DON'T TALK TO ALIENS

[Razor]

Game Rage is cool when his posts are less than 10 sentences per point. That is all.

 

[Via Armbar]

Game Rage is a cool dude when he isn't spewing bullshit.

I'm surprised you agree with Mr.Hawking Game Rage. Seems like something you would disagree with, you know, seeing that is science and all.

 

[Coco]

Don't fuck with him, Lee. He has more money than you and sees the future when he meditates.

 

[Tastycles]

It's based on a flawed premise. Hawking is making the assumption that a) a technologically advanced race would also be a warfare advanced race.

b) That any aliens capable of wiping us out who come into contactable range would be unable to see us if we didn't announce ourselves

c) That an entire civilisation could fit in a single ship, or that enough of them to completely overwhelm the human race could.

As for the maths of alien life, it's not new it's called the Drake equation, but it's not perfect. Current estimates for its solution are that there are two other civilisations in our galaxy, which means that they are 50,000 light years away, which is too far for them to ever make it here. So don't worry about it.

 

[Via Armbar]

It's based on a flawed premise. Hawking is making the assumption that a) a technologically advanced race would also be a warfare advanced race.

b) That any aliens capable of wiping us out who come into contactable range would be unable to see us if we didn't announce ourselves

c) That an entire civilisation could fit in a single ship, or that enough of them to completely overwhelm the human race could.

As for the maths of alien life, it's not new it's called the Drake equation, but it's not perfect. Current estimates for its solution are that there are two other civilisations in our galaxy, which means that they are 50,000 light years away, which is too far for them to ever make it here. So don't worry about it.

Good points Tasty, but do you really think they weren't contemplated over by one of the smartest men in history? I'm pretty sure questions like those were taken into consideration. It's not like Hawking would be say "Oh, I never thought about those things".

 

[Tastycles]

Stephen Hawking is not the most intelligent man in the world, don't believe the hype. I'd be highly suprised if he actually believed that alien contact was likely, but when you are carrying out popular science, that's the kind of shit you say.

 

[Via Armbar]

Hence why I said one of them Tasty. I'll better that and say he's one of the most influential minds of any time as well. What reasons are their to believe that he can't defend, with more than hot air and heresay, what he teaches or even that he doesn't believe in it? If you're familiar with much of his work you would know that he hasn't always been at the forefront of 'popular science' and has his work has been discredited and dismissed as much as other noted figures like Einstein or Kaku.

 

[Tastycles]

All I know is that, all of my astrophysics lecturers have said that little of what he says is not really the genuine scientific belief. I'm not saying he's not aware of that, but he's a sounbite artist. Whatever way you look at it, the first three of my points are pretty straightforward concerns that nobody could "know" the answer to. It's just my opinion, and that's his.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I talk to aliens all the time, well, because I kind of have to. Oh, wait, you're not talking about the illegal kind...sorry!

 

[The Roid Rage]

Game Rage is cool when his posts are less than 10 sentences per point. That is all.

Game Rage is a cool dude when he isn't spewing bullshit.

I'm surprised you agree with Mr.Hawking Game Rage. Seems like something you would disagree with, you know, seeing that is science and all.

Thanks a lot guys, I genuinely appreciate that stuff. I realize some of the stuff I say or think may seem like bullshit, but most of my beliefs come from the right inner place with the right intentions.

I am strongly trying to take into consideration the lengthiness of my posts and cut them down for your reading pleasure as well.

And in closing, I agree with a lot of science, most of it, I'm just not ruling all other options out in an attempt at keeping an open mind.

(see, no word fort)

 

[Spaceman Spif]

Hey Doug, here's some advice man, you are going to get shit on, it happens, sometimes a lot and sometimes more to certain people than others, it's the way of life if you will on these forums. The thing is, don't get so defensive about it bro, just stick to what you believe in and don't change your beliefs so people will stop shitting on you, doing so will only make them shit on you even more.

I agree as well that it's how you say things, sometimes they don't seem to make sense, now I understand you have some sort of disability, but try harder man to make you posts make more sense and watch your wording, if you do that, you should be fine, look at Sidious and even Rage, most of us rarely seem to agree with them right? Even so, I still respect the hell out of both of them, because they don't back down from their beliefs and while both use massive word forts, they also word things so you know exactly what they are trying to say and that's respectable.

Oh and fuck aliens, any of those bastards try to probe my virgin anus, I'll make 'em my bitches.

 

[Minor League Brian]

a) a technologically advanced race would also be a warfare advanced race.

Well, all we have to go on is us and were pretty warfare advanced. I mean, you could make arguments for Dolphins or whales, but even Monkeys wage war. Its something one has to take into consideration, but the only Intelligence race we know of is very violent and that means we have to look at it as being 99% likely they know of or can encompass warfare.

b) That any aliens capable of wiping us out who come into contactable range would be unable to see us if we didn't announce ourselves

This I do agree with. If their sophisticated enough to fly around the Universe then they should theoretically know we live here. I think he was more arguing to stop attempting to draw attention to ourselves. Like sending out radio waves or capsules with a "Look, this is us!" type mentality.

c) That an entire civilisation could fit in a single ship, or that enough of them to completely overwhelm the human race could.

You don't THINK it could but how could we know? They could end up being the size of a Poodle, or maybe their as large as mountains. Its not too far fetched (when getting into this realm) to think they could create something so large to fill their entire species. Hell, it could even be a dying breed so their might not be any. As stupid as it may be to think an entire species could fit in an "Ark", its just as stupid not to consider the possiblity.

As for the maths of alien life, it's not new it's called the Drake equation, but it's not perfect. Current estimates for its solution are that there are two other civilisations in our galaxy, which means that they are 50,000 light years away, which is too far for them to ever make it here. So don't worry about it.

For all we know some other sentient being could have figured out FTL, so they could make it here. Yah just never know, but what is this Drake Equation you're talkin' about? I've never heard of it.

Thanks a lot guys, I genuinely appreciate that stuff. I realize some of the stuff I say or think may seem like bullshit, but most of my beliefs come from the right inner place with the right intentions.

I am strongly trying to take into consideration the lengthiness of my posts and cut them down for your reading pleasure as well.

And in closing, I agree with a lot of science, most of it, I'm just not ruling all other options out in an attempt at keeping an open mind.

(see, no word fort)

I'd strongly think about actually reading your response int he MMA vs. Boxing post if it was reasonable enough to read, and then I and many others would debate you.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Because he's saying to stay away from them. That's why its laughable.


Edit: And Lee please knock it off. I don't mock your beliefs do I? Why should you be allowed to mock me meditating?

Why? We can't get to Mars, the planet next door. Odds are that if they could get here, they could likely destroy us. It's awfully arrogant to assume that we are at the top of the interplanetary food chain when it took us hundreds of thousands of years to get to the top of our won.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Because he's saying to stay away from them. That's why its laughable.


Edit: And Lee please knock it off. I don't mock your beliefs do I? Why should you be allowed to mock me meditating?

Why? We can't get to Mars, the planet next door. Odds are that if they could get here, they could likely destroy us. It's awfully arrogant to assume that we are at the top of the interplanetary food chain when it took us hundreds of thousands of years to get to the top of our won.

 

[The Roid Rage]

I'd strongly think about actually reading your response int he MMA vs. Boxing post if it was reasonable enough to read, and then I and many others would debate you.

You really can't resist can you? You've got to take any shot you can. You know what? I have already basically debated you and many others on the topic and all of you couldn't deal with one of me, so I'd say you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself. Maybe if you could even present a reasonable debate rather than just personally attacking me, or making completely biased statements you could hack it with me, but you don't, so you can't.

Not that I typically welcome conflict but I have openly challenged anyone who thought they could get the best of me to step up and try. So far the only one with the balls to do it was a noob who I'm pretty sure would wipe the floor with you too. To make a long story short, Fuck you and anyone that looks like you, have a nice day. You couldn't carry my balls in a parachute.

 

[Minor League Brian]

Well I wouldn't want to, but your word forts are the only thing that made that debate "even". No one wanted to debate you because they didn't want to waste 2 hours of their lives responding. And what I did read, your arguments were poor and you just repeated yourself over and over again.

Honestly, I'm betting you just stopped trying and just copied and pasted what you wrote over and over again and just changed little details. You knew no one would read it anyway, so I'm betting you were like "Fuck being reasonable and smart and all.".

 

[Via Armbar]

All I know is that, all of my astrophysics lecturers have said that little of what he says is not really the genuine scientific belief. I'm not saying he's not aware of that, but he's a sounbite artist. Whatever way you look at it, the first three of my points are pretty straightforward concerns that nobody could "know" the answer to. It's just my opinion, and that's his.

I'm trying to grasp what you and/or your lecturers consider ''genuine scientific belief'' because rarely if ever does the scientific community reach full and complete agreement on damn near anything, especially in regards to such taboos as extraterrestrial life. Is it really out of the ordinary for one of the most well known authorities in their respective field held in high enough regards to be considered what you're calling a 'soundbite artist'? You have the most high profile politicians getting the most air time and coverage. The same could be said about the best performing atheletes. I don't see how this case is any different.

It's based on a flawed premise. Hawking is making the assumption that a) a technologically advanced race would also be a warfare advanced race.

b) That any aliens capable of wiping us out who come into contactable range would be unable to see us if we didn't announce ourselves

c) That an entire civilisation could fit in a single ship, or that enough of them to completely overwhelm the human race could.

As for the maths of alien life, it's not new it's called the Drake equation, but it's not perfect. Current estimates for its solution are that there are two other civilisations in our galaxy, which means that they are 50,000 light years away, which is too far for them to ever make it here. So don't worry about it.

You said that Hawking's theory was based on a flawed premise. I was simply pointing out that the probability of someone that is held in the regards that he is (with credit he deserves and has earned in my opinion) being wrong seemed a little low. I'm not saying your points aren't valid ones, just that you made it seemed like because of them that his theory was faulty. When in reailty they were, more than likely, based around such questions.

 

[The Roid Rage]

PSA: Don't be like this Douche Device. If you ever try to accomplish anything in your lives, accomplish not being this guy. If you want your breath to smell like shit from talking out of your ass, be this guy. If you'd like to spit pyroclastic flows like me and Ice Cube, PLEASE, Don't be this guy. Prevent yourselves from becoming so weak and so lame that you have to resort to posting messages much like the one below. This is a Class A example of cunty. DON'T BE CUNTY!

Well I wouldn't want to, but your word forts are the only thing that made that debate "even". No one wanted to debate you because they didn't want to waste 2 hours of their lives responding. And what I did read, your arguments were poor and you just repeated yourself over and over again.

Honestly, I'm betting you just stopped trying and just copied and pasted what you wrote over and over again and just changed little details. You knew no one would read it anyway, so I'm betting you were like "Fuck being reasonable and smart and all.".

(this public service announcement has been brought to you by a dude who doesn't suck at life and actually kicks ass like Chuck Norris)

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Aliens are real..

Will Smith has seen them, and kicked their ass..

He then made a c.d. about it..

 

[Tastycles]

Well, all we have to go on is us and were pretty warfare advanced. I mean, you could make arguments for Dolphins or whales, but even Monkeys wage war. Its something one has to take into consideration, but the only Intelligence race we know of is very violent and that means we have to look at it as being 99% likely they know of or can encompass warfare.

True, but monkeys, dolphins, people have come through the same evolutionary passage as we did. They may be co-operative. Furthermore, aliens might have evolved beyond war. To have gotten here, chances are they would have had to have been on a space ship for a long long time. If they were warmongering, they'd kill each other before they got here.

You don't THINK it could but how could we know? They could end up being the size of a Poodle, or maybe their as large as mountains. Its not too far fetched (when getting into this realm) to think they could create something so large to fill their entire species. Hell, it could even be a dying breed so their might not be any. As stupid as it may be to think an entire species could fit in an "Ark", its just as stupid not to consider the possiblity.

It's not just about size, it's about sustinance. Anyone who gets here would necissarily have had to be in space for 40 years as a bare minimum. Think about how big a ship would have to be to even sustain a race of cats that long? If they are the size of cats, chances are we cold overwhelm them too.

For all we know some other sentient being could have figured out FTL, so they could make it here. Yah just never know, but what is this Drake Equation you're talkin' about? I've never heard of it.

Some guy in the 50s invented it. You put in a load of factors, such as how many stars like the sun there are, how likely there is to be an earthlike planet, how likely life is to start, how likely that life will become intelligent, how long civilisations last etc. and it gives out the number of civilisations capable of contact right now there are likely to be in our galaxy. The answer is about 2.1, given current estimates, but obviously there's a large margin of error.

Whether the other civilisations know this or not is moot. No matter how advanced, no civilisation is capable of a) traveling faster than the speed of light and b) surviving for 50,000 years on a space ship.

I'd strongly think about actually reading your response int he MMA vs. Boxing post if it was reasonable enough to read, and then I and many others would debate you.

Thought this was to me there for a little while.

I'm trying to grasp what you and/or your lecturers consider ''genuine scientific belief'' because rarely if ever does the scientific community reach full and complete agreement on damn near anything, especially in regards to such taboos as extraterrestrial life. Is it really out of the ordinary for one of the most well known authorities in their respective field held in high enough regards to be considered what you're calling a 'soundbite artist'? You have the most high profile politicians getting the most air time and coverage. The same could be said about the best performing atheletes. I don't see how this case is any different.

I'm saying he isn't the world's go to guy about matters concerning space. Most of what he does is popular science. Popular scientists are the ones that people are interested in because they are the ones that make interesting TV programmes and books. Hawking is in this category. Case in point - Richard Dawkins studies a kind of comparative biology that has grown increasingly unpopular among actual biologists over the last 50 years, for a range of reasons. However, it is much easier to explain evolution to the masses in his terms than those of say statistical population genetics. Hawking may or may not believe what he's saying, bt which makes for more interesting TV "we'll never contact other aliens" or "the aliens will kill us all".

You said that Hawking's theory was based on a flawed premise. I was simply pointing out that the probability of someone that is held in the regards that he is (with credit he deserves and has earned in my opinion) being wrong seemed a little low. I'm not saying your points aren't valid ones, just that you made it seemed like because of them that his theory was faulty. When in reailty they were, more than likely, based around such questions.

Flawed premise was probably the wrong thing to call it. It's built around assumptions. He obviously believes that those assumptions are valid, bt there's no way he could know the answer to any of them, which is why this is nothing but an opinion. I'm sure I could go and ask my old astro professors about this and get 20 different answers about alien life.

 

[Shadowmancer]

Hell I've been thinking that for a long time about the need to subjugate alien worlds to our dominion for a while. Purge the Xenos from the universe for the perfection of humanity to be dominant. The Imperium of man will march on in its great crusade behind the legions of the Space Marines who shall do battle with the foul xenos and bring us glory for the Emperor of Mankind.

We shall carry our word,

We will correct and unify,

Hail the Emperor!

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

Hell I've been thinking that for a long time about the need to subjugate alien worlds to our dominion for a while. Purge the Xenos from the universe for the perfection of humanity to be dominant. The Imperium of man will march on in its great crusade behind the legions of the Space Marines who shall do battle with the foul xenos and bring us glory for the Emperor of Mankind.

We shall carry our word,

We will correct and unify,

Hail the Emperor!

haha! Dawn of War FTW!

 

[Shadowmancer]

Warhammer 40000 FTW

 

[Via Armbar]

True, but monkeys, dolphins, people have come through the same evolutionary passage as we did. They may be co-operative. Furthermore, aliens might have evolved beyond war. To have gotten here, chances are they would have had to have been on a space ship for a long long time. If they were warmongering, they'd kill each other before they got here.

This statement is just as hypothetical as them coming here at all. There could very well be a case in which their society no longer breeds civil wars but still seek the universe for a stable living environment to colonize. You can even look at our own planet for refference. We have a world made up of many different communitie, some of whch have been at war for a good while. The countries that have the resources to support a space program do so independently of other countries, allies or not. Would it not be possible for a similar scenario to play out with this hypothetical alien race? An advanced civilization isn't necessarily congruent with peaceful one.

I understand what you're saying. It's hard to believe that a race that is far more technologicaly advanced than us, so much so that they can travel distances we couldn't fathom, would be hostile. I believe that to some extent. I also believe however that there is just as likely a chance of the opposite. We are thinking as humans, it's what we do and who we are. There may be things out there that we do not understand. Their ways, habits objectives may not be understandable to us.

It's not just about size, it's about sustinance. Anyone who gets here would necissarily have had to be in space for 40 years as a bare minimum. Think about how big a ship would have to be to even sustain a race of cats that long? If they are the size of cats, chances are we cold overwhelm them too.

What makes you think they don't have the technology to accomplish this. If we are talking an advanced race here, which I believe we are, would they not be able to deep space travel? We as humans, right now, could likely build a ship that could maintain a number of human lives for that long of a duration. Why would it be impossible for them to do something similar on a much bigger scale? We are arguing the probability of an advanced life form, not another lifeform of equal or less intelligence somewhere in the galaxy.

Some guy in the 50s invented it. You put in a load of factors, such as how many stars like the sun there are, how likely there is to be an earthlike planet, how likely life is to start, how likely that life will become intelligent, how long civilisations last etc. and it gives out the number of civilisations capable of contact right now there are likely to be in our galaxy. The answer is about 2.1, given current estimates, but obviously there's a large margin of error.

As interesting as the Drake Equation is, it's nothing more than multiplied probability. It's a mix of science, opinion and ultimately guessing. When you use guesstimations and hypotheticals in science, you don't get a firm yes or no answer. There is no margin of error, you cannot come a to concrete conclusion based on an equation featuring guesstimates and probability. There is nothing wrong with what the equation is trying to accomplish, it's the basis of all science. To start with an idea and use current knowledge available to you and to theorize based on personal findings. You cannot however have an margin of error when there is no correct answer. The Drake Equation is an interesting tool to use but almost completely useless.

Whether the other civilisations know this or not is moot. No matter how advanced, no civilisation is capable of a) traveling faster than the speed of light and b) surviving for 50,000 years on a space ship.

The lightspeed travel is an interesting concept. You have many scientist that believe deep space travel is possible in some fashion similar to the 'warp speed' means of travel on the show Star Trek. Now that's purely hyptothetical because the actual physics of that sort of travel is mind blowing. I believe it's been stated that in order for a ship to travel at the speed of light it would need to burn something like 40 trillion gallons of fuel multiplied by their size to travel one light year. Still, thinking about things based on human knowledge isn't going to give us an idea of what they're capable of. If we knew what they could or couldn't do, we would be more advanced than we currently are.

I'm saying he isn't the world's go to guy about matters concerning space. Most of what he does is popular science. Popular scientists are the ones that people are interested in because they are the ones that make interesting TV programmes and books. Hawking is in this category. Case in point - Richard Dawkins studies a kind of comparative biology that has grown increasingly unpopular among actual biologists over the last 50 years, for a range of reasons. However, it is much easier to explain evolution to the masses in his terms than those of say statistical population genetics. Hawking may or may not believe what he's saying, bt which makes for more interesting TV "we'll never contact other aliens" or "the aliens will kill us all".

He may or may not be the go to guy now, but there was a point in time when he was. That's why he is respected in the community and gets the recognition that he does. If I understand what you're saying correctly, then guys like Kaku, Hawking and Mandelstam have less to say or less impactful opinions on such things because they are more widely known/televised scientists? Could it not be that they are accepted figure heads within the community because of their contributions and not the other way around? I have an extremely hard time believing they say or do anything to satisfy popular opinion. They may recite things a little differently and/or display findings in an easier conveyed manner, but it's not in objection to what they really believe. Where is the progression in that? Where is the driving force that allowed us to take what we know and expand it the the utmost degree? That's not what science is/does and I don't see these men slowing downt he progression of knowledge by conveying fake beliefs.

Flawed premise was probably the wrong thing to call it. It's built around assumptions. He obviously believes that those assumptions are valid, bt there's no way he could know the answer to any of them, which is why this is nothing but an opinion. I'm sure I could go and ask my old astro professors about this and get 20 different answers about alien life.

Welcome to the beginning stages of every scientific discovery in history. Every major discovery started off as an idea and opinion, it's what all of the proceeding work is based off of. Nobody knows the answer to these questions. Not a single scientist, physicist in the world can give you a real answer yet. Of course it's his opinions and like you said, there are going to be countless differing voices on the subject. I'm saying that Stephen Hawking is a voice that a lot of people and scientists alike listen to because of his history and knowledge on varying topics. He isn't blowing hot air.

 

[Minor League Brian]

True, but monkeys, dolphins, people have come through the same evolutionary passage as we did. They may be co-operative. Furthermore, aliens might have evolved beyond war. To have gotten here, chances are they would have had to have been on a space ship for a long long time. If they were warmongering, they'd kill each other before they got here.

Again, that's just an assumption as well. If we're really thinking about them, we have to use what we already know and with the intelligent life we have, we have to assume their warlike and take precautions as such.

But neither thought track is wrong or right, I'd just suggest being safe over sorry.

It's not just about size, it's about sustinance. Anyone who gets here would necissarily have had to be in space for 40 years as a bare minimum. Think about how big a ship would have to be to even sustain a race of cats that long? If they are the size of cats, chances are we cold overwhelm them too.

That's just assumption. You have to take a step back and think without using our culture as a measuring stick. There's a term they use in Sociology that basically says look at a culture as a part of it, and not compared to your own; that's what we have to apply to any "Aliens".

Whether the other civilisations know this or not is moot. No matter how advanced, no civilisation is capable of a) traveling faster than the speed of light and b) surviving for 50,000 years on a space ship.

A. You don't know. For all we know our knowledge of physics and limitations in reality are completely wrong. They could have some higher understanding of Quantum Physics and Space Travel and just everything then we could even begin to imagine.

B. Again, that's a bad assumption. Just because we couldn't at the moment doesn't mean they couldn't. They could have perfected Cryo-sleep, they could have found ways to synthesize sustenance. We cannot say what they can't do but instead should theorize what they could do, and anything is possible.