Mysterious fast radio bursts detected from deep space
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
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."
CHIME 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
Who is online
70 visitors
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.
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"
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.
This is a big I. DON'T. KNOW.
I know, right? So many possibilities. My head spins.
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...
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.
And it's fairly simple to understand.
I learned about it watching "Ancient Aliens"
even by using the mathematical premise of 1 in a million, the statistical probability that we are alone is impossible
I totally agree.
I don't think we're alone. However, I don't know what these bursts are
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
Gosh I hope not....what if they get confused?
You've got a point there.
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.
I don't know if it's proof of extraterrestrial activity. But I doubt we are alone regardless.
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.
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.”
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).
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.
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
So as long as its your fantasy it is OK to have faith in its existence without a shred of credible evidence.
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.
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?
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.
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.
See previous statement.
No, I said it was irrational.
It's highly unlikely that Earth is the only planet on which life evolved.
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.
"Highly unlikely" is hardly proof.
Please prove 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.
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.
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.
And what caused the Big Bang? What created the elements of the Big Bang? What created the conditions for the Big Bang?
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.
The honest answer is, no one knows.
Believing Martians exist...fine, believing Jesus exist well that's just foolish.
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.
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.
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.
It's a mathematical probability. Google the Drake Equation.
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
Which is pretty much another way of saying wishful thinking .
Same thing. Your quibbling.
You are still taking the existence on extraterrestrials on faith. You have no direct evidence.
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.
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.
It is still not proof of anything.
I'm with ya, Raven!
Nobody is claiming proof. Maybe you never took a class on probability?
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.
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.
You realize that gravity is just a theory, right?
omg...sounds like one of Mr Giggles friends.
I'm surrounded by these type of people
If you can believe a god always existed, why do you find it so hard to accept that something else always existed?
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.
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.
If you can not answer what was asked, best to just skip over it.
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.
Correct. Emotion and gullibility vs. logic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where did they come from and how were they created?
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."
Once again, the honest answer is no one knows. It seems you are fruitlessly searching for a way to discredit the Big Bang theory.
Not even a little. Unless your understanding of mathematics is sorely lacking.
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.
Again wrong! I am taking it on mathematical probability, which is probably quite high.
I never said I did.
But it establishes a degree of certainty, which is far better than mere belief.
And you are still wrong on that assertion.
It's the difference between emotion and logic. You can believe whatever you want. Actual hard numbers back it up.
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.
And I do not, as there is no evidence to support the existence of such a thing.
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?
(This is a book excerpt)
Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case
By Frank Turek and Ravi Zacharias
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.
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.
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.
I see just as much evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials as I do for the existence of God.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess that only works for some folks, huh?
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".
No one is making that claim. The universe came from the Big Bang. The evidence supports that.
More like atheists counter or challenge religious claims.
That's when such a discussion becomes more emotional rather than logical or rational.
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.
‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss - The New ...
Mar 25, 2012 · If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hello! I never said "I know." I repeatedly said "we don't know." I thought that was quite clear.
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.
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.
How can nature exist before the Big bang, when the Big bang itself was the formation of time and space?
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."
Also known as "a wild guess."
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.
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.
What do you base that assumption on?
An argument from ignorance fallacy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. Dr. Krauss has a lot to offer but this sensational sound-bite nonsense is something that has irritated me for years.
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.
That would be a logical approach. Although, it would be cool if those signals turned out to be artificial.
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.
The late Carl Sagan would have loved to get this news - Repeating signals? Anyone who has watched the movie "Contact" would have an opinion.
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.
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?
I think it is a possibility. I think there is also on Mars.
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.
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.
Exactly
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.
Best...advice...ever!
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
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.
Does Universal Eddie sell mattresses?
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.
Well, that stinks. I was going to use them for my summer house there.
Dear Friend Perrie: Another theory is the communication was this.
"77, WABC. All hits, all the time"!
We don't know for sure.
Part of the problem is the words, "Kasey Kasem".
Are these a name? An intergalatic message?
E.
Lol, yes Enoch, perhaps we should first try to discover intelligent life forms here on earth before trying to seek them elsewhere!
Lenny does have a point, Enoch. But then again, who am I to talk?
Yes indeed, and get them into our governing offices ASAP. And Congress needs a lot more of them as well.
(smile)
Dear Friend Lennylynx: Best of luck with that here.
Smiles.
E.
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.
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.
Hi Steve,
Repeating patterns are relevant since we are doing the same thing.
Well, that is a whole different story. Yes, I agree we are and we should be concerned about that. But as Sting put it:
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.
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?
I have had that thought too.
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...
They are coming........
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.
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
I dunno....I think I'll stay right here with humanity, warts and all. Rectal probes do NOT sound like a party
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
It was...now I want to watch it again.
Me neither...I'm scared to fly.
Not such a fan of flying either.
Ever been married ?
Where is the craft ?
and is there still room ?
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.
I don't like airports
I dont either really I just make sure I have nothing on me and endure them. lol
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
It was, From the Ground.
LOL
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.
How depressing.....
Never heard about this, but I have to agree with Trout. Kind of depressing.
Apparently alien kids don't turn off the lights when they leave the room either. The universe is not made of money, you know!
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 ":
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...
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?
The position of science, currently, is that there is no evidence of telekinesis. That means it is simply an unevidenced 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.
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.
Not according to Live Science and a certain Princeton Professor named Jahn.
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.
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.
Link?
Agreed. I routinely stipulate that.
Sorry, but if you mock someones belief, you are asserting your disbelief. Intentional or not.
Live Science
Dr. Robert G. Jahn
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe not in your opinion, but you are certainly entitled to it.
The scientific community was not impressed with Dr. Jahn’s data. His findings were not convincing to fellow scientists.
Hmmm...
Where else have I heard that?????
Seems someone else had the same problem....
Seems to happen all the time...
Now just to be clear, even though we can't prove or disprove telekinesis using our modern science, apparently we CAN use our modern science to harness the power of mind-over-matter.
Developing interactive virtual reality that uses thought for input.
EEG being used to control machines.
The reason I mention the two links above is because it lends weight to the argument that the mind can influence matter (EEG) and with amplification through machinery, thought can be turned into mechanics. Now can the mind operating solely by itself influence matter? As I've pointed out, that question remains definitively-- unanswered. However, here is a good article you might want to read but the best part is the embedded link in this paragraph. If you click on it, it will take you to a study done for the Air Force. Scroll through the PDF to Chapter 5 and begin reading there. It lists several scientific experiments on PK done under lab conditions that may satisfy your skepticism.
Meanwhile. I'll be keeping my mind open to all possibilities...
You are in effect arguing that one should accept anything proposed by a scientist because the inability to convince the scientific community does not mean the scientist is incorrect.
That is an argument from ignorance.
My argument is the Dr. Jahn has yet (well, he is dead now) to provide convincing scientifically sound results. That does not mean his hypothesis is wrong, it simply means that his hypothesis remains undetermined. Just like the hypothesis that human beings have a soul or the hypothesis that we are all connected by a universal life force.
Sure. But do not put forth an hypothesis and pass it off as established scientific fact. That is what you did by delivering the work of Dr Jahn. As it stands now, telekinesis has no credible scientific corroboration. That does not mean it is impossible - it just means that it is not established fact (in a scientific sense).
That is not telekinesis. We know our brains produce signals. Technology that harnesses those signals is cool, but it has nothing to do with telekinesis. You realize that, right? Mind sends signals, signals interpreted by machine, machine acts on the matter.
You did read before you wrote I hope. Or maybe you didn't otherwise you would have not said that because each and every quoted passage pertained to those whose ideas were not only dismissed outright by their peers, but also have gone on to become established scientific fact.
Soooooo, exactly what was that linked study for the Air Force about????? Parlor tricks? Uhm, do you think maybe there just might be something more to this subject than the little you know of it????