• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Aliens.

Stratoblaster

Fractal Fanatic
I am satisfied with sheer random chance being behind everything as we live in a VAST universe where even odds of 1 in a trillion can and do happen.

In the book "The Improbability Principal - Why Coincidences, Miracles, And Rare Events Happen Every Day", by David J. Hand, the first principal discussed is the "Law Of Inevitability" which states if you make a complete list of all possible outcomes, then one of them must occur....

...which leads into the "The Law Of Truly Large Numbers" which states that with a large enough number of opportunities, any outrageous thing is likely to happen.

That all indicates that while an event, outcome, etc. is extremely unlikely to happen, it can, and will, given enough 'samples'. A woman won the New Jersey State Lottery twice in four months in 1985; the chance of her winning twice in that time frame is approximately one in a trillion.

So, anything seems possible in a way, no matter how remote the chances may seem to be.
 

reclavea

Power User
In the book "The Improbability Principal - Why Coincidences, Miracles, And Rare Events Happen Every Day", by David J. Hand, the first principal discussed is the "Law Of Inevitability" which states if you make a complete list of all possible outcomes, then one of them must occur....

...which leads into the "The Law Of Truly Large Numbers" which states that with a large enough number of opportunities, any outrageous thing is likely to happen.

That all indicates that while an event, outcome, etc. is extremely unlikely to happen, it can, and will, given enough 'samples'. A woman won the New Jersey State Lottery twice in four months in 1985; the chance of her winning twice in that time frame is approximately one in a trillion.

So, anything seems possible in a way, no matter how remote the chances may seem to be.

What about...?

- The probability of just one DNA arranging
itself by chance:

- 1 to 10^119.000

- It is equivalent as her winning the LOTTERY
EVERY DAY FOR 5 BILLION consecutive
years..!!

🤷🏻‍♂️
 

RoketRdr

Inspired
Me, definitely.

There have been several videos of UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) released over the last 18 months, or so, that have been verified as authentic by Navy, Pentagon, etc., with two just a couple of weeks ago from a naval vessel showing a pyramid object and another disappearing into the ocean. The revelation of a 'secret government project' that went on for several years was also interesting (Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)).

There is a lot of credible, factual, physical evidence that there are indeed things flying around the world that absolutely defy our current knowledge of physics, gravity, propulsion, inertia, aerodynamics, and a host of other fields. That is not to say it's 'aliens, has to be' but it really is a true mystery, no doubt.

While I'm very curious as to what my be revealed next month but don't expect anything overly 'earth-shattering', I do hope there are some revelations of substance and not standard boilerplate babble.

This book is a very objective, well researched, level-headed, and factual read on UAP's:

UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie Kean

Leslie continues to research and report on the subject, and I've watched a couple recent-ish interviews with her that talk about the videos and the current 'state-of-the-art' regading UAP's....fascinating, and a very, very curious subject indeed.

You need to watch the video clip from post #15. No they are not authentic and no the Navy, Pentagon, etc didn't say so.
 

Dendrite

Inspired
So, I've often wondered about the math behind the probabilities of life on other worlds. As we explore, survey, detect, and observe more and more, we find more planets. A percentage of these fall in a temperature range that could likely support life as we know it (recognizing that what we know is only what we have observed here on earth). The more of these we find, the larger the denominator gets.
But where I get hung up is the numerator. There is just no way to do meaningful statistics on this when you have an n of 1. The denominator of life sustainable planets could be in the billions... but the numerator of KNOWN inhabited planets is just 1. Until/unless that changes, I'm pretty sure the chances of life are 1/x, and no greater.
Right?
 

bjjp2

Power User
So, I've often wondered about the math behind the probabilities of life on other worlds. As we explore, survey, detect, and observe more and more, we find more planets. A percentage of these fall in a temperature range that could likely support life as we know it (recognizing that what we know is only what we have observed here on earth). The more of these we find, the larger the denominator gets.
But where I get hung up is the numerator. There is just no way to do meaningful statistics on this when you have an n of 1. The denominator of life sustainable planets could be in the billions... but the numerator of KNOWN inhabited planets is just 1. Until/unless that changes, I'm pretty sure the chances of life are 1/x, and no greater.
Right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
 

Dendrite

Inspired
Yep, that's the math I've seen. And the wiki has the disclaimer at the top "not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue", which is certainly fair.
But, as it also says in the wiki, the numbers are so wildly inaccurate the result is meaningless (well, I'm paraphrasing). I just don't buy it. When I visited NRAO at Green Bank ten years ago and thought longer on the topic, I didn't buy it then either.
If the number was anything other than 1, the math becomes useful. But it's not, at least not yet. And as long as it's 1, the more life sustaining planets we find the smaller the occurrence of known life in the universes becomes. Makes me feel a little small, but also makes me feel pretty special tbh.
 

Xrocker

Power User
Don’t think the UFOs around our aircraft carriers and fighter jets will pan out as real.

We all know that advanced civilizations capable of interstellar travel are only interested in crazy people’s butt-holes.
 

Stratman68

Axe-Master
What are the odds that so many "ignorant" comments would appear in this thread? I am not talking about life on other planets either. I am talking about life on earth.....................
 

yesfan

Inspired
Watch the pattern! It started in 1917. Look up project blue beam to see why everything in the world is upside down!

 
Top Bottom