You are also in a box of your own creation. Many things that were thought impossible are now possible, and we don’t know what we don’t know.
Because any alien craft visiting us would be from very far away, this what I know...
1. Any alien craft that could visit us would not be affected by G forces. Obviously.
2. These alien craft would not use the sorts of propellants we use. Obviously.
3. Travelling at the speed of light or faster, in the conventional sense of moving through space as we do, would require some method to avoid impacts with other objects in space. Obviously.
Gravity is used to illustrate our lack of a full understanding of physics, not to imply it has anything specifically to do with travelling in space. If we don’t understand gravity, what else don’t we understand? Using physics that you know is incomplete to prove that something does or doesn’t exist is not smart. I know that I don’t know for sure either way, but I’m not going to refute based on limited information and incomplete theories. The greatest enemy of progress is orthodoxy and the fear that fuels it.
Using Phoenix as an example, citing mass hysteria, or saying that hundreds of people mistook a plane formation for what they actually saw, says more about your own comfort level than what actually happened, whatever that may be.
I can use many convenient examples of knowledge gaps to argue a point e.g. no universal solution to cancer or Alzheimer's in medicine. But, does that give me the right to discount the considered opinion of experts in the field, as you are doing in this discussion??
The other issue around alien visitation is biology and evolution. Read the Anders Sandberg paper and watch Mark Defant's TED talk for starters.
The other issue around alien visitation is biology and evolution. Read the Anders Sandberg paper and watch Mark Defant's TED talk for starters.
Some people just refuse to accept the UFO =/= alien concept.
I’m with Vallee on this one: if UFOs were simply extraterrestrial visitors I would be pretty disappointed.
I see that there are more than one 'garden planet' description out there. Try Google search on it. Some are entertaining.
As for pre vs post 65 m.y. ago, are you aware that dragonfly was a lot bigger in pre 65 m.y.a.? Oxygen was more abundant back then and many other oxygen breathing creatures were bigger. Jurassic period harbored lush vegetation and abundant life on earth which allowed such large herbivores (i.e. Brachiosaurus) to live.
I’m well aware of giant dragonflies, elevated oxygen levels and the Cambrian evolutionary explosion.
I’m simply quoting an acknowledged expert in the field. The last 40 million yrs have seen huge changes in climate and attendant flora - emergence of grassy plains (leading to vast herds of herbivores and ecosystems dependent on them),ice covered poles, seas abundant with life, the rise of mammals, the animals that ever lived etc. This has been a particularly benign time in the Earth’s history, and perhaps that is what has been alluded to. Much of the pre 65 MYO oceans were not productive because sea temps were too high - ‘oceanic deserts’.
But, if you think Lovelock is wrong then I’m not going to waste time arguing with you.
I’m simply quoting an acknowledged expert in the field. The last 40 million yrs have seen huge changes in climate and attendant flora - emergence of grassy plains (leading to vast herds of herbivores and ecosystems dependent on them),ice covered poles, seas abundant with life, the rise of mammals, the animals that ever lived etc. This has been a particularly benign time in the Earth’s history, and perhaps that is what has been alluded to. Much of the pre 65 MYO oceans were not productive because sea temps were too high - ‘oceanic deserts’.
But, if you think Lovelock is wrong then I’m not going to waste time arguing with you.
Last edited:
Such changes took place multiple times, as you noted, "Cambrian evolutionary explosion".
Mammals existed along with dinosaurs. Smaller mammals survived the catastrophe 65 m.y. ago and thus they inherited what's left of it. I'm arguing your opinion after whichever source you've seen, not the source.
I agree with James Lovelock’s opinion. An evolutionary explosion at the outset of the Cambrian period and his view that the earth transformed into a ‘garden planet’ over the last 40 million yrs aren’t necessarily the same thing are they? Don’t see there’s anything further to discuss.
Last edited:
It might have been different (either way) if at least:
* Believers had shown solid proof beyond their bare Faith.
or
* the rest of the World had not wasted time to convince Believers they had no real base for their statements. (hint, it never works 😉 )
* Believers had shown solid proof beyond their bare Faith.
or
* the rest of the World had not wasted time to convince Believers they had no real base for their statements. (hint, it never works 😉 )
You are forgetting your bare faith in an incomplete theory of physics. If anyone is a faithful believer, it is you. You can’t see past the obvious gaps that all physicists know exist in the theory, and you apply this partial theory indiscriminately, and with the faith of a true believer. You even ridicule those that don’t follow your faith. He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.
. When people are scared, they use capitals to drive the fear away. For example “ALIENS DON’T EXIST BECAUSE I’M SCARED OF THEM”. Sorry for using capitals, and sorry for throwing stones in my glass house.tut tut. no capitals allowed.
Last edited:
Cut-and-paste skeptical boilerplate is not conducive to substantial discussion so no surprise there.
And right there you essentially confess to arguing in bad faith.
I used to count myself among the skeptics. Being around skeptics and their insecure, ritualized way of “debating” others eventually grew too cultish for my liking.
Lots of stereotypical examples in this thread. We were even treated to multiple unsolicited sermons reveling in the fruits bestowed to us in the name of scientific advancement. Of course, like any good sermon, it was just as much propaganda as the ravings of an off-the-grid hysteric decrying the ills of western civilization.
Both get boring after a while.
Last edited:
Point being, there have been multiple evolutionary explosions. You've formed an opinion that last 40 m.y. is more unique than others. You are certainly free to form any opinion you want. I was viewing it through more skeptical lens and brought up the perception issue ("Comfortable to whom / what, us?"). If we are assessing the situation, it's only natural that the perception will be centered at our own view.
No one is forcing someone to discuss.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.