The Paranormal, UFO's, and Mysteries of the Unknown

MusicForFish said:

Ya, that lines up with where I've been on the subject for a while. The abductions and anal are weird tho. Maybe DNA harvesting, but why does it have to be through the ass.

Click to expand...

seeing how society is already heading, they invented time travel in the very distant future and a bunch of faggot scientists decided to come get their freak on in the past. humans probably look like sheep to them. i sound like i'm joking, but i legit think it makes more sense that UFOs are just us from whatever timeline in the future.

gut bacteria harvesting to cure some future aids

Chukzombi said:

It actually sounds more plausible than someone travelling many light years to get here just to buttfuck rednecks at 4am after the bar closed.

Click to expand...

Well, if planets that have evolved complex life are super duder rare then, sure, I do see it as plausible that extraterrestrials would visit us. From a scientific perspective, there would be some very valuable data to collect.

ShakyJake said:

Well, if planets that have evolved complex life are super duder rare then, sure, I do see it as plausible that extraterrestrials would visit us. From a scientific perspective, there would be some very valuable data to collect.

Click to expand...

some people believe the spacemen have been here a really long time. like here is a 10,000 year old cave painting.


its the same weird shit people say they see on route 1 in buttfuck Iowa at 2am. its weird, but it doesnt mean its aliens. and if they were aliens. they would have learned all they needed to learn about our colons and poop.

ShakyJake said:

I was watching the latest PBS SpaceTime Why We Might Be Alone in the Universe and it got me wondering about the Drake equation:


Has anyone ever solved this equation from the other side? In other words, let's assume that Earth is the only technological civilization in the galaxy. So, N = 1. Going by that, what would this force the other variables to? How seemingly improbable are those?

Click to expand...

I would guess:
R = Near Infinite (How big is the universe again?)
fp = 1 (I'd guess nearly every star has planets)
ne = 2 (Our solar system has Earth but Mars and Venus are almost suitable. Not including any moons either).

So these 3 variables, even if ne is much smaller, gets you a near infinite number of candidates.

That means that fl, fi, fc or L is near infinitely small to have the equation equal one. Even a million to one chance on all of them would leave you with billions of worlds.

Given that it's happened here, fl conditions must have happened elsewhere in such a large universe since it's just a balance of chemicals/conditions and scientists are leaning towards life being more common the we think. It'll be a small fraction but not infinitely small.

That means the issue is with evolution.

fi could be more than 1 on suitable worlds as we have multiple "intelligent" lifeforms on earth, the issue is fc because dolphins can't develop tech without fingers. Some worlds will have poor conditions that's only good for bateria though.

For fc we only have one animal lineage on earth using tools. I think birds have been seen using sticks but their limbs aren't suitable for further development. Even with Humans, multiple civilisations were not developing tech, it took a large contiguous population from Ireland to Japan to develop technology.

Then with L, it remains to be seen how long we will last . Some species have been around for a very long time (Turtles, Crocodiles, Sharks) and most died out. Unless climate change fucks the earth or science fucks our genome I think we will be OK.

For reference:

N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L where, N = The number of communicative civilizations R* = The rate of formation of suitable stars (stars such as our Sun) fp = The fraction of those stars with planets. (Current evidence indicates that planetary systems may be common for stars like the Sun.) ne = The number of Earth-like worlds per planetary system fl = The fraction of those Earth-like planets where life actually develops fi = The fraction of life sites where intelligence develops fc = The fraction of communicative planets (those on which electromagnetic communications technology develops) L = The 'lifetime' of communicating civilizations

Click to expand...

So I would say that if N = 1, it'll be because there's a near infinitely small chance of the required technology developing.

You need :
1) A world with conditions that allows not just life but large animals to adapt to it.
2) Evolution to deliver eyes, fingers and a conscious brain. Not just plants.
3) A large enough contiguous population existing for long enough to develop the technology.

Evolution is the real miracle here.

If we are playing this game, why assume intelligent life always has to be some flesh n blood creature? Why not something energy based or gaseous?

Chukzombi said:

If we are playing this game, why assume intelligent life always has to be some flesh n blood creature? Why not something energy based or gaseous?

Click to expand...

Well an entity with the ability to perceive and manipulate it's environment to the point of being able to communicate with us. Whatever. Doesnt really make a difference.

Chris said:

Well an entity with the ability to perceive and manipulate it's environment to the point of being able to communicate with us. Whatever. Doesnt really make a difference.

Click to expand...

Im just teasing ya with star trek characters, but some of them were interesting concepts.

ShakyJake said:

I was watching the latest PBS SpaceTime Why We Might Be Alone in the Universe and it got me wondering about the Drake equation:


Has anyone ever solved this equation from the other side? In other words, let's assume that Earth is the only technological civilization in the galaxy. So, N = 1. Going by that, what would this force the other variables to? How seemingly improbable are those?

Click to expand...

it would force them to all equal one.

That's not useful, even if true. There's no indication of how to weight the variables to make that true.


It's also interesting to consider it the value of n could be less than one, or possibly negative. Not very useful either, but interesting.
2+2=4. But so does 1+3 and 3+1. If n=1 that's interesting and a fact, but a dead end.

Chukzombi said:

seeing how society is already heading, they invented time travel in the very distant future and a bunch of faggot scientists decided to come get their freak on in the past. humans probably look like sheep to them. i sound like i'm joking, but i legit think it makes more sense that UFOs are just us from whatever timeline in the future.

Click to expand...

The anal proving has always seemed fetishist.

But. If we want to lend this some credibility... There are limited pathways for non invasive tissue sampling. Yes, they could dissect cadavers, and since we're lending credibility already let's say they do that also. But to get data on the living process the organism should be alive.lend

Aliens tend to be constrained remarkably by the limitations of our current technology or technological metaphors, though. That's a problem.

iannis said:

it would force them to all equal one

Click to expand...

No?

1*1*1 = 1
1*2*0.5 = 1
100000*100000*0.0000000001=1

It can't be less than 1 because we have proof there's at least 1 lol

See my post above, you can absolutly speculate about the value each variable can take.

Chris said:

No?

1*1*1 = 1
1*2*0.5 = 1
100000*100000*0.0000000001=1

It can't be less than 1 because we have proof there's at least 1 lol

See my post above, you can absolutly speculate about the value each variable can take.

Click to expand...

empty speculation not tied to observation.

But sure, you can if you like.

I'm not a fan of simulation theory, but if asked an honest response would have to include the possibility that n<1.

We just won't know without more data.

iannis said:

empty speculation not tied to observation.

But sure, you can if you like.

I'm not a fan of simulation theory, but if asked an honest response would have to include the possibility that n<1.

We just won't know without more data.

Click to expand...

I think you are being an asshole, I had some pretty decent reasoning. It would be more interesting if you disputed specific figures I gave with your own input.

Would you rather read shit about step pyramids all being built by the same people, even though it's one of the most basic ways to pile earth to make a raised platform?

I don't think we actually disagree that much. But that's what makes the Drake Equation persistent and relevant. It's irreducible.

You can add terms to it, and you do have to assume than N>=1.

I did say that considering alternative bounds for N is not all that useful, it can just be somewhat interesting. A negative N is also empty speculation. There is every possibility that such a thought describes a potential, but not the reality we exist in. If I was a multiverse type of guy I'd say it describes the vast majority of potentials. The simulationists would say it might be accurate contextually but does not describe root reality, I guess.

My point only is that speculation along those lines of what values could produce a set value for N does nothing to refine the ranges of those variables. The tool to use has to be observation (like hunting for exoplanets), because Drake stated it perfectly and there's no wiggle in the wimey.

It's a good tool to write fiction about!

iannis said:

I don't think we actually disagree that much. But that's what makes the Drake Equation persistent and relevant. It's irreducible.

You can add terms to it, and you do have to assume than N>=1.

I did say that considering alternative bounds for N is not all that useful, it can just be somewhat interesting. A negative N is also empty speculation.

Click to expand...

0<=N<1 implies it's impossible so some outside force (God?) is responsible? Worth considering I guess.

Or I suppose it's a probability so N=0.1 would just mean that we are really lucky?

What would a negative N even represent? Which variable can take a negative value?

Chris said:

0<=N<1 implies it's impossible so some outside force (God?) is responsible?

What would a negative N even represent? Which variable can take a negative value?

Click to expand...

Negative might be a bit of my own fiction! It doesn't -really- make sense.

I guess the idea would be that not only is reality not condusive to life or sentience, but it's actually hostile to it. Which really does seem like a bald contradiction for a sentient life form to make. Sort of gobbledygook.

Which is one reason I am -not- a fan of simulation theory. They account for negative N. I mean, if they thought about what they're saying they do. I'm not sure they actually think about it all that deeply.

And yeah, 0 would point to supernaturalism. It has to. If it can be explained through no known natural phenomenon....