Why is ET such a magnet for loonatics?

  • Thread starter fellupahill
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Magnet
In summary, the author suggests that there is a large number of people in the United States who believe in UFOs, and that this belief is not limited to those who believe in the more extreme conspiracy theories. He also notes that belief in UFOs is not limited to any one demographic category, and that the number of people who believe in them is likely much higher than the number of people who have actually seen one.
  • #1
fellupahill
56
0
It's a very important question in science. Are we alone in the universe? This is a question that should be handled like every other fundamental question, yet most people treat it like a novelty. If proof ever does surface it will be clouded by the enormous amount of hoaxes.

When looking up "facts about crop circles" look what the second result on google said

The whole thing begins to make sense once we realize that the Earth is flat. We live on the backside of a huge flat blackboard (whiteboard, scratch paper, or whatever) used by aliens in their schools and universities. There are many of these in the universe. The flat disk of the Earth is thin enough that student doodles made in alien art and math classes "bleed through" to our side. This happens because their writing instruments emit mitogenetic radiation (M-rays) that are well known to affect some living plants, especially wheat, barley, oats and corn. [2] M-rays weaken the stalk structure near the ground, and the stalks bend over gently to lie flat on the ground, showing no evidence of forceful breaking. So the crop circles in grain fields are nothing more than the reverse pattern of alien students' diagrams made in geometry class.


Is it a joke? They surely must be making fun of alien conspiracys. But as you read on, they are serious. Or at least seem to be. Its silly.

Which brings me to my question, and the point of this topic. What is it about life from another planet that got Hollywood so interested? Will the search for ET ever be taken seriously from the public?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I have a feeling we're going to be visited by Giorgio Tsoukalos very, very soon...
 
  • #4
lisab said:
I have a feeling we're going to be visited by Giorgio Tsoukalos very, very soon...
I feel you may be right.
 
  • #5
I don't know that the subject of ET attracts any more crackpots than many other subjects, such as physics, politics, religion, 911 conspiracy theories, and everything on the banned topics list, for starters.

I think about a third of Americans believe ET has visited. I would guess that those beliefs are pretty wide ranging with only a small percentage buying into the wildest conspiracy theories.

For example, how many free-energy claims are out there?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
I think silly ideas, seriously fundamentally flawed as they are, fuel real science. I would be surprised if a majority of veteran scientists were not, at least at some point in their life, not inspired to devote themselves to science based on silly fantasies like science fiction or oddball conspiracies.

I think daring to probe into the unknown reaches of the universe, to seek to learn what is not known requires a creative thirst as much as an understanding and respect for the scientific process.
 
  • #7
lisab said:
I have a feeling we're going to be visited by Giorgio Tsoukalos very, very soon...

Haha, I would have done it. But now that you've said this I can't.
 
  • #8
Giorgio-Tsoukalos-hal-hefner-ancient-aliens.jpg
 
  • #9
Ivan Seeking said:
I think about a third of Americans believe ET has visited.
...
For example, how many free-energy claims are out there?
I don't think that number is anywhere close to 100 million.
 
  • #10
Gokul43201 said:
I don't think that number is anywhere close to 100 million.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/290378 indicates as many as 1 in 5 people living in 22 countries believe in such things, which applied to the U.S. population (assuming, though of course there is no reason to, that the U.S. has a similar proportion out of the 22-country total; I would suspect the ratio might actually be higher for the U.S.) would be around 70 million.

I honestly don't find such numbers all that surprising when I consider about half the country -- more than 150 million Americans -- believed George W. Bush was a better choice for president than Al Gore or John Kerry, and one-twentieth of the country -- around fifteen million Americans -- don't believe or are not sure whether Hawaii is a state.
 
  • #11
HowardVAgnew said:
I honestly don't find such numbers all that surprising when I consider about half the country -- more than 150 million Americans -- believed George W. Bush was a better choice for president than Al Gore or John Kerry, and one-twentieth of the country -- around fifteen million Americans -- don't believe or are not sure whether Hawaii is a state.

I'm pretty sure Hawaii doesn't exist. Or either of the Dakotas.

Also, I'm not sure who you think is eligible to vote or who actually does vote, but only 100 million Americans even voted in the 2000 election total.
 
  • #12
Pengwuino said:
Also, I'm not sure who you think is eligible to vote or who actually does vote, but only 100 million Americans even voted in the 2000 election total.

Touche ... though I would argue that would mean the remaining eligible voters did not feel a different president was worth even trying to vote, but that leads to the whole "is silence truly acceptance?" tangent. Not that I pretend to not have a fondness for exploring tangents. ;)
 
  • #13
HowardVAgnew said:
Touche ... though I would argue that would mean the remaining eligible voters did not feel a different president was worth even trying to vote, but that leads to the whole "is silence truly acceptance?" tangent. Not that I pretend to not have a fondness for exploring tangents. ;)

It is a sickening array of candidates that we typically get to choose from each election cycle.
 
  • #14
According to a National Science Foundation survey one in five Americans still believes the sun revolves around the earth. Other surveys have shown some 90% of West Virginians' still believe ghosts and goblins wander the woods and the devil literally walks the earth. One psychologist noted that every ten years at most Hollywood switches their focus from horror to science fiction and back again, and their caseload changes from people claiming to be abducted by aliens to abducted by devil worshipers.

It may sound bizarre and unbelievable that so many people in the wealthiest nation on Earth can still believe such nonsense, but you have to put it in context. Very likely this is how most of humanity has been throughout history. Religious Taoists, for example, believe the human body alone has 8,000 different gods inhabiting it. One psychological explanation for such elaborate beliefs is that they foster "resilience". The ability for people to bounce back quickly from traumatic events.

However the growing majority of the world's thriving democracies are now largely secular. The Japanese are even referred to as "funeral Buddhists" for their tendency to only attend ceremonies for funerals which, again, suggests they get some sort of resilience from the practice that helps them bounce back faster from the loss. They'll even tell you straight out that different religious practices are good for different things and it really doesn't matter whether you believe or not.

Notably the more classist and capitalistic the society the more likely it is to be fundamentalist Christian explaining why the US is by far the most religious country in the developed world. However, as entitlements have expanded there has been a mass exodus from religious services by the poor, while the besieged middle class has attended in record numbers, and the wealthy never did attend. All strongly suggesting again that such beliefs and rituals cannot be understood outside their social context.
 
  • #15
Lol, we sure are touching on a lot of different ideas here.

I had no clue that there were that many "Believers" out there. Too much x-files on primetime. The cattle started getting spooked.

If ET showed up tomorrow, what effect would that have on society? Assuming they just came to say hello, and then leave. No secrets shared, no invasion. The public just knew without a doubt that we were "not alone". Would this knowledge change religion, politics, morals, etc? Has anyone done any extensive work on this question? Any expert opinions out there?
 
  • #16
test-ufos-rock-demotivational-poster-1260908873.jpg
 
  • #17
fellupahill said:
Lol, we sure are touching on a lot of different ideas here.

I had no clue that there were that many "Believers" out there. Too much x-files on primetime. The cattle started getting spooked.

If ET showed up tomorrow, what effect would that have on society? Assuming they just came to say hello, and then leave. No secrets shared, no invasion. The public just knew without a doubt that we were "not alone". Would this knowledge change religion, politics, morals, etc? Has anyone done any extensive work on this question? Any expert opinions out there?

I am an aspiring writer, and as I develop characters in my stories with wildly different personalities and even try to engage in political and other debates, I like to think of myself as being able to see the world through others' eyes ... but I must acknowledge there are times I fail to acquire a solid grasp of how others react and think in lives that are different from my own.

I find myself stuck, for instance, on the leading question of your second paragraph of my acceptance following Carl Sagan's explanations that it would be exceptionally unlikely that, in the vast trillions of stars in each of the trillions of galaxies, that there would /not/ be life and that, even if just but one in a trillion developments of life lead to a species possessing the intelligence to develop spacefaring technology. Its a "no duh" to me that there are other civilizations somewhere out there in the universe, though I have seen no convincing evidence of a reasonably certain record that we have yet been visited. I know there are people who assert that the reverse is true, that we are alone, the only intelligent species on the only life-bearing planet in all of the universe, but ... that is a mentality that I find it particularly difficult, though I cannot understand much less explain why, I cannot fathom identifying with. In debates and stories, I have been able to imagine myself in the shoes of racist bigots (my black Southern A.P. English teacher in h.s. challenged me to debate in /defense/ of slavery from the perspective of the slave owners, one of many things I am grateful to her for, as it enables me to comprehend beliefs and positions adversarial to my own), of cruel people, but people who /don't/ believe that somewhere out there, there isn't intelligent life, identifying with them yet eludes me.

I don't believe it is possible to predict to any reasonable degree of certainty the result of an unprecedented event, as you describe, to the current population. However, there are historical examples of "xeno encounters" to ponder in trying to answer the question for yourself: first contact between European Explorers and the people of the Americas. Conservative estimates have had European and Native peoples and cultures separated by tens of thousands of years (some theories I've heard have it at more than a hundred thousand years). Language, religion, science, technology ... for much of human history, however long nomadic tribes led to the rise of European civilization whilst others meandered across Asia and the bering to North America, Native Americans and European civilizations were alien to one another, completely isolated for all intents and purposes until some 600 or so years ago.

Its nice to think that we have learned our lessons from those days, that we would not have a repeat of the conquest and destruction of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations, but I fear that most civilizations today have a high degree of ethnocentrism, that their culture, religion and belief system are the one true culture, religion and belief system, and all others are barbaric. I fear too many are too ignorant of what most anthropologies have to teach us about ethnocentrism, and a mass mob mentality would likely create hostility and conflict toward an alien civilization. Hopefully, such a civilization, should they find us by some means and decide to pay us a visit, would have gone through such problems themselves and be prepared for the chaos of a first contact situation, but I would be surprised if human civilizations did not incur violent strife as a result.

To me, it seems the world's most powerful nation -- the United States -- is gradually, but increasingly sliding into a dark age. Colonies established supposedly on religious freedom to escape the theocratic powers-that-be back in Europe seem to be itself into a theocratic nation with the circular "reasoning" that the United States is great because it was made so by an Creator and that the Creator favors the United States because the United States is great. Some progress over exemptions (such as slavery) to ideals laid out by the founders has been achieved, but now there seems to be backsliding on which "people" are or are not part of "we the people" deserving as the same rights as others, whether its homosexual couples seeking the same legal recognition as married heterosexual couples or persons of Muslim faith seeking a right to purchase a building to establish a religious center of their own.

Religion is taking over the U.S., and I think that does not bode well for contact with an extraterrestrial civilization. Its bad enough being gay or non-Christian in the U.S., ostracization of any such minority is the norm, but I believe that too many Americans still tend to view non-Christian nations as barbaric, and would hold that view of an alien civilization.
 
  • #18
I find myself stuck, for instance, on the leading question of your second paragraph of my acceptance following Carl Sagan's explanations that it would be exceptionally unlikely that, in the vast trillions of stars in each of the trillions of galaxies, that there would /not/ be life and that, even if just but one in a trillion developments of life lead to a species possessing the intelligence to develop spacefaring technology.

Yes, but you really should study some physics before you allow that notion (with which I agree) to lead you to conclude that that implies INTERGALACTIC space-faring. I think you don't understand the issues involved. Unless you believe in faster-than-light travel (in which case you are WAY on the wrong forum), you will end up with the conclusion that it just isn't going to happen. It is not absolutely impossible, but the odds are infinitesimal.
 
  • #19
Gokul43201 said:
I don't think that number is anywhere close to 100 million.

Clearly they don't poll children when taking such surveys, so 1:3 isn't 100 million.

Free energy claims are more akin to alien propulsion systems theories, than a simple belief in visiting aliens. A more reasonable comparison would be to survey and ask people questions regarding violations of the second law - "Can you get extra energy by putting a propeller on your car?", for example. Compare that to the number of people who believe ET has visited.

Then of course you would have to subtract people who believe in ET due to alleged direct experience. I don't think free energy claims generally have this dimension.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
phinds said:
Yes, but you really should study some physics before you allow that notion (with which I agree) to lead you to conclude that that implies INTERGALACTIC space-faring. I think you don't understand the issues involved. Unless you believe in faster-than-light travel (in which case you are WAY on the wrong forum), you will end up with the conclusion that it just isn't going to happen. It is not absolutely impossible, but the odds are infinitesimal.

I think its safe to say what we don't know about the universe exceeds what we do know. There are a number of "not impossible" means of cheats around the speed of light we have vague notions of today, from wormholes to quantum-entangled gates. I wouldn't insult anyone by insisting anyone is realistically valid by now, but while we may not have the foggiest clue how to begin to think about implementing any of them, and many or even if every one we can think of now might well prove impossible, I don't think it delusional to dismiss as certain impossibility that somehow, some way, some day -- if we don't exterminate ourselves first with a stupid war -- we wouldn't find a way in the future.

Just given a source of power that could somehow last a few million years and robust a self-sustainable onboard ecosystem, interstellar or even intergalactic travel isn't that impossible even with not-so-far-fetched technology: transgenerational space travel.
 
  • #21
HowardVAgnew said:
To me, it seems the world's most powerful nation -- the United States -- is gradually, but increasingly sliding into a dark age...

Religion is taking over the U.S., and I think that does not bode well for contact with an extraterrestrial civilization. Its bad enough being gay or non-Christian in the U.S., ostracization of any such minority is the norm, but I believe that too many Americans still tend to view non-Christian nations as barbaric, and would hold that view of an alien civilization.

You need to check your facts. Religion in the US has been on the decline since the 1970s. In the 1990s the Southern Baptist church in particular saw a mass exodus as their congregations grew disgusted with all the negativity in sermons. In recent years the poor and young in particular have stopped attending services in record numbers. What churches remain have diversified.

If you ask me that's why for the last thirty years the far right has been steadily ratcheting up their rhetoric to the point that professional wrestling trash talk and UFO conspiracy theories sound tame in comparison. They're desperate and pulling out all the stops. Its not just about religion, but a steady cultural revolution that shows no sign of abating with even gay marriage now being approved in 8 states and the first black president looking likely to be re-elected.

If I had to guess the current kicking and screaming and dragging of feet will slowly die down as the baby boomers die off.
 
  • #22
phinds said:
Unless you believe in faster-than-light travel (in which case you are WAY on the wrong forum), you will end up with the conclusion that it just isn't going to happen. It is not absolutely impossible, but the odds are infinitesimal.

Emphasis mine.

I think this is a fallacious argument. Please tell me, what are the odds, and how did you calculate them?

There is no way to calculate the odds that a breakthrough is possible. If a breakthrough is possible, then the odds are 1:1. If a breakthrough isn't possible, then the odds are 0:1. At this time I see no way to fathom any more than a guess in this regard. So when people talk about the odds of a visitation, I think they are making a fallacious argument. We have no way to know the odds. We can only say what we know based on the current models used in physics; our current level of knowledge.

Consider this, if exotic but undiscovered physics does exist that allows a path around the sol limit, visitations could be highly likely. For all we know, it could be a near certainty that we should have an encounter every few thousand years or so.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Yeah, if you believe in FTL, then I agree with you, but I don't. I think wormholes and such are a pipe dream. I DO realize that I could be wrong, but I think it's a fantasy.
 
  • #24
phinds said:
Yeah, if you believe in FTL, then I agree with you, but I don't. I think wormholes and such are a pipe dream. I DO realize that I could be wrong, but I think it's a fantasy.

I'm not talking about beliefs, you are. "You think" isn't a calculation. :biggrin:

I'm talking about the difference between knowledge and absolute knowledge. If we had a TOE and stopped making dramatic discoveries that seem to turn physics upsidedown, then perhaps one might be able to argue with increasing confidence what absolute limits exist. But for now, with so many exotic theories and questions at hand, I see no logical argument for absolutes in this sense.

To put it bluntly, show me the published paper showing otherwise. I don't mean to pick on you as your comments are popular opinion, but unless I'm missing something here, technically one could argue that statements about the odds are crackpot. There is no way to know the odds.
 
  • #25
fellupahill said:
test-ufos-rock-demotivational-poster-1260908873.jpg

I totally missed the UFO! I was so busy trying to figure out if that prominence was an extinct volcano or not...

The idea of extra-terrestrial life has been floating around a long time - long enough that crackpots and agent provocateurs alike have given the concept a fairly marginalized place in society.

If we're ever visited by alien lifeforms, the chances for their existence immediately jump from whatever tiny amount they might be to 100%, so I think the mental exercise of conjecturing what the odds are for life beyond the Earth are mostly pointless. They certainly do end up giving people a better appreciation of the sheer numbers of "things" in the Universe.

The very fact that we exist, leads me to believe that dismissing extra-terrestrial life is fairly anthropocentric. There were billions of years where, if something were able to calculate the odds of our existence, the numbers would have been equally as minute.
 
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
I'm not talking about beliefs, you are. "You think" isn't a calculation. :biggrin:

I'm talking about the difference between knowledge and absolute knowledge. If we had a TOE and stopped making dramatic discoveries that seem to turn physics upsidedown, then perhaps one might be able to argue with increasing confidence what absolute limits exist. But for now, with so many exotic theories and questions at hand, I see no logical argument for absolutes in this sense.

To put it bluntly, show me the published paper showing otherwise. I don't mean to pick on you as your comments are popular opinion, but unless I'm missing something here, technically one could argue that statements about the odds are crackpot. There is no way to know the odds.

Taking your "show me the money" challenge back to the thread topic -- extraterrestrial life -- which is a distinct topic from FTL travel, there have been serious attempts to study and derive some sort of estimation, prior to actual discovery, the likelihood of the existence of extraterrestrial life and, especially, extraterrestrial intelligent life sufficiently advanced to develop technology, such as radio and space travel. The Drake Equation comes to mind ... yes, it uses arbitrary values, but I believe it still has great value. Research dedicated into it will enable us to fill in values as we find more and more extrasolar planets to fill in the blanks. Occam's razor, I believe, should also be considered in the question: given a zillion stars in each of a zillion galaxies, how likely is it that conditions allowing for life to develop would occur only on a single planet around a single star but absolutely nowhere else?

You may naysay wikipedia, but I submit it as a better reference than I could provide, and at the very least is a good collaborative effort to point to other sources of information in its references list and bibliography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology
 
  • #27
As Sagan and others have mentioned, it's not scientifically totally implausible that we could have been visited by aliens during our recorded history or pre-history, and that such aliens might have influenced our development. However, it's very difficult to have a scientific discussion about such possibilities.

As some around here know, I personally happen to think that alien contact is a more coherent explanation for many "myths" and "religious" documents than any other alternative of which I'm aware, such as whatever it was that Ezekiel is trying to describe in the bible, which clearly appears to involve advanced technology beyond his comprehension. If he was just telling a story, I feel it would have made far more sense.

There are also multiple other references in the bible that could be explained by a single flying vehicle, including the "whirlwind" that took Elijah, the pillar of fire or cloud that led Moses, and even into the new testament the "star" that appeared to the wise men, the "glory of the lord" that appeared to the shepherds and a whole lot of strange "visions" in Revelations.

The oddest case of all (included in the Jerusalem bible) is in 2 Esdras where Ezra describes an "eagle" with multiple heads and several individual wings or feathers that move around to "reign across the earth", following one after another, each for less and less time, until they eventually cannot be seen but make a thunderous noise. My reaction on first reading this is "What the hell is a helicopter doing in the bible?" and I even went and found another copy in a bookshop to reassure myself that I wasn't the victim of an implausibly sophisticated practical joke.

If something technological is the explanation (which seems to fit very well), then the source of the technology also needs explaining scientifically, or the explanation is useless.

I am satisfied that the known laws of physics rule out "time travel" (at least not backwards!) so that rules out locals going back from the future.

I don't have any problem with assuming aliens could have interstellar transport, as even with current technology that's mainly a problem of resources and patience. Without our limited lifespans, interstellar travel would be boring and would require multiple generations, but with some method of going into hibernation even that problem would be solved.

I find it scientifically vanishingly unlikely that aliens would look like humans, let alone be able to "cross-breed" with them, as is sometimes suggested as an explanation for Genesis 6. On these grounds, I would say that any being which even looks vaguely like a human is unlikely to be alien, including any manifestation of human-form gods.

I also consider it very unlikely that aliens would have more than a passing interest in the sort of regional bickering that frequently occurs in ancient stories.

There are several different ancient stories about "lords", "princes" or "angels" coming down from "heaven" (for example the "watchers" in Enoch) and taking charge of the locals, and most of these stories also later involve a flood. I don't believe these beings could be aliens, especially as there are also multiple stories about them cross-breeding with the local humans, as in Genesis 6. The only possibility is that they are themselves human, but in some way enhanced.

My personal interpretation is that this "heaven" is an alien's spaceship and that the alien had taken up a group of primitive humans and effectively educated and enhanced them over an extended period of time, although it is not clear whether this is over multiple generations (perhaps using selective breeding) or through more direct genetic manipulation of some sort. Perhaps this alien itself might be something like the "lamb that has been slain" in Revelations, which seems like a sufficiently non-human description to fit. On the other hand, the alien might simply be a "computer program" running the ship for all we know.

I also think that these "princes" had access to very little technology except the flying vehicles and perhaps some sort of video equipment (for "visions"), whereas if the alien itself had wanted to be directly involved, we would have expected far greater miracles. It appears that these "shining ones" each wanted to run their own people (if necessary at the expense of other tribes), but also (from the bible) that what they really wanted is to create a stable environment such that their alien master would literally come down to Earth and reside with them.

Anyway, to answer the original question of this thread, according to many people, even considering these possibilities makes one a lunatic. This means that people who even look at these ideas mostly fall into two groups - those who decide to be cautious like Sagan, and those who are so totally over-the-top about it that they make a career of it, like Erich Von Daniken and Giorgio Tsoukalos.

I'd like there to be a middle path, where one could be open to the possibility of alien contact and to try to establish whether there is the possibility of a coherent scientific explanation involving alien contact for some of the strange stories of our past.
 
  • #28
Probably because there is such a huge grey area. People feel the need to fill the void. Not knowing makes them uncomfortable. And, there is a lot of interest, therefore market for the subject.

The grey area cannot be filled in given the amount of credible evidence available. Logical people tend to either have reservations about being too speculative, or tend to at least make it clear they are only speculating, or writing science fiction. So their audience remains unsatisfied being left without any real answers.

The only people who can fill this void, are likely people who are dishonest, or self believing crackpots, lunatics etc. These are the only people willing to act like they know the truth. Because these people are usually lacking in the logic department, their fake answers are also, which is why their theories are often so wild.

Likewise, there audience is limited mostly to those who are gullible enough to buy what they're selling which reinforces the trend.

Meanwhile, logical people are also left unsatisfied due to the lack of credible information, and find it hard to buy into most of the theories because they aren't supported strongly enough, or are illogical. So they tend to stay out of it for the most part.

Plus a few other important reasons which go over most peoples heads.
 
  • #29
Whats more likely, aliens or time travelers? Both would seem to require breaking known physics, or atleast a loophole. So both would be just as likely?
 
  • #30
fellupahill said:
Whats more likely, aliens or time travelers? Both would seem to require breaking known physics, or atleast a loophole. So both would be just as likely?

Which laws of physics do you think ET visitation would be in violation of?
 
  • #31
fellupahill said:
Whats more likely, aliens or time travelers? Both would seem to require breaking known physics, or atleast a loophole. So both would be just as likely?

I don't see a problem with aliens and the laws of physics (and neither did Carl Sagan). FTL would break laws of physics, but there's no need for them to use FTL. We can't visit the stars yet mainly because of our limited lifespan and the amount of resources we would have to take with us to survive. A practical method of extended "hibernation" might even enable us to get round those limitations. However, an alien being (or alien artificial lifeform) with unlimited lifetime would not have such problems and could go on an extended tour of the galaxy.

Another question might be why an alien would visit this particular star system out of billions, but it might well be possible to spot the signs of life (presence of oxygen and water) in the Earth's atmosphere from far away.
 
  • #32
fellupahill said:
test-ufos-rock-demotivational-poster-1260908873.jpg

I still can't see no damn UFO. :grumpy:

And it's tough to type with one hand. :tongue:
 
  • #33
I always though that it would be more likely for an intelligent extra-solar race to send "un-aliened" missions. I think that when we launch a mission to another solar system, it would make more sense to send robots.

Would you define non-biological (robotic) E.T. visitation, as Aliens?

Being able to break some of the laws of physics might make it easier for E.T. biological entities to visit us from another solar system, but I don't think it is technically impossible for biological entities to reach us. I don't think anyone can come up with any logical reason why they can't.

Personally, even under a scenario in which modern physics theories are broken, I would not consider the reverse time travel hypothesis more likely true than the alien hypothesis. I think there is a logical contradiction preventing reverse time travel which would still hold. And, I don't think that the chances of modern physics theories being incorrect is 0.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
jreelawg said:
I always though that it would be more likely for an intelligent extra-solar race to send "un-aliened" missions. I think that when we launch a mission to another solar system, it would make more sense to send robots.

Would you define non-biological (robotic) E.T. visitation, as Aliens?

Being able to break some of the laws of physics might make it easier for E.T. biological entities to visit us from another solar system, but I don't think it is technically impossible for biological entities to reach us. I don't think anyone can come up with any logical reason why they can't.

Personally, even under a scenario in which modern physics theories are broken, I would not consider the reverse time travel hypothesis more likely true than the alien hypothesis. I think there is a logical contradiction preventing reverse time travel which would still hold. And, I don't think that the chances of modern physics theories being incorrect is 0.

There is one published paper that addresses the point about robotic probes and even suggests where to look for them

INFLATION-THEORY IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL VISITATION
J. Deardorff, B. Haisch, B. Maccabee and H.E. Puthoff
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol 58, pp. 43-50, 2005.
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

Generally, I think at least one obvious answer to the question in the op is this: If we have been or are one day visited, for better or for worse, it would be one of the most significant events in all of history. It is no wonder the idea fascinates people. And given the lack of definition and boundaries for such notions, esp for those without any scientific education, imaginations run wild virtually without limits. Hollywood helps provide a lot of fuel here, no doubt. But many of the UFO activists are the worst offenders. I have watched a fair number of people get into this and slowly develop more and more exotic beliefs as they fall victim to the nuttery surrounding the subject. Because of its potential significance, the idea of ET visitors can probably be as powerful as any religion.

I suggest that this thread has become far too speculative in regards to the what-ifs.
 
  • #35
Please don't close the topic. I know its getting a little speculative, but in the name of knowledge and getting to see that picture every time I come to this thread I say it should be allowed to continue.
jreelawg said:
Which laws of physics do you think ET visitation would be in violation of?
I did say break laws, or loophole. Like someone said before. Wormholes and such could be a pipe dream, and given what we know about BH's already the task would be daunting. Tho now I'm personally thinking visitors from another planet would seem more likely than time travelers. Tho if time travel is possible, then long distance space travel would almost be a given.

What would the catholic and muslim churches stance be if we were indeed contacted? I doubt they would let even aliens shatter belief, evolution or BB Theory didn't do the job and they are both direct contradictions.
 
<h2>1. Why do some people believe that ET attracts "loonatics"?</h2><p>Some people may believe that ET attracts "loonatics" because of the mystery and unknown surrounding extraterrestrial life. The idea of life beyond Earth is both fascinating and frightening, and can attract individuals who are drawn to conspiracy theories and alternative beliefs.</p><h2>2. Is there any scientific evidence to support the belief that ET attracts "loonatics"?</h2><p>No, there is no scientific evidence to support this belief. While there have been many claims and sightings of extraterrestrial life, there is currently no concrete proof that it exists. Additionally, the scientific community does not support conspiracy theories or pseudoscience surrounding the topic of ET.</p><h2>3. Are there any psychological reasons why some people may be drawn to the idea of ET and "loonatics"?</h2><p>Yes, there are psychological reasons that may contribute to the belief in ET and "loonatics". Some individuals may have a need for a sense of belonging or a desire to feel special, which can be fulfilled by believing in something outside of the norm. Others may have a fear of the unknown and use the idea of ET as a way to explain or cope with their fears.</p><h2>4. How does the media play a role in perpetuating the belief that ET attracts "loonatics"?</h2><p>The media often sensationalizes stories about ET, portraying them as either friendly or hostile beings. This can lead to the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories, which can attract individuals who are already inclined to believe in such ideas. Additionally, the media may give more attention to extreme or outlandish beliefs, further perpetuating the stereotype of "loonatics".</p><h2>5. Are there any potential dangers of believing in the idea that ET attracts "loonatics"?</h2><p>While believing in ET and "loonatics" may seem harmless, it can potentially lead to harmful actions and behaviors. For example, individuals may become obsessed with the idea of ET and neglect their personal relationships and responsibilities. They may also engage in risky or illegal activities in pursuit of "proof" of extraterrestrial life. It is important to approach the topic of ET with a critical and rational mindset.</p>

1. Why do some people believe that ET attracts "loonatics"?

Some people may believe that ET attracts "loonatics" because of the mystery and unknown surrounding extraterrestrial life. The idea of life beyond Earth is both fascinating and frightening, and can attract individuals who are drawn to conspiracy theories and alternative beliefs.

2. Is there any scientific evidence to support the belief that ET attracts "loonatics"?

No, there is no scientific evidence to support this belief. While there have been many claims and sightings of extraterrestrial life, there is currently no concrete proof that it exists. Additionally, the scientific community does not support conspiracy theories or pseudoscience surrounding the topic of ET.

3. Are there any psychological reasons why some people may be drawn to the idea of ET and "loonatics"?

Yes, there are psychological reasons that may contribute to the belief in ET and "loonatics". Some individuals may have a need for a sense of belonging or a desire to feel special, which can be fulfilled by believing in something outside of the norm. Others may have a fear of the unknown and use the idea of ET as a way to explain or cope with their fears.

4. How does the media play a role in perpetuating the belief that ET attracts "loonatics"?

The media often sensationalizes stories about ET, portraying them as either friendly or hostile beings. This can lead to the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories, which can attract individuals who are already inclined to believe in such ideas. Additionally, the media may give more attention to extreme or outlandish beliefs, further perpetuating the stereotype of "loonatics".

5. Are there any potential dangers of believing in the idea that ET attracts "loonatics"?

While believing in ET and "loonatics" may seem harmless, it can potentially lead to harmful actions and behaviors. For example, individuals may become obsessed with the idea of ET and neglect their personal relationships and responsibilities. They may also engage in risky or illegal activities in pursuit of "proof" of extraterrestrial life. It is important to approach the topic of ET with a critical and rational mindset.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Replies
31
Views
8K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
8K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
4
Replies
128
Views
41K
Back
Top