Poll: After the china-incident do tou believe in aliens?

[nondescript]

I believe in aliens, snowmen, and taxes. One of them will be the death of me. I'm hoping snowmen.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I do believe. Not becuase of this, not becuase of Roswell, not because of the lines in wherever America.

Just the probability and odds. What are the odds we are alone? especially when Life was found frozen on mars. Now, I dont know waht the aliens are like. Are they the evil grays? Are tehy the benevolent kind? or they just, I dont know... complex? like humans are? Who can say. But I do say they are out there. Who knows, they may visit us, they may not. Maybe tehy just do passing sweeps (since thats all you ever hear of) to check on us like how when we tag animals in the wild. I couldnt tell you, and I wont go into theories too much.

I'll just end and say yes, I believe their are aliens, simply because its nearly statistically impossible for us to be alone in the universe (and any alternative universes, but thats another subject entirely)

 

[Cocamaster]

I do believe. Not becuase of this, not becuase of Roswell, not because of the lines in wherever America.

Just the probability and odds. What are the odds we are alone? especially when Life was found frozen on mars.

Life wasn't found frozen on Mars, or anywhere else than Earth, for that matter.

 

[SsilverR]

As most of you will now know there was a UFO that flew across china recently, the chinnese goverment are calling it a military experiment. but it was moving inhumanly fast and was emmiting a brilliant white light and as it was moving horizontally it couldn't have been a sattelite.

So what do you think, have you just started believing in aliens? do you think that we cannot be alone in the universe/ or do you not believe in them at all?

source?

 

[CincoDeMayo]

I can agree to a certain degree, but as far as 2) goes, I must disagree. The probability of known life on other planets will either increase or decrease when we find the next planet, and the planet after that, and the planet after that. I'm not a mathematician, but if the probability right now is 0.002% and we find another planet with or without life, the probability of the next planet containing life will either increase or decrease. It's basically a matter of relativity, we can't include the unknown into our variables and therefore we can't include the planets we haven't yet discovered. We're adding a new planet to our calculation, are we not?

I don't think you're actually disagreeing with me.

What I meant is that it is bad form to make enouncements like ?0.002% of the entire universe?. (It?s actually 0.22%.)

It IS true, as you said, for the known Universe. But, as you said, this WILL change as more information becomes available.

I?m not criticizing your point, just the way it?s presented.

Oh, I must have misunderstood you, my bad then.

By the way, isn't it 0.0022%? My math could be wrong, though. (I never scored that high, my teacher sucked so I slept in on the math lessons instead)

 

[Omegatronacles]

the chinnese goverment are calling it a military experiment. but it was moving inhumanly fast and was emmiting a brilliant white light and as it was moving horizontally it couldn't have been a sattelite.

See, you read that sentence and think "Aliens are here." I read that and think "Why is noone worried about China developing a weapon that is not recognised by anyone, meaning there is no defence against it at this stage?"

 

[Booze Zombie]

I believe in aliens, but I don't think they've found us yet.
Or if they have, they're really strange about it.

 

[Dark2003]

i always believed in aliens, but that wasnt no alien ship

 

[Downfall89]

THEY SPEEK TO ME IN MY DREAMS!

OT: There probably are Aliens in the universe, somewhere. So no, the China incident didn't really change my opinion.

 

[Marowit]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html

Assuming that the latest data on the NASA website is representative, well then sir, NASA would disagree with that statement.

The data says the universe may expand endlessly. I don't doubt this, however, constantly expanding and being infinite are different things.

It's like saying that every human who eats too much is fat beyond hope, even when they're clearly not. Humans can't get so incredibly fat that they have zero hope of reversing their weight. And besides, infinite isn't an actual number; correct me if I'm wrong, but the last I checked infinite is the theory that there is no limit to numbers, so there may not be a limit to how big the universe can grow, but it can't actually be infinite.

As far as I understand it, from my math and physics courses, and also present in the wikipedia definition:

if the limit on the number is unbound it means that x grows without bound, and therefore is infinite.

What we're debating here, it seems, is whether infinity is a defined by, 'no limit,' or, 'growth without limit,' which are essentially they're the same thing. talking about fat people doesn't really pertain here though, since humans, as individuals, are finite.

Perhaps a spiral being constantly drawn is a better example of what we're talking about. We have what we think is a beginning at the center of the spiral, but no end. You can't point to the end of it, since it has no end and is expanding forever. Maybe you can argue that you can point at to where the tip of the pencil is on the spiral is is the end, but by the time you drawn attention to where the tip of the pencil is, that time has past, the pencils has moved on, and that point is no longer the end of the spiral. Again, it's growing without bound, and would be considered infinite, if I understand the concept correctly.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I believe in aliens, although the China incident isn't enough evidence for me to believe they are here on Earth.

This pretty sums it up for me, there is bacteria and shit out there, but little green men did not visit china.

 

[The Geek Lord]

As far as I understand it, from my math and physics courses, and also present in the wikipedia definition:

if the limit on the number is unbound it means that x grows without bound, and therefore is infinite.

What we're debating here, it seems, is whether infinity is a defined by, 'no limit,' or, 'growth without limit,' which are essentially they're the same thing. talking about fat people doesn't really pertain here though, since humans, as individuals, are finite.

Perhaps a spiral being constantly drawn is a better example of what we're talking about. We have what we think is a beginning at the center of the spiral, but no end. You can't point to the end of it, since it has no end and is expanding forever. Maybe you can argue that you can point at to where the tip of the pencil is on the spiral is is the end, but by the time you drawn attention to where the tip of the pencil is, that time has past, the pencils has moved on, and that point is no longer the end of the spiral. Again, it's growing without bound, and would be considered infinite, if I understand the concept correctly.

... That would've been a better example. Surprised I didn't think of it first, what with the Gurren Lagann fanwhorism and all.

Anyway, what you defined is still growth without limit. Saying that the universe has no limit, as you said, could be thought of as the same thing, but there is still a notable difference.

To make a completely nerdy example, think of something like Ratchet & Clank, how the health bar is ever expanding, but is not infinite. That's basically what I'm saying. (Give me a break, I woke up at 2:10AM and couldn't get back to sleep!)

 

[Aardvark Soup]

I saw that video and did not know what caused that phenomenon. Was it an alien spaceship? Could be. Was it Albert Einstein and his pet veliciraptor in a flying time machine? Could be. Why do a lot of people constantly think of far-fetched explanations like extraterrestials in flying saucers when they can't directly explain something? It's just illogical.

It wouldn't surprise me if this simply is a military experiment as the Chinese government said according to the topic starter. However, I personally think it's probably something dull like a plane flying through a cloud under special wheater circumstances or simply a hoax created by one guy with some special effects software.

 

[Marowit]

As far as I understand it, from my math and physics courses, and also present in the wikipedia definition:

if the limit on the number is unbound it means that x grows without bound, and therefore is infinite.

What we're debating here, it seems, is whether infinity is a defined by, 'no limit,' or, 'growth without limit,' which are essentially they're the same thing. talking about fat people doesn't really pertain here though, since humans, as individuals, are finite.

Perhaps a spiral being constantly drawn is a better example of what we're talking about. We have what we think is a beginning at the center of the spiral, but no end. You can't point to the end of it, since it has no end and is expanding forever. Maybe you can argue that you can point at to where the tip of the pencil is on the spiral is is the end, but by the time you drawn attention to where the tip of the pencil is, that time has past, the pencils has moved on, and that point is no longer the end of the spiral. Again, it's growing without bound, and would be considered infinite, if I understand the concept correctly.

... That would've been a better example. Surprised I didn't think of it first, what with the Gurren Lagann fanwhorism and all.

Anyway, what you defined is still growth without limit. Saying that the universe has no limit, as you said, could be thought of as the same thing, but there is still a notable difference.

To make a completely nerdy example, think of something like Ratchet & Clank, how the health bar is ever expanding, but is not infinite. That's basically what I'm saying. (Give me a break, I woke up at 2:10AM and couldn't get back to sleep!)

Oh I get what you're saying, no worries.

Your example is the same thing as saying the number of years we have in time is infinite, but currently finite. Infinity is also a theory though. Lets take an even more basic example and play with that.

1/3 = ? 0.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333...etc

Is that number infinite?

To fit your example something would have to come into existence already possessing no discernible end, edge, etc... Whereas what I'm saying is that by growing with no end makes it infinite.

Basically it's a fine line we're having a nerdfest over, but a pretty fun discussion.

 

[ICanBreakTheseCuffs]

of course, don't you remember the black mesa incident

 

[Continuity]

Yes there are alien species out in the galaxy/universe and no they don't come here, because unlike that bollocks on star trek et al, faster than light travel is not possible.

 

[The Geek Lord]

As far as I understand it, from my math and physics courses, and also present in the wikipedia definition:

if the limit on the number is unbound it means that x grows without bound, and therefore is infinite.

What we're debating here, it seems, is whether infinity is a defined by, 'no limit,' or, 'growth without limit,' which are essentially they're the same thing. talking about fat people doesn't really pertain here though, since humans, as individuals, are finite.

Perhaps a spiral being constantly drawn is a better example of what we're talking about. We have what we think is a beginning at the center of the spiral, but no end. You can't point to the end of it, since it has no end and is expanding forever. Maybe you can argue that you can point at to where the tip of the pencil is on the spiral is is the end, but by the time you drawn attention to where the tip of the pencil is, that time has past, the pencils has moved on, and that point is no longer the end of the spiral. Again, it's growing without bound, and would be considered infinite, if I understand the concept correctly.

... That would've been a better example. Surprised I didn't think of it first, what with the Gurren Lagann fanwhorism and all.

Anyway, what you defined is still growth without limit. Saying that the universe has no limit, as you said, could be thought of as the same thing, but there is still a notable difference.

To make a completely nerdy example, think of something like Ratchet & Clank, how the health bar is ever expanding, but is not infinite. That's basically what I'm saying. (Give me a break, I woke up at 2:10AM and couldn't get back to sleep!)

Oh I get what you're saying, no worries.

Your example is the same thing as saying the number of years we have in time is infinite, but currently finite. Infinity is also a theory though. Lets take an even more basic example and play with that.

1/3 = ? 0.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333...etc

Is that number infinite?

To fit your example something would have to come into existence already possessing no discernible end, edge, etc... Whereas what I'm saying is that by growing with no end makes it infinite.

Basically it's a fine line we're having a nerdfest over, but a pretty fun discussion.

So basically we're having a nerdy debate over something we both agree on except whether or not there's a difference between ever expanding and infinite?

I love the internet, it is fun, sharing our genius with pretty much everyone.[/songquote]

 

[Danpascooch]

Why don't you post which variable of Drake's equation is flawed then?

OT: I believe in aliens, I do not believe that thing was a UFO

I didn't say any particular part of it was "flawed". I said it was invented when we didn't know even half about life and it's development as we do now. If anything, it is missing many important variables that make the final estimate much, much smaller.

Drake's equation is built into small independent variables that are multiplied, I'm asking which variable value is flawed due to outdated knowledge.

I can't really accept it's flawed without being even a little more specific.

The problem is that the actual value for a large number of the variables in the drake equation are unknowable. Most of them were reached arbitrarily at the time, and we now know they'd be skewed much higher than was thought.

Which and why?

fl,fi,fc, and L in the drake equation are purely speculative. To get any actual results from the drake equation you need to plugin the average amount of planets with life supporting conditions that go on to develop life at some point, those that actually go on to develop intelligent life, the amount of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space, and the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. None of these have any hard data to suggest values, and the Green Bank scientists choose some rather meaningless numbers to fill those values. Since we currently have zero degrees of freedom, we can make no reasonable estimates.

In other words, we would need to actually meet and study a large number of civilizations before we'd even have the raw data to make the drake equation worth while. It's more of a fanciful thought experiment than anything else. That's just the equation's own design faults mind you, there's a number of astronomical variables it doesn't accounts for as well.

BAM! Logic bombed.

Thanks for the specifics.