UFOs

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Loyal

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
19,684
I have listened to a couple of interviews from astrophysicist Avi Loeb on Joe Rogan and Glenn Beck's podcasts. He spoke to the reaction of fellow scientists toward inconvenient information that they purposefully disregard because it upsets their ideas of physics. His cause right now was the first and only confirmed intersteller traveller, named Oumuamua in 2017.

He contends that humans are not that intelligent because herd mentality prevents even our most scientifically oriented people refusing to accept disparate information that would make them have to change their theories to reflect reality. He gives various reasons, but the strongest reason from him is that physicists like to operate in the theoretical realm where actual reality can't conflict with their ideas. so they don't look stupid. They also give themseleves rewards for these hard to prove/disprove theories. Loeb said that one astrophysicist that he discussed Oumuamua with said, "I wish it didn't exist." That's mindblowing to me.

As for Loeb's POV, I think he is at heart a misanthrope. I am one a bit myself, so I'm not casting stones. He loves to speak of the MANY solar systems in our galaxy that are in the "goldilocks" zone like Earth. I was disappointed that he didn't address another reason why scientists might resist the idea of Oumuamua being alien space junk. No other person has been able to disprove a question of mine: The earth is 4.5 billion years old and the known universe is something like 9 billion years older. Just because there may be microbial life all over the universe, doesn't mean those microbes developed intelligence and endured all the points where it could self destruct along the way to interstellar travel. While it took 4.5 billion years (asfaik) for us to come close to leaving the solar system, it's possible some alien race may have developed faster. Even so, it might have developed into a interstellar federation that rose and fell a billion years ago. For an alien to arrive on earth, these things would have to happen:
1. The theory of relativity is BS. The speed of light would not be a barrier and nor would gravity.
2. Incredible timing, where our rise from the amoeba to intelligence would have to be simultaneous to a much more technologically advanced civilization. If they are that advanced, they would have the capability to never let us see them.

Scientists should keep an open mind to "alien space junk" flying through our solar system, scientists would look for simpler explanations first. Examine, test with an open mind, Let the results lead you and do not submit to group think. I have been pretty adamant that aliens have not visited Earth for many reasons that I won't go into. But I can't disregard the evidence that the US Navy collected of objects doing things that should be impossible to do according to our knowledge. These objects seemed to move with awareness, but any known living being could not withstand the g forces of the moves these objects did. Evidence shifted my POV from impossible to possible....
 

ozarkram

Saudade
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
1,259
I think this is true of many things. Cant cure cancer cause its big business. To many careers down the drain. Cant have engines that run on water cause water is basically free. Cant accept all these weird archeological finds cause they don't fit in our neat little box. To many learned peoples careers down the drain. Cant put any stock in UFOs cause that's crazy. Get in line eat your fruit cup and be quiet!
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
39,128
Name
Burger man
He contends that humans are not that intelligent because herd mentality prevents even our most scientifically oriented people refusing to accept disparate information that would make them have to change their theories to reflect reality.
Yep.

And... these days, good luck defining reality.
 

ozarkram

Saudade
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
1,259
A lot of information has been suppressed for years. Some has always been out there people just choose to ignore it. Hide in plain site. Anyone who strays from the norm is labeled lunatic fringe or conspiracy theorist. Makes them easy to dismiss. I guess I fall in with the lunatics. Who knew.
 
  • Cheers
Reactions: Merlin

fearsomefour

Legend
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
15,646
A lot of information has been suppressed for years. Some has always been out there people just choose to ignore it. Hide in plain site. Anyone who strays from the norm is labeled lunatic fringe or conspiracy theorist. Makes them easy to dismiss. I guess I fall in with the lunatics. Who knew.
All by design.
When you form society where reality is not reality and facts are not facts then you have a society where truth does not matter.
The ministry of truth will tell what reality is, just not if the past but of what you are experiencing right now., in real time.
If you speak (or even think) outside of any of the prescribed boxes you WILL be silenced as dangerous.
1984 is here in full force.
America is dead.
 
  • Like
  • High Five
Reactions: Loyal and ozarkram

Raptorman

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
1,019
Name
David
This is simple. To think that we are the only "intelligent" life in the universe is a very arrogant position. IF there are 100 million planets in the Milky Way, (some say 100 to 400 million planers) and half can support life, that's 50 million planets capable of supporting some form of life. Take that and then make the bold assumption that humans are in the middle of that number on the intelligence level means there would be 25 million species smarter than us. And one thing you have to remember, just because we breathe oxygen doesn't mean that other life forms may breathe something else. Life as we know it may not be the same on other planets.
 

1maGoh

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
2,952
This is simple. To think that we are the only "intelligent" life in the universe is a very arrogant position. IF there are 100 million planets in the Milky Way, (some say 100 to 400 million planers) and half can support life, that's 50 million planets capable of supporting some form of life. Take that and then make the bold assumption that humans are in the middle of that number on the intelligence level means there would be 25 million species smarter than us. And one thing you have to remember, just because we breathe oxygen doesn't mean that other life forms may breathe something else. Life as we know it may not be the same on other planets.
There's 50 million other life supporting capable planets, but how many didn't develop life? And how many that did are stuck with something like the dinosaurs (not dinosaurs exactly, but not developing society). Of the millions of species on our planet only one is capable of taking the moon. It's not that far out there to say that you could have life on a planet that just never develops in that way.

At this point we're down to a few million in our galaxy. Then you say we're in the middle (which isn't supported by evidence found in this planet, but let's roll with it), and that's 3-6 million potentially smarter than us.

I was watching a show on Netflix about the universe and they talked about kepler 22b. It was weird some of the assumptions they made. For example, they said the average density of the planet was some number, let's say 4 for the sake of simplicity. And this scientist who helped discover it came on and says, "The density of water is 3 and the density of rock is 5. The density of kepler 22b is 4. Do you know what that means? There's only one conclusion, kepler 22b is made of both rock and water! It's a habitable zone planet with characteristics like earth!" That's a paraphrase but the gist is there. What caught me off guard about that was that that he says there's only one conclusion. I may not be an expert, but it's that really the only possible conclusion that could be drawn here? It seems like a stretch and it makes me wonder what other interesting leaps convenience they may have taken. It maybe they just need to explain themselves better. In conclusion, science has a terrible PR department and they need to work on that.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
39,128
Name
Burger man
The following thread makes a good case for life on earth before what we consider recorded time.

A whole civilization, likely.


If that is true... then I think your mind needs to be open to anything.

I haven‘t ever seen a UFO. But... I’ve been looking!

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozarkram

ozarkram

Saudade
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
1,259
I have never understood why its so hard for some to believe maybe just maybe we weren't the first so called highly advanced civilization on earth. Possibly its comforting for most to have everything tightly wrapped with a bow on it. Academics settle on a theory then ridicule anyone who's opinion may differ into oblivion. Not quite an open minded process. I believe many civilizations have risen and fallen on our earth. All or most as advanced or more so than ourselves. Why are they gone? Well some possibly by natural disasters but most I believe destroyed themselves. There is something in this process we as humans can not get past. The answer could be as simple as not being able to cooperate on a global scale or in our reckless pursuit of advancement dealing with technologies we don't fully understand.
I believe our current incarnation is very close to that threshold right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CGI_Ram

Loyal

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
19,684
This is simple. To think that we are the only "intelligent" life in the universe is a very arrogant position. IF there are 100 million planets in the Milky Way, (some say 100 to 400 million planers) and half can support life, that's 50 million planets capable of supporting some form of life. Take that and then make the bold assumption that humans are in the middle of that number on the intelligence level means there would be 25 million species smarter than us. And one thing you have to remember, just because we breathe oxygen doesn't mean that other life forms may breathe something else. Life as we know it may not be the same on other planets.
You can be intelligent and never develop interstellar travel.
 

Merlin

System Waterboy
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
20,502
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #94
1. The theory of relativity is BS. The speed of light would not be a barrier and nor would gravity.
2. Incredible timing, where our rise from the amoeba to intelligence would have to be simultaneous to a much more technologically advanced civilization. If they are that advanced, they would have the capability to never let us see them.
Relativity is real. But given higher dimensions and being able to perhaps fold space in that higher dimension maybe you get that warp envelope we saw in Star Trek. Which means you aren't breaking relativity, you're just taking a short cut.

Time is the real problem with alien life. They would have to exist in the same window of time with us. So it could be that out on a spiral arm which is where we're at we might not have as good a chance of meeting another intelligent species as those species who have already lived and died in the early days of the galaxy while our neighborhood was still dust.

Actually time in general is a problem tbh. Time dilation in particular, which is kind of mind blowing. To think that if you boost at 1g for 10 years then decelerate for 10 years at the same by the time you arrive at your destination thousands of years would have passed due to your velocity affecting the passage of time. So without a warp envelope yeah it's gonna suck lol.

There's 50 million other life supporting capable planets, but how many didn't develop life? And how many that did are stuck with something like the dinosaurs (not dinosaurs exactly, but not developing society). Of the millions of species on our planet only one is capable of taking the moon. It's not that far out there to say that you could have life on a planet that just never develops in that way.
Definition of life is important too I think. Whatever else life is defined as in the future we know it's fueled by chemical conversion. We're mobile autonomous chemical reactors, eat some food it turns to energy. So from that perspective maybe that definition of life is going to be much broader than we think, and there will be no end of it out there where the conditions allow for it. If we get that far to see some of our galaxy those future humans will see some really cool shit and new life forms.

But yeah even with the assumption that most life won't achieve our own level of development there is room out of the sheer numbers to drive an amazing diversity of life out there.
 

1maGoh

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
2,952
Relativity is real. But given higher dimensions and being able to perhaps fold space in that higher dimension maybe you get that warp envelope we saw in Star Trek. Which means you aren't breaking relativity, you're just taking a short cut.

Time is the real problem with alien life. They would have to exist in the same window of time with us. So it could be that out on a spiral arm which is where we're at we might not have as good a chance of meeting another intelligent species as those species who have already lived and died in the early days of the galaxy while our neighborhood was still dust.

Actually time in general is a problem tbh. Time dilation in particular, which is kind of mind blowing. To think that if you boost at 1g for 10 years then decelerate for 10 years at the same by the time you arrive at your destination thousands of years would have passed due to your velocity affecting the passage of time. So without a warp envelope yeah it's gonna suck lol.


Definition of life is important too I think. Whatever else life is defined as in the future we know it's fueled by chemical conversion. We're mobile autonomous chemical reactors, eat some food it turns to energy. So from that perspective maybe that definition of life is going to be much broader than we think, and there will be no end of it out there where the conditions allow for it. If we get that far to see some of our galaxy those future humans will see some really cool shit and new life forms.

But yeah even with the assumption that most life won't achieve our own level of development there is room out of the sheer numbers to drive an amazing diversity of life out there.
The definition of life is pretty broad. I've no doubt that we'll find crazy stuff that fits. I doubt we'll need to adapt for anything we find as long as we aren't dumb.


What I mean by being dumb is that, for example mules can't reproduce, but no one would suggest they aren't alive. As long as we keep an open mind like that, we'll be ok as far as defining life.
 
  • Cheers
Reactions: Merlin

Raptorman

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
1,019
Name
David
Relativity is real. But given higher dimensions and being able to perhaps fold space in that higher dimension maybe you get that warp envelope we saw in Star Trek. Which means you aren't breaking relativity, you're just taking a short cut.

Time is the real problem with alien life. They would have to exist in the same window of time with us. So it could be that out on a spiral arm which is where we're at we might not have as good a chance of meeting another intelligent species as those species who have already lived and died in the early days of the galaxy while our neighborhood was still dust.

Actually time in general is a problem tbh. Time dilation in particular, which is kind of mind blowing. To think that if you boost at 1g for 10 years then decelerate for 10 years at the same by the time you arrive at your destination thousands of years would have passed due to your velocity affecting the passage of time. So without a warp envelope yeah it's gonna suck lol.


Definition of life is important too I think. Whatever else life is defined as in the future we know it's fueled by chemical conversion. We're mobile autonomous chemical reactors, eat some food it turns to energy. So from that perspective maybe that definition of life is going to be much broader than we think, and there will be no end of it out there where the conditions allow for it. If we get that far to see some of our galaxy those future humans will see some really cool shit and new life forms.

But yeah even with the assumption that most life won't achieve our own level of development there is room out of the sheer numbers to drive an amazing diversity of life out there.
Relativity is "real" as we know it. That does not mean that it is the end all be all theory. It means that it is the end all be all in relation to the capability of our minds. We have constraints in our minds as to what life is, and how the universe works. And we may be wrong. Of just not capable of understanding more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mackeyser

Raptorman

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
1,019
Name
David
There's 50 million other life supporting capable planets, but how many didn't develop life? And how many that did are stuck with something like the dinosaurs (not dinosaurs exactly, but not developing society). Of the millions of species on our planet only one is capable of taking the moon. It's not that far out there to say that you could have life on a planet that just never develops in that way.

At this point we're down to a few million in our galaxy. Then you say we're in the middle (which isn't supported by evidence found in this planet, but let's roll with it), and that's 3-6 million potentially smarter than us.

I was watching a show on Netflix about the universe and they talked about kepler 22b. It was weird some of the assumptions they made. For example, they said the average density of the planet was some number, let's say 4 for the sake of simplicity. And this scientist who helped discover it came on and says, "The density of water is 3 and the density of rock is 5. The density of kepler 22b is 4. Do you know what that means? There's only one conclusion, kepler 22b is made of both rock and water! It's a habitable zone planet with characteristics like earth!" That's a paraphrase but the gist is there. What caught me off guard about that was that that he says there's only one conclusion. I may not be an expert, but it's that really the only possible conclusion that could be drawn here? It seems like a stretch and it makes me wonder what other interesting leaps convenience they may have taken. It maybe they just need to explain themselves better. In conclusion, science has a terrible PR department and they need to work on that.
I did say "bold assumption" that we are in the middle. But who knows. The planet has water is a leap. But then, we have to think outside the box. All too many feel that life has to be carbon-based. That may or may not be true. For us on this planet it is. But who's to say that on some other planet they don't drink acid and breathe carbon dioxide?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CGI_Ram

1maGoh

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
2,952
I wouldn't. It's many enough already.

 
  • 2HaHa
Reactions: T-REX and CGI_Ram