>Scientists say that the universe is so huge that the probability of aliens is astronomically high. There are likely trillions of species out there.
>The Drake Equation
>Scientists say that not being visited by aliens is paradoxical given the sheer size of the universe with all these trillions of potential alien habitats
>The Fermi Paradox
>When someone says UFOs could be aliens they are immediately ridiculed. "It's impossible" despite mainstream science actually saying that it's impossible for us NOT to have been visited.
>All scientists have to hang on is the impossibility of FTL
>But there are habitable stars within 20 light years and we've had theoretical rocket concepts that can reach significant fractions of the speed of light since the 1960's
>There is also absolutely no law saying aliens can't live to 1000 making 50 year journeys fairly trivial.
>Finally we barely know anything about the nature of gravitation and spacetime yet already we have worked out theoretical "warp drives" and "wormholes" that can get around FTL
>If we managed that in the 100 years since Einstein worked out relativity imagine what a civilization around for a million years could do
In short, all signs point to aliens.
>>8013470
There is literally nothing in this post that's correct.
>>8013470
>In short, all signs point to aliens.
Jesus Opie, there are already at least two threads about this.
sage goes in all fields
>>8013470
>we've had theoretical rocket concepts that can reach significant fractions of the speed of light since the 1960's
>theoretical rocket concepts
>theoretical
>some scientists speculate a few things about the nature of alien life
>therefore aliens are here
lmao
>>8013470
alien here
your planet is the asshole of the universe, no one cares enough to make contact
>>8013519
not op but didn't that russian guy say he was going to send probes alpha centauri? and everyone said
>yes, this is totally possible, but expensive
in which case your argument against the alien hypothesis is now
>nah why would they spend all that money
>Scientists say that not being visited by aliens is paradoxical given the sheer size of the universe with all these trillions of potential alien habitats
No. Given the sheer size AND age of the universe compared to the age of human covilization, its almost completely unlikely we will ever be visited by aliens.
Dumbass.
>Scientists say that not being visited by aliens is paradoxical given the sheer size of the universe with all these trillions of potential alien habitats
assuming it's actually possible to make that journey in any reasonable amount of time
>>8013477
>Says it's all incorrect
>Gives no reasons
Great argument
>>8013519
Well the argument against UFOs is that interstellar travel is straight up impossible which is completely contrary to our knowledge of advanced rocket concepts. It's like going back to the 1900s and saying space travel was impossible despite the rocket equation having been already derived.
>>8013539
If this were true then there would be no Fermi Paradox. Even at sub-light speed an alien race could get across the milky way in 100,000 years. The Milky Way is 13 billion years old...
>>8013548
I already explained that it's very anthropocentric to assume that aliens have the same idea of "reasonable" time as us. They could have 10x our lifespan meaning a trip from say Vega isn't that big of a deal. If humans are around for another million years then it's pretty much guaranteed that we will have visited all our local stars by then. life extension/cryostasis will make it possible. If we already have ideas on how to travel interstellar then why the fuck are we instantly dismissing aliens doing the same thing as "impossible"?
>>8013582
>If this were true then there would be no Fermi Paradox. Even at sub-light speed an alien race could get across the milky way in 100,000 years. The Milky Way is 13 billion years old...
>travel 100,000 years just to meet some neckbeard on some backwater planet
>>8013470
The conditions that allow for life on earth are SO rare. Unlikely to be any extraterrestrial life. You kind of have it backwards.
>>8013582
>Great argument
>Drake equation
It's an equation in 7 unknowns, worse still it's a piss poor way of estimating the number of planets harbouring intelligent life since no one really knows the condition needed for life (let alone intelligent life) to form.
>Fermi paradox
You've misunderstood, the Fermi paradox asks "IF life is common in the universe, why haven't we been visited by it yet?" On possible resolution is that life is incredibly rare.
>Wormholes
Almost certainly don't appear microscopically, unless you want to swallow some Kaku bullshit.
I'm not going to go into finer detail, but the long and short of it is you're just another pop-sci, meme spewing faggot with ideas above his station.
>[math] \mathcal { SAGE } [/math]
>[math] \mathcal { GOES } [/math]
>[math] \mathcal { IN } [/math]
>[math] \mathcal { ALL } [/math]
>[math] \mathcal { FIELDS } [/math]
>>8013586
Fermi's paradox ignores a lot of the drake equation. Fermi's paradox assumes all potential civilizations exist right now. It also assumes that they have to be technologically superior to us.
https://youtu.be/lD08CuUi_Ek
Even Vsauce discussed this.
Dude, you are very stuborn for being so ignorant.
>>8013582
Human civilization only reached the moon 50 years ago and is only about 7000 years old. We arent even 100,000 years old.
And we've almost been wiped out twice in the last 800 years.
You cant be sure that aliens live more comfy than us when most solar systems dont have 2 gas giants to protect them from asteroid attacks alone.
>>8013586
We landed a car on a planet 50 million miles away just to check out some rocks.
>>8013591
Balanced out by the sheer number of habitable worlds out there.
>>8013614
>drake equation is innacurate
That it may be but the point is that it's in the mainstream that there is likely a lot of worlds out there
>On possible resolution is that life is incredibly rare
But what if it's not. Again as I point out arguments for it being abundant are in the mainstream
>I'm not going to go into finer detail, but the long and short of it is you're just another pop-sci, meme spewing faggot with ideas above his station
You know why i make these threads? Because I feel that there's nowhere outside of /x/ circles that you can have a sensible discussion about these things without being attacked as a nut and every singe time I am proved right. Absolutely everything I talk about has been considered by reputable mainstream scientists at some point yet you act like I am talking about reptilians taking over the white house with anti-gravity. it's as easy as giving a coherent scientific counter argument. Simply saying "fuck off sage" smacks of "dogmatism.
>>8013622
That video backs up everything I say i.e that interstellar travel is marginally feasible even by our own technological knowledge, therefore it also backs up what I say that scientists should stop dismissing the ET hypothesis as "paranormal". there is clearly a few known mechanisms by which an alien visitation could happen therefore why people equate it to ghosts and chupacabra I will never understand.
>>8013665
>That it may be but the point is that it's in the mainstream that there is likely a lot of worlds out there
Except it isn't "The mainstream", that's pop-sci espoused by Shostak and other fellow travelers, it's based on nothing more than personal belief and desire. Will it turn out that they're correct? I've no idea, but as it stands their position is based on nothing but hope. The real mainstream opinion is that there's currently too little evidence to support the assertion that there is life out side of earth.
>Because I feel that there's nowhere outside of /x/ circles that you can have a sensible discussion about these things.
That's because there isn't much to say, evidence of it being anything beyond misidentification is thin on the ground. Even when there is physical evidence for something "strange" it's almost always some kind of radar return that could still be anything.
>Simply saying "fuck off sage" smacks of "dogmatism.
Saying "fuck off, sage" is an impolite way of saying "fuck off, we all ready have a board for this shit".
>Sage
>>8013687
W8 hold up. Hold up.
When that KIC light-dimming thing was discovered most of /sci/ went full on "I want to believe" mode. "It's aliens making a Dyson Sphere" or whatever. There was lots of long discussion on it, nobody got told to fuck off to /x/. But now I'm being attacked for saying pretty much the same thing, that there are likely civilizations out there with more advanced technology than us? /sci/ is willing to believe that there is a civilization out there capable of covering an entire star but the idea of a fusion rocket from Vega is "absurd"? Hypocrisy much? /sci/ only took it seriously because a mainstream scientist suggested the Dyson Sphere explanation. You all only go along with what views are approved by your superiors. as I pointed out in other threads the ET hypothesis used to be taken fairly seriously until the government told a few top scientists to say it was BS and everyone else followed suit.
>evidence of it being anything beyond misidentification is thin on the ground
There are plenty of cases where misidentification was ruled out. You act like nobody ever sat down and studied this. You act like you were the first person to suggest meteors for UFO sightings
>Even when there is physical evidence for something "strange" it's almost always some kind of radar return that could still be anything
What? Either the radar was malfunctioning or there was something there. How do you explain radar returns matched up with observation? How do you explain multiple separate radars "malfunctioning" at the exact same time. You say UFOs are paranormal because there's no evidence from scientific instruments, well unlike ghosts they show up on radar yet that is still dismissed. Saying "It's probably nothing without even bothering to look into it or worse saying that after it was looked into and still came back as unexplained is hand wavey bullshit that has no place in science.
>>8013687
>Saying "fuck off, sage" is an impolite way of saying "fuck off, we all ready have a board for this shit".
First of all it's the wrong board, I give plenty reasons why UFOs are different to ghosts you have not given one counter argument against this, just "fuck off man, it's paranormal OK? It's paranormal just because". I used to give the exact same angry knee-jerk responses to people who talked about UFOs until I researched it myself and realized that there was something to it. I still didn't really believe until I found out more about interstellar concepts and that the ET hypothesis not unscientific. So now my stance is that UFOs are almost certainly real unknown phenomenon and while there's no proof it's aliens, this isn't an un-scientific belief.
This is what makes me a better person than you, I actually read and think for myself instead of just accepting what others tell me. I am willing to scientifically evaluate anything instead of automatically refusing to talk about it because it clashes with my beliefs.
>>8013717
>First of all it's the wrong board
Nope, this belongs firmly on >>>/x/. Like any discussion of Bigfoot, the loch Ness monster, and skinwalkers.
>This is what makes me a better person than you
You're better because you shitpost on the wrong board of a Korean cross-stich appreciation website? That's a strange criterion.
>Sage.
>>8013733
You know that by throwing a tantrum like a toddler you're only proving my point that I am the one here behaving scientifically?
>>8013878
>You disagreeing with me proves I'm right.
Lol fgt.
>Sage.
>>8013470
>I know what scientists say
No, you do not.
>>8013962
>9/11 Truthers will scream "JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS" no matter how much evidence and reason you throw at them
>UFO skeptics will scream "PARANORMAL" no matter how much evidence and reason you throw at them
Two sides of the same coin.
Lets take earth as an example. 4.5 billion years old, has had life for 4.1 billion years. Its had 5 extinction level events. This is a relatively small planet with a relatively stable climate. Earth has a rich crust and expansive ocean for life to thrive. Its got a nicely proportioned moon at a nice distance from it. Its got a great solar system with a sun thats hot, bright, big and stable and also has 4 gas giants to protect it from meteors. Its in a quiet part of the galaxy in a quiet galactic neighborhood.
In all that time, its had one species able to reach its moon. That species has almost been destroyed twice.
Its likely that any potential solar systems capable of harboring life wont be as excellent as our own. The exoplanets in the range and size that resemble earth may not have all of the necessary resources or conditions to even spawn life forms. Any life forms that do spawn may never be capable of intelligence, such as vegetation or single celled organisms. There is no gaurantee that an extinction event wont occur thats great enough to snuff all life before intelligence could occur.
With chance, intelligence could arise. It may wipe itself out or die off in some sort of mass extiction of the species at some point.
Or, even worse, it would be capable of reaching out to us, but it doesnt exist yet or ended its capability of visiting us before we even existed. Or maybe its just not in the milky way.
This is why having intelligent life reach out to us is so incredibly unlikely.
