Dozens in Texas report seeing UFO

[VoteLynnSwan]

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Actually you're completely wrong. Read some books on it. The probability will tell you that it is basically next to impossible for life to exist. Which is what makes Earth so unique. For life to form a Perfectly capable planet of supporting life(not too many of those) needs to form within the perfect distance from a perfect star for the perfect time frame of billions of years. Not to mention it would have had to happened in the minisclue time humans have been prosperious on earth as well. Is it possible with all the stars in the universe? Meh, perhaps? But very, very, rare and unllikely.

I suggest that you read some different books... because no matter how minuscule the chances of life on earth forming, those odds are far outweighed by the number of planets in the universe. "not unique" means that there is somewhere one other planet that has a similar environment, and liquid water. It doesn't have to me more than one for Earth to be "not unique".

[7-11]

Fourteen percent of Americans polled last year by The Associated Press and Ipsos say they have seen a UFO.

Well that's not a glowing endorsement for your country.

[VoteLynnSwan]

Originally Posted by 7-11

Well that's not a glowing endorsement for your country.

a UFO is a "unidentified flying object" nowhere in that description does it say that it has to be alien in nature.

[7-11]

Originally Posted by VoteLynnSwan

a UFO is a "unidentified flying object" nowhere in that description does it say that it has to be alien in nature.

Do you honestly believe these same people that are claiming that they saw this thing realise that when the term 'UFO' is used? I for one, can't really imagine it.

[VoteLynnSwan]

Originally Posted by 7-11

Do you honestly believe these same people that are claiming that they saw this thing realise that when the term 'UFO' is used? I for one, can't really imagine it.

no obviously not, but it doesn't really matter what people think they saw, it matters what they actually saw.

[7-11]

Originally Posted by VoteLynnSwan

no obviously not, but it doesn't really matter what people think they saw, it matters what they actually saw.

Yeah that's what i'm finding so funny about that statistic they brought up, no way in the world did any more then 1% of that 14% see anything that was anymore than a airliner or a frisbee

[WinslowBodden]

Jar Jar Binks is real so yes.

[Bills2083]

delete this post.

[The Unseen]

Originally Posted by someone447

We can go back to our own country. We at least have the one Congressman who is trying to preserve our rights.

[someone447]

Originally Posted by The Unseen

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

He is kinda a goofy looking guy though. But he is quite grandfatherly.

[someone447]

Originally Posted by 757Dawg

....excuse me?

People just don't seem to understand (and appreciate) just how unique the Earth really is.

If we're just a little closer to the sun, we're a barren, sun-charred rock. If we're a little further away from the sun, we're a frozen wasteland.

And that's just scratching the surface. There's so many physical attributes pertaining to the Earth that make life as hospitable as it is. Atmosphere, magnetosphere, etc...........

Don't act like a world like ours is automatically somewhere out there just because "probability" says so.

The fact is, this planet is very unique; whether you believe in a "creator" or subscribe strictly to "science." Even if you believe the latter, take under consideration just how immense the odds are for Earth to have developed exactly how it is. Everything had to be perfect.

It is incredibly narcissistic to think we are the only intelligent life in the universe. That our knowledge of how life formed is the only possible way. For many, many years people didn't believe things could live on the bottom of the ocean. We now know that it is possible.

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Also, whoever said the universe is infinit could potentally be incorrect, many astronomers now claim to have foudn "the end" or "the source" of the universe... How this is pssible is beyond my cerebral capacity, but who knows? Either way I think the best advice would be don't believe evrything you read.

I said the universe is essentially infinite. By that I meant that the sheer size is incomprehensible to a human mind.

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by njx9

that's utterly 100% wrong. life could potentially exist on one of jupiter's moons underneath an ice layer. non-carbon based life could have completely different and divergent needs than the carbon-based life we know here. it's utterly idiotic to believe that a) life is what we see here only or b) that the "perfect situation" on earth is even remotely unique.


.

Is some arco bacteria bacteria on Jupiter's moon suddenly flying over the Texas panhandle these days? Come on, you know exactly what I meant.

Intelligent life, which would construct these "UFO's." It's been proven that life forms of some sort have existed, most meteorites that fall to earth contain some organic compounds.( see asteroid discovered in Antarctica which contained bacteria recently). However, the transformation from unintelligent life to something capable of traveling billions of miles at the speed of light is the difficult step to achieve.
Could non carbons based life forms exists, most likely not.. Carbon is too unique because it's the only element because it is the basis of organic compounds and it's ability to self-duplicate is so exclusive to itself. Also, carbon is abundant in the universe because it is produced by stars along with nitrogen and oxygen which will likely lead toward formation of life comming through Carbon.( key for life similar to on Earth) Other elements are capable of forming bonds which could potentially lead to " life". However, none of them contain the molecular variety that Carbon does, which makes it capable of supporting life, again unique to earth like " lifeforms. If life DOES exist anywhere else, it's likely based on Carbon.

Now we can move on to what is necessarily for Carbon lifeforms.

To flourish, even simple life needs liquid water, and this limits it to
planets in the habitable zone: far enough from a star not to be boiling, but
close enough not to be freezing. And to get complex life - anything more
intricate than a flatworm - it seems that you need, first of all, a decent
atmosphere.
On earth, it took over three billion years for our atmosphere to come to fruition. What leads to creation of a atmosphere capable of supporting more than single cell organisms? Nearly everything from Stars Billions of miles away to the plate tectonics of that certain planet. Alright, so there we go an atmosphere alone is difficult enough to obtain for life, let's move on.
For a planet to support life it needs to be stable and absolutely regular over a huge huge amount of time, which could consist of avoiding objects in space.... Here on earth we have Jupiter's gravity and it's regular orbit to shield us from such asteroids and such. Most, solar systems lack a planet like Jupiter with a consistent orbit and size to shield it. Without these shield it COULD be possible for something to strike which could disrupt this process

More... The size of the planet to sustain life.... Earth's size in incredibly unique as well... If the Earth were any smaller it would lack an adequate magnetic field and the suns solar wind would blow away our atmosphere, no atmosphere to support life. If it were any larger the increased magnetic field would lead to a thick atmosphere full of methane and CO2. Either way the mass of the planet shifts , life is again, ******.

The whole distance argument is valid to a degree, but you also have to keep in mind that that planet has to have a regular orbit within that certain distance of a certain size star for a certain period of that stars life. Also, that planet must be within that certain distance of that certain star for BILLIONS OF years while life will develop.

combine all of these factors which earths distance from the sun, orbit, time frame of creation, our sun, and many other factors and you have to reach the conclusion that carbon life has only minute chance.

However, there scientists say are over a billion galaxies in the universe which are capable of perhaps containing a planet like Earth, so no one can know positively, obviously. I was just refuting the point that possibility "indicates" that there are many other planets like Earth in the universe. Everything is based on theory at this point, it's all speculation with a certain degree of current science mixed about, but either way the percentage is not favorable for other intelligent life. Certainly I am no astrophysicist, in fact I'm limited to what scientists say is true. But based on current evidence it's idiotic to imply that the possibility is favorable.

[Patriots16-0]

Originally Posted by WinslowBodden

Jar Jar Binks is real so yes.

No, Ronaldinho is not an alien.

[someone447]

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Is some arco bacteria bacteria on Jupiter's moon suddenly flying over the Texas panhandle these days? Come on, you know exactly what I meant.

Intelligent life, which would construct these "UFO's." It's been proven that life forms of some sort have existed, most meteorites that fall to earth contain some organic compounds.( see asteroid discovered in Antarctica which contained bacteria recently). However, the transformation from unintelligent life to something capable of traveling billions of miles at the speed of light is the difficult step to achieve.
Could non carbons based life forms exists, most likely not.. Carbon is too unique because it's the only element because it is the basis of organic compounds and it's ability to self-duplicate is so exclusive to itself. Also, carbon is abundant in the universe because it is produced by stars along with nitrogen and oxygen which will likely lead toward formation of life comming through Carbon.( key for life similar to on Earth) Other elements are capable of forming bonds which could potentially lead to " life". However, none of them contain the molecular variety that Carbon does, which makes it capable of supporting life, again unique to earth like " lifeforms. If life DOES exist anywhere else, it's likely based on Carbon.

Now we can move on to what is necessarily for Carbon lifeforms.

To flourish, even simple life needs liquid water, and this limits it to
planets in the habitable zone: far enough from a star not to be boiling, but
close enough not to be freezing. And to get complex life - anything more
intricate than a flatworm - it seems that you need, first of all, a decent
atmosphere.
On earth, it took over three billion years for our atmosphere to come to fruition. What leads to creation of a atmosphere capable of supporting more than single cell organisms? Nearly everything from Stars Billions of miles away to the plate tectonics of that certain planet. Alright, so there we go an atmosphere alone is difficult enough to obtain for life, let's move on.
For a planet to support life it needs to be stable and absolutely regular over a huge huge amount of time, which could consist of avoiding objects in space.... Here on earth we have Jupiter's gravity and it's regular orbit to shield us from such asteroids and such. Most, solar systems lack a planet like Jupiter with a consistent orbit and size to shield it. Without these shield it COULD be possible for something to strike which could disrupt this process

More... The size of the planet to sustain life.... Earth's size in incredibly unique as well... If the Earth were any smaller it would lack an adequate magnetic field and the suns solar wind would blow away our atmosphere, no atmosphere to support life. If it were any larger the increased magnetic field would lead to a thick atmosphere full of methane and CO2. Either way the mass of the planet shifts , life is again, ******.

The whole distance argument is valid to a degree, but you also have to keep in mind that that planet has to have a regular orbit within that certain distance of a certain size star for a certain period of that stars life. Also, that planet must be within that certain distance of that certain star for BILLIONS OF years while life will develop.

combine all of these factors which earths distance from the sun, orbit, time frame of creation, our sun, and many other factors and you have to reach the conclusion that carbon life has only minute chance.

However, there scientists say are over a billion galaxies in the universe which are capable of perhaps containing a planet like Earth, so no one can know positively, obviously. I was just refuting the point that possibility "indicates" that there are many other planets like Earth in the universe. Everything is based on theory at this point, it's all speculation with a certain degree of current science mixed about, but either way the percentage is not favorable for other intelligent life.

Do you honestly believe we know every element in existence in all of the universe? Who is to say that an element we do not know of yet is capable of having life.

That last paragraph is exactly why I believe it is ridiculous to think there is not life outside of earth. There are countless galaxies with countless solar systems with countless planets. It is a near certainty that some form of life would arise on one of those planets.

[Caddy]

I think "The Drake Equation" kind of helps some this up quite nicely. Via the use of probability and a lot of guess work this equation 'proves' the existence of alien life in the universe. Considering the universe has estimated to contain over 100 billion stars with an estimated 20-50 percent of those containing planetary fields, I think it would be highly nieve to believe that there is not some form of alien life form in existence somewhere in the universe.

[JT Jag]

I believe there are lifeforms somewhere else in the galaxy. To think there isn't any other sentient being besides ourselves in an area the size of the Milky Way is simply idiotic.

However, we essentially live in the boondocks of the galaxy. Even if there were "aliens" with higher technology then ours, the only way a UFO could come our way would be if someone unlocked faster-then-light transport.

Which I don't believe has happened.

[Caddy]

Originally Posted by JT Jag

I believe there are lifeforms somewhere else in the galaxy. To think there isn't any other sentient being besides ourselves in an area the size of the Milky Way is simply idiotic.

However, we essentially live in the boondocks of the galaxy. Even if there were "aliens" with higher technology then ours, the only way a UFO could come our way would be if someone unlocked faster-then-light transport.

Which I don't believe has happened.

Not to mention travelling faster than the speed of light is physically impossible.

[Caddy]

Originally Posted by njx9

so was human flight. or sailing around the world. it seems silly to label anything as impossible when science has repeatedly demonstrated that things once thought impossible are actually possible.

unless you're well versed in quantum mechanics?

Untill the laws of physics change, it is impossible. I'll be happy to concede it possible when and if that ever changes.

[7-11]

Originally Posted by njx9

define "travel at the speed of light"? it's far from inconceivable that, due to quantum mechanics, one could appear to travel faster than the speed of light. einstein theorized "bridges" or wormholes that could allow one to travel a distance faster than a photon could have. both of those involve getting someplace faster than a photon without ever having to actually go faster than the speed of light.

further, the laws of physics have changed numerous times in the last few hundred years alone, from newtonian physics al the way to things like string theory. suggesting impossibility is moderately naive.

I'm pretty sure that cooks my brain

[Caddy]

Originally Posted by njx9

define "travel at the speed of light"? it's far from inconceivable that, due to quantum mechanics, one could appear to travel faster than the speed of light. einstein theorized "bridges" or wormholes that could allow one to travel a distance faster than a photon could have. both of those involve getting someplace faster than a photon without ever having to actually go faster than the speed of light.

further, the laws of physics have changed numerous times in the last few hundred years alone, from newtonian physics al the way to things like string theory. suggesting impossibility is moderately naive.

I guess it all comes down to the relative use of the term 'impossible'. In a modern context travelling faster than the speed of light is theoretically impossible. To disprove this would cause a massive overhaul of the laws of physics and the way we understand the complex workings of the universe.

Of course there is potential for these theories to be be proven false in the future as it is potentially possible to prove almost anything false. But I am of the belief that the potential to travel faster than the speed of light is past the comprehension of modern man and will be past our comprehension for a long time.

[Bengals1690]

seriously guys, i mean you can't bash people for what they belive. We have no idea if there are intelligent life on other planets, so you can't argue that there is. And since the universe is supposedly infinite, there is no way we could ever know unless they come a-strollin onto earth. So it's basically a belief and what YOU believe, and you can argue till you're blue in the face, but you can't prove either theory wrong.

[Staubach12]

Originally Posted by FuzzyGopher

Greatest lines in the whole article.

"You hear about big bass or big buck in the area, but this is a different deal," Sorrells said. "It feels good to hear that other people saw something, because that means I'm not crazy."

He said he watched it through his rifle's telescopic lens and described it as very large and without seams, nuts or bolts.

[Caddy]

Originally Posted by Bengals1690

seriously guys, i mean you can't bash people for what they belive. We have no idea if there are intelligent life on other planets, so you can't argue that there is. And since the universe is supposedly infinite, there is no way we could ever know unless they come a-strollin onto earth. So it's basically a belief and what YOU believe, and you can argue till you're blue in the face, but you can't prove either theory wrong.

The problem with science.

And nice sig, good ol fashion NRL. Try Sonny Bill Williams if you like big hits with players wearing very little padding.

[JagHombre22]

this thread is way out there, man....way out there....(cue weird alien music)

[TitleTown088]

actually, the context of your original post had little to do with "intelligent" life. but whatever, let's move on.

The thread is about intelligent life and UFO's...It was pretty well implied

based on what? intensive research into the properties of organic compounds in solar systems or even galaxies outside of our own? black holes were, until relatively recently, a myth. are you going to suggest that it's unlikely that other compounds or elements might behave differently in further flung areas of the universe, places no one has had any opportunity to study?

Uh, yep and yep!


[quote]false. jupiter's moons are much further away and are covered permanently in ice. yet they still maintain liquid water as a result of the volcanic energy in the core (that itself results solely from an extremely close orbit with jupiter). [quote]

Yeah, and they have maintained what? Arco bacterial life? That was just another point that combines with the other particular circumstances, of course there will be exceptions, but this is another restraint which makes it more difficult... not the sole one.

bull****. our planet has been anything BUT stable for it's entire existence. from frequent ice ages, to major collisions with inter-stellar "objects", earth has had frequent and numerous mass extinctions and had to effectively start over every single time.

Extinctions didn't " start over" mammals were able to adapt and survive it...because conditions were maintained stable enough to a degree.
Stable is obviously used very general there, there will always be variations in climate and such, but compared to other planets Earth is vary mild.
Over time there are going to be collisions, but compared to other planets earth has been left relatively unscathed compared to Jupiter and many other planets.

and it still has and has happened numerous times.

Numerous? Really?

and yet mars is half the size of earth and could potentially still or have in the past supported life. it's even got an atmosphere, no matter how inhospitable it may currently be to human life.

Yeah, again. Single cell organism, it failed to meet all the criteria...Which would be the point of my argument.

yippee? carbon is still far from the conclusive end-all be-all.

Not according to most astrophysicists...

no doubt stephen hawking has no problem being called either not an astrophysicist or an idiot for pointing out simple probability. the only thing i've seen thus far that's idiotic is the supposition that either you or anyone has any idea what's out there beyond the minute little part of our galaxy we've "succesfully" studied and that one can go so far as to suggest that life can't possibily exist because we're anthropocentric enough to think we're somehow special.

Stephan Hawking states here http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html implies that the probability is low.... Take it for what it's worth. Granted, he's smart as hell, but he's still a just a person with a "theory".

Did you read? I never claimed for a fact that intelligent life didn't exists , i said it's probability was very low, and it is.

Again, did you read? I said I absolutely don't know, nor did I claim to.There damn well could be, but the probability is not good by any means. This was my point. I don't know why you advert from it....?

Anyways, I didn't imply my examples were full proof,( which you continuously attempt to imply) combined they are what create such a small probability.