Unexplained

Stig said:

Dave Rudd said:

Stig said:

Dave Rudd said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Whilst it is possible, even likely that life exists elsewhere there are two massive issues which make it unlikely we have been or will be visited by aliens. Firstly distance. It just isn't viable with the distances involved. Secondly time. Intelligent Aliens may have existed millions of years ago or may exist millions of years into the future. Their time when they can do this has to align with our short speckle of time. The odds are against I think. 

The other thing we need to find is life on another planet. That can be basic life as that suggests there is the potential for life to happen in decent numbers based on mathematics. We haven't yet found this so life may be rarer than we might think. Of course when life starts certain things have to happen for intelligent life to come from that. How likely were those things to happen also? We could even find life on this planet that we know came from a different life creating incident. That would say life is easy to create in the right conditions. We haven't found this yet.

Way too simplistic.  You are restricting yourself to a single universe and the human concepts of Life, Time and Space.

Throw in the multi-universe theory, a wider definition of 'Life' and variants on multi-dimensional Time and Space and things look quite different.

Maybe all things exist always and everywhere, and our reality is a glimpse through a hole in a fence.

Anyway ... do you think we'll get a result at West Brom tomorrow night?

What might a wider definition of life include then? 'Cos the only additional thing I can think of is things that aren't living.

Oh, where to start?

Maybe read up on Nealson & Conrad (1999), although you'll need an account at The Royal Society. 

Here's an abstract:

Molecular methods of taxonomy and phylogeny have changed the way in which life on earth is viewed; they have allowed us to transition from a eukaryote-centric (five-kingdoms) view of the planet to one that is peculiarly prokaryote-centric, containing three kingdoms, two of which are prokaryotic unicells. These prokaryotes are distinguished from their eukaryotic counterparts by their toughness, tenacity and metabolic diversity. Realization of these features has, in many ways, changed the way we feel about life on earth, about the nature of life past and about the possibility of finding life elsewhere. In essence, the limits of life on this planet have expanded to such a degree that our thoughts of both past and future life have been altered. The abilities of prokaryotes to withstand many extreme conditions has led to the term extremophiles, used to describe the organisms that thrive under conditions thought just a few years ago, to be inconsistent with life. Perhaps the most extensive adaptation to extreme conditions, however, is represented by the ability of many bacteria to survive nutrient conditions not compatible with eukaryotic life. Prokaryotes have evolved to use nearly every redox couple that is in abundance on earth, filling the metabolic niches left behind by the oxygen-using, carbon-eating eukaryotes. This metabolic plasticity leads to a common feature in physically stratified environments of layered microbial communities, chemical indicators of the metabolic diversity of the prokaryotes. Such 'metabolic extremophily' forms a backdrop by which we can view the energy flow of life on this planet, think about what the evolutionary past of the planet might have been, and plan ways to look for life elsewhere, using the knowledge of energy flow on earth.

Then take a look at the Fermi Paradox and we can go from there.

I fancy a 1-1 draw at The Hawthorns.

Thanks for your response and for pointing me in the direction of Nealson & Conrad (1999). I did actually find an open source for this on the internet, if anyone else is interested: https://www.sciencetheearth.com/uploads/2/4/6/5/24658156/1999_nealson_and_conrad_life-_past_present_and_future.pdf

I found it a fascinating, though (for me at least) a tricky read - lots of time spent looking up definitions. I note that even in their own terms the paper was meant to, 'stimulate thought and draw reactions rather than to be given truths'. Whilst they give lots of examples for life being more diverse and robust than many of us typically think, as lay-person I'm not convinced that their six point definition of life, based on structure, chemistry, replication, evolution, energy consumption, motility seems that different to what I might have expected scientists to come up with. Though, I may well be in Rumsfeld territory here in not knowing what I don't know.

Whilst their work on prokaryotes suggests that there may be more opportunities for extra-terrestial life to exist than previously thought. It still strikes me that it's not going to be particularly easy to detect. As someone who spends a considerable amount of time out in the wild trying to detect known species, and who frequently fails despite having someone giving me clear instructions where to look, the possibility of trying to detect microscopic cells that "associate with rocks, usually just under the surface" millions of miles, or even light-years away, seems quite mind blowing. They stressed very early in their paper of the importance of identifying properties that are measurable. I know that they have the ability to detect chemicals on other planets through differences in light received, but I just don't see how we can be certain that such chemicals would only be caused by the presence of life. I wonder if the hole in the fence may be just too small and too far away to ever truly identify any forms of life elsewhere. 

bobmunro said:

I would say the chances of there being real observations of what appear to be unexplained phenomena are a distinct possibility. Are they extraterrestrial? Almost certainly not. If they were then contact would have been made as civilisations that advanced would have nothing to fear from mankind.

A more plausible explanation is the space (3-D) time (4-D) continuums crossing - they are from another time, either from Earth's past or more likely future, not from another place.

That said, mathematically the chance of us being alone in the universe is infinitesimally small.

usetobunkin said:

If we are living in a cosmic hotel, who built the hotel? 

usetobunkin said:

If we are living in a cosmic hotel, who built the hotel? 

Guardy said:

ValleyGary said:

Guardy said:

Not UFO related but the case of Elisa Lam is a real mystery. Her body was discovered in a locked water tank atop of a hotel in LA. The footage of her, behaving erratically, in a lift is very disturbing 

Bipolar episode as she hadn’t been taking her medication

Yes, she hadn’t but how did she get in the water tank? And, according to the autopsy report she had a prolapsed rectum.

EastbourneAddick said:

I never used to believe in anything to do with UFO's because to me logically even if some other form of intelligence in the Universe did exist what are the chances of it being around at the same time in the Universe as human intelligence here on Earth. 
However, one of my sons filmed something very odd on his smartphone whilstup on the downs above Eastbourne 2 years ago. Luckily he recorded whatever it was and I'll try to describe it.
Basically in the night sky was a very bright light which seemed to be hovering. Its is difficult to say how far away it was but from the recording I'd say a few hundred meters. Could not see a shape to it just a bright light stationary in the sky. The really odd thing is that this light after a few moments just shot off at some speed of light type speed and in an instant it was gone.  
It wasn't a plane light and it shot off so fast like in a nano second that this could not have been possible with human technology.
Come to your own conclusions. As for me I think very possibly this was what some might call a UFO. I can't think of any other explanation.