Former astronaut: Man not alone in universe

Murdoughnut said:
I think most people would probably agree that we're not alone in the universe.
Click to expand...

I would probably disagree with that. The more I think about it, the more I think that the likelihood of any sort of humanoid life existing elsewhere in the universe is incredibly remote. Consider just how tenuous our existence really is on this planet. The slightest change of the distance to the sun, the size of the star, the composition of the atmosphere, the size of the planetoid, etc... completely eliminates the possibility of life existing. Several books have been written on the subject, going into great detail on the mathematical unlikeliness of humanoid life existing elsewhere in the universe.

Snoopy2 said:
Ask any military folk with high end security clearance who've served at Wright-Patterson in Ohio or McDill in Tampa about recovered alien aircraft and preserved alien bodies.
The US government doesn't come clean because the US government is trying to figure out the technology before anyone else does.
Much easier said than done!! It's a task comparable to handing the founding fathers a computer and having them with their 1700's knowledge trying to figure out how it works.
How other worldly technology functions is THE mystery and it's what some of our brightest scientific minds have been trying to figure out for decades. Only a closed minded fool would deny the overwhelming evidence of ongoing extra-terrestrial visitation to this planet.
Btw, Mitchell is not alone within the astronaut corp with his belief about extra-terrestrials. He's just the most outspoken about it.
Click to expand...

This is a joke, right? You expect me to believe that with all of the people that work every day at Wright-Pat and McDill that they've still managed to hide the "spacecraft" and "alien bodies?" Give me a break. Guys in the military are bigger blabber-mouths than air line pilots. That secret would have been kept for all of about 30 seconds. :rolleyes:

BajtheJino said:
Yeah, you and Arlen Specter.
Click to expand...

And me.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I would probably disagree with that. The more I think about it, the more I think that the likelihood of any sort of humanoid life existing elsewhere in the universe is incredibly remote. Consider just how tenuous our existence really is on this planet. The slightest change of the distance to the sun, the size of the star, the composition of the atmosphere, the size of the planetoid, etc... completely eliminates the possibility of life existing. Several books have been written on the subject, going into great detail on the mathematical unlikeliness of humanoid life existing elsewhere in the universe.
.
Click to expand...

No one is limiting life to only "Humanoid", and no one is saying life exists "everywhere" in the universe.

ATN_Pilot said:
The slightest change of the distance to the sun, the size of the star, the composition of the atmosphere, the size of the planetoid, etc... completely eliminates the possibility of life existing. Several books have been written on the subject, going into great detail on the mathematical unlikeliness of humanoid life existing elsewhere in the universe.
.
Click to expand...

Unlikely is VERY far from impossible.
 
Well, it turns out that a major factor that allowed for the development of advanced life on Earth appears to be the single large moon. Large enough to keep the core molten, with a lot of iron in the planet, giving us a shield from most (but not all) radiation, which allows for just enough radiation to get the mutations required for evolution, but not so much that it kills the higher life forms.

Hard to find that on too many planets that have the rest of the required attributes. Put me on the "extremely improbable" scale, but would love to be proved wrong!
 
seagull said:
Hard to find that on too many planets that have the rest of the required attributes. Put me on the "extremely improbable" scale, but would love to be proved wrong!
Click to expand...
Agreed, however you have to think about this question on the right scale. Example....Lets just say 10% of whatever. out of 10 that's just one. out of a thousand that's 100! What's 10% of a billion? What's 10% of billionS? So depending on the scale "extremely improbable" could be in the range of millions, billions or more! All about scale. "ROUGH" estimates place around 100 billion stars in our galaxy.

Who says lightspeed can't be exceeded? Oh that's right...a man who lived several decades before men ever even went into space. Am I saying Albert was wrong? No, i'm just saying for a man saying something so definitive, his knowledge on the Universe is FAR from total. To assume relativity is an absolute is arrogant to the extreme...Only a Sith deals in absolutes (nerd reference on purpose). Look to history. We were certain the universe was geocentric, that the earth was flat, women can't play sports, and as a pilot we would make hundreds of thousands of dollars. How many of those were proven wrong?

I guess the only real points I have is that

1. it's very arrogant to assume we know everything about the universe and that our "laws" can't be wrong or limited, and

2. Dealing with a galactic scale or bigger, improbable is still a very big number. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
 
poser765 said:
Who says lightspeed can't be exceeded? Oh that's right...a man who lived several decades before men ever even went into space.
Click to expand...

I know you aren't throwing the old man Albert under the bus, but be aware that his ideas have been corroborated by thousands of high precision experiments in space, airplanes, and particle accelerators. The fact that GPS has the current precision is thanks to the understanding we gained from old Albert. I think this is a testament to the genius of this man.

However, I agree that we have to keep an open mind and not deal with absolutes. As far as experiment is concerned, old Albert rules but who knows if we'll uncover some odd stuff in the future.
 
tgrayson said:
Relativity isn't assumed, it's one of the most demonstrated principles in all of science.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's wrong, just that there exists a chance that it is incomplete. Perhaps i shouldn't have mentioned relativity but was thinking about Einstein and that's what i wrote. Anyway...the point still stands.

It may be demonstratable, but it does have holes. Further are we advacned enough to assure that there are not instances where it can't be demonstrated ? To say yes would be akin to saying you know exactly the intent without question of every regulation in 14 CFR.
 
charlie1017 said:
I know you aren't throwing the old man Albert under the bus, but be aware that his ideas have been corroborated by thousands of high precision experiments in space, airplanes, and particle accelerators. The fact that GPS has the current precision is thanks to the understanding we gained from old Albert. I think this is a testament to the genius of this man.

However, I agree that we have to keep an open mind and not deal with absolutes. As far as experiment is concerned, old Albert rules but who knows if we'll uncover some odd stuff in the future.
Click to expand...
Your second paragraph is exactly what i was trying to say. Not trying to through him under the bus. Just trying to explain that he did not know every secret of the universe. His ideas are believed to be correct based on what can prove know and what we know to be true. But just like him, we don't know everything.
 
poser765 said:
Further are we advacned enough to assure that there are not instances where it can't be demonstrated ?
Click to expand...

You'll be surprised that the answer right now is no. Any advances into getting beyond Einstein's ideas are advancing in a purely theoretical front right now. It'll be a loooong time before humans can experimentally probe the universe to test alternative theories...
 
charlie1017 said:
You'll be surprised that the answer right now is no. Any advances into getting beyond Einstein's ideas are advancing in a purely theoretical front right now. It'll be a loooong time before humans can experimentally probe the universe to test alternative theories...
Click to expand...
Just like the answer 15 years ago was yes you can make $250,000 as an airline pilot. more of a rhetorical question probing the "philosophical" nature of knowledge than the technical.

Again I think we are saying the same thing.
 
poser765 said:
Perhaps i shouldn't have mentioned relativity
Click to expand...

No, you shouldn't have mentioned "assumed", because it suggests a misunderstanding of the scientific process.

I also hope we will find a way around this apparent limitation, because I grew up watching Star Trek every day.
 
tgrayson said:
No, you shouldn't have mentioned "assumed", because it suggests a misunderstanding of the scientific process.

I also hope we will find a way around this apparent limitation, because I grew up watching Star Trek every day.
Click to expand...
Negative. Taken in context the word is not questioning the scientific process as I understand it. I Admit, I am not a scientist thus my post

more of a rhetorical question probing the "philosophical" nature of knowledge than the technical.
Click to expand...

To assume we know all there is to know about any subject, however limited or exposed we may be, is in fact arrogance.
 
tgrayson said:
I also hope we will find a way around this apparent limitation, because I grew up watching Star Trek every day.
Click to expand...

If humans manage to survive long enough, we'll probably come up with some way. A lot of things aren't understood about mixing quantum mechanics and relativity so who knows!
 
:yeahthat: applies to little green men as well.

For the record, star trek was by far better than star wars.

FLAME ON!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top