Science thread [merged]

[dwaino]

The best one to date which has had numerous documentaries around it since is the UFO that was witnessed by soldiers outside a nuclear base in the UK in the 80s I think it was. Lots of credible witnesses and documentation.

[Judge Roughneck]

W0ts the go with this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_satellite

NASA official website gots several pics of it ...

[🏅Dooks]

The best one to date which has had numerous documentaries around it since is the UFO that was witnessed by soldiers outside a nuclear base in the UK in the 80s I think it was. Lots of credible witnesses and documentation.

Rendlesham?

[Judge Roughneck]

Here's a link to some credible ufo witnesses including 3 astronauts, 2 cosmonauts, and US senators etc

http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/p/famous-people-13.html?m=1

This aside, I think the point myself and Judge are making is really solid evidence is out there. There's also a lot of rubbish you just have to sort the wheat from the chaff and follow your instincts.

It's an important question and I would encourage every person who is semi interested or a skeptic to look into it and form your own view.

When my local ice addict rants on about aliens fair enough the source lacks creditable then needs to be taken with a grain of salt as it were

But when presidents, defensive ministers, astronaughts, nuclear arms of Europe bosses (people who's job it is to start nuclear holocaust, or not), high security military base workers etc. fellow richmond fans on this forums who's family chilled with aliens in Clayton in 1966

People who more authority and esteem than your average joe blow, are making the accusations. It's somewhat harder to dismiss it as rubbish.

[dwaino]

The best one to date which has had numerous documentaries around it since is the UFO that was witnessed by soldiers outside a nuclear base in the UK in the 80s I think it was. Lots of credible witnesses and documentation.

Rendlesham?

That be the one. I'm pretty sure.

[mightytiges]

Advanced species and civilisations are improbable but to rule out the existence of life of any kind (even bacteria) is unwise IMO. It should be left as an unknown.

On what basis are advanced species and civilisations improbable MT? The number of stars and planets in our known universe is practically infinite. Just because other civilisations haven't turned up and declared themselves (and there is good evidence that they have, but I'll put that to one side for a moment) doesn't mean other species don't exist.

I reckon given the right conditions life thrives, and evolves. Even if it's a one in a million where the right conditions occur, the sheer mind blowing number of stars and planets out there means there would be a massive number of advanced species. We know that there are a number of planets sit in the Goldilocks zone and we have scratched the smallest slither on the surface.

Firstly, the further away you look from the Earth, the further you are looking into the past. We're not looking at the current state.

Secondly, the Goldilocks zone is fairly broad. Essentially, a planet that exists from a Sun-like star a distance equivalent from Venus' orbit to just beyond Mars' orbit.

Add to that the composition and habitability of these exo-planets is uncertain. Some of these exo-planets have later turned out to be unhabitable after further investigation with improved modelling.

Then add such things as orbital effects which play a significant part in a planet's climate. The planet's tilt, the precession of the tilt, the variation in eccentricity of the orbit, etc ... all play a major role in such things as the rate and frequency of ice ages.

Changes in composition over time can have a major effect on life. Atmospheric Oxygen levels on Earth changing from 1% to the current ~21% a million years ago (off the top of my head) had a significant effect in allowing the evolution of megafauna.

The other planets in a solar system can also play a roll. Jupiter's gravity for instance 'protects' the Earth from long-period comets and such reduces the frequency of these comets colliding with the Earth. A major collision would be obviously devastating to life on Earth.

Essentially, I would argue the variabilities needed for the existence of advanced species on another world are just as great as the possible number of habitable planets in the universe. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's certainly improbable that advanced species and civilisations exist.

[🏅Dooks]

Advanced species and civilisations are improbable but to rule out the existence of life of any kind (even bacteria) is unwise IMO. It should be left as an unknown.

On what basis are advanced species and civilisations improbable MT? The number of stars and planets in our known universe is practically infinite. Just because other civilisations haven't turned up and declared themselves (and there is good evidence that they have, but I'll put that to one side for a moment) doesn't mean other species don't exist.

I reckon given the right conditions life thrives, and evolves. Even if it's a one in a million where the right conditions occur, the sheer mind blowing number of stars and planets out there means there would be a massive number of advanced species. We know that there are a number of planets sit in the Goldilocks zone and we have scratched the smallest slither on the surface.

Firstly, the further away you look from the Earth, the further you are looking into the past. We're not looking at the current state.

Secondly, the Goldilocks zone is fairly broad. Essentially, a planet that exists from a Sun-like star a distance equivalent from Venus' orbit to just beyond Mars' orbit.

Add to that the composition and habitability of these exo-planets is uncertain. Some of these exo-planets have later turned out to be unhabitable after further investigation with improved modelling.

Then add such things as orbital effects which play a significant part in a planet's climate. The planet's tilt, the precession of the tilt, the variation in eccentricity of the orbit, etc ... all play a major role in such things as the rate and frequency of ice ages.

Changes in composition over time can have a major effect on life. Atmospheric Oxygen levels on Earth changing from 1% to the current ~21% a million years ago (off the top of my head) had a significant effect in allowing the evolution of megafauna.

The other planets in a solar system can also play a roll. Jupiter's gravity for instance 'protects' the Earth from long-period comets and such reduces the frequency of these comets colliding with the Earth. A major collision would be obviously devastating to life on Earth.

Essentially, I would argue the variabilities needed for the existence of advanced species on another world are just as great as the possible number of habitable planets in the universe. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's certainly improbable that advanced species and civilisations exist.

Fair call. I'd similarly argue the variables are very high but not as extensive the sheer number (almost infinite) of stars and opportunities for intelligent life.

Just in our galaxy alone, if at any time 1 in every 10,000,000,000 (10 billion) stars provided the correct conditions for a planet to develop intelligent life, there would be 30 different intelligent species in the Milky Way.

Multiply that by the number of galaxies (200 billion) in the universe and you get 6,000,000,000,000 (6 trillion intelligent species).

[tiga]

Surely we all know that for intelligent life to exist in other solar systems not only do you need the perfect conditions to support life, you also need 1 adam, 1 eve, 1 apple tree and one snake. 
It also helps if there are a few oompa loompa's to be responsible for waste management.

In all seriousness though, The has to be many forms of life existing out there going through their own evolutionary paths. As we have seen in our evolutionary process, for the human race to evolve to where it is today, lots of random events have occurred through time. So whilst I believe there are other lifeforms out there, and possibly even millions of different lifeforms on just one planet, another human like species is highly unlikely.

[dwaino]

We only know of life as we know it though. Granted he is a physicist and not a biologist,  Michio Kaku was talking about it in some The Universe episode (History Channel) that for all we know water isn't the most soluble and there may be better and more efficient ways for life to construct itself. Intelligent life may be as rare as just one per galactic neighborhood. The sheer size of the universe and the amount of possibilities makes it so hard to say that intelligent life elsewhere is more unlikely than not.

[Judge Roughneck]

 * Deinococcus radiodurans bacterium can survive a 15,000 gray dose of radiation, where 10 grays would kill a human and it takes over 1,000 grays to kill a cockroach. (Lives in feckong Chernobyl

 * deep-sea hydrothermal vents - pressure/heat, dam

Surrounding these chimneys was a unique type of ecosystem that had never been seen before. Until this day, science had always assumed that all life on Earth obtained its energy from the Sun. The plants convert sunlight into energy through a process called photosynthesis. The plants, in turn, provide food for countless species of animals in a complex web of life. But here, facing the deep-sea submersibles, was a sight that challenged those assumptions. Here was proof for the first time that life could be sustained by the Earth itself.

 * loriciferan identified as an undescribed species of the genus Spinoloricus. The creature has specialized organelles so that it can survive without oxygen.

http://www.livescience.com/13377-extremophiles-world-weirdest-life.html

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/microbes/eatingradio.jsp

http://www.seasky.org/deep-sea/hydrothermal-vents.html


Dwayne makes a fait point. More chance of life in the universe/s (modern string theory).

Aliens already here chilling with the gov, if you ggo down the rabbit hole enough  http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/01/13/iran-says-tall-white-space-aliens-control-america


 

[Judge Roughneck]

W0ts the go with this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_satellite

NASA official website gots several pics of it ...

Anyone? 

[tiga]

Looks bogus to me. Why is it that alien spacecraft always have to look like something from Battlestar Gallactica? And why would it choose to appear and then disappear??? Surely if it were some intelligent alien race wanting to covertly monitor us it would always remain unseen. I call shenanigans. Either that or just good old fashion space junk

[Judge Roughneck]

Looks bogus to me.

The only problem is - its on the official NASA website

 


http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=STS088&roll=724&frame=65

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=STS088&roll=724&frame=66

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=STS088&roll=724&frame=68

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=STS088&roll=724&frame=69

lol ...

Why is it that alien spacecraft always have to look like something from Battlestar Gallactica?[And why would it choose to appear and then disappear??? Surely if it were some intelligent alien race wanting to covertly monitor us it would always remain unseen.

i have NFI, x3

I call shenanigans. Either that or just good old fashion space junk

nasa taking the pee?

[tiga]

Judge only recently a large number well respected media outlets worldwide also published the giant mud crab "crabzilla" story as a headline which turned out to be completely bogus and in fact the guy who created it did it for a bit of fun and never thought that anyone would have taken it seriously.

[dwaino]

If it were real and there was meant to be any sort of major cover up then they wouldn't be publishing photos of it online. NASA employs people to air brush photos, their job is to clean up pictures of debris from images before sharing so we can use them as pretty desktop wallpapers or whatever. In conspiracy circles it is their job to hide things like evidence of extraterrestrials. Pretty sure they would have been all over the 'black knight' had it been anything.

Regarding the tall whites, watched a good doco and lecture on youtube ages back from the bloke who was meant to have worked with them. Makes for a great story but all we have is his word. Hardly science. I want to believe but there is just nothing concrete anywhere. I've read Erich von Daniken, lots of Zecharia Sitchin, Alan Alford and a few of the others and it's still just all speculative.