Do Aliens Exist?

Brodels said:
Sure let me send you countless youtube links and articles you can google yourself. You don't want to believe or accept it so why would I waste my time doing that? I don't argue with or try to convince hard headed closed minded people about anything.

Watch this and tell me how it isn't possible for multiple forms of intelligent life to exist somewhere out there. This shit is mind blowing. Humans really can't comprehend how big the universe really is. I can barely handle what this video is telling me after it leaves our solar system.

Compared to that Pistol Star in the thumbnail you see there, our sun is about the size a flea's brain compared to a basketball. And they get way way bigger.

Click to expand...



I don't need you to compare shit for me. If I wanted that I would watch NDT's dumb ass. I am not bothering with your fucking links either. You show me something proving there is a second Earth....I mean exact in every aspect or you show me ANY PROOF OF LIFE OUTSIDE OF EARTH....JUST A SHRED...whether material or communications.


You know why the universe is as big as it is? So life can form on one planet and worship God (the real one aka the christian one).

You are just so fucking ridiculous thinking that blabbing about the size of the universe means shit. Like I have not gone through every fucking space show on cable and read books by NDT, hawking, and a bunch by Michio Kaku...

Idonotbelieveit said:
There has to be something out there we ain't the only ones
Click to expand...
What led you to this conclusion?


rj144 said:
You don't need to know if an event happen twice to ascertain odds. Where did you get that tidbit from?
Click to expand...

What are the odds of the big bang happening?

Lol, take a statistics class. Statistics are based on multiple measurements and etc. Not a single measurement or a single event.

This is not it, but something similar to it. We don't know every single factor that made life happen on Earth.

In many circumstances, a single measurement of a quantity is often sufficient for the purposes of the measurement being taken. But if you only take one measurement, how can you estimate the uncertainty in that measurement? Estimating the uncertainty in a single measurement requires judgement on the part of the experimenter. The uncertainty of a single measurement is limited by the precision and accuracy of the measuring instrument, along with any other factors that might affect the ability of the experimenter to make the measurement and it is up to the experimenter to estimate the uncertainty (see the examples below).
 
Last edited:
GORETAURO said:
I don't need you to compare shit for me. If I wanted that I would watch NDT's dumb ass. I am not bothering with your fucking links either. You show me something proving there is a second Earth....I mean exact in every aspect or you show me ANY PROOF OF LIFE OUTSIDE OF EARTH....JUST A SHRED...whether material or communications.


You know why the universe is as big as it is? So life can form on one planet and worship God (the real one aka the christian one).

You are just so fucking ridiculous thinking that blabbing about the size of the universe means shit. Like I have not gone through every fucking space show on cable and read books by NDT, hawking, and a bunch by Michio Kaku...


What led you to this conclusion?




What are the odds of the big bang happening?

Lol, take a statistics class. Statistics are based on multiple measurements and etc. Not a single measurement or a single event.

This is not it, but something similar to it. We don't know every single factor that made life happen on Earth.

In many circumstances, a single measurement of a quantity is often sufficient for the purposes of the measurement being taken. But if you only take one measurement, how can you estimate the uncertainty in that measurement? Estimating the uncertainty in a single measurement requires judgement on the part of the experimenter. The uncertainty of a single measurement is limited by the precision and accuracy of the measuring instrument, along with any other factors that might affect the ability of the experimenter to make the measurement and it is up to the experimenter to estimate the uncertainty (see the examples below).
Click to expand...

Probability is not limited to statistical data, probability can arise explanatory formulas.
For example prior to the Manhattan Project no Fission explosion had ever been observed. However prior to the first detonation there were tons off probabilistic predictions.
 
GORETAURO said:
I don't need you to compare shit for me. If I wanted that I would watch NDT's dumb ass. I am not bothering with your fucking links either. You show me something proving there is a second Earth....I mean exact in every aspect or you show me ANY PROOF OF LIFE OUTSIDE OF EARTH....JUST A SHRED...whether material or communications.


You know why the universe is as big as it is? So life can form on one planet and worship God (the real one aka the christian one).

You are just so fucking ridiculous thinking that blabbing about the size of the universe means shit. Like I have not gone through every fucking space show on cable and read books by NDT, hawking, and a bunch by Michio Kaku...


What led you to this conclusion?




What are the odds of the big bang happening?

Lol, take a statistics class. Statistics are based on multiple measurements and etc. Not a single measurement or a single event.

This is not it, but something similar to it. We don't know every single factor that made life happen on Earth.

In many circumstances, a single measurement of a quantity is often sufficient for the purposes of the measurement being taken. But if you only take one measurement, how can you estimate the uncertainty in that measurement? Estimating the uncertainty in a single measurement requires judgement on the part of the experimenter. The uncertainty of a single measurement is limited by the precision and accuracy of the measuring instrument, along with any other factors that might affect the ability of the experimenter to make the measurement and it is up to the experimenter to estimate the uncertainty (see the examples below).
Click to expand...

Yeah, what you said first and what are you saying now are not the same thing. I'll repeat, you don't need an event to happen twice to determine the odds.

The larger the sample the size, the better the prediction and statistics. This has nothing to do with an event happening more than once.

Maybe you should take a statistics class.
 
rj144 said:
Yeah, what you said first and what are you saying now are not the same thing. I'll repeat, you don't need an event to happen twice to determine the odds.

The larger the sample the size, the better the prediction and statistics. This has nothing to do with an event happening more than once.

Maybe you should take a statistics class.
Click to expand...

I have taken statistics class in college .... 2 of them.

I am not changing what I am saying at all.

An event happening once is not enough to know.

What is the chance of the big bang happening??? Answer or admit you are wrong.
eworden78 said:
Probability is not limited to statistical data, probability can arise explanatory formulas.
For example prior to the Manhattan Project no Fission explosion had ever been observed. However prior to the first detonation there were tons off probabilistic predictions.
Click to expand...

Now what I would say to this is they knew chemical reactions and all that shit. We simply do not know all the prerequisites that made life possible on Earth. We may know some of them but not all of them. The more occurences you have of an event happening that you do not completely understand, the more you can compare and contrast and get better info.

Any type of percentage of a one time event happening again is just a guess.

BearGrounds said:
Click to expand...


Aw come on, you have any proof to the contrary?
 
GORETAURO said:
I have taken statistics class in college .... 2 of them.

I am not changing what I am saying at all.

An event happening once is not enough to know.

What is the chance of the big bang happening??? Answer or admit you are wrong.


Now what I would say to this is they knew chemical reactions and all that shit. We simply do not know all the prerequisites that made life possible on Earth. We may know some of them but not all of them. The more occurences you have of an event happening that you do not completely understand, the more you can compare and contrast and get better info.

Any type of percentage of a one time event happening again is just a guess.



Aw come on, you have any proof to the contrary?
Click to expand...

Well, you must have not done well in stats. You do not have to have two events to establish odds. To improve the accuracy, you need a bigger sample set, not another event occurring.
 
Again, we are made of the most commonly found, run of the mill, abundant elements known to science.

Earth is TEEMING with life. In a massive range of conditions.
Cold, hot, dry, wet, turn over a rock anywhere on earth and there is probably some sort of creature under there.
Life on earth has been subjected to cataclysmic events like asteroids, ice ages, and volcanos. Yet life is resilient and bounces back.

Life emerged soon after the earth cooled and stabilized. Life has existed on earth for nearly 90% of it's existence.
Our planet has been kept safe by our magnetic field, the moon, Jupiter and a stable star and orbit. We have been lucky but are we so unique to the point of being the only life in universe?

Making an educated guess using statistics and our current cosmologic knowledge would lead any reasonable person to assume that life somewhere else is certainly possible.
 
50+ billion other galaxies you can't possibly be dumb & narcissistic enough to believe we're the only ones
 
GORETAURO said:
...
In many circumstances, a single measurement of a quantity is often sufficient for the purposes of the measurement being taken. But if you only take one measurement, how can you estimate the uncertainty in that measurement? Estimating the uncertainty in a single measurement requires judgement on the part of the experimenter. The uncertainty of a single measurement is limited by the precision and accuracy of the measuring instrument, along with any other factors that might affect the ability of the experimenter to make the measurement and it is up to the experimenter to estimate the uncertainty (see the examples below).
Click to expand...

So, you're also plagiarizing as well:

https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/rallain/plab194/error.html

How much of what you wrote is your own words?

And, you don't even know how to plagiarize. Uncertainty in a measurement and probability and statistics are not the same thing.
 
Take your attitude to the War Room sensitive susie
 
They sure as hell do exist! I saw some aliens going through my neighbor's trash a few years ago. :eek:
 
BearGrounds said:
You and anyone else hung up on the issue of distance and time should check out this video I linked earlier ITT. It discusses some theoretical alternatives to the standard propulsion systems of today, which makes the issue of distance and time seem a bit less daunting an obstacle for us to overcome.

Click to expand...


I've read Issac Asimov and watched Star Trek for years. I got very accustomed to believing that faster than light travel would happen. As I learned more about science and physics it became pretty clear it wasn't going to happen. I followed all of the theories that people have proposed. Until some actual progress at something higher than the subatomic level I'll remain very skeptical. There is no free lunch. You can't get speed without energy. You need the type of energy that stars produce over billions of years applied in a couple of years or minutes depending on which theory you want to follow.

People say we have come so far in the last few decades or centuries but much of what many point to as modern technology is, in reality, ancient technology. About the only truly new technology in the last century is atomic energy and we had to find out the dangers of using that the hard way. We haven't even been able to make a truly reusable space ship to go into earth orbit like 1950s movies portrayed. The amount of energy required to lift a space ship into orbit requires so much fuel that the tanks and engines that burn the fuel have to be left behind. If we could get it into orbit it would require even more fuel to slow it down to re-enter the atmosphere without burning up. It isn't a matter of technology, it's physics.
 
Aliens do NOT exist. It's all a lie and NASA are brainwashing the masses into believing that aliens exist so they can fake an alien invasion.
 
Scyther said:
Aliens do NOT exist. It's all a lie and NASA are brainwashing the masses into believing that aliens exist so they can fake an alien invasion.
Click to expand...

Man, do you believe in anything normal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,241
Messages
58,269,025
Members
175,989
Latest member
wagoat

Share this page

Back
Top