• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Steven Hawking warns not to talk to aliens

outhouse

Atheistically
The abundance of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere is kind of a dead givaway to any observer that there is something unusual going on here chemically...perhaps even an indicator of life

I agree.

unusual ??? i dont think so. These are all elements abundant in the universe. rare but known is more like it.


Hawking doesn't seem to realize that aliens probably would know we are here already just by observing our Sun and solar system from the comfort of their own world.

again I agree.

I feel what we see is more then likely drones more so then actuall ET's when one claims UFO's.

think its likely we'll create intelligent "alien" life here on Earth

possible. but doubt it.

space is the enviroment the one needs to be genetically friendly with. not earth bound



before encountering it in the cosmos

not sure about that.

If we are viewed as we do a aquarium, or not. We are extremely limited on seeing outside influences .



We are so primitive its much the same as a chick in a egg getting ready to hatch guessing on what lies a head of him afterwords.

we are not comepletely blind, but not far from it.




There has to be life more advanced then us, one that is able to hop off his or her or it's rock which does not sustain a non-hositile enviroment.


OUR biggest draw back as far as our humanity is concerned is that we are not able to sustain our own enviroment off the rock. Once this happens "IF" it happens before our extinction then we will evolve to our new enviroment and any possible laws regarding universal space exploration. IE we are no part of any hypothetical club at this moment
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If we can measure the light spectra from exoplanets using space based telescopes, we might be able to determine their atmospheric composition. The abundance of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere is kind of a dead givaway to any observer that there is something unusual going on here chemically...perhaps even an indicator of life. Oxygen in an alien planet's atmosphere would tell us that there is very likely some form of life with a similar biochemistry to Earth's there. Hawking doesn't seem to realize that aliens probably would know we are here already just by observing our Sun and solar system from the comfort of their own world.
We should consider that Hawking is aware of the same things we are (& then some), & also that he has a wry sense of humor. I'd wager that he's bust'n our chops.

Imagine our incredible good fortune if by advanced remote sensing technology (a Futurama type "smellescope"?), we detect a planetary atmosphere with airborne
bacon grease. Now that would be an advanced race I'd like to meet!
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
the Drake equation is plenty enough and far more then naive.

The evidence that we are here is also evidence we could not be alone.

thinking we are alone is naive
:facepalm:
In science there is arguably no more suppositional formula than that proposed in 1961 by radio astronomer Frank Drake for estimating the number of technological civilizations that reside in our galaxy: N = R fp ne fl fi fc L

In this equation, N is the number of communicative civilizations, R is the rate of formation of suitable stars, fp is the fraction of those stars with planets, ne is the number of Earth-like planets per solar system, fl is the fraction of planets with life, fi is the fraction of planets with intelligent life, fc is the fraction of planets with communicating technology, and L is the lifetime of communicating civilizations.
Although we have a fairly good idea of the rate of stellar formation, a dearth of data for the other components means that calculations are often reduced to the creative speculations of quixotic astronomers. Most SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) scientists are realistic about the limitations of their field; still, I was puzzled to encounter numerous caveats about L, such as this one from SETI Institute astronomer Seth Shostak: “The lack of precision in determining these parameters pales in comparison with our ignorance of L.” Similarly, Mars Society president Robert Zubrin says that “the biggest uncertainty revolves around the value of L; we have very little data to estimate this number, and the value we pick for it strongly influences the results of the calculation.” Estimates of L reflect this uncertainty, ranging from 10 years to 10 million years, with a mean of about 50,000 years.

Using a conservative Drake equation calculation, where L = 50,000 years (and R = 10, fp = 0.5, ne = 0.2, fl = 0.2, fi = 0.2, fc = 0.2), then N = 400 civilizations, or one per 4,300 light-years. Using Zubrin’s optimistic (and modified) Drake equation, where L = 50,000 years, then N = five million galactic civilizations, or one per 185 light-years. (Zubrin’s calculation assumes that 10 percent of all 400 billion stars are suitable G- and K-type stars that are not part of multiples, with almost all having planets, that 10 percent of these contain an active biosphere and that 50 percent of those are as old as Earth.) Estimates of N-range wildly between these figures, from Planetary Society scientist Thomas R. McDonough’s 4,000 to Carl Sagan’s one million.

- Shermer
:slap:
Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N* is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

One way to chart the cooling of enthusiasm is to review popular works on the subject. In 1964, at the height of SETI enthusiasm, Walter Sullivan of the NY Times wrote an exciting book about life in the universe entitled WE ARE NOT ALONE. By 1995, when Paul Davis wrote a book on the same subject, he titled it ARE WE ALONE? ( Since 1981, there have in fact been four books titled ARE WE ALONE.) More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called "Rare Earth" theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way.

Back in the sixties, SETI had its critics, although not among astrophysicists and astronomers. The biologists and paleontologists were harshest. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard sneered that SETI was a "study without a subject," and it remains so to the present day.

But scientists in general have been indulgent toward SETI, viewing it either with bemused tolerance, or with indifference. After all, what's the big deal? It's kind of fun. If people want to look, let them. Only a curmudgeon would speak harshly of SETI. It wasn't worth the bother.

And of course it is true that untestable theories may have heuristic value. Of course extraterrestrials are a good way to teach science to kids. But that does not relieve us of the obligation to see the Drake equation clearly for what it is-pure speculation in quasi-scientific trappings.

The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage-similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example-meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks.

- Crichton
:slap:
 
Last edited:

Many Sages One Truth

Active Member
Don’t talk to aliens, warns Stephen Hawking - Times Online

Kinda like being told not to talk to strangers....Now, Hawking is a major proponent of the idea that other beings are out there...but it's better off not letting them know about us and keeping a low profile....

Is Hawking right, or should humanity be trying to communicate with other races?

I think if another specie is out there we'd need to take our chances. If we don't try we'll never know. We should never let fear hold us back, or attachment to this form, so that we fear death.
 

Silver

Just maybe
Perhaps scientists in the distant future could invent a planetary cloaking device and send this back in time to the time when the planet was forming. To an outside alien race Earth would be invisible/undetectable. Maybe all alien races do this and this is why they are undetectable in the universe!
 

outhouse

Atheistically
:facepalm::slap::slap:


you make no real arguement against it. Because we dont know doesnt give credibility to your argument



The same exact way ancient hebrews thought the world revolved around them, you think the universe revolves around you. I find this primitive thinking.

This would also indicate you believe there is nothing ET at all, about any of the UFO's ever spotted by mankind.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Maybe all alien races do this and this is why they are undetectable in the universe!

first they are not undetectable. we just dont have the ability to look

second we cannot say with certainty they are not already here
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Drat! I stand exposed! :thud:

yes of ignorance on the subject.


In this case we have no reason to think we are alone AT ALL. Its just the opposite.

Every military to every airline has claimed to see things that have not been nor are explainable. These are not drunks stumbling out of a bar claiming they see something.

There are credible witnesses.




I find your opinion primitive, maybe you believe in a sky daddy with no witnesses or proof and this makes you biased. As far as im concerned there is more evidence for UFO's being ET in origination then a god figure
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
to deny the drake equation is as naive as filling a glass full of water from the ocean and saying theres no whales because one is not in the glass
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Drake equation is just a a crude guess which is fancified with mathematrical terms.
It only illustrates that there is a whole lotta possibility for life elsewhere.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The Drake equation is just a a crude guess which is fancified with mathematrical terms.
It only illustrates that there is a whole lotta possibility for life elsewhere.


true.

And because we are here it is very naive to think we are alone

add the evidence of UFO sightings by credible people and credible governements and officials, its hard to deny we are alone.

The fact so many people claim to see UFO's and believe they are ET in origin would give credibility that people see what they want to believe. that would be proof god is imgaination and a illusion only because people are preconceived to make things up
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Do I really need to?? you cant figure it out or use google???


I already stated there are as many suns as there are grains of sand upon the earth.

nuff said, right there.
You're not really trying, and I suspect just trolling. Please re-read the articles Jay posted.
 
Top