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

[CEL]

Again with the 'what more do you need'. Have you learned nothing from this thread?

Why again? I never used this expression before.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, I've got to ask. What about this object was worthy of note at all?

The note worthy thing about the object was that it was defying the law of gravity.

Yes, but clearly you interpret it as defying gravity in a way that a balloon, blimp or dirigible doesn't.

I'm not trying to deride you here, in reviewing my comments, I wonder if my critiquing your account hasn't come across as overly-incredulous. I apoloigize if I've given that impression. I'm genuinely interested in exploring it.

I do, however, think you're leaving an important piece out of your description without realizing it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why again? I never used this expression before.

Heh. I was disremembering https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=267244&highlight=account" thread. Hey, I got 2/3rds of the letters right...

 

[baywax]

Yes, but clearly you interpret it as defying gravity in a way that a balloon, blimp or dirigible doesn't.

I'm not trying to deride you here, in reviewing my comments, I wonder if my critiquing your account hasn't come across as overly-incredulous. I apoloigize if I've given that impression. I'm genuinely interested in exploring it.

I do, however, think you're leaving an important piece out of your description without realizing it.

Well Dave, there's not much more to say about it. Besides, its attaching a stigma to my newly minted gold status I don't need!

I'll give it to you one more time though.

I'm traveling in the passenger side of a car doing 110 kmph or so... I always look out the window because I am always checking out the flora and the geology of the area... and watching for moose or bears... like Sarah Palin would be doing.

I'm in a calm state of mind, surprisingly, since there are two kids in the back seat doing what kids do on a road trip. And I'm congratulating myself on being so calm and rational in the midst of this.

So I look out and up slightly and there's this grey metallic tube with a "flute" at the end of it that is octagonal or decagonal (didn't have time to count the facets). At first I questioned what I was seeing (during the 5 seconds I had to do so). I looked under it and all around it to see if it was part of a transformer or a helicopter or even a transceiver. But I confirmed, to myself, that it is not attached to anything and that it was floating over the terrain beneath it.

Then I couldn't see it any longer because of the trees and topography around it. That's the story. I'm trying not to interject any of my interpretations of the event or speculate about its function or purpose because that pollutes the inquiry. Like I said, I am sorry I had to go and put my two cents in about what it might be doing. Like any sighting of an unidentified object, there's no way to tell where its from or what its doing.

But, deductive reasoning would suggest these things are from Earth since our deductions are based on what we, as humans, are capable of doing and that doesn't include traveling for light-years at a time... and surviving... to distant solar systems.

 

[Phrak]

Yes there is intelligent life.
No, they don't visit Earth.
They avoid it like the plague.
That's why they wear the plague resistant space suits with the big eyes.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well Dave, there's not much more to say about it. Besides, its attaching a stigma to my newly minted gold status I don't need!

Sorry, I've misled you. The 'you're leaving something out' comment was actually directed at the other incident, the "white grain of rice in the sky" incident. I was trying to figure out what about the incident was unexplainable.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes there is intelligent life.
No, they don't visit Earth.
They avoid it like the plague.
That's why they wear the plague resistant space suits with the big eyes.

Okay, we get it. You think this is silly.
Got it.

Now, if you don't mind, we're trying to have a discussion. If you have nothing to contirbute, try elsewhere.

 

[baywax]

Sorry, I've misled you. The 'you're leaving something out' comment was actually directed at the other incident, the "white grain of rice in the sky" incident. I was trying to figure out what about the incident was unexplainable.

The white rice crispy was unusual because it was at a height somewhere inbetween where a small aircraft would be flying and where passenger jets fly. And it just sat there. No engine noise of a helicopter, not even the shape of a helicopter. This wasn't a blimp either, as far as I could tell, and I've seen plenty of them including the Good Year one.

The most unusual part about it was that it was going in no particular direction except for a slow drift toward the west. It seemed to have deliberately slowed to a halt where it was and I don't know any conventional aircraft that can do that without wings or thrusters and a lot of noise. This also had no lights visible, but it was around midday and a semi-clear sky.

What is really striking is that it seemed unabashed about being noticed. It just sat there while I starred at it. I took a good 3 minutes out to watch it. During that time about 3 kids saw it. The adults saw me staring in the sky but I doubt they saw what I was concentrating on. When I looked away and back again it was gone. We don't have any air force bases in the immediate area.

 

[vincentm]

I think there is life elsewhere, given the whole space-time thing, the probabilities of other forms to be intelligent civilizations is there. Are they visiting us? I have to say I'm extremely skeptical.

 

[gareth]

I would have to say there is intelligent life out there. I'm on the fence on whether they've paid a visit or not, but I would tipping slightly to the 'they have' side of the fence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The white rice crispy was unusual because it was at a height somewhere inbetween where a small aircraft would be flying and where passenger jets fly. And it just sat there. No engine noise of a helicopter, not even the shape of a helicopter.

I'm not sure what to think about the shape, but some helicopters have the ability to hover relatively silently. I'm not sure if this is done with dampers, directed exhaust, or both, but it is done. Is it possible that a large helicopter hovering silently at a high altitude, or a smaller one at a lower altitude, could account for what you saw?

 

[russ_watters]

Also, please note that above a few thousand feet, it is impossible for a human to judge height via depth perception alone. You need something to provide a frame of reference, such as looking at an object of known size and judging the altitude based on how big it appears. But that can be problematic too - since many different types of jets are the same configuration, it is very common to underestimate the altitude of a large jet or overestimate the altitude of a small one.

 

[baywax]

Also, please note that above a few thousand feet, it is impossible for a human to judge height via depth perception alone. You need something to provide a frame of reference, such as looking at an object of known size and judging the altitude based on how big it appears. But that can be problematic too - since many different types of jets are the same configuration, it is very common to underestimate the altitude of a large jet or overestimate the altitude of a small one.

That's true. My sense was that it was quite a distance from me yet close enough for observation... on both ends.

Ivan... this is Canada, i have to keep reminding you guys! We don't have those voodoo choppers up here. There's no need for them anyway. Half the time they're flying over dense rain forest, or what's left of it. So, unless their going to spend 600 million bucks on technology that spares a few skunk's and bear's ears... we don't have the technology.

This object was white with no wings, no blades, no rudders, no strings attached. Gareth has a video from Mass. of an object he thought might be the same type of phenomenon. But it is a darker colour, has a more organic shape to it.

Here it is.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=qvufnG...eature=related

Its close but, no cigar (pardon the pun).

 

[kasse]

Yes, everyone here is crazy except you.

Everyone doesn't believe in visiting aliens.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here it is.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=qvufnG...eature=related

Bzzt. Mangled URL.

This object was white with no wings, no blades, no rudders, no strings attached.

I'm still trying to find out how it was, not only unexplained, but unexplainable as a conventional lighter-than-air craft.

While it may not have looked like anything you recognized, it wasn't doing anything unexplainable.

 

[baywax]

Bzzt. Mangled URL.



I'm still trying to find out how it was, not only unexplained, but unexplainable as a conventional lighter-than-air craft.

While it may not have looked like anything you recognized, it wasn't doing anything unexplainable.

One more try with the URL.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=qvufnGibOtU&feature=related

I couldn't explain what a white oblong object was doing, semi-stationary in the sky. It may happen all the time out where you are. Not here.

 

[baywax]

Everyone doesn't believe in visiting aliens.

Not unless we're invited.

 

[CEL]

One more try with the URL.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=qvufnGibOtU&feature=related

I couldn't explain what a white oblong object was doing, semi-stationary in the sky. It may happen all the time out where you are. Not here.

I don't know how things are in Canada. Where I live, white oblong clouds remain semi-stationary in the sky, drifting slowly with the breeze.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know how things are in Canada. Where I live, white oblong clouds remain semi-stationary in the sky, drifting slowly with the breeze.

I'm going to take his word for it that it wasn't a cloud. Frankly, if a small, isolated, discrete and substantial cloud in the foreground were not moving along with the all the fluffy background clouds in the distance, I'd be quite alarmed, UFO or no.


But I'm still not sure what it was doing that ruled-out a lighter-than-air craft. As I said, just because he couldn't identify it doesn't mean there was anything unexplainable about it. It was behaving well within parameters of an extremely plausible explanation. I haven't heard anything that contra-indicates that.

I think I've met the criteria for explaining the sighting satisfactorily, based on the details provided; I now put the onus on the accounter (i.e. baywax) to refute the explanation.

Anyway, this is getting nowhere.

 

[baywax]

I'm going to take his word for it that it wasn't a cloud. Frankly, if a small, isolated, discrete and substantial cloud in the foreground were not moving along with the all the fluffy background clouds in the distance, I'd be quite alarmed, UFO or no.But I'm still not sure what it was doing that ruled-out a lighter-than-air craft. As I said, just because he couldn't identify it doesn't mean there was anything unexplainable about it. It was behaving well within parameters of an extremely plausible explanation. I haven't heard anything that contra-indicates that.

I think I've met the criteria for explaining the sighting satisfactorily, based on the details provided; I now put the onus on the accounter (i.e. baywax) to refute the explanation.

Anyway, this is getting nowhere.

Agreed. You had to be there.

So far, in answer to the thread's question, if extraterrestrial life has visited Earth it was viruses or other microbes that started life here and possibly continue to "visit" us today.

Origin of organic molecules
There are two possible sources of organic molecules on the early Earth:
1.Terrestrial origins - organic synthesis driven by impact shocks or by other energy sources (such as ultraviolet light or electrical discharges) (eg.Miller's experiments)

2.Extraterrestrial origins - delivery by objects (eg carbonaceous chondrites) or gravitational attraction of organic molecules or primitive life-forms from space
Recently estimates of these sources suggest that the heavy bombardment before 3.5 Gyr ago within the early atmosphere made available quantities of organics comparable to those produced by other energy sources.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

[billiards]

I'd say: it depends how you look at it: are we aliens?

If so: I'd say: yes!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just a reminder. If you wish to address the subject of UFOs, please spend some time reviewing the UFO Napster, first.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805

We all know that there is plenty of nonsense out there, but there are also some very striking and well documented reports that completely dispel the notion that this is all based on claims easily explained.

Kasse, I wouldn't claim that ET is here, but I understand why so many people do. If I had seen what some people apparently did, I would likely agree with their conclusion that we have been visited by either ETs, or time travelers, or something that is clearly beyond our understanding.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just a reminder. If you wish to address the subject of UFOs, please spend some time reviewing the UFO Napster, first.

Forgive me, I keep hearing this word Napster. The only context I have for this word involves downloading of music files, which seems to have nothing to do with the context I'm seeing it used for presently. Am I a dinosaur?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I guess the idea is that we have a list of posted files intended for public viewing. The expression was already in use in the physics forum when Sting started the UFO Napster, at my request.

 

[baywax]

I guess the idea is that we have a list of posted files intended for public viewing. The expression was already in use in the physics forum when Sting started the UFO Napster, at my request.

I've been through the UFO napster. Its all very puzzling. The bold move by whatever they are when they flew over the Capital Dome in Washington DC strikes me as too contrived and overt to be the act of some camera shy aliens.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've been through the UFO napster.

I would guess that at least 90% of the most popular debunking arguments can be dismissed after reading the information linked in the first page of the Napster.

Skepticism is a good thing. And even after so many years of interest, I wouldn't bet the farm that ET is here; for one, because I have never seen an alien spacecraft . But many so called debunkers are really just crackpots. And what is really sad is that the scientific community has generally embraced their nonsense arguments because of ignorance of the subject.

Shermer is a good example. The more one learns about UFOs, the less credibility Shermer has on the subject; and by default, the less credibility he has on any subject that doesn't have clear boundaries.

 

[baywax]

And even after so many years of interest, I wouldn't bet the farm that ET is here; for one, because I have never seen an alien spacecraft .

For me to see a Harrier doing a vertical landing is like seeing an alien craft. Our Coast Guard's big hovercraft is another anomaly as far as I'm concerned. I've seen other objects, as I've explained, and although they have an effect on the psych as being "other worldly" they have not convinced me that they are from another galaxy or whatever.

What is more convincing to me is the documentation found on the UFO Napster of the Foo-Fighter experiments that were taking place throughout WW2 and before. This kind of initiative does not just evaporate and blow away and my impression is that it's continued development is what has stirred the present controversy concerning UFOs.

 

[kasse]

I'd say: it depends how you look at it: are we aliens?

If so: I'd say: yes!

Thats off topic.

 

[kasse]

Kasse, I wouldn't claim that ET is here, but I understand why so many people do.

Yes, but that doesn't make it rational. I also understand why people are religious, nazis etc. People want to feel being part of something bigger.

When it comes to UFOs (i.e. flying saucers), I think believing in this is even lower than religion, because - unlike religion - it's not something that's been imposed in your childhood, but a really bad decision you've made on your own based on no evidence.

 

[WaveJumper]

Yes, but that doesn't make it rational. I also understand why people are religious, nazis etc. People want to feel being part of something bigger.

When it comes to UFOs (i.e. flying saucers), I think believing in this is even lower than religion, because - unlike religion - it's not something that's been imposed in your childhood, but a really bad decision you've made on your own based on no evidence.

You contradict yourself - you use the term unidentified flying object, then you say this unidentified object didn't exist.

 

[Proton Soup]

Thats off topic.

depends. i think maybe he means panspermia.

 

[kasse]

You contradict yourself - you use the term unidentified flying object, then you say this unidentified object didn't exist.

You know what I mean.

 

[kasse]

depends. i think maybe he means panspermia.

True, it may well be, but that's another discussion.

 

[baywax]

True, it may well be, but that's another discussion.

This discussion is based on the title of the thread.

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

Please explain how panspermia doesn't have a place in this discussion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but that doesn't make it rational. I also understand why people are religious, nazis etc. People want to feel being part of something bigger.

When it comes to UFOs (i.e. flying saucers), I think believing in this is even lower than religion, because - unlike religion - it's not something that's been imposed in your childhood, but a really bad decision you've made on your own based on no evidence.

Godwin!


There is evidence for flying saucers, it's just not compelling evidence. But that's a judgment call made by each individual.

Even those most critical of the idea must first still examine the evidence before deciding that it can be dismissed.



And I think by comparing it to religions and other establishments, you are simply trying to stir the pot. It's one thing to believe in unfounded ideas - we all do to some extent or another - it's another thing how strongly one will stick to those ideas. I'm guessing your idea of religions and naziism involves preconceptions of zealotism, and I imagine you think the same way about UFO-believers, but there is no dirth of moderate UFO-believers out there, so your comparison is more inflammatory than it is substantive.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When it comes to UFOs (i.e. flying saucers), I think believing in this is even lower than religion, because - unlike religion - it's not something that's been imposed in your childhood, but a really bad decision you've made on your own based on no evidence.

Oh please, your view is completely distorted. One doesn't gain an interest in this because there is no evidence, in fact, it is just the opposite. Indeed, you are the one suffering from a religious bias.

Have you reviewed the UFO Napster in detail?

 

[DaveC426913]

Indeed, you are the one suffering from a religious bias.

That's kind of what I was trying to say.

Science is no harbour for the hateful, the intolerant or the derisive.

 

[Pythagorean]

is there any reason ball lightning couldn't explain "a flash of light" passing by?

 

[Pythagorean]

I tend to be skeptical of individual accounts myself, but the question of whether there's life out there can't be answered yet at all.

In my opinion, there is most likely life out there (heck, did you know http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/science/space/16obvacu.html" ?.

However, when it comes to "intelligent" life being out there, I'm not so sure...

...and then when we come to the question of whether it's visited Earth, I'm even more skeptical. But I also think it would be awesome, so I'm happy that there's people investigating it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Given that most scientists now recognize ball lightning as a genuine phenomenon, there is little doubt that some UFO reports are really ball lightning reports. Also, I tend to think that there may be other similar phenomena not yet recognized, that are mistaken for something else.

 

[Pythagorean]

Given that most scientists now recognize ball lightning as a genuine phenomenon, there is little doubt that some UFO reports are really ball lightning reports. Also, I tend to think that there may be other similar phenomena not yet recognized, that are mistaken for something else.

one of the common themes in lightning science (part of my research as an undergrad) was that we've only scratched the "tip of the iceberg" as far as cloud dynamics are concerned.

There are crazy things surrounding lightning like elfs, sprites, and blue jets:
http://elf.gi.alaska.edu/

It's a common research topic up here. I imagine there's a lot of neat light shows that could come out of the right conditions in a cloud.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't want to stray too far from the subject of O'Hare, but you may find this report interesting. It is the second case linked in the UFO Napster.
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/dep_ba1.pdf

I talked with Col Halt for about an hour, and he feels that what he saw was terrestrial, but unknown. He can't account for the claim by his subordinates of a craft on the ground. The acting security officer said that he touched it.

Still, I have often wondered if proximity to some phenomena like this can cause dramatic hallucinations. This might explain some perplexing reports.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I tend to be skeptical of individual accounts myself, but the question of whether there's life out there can't be answered yet at all.

In my opinion, there is most likely life out there (heck, did you know http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/science/space/16obvacu.html" ?.

However, when it comes to "intelligent" life being out there, I'm not so sure...

...and then when we come to the question of whether it's visited Earth, I'm even more skeptical. But I also think it would be awesome, so I'm happy that there's people investigating it.

If we could consider anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence, this would be a done deal. But no account can be taken as proof of anything. And I've never seen the evidence that would throw me over the cliff. Still, when you find millions of people yelling fire, it doesn't hurt to look for smoke.

Unless some visting ETs wish to make their presense generally known, I don't think this can ever be completely resolved. Of course, I could be wrong.

But we might find some interesting things along the way. For all of the compelling reports that exist, if there are no ETs, then it would seem that there are some fascinating phenomena yet to be identified and quantified by science.

 

[DaveC426913]

Unless some visting ETs wish to make their presense generally known, I don't think this can ever be completely resolved. Of course, I could be wrong.

But with all the near-misses to-date of these visiting ETs, one expects that merely time and chance will conspire against them and eventually result in an incident that is so public as to be virtually irrefutable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The person who established and runs the National UFO Reporting Center, Peter Davenport, was trying to create a passive Radio detection network that would act as a passive RADAR system. The idea being that many receivers detecting stray RF could be coordinated to track reported UFOs. But I don't know if he has made any progress on this.

 

[baywax]

But with all the near-misses to-date of these visiting ETs, one expects that merely time and chance will conspire against them and eventually result in an incident that is so public as to be virtually irrefutable.

This is what we could say about the Sasquatch, the Yeti, the Ogopogo and the Lock Ness Monster. These sightings and claims have been around longer than alien UFO claims and there are still no evidences other than the usual hoaxes, videos and snap shots.

 

[Pythagorean]

If we could consider anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence, this would be a done deal. But no account can be taken as proof of anything. And I've never seen the evidence that would throw me over the cliff. Still, when you find millions of people yelling fire, it doesn't hurt to look for smoke.

Unless some visting ETs wish to make their presense generally known, I don't think this can ever be completely resolved. Of course, I could be wrong.

But we might find some interesting things along the way. For all of the compelling reports that exist, if there are no ETs, then it would seem that there are some fascinating phenomena yet to be identified and quantified by science.

Well yes, if we could consider anecdotal evidence, we might look at all religion and the millions yelling fire there, too. I don't agree with Kasse that believing in UFO's is somehow "lower" than believing a religion. They're both hard to falsify at this point, but accepting religion would change a lot of different assertions about reality (depending on the particular religion) while accepting UFO's wouldn't change much at all in terms of physical reality.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well yes, if we could consider anecdotal evidence, we might look at all religion and the millions yelling fire there, too. I don't agree with Kasse that believing in UFO's is somehow "lower" than believing a religion. They're both hard to falsify at this point, but accepting religion would change a lot of different assertions about reality (depending on the particular religion) while accepting UFO's wouldn't change much at all in terms of physical reality.

Also, we don't find any reports of God encounters at the NSA. Even anecdotal evidence can be relatively weak, or strong.

Note that a few posts were merged onto this page from another thread. Threre may be a bit of discontinuity.

 

[baywax]

Well yes, if we could consider anecdotal evidence, we might look at all religion and the millions yelling fire there, too. I don't agree with Kasse that believing in UFO's is somehow "lower" than believing a religion. They're both hard to falsify at this point, but accepting religion would change a lot of different assertions about reality (depending on the particular religion) while accepting UFO's wouldn't change much at all in terms of physical reality.

Hi Py,

There's a huge difference between the UFO phenomenon and the religious phenomenon. Religion is probably the first form of government in the tribal situations that were taking place 40, 50, 100,000 years ago and earlier.

Book reference: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0810941821/?tag=pfamazon01-20
(Siting such sites as the Chauvet Cave in France)

The first "shaman" figured out when the moon would be "missing" or "full" and this supposed fortune telling gave the shaman the power to become the tribe leader by decree. This position was useful because one man or woman suddenly had the ear of the entire tribe. So, religion grew from there as a control mechanism... bringing about morals and customs that perhaps helped the community and most certainly helped to maintain the religion.

Today this phenomenon has diversified to a great degree and so have the claims, the sightings, the stigmata, the floating angels, faces on the toast and in the grease stain not to mention "miracles".

The UFO phenomenon began when humans could comprehend the fact that a structure could fly. There's no one really telling us what UFOs are doing here... there's plenty of them trying to on the net. You know, they channel them and write huge papers on what they're here for. They're like the first Shaman trying to cache-in on the people's ignorance of celestial mechanics, but in the case of UFOlogists, they're just guessing and they're saying anything that will make them seem important (OK, a bit like religion).

 

[CEL]

Also, we don't find any reports of God encounters at the NSA. Even anecdotal evidence can be relatively weak, or strong.

Well, God met personally with Noah and Moses. His messengers, the angels, appeared to the Virgin Mary, to Mohamed and to Joseph Smith.
Saints and the Virgin Mary are said to appear to several people.
So, there is anecdotal evidence for God, even if it is not so abundant as there is for UFOs.