Do Space Aliens really exist?

[Rroff]

No, true, the early beginnings of the universe was too hot for any life, i get that. But we're talking about billions of years, even 11 billion years after the big bang, we still have nearly 3 billion years to play with for a civilisation to accomplish galactic travel, like you said earlier, there's a lot of faults with the Fermi Paradox but it's probably correct to be fair. Where are they?

There was brief blip during the early life of the universe where life could have emerged and flourished - but unless it became extremely advanced extremely quickly it would have later been wiped out.

IIRC from the first moment of our solar system starting to form to the point that life emerged is only half as long as there has been time in the universe where conditions were possible for any form of life we can conceive to exist so as Glaucus says we quite possibly could just be right at the start of the line - given the specifics of the conditions needed and the number of times iterations of that could have happened.

 

[ttaskmaster]

It doesn't really take into account our technological ceiling though

Or that the aliens might just think we're uppity ******s and not want to speak to us...

surely it would take them 20,000+ years as well?

Depends if that's the method they're using, rather than instead something like folding space or making the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs...

There's also an argument I read that extended Einstein's theories and proved that if you go faster than Lightspeed, time starts to speed up again... so if it were possible (and that's what this complicated-sounding article was all about), once they break the Intergalactic Speed Limit they'll be here pretty soon.

Or perhaps they already broke it and are currently pulled over at the side of the Horsehead Nebula, being ticketed by the Space Cops!!

 

[Trusty]

There was brief blip during the early life of the universe where life could have emerged and flourished - but unless it became extremely advanced extremely quickly it would have later been wiped out.

IIRC from the first moment of our solar system starting to form to the point that life emerged is only half as long as there has been time in the universe where conditions were possible for any form of life we can conceive to exist so as Glaucus says we quite possibly could just be right at the start of the line - given the specifics of the conditions needed and the number of times iterations of that could have happened.

Yea possibly, i think we have to acknowledge that the universe we see is the observable universe as well, technology doesn't allow us to see to the start perhaps. It could go on for another 14 billion years, who knows.

 

[Glaucus]

There was brief blip during the early life of the universe where life could have emerged and flourished - but unless it became extremely advanced extremely quickly it would have later been wiped out.

IIRC from the first moment of our solar system starting to form to the point that life emerged is only half as long as there has been time in the universe where conditions were possible for any form of life we can conceive so as Glaucus says we quite possibly could just be right at the start of the line.

yeah.
age of universe 13.8 bn years
milkyway started forming 13.7 bn years.
live on earth 4bn years.

then you take into account the start of the universe couldn't support live, no heavy elements, heat etc. and the chances are we are fairly close to the start.
however it also suggest that life should be common, but doesn't mean technological life is, as technological life is rare on earth.

we need Europa and other missions. to look for life. as well as star shot project to work.

 

[Housey]

This evening I was in a heated discussion with Americans over who runs their country. The President or the Space Aliens pulling the strings. This one chap was convinced that Space Aliens were real and above the US Government and President. And they called all the shots...

All space aliens think this.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

If they chose the lineup for the next POTUS, then forget 'advanced civilisation'... even calling them sentient would be a stretch

 

[danlightbulb]

yeah.
age of universe 13.8 bn years

In our primitive measurement system yes. In reality? What was here before? Too many knowledge gaps to assume this has any bearing on it in my view.

We just don't know enough. What is the speed of light? What is time? How does force really work?

I think microbial life will be everywhere, even in our own solar system. I think intelligent life will be widespread in the galaxy and of course by extension in all galaxies as well. I don't believe any have visited Earth though.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

We are the aliens, so yes they do exist.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

In our primitive measurement system yes. In reality? What was here before? Too many knowledge gaps to assume this has any bearing on it in my view.

We just don't know enough. What is the speed of light? What is time? How does force really work?

Light and time is what we define it to be. Statements made are given with assumptions.

No need to play philosopher, it goes without saying that the age is based on constants and a model we have deemed to be possible so far.

Given the universe started how we assume and that our measured constants hold true, then the age can easily be estimated.

If you need to ask:

'what was before?' - then you dont understand what the word universe means or you cant comprehend the assumptions made in the statement

Speed of light? - easily provable if we assume our basic wave physics is correct, which we can since it works and we use it all the time. You can use a ruler and a slice of cheese + your microwave to measure it.

Time of something? - It is a quantifiable measurement we have defined to measure the interval of duration relative to an observer.

These are all things that we have defined given our assumptions. What you are asking for is to be told what actually has happened with no assumptions made, which would require a time machine. What was the point of your statement in this thread again?

 

[danlightbulb]

Light and time is what we define it to be. Statements made are given with assumptions.

No need to play philosopher, it goes without saying that the age is based on constants and a model we have deemed to be possible so far.

Given the universe started how we assume and that our measured constants hold true, then the age can easily be estimated.

If you need to ask:

'what was before?' - then you dont understand what the word universe means or you cant comprehend the assumptions made in the statement

Speed of light? - easily provable if we assume our basic wave physics is correct, which we can since it works and we use it all the time. You can use a ruler and a slice of cheese + your microwave to measure it.

Time of something? - It is a quantifiable measurement we have defined to measure the interval of duration relative to an observer.

These are all things that we have defined given our assumptions. What you are asking for is to be told what actually has happened with no assumptions made, which would require a time machine. What was the point of your statement in this thread again?

I don't think you can refute the use of philosophical statements in a thread about space aliens existing. Come on. The whole thread is speculative and I am putting across the fact that we don't know a thousandth of a percent of what we would need to know to determine whether or not it is feasible that aliens can travel at the speeds required to visit other worlds.

We have a model of the universe yes. Is it correct. No. It is an approximation of the behaviours we can observe. What percentage of the macro and micro behaviours of the universe do you think we can or have observed?

Known science won't help us answer the question.

 

[Mynight]

Ahh but what if we deem speed of light the fastest one can travel because light is the fastest thing we're capable of measuring? Maybe there's something we don't know about yet that's faster .

 

[Glaucus]

Ahh but what if we deem speed of light the fastest one can travel because light is the fastest thing we're capable of measuring? Maybe there's something we don't know about yet that's faster .

Well the odds of that are as close to zero as you can get.
Due to the way the universe works. Think of things having a certain energy, that is split between MA's and speed. When you get yo zeo mass you have maximum permitted velocity. And that's essentially how it works. Light is massless and thus travels at the fastest speed limit.

 

[Mynight]

Well the odds of that are as close to zero as you can get.
Due to the way the universe works. Think of things having a certain energy, that is split between MA's and speed. When you get yo zeo mass you have maximum permitted velocity. And that's essentially how it works. Light is massless and thus travels at the fastest speed limit.

Good explanation! Thanks .

 

[Rroff]

Ahh but what if we deem speed of light the fastest one can travel because light is the fastest thing we're capable of measuring? Maybe there's something we don't know about yet that's faster .

The only realistic hope for moving distances at speeds significantly faster than the speed of light is via some method of shortcut. There is actually fairly promising theory for natural occurring phenomena that would facilitate it (as in the people at NASA are no longer laughing at the guy who first hypothesised it) but considerable hurdles in the practical side of discovering such let alone the energy requirements to exploit (enter) them even if they do exist.

 

[Mynight]

The only realistic hope for moving distances at speeds significantly faster than the speed of light is via some method of shortcut. There is actually fairly promising theory for natural occurring phenomena that would facilitate it (as in the people at NASA are no longer laughing at the guy who first hypothesised it) but considerable hurdles in the practical side of discovering such let alone the energy requirements to exploit (enter) them even if they do exist.

Do you have a name for the theory? Would quite like to read more about it.

 

[danlightbulb]

Good explanation!

How is it an explanation? It states what we have observed or theorised sure, but it doesn't explain it because it doesn't explain why it is so.

mavity acts at light speed too. Is mavity a massless particle? It may be, but we don't know. Is mavity a massless wave? It may be but we don't know. Light has both wave and particle properties - it may well be neither.

There is something else going on at a fundamental level that is controlling these observable behaviours. Until we understand that we won't unlock the secrets of the universe.

I believe we are fast approaching a fundamental knowledge barrier that we as humans won't be able to breach.

 

[Glaucus]

It does explain why, rather than going we can't know anything. Perhaps read some books. You can't get energy from nothing, so if all energy is going into speed, you have a max speed. Everything we know backs this up.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albucurrie_drive

 

[Rroff]

Alcubierre drive is pretty fascinating in how things went from utterly impossible to theoretically possible if hopelessly impractical - but its not the one I'm referring to - trying to find a good link atm.

 

[adolf hamster]

How is it an explanation? It states what we have observed or theorised sure, but it doesn't explain it because it doesn't explain why it is so.

mavity acts at light speed too. Is mavity a massless particle? It may be, but we don't know. Is mavity a massless wave? It may be but we don't know. Light has both wave and particle properties - it may well be neither.

There is something else going on at a fundamental level that is controlling these observable behaviours. Until we understand that we won't unlock the secrets of the universe.

I believe we are fast approaching a fundamental knowledge barrier that we as humans won't be able to breach.

Not sure about that, i recall watching a documentary about the higgs boson, and how if it's mass was below a certain level, then one theory applied and we knew where to go next, and we had another theory for if it was above that value.

And then of course we found out it was exactly on that value and we're just as confused as before.

It is a worrying prospect though, the day we solve physics and know everything, our inquisitiveness is a core part of our nature, and one would wonder what we're going to do with ourselves if theres nothing left we can discover

 

[Mynight]

It is a worrying prospect though, the day we solve physics and know everything, our inquisitiveness is a core part of our nature, and one would wonder what we're going to do with ourselves if theres nothing left we can discover

I imagine we'd have destroyed ourselves before that point.