Pentagon reports alien mothership may exist

Post Reply New Topic

I have to simplify things for you to understand.

So where does the gang-stalking become a problem for you to accept?

Ppl DO gang up on individuals.
They CAN organise this harassment.

Are we good, so far?

ok...I guess I better put my alien stories on ice for now

I'll stop if HE does.

NOW you got me started! I could write volumes on the topic. Will try not to go into an aspie monologue, and reign it in.
There are other possibilities. Aliens might have landed, looked around, and then left without doing anything, eons ago.

Option A is possible, option B is the most likely to be true IMHO, but only option E can be discounted. Option E is two kinds of stupid. It makes no sense, and its also inane and doesnt explain anything. Why would aliens land here, do an expensive remodel of the planet, make it ready for House Beautiful, and then just leave it...for the benefit of a bunch of vagrant strangers (us) who arent gonna evolve for another several billion years? And its kind of inane because it just pushes back the origin of life (it didnt start here, it was deliberately planted here by aliens...so how did life start on the planet of the aliens? Planted by other earlier aliens? And so on.).

Scientists arent really being "arrogant" with option B. Just being conservative. They have to go by the evidence, and the lack thereof. And your type of objection to it also involves a type of human-centered "arrogance" because you assume that life = humanlike. If you study biology you realize that you have to think bottom up:life=bacteria, and not top-down (life equals humanlike). Bacteria were the first organisms on this planet, were the only organisms on this planet for a couple billion years, and bacteria still run the planet by regulating its air, water, and soil. So even if we find exoplanets with life we will find that 99 percent of those are still at the bacteria-only stage, and dont even have ameobas, much less jellyfish, much less something equivalent to humans.

Well...Ill stop monologuing right now.

I just want to address your flexibility for option a)

There is a theory that earth like planets formed very late in the history of the known universe. Within that window period evolution of higher life forms is very rare due to the instability of celestial bodies (there is some truth to this, the fact earth has a habitable atmosphere is partly due to sheer luck in addition to being in the goldilocks zone) that other life forms in the universe are as you say, still in the bacterial soup with a few reaching our level but like us yet able to traverse the distances of space and their radio signals too weak to be detected yet

The problem with this theory is the earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion max. but the universe is 14-15 billion years old
This means it's quite possible for earth like planets to have developed 10 billion years before earth,

Now 10 billion years is an awfully long time. The idea we can be so sure that with that really really long period of time that is beyond our little brain's capacity to appreciate, that no higher life form evolved and by sheer luck only earth produced us 14.5 billion years later is utter arrogance.

Simply just one advanced life-form evolved even several thousand years (not even billions or millions) before earth then surely they would have evolved the technology to bend time and travel through worm holes.

It's more likely the universe is teaming with life like a rainforest. I haven't counted the existence of multiverse where other life forms can pop into ours through gateways or advanced humans time travelling to our time.

The number of stars x age of the universe simple makes us being the only advanced life forms quite incredulous

Looks like I spoke too soon
https://www.news.com.au/technology/scie ... 5310e40922

Them alien critters got two-way radio

The problem with this theory is the earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion max. but the universe is 14-15 billion years old
This means it's quite possible for earth like planets to have developed 10 billion years before earth,
====================================================================
^
This is what have been trying to explain to you many times.

This Universe (is not thought to have) worked that way! There were no "ten billion year old earths" when our earth formed 4.5 billion years ago.

When the Universe formed 14 billion years ago only the first two elements existed on the Periodic Table:hydrogen and helium. Nothing but helium and hyrdrogen. You can make great functioning stars out of that, but you cannot make anything else. You cant make life, and you cant even make a surface for life to stand on...because you cant make planets.

So the universe had its first generation of stars, and these fell into galaxies. But thats all that existed. Stars and galaxies. It took millions and billions of years of nuclear fusion in the cores of stars to fuse the small light hydrogen and helium atoms into the bigger and heavier atoms farther down the PT (like lithium, oxygen, carbon, and iron). And then when the first generation of stars would die of old age some would explode and supernova and that sudden violence would force the creation of the more rare super heavy metals at the bottom of the table (like stuff heavier than iron like gold, and uranium).

It took several generations of stars living and dying and cooking atoms in their cores, and blowing up, to dirty up the universe with stuff other than hydrogen and helium.

So it was billions of years before you could even have planets, much less even the possibility of building carbon based life forms to live on said planets. It wasnt until...our own sun's "highschool graduating class" of stars were born that you could even have exoplanets at all.

So no...there probably are no "fifteen billion year old earths".

There might be a solar system that ...coalesced out of the cosmic dust one tenth of one percent sooner than ours. Basically our Sun's age but just one one thousandth older. Which means that its "earthlike planet" got a head start on ours 40 million years sooner than ours did so... in theory ...any humanlike beings that would have evolved on it would now be...forty million years ahead of us in technology today (if said creatures could survive that long).

But no...not ten billion years ahead of us. The Universe just didnt evolve in a way that would allow that.

The margins for when earth like planets emerged are based on theory (simple fact, we weren't around to confirm any number we come up with). As I said even if it was several thousand years (not even millions/billions) then its easily plausible for an advanced life form to emerge and traverse the distance to reach us from a distant (light years) from our solar system.

The margin you have conservatively proposed (40 million years) must also be multiplied by the number of earth like planets in the known universe which still gives an extraordinary probability that a life form emerged.

But yes, even if the Fermi paradox holds, there is still the multiverse. A lot of UFO observers claim objects appear to phases/in and out and vanish into holes in the sky. This could be postulated to be worm holes to other galaxies/solar system or even other dimensions.

Yes, conventional science is conservative. The apply the scientific method - come up with multiple explanations (like I have) and then choose the simplest explanation (occam's razor). The problem with using occams razor in this way is that conventional science settles on fairly lame "simple" explanations
Planet venus/stars
drones
satellites
aeroplanes
ball lightning
birds
swamp gas
Quite clearly the objects being filmed and observed have intelligent control. They also break the laws of physics which therefore means you can't simply say (for example) it's a weather balloon being pushed by the wind.

As former project Blue Book scientist Alan Hynek realised, the explanations being put forward are themselves unable to reconcile the complexity of what are being observed. That in itself is unscientific. Not looking at the data and coming to a conclusion is called a "conclusion fallacy"