3 edits
I am just so relieved that this explanation given below, unlike the usual moronic one given that moronically involves aliens, does NOT moronically involve aliens but instead makes a LOT more sense and I can see in fact makes perfect sense!;
The simplest and most mundane and least assumptive (which means NOT assuming aliens exist AND are involved) are usually the best ones.
@humy saidI can't view any of these videos but I do like alien-related discussions.
I am just so relieved that this explanation given below, unlike the usual moronic one given that moronically involves aliens, does NOT moronically involve aliens but instead makes a LOT more sense and I can see in fact makes perfect sense!;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JHS3EeL0WE
The simplest and most mundane and least assumptive (which means NOT assuming aliens exist AND are involved) are usually the best ones.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThe idea here is that the object is a 3-D-snowflake with a density of less than air (it would be hollow). The guy gives the paper he is referencing… I will look that up and post it.
I can't view any of these videos but I do like alien-related discussions.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.04100.pdf
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThe video explains that previous calculations predicting its trajectory may have been (and probably was) flawed because it assumes this object has a certain amount of density and mass similar to that of most known asteroids, an assumption that may well be false, but if you recalculate assuming it has a much lower mass then the effect of radiance pressure from the sun will be more and enough to deflect it enough to fully explain the observed deviation from its predicted trajectory you get by assuming it has much more mass; No silly ideas of alien involvement required.
I can't view any of these videos but I do like alien-related discussions.
@humy
So all those martian probes searching for alien life must be moronic, huh? Perhaps they should call them Moronic Rovers on Moronic Missions. But maybe I'm wrong and you know for a fact that alien life doesn't exist because you've hopped into your super-quantum-warp spaceship and already explored all 780 Billion planets in the galaxy and found nothing there.
14 edits
@bunnyknight saidThose martian probes looked like something artificial and the rational default assumption should be if it looks natural, i.e. not artificial, then it is unless you have a specific reason to think otherwise.
@humy
So all those martian probes searching for alien life must be moronic, huh?
Were any of those martian probes disguised just like an asteroid and not a particularly fast moving one and then, because of its slow speed, was designed to spent millions of years drifting through space to drift into another solar system to then go through it and, strangely for a probe, without ever bothering passing particularly close to any planet to have a particularly close look?
And why did the Aliens bother disguising it as anything when they first sent it millions of years ago when before i.e. millions of years ago they couldn't possibly have evidence that intelligent life in our solar system with technology capable of closely observing it would exist by the time the probe got there? And how were they planning to retrieve the data from this probe millions of years later? using a slow method that would take many more millions of years or warp drive? If the latter, why couldn't they used warp drive for their probe and cloaked it or make it so black no light reflects off it? Unless these are completely stupid aliens! I admit that one must be possible! But then they would have to be smart enough to develop extremely advanced space technology but then stupid enough to apply space travel in a completely stupid way; Still possible! But somehow I think unlikely.
1 edit
@bunnyknight saidNo. Alien life might exist. Just see no evidence yet that it probably does. Until I see real evidence that it does exist, I won't assume every unexplained thing we see probably has alien involvement. Even if I then see real evidence that it does exist, I will always at least consider alternative theories for each unexplained thing we see before concluding probable alien involvement.
@humy
But maybe I'm wrong and you know for a fact that alien life doesn't exist
@humy saidWell, at least you sound more rational now, because to call any plausible theory moronic is not very rational.
No. Alien life might exist. Just see no evidence yet that it probably does. Until I see real evidence that it does exist, I won't assume every unexplained thing we see probably has alien involvement. Even if I then see real evidence that it does exist, I will always at least consider alternative theories for each unexplained thing we see before concluding probable alien involvement.
As for that alien visitor thing, it could have 20 explanations and all 20 could be wrong. We just don't know for sure. Sometimes the craziest theory may be the correct one, and sometimes the truth may be something no one ever thought of.
As for having evidence -- that's not so clear cut and can be tricky. Sometimes all you have is a whole bunch of clues which may or may not lead you to the truth by connecting the dots. And when an old, retired air-force engineer tells me that aliens definitely exist, I consider it a valuable dot not to be automatically dismissed.
@bunnyknight saidbefore or after you ask him why he would believe aliens definitely exist?
when an old, retired air-force engineer tells me that aliens definitely exist, I consider it a valuable dot not to be automatically dismissed.
@humy saidI should have added;
before or after you ask him why he would believe aliens definitely exist?
If you ask and his answer is he saw some strange lights in the sky and ..., that's it, I mean THAT is the ONLY reason why he gives, then you should NOT consider that as a "valuable dot", as you called it.
@humy saidGood advice! And if a scientist told me that chess was invented by squirrels, I would also not consider it as a valuable dot.
I should have added;
If you ask and his answer is he saw some strange lights in the sky and ..., that's it, I mean THAT is the ONLY reason why he gives, then you should NOT consider that as a "valuable dot", as you called it.
Getting back to the main subject, I think the priority should be to send a robotic probe after that interstellar object, catch-up to it, study it with every sensor imaginable, and beam back the results. This needs to be done ASAP before its too late. According to astro-engineers it's perfectly feasible to do this.
1 edit
@humy
With the number of exoplanets discovered over 1000 now and more added every day, it seems statistically unlikely for their NOT to be extraterrestrial life on some planet and maybe even in our own solar system, like Mars or Europa for instance.
Just consider the overwhelming number of stars in just our galaxy, hundreds of billions and probably more than one planet per star so there could be a TRILLION planets in our galaxy alone and there are literally hundreds of BILLIONS of galaxy.
We assume the laws of physics are pretty much identical here as a billion light years away. So that would men carbon would probably be the molecule of choice for a hypothetical intelligent alien.
So suppose we had a transporter that could go a trillion light years an hour it would seem we would HAVE to find life and intelligent life also.
6 edits
@sonhouse saidOne problem is we don't know the probability of biogenesis occurring on a planet given the right conditions for it; For all we know, it could be 99.999% or be 50% or be 1% or be 0.01% or be 0.000000000000000000000000000001%
@humy
With the number of exoplanets discovered over 1000 now and more added every day, it seems statistically unlikely for their NOT to be extraterrestrial life on some planet and maybe even in our own solar system, like Mars or Europa for instance.
Just consider the overwhelming number of stars in just our galaxy, hundreds of billions and probably more than one planet per ...[text shortened]... o a trillion light years an hour it would seem we would HAVE to find life and intelligent life also.
All we know for certain is that it isn't exactly 0% else we wouldn't be here.
Also, when biogenesis occurs, for all we know the probability of animal life and then intelligent technologically advanced life evolving from that single celled life on that planet could be something like only 0.000000000000000000000000000001%. So such evolutionary steps could have been just an extremely rare fluke even among all planets were biogenesis had once occurred because only single-celled life normally evolves.
Either way, it could be we are probably alone in the whole of the observable universe, despite the totally unimaginable large but still finite number of Earth-like planets in the observable universe.
And then of course there is the problem of the Fermi paradox;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
@humy saidOf course it's possible that we're all alone. It's possible we live in a simulated dream state, too. But almost everything in science involves probability not certainty. It seems highly probable that alien life exists, given the sheer size of things out there. I can't find the paper anymore, but there was some study last year that estimated 36 intelligent life forms currently exist in our galaxy.
No. Alien life might exist. Just see no evidence yet that it probably does. Until I see real evidence that it does exist, I won't assume every unexplained thing we see probably has alien involvement. Even if I then see real evidence that it does exist, I will always at least consider alternative theories for each unexplained thing we see before concluding probable alien involvement.
If you couple the statistical analyses with the knowledge that life forms that exist here on Earth are capable of (and perhaps even adapted for) space travel, it tips the balance for me in terms of likelihood.