This survey cannot be serious

[The Oi]

Looks like an insect or a few insects to me. They look very close to the camera. The fact the "expert" never suggests this as a possibility is ridiculous.

 

[CHEECHREBORN]

caf, I think along the same lines in terms of what kind of life is out there. Some type of bacteria seems very, very likely to me. And technically it would be an "alien."

I agree about the possibility of bacteria living elsewhere in the galaxy. We're still finding bacteria at the most extreme ends of Earth, fittingly known as extremophiles. Bacterium have been found living in volcanoes, under 500 sheets of ice in Antarctica, and on volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean. There is almost certainly life out there in space

 

[The Voice]

Just a little bit of talking points and food for thought

I would bet my life savings on there being extra terrestrial life in the universe. It is almost an impossibility for there not to be. The question is, what type of lifeform is it? Is it biological? Is it self aware? Is it just a bacteria of some sort? Who knows.

Now the question posed here assumes some type of sentient life that has visited Earth in the recent past. I would bet my life savings against it. Let me give you guys a good mental experiment on just how difficult it would be to locate life on Earth. Go to a beach and paint one grain of sand orange. Bury it and leave. Find Earth would be harder than a friend finding that orange grain of sand.

And that is just referencing the spatial improbability. There is also the temporal improbability. The universe is extremely old, and we are extremely young. Our presence has been but a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. So now take that orange grain of sand, and have your friend try and find it. However, this time the grain of sand is only orange for less than one second during the course of the day. Pretty difficult proposition isn't it?

This statement is totally false and you have zero factual backing to it. How do we know what kind of technology other lifeforms have?

Nowhere have I mentioned the impossibility or improbability of extra-terrestrial life in the vastness of time and space, only the absurdity of alien abduction stories and UFO accounts.

The abduction stories are all false and most the UFO accounts. However, I don't think it's impossible that one of the UFO accounts are real. There's more to it then what the government is telling us.

 

[Tlyons]

We don't know

 

[caf]

This statement is totally false and you have zero factual backing to it

First off, no it isn't false. Secondly, science is one of the few subjects where everything is based on facts. I am actually very offended by your post. You directly imply my posts lack credibility. If you are going to sit here and call me a liar 'with zero factual backing'. I am going to sit here and call you an ignorant douche.


My premise is based on Carl Sagan's famous quote:

"The total number of stars in the Universe is larger than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the planet Earth."

A well respected astronomer (see link) wanted to do a quick estimation of this claim. And in this case an estimation is more than sufficient because we are dealing with large orders of magnitude. He estimated that there are 10^24 (a million billion billion) grains of sand on all the beaches in the world. He also estimated that there are 10^22 (ten thousand billion billion) stars in our universe.
http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/sand.html


So there are roughly 100 times more grains of sand on all the Earths beaches than stars in the universe. I only reference one beach on Earth which is vastly smaller than the Earth's combined coastline. I also reference planets (which out number stars). So I am right.... by a wide margin actually. It would be much much much harder finding the Earth than one orange grain of sand on one beach.

A more direct comparison would be finding one orange grain of sand on all the beaches of the Mediterranean Ocean. But I think my point was made with one incy wincy beach.

 

[KI4MVP]

First off, no it isn't false. Secondly, science is one of the few subjects where everything is based on facts. I am actually very offended by your post. You directly imply my posts lack credibility. If you are going to sit here and call me a liar 'with zero factual backing'. I am going to sit here and call you an ignorant douche.


My premise is based on Carl Sagan's famous quote:



A well respected astronomer (see link) wanted to do a quick estimation of this claim. And in this case an estimation is more than sufficient because we are dealing with large orders of magnitude. He estimated that there are 10^24 (a million billion billion) grains of sand on all the beaches in the world. He also estimated that there are 10^22 (ten thousand billion billion) stars in our universe.
http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/sand.html


So there are roughly 100 times more grains of sand on all the Earths beaches than stars in the universe. I only reference one beach on Earth which is vastly smaller than the Earth's combined coastline. I also reference planets (which out number stars). So I am right.... by a wide margin actually. It would be much much much harder finding the Earth than one orange grain of sand on one beach.

A more direct comparison would be finding one orange grain of sand on all the beaches of the Mediterranean Ocean. But I think my point was made with one incy wincy beach.

first, there could be more than one person searching that sand. Second, the ones searching could have a billion years or more to search. ALso, the numbers change dramatically if you limit yourself to the milky way. 200 billion stars. Allow for the possibility that there could be a single civilization that is a billion years more advanced than we are within our own galaxy and they've had more than enough time to find our planet and send a ship here.

It does leave the question of why hasn't SETI found any evidence of a civilization this advanced.

 

[ChicagoCavFan]

This thread is literally mind-blowing. Then I went to read about Twinkies...

 

[caf]

first, there could be more than one person searching that sand. Second, the ones searching could have a billion years or more to search. ALso, the numbers change dramatically if you limit yourself to the milky way. 200 billion stars. Allow for the possibility that there could be a single civilization that is a billion years more advanced than we are within our own galaxy and they've had more than enough time to find our planet and send a ship here.

It does leave the question of why hasn't SETI found any evidence of a civilization this advanced.

You guys are taking a simple mental experiment illustrating the vastness of space and have convoluted it into something it isn't.


To prove my point, let's have a race... I'll search for an orange grain of sand on the beach, and you can search for life on other planets. Who do you think will finish first? Why do you think that person would finish first? Is one of these tasks easier than the other task?

 

[MalTalm]

You guys are taking a simple mental experiment illustrating the vastness of space and have convoluted it into something it isn't.


To prove my point, let's have a race... I'll search for an orange grain of sand on the beach, and you can search for life on other planets. Who do you think will finish first? Why do you think that person would finish first? Is one of these tasks easier than the other task?

It depends on the methodology used. If all I have to find said grain of sand is a shovel, or all I have to find alien life is a magic telescope which lets me see any planet at random, then yes, your premise is valid.

However, technology changes everything. The way we are "searching" for alien life now is all through computer scans of stars in our galaxy for signs of other planets. As those planets are identified, we take a closer look to analyze size, distance, and composition of those planets. Right now, the best we can do is compare our results to our own solar system, as it is the only reference we have, and determine if a planet is potentially "viable" for life. It isn't a significant stretch of the imagination to believe our ability to identify and analyze planets for these qualities will significantly improve in even the next 100 years, much less the next 1000.

If we accept that life is not only possible, but probable, as Carl Sagan pointed out and is supported by the controversial Drake equation, it is also fair to assume that life will have evolved at different rates, and certain traits will have been enhanced in each unique situation. As such, we're very unlikely to be the most advanced civilization in the universe, and a more technologically advanced race would be far more likely to identify life throughout the universe.

I still agree with your premise though that the existence of UFOs coming to Earth is most likely 0 for a multitude of reasons. Life is highly likely, and as such, there should be a near infinite number of habitable planets in the universe. Our existence bears no significance, so why choose Earth? If another life form possesses technology that superior to ours, and harnesses the power to travel immense distances in short periods of time, why bother to stop here? We have nothing that would interest them. In such a scenario, we'd be less significant than an ant hill here on Earth.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Actually, this explains a lot about the lack of common sense in the world today.

I'm not sure about that one. No amount of common sense can explain things that we simple do not have any sense about. Just as I can't say there is or isn't a god (go ahead and label me agnostic if you wish) I can't say aliens are or are not disguised as humans. Now, I can say that the likelihood of both existing is extremely, extremely minuscule, but that really doesn't do me or anyone else any good.

 

[Otsego Mar]

first, there could be more than one person searching that sand. Second, the ones searching could have a billion years or more to search. ALso, the numbers change dramatically if you limit yourself to the milky way. 200 billion stars. Allow for the possibility that there could be a single civilization that is a billion years more advanced than we are within our own galaxy and they've had more than enough time to find our planet and send a ship here.

It does leave the question of why hasn't SETI found any evidence of a civilization this advanced.

Absolutely. And this is all assuming parallel technologies. There is the possibility that if there are other life forms searching for that "orange grain of sand" that their ways of searching are even beyond comprehension from human intellectualism. Or, maybe they just have better equipment from elements we've never discovered. The possibilities are really endless. This brings me to something I heard before about how if you can imagine it, it must exist. The possibilities and the scope of the universe are too vast for it not to exist or to have existed at one point. Then you can get into parallel universes and quantum mechanics.

 

[caf]

It depends on the methodology used. If all I have to find said grain of sand is a shovel, or all I have to find alien life is a magic telescope which lets me see any planet at random, then yes, your premise is valid.

However, technology changes everything. The way we are "searching" for alien life now is all through computer scans of stars in our galaxy for signs of other planets. As those planets are identified, we take a closer look to analyze size, distance, and composition of those planets. Right now, the best we can do is compare our results to our own solar system, as it is the only reference we have, and determine if a planet is potentially "viable" for life. It isn't a significant stretch of the imagination to believe our ability to identify and analyze planets for these qualities will significantly improve in even the next 100 years, much less the next 1000.

If we accept that life is not only possible, but probable, as Carl Sagan pointed out and is supported by the controversial Drake equation, it is also fair to assume that life will have evolved at different rates, and certain traits will have been enhanced in each unique situation. As such, we're very unlikely to be the most advanced civilization in the universe, and a more technologically advanced race would be far more likely to identify life throughout the universe.

I still agree with your premise though that the existence of UFOs coming to Earth is most likely 0 for a multitude of reasons. Life is highly likely, and as such, there should be a near infinite number of habitable planets in the universe. Our existence bears no significance, so why choose Earth? If another life form possesses technology that superior to ours, and harnesses the power to travel immense distances in short periods of time, why bother to stop here? We have nothing that would interest them. In such a scenario, we'd be less significant than an ant hill here on Earth.

For the first bolded part... yes we currently use telescopes to examine the heavens, optical, radio, whatever they may be. But why would I use a shovel? Why not create a machine with some optical sensor that identifies the color orange? Or a machine that searches for the chemical compounds of the paint? You are using the most advanced technology for one, and the most rudimentary technology for the other. Which is silly.

As for the second bolded part, you assume a new civilization can find life on other planets... but for some reason they aren't using like technology to search for the grain of sand. Which is silly again.

Regardless of technology, finding a grain of sand on a beach is a much much much easier proposition than finding life on other planets.

Assuming I can use a set of advanced technology for one task, but am forced to use rudimentary technology for another task is the exact convolution I was referencing.

 

[KI4MVP]

why does it matter which would be easier, with advanced technology and a billion years, you could quite clearly do both.

 

[KI4MVP]

If another life form possesses technology that superior to ours, and harnesses the power to travel immense distances in short periods of time, why bother to stop here? We have nothing that would interest them. In such a scenario, we'd be less significant than an ant hill here on Earth.

I think they'd find time to visit all planets with life.

 

[caf]

why does it matter which would be easier, with advanced technology and a billion years, you could quite clearly do both.

Well we quite clearly haven't been visited by aliens in the recent past...... so....