Log in

View Full Version : Martians,Venusians,Earthlings,Moon people


Nosferatu
May 26th, 2009, 08:29 AM
Mankind is a term used quite exclusively in sacred writings referring to humankind. Humandkind can be used to describe anything that is humanlike. I would like to ask the question...what prevents us from embracing extra-terrestrial humanlike beings? On the other hand...what is so different about anything with with a conceptual ideological premise about anything at all? Is bi-pod design a better one than crawling, rolling, tumbling, flying, transmigration etc? Are human bi-pods really the only intellegent thing in the universe? I was looking at some pictures revealed by Dr. Hoagland, and they are quite convincing that a humanoid-like bipod must have existed on Mars at one time in the near past, judging by the right-angled structures on the planet, the grain storage pyramids, and the burial crypt in the face itself suggested a humanlike bipod esisted there. Our universe becomes more and more curious as time goes on...I wonder how long it will be before we know the truth?

Tsar Phalanxia
May 26th, 2009, 12:28 PM
What's a bi-pod?

Yiuel
May 26th, 2009, 01:10 PM
What's a bi-pod?

He was probably trying some Greek compound like "tetrapod" (four legs) "tripod" (three legs). However, it should be "dipod". But we already use "biped", which is from Latin.

Nosferatu : Right angles do occur naturally, even on rocks. Actually, I would have been surprised if there weren't any right-angled natural structure on Mars. As for pyramids, I would call easily bullshit. Do you have pictures?

However, your main question about accepting aliens as sapient is not a new one. Well, they would probably need to be sapient, which needs a definition of what would be considered sapience. If understanding and living together is possible, then why not? I wouldn't care.

Nosferatu
May 26th, 2009, 03:00 PM
What's a bi-pod?

google it....My Google, where have you been?

The Laughing Man
May 26th, 2009, 03:07 PM
A two-legged support often used by varmint hunters, which is attached to the fore-end of a rifle, used mainly for long-range shooting.

sudikics
May 26th, 2009, 04:03 PM
Mankind is a term used quite exclusively in sacred writings referring to humankind.
Yes, because it referrs to the species homo sapiens.
Humandkind can be used to describe anything that is humanlike.
No, anthropormorphic can be used to describe human-like things. Mankind referrs to the species homo sapiens.
I would like to ask the question...what prevents us from embracing extra-terrestrial humanlike beings?
Becuase we know of no life in the universe besides that found on earth, and the chances that said ET life would be anthropormorphic is next to none, much less identical to homo sapiens.
On the other hand...what is so different about anything with with a conceptual ideological premise about anything at all?
What does this sentence mean, exactly?
Is bi-pod design a better one than crawling, rolling, tumbling, flying, transmigration etc?
No, but it was a positive series of mutation for our human ancestors.
Are human bi-pods really the only intelligent thing in the universe?
Define "intelligent". Many properites we used to only assign to ourselves have been found in many other animals. Examples: other animals recognise themsevles in mirrors, use tools, use language, express emotion, etc.
I was looking at some pictures revealed by Dr. Hoagland,
You mean this Dr. Hoagland? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland)

Wikipedia:
"Richard C. Hoagland (born April 25, 1945) is the operator of www.enterprisemission.com. He appears on late-night talk radio to discuss his opinions on alleged US government cover-ups of alien civilizations and other space-related topics. At age 19, he was briefly the curator of a small science museum in Springfield Massachusetts. He claims to have worked as science advisor to CBS News, (specifically and directly to Walter Cronkite), during the Apollo Missions to the Moon, despite having no education or training in science. His writings claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the moon, Mars and on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and that NASA and the United States government have conspired to keep these facts secret."

:icon_lol: He's a nutcase. You're using him as a source?
and they are quite convincing that a humanoid-like bipod must have existed on Mars at one time in the near past,
Bullshit. No evidence has been found supporting anythign beyond microbial life on Mars.
judging by the right-angled structures on the planet,
Let me correct Yiuel here: right-angles have been found in rocks -- specifically, in crystals. A well-known example is Pyrite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrite). Either way, Nosferatu, no evidence has been found supporting anything beyond the possibilty of microbial life in the past on Mars.
the grain storage pyramids,
Bullshit. There are no pyramids on Mars. Please link to the peer-reviewed release of this information.
and the burial crypt in the face itself suggested a humanlike bipod esisted there.
Are you referring to this face?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/cydonia/threefaces.gif
Pareidolia at its finest.
Our universe becomes more and more curious as time goes on...I wonder how long it will be before we know the truth?
We'll never know the truth. "We don't know one millionth of one percent of anything."

fomenter
May 26th, 2009, 04:27 PM
:icon_lol::icon_lol:

nicely answered sickie

Clark Nova
May 26th, 2009, 04:33 PM
I'd be lying if I said I read more then 4 words of the OP

rzm61
May 26th, 2009, 08:51 PM
Hey Clark.

'Posts: 404' nice. :D

Yiuel
May 26th, 2009, 09:14 PM
(All you said)

Bravo!

But nature is full of strange shapes that look human-made (because their lines are deemed neat) and yet are fully explainable.

sudikics
May 26th, 2009, 09:32 PM
Bravo!

But nature is full of strange shapes that look human-made (because their lines are deemed neat) and yet are fully explainable.
Exactly. Do not be so naive and assume that what's unexplainable to you is has no explanation at all.

Daruko
May 26th, 2009, 10:02 PM
Rock on Sciky
:mittens:

Nosferatu
May 26th, 2009, 10:07 PM
I'd be lying if I said I read more then 4 words of the OP
and you wonder why no-one comes to this site more than once or twice...still would love to tea-bag you Dar...

sudikics
May 27th, 2009, 01:45 AM
and you wonder why no-one comes to this site more than once or twice...still would love to tea-bag you Dar...
This fails to answer the objections I raised to your post. Try again.

Nosferatu
May 27th, 2009, 06:16 AM
This fails to answer the objections I raised to your post. Try again.

No.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 27th, 2009, 09:43 AM
Thus, another serious discussion dies a painful death.

Nosferatu
May 27th, 2009, 09:30 PM
Thus, another serious discussion dies a painful death.

I like to start off a serious discussion simple. But you dickheads fall apart when someone doesnt agree with you. If I began with an equation you would freak just as much; finding fault. What the fuck good are you? You are the kind of person who would see a large cock and then tell everyone it is too cumbersome and disproportionate to fuck...probably because it wasnt yours. You probably think Brian Cox just got lucky at being a physicist because he was a well known keyboard player. You are completely and utterly stupid, misguided, rude cocksucker with a flacid little penis.

Nosferatu
May 27th, 2009, 09:53 PM
Yes, because it referrs to the species homo sapiens.

No, anthropormorphic can be used to describe human-like things. Mankind referrs to the species homo sapiens.

Becuase we know of no life in the universe besides that found on earth, and the chances that said ET life would be anthropormorphic is next to none, much less identical to homo sapiens.

What does this sentence mean, exactly?

No, but it was a positive series of mutation for our human ancestors.

Define "intelligent". Many properites we used to only assign to ourselves have been found in many other animals. Examples: other animals recognise themsevles in mirrors, use tools, use language, express emotion, etc.

You mean this Dr. Hoagland? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland)

Wikipedia:
"Richard C. Hoagland (born April 25, 1945) is the operator of www.enterprisemission.com (http://www.enterprisemission.com). He appears on late-night talk radio to discuss his opinions on alleged US government cover-ups of alien civilizations and other space-related topics. At age 19, he was briefly the curator of a small science museum in Springfield Massachusetts. He claims to have worked as science advisor to CBS News, (specifically and directly to Walter Cronkite), during the Apollo Missions to the Moon, despite having no education or training in science. His writings claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the moon, Mars and on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and that NASA and the United States government have conspired to keep these facts secret."

:icon_lol: He's a nutcase. You're using him as a source?

Bullshit. No evidence has been found supporting anythign beyond microbial life on Mars.

Let me correct Yiuel here: right-angles have been found in rocks -- specifically, in crystals. A well-known example is Pyrite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrite). Either way, Nosferatu, no evidence has been found supporting anything beyond the possibilty of microbial life in the past on Mars.

Bullshit. There are no pyramids on Mars. Please link to the peer-reviewed release of this information.

Are you referring to this face?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/cydonia/threefaces.gif
Pareidolia at its finest.

We'll never know the truth. "We don't know one millionth of one percent of anything."

N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L

sudikics
May 28th, 2009, 01:42 AM
N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L
Yes, that's a the Drake Equation. It's highly unreliable, because we don't have any data on several variables. How does that respond to my refutation of your post in any way?

Daruko
May 28th, 2009, 01:46 AM
Yes, that's a the Drake Equation. It's highly unreliable, because we don't have any data on several variables. How does that respond to my refutation of your post in any way?
Cuz it means he's science l33t. :icon_idea:

Dr Goofy Mofo
May 28th, 2009, 03:03 AM
He wants to post something with no debate added. He thinks debate is being rude to the original content rather then adding to it. DO NOT QUESTION HIM OR HIS BELIEVES basically.

sudikics
May 28th, 2009, 03:05 AM
He wants to post something with no debate added. He thinks debate is being rude to the original content rather then adding to it. DO NOT QUESTION HIM OR HIS BELIEVES basically.
which case he's not going to fare very well on this site. :)

Nosferatu: I reserve the right to systematically debunk any and all nonsense posted by anyone on this site or anywhere. :D

Dr Goofy Mofo
May 28th, 2009, 03:13 AM
At least that is what i get from his post. He whines everytime something is questioned calling it an attack.

Dolores
May 28th, 2009, 04:02 AM
It's called "trolling", and he's not very good at it.

Yiuel
May 28th, 2009, 02:59 PM
N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L

Let me add, to sickidus's post, a bunch of things about that ugly (philosophical) equation.

I did a very interesting course at University, labelled Astrobiology. And no, it is not the study of little green men. It's the study of the possibilities for life (something we haven't yet fully defined -> viruses?) throughout the Universe. And, at the end of the class, we discussed that philosophical equation (which is totally unscientific, must we remind the crowd of posters!)

We went through physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology, every natural science out there we got a picture of and what it brought to the discussion. And Drake's equation, even philosophically, is flawed. Citing Drake's equation like that is doing what Creationists do when quoting 150 years old debates already solved since decades among academics.

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

We have something of a good picture here, but...

We now know some more. Galaxies aren't homogenous. At the center of galaxies, there are many more stars, hence more radiation. On the outer rim, you have less material, especially metals* (*everything other than hydrogen and helium). Life does not strive in an environment with too much radiation, barring life close to the center of galaxies (where there are many more stars). But there are less chances of life being supported on the outer rim, because there is less material there for planets. So you'd have to specify the region within the galaxy.

I remember there are more details missing, but I'd have to dig up my notes, which are buried very far. Still...

Drake's equation is a philosophical equation, not a scientific one. We don't know the value of key parameters, and some of these may have nullifying effects. (Actually all parameters can have a nullifying effect).

And the equation, as I have explained, is missing key parameters. There is a lot more to consider.

So... Bleh, that's not a good debuking of scikidus's post.

Nosferatu
May 28th, 2009, 03:35 PM
He wants to post something with no debate added. He thinks debate is being rude to the original content rather then adding to it. DO NOT QUESTION HIM OR HIS BELIEVES basically.

After you kiss my ass, read this.

Here are empirical arguments often given in the literature, listed in order of those I consider strongest:

1. The argument from the origin of life on Earth. The historical record of the origin of life on Earth indicates that microbial life originates fairly easily, or at least fairly quickly. The Earth is some 4.5 billion years old, and already some 3.8 billion years ago low forms of life existed, immediately after the heavy bombardment of asteroidal bodies ceased impacting the Earth. But certainly a relevant fact is that microbial life dominated the Earth for 3 billion years. Complex life is only about 600 million years old, especially with the Cambrian explosion of body types. And intelligent life, by almost any definition beyond mere consciousness, is less than 2 million years old, with the rise of the genus homo. So this argument favors the weak biological universe-one full of microbes. 2. The discovery of life on Earth thriving under extreme conditions, known as "extremophiles." This discovery indicates that microbial life can live in a much wider range of extraterrestrial environments than previously believed. It greatly expands the idea of an "ecosphere" or "habitable zone." This argument again favors only the weak biological universe. 3. The history of Mars and the current state of the Jovian moon Europa. Spacecraft observations of Mars clearly indicate the existence of past channels with flowing water. The famous claim in 1996 of possible fossils in Martian meteorite ALH 84001, while unproven, points to the possibility of fossil life on Mars. The consensus that Europa is a body covered with water ice, and that it likely contains oceans under this ice, shows that conditions favorable for life may still exist in our solar system beyond Earth. The evidence that the conditions for life existed on Mars in the past, and may exist on Europa at present, lends credence again to at least a weak biological universe. 4. The existence of complex organic molecules in interstellar molecules, meteorites, and comets. Though a long way from life, this observation favors a weak biological universe in the sense that the precursors for life are plentiful in the universe. 5. The philosophical argument, sometimes referred to as the "principle of mediocrity," whereby the Copernican principle dictates the Earth should not be regarded as unique. This has been proven for the physical universe in terms of our non-central location, and the existence of other planetary systems. But it is the very thing we are trying to prove under the name of the biological universe, and so cannot be assumed. This argument is only weakly empirical in the sense that we have observed the Copernican principle works for the physical universe, and that the universe provides a vast scope for possible life. But it is the driving force for many scientists and the public, and it is one of the few arguments that bears on the strong biological universe-that extraterrestrial intelligence should exist.

These arguments leave the extent of the biological universe very much an open question. And if its extent is problematic, the possible content of the biological universe must be even more speculative. Our confirmed knowledge of that content must begin with what we know of terrestrial life. One of the most astonishing properties of life on Earth is its diversity; Harvard naturalist E. O. Wilson and his colleagues estimate the number of known species of plants, animals and microorganisms on Earth at 1.4 million. They also estimate this is less than one tenth of those actually living on Earth, so there may be 15 million species of terrestrial life. Similarly, diversity is likely to be a property of any extraterrestrial life.

What we know of this life on Earth is best summarized by biological taxonomies devised over the last three centuries. Until recently systematists divided all life on Earth into five kingdoms, but following the work of Carl Woese, Norman Pace, and others on evolutionary relationships as established by gene sequencing, most microbiologists (if not most zoologists) now divide life on Earth into three kingdoms, or "domains:" archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes, the latter incorporating the animals, plants, and fungi of the previous "five kingdoms" system. The evolutionary diagram of biology's three kingdoms, shown in figure below, is sometimes called "the universal tree of life."





Tree of Life courtesy of Dr. Heimlin Fredereick
http://www.sil.si.edu/silpublications/dibner-library-lectures/extraterrestrial-life/figure-25tn.jpg

sudikics
May 28th, 2009, 04:26 PM
1. The argument from the origin of life on Earth. The historical record of the origin of life on Earth indicates that microbial life originates fairly easily, or at least fairly quickly. The Earth is some 4.5 billion years old, and already some 3.8 billion years ago low forms of life existed, immediately after the heavy bombardment of asteroidal bodies ceased impacting the Earth.
This is true. A note: the heavy bombardment period left the earth's crust molten, rendering the formation of life impossible.
But certainly a relevant fact is that microbial life dominated the Earth for 3 billion years. Complex life is only about 600 million years old, especially with the Cambrian explosion of body types. And intelligent life, by almost any definition beyond mere consciousness, is less than 2 million years old, with the rise of the genus homo.
Again, correct, except for the idea that the genus homo alone is intelligent. I'd argue that cepholapods are intelligent as well, and they've been around for far longer than humans.
So this argument favors the weak biological universe-one full of microbes.
Or at least that microbial life is more likely in the universe.
2. The discovery of life on Earth thriving under extreme conditions, known as "extremophiles." This discovery indicates that microbial life can live in a much wider range of extraterrestrial environments than previously believed. It greatly expands the idea of an "ecosphere" or "habitable zone." This argument again favors only the weak biological universe.
Yep.
3. The history of Mars and the current state of the Jovian moon Europa. Spacecraft observations of Mars clearly indicate the existence of past channels with flowing water. The famous claim in 1996 of possible fossils in Martian meteorite ALH 84001, while unproven, points to the possibility of fossil life on Mars.
Clarification: ALH 84001 contained imprints of nanobacteria, not macroscopic bacteria. Otherwise, correct.
The consensus that Europa is a body covered with water ice, and that it likely contains oceans under this ice, shows that conditions favorable for life may still exist in our solar system beyond Earth. The evidence that the conditions for life existed on Mars in the past, and may exist on Europa at present, lends credence again to at least a weak biological universe.
Keyword: potential. Nothing proven. Yet.
4. The existence of complex organic molecules in interstellar molecules, meteorites, and comets. Though a long way from life, this observation favors a weak biological universe in the sense that the precursors for life are plentiful in the universe.
But the conditions known to harbor life are extremely rare. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

I'll get to the second half at a later point.

In the meantime, my finals were canceled. WOO HOO!

Tsar Phalanxia
June 2nd, 2009, 12:06 PM
In the meantime, my finals were canceled. WOO HOO!

Swine Flu?

sudikics
June 2nd, 2009, 04:11 PM
Swine Flu?
YES. This is currently the best school week evar.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 2nd, 2009, 05:27 PM
YES. This is currently the best school week evar.

Awesome, I should be able to to track you down now :D

Related news, I have a Politics Exam and an Economics Exam tomorrow.

sudikics
June 3rd, 2009, 01:36 AM
School has now been closed due to further cases. 8-day weekend FTW! :D

And Tsar: I looked online. Only one link mentions the closing of my school. And in order to find that link, yu need to know the name of my school. Whoops.