Elpajeroloco said:
Do you like interracial sex? Or should i say intergalactic sex? But be careful, don´t provoke an intergalactic war, only because of your fetish
Intellegent life?
- Thread starter Legzman
- Start date
Do you like interracial sex? Or should i say intergalactic sex? But be careful, don´t provoke an intergalactic war, only because of your fetish
"It would be a tremendous waste of space, if there was nothing out there", saw that quote somewhere, I think the movie Contact...
Carl Sagan used it regularly in his non-fiction works. Contact was just his extremely rare attempt at fiction, and the main character's life models much of his own.E-Ann-Hilden said:
He was a brilliant researcher, and introduced some groundbreaking results in his field. He was then he was chastized by the scientific community for his focus on pure research views, involvement with SETI and, worst of all, the "dumbing down" of astronomy and astrophysics for the lay person.
in the movie contact there was this difficult discussion if love is proovable, if the existence of God is proovable and so one...but this movie was terrible...it show us, that mankind is not ready for contact yet...but in your case, i make an exception...what i have read here makes me believe in mankind, soon we will be ready for it...let´s rock´n roll!!:nanner:
picard2893 said:
well i think i should be more carefull about ETs diseases, for that "green skin" fetishes one should be always ready with a positronic force shield condom!!:rofl: :rofl:
well, seriously, dont know, i just remember me the "mars attack" movie, in which all the ppl just make up how were the martians and just believe blindly in that interpretation, i think that if we find another ET civilization (they will consider us "Et" also
),there could be 2 ways how we react to that1-if the ETs are more advanced to us, then we will wait the best to them, you know, we will say "surely they come in peace, because there are more advanced to us, and we will learn from them"
2-if the ETs have the same or worst level in technology, we will wait the worst of them , you know "they want to conquer us, lets kick the arses of these aliencrapies before they move first"
all that having nothing to do with the real intentions of the aliens, in some way i think that reflex the hypocresy of the humans
btw star trek 4 was a good movie, but sadly the theme of the aliens (maybe whale-aliens?) wasnt took in depth, and more like a ecologic theme in the ST "universe", i would like more if the concept that you pointed would have been more the center of the movie, aliens that dont see anyone to talk, humans that want to contact with them -and killed all their "contacts" (whales)-, of course keeping always that mistery in the identification and nature of the visitors, maybe ending in a huge battle without any sense, that would be cool, and the confederation would be gained a very interesting enemy, not the dumbass of always that wears "I hate earth" T-shirts , or love to yell "Kiiirk my revenge is near!!!"
Last edited:
The movie Contact was one of the most realistic interpretations of how ET life would enter our own. She believed in making contact so much that it eventually occurred to her, but the scientific and logic of the community put her experience down to disillusionment or a fantasy that she had made up. Who is to say what is more real?! Those open to new experience are likely to have it happen. Aliens are already here, the same as an infinate number of other unimaginable forms of life that we are not yet open to. Like to a worm without eyes, we humans would barely exist to a blind creature at all. In Contact the experience happened in a flash instant by way of higher dimensions intersecting ours, where the laws of timespace differ completley. In Contact the lifeform appeared as her father, a familiar symbol for her personel interpretaion.
You don't need to spy into distant space through very expensive technology to find alien life and be told what you ultimately already know, though it is fuckin amazing the imagery that feeds back. Before we are even able to travel great distances through space we will need to change our entire way of logical thinking, because as yet we don't have a commonly known way of doing it.
I guess It is still a much better investment of time than what I'm doing writing about aliens on a porn forum. hah, but This is my form of experiment.
Maybe they're waiting for us to stretch our imagination more than little green guys with black eyes and probes before they will be known to us.??Whales could exist very predominatleny through other dimensions btw..I believe they're very loving beings.
You don't need to spy into distant space through very expensive technology to find alien life and be told what you ultimately already know, though it is fuckin amazing the imagery that feeds back. Before we are even able to travel great distances through space we will need to change our entire way of logical thinking, because as yet we don't have a commonly known way of doing it.
I guess It is still a much better investment of time than what I'm doing writing about aliens on a porn forum. hah, but This is my form of experiment.
Maybe they're waiting for us to stretch our imagination more than little green guys with black eyes and probes before they will be known to us.??Whales could exist very predominatleny through other dimensions btw..I believe they're very loving beings.
No, it really wasn't a discussion on love. The character just used love as an example of why people have some things that are beyond question, and they don't want to explain it.picard2893 said:
While the movie was no where near as good as the book -- virtually Sagan's only fictional attempt -- and the movie over-simplified many of the characters that Sagan tried to exemplify as various people of various traits you find in real-life, I still loved the movie.picard2893 said:
Sagan wasn't interested in writing any fiction, but a colleague of his finally talked him into it. He was a brilliant man, and he is still very much misunderstood today.picard2893 said:
Contact still rates as one of my favorite works of fiction, and of the limited selection of movies that even approach deeper questions (even if shallow), Contact ranks in my top 10 movies of all-time.
Space is discrete ... so the chance for life is too ...
But yes, in the portion of the universe that has physics that, as far as we can assertain, "acts like our solar system," there are billions upon billions of solar systems. There have been many probability models -- full of assumptions -- on how many "Earth-like habital planets" could produce environments similar to ours for carbon-based life. So the models first take a limited sample of solar formation and planetary diversity, and then assumptions on how many can support carbon-based life, and then assumptions on how many such planets would develop such life.
It's a very, very, very small percentage, but it still points to the realm that there is intelligent life out there. The question is, even if it does exist, will we ever contact it? We certainly won't in a lifetime with our current understanding of Newtonian-Einstein physics. Then again, Einstein left plenty unexplained, and his Theories of Relativity, based on work by Maxell and others, still leave a lot to be explained. Relativity fails to explain many things physicists and engineers are still running into.
Not to be argumentative and start a new path, but space is actually not infinite. It is of a discrete, expanding size, at least as far as we understand with current Newtonian-Eistein physics. There have been many theories on our universe, many of them currently in flux. E.g., the theory of the "big crunch" is now considered invalid by the scientific community, and the "big bang" is still not a very good one.********** said:
But yes, in the portion of the universe that has physics that, as far as we can assertain, "acts like our solar system," there are billions upon billions of solar systems. There have been many probability models -- full of assumptions -- on how many "Earth-like habital planets" could produce environments similar to ours for carbon-based life. So the models first take a limited sample of solar formation and planetary diversity, and then assumptions on how many can support carbon-based life, and then assumptions on how many such planets would develop such life.
It's a very, very, very small percentage, but it still points to the realm that there is intelligent life out there. The question is, even if it does exist, will we ever contact it? We certainly won't in a lifetime with our current understanding of Newtonian-Einstein physics. Then again, Einstein left plenty unexplained, and his Theories of Relativity, based on work by Maxell and others, still leave a lot to be explained. Relativity fails to explain many things physicists and engineers are still running into.
gianna_fan_77 said:
hohohooowww,,, i really agree with this one,,,
or if theres any,,, it would be make me happy if they're 100% looks like us physically,,, but the difference is, they really loved all the ugly women in the earth,,, and they hate women like (physically) jenna jameson, nina mercedez, devon etc.
so we can make some trade !!! hehee
:glugglug:Not exactly.ObeBoneKenobi said:
Understand that in the movie, like in the book, the director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) was merely a realist. He even admitted if it wasn't all noble gasses, the sheer probability was that it was too far away. He was 100% right, based on our current understanding of Newtonian-Einstien physics. And the NSF is about applied science as much as pure science.
Take the Internet for example. Although the US DoD's DARPA gets all the credit, the NSFnet is the modern backbone of the Internet. Al Gore's entire and sole basis on "I fathered the Internet" is based on the legislation he put forth (among others) in 1996 to commercialize the NSFnet which, prior to that, only allowed non-commercial (largely educational) nodes to connect/use.
Understand much of the criticism the main character received relfects that of Sagan. Sagan was a brilliant researcher who had major breakthroughs in many fields. He left it all to join SETI and educate the public on astronomy and astrophysics. His Cosmos series is single-handedly the greatest educational series for science, IMHO, of the 20th century. And he was loathed by the scientific community for it.
He brilliantly explained concepts such as time and space into terms and analogies anyone could understand. The "comsic calendar" is my favorite. I've recommended it to teachers for middle grade students and they typically realize how little they've actually been around. Sagan is one of the major reasons I studied engineering (which is a combination of applied physics and microeconomics, at least in the US-British systems).
Huh?memhol said:
Some of us prefer the "lesser appreciate beauty"!
If there is such a trade, I'm moving to their planet!
Re: Space is discrete ... so the chance for life is too ...
and the "big bang" is still not a very good one.[/QUOTE said:
Last edited:
I would be shocked if there was not intelligent life out there. I have no idea if we have actually been visited by other lifeforms but there is way too much out there to believe Earth is the only planet with intelligent beings. I also believe we are probably not the most advanced civilization out there and to something out there, we would be thought of as primitives.
btw is funny how some cultures under-rate others, for example the egiptian pyramids, some guys have said that were done by ETs, because these stupid egiptians would have never done such wonders, is more/less that interpretation which says that the piramyds were done mainly by slaves (when actually were done by artesans and "free" people), then with all these stupid biased missinterpretations, born StarGate, and putting the american army as liberators, lol, that sound as iraq......
anyway i never liked Contact, there wasnt any debate of God vs Science, they just putted God in middle with out any reason, and again it use that interpretation of advanced aliens of goodness, i really thougth that the "gate" was a trojan horse to lead a invasion, using the human stupidity and desperation to be alone, i was dissapointed with that pseude-philosophic end
anyway i think that the best alien contact movie is Mars Atttack "eck, eck!!", lol
regards
anyway i never liked Contact, there wasnt any debate of God vs Science, they just putted God in middle with out any reason, and again it use that interpretation of advanced aliens of goodness, i really thougth that the "gate" was a trojan horse to lead a invasion, using the human stupidity and desperation to be alone, i was dissapointed with that pseude-philosophic end
anyway i think that the best alien contact movie is Mars Atttack "eck, eck!!", lol
regards
No, well respected engineers have admitted the level of precision was unheard of for the time. The precision rivals that of today!Elpajeroloco said:
Umm, there's a lot of endless and stupid debates about God in society. In fact, if we were sending our first human to contact another alien race, I think a lot of people who have a problem if that person didn't believe in God. That was Carl Sagan just pointing out the real and true follies of our society!Elpajeroloco said:
Do you really think the National Security Advisor to the President wouldn't believe that could be a plausable scenario? It's his job to point to suggest such!Elpajeroloco said:
The end was Sagan's brilliance. I especially liked the "it was the 18 hours of static" comment.Elpajeroloco said:
Do you really think the US wouldn't try to control such "contact" if it could? Dude, the brilliance in Sagan's work is right there! The National Security advisor got his "classified" project in the end.
Comedy v. Reality -- not even comparable.Elpajeroloco said:
Re: Space is discrete ... so the chance for life is too ...
Otherwise, we shouldn't even bother teaching "classical physics" if it is "different." You can't understand a thing about "modern physics" without "classical physics." You still use the exact same base analysis and formulas to do both!
Dude, they are called theories for a reason. They not only have to be proven correct, but they are often proven incorrect!
Einstein's theory of relativity complemented Newtonian physics, it's not "different." One was just centuries after the other -- Einstien merely explains how inertia works in space-time.picard2893 said:
Otherwise, we shouldn't even bother teaching "classical physics" if it is "different." You can't understand a thing about "modern physics" without "classical physics." You still use the exact same base analysis and formulas to do both!
Huh? What are you talking about?picard2893 said:
Relativity changes everything. You can't assume what you see is actual. In many cases, Hubble's observations have proven many times why what we see is often not reality.picard2893 said:
No, that's simply not true. That's the pre-'90s theory now. You need to read up on recent research. The "big crunch" is out.picard2893 said:
What is rubbish? What is bullshit? Just because you say it so?picard2893 said:
Dude, they are called theories for a reason. They not only have to be proven correct, but they are often proven incorrect!
That is true what picard2893 said about arrogance blocking our minds!..for that matter all of these views are only particular paths of our functioning! We
need to reopen our minds to other possibilities of time and space travel and aliens/intelligent life for it to be possible. The expanding universe can be
seen as reflective of ourselves and our consciousness, which ultimately and in a far subtler way is how the universe exists and times are created..in my
opinion (many refuse the idea) it opens up an amazing field of growth and possibility for us. What is also reflective of our state is how we theorize the
unknown. when faced with such questions as the birth of the universe, why wouldn't you want to take the time to explore all the possibilities. All science
views are in state of flux, forever changing.
Prof Voluptuary, I think I get what you are saying but you missed my real point about the movie Contact. I didn't mean to go into Sagan's life story
because the movie itself serves up new food for thought. I mean that the people who fall for common consensus are less likely to believe it when an
entirely new experience does appear before their eyes. I'm still curious though, what is the idea of the "comsic calendar"?
need to reopen our minds to other possibilities of time and space travel and aliens/intelligent life for it to be possible. The expanding universe can be
seen as reflective of ourselves and our consciousness, which ultimately and in a far subtler way is how the universe exists and times are created..in my
opinion (many refuse the idea) it opens up an amazing field of growth and possibility for us. What is also reflective of our state is how we theorize the
unknown. when faced with such questions as the birth of the universe, why wouldn't you want to take the time to explore all the possibilities. All science
views are in state of flux, forever changing.
Prof Voluptuary, I think I get what you are saying but you missed my real point about the movie Contact. I didn't mean to go into Sagan's life story
because the movie itself serves up new food for thought. I mean that the people who fall for common consensus are less likely to believe it when an
entirely new experience does appear before their eyes. I'm still curious though, what is the idea of the "comsic calendar"?
Yes, and his insistence on how the universe works is a perfect example of it!ObeBoneKenobi said:
Unfortunately, not too many people seem to be doing that here.ObeBoneKenobi said:
It's not in some "oh, I just thought of it" moment.
Einstein didn't come up with Relativity out of sheer chance.
Newton did not invent gravity because the apple fell on his head.
They were brilliant mathematicians and researchers who built upon others.
Einstein's work began with the work of Maxell and others.
Newton actually started by inventing calculus, based on simplifying algebra and trignometry to explain systems.
BTW, Einstein did not win the Nobel Prize for Relativity.
But if you ask most people what he won it for, they would assume so.
From what I've seen here, people think things are beyond question.ObeBoneKenobi said:
I have never stated they aren't. But I have stated what the current statistics and theories are. Those are just statistics and theories. And no offense, but my answers are far more open minded than what I've seen presented here!
Most people, yes. But not for people in power and control that depends on ignorance, or people who fear change.ObeBoneKenobi said:
If there is one theme in many Star Trek episodes, it's that fact. The "First Contact" episode (if I recall the episode title correctly) of the Next Generation highlighted that sometimes it's better to leave people in ignorance, and push them towards change gradually.
Not that Star Trek was very "scientific" in many cases. The "science of Star Trek" is rather absurd. I always liked Babylon 5 more because it was a bit more realistic -- including the "agendas" of people and races.
Oh, it's a simple analogy -- it's just plots time into a single year.ObeBoneKenobi said:
Last edited:
