Jump to content

Home

The Pseudoscience of UFOs

Windu Chi

By Windu Chi
in Senate Chambers

Recommended Posts

Nancy Allen`` Newbie

Nancy Allen``

Posted
Posted

Exactly. That is not to deny the existence of aliens, but with all that technology would such an advanced race be captured by someone who considers ways to kill people the height of our advancement and the ship thje came here was lost by the others of their species?

 

Then again, we could be seen from what this alien race has seen that we are too primitive yet to have anything to do with them, or we are too dangerous and warlike or something, if you believe that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Windu Chi Newbie

Windu Chi

Posted
  • Author
Posted
From the nutters that told us Noah's Ark was found last month, comes the news that UFOs are related to the Gospel of Christ. What a sad bunch.

 

Drake Equation, eh?

 

Most theoretical speculations about the existence of extraterrestrial life begins with the Drake Equation and the Principle of Mediocrity. The latter states, simply, that we are not special and, not being special, life such as ours must exist elsewhere in the universe.

 

The Drake Equation, however, is more complicated. Nearly every fundamentalist UFOist (the hardcore UFO proponent that pushes his beliefs in extraterrestrials with a religious fervor, ignoring prosaic explanations for even the most spurious UFO events and accepting with blind faith the testimony of fellow believers) uses the Drake Equation in his argument. (I've used the masculine pronoun in my description of UFO proponents twice in this paragraph because they are almost always male). Even middle ground UFO believers and skeptics refer to this equation as evidence of the probable existence of life in other parts of the universe.

 

But what doesn't get discussed is the fact that there are varied opinions as to the final outcome of the equation!

 

Let's start with the equation itself:

 

drake.jpg

 

R* = the rate at which stars are formed in our galaxy per year

 

fp = the fraction of stars, once formed, that will have a planetary system

 

ne = the number of planets in each planetary system that will have an environment suitable for life

 

fl = the probability that life will develop on a suitable planet

 

fi = the probability that life will evolve to an intelligent state

 

fc = the probability that intelligent life will develop a culture capable of communication over interstellar distances

 

L= the time (in years) that such a culture will spend actually trying to communicate.

 

Drake himself viewed N as a moderate number: not too large; not too small. His argument was that communication might be possible for a moderate number of civilizations, but they would find colonization and travel expensive endeavors. Regardless of another planet's version of economic means, materials and resources would have to be expended to create ships/technology/energy to move from one place to the next.

 

But what the Drake Equation doesn't cover is travel to other worlds. L[/b], as noted above, refers to the time a capable civilization will spend trying to communicate. Wouldn't actually traveling to another planet of another solar system of, potentially, another galaxy be a whole different equation?

 

I have some other thoughts of the Drake Equation itself, but I'll hold off for now. This just struck me as an interesting topic since it has come up several times in several threads of late.

 

In fact, it might be interesting to discuss each of the factors of the Equation itself in a thread such as this. "The probability that life will develop" at all on a suitable planet is an interesting topic. What about the probability that a given culture of reasonable intelligence might endure the same fallible nature as humanity: competition among each other for prestige, power, etc. that leads to war? This, after all, would be an intuitive characteristic of natural selection/survival of the fittest. What about natural disasters such as volcanoes, asteroid impacts, and disease? Why wouldn't this need to be a subfactor for fi or fc?

 

In the Drake Equation, R* is often considered to be the best understood or easiest to deal with, since we have some solid data regarding the formation of new stars in the universe, how the coalesce from intergalactic clouds of hydrogen, helium, methane, ammonia, dust grains, etc.

 

We also know that only a fraction of these stars will be suitable for providing habitat for intelligent life or, in many cases, any life. The environment of the star itself has to be conducive for forming planets, these planets need to be within certain parameters of temperature and need to be in existence long enough to allow life to evolve, etc.

 

Life is certainly possible, even probable, in extreme environments, but conditions would need to have qualities of stability in order to allow intelligent life to evolve.

 

Current theories are that stars that have 1.4 times our own Sun's solar mass or more have a life cycle that is too short to produce viable planets. There is also an age qualification for stars, the older ones would have difficulty producing planets because of the lack of heavy metals produced in supernovae. These only eliminate about 1% of the stars from the equation to this point, but other factors have to be considered as well.

 

The proliferation of binary systems of stars eliminates more of the total due to continually shifting gravitational stresses, extreme temperature shifts, etc. that interfere with a stable planetary system forming. When we look at the Earth, the stability of the orbit, and the delicate nature of the zone we live it is unique. Otherwise we would note proliferations of life on other Solar worlds (not that it doesn't exist, but remember we're talking about civilizations not simply microbes). Apparently, at least half of the stars that aren't too old or too big belong to binary systems.

 

After including this as well as other factors, like stars that are too small, reside in regions of their galaxy that are deleterious to life -such as near the galactic core, and then R* goes from about 10 stars per year to much, much less. Shklovskii and Sagan (1966) estimated a rate of 10 stars per year, but Rood and Trefil came up with rates between 0.15 per year in the high range, and 0.005 per year in the low range -depending on what criteria was adhered to.

 

The vast majority of stars in the universe present very inhospitable environments to organisms if they have planets at all.

 

References:

 

Dole, S. (1970) Computer Simulation of the Formation of Planetary Systems. Icarus. Vol. 13, pp 494-508.

Hart, M. (1979). Habitable Zones About Main Sequence Stars. Icarus. Vol. 37, pp 351-357.

Rood, R., and Trefil, J. (1981). Are We Alone? The Possibility Of Extraterrestrial Civilizations. New York: Schribner's.

Shklovskii, J., and Sagan, C. (1966). Intelligent Life in the Universe. San Francisco: Holden-Day

 

That Drake Equation that scientist refer to for the number of possible alien civilizations, is so wrong that it is laughable.

 

The the correct possible equation will be a nonlinear differential equation with boundry conditions, because the dynamics of the galaxy is nonlinear.

 

A differential equation is require because the physical proceses of the galaxy is constantly changing and evolving.

 

Also nonlinear because the number of civilizations that have been around since the Milky Way's formation have probably have been increasing decreasing chaoticly.

 

The boundry conditions are require because duh; the galaxy size is finite ,the physical proceses are bound and the physical characteristics are finite.

 

The possible variables and physical aspects will be:the density matter in the galaxy,the number of possible chemical elements in the galaxy that we precevie as the possible markers for the formation of life or IT(intelligent life) life which is flaw logic since we have't even been no damn where in this galaxy to have unbias proof of what chemical compounds can form any kind

(not just including our definition of life) life anywhere in this supposed close universe.

 

Of course the rest of the variables to that pitiful Drake Equation will also be included.

 

I said unbias because we have gotten our knowlege the chemistry of life only form the planet Earth which is bias to the rest of the

galaxy at large.

 

The physical aspects will be the complicated dynamics of the galatic system, the number of blackholes, novas and other catastrophes that have occur since the Milky Way's formation; once again we can't possibly know that important data since we have't been no damn where yet.

 

So with all that said, the possible correct civilization equation can be form but

the values to variables will be missing and finish structure to the formula will remain incomplete until we get off of our scare, stupid, lazy asses and explore the rest of this galaxy.

 

Also not just keep on exploring the solar system that have not even finish yet ,which is ridicalous and pitiful.

 

So to every scientist out there who think that they know every f**king thing, remember that they have not even been no damn where in this galaxy to even have the confidence and with they having arrogance to form an equation that they can't even trust in the structure of or the quantity of variables.

 

Also another note I will like add to further ridicule the Drake Equation.

 

Why do the scientist at the SETI insitute keep believing that all possible extraterrestrials in the galaxy can only communicate with slow ass radio signals? That is bound by the speed of light.

 

I believe the answer to that question will be.

 

That by they having their arrogance (thinking they know every damn thing) to accept the fact that since physictists on this planet can't send signals faster then light then the rest of the galaxy is stupid as us.

 

So they got to used radio dishes to communicate like people at SETI desperately try to do.

 

So if we can't crack problems in physics then the rest of the galaxy must fail too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Windu Chi Newbie

Windu Chi

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Paragraphs, friend. Paragraphs;).

 

 

 

 

Technically, these creatures, despite looking like particularly undernourished humans and building flying space-ships that look very Earthly (I mean, look at those photographies, they look very human despite their alien shape), might have a totally different mentality than us, and thus is folly to us makes perfect sense to them.

 

But, of course, I'd assume that they'd make use of some sort of logic like we do.

 

 

(;))

How the hell do we on Earth know what aliens suppose to look like. They may look similar to human but that don't mean they evolve on Earth.

You are being bias, Dagobahn Eagle.

If you believe that?

Stop believing that bulls**t biologists tell people.

They don't know! Their knowlege of biology is bound to Earth.

They are being bias with their arrogance.

Those biologists think they know all the possible combinations of life can :disaprove

evolve into in the Milky Way and rest of the universe.

By observing life here!

But they won't know nothing like that, until they explore the Milky Way or the rest the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ray Jones Newbie

Ray Jones

Posted
Posted

Sometimes SkinWalker splits up a thread where people started to argue about different topics for no appearent reason, so it'll be easier to follow for everyone. But usually he makes a notice so people don't get confused.

 

Hm.. this time he didn't. Is SkinWalker already a puppet of the alien alliance which is against the other alien alliance which is trying to take over the moon's dark side to hide from us? Is it save to talk openly in the Chambers? Is that my brain coming out of my nose? I that because of that purple ray of light going into my ear? -- Oh, nevermind, I think I just ejaculated. But why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dagobahn Eagle Newbie

Dagobahn Eagle

Posted
Posted
How the hell do we on Earth know what aliens suppose to look like.
I know what they're not supposed to look like.

 

Come on, how likely is it that something that's evolved totally independently from humans can look so similar to us?

 

They may look similar to human but that don't mean they evolve on Earth.
Look at how different humans are from many other creatures on Earth. So not only will they have to be from the same planet, they'll also have to have miracoulously followed just about the just about identical evolutionary path, from generation to generation.

 

If I was the one inventing the Grays, I'd make them look like aliens, not anorexic humans after a bath in silver paint and a round with the Opti-Wonder Eye Enlarger 2000™.

 

Stop believing that bulls**t biologists tell people.

What, that such coincidences are not likely?

 

Those biologists think they know all the possible combinations of life can evolve into in the Milkyway and rest of the universe.
Please quote a biologist saying so.

 

No, I did'nt make this thread.

Some how somebody made it seem that I did.

Moderators here often make posts into their own threads if they believe the posts have the potential to start a good discussion on their own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Writer Newbie

Writer

Posted
Posted
No, I did'nt make this thread.

Some how somebody made it seem that I did.

I don't know how they did it.

But I am going to keep an open mind about the topic.

You have you opinions, I have mine.

Concerning the topic of UFOs!

 

 

 

I find it interesting how you put forward your opinion which you claim to have taught yourself. Then, when others tear your opinion apart with logic, you go into a frantic rage, spouting information that sometimes doesn't have anything to do with the original topic. You repeatedly call us skeptics (which I don't mind terribly anymore as your opinion holds no worth to me). And finally, you say you won't bother with the thread any longer...

 

 

... and yet you always come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Windu Chi Newbie

Windu Chi

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Which is what prompted me to refer to him as 'pulling an Atris', as the Sith Lords character does much the same thing. :queen
I am not being two-faced.

I did'nt create this thread,

If no one believe me then,

that is the end of it.

I came back to the thread because I am going to keep an open mind concerning

UFOs.

I have my doubt sometimes, but I am not going to give up on my belief.

The world's goverments are lying their asses off about UFOs, that's my opinion.

Ok!

When I was calling people skeptics, I was wrong.

I was not being fair to everybody who have their opinions on the topic.

I was being influence by my angry emotions.

But when I was calling people skeptics I refering to those in the world in general not the ones on the fourm.

If no one, that I have offended don't accept my reasons then, forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Writer Newbie

Writer

Posted
Posted

That is what you were doing.

 

I don't care about your intentions; I care about your words. Despite any intentions you may have, your words make you appear two-faced and easily set off into a rage.

 

And it's your words that people react to. We can't see your intentions, so when it looks like you're flying off and screaming about us being skeptics, that's exactly how we take it. We can't possibly know your intentions, so stop assuming we can and try to choose your words more carefully...

 

 

... unless of course you wrote exactly what you meant to say. Then, everything I inferred was true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...