim that if science say it not true then then it can't true ever.
You "hear" wrong or from the wrong people. You should start educating yourself on what science says instead of what people say about what science says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
This another example of the public ingorance of science and of objective reality.Science is not always right even when it apparenly seem to be. Some scientists believe ET not to be real because have no evidence of the alien or the spaceship so they believe they have'nt been visting Earth over the past 59 years.
This would be an example of ignorance about science. I've met no scientist or read the works of no scientist (and I've met and read quite a few!) that believes what you say. Perhaps you can cite a reference that we can discuss? There are, however, many scientists that find it useless to believe that space-aliens are visiting our planet due to the lack of any evidence. One might as well believe that happy little leprechauns are after one's lucky charms, there's as much testable evidence (none).

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
This is wrong use of inductive logic, they don't have all the facts to form a complete conclusion because the major governments of this planet that some of those scientist trust in are carelessly lying & selling miss information to them as well to the public of this planet. So to this effect the public today trust in science like in the past they trusted in religion,which so I am discussed with.
I'm not sure if you're discussed or disgusted, but inductive logic has little to do with the question of space-aliens flying little ships to Earth. The hypothetico-deductive model is useful in attempting to piece together the contexts, forms and functions of artifacts in archaeology or in a forensic investigation, for example. But in the case of UFOs, there simply isn't the initial evidence required to begin the process of induction. Moreover, grand conspiracies of governmental cover ups with regard to UFOs is likewise a fruitless endeavor. For one, there is, again, the problem of evidence, and , two, there's the problem that governments simply aren't good at keeping secrets.

As to the public trust in science being religious-like, that would be the public's fault. Either the public educates itself in the sciences or it will have to trust science's word in all matters. This is, indeed, a disgusting proposition. I, for one, have devoted much time and even a bit of money in helping to correct this short-coming in our society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Like for example of the governments cover up when some of the people who do investigate UFOs ask the government of this country and other countries for the evidence on their past UFO investigations the investigators recieve documents that is about that is 80% ink out ,so prove to me there is no cover up sceptic.
Let me understand this: you want me to prove a negative. Indeed, you make the unfounded assertion that there is a "cover up" and you want me to disprove it? bullocks. Its your claim, you have to prove it! Don't echo the UFO nutter nonsense about grand conspiracies and cover ups, show the evidence. And if you ask a government for evidence that doesn't exist and they refuse to give it to you, you can't come back and say, "ah-ha!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
My belief is if their is nothing there why ink out most of documents or at lease be smart enough to not ink out the documents to curtail the belief in a cover up, by replacing the ink out information with false info if don't want no press about it.
This is poor logic and an ignorant understanding of what classified/private information handling means. I've looked at several of the documents that UFO nutbars claim is evidence of a cover up because of the black-out sections, and this proves only that there was information that the releasing authority didn't wish to release. It doesn't suggest that the information was about UFOs or space-aliens. In fact, in any FOIA release, it should be expected that there'll be blacked out sections, sometimes large ones. This is because some information is covered by the privacy act and may involve private, non-governmental parties. Or, it may still be considered secret for diplomatic reasons. In many cases, it might not be a politically good move for a foreign government to be "outed" as it were for having worked with the United States. And so on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
So prove to the public at large sceptic that your government that you strongly believe in and of those scientists who I believe are probably in lead with the goverment miss information campagin are't lying to the the public at large?
Again, it isn't my burden. It's the burden of the claimant to prove these assertions are true. Moreover, making such an assertion only demonstrates an ignorance of how science works. Scientists are ruthless among each other in holding each other accountable for their claims and discoveries. If the opportunity arose to get the scoop on another scientist with regard to some discovery; to make a lasting name for themselves as another Madam Curie, Newton, or Feynman -then you can bet they wouldn't worry about any loyalty to the government. Finally, many scientists are quite upset with the pseudoscientific attitude that government has and are openly critical about many policy decisions. Hardly the actions of those that are alleged to be "in league with" their government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Also to all you sceptics out there who are convince that the good old government is not lying to its public, I will direct you to watch a program that can viewed on the History Channel called UFO files watch for a episode name ''The Presidents''.
Wow. It was on TV. It must be true then, eh? Let me direct you to a good book: A Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan. Read that then come to me about your television program.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice

Last edited by SkinWalker; 06-29-2006 at 02:18 PM.
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2006, 08:22 AM   #5
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
You "hear" wrong or from the wrong people. You should start educating yourself on what science says instead of what people say about what science says.



This would be an example of ingnorance about science. I've met no scientist or read the works of no scientist (and I've met and read quite a few!) that believes what you say. Perhaps you can cite a reference that we can discuss? There are, however, many scientists that find it useless to believe that space-aliens are visiting our planet due to the lack of any evidence. One might as well believe that happy little leprechans are after one's lucky charms, there's as much testable evidence (none).



I'm not sure if you're discussed or digusted, but inductive logic has little to do with the question of space-aliens flying little ships to Earth. The hypothetico-deductive model is useful in attempting to piece together the contexts, forms and functions of artifacts in archaeology or in a forensic investigation, for example. But in the case of UFOs, there simply isn't the initial evidence required to begin the process of induction. Moreover, grand conspiracies of governmental coverups with regard to UFOs is likewise a fruitless endeavor. For one, there is, again, the problem of evidence, and , two, there's the problem that governments simply aren't good at keeping secrets.

As to the public trust in science being religious-like, that would be the public's fault. Either the public educates itself in the sciences or it will have to trust science's word in all matters. This is, indeed, a disgusting proposition. I, for one, have devoted much time and even a bit of money in helping to correct this short-coming in our society.



Let me understand this: you want me to prove a negative. Indeed, you make the unfounded assertion that there is a "cover up" and you want me to disprove it? Bollocks. Its your claim, you have to prove it! Don't echo the UFO nutter nonsense about grand conspiracies and coverups, show the evidence. And if you ask a government for evidence that doesn't exist and they refuse to give it to you, you can't come back and say, "ah-ha!"



This is poor logic and an ignorant understanding of what classified/private information handling means. I've looked at several of the documents that UFO nutbars claim is evidence of a cover up because of the black-out sections, and this proves only that there was information that the releasing authority didn't wish to release. It doesn't suggest that the information was about UFOs or space-aliens. In fact, in any FOIA release, it should be expected that there'll be blacked out sections, sometimes large ones. This is because some information is covered by the privacy act and may involve private, non-governmental parties. Or, it may still be considered secret for diplomatic reasons. In many cases, it might not be a politically good move for a foreign government to be "outed" as it were for having worked with the United States. And so on.



Again, it isn't my burden. It's the burden of the claimant to prove these assertions are true. Moreover, making such an assertion only demonstrates an iignorance of how science works. Scientists are ruthless among each other in holding each other accountable for their claims and discoveries. If the opportunity arose to get the scoop on another scientist with regard to some discovery; to make a lasting name for themselves as another Madam Curie, Newton, or Feynman -then you can bet they wouldn't worry about any loyalty to the government. Finally, many scientists are quite upset with the pseudoscientific attitude that government has and are openly critical about many policy decisions. Hardly the actions of those that are alleged to be "in league with" their government.



Wow. It was on TV. It must be true then, eh? Let me direct you to a good book: A Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan. Read that then come to me about your television program.
First of all, I have a infinite understanding of science I teach myself science.

By the way I did't say I was disgusted with science, I said in religion in which I mean the way some people trust in science for absolute truth in this day of age.

Second I don't need to ask any scientists opinions or should I say sceptics opinion, I understand science myself. I have a whole libary of science subjects like, physics biology engineering and tools like mathematics.

See this a example of your igorance of science.

Why ask for scientists opinions, don't you understand science yourself as you claim. So with that said I don't need to ask for other people opinions, I can try to find the approximate tuth myself.

Also there is enought evidence to begin using inductive reasoning the evidence seem to be lacking as you sceptics claim, is because it is being plage by miss direction in the form of the source( the world's governments) influence of the evidence.

Also it is you sceptics poor use of logic to form your beliefs, you trust in logic and science so much that you are blinded by the bigger mysteries in the universe that you almost know nothing about. Science can't prove and test everthing, also science can be use to tell lies that is what you sceptics will never understand. Because you are so trap in the box which is science and logic that you can't ever conceive
of thinking whats outside of it.

Also if they did'nt want to release no classified info that is'nt related to UFO evidence the why the hell would they not just release the UFO evidence info by iitself instead releasing the ''supposly classified'' info with the evidence relating to their UFO investigations.

Also if YOU believe that the government is not good at keeping secrets, then you are a fool and casualty of miss information they have been responsible for the last 59 years. With that said you are lost to your own reality and there is nothing I or anybody can prove to you what is precieve to be true or false.

Finaly your comment that because it is seen on TV it must be true,this is another example of your sceptism. I know everything on TV is not real, I don't have the 100% certainy I used to have concerning tv. But if you don't trust some information on TV then may have well not trusted the weather forecast on TV or the news info even if you at the news scene where it is being reported.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2006, 08:59 AM   #6
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Please correct your fallacious argument before continuing.

Here is a list of fallacies I've found during my 2 minute skim through your various posts. Please look them up and refrain from using these fallacies in the future.

1. Ad hominem
2. Red Herrings
3. Straw men
4. Begging the question
5. Burden of Proof


Though I believe you are the worst abuser of argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)

And unless you have a degree, anything you say unsupported by fact is just your opinion and cannot be taken as fact. I'm sorry, but your conspiracy theory falls on its face without proof. Why do you need proof? Why do we think "inside the box", as you say? Because it's the fundamental flaw in debating- the need to think logically and supply evidence

At the very least read some conspiracy theory books and come back to us.



Awesomeness provided by WinAce.

edit - though I doubt you'll read it, click this link, and read it. It may help you understand the logistics behind a debate.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/...Illusion.shtml




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!


Last edited by Mike Windu; 06-29-2006 at 09:22 AM.
Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2006, 09:35 AM   #7
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
XD lol Greatness!


So, first of all, my question is: What would be the reason for *them* to .. *lie*?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2006, 10:40 AM   #8
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
First of all, I have a infinite understanding of science I teach myself science.
You argument (which didn't have much credibility) loses alot more of it with that statement.

An infinite understanding? I imagine none of the greatest scientific minds in history would have ever pretended to have an infinite understanding of anything, let alone the entirety of science. But you do because you taught it to yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Second I don't need to ask any scientists opinions or should I say sceptics opinion, I understand science myself. I have a whole libary of science subjects like, physics biology engineering and tools like mathematics.
You do of course realize that all of those books you're reading were WRITTEN by those same scientist (sceptics) that you have such disdain for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
why the hell would they not just release the UFO evidence info by iitself
Because there is no UFO "evidence".



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2006, 11:39 AM   #9
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
First of all, I have a infinite understanding of science I teach myself science.
It would seem that you need to find a new teacher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
I don't need to ask any scientists opinions or should I say sceptics opinion, I understand science myself. I have a whole libary of science subjects like, physics biology engineering and tools like mathematics.
You could say skeptics, since skepticism is a very healthy and necessary part of the scientific method. This is some thing that rabid believers in things like UFOs and the paranormal seem not to understand. But if you're going to assert that scientists "believe ET to not be real," then you will need to cite a reference to support that assertion. Indeed, not a single one of your assertions are accompanied by a referenced source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
See this a example of your igorance of science.
No, sir. This is an example of your own fallacious thinking strategies. An assertion that I've demonstrated by pointing out the lack of support for your arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Why ask for scientists opinions, don't you understand science yourself as you claim. So with that said I don't need to ask for other people opinions, I can try to find the approximate tuth myself.
"Approximate the truth?" A fool's errand. Moreover, when did I insist on asking the opinions of anyone? I simply want the reference or source that supports the notion that "scientists don't believe in ET" so that we might actually discuss it. I suppose you can say that my suggesting Dr. Sagan's book for you to read is an appeal for you to seek the opinion of a scientist, albeit a very informed one, but you do this any time you read the physics books you allege to possess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Also there is enought evidence to begin using inductive reasoning the evidence seem to be lacking as you sceptics claim, is because it is being plage by miss direction in the form of the source( the world's governments) influence of the evidence.
What is the evidence that allows inductive reasoning? What is the evidence that suggests "miss direction" by governments?


Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Also it is you sceptics poor use of logic to form your beliefs, you trust in logic and science so much that you are blinded by the bigger mysteries in the universe that you almost know nothing about. Science can't prove and test everthing, also science can be use to tell lies that is what you sceptics will never understand. Because you are so trap in the box which is science and logic that you can't ever conceive of thinking whats outside of it.
Again, you're making some assertions that you aren't supporting with sources: lack of logic among the skeptical; blinded by "bigger mysteries"; trapped in a "box"; etc. You are right, however, that science cannot prove or test "everything," nor does it make the claim to be able to. You're also right that science can be used to lie, but dead wrong in assuming that skeptics are not aware of this or understand it, for it is the skeptic that usually uncovers such deception!

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Also if they did'nt want to release no classified info that is'nt related to UFO evidence the why the hell would they not just release the UFO evidence info by iitself instead releasing the ''supposly classified'' info with the evidence relating to their UFO investigations.
Again, there was obviously no "UFO evidence" to be released, so documents that did get released were those documents requested. Its as if you simply aren't aware of the purpose and process of a FOIA request.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Also if YOU believe that the government is not good at keeping secrets, then you are a fool and casualty of miss information they have been responsible for the last 59 years. With that said you are lost to your own reality and there is nothing I or anybody can prove to you what is precieve to be true or false.
Ah, since you've poisoned the well (another fallacious argument) and set yourself up so that you can back out of a thread that has obviously become too hot for you to handle, I expect that you'll simply drop out of it, patting yourself on the back since there's nothing you or "anybody" can do to change my mind. But before you go, let me just point out that there is: simply reveal the evidence. You've made many assertions that are without a single source let alone evidence. If you want to assert that the government is capable of maintaining secret so big for so long, what is your evidence to support that notion. The [i]counter[i] evidence is Iran-Contra; Watergate; Abu Ghareb; etc., etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Finaly your comment that because it is seen on TV it must be true,this is another example of your sceptism. I know everything on TV is not real, I don't have the 100% certainy I used to have concerning tv. But if you don't trust some information on TV then may have well not trusted the weather forecast on TV or the news info even if you at the news scene where it is being reported.
Ironically, this is the single best point you've made. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that there is hope for you yet. You are absolutely correct that in my casual dismissal of a single television program, I've fallen to the very same fallacies that you've demonstrated in this thread. I'm busted. The truth is, I don't watch much television. I don't have cable -just a couple of rabbit ears- since we don't watch it much, so I wouldn't be able to watch the history channel. Instead, I read books or journals online (Science, Nature, and a variety of anthropological/archaeological journals). However, if you can point me to an online transcript or textual citations used in the program, I'd be happy to look them over.

Let me close by asking: what are the data? Where is the evidence to support your assertions? If this evidence cannot be produced, why do you believe what you do? We can probably all agree that such things are possible, but this, by itself, isn't reason to accept them to be true.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice

Last edited by SkinWalker; 06-29-2006 at 02:20 PM.
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2006, 11:55 AM   #10
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Maybe you should check into this guy.
He debunked Uri Geller and many others, it'll teach you the difference between science and psuedoscience.
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2006, 04:36 PM   #11
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
This article seems particularly pertinant to the discussion at hand.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2006, 07:07 PM   #12
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Also to all you people out there who thank that I am a UFO nut or a conspiracy nut.
That's because you are. You have no evidence to support your theories (the History Channel doesn't count) yet you believe they exist.


And stop adding color tags to your posts, it just makes them even more annoying.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-30-2006, 10:18 PM   #13
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Angry

You know there is no more use of trying convencing you or your sceptical freinds so I am ending this useless discussion that I been wasting my breath and patience with. But before I leave this useless waste of my time.

I want to tell you that I really hate and disgusted with your kind (igorant sceptics), it is people like you and your sceptical familiy of idiots that have influence the the inspiration of the public of this planet to investing in exploration of the galaxy for your nonsencal support of governments f**king disgusting lies about ET.

So with that, about 70% of the people of this planet are still stuck on this planet worrying about social security, healthcare,Armageddon and disease among other things. All of these problems have solutions now today including the religous End Time belief.

For one health can easily be solve, make it free doctors in which I truly hate should'nt have to be paid to keep people alive or in normal
health or they should'nt have became doctors in the first place.

Social security is in this government for example is its intention of keeping track of us the citizens.

Disease always have had solutions, it is the major drug and pharmaceutical companies which have been keeping the cure to the world's most horriable diseases a secret. And if you sceptics think this conspiracy talk I don't give a damn because it is the truth.

The most obvious reason being, to continue making money (which I also despise very much) off those unlucky people who can't obtain enough of that resource to cheat death of its reward.

Also I figure this will be extremely obviously to sceptics who claim to be more "logical" than anyone else. Again if you still believe that your glorious f**king government is not keeping secrets.

There was a NASA program the was in progress from 1996-2002 that was called the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, where they was trying to find a way to move faster than light and well I will give their reason, "to seek the ultimate breakthroughs in space transportation: (1) propulsion that requires no propellant mass, (2) propulsion that attains the maximum transit speeds physically possible, and (3) breakthrough methods of energy production to power such devices. Topics of interest include experiments and theories regarding the coupling of gravity and electromagnetism, the quantum vacuum, hyper fast travel, and super luminal quantum effects."

They was trying to use the wonderful science of Physics(which I adore) to get us off this planet and explore the galaxy and the rest of the universe.
Also I know NASA is part the government & this can be construed as a contradiction to my miss trust of this government. But when I heard of this project they really got my attention but not my trust.

So in effect they was trying to get us from Earth's gravity potential in which some of the majority of the world's population seem to be comfortable with, reason being because of you damn sceptics support of the governments of this planet useless lies.

This program funding was cut when, guess who when the Bush administration
arive which seem to be "suspicious" since he claim he want NASA to return by to the moon(which I know some of you sceptics believe never happen), go to Mars and beyond what ever the hell that mean.

So finally if you sceptics want to continue believing that ET don't exist and government is'nt lying its people then you might as well say that the whole humand race should remain on this planet to the f**king sun burn out and never have had travel the galaxy and never have had known the greatest and probably the most wonderful mysteries this galaxy and universe have.

Last edited by SkinWalker; 06-30-2006 at 11:09 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-30-2006, 10:39 PM   #14
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
God, you conspiracy nuts are so annoying, claiming to have legitimate research that proves your theories, which are all easily disproven by actual scientists and researchers-if you even produce said evidence.

Now, either please post whatever evidence you have to support your theories, or stop posting about them.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-30-2006, 10:54 PM   #15
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142
God, you conspiracy nuts are so annoying, claiming to have legitimate research that proves your theories, which are all easily disproven by actual scientists and researchers-if you even produce said evidence.

Now, either please post whatever evidence you have to support your theories, or stop posting about them.
You know I want to ask you a question, what do you believe what is real in the universe? Please don't say ET because I already suppected you don't.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-30-2006, 10:56 PM   #16
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
doctors in which I truly hate should'nt have to be paid to keep people alive or in normal health or they should'nt have became doctors in the first place.
Because doctors don't need houses, clothes or food? They can survive just on the good feelings of doing good works?

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
And if you sceptics think this conspiracy talk I don't give a damn because it is the truth.
PROOF windu, we need proof. Even some half-baked manner of website that spews conspiracy jargon would at least give you the TINIEST bit of credibility. Just saying that you know these things because the voices in your head tell you so means nothing.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-30-2006, 11:04 PM   #17
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,438
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
I don't see how the belief that Extra-Terrestrial Intelligent Beings have visited the planet has ANYTHING to do with the furtherment of space exploration, or even the possibility of life on other planets.

Logically, if the forces that led to life evolving on Earth are universal (and we have no reason to suspect they are not) then it also logically leads to the real possibility that life has evolved elsewhere. (And as a person who installs the SETI@Home screen-saver software on every computer I have access to, I count myself as one of those who suspect that this is the case.)

Just because it's possible that life (intelligent or otherwise) may exist elsewhere in the universe (even in our own cosmic neighborhood) that doesn't lead to any real conclusions that we have been visited by that life at any point in human history. In fact, the statistical odds of that happening are, well... astronomical. We have absolutely no reason to believe, and certainly ZERO scientific proof that we have been targeted by alien intelligences for visitations and examination.

Space travel is long, arduous, dangerous work... and the idea of any intelligent race travelling light-decades (or longer) to find our tiny, otherwise insignificant planet out of billions of other possibilities, only to not say "Hi!" when they got here and recognized the existence of other sentient, intelligent, technological beings... well, that's just wacky.

And I don't see how space flight and exploration fits in with any of this. The human race has always sought to travel to the outer frontiers. Space is no different, and many programs currently exist, and will continue to expand (although, perhaps not at the pace many of us would like to see.) None of that hinges on the issue of extra-terrestrial visitations, however. 2 completely unrelated issues.

The Governments of the world lie to us and keep secrets about a great many things... but alien life visiting the Earth would be far too big a story for any government to sit on for any length of time... it would get out, and quickly... that is if any government could ever hope to sit on it in the first place.

You say you are not a conspiracy theorist... but several of the topics in your posts betray that. I have no great love for most of the government institutions of the world, let me tell you... but all of them are far, FAR too incompetent to keep that many conspiracies active and alive at any one time... let alone sustaining them for decades, or in some cases, centuries. The truth will always out.

And most conspiracy theories needlessly multiply entities (Occam's Razor...) make things needlessly and overwhelmingly complicated, and totally fly in the face of just about EVERYTHING we know about human nature... namely: humans as a whole are greedy and stupid and will always seek self-gain over everything else.

As such, the classic conspiracy theories are untenable since you can't hope to keep all of the tens of thousands of people that it would take to sustain the mechanics of one quiet, either with payoffs, appeals to their sense of duty to the state, or threats of violence. It can't be done: somebody will talk and ruin the whole thing... and probably much sooner than later. Just look at all the "Top Secrets" dealing with the "War on Terror" that have been leaked from our government in the 5 years since 9-11. Frankly, I'm kinda surprised it took this long for this stuff to come out and be published.

But, all that being said: Good luck with your search anyway. It would make me happy if you eventually prove us all wrong.


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)

Last edited by edlib; 06-30-2006 at 11:16 PM.
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2006, 06:18 PM   #18
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Hey, you, [expletive deleted], how bout you stop with the ad hominem and get back to the debate at hand.

But at the very least, correct the spelling, SKEPTIC.

Come back when you have a decent argument.




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2006, 06:40 PM   #19
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
The correct spelling in British English is "sceptic."


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2006, 05:44 PM   #20
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
My piece of advise is you drop the conspiracy theories and spend some effort on actual phenomenae (gr.?), such as the Hessdalen Lights (the only ones I can think of at the moment).

Or, of course, you could help the scientific community by installing Seti@Home or doing something else of that nature.

Exposing non-existant cover-ups can be quite hard. Getting involved in well-documented and acknowledged matters or projects might be more beneficial.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2006, 06:02 PM   #21
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Ah @ Skin

Well he should still stop with the ad hominem.




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2006, 09:39 PM   #22
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
You know I want to ask you a question, what do you believe what is real in the universe? Please don't say ET because I already suppected you don't.
Whatever there's evidence of.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2006, 09:46 PM   #23
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
You know I want to ask you a question, what do you believe what is real in the universe?
The Hessdalen Lights. Although I suspect there's some boring, perfectly natural explanation for them that'll disappoint all the people considering them little UFO-thingies.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2006, 09:50 PM   #24
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Swamp gas, and stupid people. There's your explanation.
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2006, 10:27 PM   #25
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,438
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
A couple of drunk fishing or hunting buddies, out alone in the woods, miles from anywhere, decide in their intoxicated state to try out a little "Brokeback Mountain"-type experimentation.

In the morning, in the truck on the way home, they figure out they may have to explain to their wives why they are sitting so uncomfortably, and the stains in their undies. They need to get their stories straight... (pardon the pun. )

Suddenly, the concept of aliens swooping down from the sky to preform "Anal-Probing" on a couple of good ol' boys just minding their business in camp is born. And the rest is history.



Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)

Last edited by edlib; 07-02-2006 at 10:42 PM.
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2006, 10:58 PM   #26
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Swamp gas, and stupid people. There's your explanation.
Of the Hessdalen lights, edlib's anal probes, the government cover-ups, or all three?

Just for your information, there's not exactly an abundance of swamps in Norway.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2006, 11:11 PM   #27
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Forget to mention natural phenomen, and people who feel a constant need for attention.

Besides Peet Bogs are quite similiar to swamps and you do have those
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-02-2006, 11:48 PM   #28
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
I didn't say they weren't natural, I said we have no clue as to what they are. Or why they apparently only happen in that valley.

And some of them occur too high up to be bog lights. Or, of course, they happen away from bogs.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-05-2006, 07:38 PM   #29
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,322
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
The great interstellar distances they'd have to travel to get here would seem to rule out extraterrestrial visitation. I would think if they really existed and had such technology, they'd have been here a long time ago, and we couldn't ignore their presence.

It might be comforting to believe the US government is hiding them, but the enemies of the US would surely use this against them if that information really existed. Why hasn't China announce the "aliens"? Or Al Qaeda? Or some whistleblowers from the Bush administration? It just doesn't add up.

The Defense Department or at least the Air Force had that "project bluebook" thing which I remember reading about, but you could always chalk that up to investigating phenomena (remember how much money the military wasted investigating psychic phenomena and testing drugs on troops) or a great cover for watching for spy satellites and experimental aircraft (the Stealth Bomber/Fighter were reguarly mistaken for "alien craft" by UFO enthusiasts for example).

Personally I admit the possibility of extraterrestrial life. My sense of wonder hopes they exist. But I also have to face the fact that if they exist they are probably too far away or too primitive/different from us, to ever make contact possible... except in the far far flung future (if at all). By the time we get there (or they get here) the other may be long gone.

So save it for the sci fi writers. I don't think we're being visited by little green men. The phenomena we hear about is easily explained away as hoaxes, and misidentified objects in the skies.


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-05-2006, 07:52 PM   #30
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
The great interstellar distances they'd have to travel to get here would seem to rule out extraterrestrial visitation. I would think if they really existed and had such technology, they'd have been here a long time ago, and we couldn't ignore their presence.
They could, of course, be using wormholes or some other advanced technology. Just nit-picking.

But no, there's no evidence we've been visited. It is technically possible that we might have been, but it's never been proven, so there's a fair chance it's a bunch of nonsense.

1. 93% of all "UFO footage" has been explained away as hoaxes, as natural phenomena, development artefacts, etc. There's thus a fair chance the remaining 7% won't hold water either.

2. As SkinWalker said, footage is decreasing even though camera availability is increasing. You could argue that "oh, it doesn't prove them wrong, it just means they're visiting us less or getting better at hiding", but I'm not convinced.

3. My favourite: The first person to "see a UFO" said it flew "like a saucer would if you skipped it across water". Subsequent "UFO sightings", due to a communication breakdown, were described as "saucer-shaped aircraft".

It's like me being out in the woods describing a fox as ferocious as a bear (let's blame rabies), and people going "yeah, I saw this fox that looked like a bear, too!", "it was gigantic!", "it shone like a candle", etc.

But of course, there just happen to be two craft. One flies like a saucer, one looks like a saucer.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-06-2006, 08:55 PM   #31
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Something I just thought of that I don't know how many people have considered.

Maybe primitive life on other worlds doesnt consist of cells that know how to evolve. As a matter of fact, Id be very surprised if something like our Earthly biological cells could coincidentally also exist someplace else.

Evolution could be a secured patent of Earth that no one else use. Im not saying no one could ever have come up with a similar system, Im just saying that no one should take it for granted. It is a pretty advanced and incredible thing, after all, one that certain people even today find too incredible to believe even as it happens right in front of their eyes.

If life exist elsewhere, they'd have to make use of some kind of process of evolution, with some kind of DNA-like system. They couldn't just pop into existance as advanced, intelligent beings. And I'm wondering how big the chances are of such things happening that often that it matters, to put it that way.

I don't know how much this really contributes, but it just struck me how I've been taking evolution for granted for such a long time.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-06-2006, 10:49 PM   #32
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,438
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
I don't think anyone really takes it for granted. The statement: "The possibility of life elsewhere in the universe" also carries with it: "The very real possibility that there is no other life of any kind in the universe. That WE might just be it!"

That's a really sobering thought.

The Drake Equation (popularized by Carl Sagan in Cosmos) calculates the odds of intelligent life forming elsewhere in the galaxy, making a few very general (and some might say fairly conservative, while others will say wildly optimistic) assumptions about what it takes for life to form and evolve based on what we know about our own planet and evolution.

It seems to point to the possibility that there may be other civilizations that form in our own Galaxy... but it could very well be, if those civilizations exist at all, that they have formed (or have yet to form) at different times, and at distances that would make detection, communication and contact of any type utterly impossible.


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-06-2006, 11:04 PM   #33
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
The Drake Equation (popularized by Carl Sagan in Cosmos)
Not that thing again ()! It was in a popular-science magazine I read, too. Along with an article on it and on various reasons we haven' been contacted except by UFOs and demons yet.

The equation, I seem to recall, isn't an absolute thing (as Wiki agrees), and there's a Heck of a controverse as to what the values of the valuables should be (Wiki got that right, too).

Huh, I'd be happy with just some micro-organism fossils.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-06-2006, 11:11 PM   #34
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,438
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
Yeah, it's hardly "Hard Science"... but statistically speaking, if only one star in a trillion proves capable of producing any life at all, and the same percentage of those can produce intelligent life, that's STILL a significant number when spread out over the entirety of the universe.


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-07-2006, 01:41 AM   #35
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
From the nutters that told us Noah's Ark was found last month, comes the news that UFOs are related to the Gospel of Christ. What a sad bunch.

Drake Equation, eh?

Most theoretical speculations about the existence of extraterrestrial life begins with the Drake Equation and the Principle of Mediocrity. The latter states, simply, that we are not special and, not being special, life such as ours must exist elsewhere in the universe.

The Drake Equation, however, is more complicated. Nearly every fundamentalist UFOist (the hardcore UFO proponent that pushes his beliefs in extraterrestrials with a religious fervor, ignoring prosaic explanations for even the most spurious UFO events and accepting with blind faith the testimony of fellow believers) uses the Drake Equation in his argument. (I've used the masculine pronoun in my description of UFO proponents twice in this paragraph because they are almost always male). Even middle ground UFO believers and skeptics refer to this equation as evidence of the probable existence of life in other parts of the universe.

But what doesn't get discussed is the fact that there are varied opinions as to the final outcome of the equation!

Let's start with the equation itself:



R* = the rate at which stars are formed in our galaxy per year

fp = the fraction of stars, once formed, that will have a planetary system

ne = the number of planets in each planetary system that will have an environment suitable for life

fl = the probability that life will develop on a suitable planet

fi = the probability that life will evolve to an intelligent state

fc = the probability that intelligent life will develop a culture capable of communication over interstellar distances

L= the time (in years) that such a culture will spend actually trying to communicate.

Drake himself viewed N as a moderate number: not too large; not too small. His argument was that communication might be possible for a moderate number of civilizations, but they would find colonization and travel expensive endeavors. Regardless of another planet's version of economic means, materials and resources would have to be expended to create ships/technology/energy to move from one place to the next.

But what the Drake Equation doesn't cover is travel to other worlds. L[/b], as noted above, refers to the time a capable civilization will spend trying to communicate. Wouldn't actually traveling to another planet of another solar system of, potentially, another galaxy be a whole different equation?

I have some other thoughts of the Drake Equation itself, but I'll hold off for now. This just struck me as an interesting topic since it has come up several times in several threads of late.

In fact, it might be interesting to discuss each of the factors of the Equation itself in a thread such as this. "The probability that life will develop" at all on a suitable planet is an interesting topic. What about the probability that a given culture of reasonable intelligence might endure the same fallible nature as humanity: competition among each other for prestige, power, etc. that leads to war? This, after all, would be an intuitive characteristic of natural selection/survival of the fittest. What about natural disasters such as volcanoes, asteroid impacts, and disease? Why wouldn't this need to be a subfactor for fi or fc?

In the Drake Equation, R* is often considered to be the best understood or easiest to deal with, since we have some solid data regarding the formation of new stars in the universe, how the coalesce from intergalactic clouds of hydrogen, helium, methane, ammonia, dust grains, etc.

We also know that only a fraction of these stars will be suitable for providing habitat for intelligent life or, in many cases, any life. The environment of the star itself has to be conducive for forming planets, these planets need to be within certain parameters of temperature and need to be in existence long enough to allow life to evolve, etc.

Life is certainly possible, even probable, in extreme environments, but conditions would need to have qualities of stability in order to allow intelligent life to evolve.

Current theories are that stars that have 1.4 times our own Sun's solar mass or more have a life cycle that is too short to produce viable planets. There is also an age qualification for stars, the older ones would have difficulty producing planets because of the lack of heavy metals produced in supernovae. These only eliminate about 1% of the stars from the equation to this point, but other factors have to be considered as well.

The proliferation of binary systems of stars eliminates more of the total due to continually shifting gravitational stresses, extreme temperature shifts, etc. that interfere with a stable planetary system forming. When we look at the Earth, the stability of the orbit, and the delicate nature of the zone we live it is unique. Otherwise we would note proliferations of life on other Solar worlds (not that it doesn't exist, but remember we're talking about civilizations not simply microbes). Apparently, at least half of the stars that aren't too old or too big belong to binary systems.

After including this as well as other factors, like stars that are too small, reside in regions of their galaxy that are deleterious to life -such as near the galactic core, and then R* goes from about 10 stars per year to much, much less. Shklovskii and Sagan (1966) estimated a rate of 10 stars per year, but Rood and Trefil came up with rates between 0.15 per year in the high range, and 0.005 per year in the low range -depending on what criteria was adhered to.

The vast majority of stars in the universe present very inhospitable environments to organisms if they have planets at all.

References:


Dole, S. (1970) Computer Simulation of the Formation of Planetary Systems. Icarus. Vol. 13, pp 494-508.
Hart, M. (1979). Habitable Zones About Main Sequence Stars. Icarus. Vol. 37, pp 351-357.
Rood, R., and Trefil, J. (1981). Are We Alone? The Possibility Of Extraterrestrial Civilizations. New York: Schribner's.
Shklovskii, J., and Sagan, C. (1966). Intelligent Life in the Universe. San Francisco: Holden-Day


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice

Last edited by SkinWalker; 07-07-2006 at 01:55 AM.
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-07-2006, 01:51 AM   #36
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
I like to think there's other people out there wondering if we exist.




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-07-2006, 01:54 AM   #37
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Windu
I like to think there's other people out there wondering if we exist.
There's a few on Earth who believe that we don't exist.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-07-2006, 02:59 AM   #38
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
The vast majority of stars in the universe present very inhospitable environments to organisms if they have planets at all.
Although, of course, what's "very inhospitable" to humans might be "Paradise" to some other life-forms. It's amazing what certain bacteria on this planet survives. Some even survive the vacuum of space, and NASA is sincerely worried, with good reason, about bacteria surviving on space-crafts such as probes landing on other planets (such as Mars) and surviving on the planet.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-07-2006, 03:21 AM   #39
DarkStarMojo
Junior Member
 
DarkStarMojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Rockin' in the Free World
Posts: 366
What if we're all just characters in somebody's dream? What happens when he/she wakes up?

I'm skeptical about UFOs visiting earth because when you believe something so deeply you can't see the forest through the trees and the only explanation that will ever satisfy you is the one that fits your own beliefs. For a skeptic, if hard, credible evidence came out tomorrow that UFOs exist - like a flying saucer crash-landing on the front lawn of the White House or something - they'd believe it. But for a die-hard believer, none of the government explanations for Roswell will ever suffice unless they say, "Yeah, it was a flying saucer and we did get alien bodies." Same goes for any other so-called conspiracy.


Dark Forces Mod, Part 2
Project lead, lead mapper
http://www.darkforces.jediknight.net
http://dfmod.blogspot.com

Last edited by DarkStarMojo; 10-03-2006 at 11:10 PM. Reason: Reorganized into paragraphs and tried to shorten it a bit for an easier read.
DarkStarMojo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-07-2006, 03:34 AM   #40
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
No more Zelda for you
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > The Pseudoscience of UFOs

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.