UFO'S of UAP'S, ASTRONOMIE, RUIMTEVAART, ARCHEOLOGIE, OUDHEIDKUNDE, SF-SNUFJES EN ANDERE ESOTERISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN

Are we alone in the universe? Could alien life exist, and if so, is there a reasonable explanation for why—scientifically speaking—we’ve never seen any evidence for it?

The Fermi Paradox | COSMOLOGY

This is a question many have asked over time, although it is most famously attributed to physicist Enrico Fermi, for whom the so-called “Fermi Paradox” is named. The general premise has to do with what appears to be the contradictory nature of high probability for the existence of alien life, versus the paltry evidence to support it.

As the name suggests, the idea is famously attributed to Enrico Fermi, and was suggested under circumstances of such fame in the scientific literature that they border the mythical. As the story goes, Fermi was on his lunch break with fellow Los Alamos employees Emil Konopinski, Edward Teller, and Herbert York in 1950, when discussion about a funny little cartoon depicting dumpster-diving aliens returning from a visit to New York caught their imagination. Musing more broadly on the subject of aliens, Fermi is said to have asked, “where is everybody?”

Los Alamos National Laboratory (Public Domain)

It was a decidedly scientific question, despite its simplicity: where is the evidence of aliens, if it otherwise seems so likely that we aren’t alone in the universe?

Taking a stab at this famous conundrum, a recent paper published by a team of Oxford researchers with the University’s Future of Humanity Institute argues that the absence of evidence may, in fact, actually be evidence of absence: we may be alone after all.

The problem, researchers Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler and Toby Ord argue, has a lot to do with human expectations, which build on earlier models for the likelihood of whether life exists elsewhere; namely the Drake equation, which supposes a decent probability that alien civilizations exist, which are technologically advanced to the degree they would be potentially observable to us.

As stated in a portion of the paper’s abstract:

We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters. We examine these parameters, incorporating models of chemical and genetic transitions on paths to the origin of life, and show that extant scientific knowledge corresponds to uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude. This makes a stark difference. When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial ex-ante probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it. This result dissolves the Fermi paradox, and in doing so removes any need to invoke speculative mechanisms by which civilizations would inevitably fail to have observable effects upon the universe.

As Vox reports, “the paper’s authors do not appear to be making any definitive claim about whether or not aliens exist; simply, our current knowledge across the seven parameters suggests a high likelihood of us being alone,” noting that with new forthcoming information, the Oxford team “would update that likelihood accordingly.”

Naturally, criticisms will arise from such a claim. To consider just a few of them here, it seems difficult (even in probabilistic terms) to suggest the unlikelihood of alien life elsewhere given the expansiveness of the universe, let alone the fact that so little of it has been explored by humans. Also, this isn’t the only solution to Fermi’s paradox that has appeared recently; there are constantly a variety of contrasting viewsabout what might, or might not, explain it.

Sure, Frank Drake’s famous aforementioned equation also focused on the question of alien life, and more specifically, those civilizations which would be sophisticated enough that any evidence for their existence would be detectable by us. While we might expect that a significantly advanced alien civilization would leave an easily discernible cosmic footprint, it may just the opposite: what if our cosmic neighbors have advanced to the point that they employ what we might call “cleaner,” energy sources and other sustainable technologies… and thus, maybe they’re less easily detected, as well?

Bottom line, it’s nearly impossible to conceive of what alien life and their technology would be like without anthropomorphizing the argument (that is, projecting our own ideas, values, and expectations onto things). However, there are at least a few other problems with the Oxford study, one of which has to do with what Fermi actually said about aliens in the first place.

Fermi’s ID photo from his years at Los Alamos (Public Domain).

The paper leads off, naturally, with the famous story of the Fermi lunch at Los Alamos. “While working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1950,” the paper reads, “Enrico Fermi famously asked his colleagues: ‘Where are they?’ ” Although it’s a famous and often-cited story, some have questioned whether it’s entirely true and accurate. Robert H. Gray, writing for Scientific American in 2016, noted that Fermi’s fellow diners at the famous lunchtime discussion had a pretty clear memory of the conversation when asked about it years later, and noted that Fermi hadn’t been merely discussing where all the aliens were. More specifically, they had been talking about interstellartravel, and why there was so little evidence in the specific form of alien spacecraft:

Both York and Teller seemed to think Fermi was questioning the feasibility of interstellar travel—nobody thought he was questioning the possible existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. So the so-called Fermi paradox—which does question the existence of E.T.—misrepresents Fermi’s views. Fermi’s skepticism about interstellar travel is not surprising, because in 1950 rockets had not yet reached orbit, much less another planet or star.

All discussion of UFOs aside (since, to date, there is nothing that conclusively proves that these objects are in any way related to alien spacecraft), the minor detail of what Fermi actually meant may not be enough to change the outcome of the Oxford study’s findings, which purportedly employed “millions” of logarithmic simulations to arrive at the mathematical conclusion that we’re 53 to 99.6 percent likely to be the only civilization in the galaxy. Further, we run a 39 to 85 percent chance of being the only intelligent life in the entire observable region of the universe.

However, if we consider that the basic averages of the Oxford study boil down to there being roughly a 50% chance that we’re alone in the universe, our potential desolation still amounts to a coin flip: either we’ve got some interstellar neighbors out there somewhere, or we do not. We simply don’t know yet.

So maybe it’s a little too soon to be cashing in on whether aliens exist or not; we still have an awful lot of the universe we’ve yet to explore, and innumerable scientific advances that will be required before we can embark on our ultimate journey. For the time being, maybe it’s best to keep an open mind, and see what the innovations of the coming years have to say about what may await us out in that great and final frontier.

The Fermi Paradox - 10 Mind-Blowing Explanations

A senior SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) astronomer recently posted an essay on UFOs inside the Huffington Post where he first said: "Allow me to first be aware that that is a phenomenon worth of interest. If aliens are honestly striking out in our 'hood, it is difficult to assume every other truth extra worth of observe." Then he concludes with: "The truth is, in case you're positive that our planet is website hosting alien visitors, the way to advantage popularity for your point of view is to prove it, now not insist that the hassle lies with 1/3 parties. The blame sport is a cop-out."

WTF is that this man announcing? UFOs are critical however it is up to others to do all of the hard yards and show that UFOs and aliens are associated. You can pretty much hear the author scream out WE REQUIRE PROOF so long as the weight is on others to provide you with the smoking gun!

WE REQUIRE PROOF! That's all first-class, well and suitable in principle, an in a perfect global, besides the common member of the awesome unwashed does not have the call-logo, instructional bona-fides or assets required. No depend what 'proof" the exquisite unwashed provide up, the WE REQUIRE PROOF demands of the numerous (scientists) outweigh the skills of the few (the super unwashed) to proved the required goods. If I ring up a pinnacle scientist at a pinnacle college and say I actually have a bit of an alien spaceship, do you without a doubt suppose they'll pay attention to me or slam down the cellphone uttering "every other bloody wacko losing my time"! So the 'blame sport' is perhaps greater a plea for people with the medical bona-fides, and the resources and the credibility and revered home institutions to take the fantastic unwashed a tad more significantly with regards to UFO reviews and get their hands grimy analyzing the problem.

I play the blame game. I placed blame on individuals who may want to, but may not get their hands dirty. It's highbrow cowardice pure and simple. The fairly apparent if unstated message is I'm interested by ET, I'm a SETI scientist via career, however I'm now not interested in UFOs except someone else provides the proof that there may be an actual alien connection. I'm now not interested in UFOs due to the fact I might not get outside investment to look at them. That's because I've were given an excessive amount of on my plate already. That's due to the fact I'd instead sit on my ass and allow the top notch unwashed do the dirty work. That's due to the fact a person may make amusing of me, like my expert colleagues. The sociology (workplace politics) of the technological know-how community normally runs some thing alongside the strains of don't stray beyond the mainstream; do not think out of the box; don't rock the boat or you may become like Jonah and tossed overboard with out a whale in sight.

So holier than thou essays like that published by using 'Mr. SETI' aren't absolutely beneficial; relevant scientists need to place up a few reputable technology or shut up considering the fact that if they are truely not a part of the answer, they're part of the problem status within the way of an answer!

Let's forget about the super unwashed for the instant; allow's talk nerdy speak and cope with proof, no longer proof, just evidence, that some thing atypical is afoot thru observations from astronomers, expert colleagues of SETI scientists, and their reported anomalous observations which can be in the scientific literature. Now albeit it's 'colleagues' from several generations ago and way before cutting-edge SETI instances, but that doesn't regulate their educational bona-fides nor what they said inside the professional literature.

I talk to the numerous ancient sightings of Neith (suggested satellite tv for pc of Venus) and the intra-Mercurial planet Vulcan in conjunction with severa different sightings of alleged planets inside the orbit of Mercury. Not one, or but multi-dozens of reports are in the scientific literature for each. That's similarly to those multi-dozens of sightings of unexpected by uncharted and unknown items that made unexpected transits of the Sun and Moon. So, expert astronomers are on file as having seen, for all sensible functions, unidentified 'aerial' phenomena. Now we recognise there may be no Neith and there's no Vulcan, and many others. So exactly what did scientists in the astronomical career take a look at? A UFO with the aid of some other name remains a UFO. Okay, it is simply proof, not proof. Still, UFO observations are not completely the property of the exquisite unwashed.

WE REQUIRE PROOF! Okay, even though scientists do not need to actively take part, their demand WE REQUIRE PROOF (lay it at the slab in my lab) sounds affordable, till you realise that the ones identical scientists receive the reality of many other things that they similarly can not study on a slab inside the lab, matters that simplest may be visible or photographed.

An obvious working example is the ones stars inside the night time sky. You see them; you can picture them, however so far you can't observe the bodily object within the laboratory! You cannot placed a celebrity on the slab. So, if stars are ideal, why now not UFOs? Well, stars may be consequently they're; UFOs cannot be therefore they are not*.

Scientists have a readymade excuse for now not being able to verify the bona-fides of stars as laboratory specimens; they're out of attain - way too remote to grab keep of. But they nevertheless argue that stars aren't illusions or misidentifications or all-in-the-thoughts or hoaxes due to the fact astrophysical concept supports stars being what scientists consider they may be. Of direction in a manner of speakme starlight may be 'captured' and analysed in the lab, and at least stars have the decency of making their appearance on agenda. Still, you can't have a look at up close and private the physical megastar itself.

So as a generality, in defence to an anti-UFO stance, scientists will say there are theoretical reasons for accepting the reality of factors they can not positioned their mitts on, implying that there are no theoretical motives supporting the UFO ETH (ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis). Alas and alack, as an extra counterattack, as stars (and rainbows - see beneath) are supported with the aid of astrophysics' idea, there is also an actual theoretical situation that almost demands that there be UFOs and that UFOs be extraterrestrial spacecraft - it is called the Fermi Paradox. That simply essentially says that even supposing there may be handiest one superior technological civilization 'available' with the ability to "boldly go", then the time it would take to discover (even at low sub mild velocities - say 1% to 10% the speed of light) and colonize end-to-cease our galaxy is however a tiny, tiny fraction of the age of our galaxy. So where is each person? They need to, in the event that they exist in any respect, through rights be right here. Why would they pay unique interest to the 0.33 rock from the Sun? While stars and planets are dimes-a-dozen, abodes with biospheres are likely as uncommon as chook's tooth - that is why. Planet Earth is a hen's tooth! Alas, even as astrophysical theory passes their muster, the Fermi Paradox does not reduce their mustard apparently.

Okay, for terrestrial scientists, physical famous person-stuff cannot be placed at the lab's slab. But there are parallels a lot in the direction of home wherein that excuse of extreme distance falls far brief. Now here is a parallel. The rainbow is the case in point. If scientists can play UFO skeptic, I can play the position of rainbow skeptic.

If you are saying you've got seen a rainbow, you cannot prove that to me since you can't convey the rainbow, or any part of it (like say the related pot-of-gold), into my lab and region it on the slab for me to hammer away at or placed underneath the microscope. You obviously trust inside the truth of rainbows, but you can't put the only you see inside the sky to your lab's slab either. Okay, you understand and I recognise that rainbows exist, but the important factor is that you can't show to me (or anybody) that you saw a rainbow. We all understand eyewitness testimony, ain't really worth the fee of spit in a bucket. As for snap shots, being the grand skeptic I am, absolute confidence your photos of rainbows are fakes, pure and easy. I REQUIRE PROOF of rainbows and you cannot provide it.

Can you capture and put an real rainbow within the sky right into a laboratory surroundings and situation it to merciless and unusual punishments? You can artificially create one in the lab, but it is not quite the identical thing - it is not the real McCoy. And what approximately that associated physical trace - the pot-of-gold at the quit of the rainbow? I've but to examine of any laboratory evaluation of that pot and that gold. How can we are aware of it's honestly gold with out slab-in-the-lab analysis? Maybe its idiot's gold! And much like Pandora's 'box' is truly a jar and not a container, maybe the 'pot' is in reality a bowl! Of path the scientists can't quite get at the pot-of-gold since it is guarded with the aid of a leprechaun, and no scientist is going to admit being thwarted with the aid of a little inexperienced guy (or kidnapped by way of a bit grey one both for that count).

Okay, I could be foolish not to agree with your commentary and to disclaim the fact of rainbows, but its k for clinical skeptics to ignore the rainbow parallel when it comes to UFOs. Eyewitness testimony regarding UFO sightings isn't always really worth the fee of the paper it is published on; images of UFOs are indeed pure Photoshop fakery.

But in reality, UFOs offer up way extra physical proof than the rainbow. Despite that pot-of-gold on the cease of a rainbow legend, rainbows leave at the back of no physical strains; no physiological consequences, and no electromagnetic results; they make no sounds, and so forth. UFOs aren't so hampered. So, if crunch-comes-crunch, the truth of UFOs have plenty greater going for them in terms of bodily evidence than the truth of rainbows. Of course no scientist in their proper mind might show off scepticism of the existence of rainbows even with none bodily evidence backing them up, however with regards to UFOs, it is a different horse of some other coloration - but is it certainly a one-of-a-kind horse, and is it truely of a special hue?

Of route one motive physical scientists receive the fact of the rainbow is that they have got seen one themselves (many maximum probable) and seeing is believing as lengthy because it's they who are doing the seeing. If they themselves had witnessed a UFO event they (and their colleagues) couldn't pick out then I'm certain they would be a good deal greater open and willing to simply accept some other's eyewitness testimony. A bit of a double wellknown there of direction however this is human nature and scientists aren't exempt from that weakness. Unfortunately, UFOs tend to be a rarer commodity than rainbows and therefore witnessed way much less regularly, together with viewings via scientists.

While UFOs have a better bodily evidence quota than rainbows, they also have a better strangeness quota too, which is not to say that rainbows do not have a unusual mythological air of mystery approximately them. I wonder if the scientist who accepts the fact of the rainbow additionally accepts that the rainbow is a bridge to heaven (Asgard) consistent with Norse mythology and made famous within the conclusion to Richard Wagner's first "Ring Cycle" opera "Das Rheingold". Christian mythology has the rainbow as a sign that as a minimum the subsequent time God lays waste to the sector it may not be thru the Big Wet, although I doubt you will discover that in any textbook on optical and atmospheric phenomena. And if you're into cryptozoology, the Australian aborigines have a Rainbow Serpent (which doubles as a writer deity), however alternatively, scientists are not referred to for his or her curiosity into the real life of unknown mega-fauna or polytheistic creator deities** either for that count. In reality, you name the subculture; you will discover a rainbow mythology contained within. Rainbows are related to spirits and demons and all way of omens from the good, to the bad and the ugly that scientists will reject as component and parcel of their notion machine.

So, in which do scientists draw the road? Rainbows - sure; rainbow serpents and rainbow bridges - no. And this distinction is rightly so, IMHO. But when they reject out of hand a phenomenon that genuinely has extra and better evidence than say rainbows (auroras and sprites might be other cases in point) then eyebrows must be raised and questions requested - like please give an explanation for your good judgment.

While on the problem of things mythological, allow's move reminiscent of the celebrities and planets and other celestial objects. There's a huge mythology from many historical cultures that generally is going hand-in-hand with how those celestial items and night time sky patterns came to be. Astronomers do not aid those tall tales both considering they have got different greater scientific theories that explain the origins of stars and constellations. Still, its competing theories of a way to account for say, the Pleiades famous person cluster. Once upon a time it turned into Zeus. Today it is astrophysics. Who's to say considering that neither scenario may be subjected to a definitive WE REQUIRE PROOF slab-in-the-lab test.

By the way, as a very last counterattack, I have not but visible any SETI scientist provide you with proof high quality on ET, so IMHO it is nevertheless a tied ball game. But rather than have opposing groups, SETI scientists might also as properly take a look at UFOs as properly when you consider that SETI to this point has a batting common of zero. Perhaps that's what comes from scientists setting all their ET eggs in only the SETI basket.

*And the Sun can't have sunspots due to the fact all of us understand that the Sun is best; meteorites cannot exist seeing that we all know stones can't fall from the sky;

**Though faith inside the reality of God is hardly ever unknown to exist in some bodily scientists, even though like stars and rainbows, they can't placed God at the slab of their lab either. Somehow the WE REQUIRE PROOF standards don't remember in this case.