Some observations

This is not so much specific to just news, but television in general, and, reporting in general. There seems to have been an influx in the number of reported sightings of UFO activity, and, a slew of television programs to go along with them. Now normally I would not consider this news, but channels such as the History Channel, BBC America, and other "somewhat serious" channels are picking them up, and, have documentaries and shows of their own design around these same themes. To me, that's kind of a big thing. It's one of those things that makes me wonder if maybe there isn't more to the story, that we're not being told. Does anyone else have a thought on this?


Sidenote: Sorry if this doesn't qualify to be in the news section. Move wherever appropriate if need be.

that why i hav a spare tinfoil hat.

The UFO shit is a fad and is just buzz 'science'. The reason channels have shows like that are because they are losing ratings and south white dumb america loves to see conspiracy theories.

Or mermaids. You know, America loves those mermaid "documentaries".

The UFO shit is a fad and is just buzz 'science'. The reason channels have shows like that are because they are losing ratings and south white dumb america loves to see conspiracy theories.

HEY. I think I speak for all us south white dumb Americans when I say  

But seriously, that's pretty much it

south white dumb america loves to see conspiracy theories.

As a person with a family full of garden variety extremist right wing white trash fucksticks, I can safely confirm that this is true. My dad was practically getting off to all that Mayan calendar bullshit.

UFO's and yo-yo's come and go in 5 year intervals. I won't be surprised if the yo-yo gets big soon as well.

And then all of these conspiracy theories and alien sightings turn out to be true and you guys just end up looking like a bunch of assholes

the History Channel

Thinking about how some people think that the History Channel is a reputable source of information made me laugh. And then it made me sad. Very sad.
I guess people are less interested in, like, facts, so channels have to cater to their craving for voyeuristic pseudo-science bullshit. Thus the stupid get stupider and think that they're smarter for it.

You know you might not remember this, but the History Channel used to kick ass.

You know you might not remember this, but the History Channel used to kick ass.

Yep, and they still do have their moments on some things. If nothing else, even the "fake dumb south Americans shit" is at least interesting to watch. Which I guess also brings up the point of; out of the trillions upon trillions or stars with systems they could possibly have, you honestly think we're the only planet that has "intelligent life" on it? Now, I don't mean bi-ped, advanced otherworldly beings. Hell, for all I know, they're just learning about fire themselves. Does anyone else think there's at least a remote possibility that there's other life out there?

To calculate odds, you make a ratio of desired outcomes to possible outcomes. If the universe is infinite, and there are therefore infinite possibilities, and if ET's existing is the desired outcome, then it is mathematically certain that there is life elsewhere. By the same token, the ratio is one over infinity which makes the odds undefined.

Academic analysis aside, yes. I do think there is life elsewhere in the universe.

It would be foolish to think that there isn't life other than ours in the universe. Does that mean aliens are checking out our planet and abducting rednecks? Probably not.

It would be foolish to think that there isn't life other than ours in the universe. Does that mean aliens are checking out our planet and abducting rednecks? Probably not.

It doesn't mean that they aren't though...

I mean, if I wanted to investigate the biology of a new species and needed a subject to do so, I would first determine what section of said species is least likely to be believed, taken seriously, or missed if they disappear for a day or two.

And let's face it, rednecks are sort of a joke.

( LadyJ you are not a redneck don't even start, you just know how to speak their language. )

Would it be wrong to presume that life forms could exist that aren't carbon-based? As far as I know, our chemical elements don't exist outside our galaxy, but I'm also not the most informed individual when it comes to stuff like this.

It would be foolish to think that there isn't life other than ours in the universe. Does that mean aliens are checking out our planet and abducting rednecks? Probably not.

It doesn't mean that they aren't though...

That's why I said "probably". Possible, yes. Likely, no. Of course this is assuming that if there were life elsewhere in the universe that they're advanced enough to even get here, something that can't be proven until you can prove there are alien lifeforms.

Would it be wrong to presume that life forms could exist that aren't carbon-based? As far as I know, our chemical elements don't exist outside our galaxy, but I'm also not the most informed individual when it comes to stuff like this.

This is what I've always thought. If there's alien life out there, it's not going to martians, or romulans, or anything resembling our bodily forms. It's probably going to be sentient life made up of chemicals, elements and energies we currently have no names for, possibly really, really small. Or at least I wouldn't be at all surprised if the first "life" found outside our planet was this kind of life, something incredibly small, made of unknown matter/material. We'd probably find that before we found something human-sized or comparatively intelligent (or more intelligent).

You know, like a space sea-sponge, or something like that, except made of star goop ... just kind of hanging out on some planet somewhere. Extra-terrestrial life ... technically.

ok wait, i'm drawing something that can shed some light as to why there could possibly be carbon based life, based on astronomy:

Would it be wrong to presume that life forms could exist that aren't carbon-based? As far as I know, our chemical elements don't exist outside our galaxy, but I'm also not the most informed individual when it comes to stuff like this.

This is what I've always thought. If there's alien life out there, it's not going to martians, or romulans, or anything resembling our bodily forms. It's probably going to be sentient life made up of chemicals, elements and energies we currently have no names for, possibly really, really small. Or at least I wouldn't be at all surprised if the first "life" found outside our planet was this kind of life, something incredibly small, made of unknown matter/material. We'd probably find that before we found something human-sized or comparatively intelligent (or more intelligent).

You know, like a space sea-sponge, or something like that, except made of star goop ... just kind of hanging out on some planet somewhere. Extra-terrestrial life ... technically.

Carbon is what is made when a particular set of subatomic particles, following the laws of physics, combine into an atom.  Unless the rest of the universe has completely different laws of physics, I think Carbon would exist.

That said it doesn't mean all life has to be Carbon-based.

Edit: I derped and said Carbon is a molecule.  Herpin derpitus.  Fixed.

I want to see advanced chocolate based life. They would be superiorly delicious.

There was a STar Trek film that postulated the center of the galaxy was home to an "energy being" which manifested itself as whatever the viewer though of as god, and actually heard the thoughts and prayers of all the sentient life in the galaxy... or something like that, it's been years. How shaken would our faiths be if we found something like that? You know, like Bhudda just chillin' somewhere, but it wasn't really Bhudda- just what we thought of as Bhudda from all teh bullshit we tell ourselves about religion.

..Unless the rest of the universe has completely different laws of physics..

What if there are different laws of physics in other parts of the universe? I mean, is it that far of a stretch to assume that if different elements, chemicals, compounds, etc., exist elsewhere, that there could also be the chance that there are different laws of how things react with each other too?

..Unless the rest of the universe has completely different laws of physics..

What if there are different laws of physics in other parts of the universe? I mean, is it that far of a stretch to assume that if different elements, chemicals, compounds, etc., exist elsewhere, that there could also be the chance that there are different laws of how things react with each other too?

In short, yes, it is a stretch to think that there are different laws of physics.  However it is not a stretch to consider that we may not understand it completely enough, and we may not know of a particular force or pattern in play that would appear 'wrong' or 'different'.

To expand:

Spoiler for:

Hydrogen has 1 electron and 1 proton.  Any atom in the universe that has 1 electron and 1 proton IS HYDROGEN.

Oxygen has 8 electrons, 8 protons, and 8 neutrons.  Any atom in the universe that has 8 electrons, 8 protons, and 8 neutrons IS OXYGEN.

At Standard Ambient Temperature and Pressure they will bond to create H2O, water.

Now, it is VERY possible that this will not occur, or will occur differently if temperature and pressure are different.  But that is NOT changing the laws of physics.  That is just a different environment from Earth.

It is entirely possible that there are new elements and compounds in different areas in the universe, but these will simply be elements we haven't discovered yet.  1e1p everywhere will be H.  8e8p8n everywhere will be O.  This does not necessitate completely different physics.

In addition, to find 'new' elements, they would have to be beyond the current periodic table.  The main issue with this is that everything from 99 to 118 are synthetic.  They do not occur naturally, and many of them decay in seconds.  It is possible, even likely, that places in the universe exist where they are created naturally, but we have no idea if it's possible that a set of circumstances exists for them to exist long enough to actually do anything, create anything, become anything, or just BE.

You would have to basically have some place in space where the way atoms form is completely different from the way it occurs anywhere else.

What is more likely is that we don't have a complete understanding of how electrons, protons, and neutrons operate ( this is extremely likely ), and that there are forces in play that we do not know of yet, that would cause 'unpredictable' behavior, and would APPEAR as though physics were different.

That also is not changing physics, it is just us not knowing it truly enough.

However, all of that is based on Einstein's physics model.  So I may very well be completely wrong!

Such is science.

I would love to see evidence to the contrary, BTW.  Don't take this as an assertion of fact, so much as my understanding of physics as per Einstein's model.

Didn't scientists find evidence (like 15 million years old, but still) of single celled organisms or organic matter on a mars rock?

..Unless the rest of the universe has completely different laws of physics..

What if there are different laws of physics in other parts of the universe? I mean, is it that far of a stretch to assume that if different elements, chemicals, compounds, etc., exist elsewhere, that there could also be the chance that there are different laws of how things react with each other too?

The laws of physics are the same but the gravitational force on different objects isn't. I was going to draw something but my computer froze halfway through so i'll just explain it instead.

Basically, as stars live they fuse hydrogen into helium, and produce energy. As stars get older, they 'travel' along a certain lifespan, in which they expand and cool down. As all the hydrogen is burned, it begins burning and fusing helium, and carbon is produced at the core. It keeps fusing these elements until you have stuff like neon, helium, etc. When a star reaches the end of it's lifespan, it collapses and explodes into a nova, spreading out all the material in it across the area, forming nebulas. Therefore, all these different materials collide into everything around the star's previous location, destroying planets, or anything around it. Farther away, however, other planets may be sprinkled with these sorts of elements. This is why there can be carbon and such on planets, so if there is any sort of life out there, I theorize that it is in older parts of the universe, where more stars have lived their lifespans and collapsed, leading to more elements being strewn on more planets, further away.

To say that they've build spaceships and are coming here is ridiculous. A lot of our radiowaves wouldn't have even made it that far, let alone light.

Didn't scientists find evidence (like 15 million years old, but still) of single celled organisms or organic matter on a mars rock?

Yes,  it is true that the fossilised remains of the mars microbes were of similar material to life on earth because of the stellar "salting" Ansk was talking about.

Hey Sophist, explain the whole "older parts of the universe" thing to me. Isn't it all the same age?