Do Aliens actually exist ?

Chippy_boy said:
No, I am merely wanting to point out that the question as to whether the universe is infinite or not is not agreed amongst scientists. It may very well be infinite, or it may finite, or it may become infinite at time t = infinity.

I can only assume you are ignoring the google search results which say we don't know.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing "not knowing" for "consensus opinion" - no one is saying we know that the universe is infinite. The consensus opinion is that the universe is infinite.

You, on the other hand, are advancing the idea that there is no consensus and that the "latest thinking" shows quite the opposite - and you appear to be wrong on both counts.
===
As a "for example" from a sister field - mathematics.

No one knows whether or not the Riemann Conjecture is true - but the overwhelming consensus opinion among mathematicians, is that it is true.

With regard to the universe being infinite - it's almost certainly a less widely held opinion than the mathematic-view about the RC. But it's still a consensus opinion.

If you dislike the idea of an infinite universe, you'd be on rock solid ground stating that an infinite universe has not been proved.

It still begs the question - why are you so against the idea of an infinite universe?
 
Last edited:
CityInWashingtonState said:
As we learn more and more about our planet, it's becoming ever more obvious just how special the circumstances that led to our existence are. Incredibly fortunate.

Yet, the observable universe is unimaginably large - however unlikely, is it still possible that intelligent life, capable of interstellar travel, evolved somewhere in our observable universe? I think so. And I think that it's probable that we'll detect signs of them in my lifetime - science is expanding exponentially and so too ability to detect advanced life.
Click to expand...

You may be right.

Something you might like to ponder upon (forgive me if you have already) is this: If we confine the discussion to our own galaxy, there's something like 100 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way. We can assume many of these stars have planets and there's no reason why any intelligent life forms would have considered that our Earth was worth even a 2nd glance. We are just a boring planet, orbiting a boring an uninteresting sun that no-one would pay any attention to. Until recently.

We started our first radio broadcasts about 100 years ago. Those early broadcasts have been radiating out into space ever since, at the speed of light. The sphere in which those radio waves could be detected by aliens is now 100 light years in radius. There's only a few hundred solar systems where someone, or something, could have noticed us and thought "hello, that looks interesting". Anyone 101 light years away, doesn't know there's intelligent life on earth yet, because the radio waves haven't reached them yet.

And moreover, for an aliens to have decided to reply, or even visit, must be less than 50 light years away, since even if they replied the moment they heard us 50 years ago, it would take until now for us to receive a reply.

But the clock is ticking and the chances of aliens spotting us goes up by the day.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You may be right.

Something you might like to ponder upon (forgive me if you have already) is this: If we confine the discussion to our own galaxy, there's something like 100 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way. We can assume many of these stars have planets and there's no reason why any intelligent life forms would have considered that our Earth was worth even a 2nd glance. Until recently.

We started our first radio broadcasts about 100 years ago. Those early broadcasts have been radiating out into space ever since, at the speed of light. The sphere in which those radio waves could be detected by aliens is now 100 light years in radius. There's only a few hundred solar systems where someone, or something, could have noticed us and thought "hello, that looks interesting". Anyone 101 light years away, doesn't know there's intelligent life on earth yet, because the radio waves haven't reached them yet.

And moreover, for an aliens to have decided to reply, or even visit, must be less than 50 light years away, since even if they replied the moment they heard us 50 years ago, it would take until now for us to receive a reply.

But the clock is ticking and the chances of aliens spotting us goes up by the day.
Click to expand...
With this I agree - there's an obvious mystery about why we haven't yet made contact with an advanced extra-terrestrial civilization.
 
CityInWashingtonState said:
Another paper that hasn't been peer reviewed and moreover hasn't been put in simple layman terms.
Click to expand...

Love it. So Stephen Hawking says one thing and a City supporter on Bluemoon says "no, I know more than him, believe me instead". HIlarious.

Here it is in layman's terms:

https://nypost.com/2018/05/02/stephen-hawkings-final-theory-predicts-universe-isnt-infinite/

At least I post some examples, unlike you just repeating your false claim hoping to bash people on the head with it.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I think on balance there probably is life elsewhere in the universe - it's just that I don't rule out there not being any.

It's entirely possible that the combination of circumstances required in order for it to happen are so staggeringly unlikely that we are indeed alone. The "well we exist, so it can't be that unusual" argument, doesn't stand up. It's a bit like someone entering the national lottery for the first time, winning the jackpot, and then concluding that winning the jackpot can't be that unusual.
Click to expand...
But imagine there being 400,000,000,000 lottery games and you buy 300,000,000,000 tickets in each of them. You’d be pretty certain you’d win a few million times.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You may be right.

Something you might like to ponder upon (forgive me if you have already) is this: If we confine the discussion to our own galaxy, there's something like 100 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way. We can assume many of these stars have planets and there's no reason why any intelligent life forms would have considered that our Earth was worth even a 2nd glance. We are just a boring planet, orbiting a boring an uninteresting sun that no-one would pay any attention to. Until recently.

We started our first radio broadcasts about 100 years ago. Those early broadcasts have been radiating out into space ever since, at the speed of light. The sphere in which those radio waves could be detected by aliens is now 100 light years in radius. There's only a few hundred solar systems where someone, or something, could have noticed us and thought "hello, that looks interesting". Anyone 101 light years away, doesn't know there's intelligent life on earth yet, because the radio waves haven't reached them yet.

And moreover, for an aliens to have decided to reply, or even visit, must be less than 50 light years away, since even if they replied the moment they heard us 50 years ago, it would take until now for us to receive a reply.

But the clock is ticking and the chances of aliens spotting us goes up by the day.
Click to expand...

hasn't our planet been habitable for millions of years, so anyone/thing who could see/reach us would know that regardless of us being able to transmit
 
SWP's back said:
But imagine there being 400,000,000,000 lottery games and you buy 300,000,000,000 tickets in each of them. You’d be pretty certain you’d win a few million times.
Click to expand...
Of course. I was merely putting to bed the "well we exist, therefore..." argument.

And we discussed what you suggest, a few pages back.

The problem is you're multiplying an infinitesimally small number by a humongously large number - when in fact neither number is known - and trying to derive a sensible answer.

It may very well be that the numbers of planets in the universe is so great that that side of the equation "wins", but maybe not.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Love it. So Stephen Hawking says one thing and a City supporter on Bluemoon says "no, I know more than him, believe me instead". HIlarious.

Here it is in layman's terms:

https://nypost.com/2018/05/02/stephen-hawkings-final-theory-predicts-universe-isnt-infinite/

At least I post some examples, unlike you just repeating your false claim hoping to bash people on the head with it.
Click to expand...
OK Chippy_boy - you win. You've managed to google a few papers/articles (however misleading - Hawking said nothing whatsoever about the possibility of the universe being non-infinite in a geometric sense).
===
Here's an exercise for you - take any wildly unscientific view. For example, the theory of evolution is wrong.

And then try to find articles in support of this hypotheses.

Bingo - you'll succeed.

Moreover, you'll find articles claiming that well-known scientists in the field are arguing that evolution is a false theory.
====
As for looking into bias, I'll help you:
https://nypost.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
====
Bias alone is but one factor. You'll need to look at the body of evidence, in totality, for or against a certain opinion. This is a rare talent - one which you do not possess.
====
So, post another biased, unknowledgeable article in support of your view - you can find zillions of them.
====
For the rest of us - me included - I honestly have an open opinion with no dog in the hunt. Is the universe infinite or not? I simply seek the truth.

You on the other hand are like this:
I prefer that the universe is finite. And by God, I'll find anything that supports my view and advance it to my fullest as the truth.
====
Which of us, do you suppose, best embodies the scientific method, and the dispassionate search for truth?
 
tonea2003 said:
hasn't our planet been habitable for millions of years, so anyone/thing who could see/reach us would know that regardless of us being able to transmit
Click to expand...

Well they'd know there was a planet here, and they might be able to detect organic molecules in our atmosphere, but why would they even look? There's 100 billion+ stars in our own galaxy, and who knows but maybe 10x that many planets. And then there's hundreds of billions of galaxies. Klingons could be 1000s or even millions of light years away and have no reason at all to even consider looking at Earth.
 
@CityInWashingtonState : You're simply being a total arse.

I have already stated that I have no view either way whether the universe is finite or not. I couldn't care less.

That you would criticise Stephen Hawking's paper based on your superior understanding, tells the readers all they need to know.

“We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure,” said Hawking in an interview with Cambridge University last year.

https://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/129500_en.html

Now go and troll someone else. I'm out.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Well they'd know there was a planet here, and they might be able to detect organic molecules in our atmosphere, but why would they even look? There's 100 billion+ stars in our own galaxy, and who knows but maybe 10x that many planets. And then there's hundreds of billions of galaxies. Klingons could be 1000s or even millions of light years away and have no reason at all to even consider looking at Earth.
Click to expand...

same reason we are, curiosity and eventually necessity and for the very reason you stated with radio waves, a 100 years worth of distance is nothing in space time, so its needles in haystacks all the time.
it maybe the case habitable planets/civilizations may come an go in a blink of an eye(in space time) and our paths may never cross
 
Chippy_boy said:
@CityInWashingtonState : You're simply being a total arse.

I have already stated that I have no view either way whether the universe is finite or not. I couldn't care less.

That you would criticise Stephen Hawking's paper based on your superior understanding, tells the readers all they need to know.

Now go and troll someone else. I'm out.
Click to expand...
In case you didn't read my previous response, I'll restate it for you in plain terms - Hawking seems to be arguing that infinite expansion is unlikely. Not that the universe is not infinite in a geometric sense.

If you've trouble discerning the difference between these two lines of thought I'll be happy to supply references.

>>That you would criticise Stephen Hawking's paper based on your superior understanding, tells the readers all they need to know.
Why are you so emotional? Why the theatrical appeal?

Any unbiased person following this subject will reach the same conclusion that I have.

You, on the other hand, have a clear bias - either you've backed the argument that the universe isn't infinite and seem compelled to stick with that no matter what. Or, you've other motivations - deeply wishing that the universe isn't infinite and for that reason - regardless of evidence - you'll stick to your guns.
 
tonea2003 said:
same reason we are, curiosity and eventually necessity and for the very reason you stated with radio waves, a 100 years worth of distance is nothing in space time, so its needles in haystacks all the time.
it maybe the case habitable planets/civilizations may come an go in a blink of an eye(in space time) and our paths may never cross
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. My point is simply that we're a very boring and uninteresting planet that in all probability, aliens would have never bothered looking at, let alone investing the effort to actually visit... until we started broadcasting 'We're over here!!!!" about 100 years ago.
 
CityInWashingtonState said:
In case you didn't read my previous response, I'll restate it for you in plain terms - Hawking seems to be arguing that infinite expansion is unlikely. Not that the universe is not infinite in a geometric sense.

If you've trouble discerning the difference between these two lines of thought I'll be happy to supply references.

>>That you would criticise Stephen Hawking's paper based on your superior understanding, tells the readers all they need to know.
Why are you so emotional? Why the theatrical appeal?

Any unbiased person following this subject will reach the same conclusion that I have.

You, on the other hand, have a clear bias - either you've backed the argument that the universe isn't infinite and seem compelled to stick with that no matter what. Or, you've other motivations - deeply wishing that the universe isn't infinite and for that reason - regardless of evidence - you'll stick to your guns.
Click to expand...
I'm not sticking to any guns you pillock.

I have no view either way. Unlike you who doggedly hangs on to your idea that there's some agreement that it's infinite. I point out to you that opinions are divided, with evidence to show you that opinions are divided, and you still have your head up your arse about it.

When you extract it, you might finally admit you're wrong. I won't hold my breath.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I'm not sticking to any guns you pillock.

I have no view either way. Unlike you who doggedly hangs on to your idea that there's some agreement that it's infinite. I point out to you that opinions are divided, with evidence to show you that opinions are divided, and you still have your head up your arse about it.
Click to expand...
I agree that whether or not the universe is infinite in numerous possible ways is undecided.

That's not to say at all that there is no consensus opinion - which is that the universe is infinite in the geometric sense. As for the numerous other ways in which the universe may or may not be infinite - my reading suggests that there is no consensus at all; indeed, non-geometric, infinite universes seem to be highly speculative, open to widespread doubt.
===
I still have no clue why you can't recognize the two points above which are easily discernible through a cursory google search or - more enjoyably if you like science - by viewing any of the numerous recent broadcasts on the topic.

But whatever.
===
I will concede that the Drake Equation presents a conundrum - why we haven't discovered intelligent life beyond our planet so far is a mystery.
 
CityInWashingtonState said:
That's not to say at all that there is no consensus opinion - which is that the universe is infinite in the geometric sense.
Click to expand...

Well you're a trier, I'll give you that. How many times now is it you've repeated this false claim? I count 4 at least.

I just googled "Is the universe infinite" as you suggest. The first 5 results contained this, in sequence:

1. "All we can truly conclude is that the universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."

2. "It’s true that we don’t know whether it’s finite or infinite"

3. "Is the Universe finite or infinite? We don't know."

4. "We know that the galaxies must extend much further than we can see, but we do not know whether the universe is infinite or not."

5. "The simplest topology that corresponds to Euclidean geometry is that of flat, infinite space. So by Occam’s razor, i.e., the parsimony of assumptions, we can conclude that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the universe appears infinite."

So in my rather unscientific test, that's 4 don't knows and 1 yes it probably is. Some consensus.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Well you're a trier, I'll give you that. How many times now is it you've repeated this false claim? I count 4 at least.

I just googled "Is the universe infinite" as you suggest. The first 5 results contained this, in sequence:

1. "All we can truly conclude is that the universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."

2. "It’s true that we don’t know whether it’s finite or infinite"

3. "Is the Universe finite or infinite? We don't know."

4. "We know that the galaxies must extend much further than we can see, but we do not know whether the universe is infinite or not."

5. "The simplest topology that corresponds to Euclidean geometry is that of flat, infinite space. So by Occam’s razor, i.e., the parsimony of assumptions, we can conclude that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the universe appears infinite."

So in my rather unscientific test, that's 4 don't knows and 1 yes it probably is. Some consensus.
Click to expand...
Well, you're at least on the right track.

1, 2, 3, and 4 are beyond reproach - no cosmologist/physicist can argue against them.

Maybe you're hung up on semantics.

No one knows for sure whether or not the universe is infinite. You seem to think that I'm arguing that the universe is infinite and that there's proof that it is. If so, you've completely misunderstood what I've posted.
====
If you poll for an opinion - the majority of cosmologists/physicists - think that the universe is more likely infinite in a geometric sense than not based on our current understanding of physics and the data we have at hand; however, it's uncertain though, and the prevailing opinion might well be wrong.

That is all that I'm arguing.
 
CityInWashingtonState said:
Well, you're at least on the right track.

1, 2, 3, and 4 are beyond reproach - no cosmologist/physicist can argue against them.

Maybe you're hung up on semantics.

No one knows for sure whether or not the universe is infinite. You seem to think that I'm arguing that the universe is infinite and that there's proof that it is. If so, you've completely misunderstood what I've posted.
====
If you poll for an opinion - the majority of cosmologists/physicists - think that the universe is more likely infinite in a geometric sense than not based on our current understanding of physics and the data we have at hand.

That is all that I'm arguing.
Click to expand...
I do understand the difference between proof, and consensus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top