On 2013-05-19 09:46, Dougini wrote:
Excellent point about reaching light speed. The biggest problem is, time moves at the speed of light. When you reach light speed, time stops altogether! Not a good way to travel. There's this "infinite density" thing as well, but I won't go into that.

I don't want to get all religious on you, but have you heard of The Watchers?

On 2013-05-19 20:43, Dannydoyle wrote:
Do you fully understand just how big our own galaxy actually is?

Certainly you do not mean to imply we have a planet full of advanced enough life to visit us without our knowing for all this time and we just haven't seen them yet?

On 2013-05-19 20:34, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I say they're from Uranus.

On 2013-05-19 20:51, Dannydoyle wrote:
Fantastic how that theory allows to disregard science as well.

On 2013-05-19 20:54, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-05-19 20:34, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I say they're from Uranus.

Ha, ha.

On 2013-05-19 20:49, Pakar Ilusi wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-05-19 20:43, Dannydoyle wrote:
Do you fully understand just how big our own galaxy actually is?

Certainly you do not mean to imply we have a planet full of advanced enough life to visit us without our knowing for all this time and we just haven't seen them yet?

But we wouldn't right?

If they're really really much more advanced than us, we wouldn't see them...

They'd have like cloaking devices and all that invisibility stuff...

Except for the few accidents.

That's the theory they always tell me.

On 2013-05-19 21:06, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-05-19 20:49, Pakar Ilusi wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-05-19 20:43, Dannydoyle wrote:
Do you fully understand just how big our own galaxy actually is?

Certainly you do not mean to imply we have a planet full of advanced enough life to visit us without our knowing for all this time and we just haven't seen them yet?

But we wouldn't right?

If they're really really much more advanced than us, we wouldn't see them...

They'd have like cloaking devices and all that invisibility stuff...

Except for the few accidents.

That's the theory they always tell me.

Suppose this was 50 years ago. And suppose we were flying over the deepest part of Africa which has yet to be explored. But there are people living there. Of course they are backward. Now lets suppose our plane develops engine problems or runs out of fuel because someone forgot to fill up because he was out partying the night before. Suppose we crash and the primitives find us and our downed plane. Wow. Suppose some of us survive for a while with these natives and we show them our neat stuff. Such as a cigarette lighter or even a book or matches. Lets get crazy we show them a gun. Again WOW. Or suppose we all are killed and they find these things. WOW.

Do you see my point? Accidents happen all the time no matter how advanced some one is or how much they take care. That is why they are called accidents.

On 2013-05-19 21:03, mastermindreader wrote:
Some insight into the nature of photographs like this:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/artifacts.html

On 2013-05-20 00:10, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-05-19 21:03, mastermindreader wrote:
Some insight into the nature of photographs like this:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/artifacts.html

If you keep this up, you're going to forfeit your new Bobini name.

On 2013-05-20 00:31, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-05-20 00:10, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-05-19 21:03, mastermindreader wrote:
Some insight into the nature of photographs like this:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/artifacts.html

If you keep this up, you're going to forfeit your new Bobini name.

One of the most amusing ironies I've found is that many of the same folks who originally promoted the curious notion that the Apollo moon landings were all faked are the same ones who are now using photos and evidence gained from those missions as "proof" that aliens once were on the moon.

On 2013-05-19 20:24, acesover wrote:
I am just wondering here and perhaps I missed something. But why do these life forms we are talking about have to be from another galaxy? I mean why can't they be a lot closer? Like right here in our own galaxy. They can still be very hard to find and if they are so clever. I am sure they can hide from us and maybe screw up sometimes and show themselves accidently (Roswell etc.). They don't have to come from another galaxy. Therefore making the time distance thing moot. Cripes we are still finding planets in our own galaxy. Just saying that these life forms we are talking about cold be much closer than the distances we are discussing. Are we even sue there is no life on any of the planets that we know of for a long time, like Venus or Neptune or Saturn to name a few?

It really does not make any difference how close the nearest star is from our sun. Does it? I mean if so why?

On 2013-05-19 21:03, mastermindreader wrote:
Some insight into the nature of photographs like this:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/artifacts.html

On 2013-05-20 06:45, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-05-19 20:24, acesover wrote:
I am just wondering here and perhaps I missed something. But why do these life forms we are talking about have to be from another galaxy? I mean why can't they be a lot closer? Like right here in our own galaxy. They can still be very hard to find and if they are so clever. I am sure they can hide from us and maybe screw up sometimes and show themselves accidently (Roswell etc.). They don't have to come from another galaxy. Therefore making the time distance thing moot. Cripes we are still finding planets in our own galaxy. Just saying that these life forms we are talking about cold be much closer than the distances we are discussing. Are we even sue there is no life on any of the planets that we know of for a long time, like Venus or Neptune or Saturn to name a few?

It really does not make any difference how close the nearest star is from our sun. Does it? I mean if so why?

As I stated earlier, the CLOSEST star to our Sun (in our own galaxy) is 4.2 light years away (about 25 trillion miles). We are located on the outskirts of the Milky Way and our radio transmissions have only propagated to less than one one-HUNDREDTH of the way to the center of the galaxy. So any intelligent civilizations that are out there must then be 1) monitoring their skies for signs of technology, and 2) must be located inside the very small slice of the galaxy within the radius of our transmissions. And given that those 2 conditions have been met, then they must 3) care enough (and have the ability) to mount a massive time and energy consuming mission to our little corner of the galaxy.

As far as our own Solar system, it's highly unlikely that advanced life forms exist outside of Earth. It seems there are only 2 planets in our solar system which would be conducive to advanced life - Earth and maybe Mars. We've studied Mars exhaustively, and we're still trying to determine if there is intelligent life on Earth. The other planets are either too gaseous, too cold, too hot, too susceptible to harmful radiation, etc.

The "hiding" thing I never understood. Why would they have to hide? UFO proponents use that rational in order to explain why there is no good evidence for UFOS. "Why, they're hiding of course!" Sorry, that's a cop out. And besides, there is 1 group of people who are constantly monitoring the skies. They are professionals and they have instruments to help them - they don't rely on eyewitness accounts. They are all the astronomers in the world! And why is it that THEY don't report UFOs?? That's because they know what they're looking at! The UFO reports mainly come from laymen who mistake weather balloons, meteors, aircraft, anomalous clouds, low orbit satellites, Venus, or something else for UFOs. Not to mention the few who actually perpetrate hoaxes.


Ron