Mysterious fast radio bursts detected from deep space

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  6 days ago  •  256 comments

Mysterious fast radio bursts detected from deep space
The precise source of these signals is not known.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


190110-frbs-ac-409p_acba4098272796cb2e49

Jan. 10, 2019, 4:27 PM EST / Source: Live Science

By Brandon Specktor, Live Science

Don't look now, but Earth is being bombarded with mysterious, invisible light. Among the typical array of radio signals and microwaves cast out by distant stars, black holes and other celestial bodies, there exists a brand of intergalactic light that consistently boggles scientists' minds — and their instruments. These signals are known as fast radio bursts (FRBs). These ultrastrong, ultrabright radio signals last only a few milliseconds and are thought to originate from billions of light-years away, though their precise source is unknown. (Aliens have not been ruled out.)

The mystery is partially owed to a lack of data; since astronomers first discovered FRBs in 2007, only about 60 have been observed. Now, those numbers are growing fast. According to two new papers published Jan. 9 in the journal Nature, scientists working at the CHIME (Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment) radio telescope in the hills of British Columbia have detected 13 new FRBs in just a two-month span. Among these newly captured signals are seven bursts that registered at 400 megahertz — the lowest FRB frequency detected so far — and, for only the second time ever, an FRB that flashed repeatedly, six times in a row.

"Until now, there was only one known repeating FRB," Ingrid Stairs, a member of the CHIME team and an astrophysicist at the University of British Columbia, said in a statement. "With more repeaters and more sources available for study, we may be able to understand these cosmic puzzles — where they're from and what causes them."

190110-chime-ac-413p_acba4098272796cb2e4CHIME radio telescope (seen at night here) recently detected rare, low-frequency bursts of energy from deep in the universe. Astronomers are eagerly searching for an explanation.Courtesy Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME)

Scientists have a few theories about those origins. Previous studies have suggested that FRBs may be the remnants of distant supernovas, or radiation spewed out by supermassive black holes. Avi Loeb, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who was not involved in the discovery, has said that we shouldn't rule out "artificial origins," like the pulses of an alien spacecraft.

These newly discovered signals could help scientists get closer to an answer. For starters, the existence of repeating FRBs like the one captured last year could rule out some possible origins. These repeating signals flashed from the same spot in the sky (from an estimated 1.5 billion light-years away) six times over the course of several months. According to the study authors, this delayed repetition rules out "cataclysmic events" like supernovas as a likely source of the repeated blasts, as bursts from an exploding star would be expected to happen just once.

Moreover, the CHIME team's new discoveries suggest that FRBs are probably far more common than current technology is able to reflect. The fact that seven of the new bursts registered at 400 MHz (the lowest frequency the CHIME telescope is able to detect) suggest that FRBs with even lower frequencies are likely zipping past our planet all the time — we just aren't able to see them yet.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    6 days ago

What do you think? Proof that we are not alone?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    6 days ago
What do you think? Proof that we are not alone?

Nah.  Think about it, even if they are not naturally occurring, we are talking about things that happened millions and billions of years ago.  Odds are that even if they were caused by intelligent alien life, that life is long gone by now.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    6 days ago

Well, we are assuming that something happened to their system or that their civilization fell apart. Maybe they found a way to be better than us. How is that different from us sending out a spacecraft with our culture into space?

This feel kind of like "Contact"

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.1    6 days ago
How is that different from us sending out a spacecraft with our culture into space?

It's not.  But the time frame involved makes it very unlikely to provide proof that they still exist.  But you are correct, in that if there is a way to show that they are artificial in nature, it would be mind boggling.  However, much like climate science, you may get a 99% consensus on their origin, the few will find reasons to claim otherwise.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    6 days ago

This is a big I. DON'T. KNOW.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2    6 days ago

I know, right? So many possibilities. My head spins.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    6 days ago

If one accepts the Drake Equation, that is eloquent proof right there. Besides, to believe that we are the only sentient and intelligent(?) species would be the ultimate vanity...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3    6 days ago

I have to agree with you Ed. My dad was involved with the moon mission, and he taught me about the Drake Equation. Really cool that you brought it up. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.3.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.1    6 days ago

And it's fairly simple to understand.

 I learned about it watching "Ancient Aliens"

 
 
 
devangelical
1.4  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    6 days ago

even by using the mathematical premise of 1 in a million, the statistical probability that we are alone is impossible

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.4.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @1.4    6 days ago

I totally agree. 

 
 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
1.4.2  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.4.1    6 days ago

Devengelical is a believer.

Anyone else want to walk down the aisle?

After getting caught in traffic because of the Furry convention, I am convinced the aliens are already here.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.4.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @1.4.2    6 days ago

I don't think we're alone. However, I don't know what these bursts are

 
 
 
devangelical
1.4.4  devangelical  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @1.4.2    6 days ago

somewhere out there is an advanced carnivorous civilization of beings that looks at fundamentalists the same way we look at grass fed beef in the supermarket

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.4.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @1.4.4    6 days ago

Gosh I hope not....what if they get confused?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.4.6  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @1.4.2    6 days ago
After getting caught in traffic because of the Furry convention, I am convinced the aliens are already here.

You've got a point there. 

 
 
 
devangelical
1.4.7  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.4.5    6 days ago

highly unlikely if they can get from there to here. besides, their advance team has already let them know to laser-etch "heaven is for evangelicals" on the bow of the intergalactic livestock transport ships. all the aliens have to do now is show up on some sunday afternoon and lower the ramps.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    6 days ago
What do you think? Proof that we are not alone?

I don't know if it's proof of extraterrestrial activity. But I doubt we are alone regardless.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.5.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5    6 days ago

Gordy,

I keep going back to the story "Contact". They were just hoping for a small signal and here we are getting so many that it is mind blowing. But I agree, mathematically, we are not alone. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.2  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.5.1    6 days ago
I keep going back to the story "Contact".

In all honesty, I hated that movie. Although, I did like Carl Sagan's quote used in the film: "The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.” 

They were just hoping for a small signal and here we are getting so many that it is mind blowing.

Absolutely. And it would be quite exciting and awesome if one or more of those signals did turn out to be extraterrestrials. Now, if one of those signals happens to contain a schematic to a transport machine, then it's certain there's extraterrestrial life. Although, we should beware signals that contain DNA sequences for said ET life (Species reference).

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.5.3  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5    6 days ago
I don't know if it's proof of extraterrestrial activity. But I doubt we are alone regardless.

So you have no proof aliens (the outer space kind) exist but believe they exist. That is having faith that they exist. I thought you said having faith was foolish. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.5.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.3    6 days ago

Actually, believing extra terrestrial life exists is a faith based on logic.

It's logical to believe that in this big, vast universe, something besides Planet Earth has life on it

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.5.5  arkpdx  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.5.4    6 days ago

So as long as its your fantasy it is OK to have faith in its existence without a shred of credible evidence. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.5.6  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.5.1    6 days ago

I have never thought that we were ever alone. The sheer vastness of the heavens make thinking that human life here on Mother Earth is the only intelligent life forms there is.

And, I have never thought that there was no other intelligent life forms here on Mother Earth from other sources in the heavens. In my own opinion, to think that only human life is the only life form is totally without reason, and shows just how little real intelligence such thinkers have.

Those from other sources in the heavens who are among us here on Mother Earth, even if they take on the appearance of human form, have an aura about them that is different from true human life.

That is why I have never been afraid of meeting and learning from other life forms. If they were truly intent on destroying humans and Mother Earth, it would have already happened many times over. Their intelligence is no less than our own, and likely far superior to our own. 

Also, there are many references to vistiations to Mother Earth by those from other sources that have been recorded by ancient civilizations such as the Incas, Mayans and other such ancient people. However, there are those who dismiss these records as simply being those of the simple minded people of the time, but, no one has been able to prove that they are now true.

This is simply my own perspective and opinion, as there is nothing that has ever proved that such is not true, or that humans here on Mother Earth is the only life form that exists. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.7  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.5    6 days ago

Apparently, it is expected to believe that the universe simply appeared from nowhere but it isn't to assume that SOMETHING created it.

But now we are expected to believe that other life exists based on nothing?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.5.8  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.7    6 days ago

We live in an infinite universe. Mathematically, there has to be life ( I am not saying what kind) out there. 

The discussion of whether or not a being made that life, just depends on your POV. I say I don't know.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.9  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.3    6 days ago
So you have no proof aliens (the outer space kind) exist but believe they exist.

Of course I have no proof. I wish I did. I would become quite famous then. I never said I "believe" they exist. I said aliens probably exist. "Belief" in that regard is based on mathematical probability rather than wishful thinking.

That is having faith that they exist.

See previous statement.

I thought you said having faith was foolish. 

No, I said it was irrational.

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.10  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.7    6 days ago

It's highly unlikely that Earth is the only planet on which life evolved.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.11  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.5.8    6 days ago

I don't know for sure either.

But mathematics have a funny way of working out. Not even sure if mathematics really has that much to do with it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.12  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @1.5.10    6 days ago
It's highly unlikely that Earth is the only planet on which life evolved

"Highly unlikely" is hardly proof.

Please prove it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.13  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.7    6 days ago
Apparently, it is expected to believe that the universe simply appeared from nowhere but it isn't to assume that SOMETHING created it.

No one is expected to believe anything. Neither is belief an explanation for anything. The universe "appeared" due to the big bang. There is empirical evidence to support that. There is no evidence to suggest "something" (I assume you refer to some type of intelligence/deity) created it.

But now we are expected to believe that other life exists based on nothing?

As I said, no one is expected to believe anything. But we know the myriad of conditions in which life exists, including the fact that we know life exists in the universe (namely planet Earth), coupled with the sheer size and age of the universe, the existence of life becomes a mathematical probability. That is not exactly something "based on nothing." If one has to go by belief for something, they either do not understand it or are just ignorant (possibly willfully) about it.

"Highly unlikely" is hardly proof. Please prove it.

No one has claimed there's proof, or certainty of anything. That would be nice. But until then, mathematical probabilities is what we have to go by.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.14  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.13    6 days ago

And what caused the Big Bang? What created the elements of the Big Bang? What created the conditions for the Big Bang?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.15  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.13    6 days ago

You realize that the Bing Bang Theory is just a theory, right?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.16  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.15    6 days ago
You realize that the Bing Bang Theory is just a theory, right?

By that statement, you seem to confuse a scientific theory with the generic use of the term.

And what caused the Big Bang? What created the elements of the Big Bang? What created the conditions for the Big Bang?

The honest answer is, no one knows.

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.5.17  Sunshine  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.3    6 days ago
So you have no proof aliens (the outer space kind) exist but believe they exist. That is having faith that they exist. I thought you said having faith was foolish. 

Believing Martians exist...fine, believing Jesus exist well that's just foolish.  jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.18  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.16    6 days ago

If no one knows what caused the big bang, then it is going to be very hard to prove that the big bang created the universe.

You claimed empirical evidence for the big bang, so please present it.

And then, present evidence of where the things that supposedly created the big bang came from.

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.19  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.12    6 days ago

I didn't claim proof.  That's why I said "highly unlikely" instead of "impossible."  There are estimated to be something like a billion trillion stars, and who knows how many planets in their solar systems.  So, the odds are that other planets have evolved life, in addition to Earth.  You can look up the Drake Equation if you'd like further information.

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.20  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @1.5.17    6 days ago
Believing Martians exist...fine, believing Jesus exist well that's just foolish

Believing there's a high probability of life on other planets is just common sense, and has nothing to do with belief in the supernatural.  One is scientific and the other is not.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.5.21  Trout Giggles  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.5    6 days ago

It's a mathematical probability. Google the Drake Equation.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.5.22  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @1.5.20    6 days ago

I tried to explain that to Mr Giggles who believes in ghosts but not ETs.

Sometimes it's fruitless to explain to someone why their beliefs are illogical

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.5.23  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.9    6 days ago
mathematical probability

Which is pretty much another way of saying wishful thinking .

I "believe" they exist. I said aliens probably exist

Same thing. Your quibbling.  

You are still taking the existence on extraterrestrials on faith. You have no direct evidence. 

 
 
 
devangelical
1.5.24  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.5.8    6 days ago

I think you'll be butting heads with more than several that think some creator would only prepare one proverbial petri dish in this vast universe and hope for the best results. It should be fun watching the scramble for some scripture claiming that this planet is singular in supporting life though. God said that no human mind can grasp the vast scope of his creations, and his most vocal followers prove it daily. What sane mind would create billions of planets and only put beings on just one? That concept flies in the face of those that think they belong to an exclusive little club with a cross shaped pass key.

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.25  katrix  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.5.22    6 days ago
I tried to explain that to Mr Giggles who believes in ghosts but not ETs. Sometimes it's fruitless to explain to someone why their beliefs are illogical

My friend's sister was trying to convince me that Psychic Detectives is a true TV show.  I told her I don't believe in ghosts and that the show has been proven to be a fraud.  She was upset that I don't believe in ghosts and said, "Well you believe in God, don't you?"  I assume her point was going to be that if I believe in one supernatural being, why can't I believe in others?  I said "no" and she started gaping for a minute.  Then she told me everything comes through Jesus and that if I'm mean to dogs, I will be reincarnated as a dog.  I am not making this up.

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.5.26  arkpdx  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.5.21    6 days ago

It is still not proof of anything. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.5.27  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @1.5.6    6 days ago

I'm with ya, Raven!

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.28  katrix  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.26    6 days ago

Nobody is claiming proof.  Maybe you never took a class on probability?

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.29  katrix  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.23    6 days ago
You are still taking the existence on extraterrestrials on faith. You have no direct evidence. 

Faith has nothing to support it.  We have probability to support our belief.  And it's just a belief because you're right, currently we have no direct evidence.

People of faith believe in gods with no evidence and nothing to suggest any probability of supernatural beings existing; same with those who believe in ghosts. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.5.30  arkpdx  replied to  katrix @1.5.28    6 days ago

you are still taking the existence of extraterrestrials on faith . The difference between you and those that believe in a Supreme being is that they believe it because it is in their hearts and from the written word and you believe because it seems of the written number. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.31  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.15    6 days ago
You realize that the Bing Bang Theory is just a theory, right?

You realize that gravity is just a theory, right?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.5.32  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @1.5.25    6 days ago

omg...sounds like one of Mr Giggles friends.

I'm surrounded by these type of people

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.5.33  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.15    6 days ago
You realize that the Bing Bang Theory is just a theory, right?

Damn, and here I thought it was a sitcom...[if a laugh track is required, is it still funny?]

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.34  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.18    6 days ago
And then, present evidence of where the things that supposedly created the big bang came from.

If you can believe a god always existed, why do you find it so hard to accept that something else always existed?

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.35  katrix  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.30    6 days ago
you are still taking the existence of extraterrestrials on faith .

No, because I am not claiming that they exist.  I am only claiming that there is a mathematical probability that they exist, which is true. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.5.36  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.26    6 days ago

Science deals in degrees of certainty.  Nothing is ever considered 100% proven in science.  Science says that it is more likely than not that extraterrestrial life exists.  Nobody is saying that this is proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life.

You're arguing against a statement nobody has made.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.37  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @1.5.34    6 days ago

If you can not answer what was asked, best to just skip over it.

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.38  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.37    6 days ago

Someone else already answered your question.  I was just pointing out how curious it is that you demand proof of where the materials for the big bang came from, while most likely accepting that your god always existed.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.5.39  WallyW  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.5    6 days ago
So as long as its your fantasy it is OK to have faith in its existence without a shred of credible evidence. 

Life is possible on any planet with quite a bit of liquid water and situated in its "Goldilocks Zone" That's assuming that the elements and physical principles are the same throughout the Universe.

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.40  katrix  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.30    6 days ago
The difference between you and those that believe in a Supreme being is that they believe it because it is in their hearts and from the written word and you believe because it seems of the written number

Correct.  Emotion and gullibility vs. logic.

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.5.41  arkpdx  replied to  WallyW @1.5.39    6 days ago

Never claimed otherwise. Frankly I am fairly confident that there is life in other places in the universe.  I also believe in a Supreme  Being. But that really wasn't my point. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.42  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.18    6 days ago
If no one knows what caused the big bang, then it is going to be very hard to prove that the big bang created the universe.

Oh good grief! Knowing what caused the Big Bang itself and knowing the Big Bang created the universe are two separate things. Evidence shows the Big bang created the universe. That's it. 

You claimed empirical evidence for the big bang, so please present it.

Sure, to sum it up in several points:

Background cosmic radiation (BCR), which is uniformly distributed. The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE),  the Wilkinson Microware Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), and the Planck probes have all detected, imaged, and measured BCR, including temperature distribution, which supports the Big bang Theory. The BCR is considered a "smoking gun" evidence for the Big Bang.

These same patterns also support the inflation model of the universe, which itself supports a "Bang." Observations show that galaxies are generally moving away from each other (red shifting), further supporting inflation and movement away from a single point (that point being the Bang). This is also supported by Hubble's Law. Modern telescopes can also see back billions of years when viewing older galaxies. When you think about it, the Big Bang is still occurring.

The abundance and composition of primordial elements also demonstrates that the universe was once very hot and dense, causing hydrogen to fuse (think of the bang point as being in the core of a star). The abundance of such elements in the universe also supports the Big Bang model of origins. The release of this matter and energy from the bang point caused all matter and energy (the current background radiation) to be distributed relatively evenly throughout the observable universe. 

And then, present evidence of where the things that supposedly created the big bang came from.

As I said, nobody knows. It's reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that composed the early universe was contained within a single point or singularity, until the "Bang" occurred. So all the things were already there. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.43  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @1.5.38    6 days ago
Someone else already answered your question. I was just pointing out how curious it is that you demand proof of where the materials for the big bang came from, while most likely accepting that your god always existed.

As I find it curious it is that some can accept a Big Bang Theory without proof, while doubting an existence of a Higher Power.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.44  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.42    6 days ago
So all the things were already there.

Where did they come from and how were they created?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.45  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.43    6 days ago
As I find it curious it is that some can accept a Big Bang Theory without proof, while doubting an existence of a Higher Power.

There's already "proof" of the Big Bang, which I briefly presented in my previous post above. There is no proof, or even any evidence of a "Higher Power."

Where did they come from and how were they created?

Once again, the honest answer is no one knows. It seems you are fruitlessly searching for a way to discredit the Big Bang theory.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.46  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.23    6 days ago
Which is pretty much another way of saying wishful thinking .

Not even a little. Unless your understanding of mathematics is sorely lacking.

Same thing. Your quibbling.

You seem to erroneously equate mere belief, which has no mathematical or logical basis, with probability, which does have a mathematical basis. So the only one quibbling about it is you.

You are still taking the existence on extraterrestrials on faith.

Again wrong! I am taking it on mathematical probability, which is probably quite high.

You have no direct evidence.

I never said I did. 

It is still not proof of anything.

But it establishes a degree of certainty, which is far better than mere belief.

you are still taking the existence of extraterrestrials on faith .

And you are still wrong on that assertion.

The difference between you and those that believe in a Supreme being is that they believe it because it is in their hearts and from the written word and you believe because it seems of the written number.

It's the difference between emotion and logic. You can believe whatever you want. Actual hard numbers back it up.

Frankly I am fairly confident that there is life in other places in the universe.

Why are you confident? I am confident too because the math is there to establish confidence. Not because of emotional appeal or because I merely want to believe.

I also believe in a Supreme Being.

And I do not, as there is no evidence to support the existence of such a thing.

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.5.47  arkpdx  replied to  katrix @1.5.40    6 days ago

Why the conflict .I personally believe in a Supreme Being and I also believe in evolution and in alien lifeforms on other worlds. I find no conflict in those beliefs. Why do you? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.48  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.16    6 days ago

(This is a book excerpt)

Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case

...That’s where John had a problem. He was protesting my suggestion that God was the cause.

But there are good reasons for positing God. If space, time, and matter had a beginning, then the cause must transcend space, time, and matter. In other words, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. This cause also must be enormously powerful to create the universe out of nothing. And it must be a personal agent in order to choose to create, since an impersonal force has no capacity to choose to create anything. Agents create. Impersonal forces, which we call natural laws, merely govern what is already created, provided agents don’t interfere.

For example, gravity as an impersonal force can’t decide anything. It blindly does the same thing over and over again. A personal agent, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily do the same thing over and over again. He or she could do something unique, like decide to create something.

So we are left with a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, personal first cause. That sounds an awful lot like a theistic God.

John wasn’t buying it. Yet, instead of offering evidence for a cause other than God, John resorted to faith. Echoing atheist Richard Dawkins, John forcefully declared into the microphone, “We have to give science more time! If we give science more time, one day we will find a natural cause for the universe.”

“That sounds a lot like faith,” I said. “You have faith that science will one day find a cause.”

Given our advances in science and technology, John’s faith may seem reasonable. After all, hasn’t science continually pushed God out of the picture by finding natural causes for so many phenomena previously thought to be the direct result of divine action? Why shouldn’t we expect the same for the universe?

While I agreed with John that we should always challenge scien- tific conclusions and seek to improve our understanding, that doesn’t mean the scientific method will be able to find a natural cause for every effect. The universe is the biggest example.

Since nature had a beginning, nature can’t be its own cause. The cause must be beyond nature, which is what we mean by the term “supernatural.”

John was quick to charge me with committing the “God of the gaps” fallacy. When we can’t figure out a natural cause, we plug God into that gap in knowledge and say that He did it. That’s not only wrong, it’s “lazy,” as many atheists assert.

But that’s not what’s going on here. I explained that we are not basing our conclusion on a mere “gap” in our knowledge. Those of us who conclude that a theistic God is the cause of the universe are not arguing from what we don’t know (a gap), but what we do know.

Since space, time, and matter had a beginning, we know that the cause can’t be made of space, time, or matter. In fact, the conclusion that there is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, personal first cause flows logically from the evidence itself.

If anyone is committing a fallacy, it is the atheist. Call it the “natural law of the gaps fallacy”—having faith that an undiscovered natural law will one day explain the beginning of the universe.

And that’s exactly what John did. He went back to insist that through science we will one day find a natural cause for all of nature.

I said, “John, we will never find a natural cause for all of nature.”

“We will!” he insisted.

“No, John, we can’t in principle. If nature had a beginning, then the cause can’t be something natural because nature didn’t exist. Nature was the effect, so it can’t be the cause. The cause must be something beyond nature, or supernatural.”

I used this comparison to help communicate the point: “When you say, ‘Give me more time and I’ll discover a natural cause for the universe,’ that’s like me saying, ‘Give me more time and I’ll discover that I gave birth to my own mother! It’s impossible in principle, John.’”

Perhaps I did a bad job of explaining it because he still wasn’t persuaded. On the other hand, there is a difference between proof and persuasion. One can prove a point, but that doesn’t mean that a particular person will be persuaded by it. At least John agreed that the universe needs a cause. Other atheists are suggesting that it doesn’t—that somehow the universe popped into existence out of nothing without a cause.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.49  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.48    6 days ago

All that boils down to is, we don't know how something happened, therefore god did it." It's flawed logic. Invoking god doesn't explain anything. It's a failure to explain. It's also intellectually lazy and dishonest.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.50  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.48    6 days ago

I watched a YOU TUBE video of Christopher Hitchens debating Frank Turek on the existence of God. Very interesting stuff , as debates with Hitchens usually are.

Hitchens was an excellent speaker , witty, very fluent in quips and sly putdowns and in being dismissive of points he does not want to address. And, Frank Turek is a fundamentalist Christian who imo hurts his argument by claiming he can prove certain aspects of Jesus life etc such as the resurrection.

The resurrection cannot be proven.

Nonetheless Hitchens was short one big talking point. How did something come from nothing. There is a physicist atheist named Lawrence Krauss who has a book which claims that the universe came from nothing.

But his concept of "nothing" is not really nothing, it is a subatomic field. Anything that can be described is not nothing, by definition.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.51  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.49    6 days ago
All that boils down to is, we don't know how something happened, therefore god did it." It's flawed logic. Invoking god doesn't explain anything. It's a failure to explain. It's also intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Nonsense. Most people believe in God by faith, not by claiming they proved it. Atheists tend to believe they have proved something when they say God does not exist.

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.5.52  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.46    6 days ago
And I do not, as there is no evidence to support the existence of such a thing.

I see just as much evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials as I do for the existence of God. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.53  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.51    6 days ago
Most people believe in God by faith, not by claiming they proved it.

Of course they believe by faith, as there is no proof for god. I for one do not go by mere belief. Neither does belief equal fact. I prefer proof. Or at the very least, some empirical evidence.

Atheists tend to believe they have proved something when they say God does not exist.

I'm not aware of any atheist who does that. Atheists are merely unconvinced god exists (as theists often claim), as there is no proof/evidence. However, most are probably willing to reconsider their position should such evidence be forthcoming. But declaring god does or does not exist as an absolute certainty is logically indefensible.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.54  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.52    6 days ago
I see just as much evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials as I do for the existence of God. 

Ok, so you see nothing at all then. I happen to see life occurring elsewhere based on the mathematical probability for it, based on the fact that life, in all its different forms and environments, exist here on Earth. Therefore, it's logical to assume that life (in some form or another) probably exists elsewhere too.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.5.55  devangelical  replied to  katrix @1.5.40    6 days ago

it always cracks me up when the religiously challenged start demanding proof of concepts that run counter to their faith. which is something akin to space propulsion by using an oar from a rowboat.

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.56  katrix  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.47    6 days ago

I don't have a conflict - I don't see any evidence for a Supreme Being so I don't believe that any gods exist.  I accept evolution and I accept the probability of life forms on other worlds, because the mathematics support it. 

But I don't think there's anything weird about you believing in all 3 of those things.  Many people I know feel the same way as you do.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.5.57  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @1.5.5    6 days ago
OK to have faith in its existence without a shred of credible evidence

I guess that only works for some folks, huh?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.58  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.53    6 days ago
But declaring god does or does not exist as an absolute certainty is logically indefensible.

So is claiming that the universe came from nothing.

In my life I have seen a lot more atheists complaining about religion than I have seen religious people complaining about atheism. Why does anyone need to complain?

In Hitchens' debate with Turek, which was supposedly over the existence of God, Hitchens started bringing up all the horrible things people have done in the name of their God (as if that was an argument against God's existence), and Turek sort of rhetorically shrugged his shoulders and said "what can I tell you, some people who believe in God are bad people".

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.59  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.58    6 days ago
So is claiming that the universe came from nothing

No one is making that claim. The universe came from the Big Bang. The evidence supports that.

In my life I have seen a lot more atheists complaining about religion than I have seen religious people complaining about atheism.

More like atheists counter or challenge religious claims. 

Hitchens started bringing up all the horrible things people have done in the name of their God (as if that was an argument against God's existence), and Turek sort of rhetorically shrugged his shoulders and said "what can I tell you, some people who believe in God are bad people".

That's when such a discussion becomes more emotional rather than logical or rational. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.60  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.59    6 days ago
No one is making that claim. The universe came from the Big Bang.

What banged?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.61  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.60    6 days ago
What banged?

All the matter and energy in the universe compressed into a single point.  Somehow, I think you know that are just trying to be obtuse about it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.62  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.61    6 days ago

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.63  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.62    6 days ago

As I said, the universe came from the Big Bang. That is generally accepted by the scientific community and has supporting empirical evidence. So what's your point?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.64  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.61    5 days ago

Arguments about the existence of God basically come down to what created nature (this existence). Either it was created by supernatural means (nature cannot create itself), or nature is eternal. Eternity is a supernatural concept, isnt it?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.65  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.64    5 days ago
Arguments about the existence of God basically come down to what created nature (this existence).

A pointless argument, as there is no evidence to suggest the existence of any god, much less that said god created anything. Invoking a god is at best a baseless assumption. Nature as we understand it was created by the Big Bang. I've noticed people often invoke a supernatural explanation when they do not understand a natural one, or otherwise need some kind of explanation when one is otherwise not forthcoming. But science doesn't deal with the supernatural. 

Either it was created by supernatural means (nature cannot create itself), or nature is eternal.

If it's supernatural, then by definition, it cannot be natural or a part of nature. If the supernatural played a factor in the natural, then it wouldn't be supernatural and it can be detected within the nature or the natural realm.

Eternity is a supernatural concept, isnt it?

Not entirely. It is often associated with the supernatural, especially in religion. But eternity can be used in the natural realm too, associated with concepts like infinity.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.66  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.45    5 days ago

So you don't know either. Better to just say that instead of arguing about it.

No one knows for sure how the earth was formed, and there is no proof of it being formed by God or some big bang.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.67  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.65    5 days ago
A pointless argument, as there is no evidence to suggest the existence of any god, much less that said god created anything. Invoking a god is at best a baseless assumption. Nature as we understand it was created by the Big Bang.

No. Either nature existed prior to the Big Bang or the universe was created spontaneously from nothing, which is impossible. OR, nature was created by a supernatural agency.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.68  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.66    5 days ago
So you don't know either.

Hello! I never said "I know." I repeatedly said "we don't know." I thought that was quite clear.

Better to just say that instead of arguing about it.

You're the one arguing about it, not me. I simply provided what is known and supporting evidence. It seems you don't understand it.

No one knows for sure how the earth was formed, and there is no proof of it being formed by God or some big bang.

The Earth was formed by gravitational accretion of particles and heavy elements. The same process that formed all the planets. As particles and elements accumulated, the combined mass grew and generated stronger gravitational attraction, pulling even more matter into it, until it formed the rocky planet we call Earth. Observations of exoplanets only reinforces this process.

Perhaps you should try to study some science before you comment on it. Because your lack of understanding of basic concepts like planet formation and the Big bang seems quite lacking.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.69  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.67    5 days ago
Either nature existed prior to the Big Bang or the universe was created spontaneously from nothing, which is impossible.

How can nature exist before the Big bang, when the Big bang itself was the formation of time and space?

OR, nature was created by a supernatural agency.

Again, that is just a baseless assumption, and one lacking any empirical evidence. It also ignores the fact that if the supernatural mingles with the natural, then by definition it cannot be supernatural. It's essentially the proverbial "wanting your cake and eating it too."

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.5.70  Tacos!  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.5.21    5 days ago
the Drake Equation

Also known as "a wild guess."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.71  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.69    5 days ago
How can nature exist before the Big bang, when the Big bang itself was the formation of time and space?

It is not possible that the Big Bang caused itself.  It is not possible to get something  (the 'bang" ) from nothing (unless there is a supernatural explanation).

Saying that the Big Bang came from nothing is no more logical than saying God exists.

Either nature existed prior to the Big Bang or it was caused by an agency which can create existence from nothing, which some people would describe as God.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.5.72  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.69    5 days ago

This guy is very disingenuous. He repeatedly and deliberately misuses the concept of "nothing" in order to promote his "anti-theism".  He describes energy and PARTICLES that pop in and out of existence as "nothing".

How can particles, NO MATTER HOW THEY ACT, be "nothing".  They can't.  Yet he repeatedly in these videos claims that they are nothing. The reason he does that is clearly to be able to use his conclusions to bash belief in God.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.73  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.71    5 days ago
It is not possible that the Big Bang caused itself. 

What do you base that assumption on? 

It is not possible to get something  (the 'bang" ) from nothing (unless there is a supernatural explanation).

An argument from ignorance fallacy.

Either nature existed prior to the Big Bang or it was caused by an agency which can create existence from nothing, which some people would describe as God.

You can describe anything you want as "god." But if you mean the omnipotent, omniscient, supreme deity type of god, then you first to  prove there's a god before any valid assertion can be made attributing the existence of the universe to it.

This guy is very disingenuous.

Notice how I didn't say a word about him. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than his own opinion. I prefer actual evidence and facts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.5.74  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.58    5 days ago
So is claiming that the universe came from nothing.

When scientists like Dr. Lawrence Krauss speak of the universe emerging out of nothing they are referring to a zero net energy state.   They are not saying that the universe came for literally nothing.   Something from Nothing is good for book sales but it is misleading as a notion.

Thing is, science does not know the exact nature of the universe at the 'singularity'.   Science has a great explanation for the universe starting at t+10-36 seconds.  The first 10-36 seconds is currently a mystery, but coming from literal nothing is most definitely wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.5.75  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.67    5 days ago
No. Either nature existed prior to the Big Bang or the universe was created spontaneously from nothing, which is impossible. OR, nature was created by a supernatural agency.

Existence itself has always been.  There really is no other option since existence cannot emerge from nothing.   The question really is what is existence?   Clearly there is something there because everything we know is of existence.   Ultimately whatever exists is comprised of the quintessential substance of existence (whatever that might be).   We could use 'energy' as an approximation but we need to be careful to not presume that energy is irreducible.

That established, the universe could have emerged from existence itself.    Or the universe might have been created by a sentient entity - deliberately formed from the quintessential substance of existence.   But since that sentient entity would have to first exist, it would have emerged from existence.

Both are possible.   Nobody knows.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.5.76  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.5.72    5 days ago
How can particles, NO MATTER HOW THEY ACT, be "nothing".  They can't.

Exactly.  Dr. Krauss has a lot to offer but this sensational sound-bite nonsense is something that has irritated me for years.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.6  WallyW  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    6 days ago

Nope....all kinds of sources for the radio wave portion of electromagnetic spectrum. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_astronomy

It's probably gas and perhaps dust falling into or onto a black hole, white dwarf, neutron star, magnetar or some such, or maybe by collisions or the merging of such objects. I'm sure there is reproducible life of some sort "way out there", but probably not humanoid.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.6.1  r.t..b...  replied to  WallyW @1.6    6 days ago
It's probably gas

That is a theory that may explain our entire existence.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.6.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  WallyW @1.6    6 days ago

Wally,

First of all, I never said humanoid. Other living beings could be anything but humanoid. 

And yes we have had other radio frequencies from out of space. These are different. That is why all the excitement about them. 

From the BBC:

The precise nature and origin of the blasts of radio waves is unknown.

Among the 13 fast radio bursts, known as FRBs, was a very unusual repeating signal, coming from the same source about 1.5 billion light years away.

Such an event has only been reported once before, by a different telescope.

"Knowing that there is another suggests that there could be more out there," said Ingrid Stairs, an astrophysicist from the University of British Columbia (UBC).

"And with more repeaters and more sources available for study, we may be able to understand these cosmic puzzles - where they're from and what causes them."

The CHIME observatory, located in British Columbia's Okanagan Valley, consists of four 100-metre-long, semi-cylindrical antennas, which scan the entire northern sky each day.

The telescope only got up and running last year, detecting 13 of the radio bursts almost immediately, including the repeater.

"We have discovered a second repeater and its properties are very similar to the first repeater," said Shriharsh Tendulkar of McGill University, Canada.

"This tells us more about the properties of repeaters as a population."

FRBs are short, bright flashes of radio waves, which appear to be coming from almost halfway across the Universe.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46811618

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.6.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  r.t..b... @1.6.1    6 days ago

It's probably gas:

 
 
 
WallyW
1.6.4  WallyW  replied to  r.t..b... @1.6.1    6 days ago

Yep...put some early elemental gasses together and strike a match (lightning), and viola, we have the beginnings of life...better known as stromatolites. . And it appears that a lot of organic molecules existed "out there" before planet Earth got from "being without form and void" to a very hot ball of solid stuff.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/murchison-meteorite/

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.6.5  r.t..b...  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.6.3    6 days ago

hakuna matata...

 
 
 
WallyW
1.6.6  WallyW  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.6.2    6 days ago
First of all, I never said humanoid. Other living beings could be anything but humanoid. 
I know that Perrie, I just picked up on your statement that the bursts possibly proved the existence of aliens. But, as I have stated previously, waves in the radio part of spectrum can only be caused by certain types of natural activities if it's not intelligent beings. Right now they are investigating the processes that caused these readings, and I was just offering an opinion based on my knowledge of cosmology.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    6 days ago
What do you think? Proof that we are not alone?

No, not proof. Actually, reading the article, which I just now did, I got the impression that the scientists involved in receiving and trying to analyze these signals seem to lean more towards a natural explanation.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.7.1  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.7    6 days ago
I got the impression that the scientists involved in receiving and trying to analyze these signals seem to lean more towards a natural explanation.

That would be a logical approach. Although, it would be cool if those signals turned out to be artificial.

 
 
 
Freefaller
1.8  Freefaller  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    5 days ago
Proof that we are not alone?

I'm very doubtful and think that once enough data is collected, combined with other data/observations, math calculated, hypothesis debated the conclusion will be that these are natural phenomena.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2  Buzz of the Orient    6 days ago

The late Carl Sagan would have loved to get this news - Repeating signals? Anyone who has watched the movie "Contact" would have an opinion.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    6 days ago

LOL.. Buzz, I just got to your comment and I've mentioned "Contact" about 3 times already. Great minds! 

And yes Carl would have loved this. He was always hoping for a sign. 

 
 
 
lennylynx
3  lennylynx    6 days ago

Hardly proof, but do we really need proof that life exists in other parts of the universe?  The sheer size of it, which our brains are totally incapable of even beginning to grasp, makes this a virtual certainty.  

And while we're on the subject of alien life, does anyone think that the waters of Europa are completely void of any life forms?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  lennylynx @3    6 days ago
And while we're on the subject of alien life, does anyone think that the waters of Europa are completely void of any life forms?

I think it is a possibility. I think there is also on Mars. 

 
 
 
lady in black
4  lady in black    6 days ago

Think of it this way, out of how many solar systems and how many planets out there known and unknown we cannot be the only life form that exists.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @4    6 days ago

We've already discovered thousands of extrasolar planets in our galaxy alone-the proverbial tip of a very BIG iceberg. So I tend to agree with you. We cannot be the only life that exists.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  lady in black @4    6 days ago

Exactly

 
 
 
321steve
4.3  321steve  replied to  lady in black @4    6 days ago
Think of it this way, out of how many solar systems and how many planets out there known and unknown we cannot be the only life form that exists.  

Think of it this way, IF we are, that's special.

So far I have seen No proof that we are not alone. Theories are just that theories. I'll believe there are other living beings from elsewhere, when I see substantial proof. Til then I am highly skeptical. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.3.1  r.t..b...  replied to  321steve @4.3    6 days ago
IF we are, that's special.

Every civilization in recorded history has concocted an origin story. It is our vain and hopeful attempt to explain our mere existence and/or our exceptionalism. Questions that someday may be answered, but all I know for certain it's Friday afternoon on this marvelous big blue marble, so let us all enjoy a great weekend...Peace!

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.3.2  Gordy327  replied to  r.t..b... @4.3.1    6 days ago
it's Friday afternoon on this marvelous big blue marble, so let us all enjoy a great weekend...Peace!

Best...advice...ever! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
321steve
4.3.3  321steve  replied to  r.t..b... @4.3.1    6 days ago
it's Friday afternoon on this marvelous big blue marble

it's Friday afternoon on PART OF this marvelous big blue marble.

LOL 

Have a good time wherever and whenever you are.... lol 

Sorry I'm just in an orrery type mood.  chuckle 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5  Kathleen    6 days ago

I look at it like this.

We are here, so it's very possible there could be more. 

The proven fact is that there can be life in the universe (us) so there is a very good change the same kind of event happened as well.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @5    6 days ago

We know that there are planets that can support life now.. so why not? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    6 days ago
We know that there are planets that can support life now..

We also know there are planets that may have supported life too, even if they are incapable of doing so now. Mars is a prime example.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.2  katrix  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.1    6 days ago

I wonder what a non-carbon based form of life would be like!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @5.1.2    6 days ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.3    6 days ago

not the one I was looking for

this is what I was looking for:

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.5  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    6 days ago

I also wonder if any other life form needs that same elements that we need...

We need oxygen, maybe they don't.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.6  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.5    6 days ago

Which is a very good point. As in this Star Trek, the animal was silicone based, not carbon based. Who's to say, that the universe is made up of one kind of basic animal?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.5    6 days ago

Very possibly not. For some bacteria, an oxygen atmosphere is deadly.  Could be the same for life elsewhere.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.8  katrix  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.5    6 days ago

There are life forms on Earth which don't need oxygen ... if there is life on other planets, I wonder if our conceptions of what it would be like are anything close to being on target. 

 
 
 
devangelical
5.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.4    6 days ago

pffft. vegas is filled with silicone and saline based life forms. thank you lord.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.7    6 days ago

Septic systems are based on this idea (anaerobic bacteria)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.11  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.10    6 days ago

True enough!

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.12  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.7    6 days ago

For Earth that is true, for elsewhere, it is hard to say.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.4    6 days ago

Don't forget about the Crystalline Entity from ST: TNG.

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1.14  WallyW  replied to  katrix @5.1.2    6 days ago

Why would it not be carbon based? Are you suggesting silicon?

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.15  katrix  replied to  WallyW @5.1.14    6 days ago

I'm not suggesting anything in particular - and it very well could be carbon based.  But it's also possible that elsewhere in the universe life could be based on something else.  You actually probably have a better idea than I do of what that "something else" could be, from what I've seen of your posts.  What do you think would be most likely if it weren't carbon based?  Silicon does seem to be the option I see discussed the most as a possibility.

And possibly there are other elements in the universe that we haven't discovered?

 
 
 
ArkansasHermit-too
5.1.16  ArkansasHermit-too  replied to  katrix @5.1.2    6 days ago
I wonder what a non-carbon based form of life would be like!

Well, the gem based lifeforms that live in the "Land of the Lustrous" are quite fetching, though they can be a bit brittle at times, sharp even but, most times, they do tend to pull themselves together and carry on.

original

original

original

original

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  ArkansasHermit-too @5.1.16    5 days ago
the gem based lifeforms

Nah, rock monsters are much more interesting.

 
 
 
Enoch
6  Enoch    6 days ago

I read that they have interpreted radio waves from very distant places.

Translated them to English.

One recurring message is, "Universal Eddie. His Prices are INTERGALACTIC!"

Given the size and scope of the universe, it is a sure bet mathematically that there is life out there.

The question is what life?

We are still a long way from a conversation with neighbors.

A more immediate and important question is, "Are there intelligent life forms on the third planet from our sun"?

Will get back to you soon as I have an answer.

Enoch, Starting the Oldsmo-Buick and heading off to Universal Eddie's in search of the bargain of a lifetime.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Enoch @6    6 days ago

Does Universal Eddie sell mattresses?

 
 
 
Enoch
6.1.1  Enoch  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    6 days ago

Dear Friend Trout Giggles: "Mattress in one light year. Satisfaction guaranteed or your Iridium back in full. Be sure to ask about our seniors discount".

(This offer not valid in the greater Sirius area, or where prohibited by law. Sorry, Alpha Century!).

E.   

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Enoch @6.1.1    6 days ago
Sorry, Alpha Century!).

Well, that stinks. I was going to use them for my summer house there.

 
 
 
lennylynx
6.2  lennylynx  replied to  Enoch @6    6 days ago

Lol, yes Enoch, perhaps we should first try to discover intelligent life forms here on earth before trying to seek them elsewhere! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  lennylynx @6.2    6 days ago

Lenny does have a point, Enoch. But then again, who am I to talk?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.2.2  Raven Wing  replied to  lennylynx @6.2    6 days ago
perhaps we should first try to discover intelligent life forms here on earth before trying to seek them elsewhere! 

Yes indeed, and get them into our governing offices ASAP. And Congress needs a lot more of them as well.

(smile)

 
 
 
321steve
6.2.3  321steve  replied to  lennylynx @6.2    6 days ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Enoch @6    5 days ago

To life forms that exist on other planets, they could be so much further advanced than our civilization (somewhat like the aliens in Carl Sagan' "Contact") that they ignore us as we would a grain of sand on a beach, assuming that we will probably destroy this planet and all its inhabitants before we reach even the first step of the ladder of civilization, because of our infinitely infantile beliefs and behaviour.

 
 
 
321steve
7  321steve    6 days ago

I think its a lost astronaut just trying to phone home. 

I see no prove of nothing except what we see and so far,  WTF does that prove ?  We see a burst of some sort of energy. Its probably happened before and will again, I see no indication it's from anyone more likely something. Mean while we are destroying the only planet we know of that can sustain our form of life. If anyone is out there they'd be well served to destroy us or leave us the Hell alone. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  321steve @7    6 days ago

Hi Steve,

Repeating patterns are relevant since we are doing the same thing. 

Mean while we are destroying the only planet we know of that can sustain our form of life. 

Well, that is a whole different story. Yes, I agree we are and we should be concerned about that. But as Sting put it: 

Contestants in a suicidal race
 
 
 
321steve
7.1.1  321steve  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    6 days ago
Repeating patterns are relevant since we are doing the same thing. 

Don't "repeat patterns" happen in nature often ? Why does it have to be a living intelligent being creating this effect ?

Sorry till I see an actual alien or some damn convincing evidence of them I have serious doubts they exist.  

Speaking of which I also think its assine of humans to be broadcasting our own existence and location , Just in case, If there is something else out there how the Hell do we know WTF their intentions may be ? I'd say discover and investigate would be so much more responsible of us. 

PS: Good to see you involved.  Have a great day. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  321steve @7.1.1    6 days ago
Don't "repeat patterns" happen in nature often ? Why does it have to be a living intelligent being creating this effect ?

Sure we do and it is proof of life. Think of a crickets chirp or a mocking birds song. They are quite alive. In an infinite universe, mathematically how could we be alone?

Speaking of which I also think its assine of humans to be broadcasting our own existence and location , Just in case, If there is something else out there how the Hell do we know WTF their intentions may be ? 

I have had that thought too.

 
 
 
321steve
7.1.3  321steve  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    6 days ago
"repeat patterns" happen in nature often, Sure we do and it is proof of life.

Proff? I'd say that's kind a a premature statement. 

The word "pulsar" is a portmanteau of 'pulsating' and 'quasar', and first appeared in print in 1968.

This may be along the same lines of new discoveries.  "radio wave pulses" Maybe some day we'll know. If we do, it may be too late. Who knows, like with religion, I'm a skeptic. My mind desires sustainable facts to accept material things (or beings) as reality. 

So far I see no aliens or actual proof of such so I remain very skeptical.  

mathematically how could we be alone?  

There is only one earth. There are millions of stars and planets that we know of. IMO: Yes we could be the only one. possibly by some design even. Everything had to be just right and it had to stay that way for a long time. Those conditions may not exist anywhere else ........... Maybe its ALL GOD. Who knows for sure ? Not I and I only trust in what can be proven to be reality to me. So far I'm still waiting on much that others believe. Aliens and big foot included. My fav is the flat earth folks... 

 
 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
8  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    6 days ago

Everyone knows aliens built the pyramids.

384

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @8    6 days ago

No.. Aliens gave them the plans all over the world. 

Man built them. 

 
 
 
321steve
8.1.1  321steve  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1    6 days ago
No.. Aliens gave them the plans all over the world.  Man built them. 

But, why man needed such big grain silos back then though I still dont get. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  321steve @8.1.1    6 days ago

It was for times of famine. 

 
 
 
321steve
8.1.3  321steve  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.2    6 days ago
It was for times of famine. 

LOL, Gotta cha, Good reason. Gotta feed the multitudes ! 

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.4  katrix  replied to  321steve @8.1.1    6 days ago

Haha!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @8.1.1    6 days ago

Those were monuments to cats.

256

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.6  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.5    6 days ago

Wally totally agrees! Two paws up! 

 
 
 
321steve
8.1.7  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.5    6 days ago

Are you sure ?

https://youtu.be/FrqShRhxJBM?t=225  This link should take you to the actual words about the pyramids. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @8.1.7    6 days ago

How far in do I have to listen?

You can always tell people who were never in the military. Their speeches last longer than 4-7 minutes.

 
 
 
321steve
8.1.9  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.8    6 days ago
How far in do I have to listen?

LOL, I'm not sure, I skipped ahead and found the part. that is why I put in the other link. It takes you right to the part on the pyramids. Here it is again:

https://youtu.be/FrqShRhxJBM?t=225 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @8.1.9    6 days ago

Thanks. I listened to it......I got nuttin'. I'll leave the poor man alone to his deluded thinking

 
 
 
Raven Wing
8.1.11  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.5    6 days ago

384

 
 
 
Sunshine
9  Sunshine    6 days ago

They are coming........

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @9    6 days ago

If they are coming Sunshine, I won't be going with them. Never could figure out that part of the movie. Who in their right mind would get in an unknown spacecraft with beings we know nothing about? Gee, thanks for returning people you stole over the centuries. No culture shock there for them. 

And what if Whitney Schriber is right, as he claims in "Communion". Rectal probes for generations does not sound like fun.

 
 
 
321steve
9.1.1  321steve  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1    6 days ago
Who in their right mind would get in an unknown spacecraft with beings we know nothing about?

These days I 'd consider it. From what I've seen, humanity just can't be the best the universe has to offer. LOL  

And what if Whitney Schriber is right, as he claims in "Communion". Rectal probes for generations does not sound like fun.

OOPS,I should have read your complet post before I started my reply. So.. Well, on second thought, I'll pass too. 

lol 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @9.1.1    6 days ago

I dunno....I think I'll stay right here with humanity, warts and all. Rectal probes do NOT sound like a party

 
 
 
r.t..b...
9.1.3  r.t..b...  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1    6 days ago
Who in their right mind would get in an unknown spacecraft with beings we know nothing about?

Sign me up...inquisitive minds want to know. Spielberg at his best...

 
 
 
321steve
9.1.4  321steve  replied to  r.t..b... @9.1.3    6 days ago
Sign me up...inquisitive minds want to know. Spielberg at his best...

LOL that was my first thoughts as well. Then I saw the end of Perrie's post and changed my mind rather quickly. lol

Yeah, it could be worse than here after all. 

lol

 
 
 
Sunshine
9.1.5  Sunshine  replied to  r.t..b... @9.1.3    6 days ago
Spielberg at his best...

It was...now I want to watch it again.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
9.1.6  Sunshine  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1    6 days ago
if they are coming Sunshine, I won't be going with them.

Me neither...I'm scared to fly. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.1.7  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @9.1.6    6 days ago

Not such a fan of flying either.

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.1.8  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1    6 days ago

What got me was when he left his wife and children. 

 
 
 
321steve
9.1.9  321steve  replied to  Kathleen @9.1.8    6 days ago

Ever been married ? 

Where is the craft ? 

and is there still room ? 

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.1.10  Kathleen  replied to  321steve @9.1.9    6 days ago

jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
321steve
9.1.11  321steve  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1.7    6 days ago
Not such a fan of flying either.

Me either but, WTH we all gotta go someday and way. (and I had a friend in the  industry warning me) So ?  When its your time, its your time.

I'll fly again. No problem. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @9.1.11    6 days ago

I don't like airports

 
 
 
321steve
9.1.13  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.12    6 days ago
I don't like airports

I dont either really I just make sure I have nothing on me and endure them. lol

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.1.14  Kathleen  replied to  321steve @9.1.13    6 days ago

I don't care for them too much, but I do like watching the planes take off.

 
 
 
321steve
9.1.15  321steve  replied to  Kathleen @9.1.14    6 days ago
I do like watching the planes take off.

I was going to school a while back and they had a small airport next to it, I liked to watch the new helicopter pilots trying their hand at flying those. LOL It was sometimes kinda scary I would not have wanted to be in those helicopters !!!  It was interesting too watch though.  Some were definitely better at it than others !  lol

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.1.16  Kathleen  replied to  321steve @9.1.15    5 days ago

I love the sound of Helicopters, I would like to ride in one.  I bet it was fun watching them. : )

 
 
 
321steve
9.1.17  321steve  replied to  Kathleen @9.1.16    5 days ago
I bet it was fun watching them.

It was, From the Ground.

LOL 

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.2  Kathleen  replied to  Sunshine @9    6 days ago

I still have those 5 notes in my head...

 
 
 
321steve
9.2.1  321steve  replied to  Kathleen @9.2    6 days ago

I hear this is worse, But, I didn't listen to it, I dont need that shit in my head. LOL

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.2.2  Kathleen  replied to  321steve @9.2.1    6 days ago

LOL! I am so glad my daughter is grown, I could not take that playing all day..

 
 
 
321steve
9.2.3  321steve  replied to  Kathleen @9.2.2    6 days ago

LOL I won't even listen to it, I feel No need to. LOL 

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.2.4  Kathleen  replied to  321steve @9.2.3    5 days ago

 I watch almost the whole thing... 

I must have been nuts, now that song is in my head. jrSmiley_46_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
321steve
9.2.5  321steve  replied to  Kathleen @9.2.4    5 days ago
I watch almost the whole thing... 

I am sorry... I should either not have posted it or included                                           a huge warning Sign.

lol 

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.2.6  Kathleen  replied to  321steve @9.2.5    5 days ago

No worries, I thought it was funny. jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
321steve
9.2.7  321steve  replied to  Kathleen @9.2.6    5 days ago
No worries, I thought it was funny.

LOL.. Still it probably should be posted with a warning. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
10  evilgenius    6 days ago

Reading the comments there are a lot of "mathematically probability" posts. Of which I concur. I just want to throw out the Femri Paradox just because no else has.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @10    6 days ago

How depressing.....

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1    6 days ago

Never heard about this, but I have to agree with Trout. Kind of depressing. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
11  Kathleen    6 days ago

The only sad thing is that we may not find out in our lifetime.  They could be too far away. Then again maybe they want nothing to do with us. All the wars and killing each other, I would not blame them.

 
 
 
Sunshine
11.1  Sunshine  replied to  Kathleen @11    6 days ago

We may be a food source...jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Sunshine @11.1    6 days ago

It's a cookbook!!!!  : )

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @11.1    6 days ago
We may be a food source

I hope they don't have a cookbook

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
11.1.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.2    6 days ago

But they do.....

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Nowhere Man @11.1.3    6 days ago

That was one of the best TZ episodes. TZ was also one of the best series on TV. It's too bad they can't make anthology series like that anymore. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.5  Kathleen  replied to  Nowhere Man @11.1.3    6 days ago

I love TZ, one of my favorites, Midnight Sun.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.5    6 days ago
One of my favorites, Midnight Sun.

That was a good one too. Or "Nightmare at 20,000 ft.," an early (and young) William Shatner appearance.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.7  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.6    6 days ago

Yes, the scared the dickens out of me.  Another good one was when the man built the shelter and his neighbors did not. Can't remember the name of it. The one with Agnes Moorehead and the invaders.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.7    6 days ago
Another good one was when the man built the shelter and his neighbors did not. Can't remember the name of it.

I know which one you mean. It's where they thought there was an incoming nuclear attack, but it turned out to be just a satellite. Remember the "Monsters on Maple Street" episode?

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.9  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.8    6 days ago

I sure do...

Talking Tina and Billy Mummy playing that horrible boy.

So many good ones, I watch them from time to time.

 
 
 
evilgenius
11.1.10  evilgenius  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.8    6 days ago

Amazon Prime's Electric Dreams is pretty good. They did "The Father Thing" which I thought was outstanding. I haven't watched them all yet, but several of the ones I've watched were great.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.9    6 days ago
So many good ones,

Let's face it, they're all good. Some a little better than others. But still good and worthy of binge watching anytime. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
11.1.12  Nowhere Man  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.7    6 days ago
Agnes Moorehead and the invaders

That was the title, "The Invaders" Season 2 Episode 15.......

I have them all.... 

 
 
 
Sunshine
11.1.13  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.6    6 days ago
"Nightmare at 20,000 ft.,

That is still creepy.  Made everyone afraid to fly, like Pyscho made everyone afraid to shower, and Jaws made everyone afraid to swim.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @11.1.13    6 days ago
That is still creepy.  Made everyone afraid to fly, like Pyscho made everyone afraid to shower, and Jaws made everyone afraid to swim.  

Indeed. Let's be honest, anyone who saw that episode will always look out the window and "inspect" the wings if they're sitting in a window seat on a plane over the wings, am I right? jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.10    6 days ago
Amazon Prime's Electric Dreams is pretty good.

I do not have Prime, so I didn't see it. But thanks for the tip.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.14    6 days ago

No.....

I always sit next to the window and look down at the ground below

 
 
 
321steve
11.1.18  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.17    6 days ago
I always sit next to the window and look down at the ground below

LOL... IF it ever comes racing up at you, close your eyes and kiss your ass bye bye. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.17    6 days ago
I always sit next to the window and look down at the ground below

I don't mind looking at the ground below. It's when the ground comes up that I start to worry. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @11.1.18    6 days ago

Yes. That scares me more than some imaginary monster on the wing

 
 
 
evilgenius
11.1.21  evilgenius  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.15    6 days ago

As soon as Game of Thrones ends I'll cancel my cable and go to an antenna and streaming only. 

 
 
 
WallyW
11.1.22  WallyW  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.7    6 days ago
The one with Agnes Moorehead and the invaders.
One of my favorite TZ episodes. If I remember correctly, there was hardly a word of spoken dialog in it. The beginning, and then the end of the episode...Rod Serling was a brilliant and gifted creative writer and storyteller. Hardly a bad episode in the whole series. 
"This is one of the out-of-the-way places, the unvisited places, bleak, wasted, dying. This is a farmhouse, handmade, crude, a house without electricity or gas, a house untouched by progress. This is the woman who lives in the house, a woman who's been alone for many years, a strong, simple woman whose only problem up until this moment has been that of acquiring enough food to eat, a woman about to face terror, which is even now coming at her from - The Twilight Zone."
"These are the invaders, the tiny beings from the tiny place called Earth, who would take the giant step across the sky to the question marks that sparkle and beckon from the vastness of the universe only to be imagined. The invaders...who found out that a one-way ticket to the stars beyond has the ultimate price tag...and we have just seen it entered in a ledger that covers all the transactions in the universe...a bill stamped "Paid in Full" and to be found on file in the Twilight Zone." 
Here is a short clip from that episode.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n99iNW9595o&list=PLEA2719BD8050014F&index=3

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.21    5 days ago
go to an antenna

Are those still around? jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

As soon as Game of Thrones

Speaking of GoT...

 
 
 
321steve
11.1.24  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.20    5 days ago
That scares me more than some imaginary monster on the wing

LOL At least you dont have the horror stories of airline maintenance I have in my head. Not long ago I had a friend who had been in airplane maintenance all his life, man he had some doozies to tell. Like he said, even something like slightly too small of rivets being used when something is replaced can cause a major failure, worse yet according to him is the lack of oversight is and was been slipping each year. Yep scary stuff if ya fly. He didn't anymore. 

Nuff said. 

 
 
 
321steve
11.1.25  321steve  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.21    5 days ago
antenna

I've seen TZ on antenna tv here in Phoenix recently.  

I also did away with cable the day they pushed my bill from $120 to $177, (after the Cox "rewards program) $167.  I'd had enough, I cancel it right then. Been happy on antenna and steaming since. Fuck Cox !

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.26  Kathleen  replied to  WallyW @11.1.22    5 days ago

Yes,  it had such a nice twist about it, although TZ is well known for that. When the ship had U.S.A on it, I thought wow!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
11.1.27  Jasper2529  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.11    5 days ago
Let's face it, they're all good. Some a little better than others. But still good and worthy of binge watching anytime. 

Fully agree. TZ was one of the best ever shows - some episodes were really scary. If you don't already do so, mark your New Year's Eve/Day calendar and watch the SyFy channel. It has a TZ marathon for 24+ hours.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.28  Kathleen  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1.27    5 days ago

I did! It was on all day and night..

 
 
 
Jasper2529
11.1.29  Jasper2529  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.9    5 days ago
Talking Tina and Billy Mummy playing that horrible boy.

Telly Savalas shouldn't have messed with Talking Tina, and Anthony Fremont (Billy Mumy) sends anyone and anything he doesn't like to the cornfield!

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.30  Kathleen  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1.29    5 days ago

Oops, I put too many M's like a Mummy. : )

That's right, she made him trip and fall down those stairs...

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.31  katrix  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1.27    5 days ago

I had a cold over New Year's so I watched quite a few of them!

 
 
 
Ender
11.1.32  Ender  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.10    5 days ago

There is a show called Black Mirror. Same principal.

 
 
 
321steve
11.1.33  321steve  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.23    5 days ago
Are those still around?

They different the new ones pick up the digital signals that all major networks are required to broadcast, I adds up to Free TV again, (limited channels) But WTF is on cable worth a hundred bucks a month anyway ?  Nothing I was watching. Add in streaming and fuck cable. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.34  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @11.1.32    5 days ago

That's an excellent show. I keep hoping a new season is coming

 
 
 
Jasper2529
11.1.35  Jasper2529  replied to  Kathleen @11.1.28    5 days ago

TZ was a weekly show when I was a kid. Even though I remember most of them, I never get tire of watching them again. My family knows where to find me on NYE/NYD ... TZ marathon!


 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.36  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @11.1.33    5 days ago

We have 3 or 4 of those antennas that look like a mat that you put up against a window. Works great in the man cave and my bedroom but sucks in the living room

 
 
 
321steve
11.1.37  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.36    5 days ago

I have one on each TV they are the newer ones made by RCA with a pad and rabbit ears. I forget that I live in the middle of Phoenix. we get plenty of channels . One TV gets about 90 the other about 75 channels.  Although about a two thirds are religious or spanish ( I edit those out). 

Between that and a fire box and Hulu I dont miss cable I sure dont miss paying for it either ! But I'm not a big television viewer anyway, Id rather be active.  I can hardly watch a movie with commercials in it even because I'm off and doing something on the commercial, by time I get back I'm lost. LOL 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
11.1.38  Jasper2529  replied to  katrix @11.1.31    5 days ago

(belated) Happy New Year, katrix. I hope you're over your cold!

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.39  Gordy327  replied to  321steve @11.1.33    5 days ago
But WTF is on cable worth a hundred bucks a month anyway ?  Nothing I was watching. Add in streaming and fuck cable. 

Good point.

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.40  katrix  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1.38    5 days ago

Thank you Jasper .. Happy belated New Year and Christmas to you!  I'm over my cold and looking forward to a few inches of snow tomorrow.

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.41  katrix  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.39    5 days ago

I recently cancelled DirecTV and signed up for Sling Blue.  It's perfect for me. Saved about 70 per month.  Hockey and football, science, comedy, it's all good. And I can share my account with 2 other people.

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.42  katrix  replied to  katrix @11.1.41    5 days ago

And it had the TZ marathon ... that's a great sign

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.43  katrix  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1.35    5 days ago

Haha you're such a geek!  I'm so glad you don't know about my Flash Gordon marathon weekend. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.44  Gordy327  replied to  katrix @11.1.42    5 days ago
And it had the TZ marathon ... that's a great sign

The only thing better is a Star Trek marathon.

I'm so glad you don't know about my Flash Gordon marathon weekend.

Remember the Flash Gordon movie in 1980? A campy classic if there ever was one. The soundtrack by Queen was perfect.

 
 
 
WallyW
11.1.45  WallyW  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.44    5 days ago
The only thing better is a Star Trek marathon

BBC America seems to have the rights to most of those series currently, and I regularly record a batch for later viewing. A couple years ago I was able to record the entire "Voyager" series in chronological order on the DVR over a period of a few months. It made a lot more sense to view the episodes that way as they made their way back home.

 
 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
12  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    6 days ago

The Bilderburg group and the illuminati know where the Aliens are hiding.

I've heard the communicate through our toasters.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @12    6 days ago

Not our toasters.. it's amazon!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @12    6 days ago

I thought it was baby monitors

 
 
 
321steve
12.2.1  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.2    6 days ago
I thought it was baby monitors

Anything with a microphone or camera connected to the internet or wifi is disabled in my home unless in use.  I even have my cell phone off most of the time when not in use my computer is either off line or password locked if I' m gone.  Why I dont know, I have nothing to hide, I just appreciate my privacy and dont want to be spied on, so I take precautions these days against it. I also lock my door even when I'm home so no one just walks in.   

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.3  Sparty On  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @12    5 days ago

I won't worry until the radio signals start playing Boxcar Willie or Zamfir on his pan flute .....

 
 
 
katrix
12.3.1  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @12.3    5 days ago

If you hear that .. you're gone.

 
 
 
Tacos!
13  Tacos!    5 days ago

Apparently alien kids don't turn off the lights when they leave the room either. The universe is not made of money, you know!

 
 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
14  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    5 days ago

Every night after midnight in Walmarts across the planet Aliens congregate to plot against humanity.

They weigh over 300lbs, the female species wears yoga pants and the males wear short shorts from 1980. Both can be identified by large Camel toes resembaling sink holes.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
15  Citizen Kane-473667    5 days ago

I always love these arguments where one side believes in a supernatural God while the other side believes solely in science. What gets me rolling is that both sides could be right at the same time as they are wrong.  Let's start with our definition of "supernatural":

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

We, as a species, are very young in relation to those stars closest to the center of the known universe, and yet here we are, at a few tens of thousands of years old contemplating and actually following through on such things as space exploration, genetic manipulation,  and several other fields which would make even our own current most backwards denizens of this planet regard us as "gods" and we are barely even a blip on the timeline of the Universe as a whole.

For those who contend there is no "God", let's examine what "God" claims to be in Biblical terms--Omnipotent; all powerful. Capable of manipulating matter and creating life from dirt. Uhm, last time I checked, carbon is the basic building block of our entire world and simply by manipulating carbon, we can create anything from dirt, to trees, to even human beings. Now call me crazy if you want, but since we already manipulate carbon, albeit at a very simplistic level, I find it no stretch of the imagination that a civilaztion millions of years older than ours (which even the staunchest atheist believes is possible) would be much more adept at much more complex manipulations of our basic building blocks.

 ESP is also not out of the question either.  Now imagine if we decide to use our genetic influencing techniques on such mundane things as increasing our brains ability to influence the physical world. (Science is still out on a verdict on telekinesis btw. It seems there is proof on both sides as to whether it is real or not). Where would we be in 100 years? A 1000? 10,000? A 100,000??? Is it a stretch of the imagination to assume that we could indeed influence the physical universe simply through our will? 

So if we accept the fact that statistically speaking there are civilizations upwards of millions of years older than ours who have had mush more time than us to develope technology, manipulate their genetics, and also have the desire, like us, to colonize the universe. then statistically speaking, there are indeed supernatural "gods" wandering around the universe establishing their own civilizations and influencing their developments much as our own religious believers claim.  

Now that whole Heaven and Hell final destination thingy...well, to me, that is a whole 'nother story... I think of that as more of a Carrot and a Stick type of inducement to follow the rules the "god" laid down!

Just my two- cents...

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @15    5 days ago
For those who contend there is no "God"

Who contends there is no god (where 'god' means creator of the universe)?   I know who is not convinced there is a god, but is someone in this discussion stating definitively that there is no god?

Science is still out on a verdict on telekinesis btw.

The position of science, currently, is that there is no evidence of telekinesis.   That means it is simply an unevidenced claim.

So if we accept the fact that statistically speaking there are civilizations upwards of millions of years older than ours who have had mush more time than us to develope technology, manipulate their genetics, and also have the desire, like us, to colonize the universe. then statistically speaking, there are indeed supernatural "gods" wandering around the universe establishing their own civilizations and influencing their developments much as our own religious believers claim.  

Agreed.   We should accept the possibility of an advanced civilization that might even have the ability to create what we believe is our universe.   We cannot say that is impossible.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
15.1.1  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  TᵢG @15.1    5 days ago
but is someone in this discussion stating definitively that there is no god?

Stating that believing in a "god" is foolish is the same as saying there is no such thing as God would you not agree? Re-read some of the posts and see if you spot them as easily as I did.

The position of science, currently, is that there is no evidence of telekinesis.

Not according to Live Science and a certain Princeton Professor named Jahn.

We cannot say that is impossible.

Which means we cannot say that by the very definitions we use to describe "gods", we also cannot deny the possibility of their existence.

But why stop there??? Let's grant that there are possibly civilizations billions of years older than ours--statistically speaking possibility of course. Now we also have to consider that we are told that The Big Bang was a result of a collapsing Universe previous to ours, so now we have ANOTHER possibility of a race TRILLIONS of years our predecessor. Now I wonder what they could have learned/developed in their timeline???  Do you think in all of those trillions of years that they may have found a way to traverse from a physical plane to a strictly energy-based life form in that time??? 

Now even our own infantile brains have developed the realization that Energy cannot be destroyed, only transmuted. We are left with the realization that some previous Race knowing their Universe was on the verge of collapse who would have developed and expanded upon our limited knowledge of the very structure of the Universe we currently have would be faced with the option of converting to an indestructible form (energy) in order to avoid annihilation and have billions of years to figure out how to do so, would somehow NOT be able to be the "god" of whom our ancestors so poorly tried to describe in their writings before they had any knowledge of what a quark or a photon was???

As far as I am concerned, the Bible and mythological tales were just our first recorded journal of how our "creators" interacted with their newest "creation" when we were still emerging as a sentient life form.  Kind of like how our little league coach would give us pointers during practice, but once the game was on and the hit is made, all they can do is shout from the sidelines....

I think we should all accept the fact that we humans are but pupae on our way to becoming butterflies and it will take much longer than what we can comprehend as time to achieve the level that those who have come before us in this Universe have already surpassed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @15.1.1    5 days ago
Stating that believing in a "god" is foolish is the same as saying there is no such thing as God would you not agree?

Not in my book.   There is no evidence of a god.   That does not mean that a god does not exist; it simply means that belief in a god is not justified by the evidence.   

Not according to Live Science and a certain Princeton Professor named Jahn.

Link?

Which means we cannot say that by the very definitions we use to describe "gods", we also cannot deny the possibility of their existence.

Agreed.   I routinely stipulate that.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
15.1.3  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.2    5 days ago
Not in my book.   There is no evidence of a god.   That does not mean that a god does not exist; it simply means that belief in a god is not justified by the evidence. 

Sorry, but if you mock someones belief, you are asserting your disbelief. Intentional or not.

Link?

Live Science

Dr. Robert G. Jahn

 
 
 
Kathleen
15.1.4  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.2    5 days ago

Are you talking about believing in something without any evidence is foolish? That would define Faith.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @15.1.3    5 days ago

Disbelief in a god does not mean that no god exists nor does it assert that no god exists.   Disbelief that intelligent exolife exists is not a positive assertion that intelligent exolife is impossible.


Dr. Robert G. Jahn

Dr Jahn tried for 25 years to come up with credible findings that would be acceptable as actual science.   He never accomplished that.   As one critic reports:

The PEAR Proposition: Fact or Fallacy? Despite the best efforts of the PEAR group over a twenty-five-year period, their impact on mainstream science has been negligible. The PEAR group might argue that this is due to the biased and blinkered mentality of mainstream scientists. I would argue that it is due to the lack of compelling evidence.

A scientist or even a group of scientists making a claim is not science.   Science is not based on claim, it is based on credible evidence and logic.   Dr. Jahn never achieved credibility in this area of research.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @15.1.4    5 days ago

Citizen Kane introduced the word 'foolish';  that did not come from me nor anything like that.   My point is that disbelief in something is not the same as a positive assertion that the something does not exist.

 
 
 
Kathleen
15.1.7  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.6    5 days ago

The reason why I asked it was that it seems to be the root of all the discussions on here. Perhaps not you, but from what I have read from many comments on here. Again, not referring to you, I do see plenty of mocking. Your's and his comment just made me bring that up. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
15.1.8  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.5    5 hours ago
As one critic reports:

This "critic" was unable to reproduce the results whereas the same German scientist he claims also could not reproduce the results actually did as have others, although not by as big a margin as Jahn achieved.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @15.1.8    4 hours ago

Dr. Jahn's margins were not statistically impressive.   That is why his 28 years of research failed to interest the broader scientific community (in spite of Dr. Jahn's credentials outside of telekinesis).   He could not even encourage support from his colleagues at Princeton.  His lab shut down in 2007 and nobody is really trying to carry this ball any further.

Sometimes, especially when your very best example is at best marginally interesting and at worst a failure, it is good to simply admit that you made a bad point.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Krishna
shona1
Keep America Great!
epistte


56 visitors