Is there life in the universe, and if so has it visited Earth?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe, supported by the vast number of stars and the Drake equation, which suggests intelligent life likely exists. While participants agree on the likelihood of life elsewhere, there is skepticism regarding whether such life has visited Earth, with some arguing that the technological barriers and vast distances make encounters improbable. The conversation also touches on the implications of advanced civilizations and the potential for interstellar travel, raising questions about our ability to detect extraterrestrial visitors. Participants express varied opinions on the survival of intelligent civilizations and the factors influencing their communication capabilities. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the existence of life beyond Earth, while doubts remain about direct contact.

Has alien life visited Earth?

  • Yes

    Votes: 81 14.5%
  • no

    Votes: 201 35.9%
  • no: but it's only a matter of time

    Votes: 64 11.4%
  • Yes: but there is a conspiracy to hide this from us

    Votes: 47 8.4%
  • maybe maybe not?

    Votes: 138 24.6%
  • I just bit my tongue and it hurts, what was the question again? Er no comment

    Votes: 29 5.2%

  • Total voters
    560
  • #901
DanP said:
Aint it obvious ? Beings with giant brains are dumb.

it's also simply not the way things are done. trust me, i used to do test engineering. in general, something gets designed, and then if it's military, you spend the next 20 or more years working the kinks out. otherwise, the lifecycle probably is shorter.

there are no perfect designs out there. something will go wrong. you just hope it was something you had the foresight to limit the extent of its damage.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #902
qraal said:
The machines don't have to do that. Instead they just do everything better and humans reap the benefits and otherwise. Eventually - with infinite patience, they'll take the long view - the machines will remain and humans will be either extinct or merge with the machines. As large mammals our tenure is tenuous at best.

Personally I think merger is more likely than either side becoming extinct.

You're on to it. Knowing machines they would remove the weakness of the human calculator and replace us with one of their own kind. Nothing personal or demonic about it. Just plain efficiency... like mother nature. However, something would be lacking and this inefficiency would be the downfall of machines. Then we'd see the rise of the arachnids... or something like that. I think the missing ingredient with machines would be "nurturing qualities".
 
  • #903
DROBNJAK said:
Interstellar travel is quite possible even with 50s technology. Idea came from some Polish physicist, maths was done by Brits, and Jenkiees went on to make proof-of-concept prototypes. It was called Project Pluto or Neptune, or something like that, there is info on Wikipedia and videos on YouTube. Search on 'nuclear propulsion'.
A study and some conceptual designs does not a technology make.



DROBNJAK said:
Roswell accident air base press officer died couple of years ago and he left affidavit with his lawyer, stating that it was UFO. In that UK airbase incident, half a dozen officers were standing within 10m from the craft taking pictures and making notes. And if that is not enough, there are similar reports in a USSR-KGB archives.
And yet, still no hard evidence. Where are those pics? Have you seen them?
 
  • #904
Wouldn't anything seen flying through the air that is of unknown origin qualify as a UFO, of Earth or otherwise? I think the term UFO is way overused in this regard. If you see something flying overhead and you don't know what it is, then it is a UFO.
 
  • #905
Pattonias said:
Wouldn't anything seen flying through the air that is of unknown origin qualify as a UFO, of Earth or otherwise? I think the term UFO is way overused in this regard. If you see something flying overhead and you don't know what it is, then it is a UFO.

You are correct. When DROBNJAK says 'UFO' he really means 'of extraterrestrial origin'.
 
  • #906
I would actually argue that a government discovering that an alien race existed with absolute proof, would jump at the chance to prove of this existence. It would severely reduce the pressure on there own policies if you had people all concentrating on an other than Earth foreign policy. Also, if there existed a race of superior technology that we knew nothing about, we would have to research and drive forward our defense technology in order to insure the national/world security.
 
Last edited:
  • #907
DROBNJAK said:
What makes technology is money. Was there money available for interstellar travel? ... NO. Was the technology plausible, relative to our knowledge and available materials? ... YES
"Plausible", sure. So what? That's not at all the same thing as available.

We are closer to fusion today than nuclear propulsion in the 50s, yet fusion is still 50 years in our future.

DROBNJAK said:
Even if another saucer crashed tomorrow anywhere in G7 world, any remains would instantly be removed from public view. Any government worth its salt would do that, since it is just too big can of worms to handle. We are just left to entertain our minds with speculation.
This lends no shred of veracity to whether it has happened.

Aliens arriving from another galaxy would drop their star drive in the sun so we don't get it, but that doesn't mean that not finding a star drive is evidence that there was one.

Do you know of any evidence?

DROBNJAK said:
We are just left to entertain our minds with speculation.
Yes, we are.

DROBNJAK said:
For me personally, statements of credible witnesses (on duty pilots, policemen, soldiers etc.) under oath, are enough.
So it would seem, yes.
 
  • #908
DROBNJAK said:
Obviously we can only speculate, but even for aliens it would be extremely expensive to colonize Earth, taking in accounts the energies required to traverse the distances involved. The most likely scenario would be that they are using us either for scientific research or simply visiting us as tourists. Kind of watching us in our own zoo. In the way we send scientist to watch tribes in Amazonian jungle.

Lets, just for argument's sake, look at the original question of this thread from a slightly different angle:

If, for the sake of the example, there was semi-intelligent life on the Mars, and we were 'intelligent aliens', what would be the rules of engagement for our astronauts?

This is what my guess would be:

1) avoid physical contact, in order to prevent transfer of unknown diseases,
2) avoid any situation in which your ship can be damaged,
3) avoid any situation which would prevent the rest of the crew extracting you,
4) keep on sending data home, taking pictures etc.
5) do not disturb them, avoid densely populated areas,

Now back to Earth: is this how, supposed UFOs, are really behaving? Indeed, if they exist, they do behave in a similar fashion.

Yes, The above is obvious. It is nothing that hasn't been stated a zillion times before.


But I could make the identical argument about God.

If God were to create a race of subjects that he wanted to experiment with, how would be go about it?

I now list a bunch of things where I presume to guess both the motives and the means of a totally hypothetical and alien entity. Then I propose how they would manifest themselves - and astonishingly - my ideas how of they manifest themselves is identical to the observations I've gathered. (Let's ignore the fact that my obsevations came before my theory, so no prediction going on here, only hindsight.)

Who would have thunk such a strong correlation? And since you cannot prove a negative, my theory cannot be falsified. It's perfect.

Of course, it's not science, it's religion.
 
  • #909
DROBNJAK said:
A big difference between the God and aliens is that God would need to be older than universe, while aliens are simply "us" only evolved somewhere else.

Not true. I didn't say that God or this particular God was older than the universe. Since it is a hypothetical (and arguably fictional) entity, I can ascribe it any properties I wish, just like you did for your aliens. You are making the properties of your aliens match the scenario you have (such as having interstellar travel), thus, so will I.

It changes nothing about your argument. Saying how unicorns "would" have hidden from us and shown up in legends doesn't make unicorns any more real or plausible. Likewise, pointing out that unicorns don't need interstellar propulsion doesn't make them more plausible than aliens.
 
  • #910
DaveC426913 said:
It changes nothing about your argument. Saying how unicorns "would" have hidden from us and shown up in legends doesn't make unicorns any more real or plausible. Likewise, pointing out that unicorns don't need interstellar propulsion doesn't make them more plausible than aliens.

I agree. Unicorns are no more. Unicorns became extinct since there are virtually no virgins over the age of 16 left in this galaxy, to ride them, feed them and care for them. They perished of sadness and famine.
 
  • #911
DROBNJAK said:
Basically, you would not accept existence of UFOs even in the case you had seen one?
Of course I would accept it.

The question is, is it reasonable for anyone other than my group of friends to believe it on only our say-so.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
Last edited:
  • #912
One problem with the 'UFO' thing is that people who are convinced they're ETI space-vehicles have moved beyond 'they exist' to 'I know what they are'. Two very different knowledge claims. Weird things fly through the sky I've no doubt, but personally I have no idea what they are that isn't as good as any other idea that explains the observational data. There's no test I can do and no hard evidence I can point to that falsifies or supports any theory that explains the data.

And I mean real data. What people report and what they really see can be quite at odds, so when someone claims a 'metallic disk' I reserve judgement on composition and configuration - I don't know, can't know, what was really seen and what was merely perceived.

I'm yet to see a convincing 'mechanical device' UFO photo that isn't later exposed as a fake, so that can be reasonably put in the 'inconclusive evidence basket' as well. Lights in the sky photos can be anything, so they're equally inconclusive. And alien autospy films are all hoaxes, while grainy, out-of-focus shots of 'live ETIs' could be anything.

So what evidence remains? Plausibility arguments about the exist and presence of ETIs aren't proof and too full of unknowns to be useful. Interstellar travel speculations are fun and interesting but they're not proof of anything either. Do we see highly energetic drive systems blasting into our star system? No. Any arriving vehicles must be stealthed which makes it odd that would become visible for eyewitnesses in Earth's atmosphere.

So do I think UFOs exist? Of course. There's a phenomena to be explained.

DO I think they're slam-dunk evidence of ETI activity on planet Earth? Nope. Insufficient evidence to reach such a definite conclusion.

Does the human mind have a big role to play in the phenomena? You bet.
 
  • #913
fp = fraction of stars with planets around them:5%

5%?! you right i would assume almost EVERY star has planets since there all formed the same way or most of them are anyways from what i observe here with 1 star with 8 planets and 1000's of asteroids and maybe millions of objects in the ort cloud and the Kuiper belt honestly do you believe all but 5 % of stars have nothign around them...

Basically, you would not accept existence of UFOs even in the case you had seen one?

i don't know if i would being scientific i would look first at the most obvious option for such a craft.. advanced HUMAN technology designed to look like a flying saucer what better stealth craft could there be! people who see them will be discredited as crackpots and the enemy nation would never know they were being spied on up close and personal and why not dress the pilots in ET jumpsuits all the further to complete the ruse if they need to land and exit there ship for any reason far stranger things have been done in wari think the most reasonable form of ET's we will ever see is ET machines designed to self propogate and explore then return the info to the home planet much like our probes today do only there's would find a planet build more robots and swarm off from there in every direction till they find another planet and repeat
 
Last edited:
  • #914
VooDooX said:
5%?! you right i would assume almost EVERY star has planets since there all formed the same way or most of them are anyways from what i observe here with 1 star with 8 planets and 1000's of asteroids and maybe millions of objects in the ort cloud and the Kuiper belt honestly do you believe all but 5 % of stars have nothign around them...

Many parts of the galaxy have almost no metal atoms, therefore stars in those regions can have only gas planets, no solid surfaces. (Ward and Brownlee, _Rare Earth_, paperback, 2004, page 29)
 
  • #915
a matter of time
 
  • #916
mikelepore said:
Many parts of the galaxy have almost no metal atoms, therefore stars in those regions can have only gas planets, no solid surfaces. (Ward and Brownlee, _Rare Earth_, paperback, 2004, page 29)

I thought that most heavy elements are the result of the death/aging of stars. While the heavy elements are rare in comparison to the total mass of the Universe, wouldn't the distribution of heavy elements be fairly uniform, or present wherever there are stars.
 
  • #917
Pattonias said:
wouldn't the distribution of heavy elements be fairly uniform, or present wherever there are stars.
Nope.

There are different generations of stars. Ours is a Population I type star. Older stars are Population II and are metal poor. But really old stars were the first stars made, when there were no metals to be had. They are almost entirely H and He. These are Population III stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity#Population_I_stars
 
  • #918
DaveC426913 said:
Nope.

There are different generations of stars. Ours is a Population I type star. Older stars are Population II and are metal poor. But really old stars were the first stars made, when there were no metals to be had. They are almost entirely H and He. These are Population III stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity#Population_I_stars

I find it amusing that we can be so certain on this point and yet need to smash an object into the Moon to determine the presence of water.
 
  • #919
nothing we know is ever certain which is why the universe is so weird
 
  • #920
WhoWee said:
I find it amusing that we can be so certain on this point
Actually, we don't. If you read the article I linked to, you will see that Pop III stars are thought to exist near the centres of galaxies, generally obscured from view.
 
  • #921
soo if all the stars around the edges have planets its still greater then 5% that's all I am saying
 
  • #922
Count Iblis said:
I think intelligent lifeforms will last only for a short period in a biological form. Organisms with a large enough brain to develop a civilization will very soon develop intelligent machines. These machines will then take over control of the planet.

Interesting opinion but I doubt that we will ever make machines as clever as ourselves, and if we somehow do, I would assume that we would also be smart enough to make them controllable.

To address the main questions: I have no idea!
 
  • #923
Sooooo, anyone seen some strange flying objects of unidentified origin that perform in a way the usual aircraft never do?
 
  • #924
mathman44 said:
Interesting opinion but I doubt that we will ever make machines as clever as ourselves,
Why? It just a technical feat.

mathman44 said:
and if we somehow do, I would assume that we would also be smart enough to make them controllable.

What makes you think we could control them? (OK, I guess your first statement answers that. If you think we won't ever make machines as clever as ourselves, then it's not hard to keep control of them.)
 
  • #925
DaveC426913 said:
What makes you think we could control them? (OK, I guess your first statement answers that. If you think we won't ever make machines as clever as ourselves, then it's not hard to keep control of them.)

People can't control their cars let alone super computers.

Is this all getting at some kind of speculative attempt to prove that alien machines have visited earth? I think the question is "has life visited earth"... other than our own. (Paraphrasing) Life as in biological machines.
 
  • #926
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #927
DaveC426913 said:
No, it's simply a tangent about the longevity of hypothetical alien races, spawned by Count Iblis in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2452118&postcount=896".

Thanks for clearing that up DaveC426913. There are a number of things that would either keep an alien population alive or end their species. I was wondering whether or not the drive to harmonize and cooperate was a favorable trait that would lend itself to the longevity of a species. On a cellular level, it has worked well. Multicellular cooperation, specification and harmonization has resulted in the creation of wide spread gene pools of impressive longevity.

For a species to reach a point where they are somehow able to by-pass thousands of light years and visit other solar systems, I would imagine they would have figured out how to keep their own planet and population in fair shape... for some time. It would depend on a lack of planetary/natural disasters for these aliens to enjoy any relative longevity. Unless they had figured out a way to avoid those pit falls of life as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #928
DROBNJAK said:
I would tend to agree. Understanding nature on the level of quantum mechanics and theory of relativity is definitely mold braking point in terms of maturity of knowledge. Economic forces definitely favor globalization, so on the scale of next 100 to 300 years, there is to be more integration between the nations, rather than less. Most likely to the point where nations become irrelevant.

Interstellar travel needs a push from global economy, no nation will be ever rich enough to do it on its own.

And there goes the neighbourhood! Interesting how the EU is shaping up. Big Mother on the rise.
 
  • #929
Is there life in the universe?

I suspect so, but obviously I don't know.

Has it visited Earth?

I would say no, but obviously I don't know the answer here either.

Some of the conversations in this thread remind me of theological debates: a lot of passion for no results. The ultimate resolution to the problem of whether there is life, or intelligent life, in the universe lies in we humans getting our behinds off this planet and looking for it...but we have a bad tendency as a species to settle into easy, convenient answers and avoid doing what's necessary or difficult.
 
  • #930
Holy moly I created a Monster?

Zombie thread!
 
  • #931
we are visitors... simple as that.
 
  • #932
N468989 said:
we are visitors... simple as that.

Prove it?
 
  • #933
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Prove it?


I can only imagine, life itself most certainly formed on earth, due to our conditions in which we survive, but by what means can we prove that we are not from somewhere else. It's like someone lives in country XYZ, and was born in ABC, does it mean that, where they live now is where they have always been?

You say "Prove A" and i say "Prove !A".

We cannot prove that, since there isn't proof yet or may never be, maybe the absence of proof is proof itself!

We can't find the missing link.
 
  • #934
N468989 said:
I can only imagine, life itself most certainly formed on earth, due to our conditions in which we survive, but by what means can we prove that we are not from somewhere else. It's like someone lives in country XYZ, and was born in ABC, does it mean that, where they live now is where they have always been?

You say "Prove A" and i say "Prove !A".

We cannot prove that, since there isn't proof yet or may never be, maybe the absence of proof is proof itself!

We can't find the missing link.

Why?

Isn't that just a strong anthropic principle? And thus begging the question endlessly.
 
  • #935
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Why?

Isn't that just a strong anthropic principle? And thus begging the question endlessly.

We can only imagine it's that way, due to our limited understanding of our being. We might be capable of understanding someday, but not today. What we know as valid today, tomorrow can be invalid. Didn't we believe the sun circled the earth?

Proof is there but we haven't been looking hard enough.

Is there life in the universe? Yes, we are part of the universe, so there is life!
Has it visited earth? Without proof, the answer in our living days is no...now its a matter of "to believe or not to believe".
 
  • #936
N468989 said:
We can only imagine it's that way, due to our limited understanding of our being. We might be capable of understanding someday, but not today. What we know as valid today, tomorrow can be invalid. Didn't we believe the sun circled the earth?

Proof is there but we haven't been looking hard enough.

Is there life in the universe? Yes, we are part of the universe, so there is life!
Has it visited earth? Without proof, the answer in our living days is no...now its a matter of "to believe or not to believe".

How do you induct that?

How do you know we aren't alone?

the Sun and the Earth both circle each other, from each others relative perspective.

Infinity rests on being able to tell where you are, and when.
 
  • #937
Schrodinger's Dog said:
How do you induct that?

How do you know we aren't alone?

To fully understand if we are, or not alone, we must first define what we understand by alone.
Beforehand, we must understand who we are, what is our meaning of existence (if there is such), and what is our purpose.
 
  • #938
N468989 said:
To fully understand if we are, or not alone, we must first define what we understand by alone.
Beforehand, we must understand who we are, what is our meaning of existence (if there is such), and what is our purpose.

I think therefore I am, you however I'm not so sure about?

Is that it?

Very René Descartes.
 
  • #939
We can't find the missing link.

Or it has been found and is being hidden by the powers that be or the church people in some pretty high places still don't like the idea of evolution
 
  • #940
N468989 said:
To fully understand if we are, or not alone, we must first define what we understand by alone.
Beforehand, we must understand who we are, what is our meaning of existence (if there is such), and what is our purpose.

Why?
 
  • #941
DaveC426913 said:
Why?

Arm waving dualism FTW!
 
  • #942
Does it matter? The questions are always Who?What?When?Where?Why?How?

Let's be reasonable, if we had the answer this thread wouldn't even exist, more the less, if you had the answer you wouldn't give a damn so to speak. Give me your opinion instead of refuting/questioning my comments, they only my way of seeing things.

I understand the easy way out, to never answer a question is to ask another question. That's not our point here, so give me your opinion, without the facts.
 
  • #943
Fungi feeding on radiation
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070422222547data_trunc_sys.shtml
"Just as the pigment chlorophyll converts sunlight into chemical energy that allows green plants to live and grow, our research suggests that melanin can use a different portion of the electromagnetic spectrum - ionizing radiation - to benefit the fungi containing it," said co-researcher Ekaterina Dadachova.

Investigating further, the researchers measured the electron spin resonance signal after melanin was exposed to ionizing radiation and found that radiation interacts with melanin to alter its electron structure. This, they believe, is an essential step for capturing radiation and converting it into a different form of energy to make food.

Metal Eating Bacteria
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/bactercorrode.php

Bacteria live in clouds/snow
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87761584&ps=rs

Facultative anaerobic Bacteria (able to live with and without oxygen present
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2t215344n884160/

Bacteria that live on uranium
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061019192814.htm
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=765.php
http://blogs.discovery.com/news_sustainable/2009/09/radioactive_cleanup.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #944
I decided to delete the off-topic posts and leave only the references provided. Let's refrain from personal theories about how bacterial or viral life might survive in space and reference only published papers.

thread open.
 
Last edited:
  • #945
Its always going to be classified as swamp gas..

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2009/10/aaah.jpg



There must be some way to identify if swamp gas is extraterrestrial or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #946
Heh, the swamp gas explanation was an admitted dodge. That came from Hynek when he was still heading up Bluebook for the USAF. He later became a convert and the so-called father of modern ufology.


...not to say that swamp gas have never been the cause of a UFO report. Atmostpheric phenomena are certainly at least one class of UFOs.
 
  • #947
Ivan Seeking said:
Heh, the swamp gas explanation was an admitted dodge. That came from Hynek when he was still heading up Bluebook for the USAF. He later became a convert and the so-called father of modern ufology.


...not to say that swamp gas have never been the cause of a UFO report. Atmostpheric phenomena are certainly at least one class of UFOs.

Thanks Ivan. That's good news that Hynek went from totally nonconstructive criticism to investigation. Probably brought some brains to the whole deal.
 
  • #948
baywax said:
Its always going to be classified as swamp gas..

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2009/10/aaah.jpg



There must be some way to identify if swamp gas is extraterrestrial or not.


That's really cool and really wild and most certainly very rare, but I don't see anything worth getting in a tizzy about.

It's an atmospheric phenomenon. The fact that I've never seen one like this doesn't make me hesitant at all to conclude that that's what it is. It might be a lens cloud, more commonly seen in clear skies. This one just happens to be in an overcast sky. I would guess that the bright ring is an area where the two air masses cause the clouds to get very thin and transparent, and the sun is shining through.

Absolutely, there are some unlikely factors contributing to its existence, but nothing outside the bounds of atmospheric phenomena is required to explain it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #949
Not sure if this has been brought up in this very long thread but:

Wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that if aliens had sufficient technology to travel large interstellar distances, they would also have sufficient stealth technology to prevent us from detecting them? And furthermore that since they have no made effort to contact us, they have no interest in being detected?

In other words, doesn't it seem that it's very unlikely that aliens would be visiting us secretly but get accidentally detected as UFOs?
 
  • #950
Galteeth said:
In other words, doesn't it seem that it's very unlikely that aliens would be visiting us secretly but get accidentally detected as UFOs?

Wouldn't it be very unlikely that if aliens were secretly visiting us that their being detected as UFOs would make any difference?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top