The article is based on the lecture of Prof. Yoav Yair from the Department of Natural and Life Sciences at the Open University as part of the Scientists' Night 2013
As I mentioned yesterday, One of the interesting lectures as part of the Night of Scientists events was the lecture by Prof. Yoav Yair at the Open University campus in Ra'anana that took place last Thursday. We bring its content to the surfers of the knowledge website courtesy of Prof. Yair.
Prof. Yair defined the subject as an intellectual exercise designed to think about the event of an encounter with aliens, even if the probability is low it would be interesting to discuss its consequences.
"In this context, two questions are asked, I will only address the second one, because the answer to the first question - is there life somewhere in the solar system or in the universe, the answer is yes. The second question is, is there in the universe today (with an emphasis on 'now') an intelligent communicative culture with which we can establish contact or at least contact? And also do they come here."
Drake equation - for estimating the number of intelligent civilizations in the universe
The tool for estimating the probability of finding intelligent life in space was invented in 1961 by Frank Drake with the aim of giving a preliminary estimate of the outer media cultures that exist in the galaxy today. The equation contains relative probabilities of several astronomical parameters, some of which can be measured and others - only conjectured. By delimiting the estimates according to 'optimistic estimates' and 'pessimistic estimates', it is possible to obtain a definitive and defined number that gives a quantitative value.
The number of technologically intelligent civilizations in our galaxy is the product of a series of numbers, probabilities that include the following data: How many sun-like stars are formed in our galaxy. This is astronomical information that can be known; If there are sun-like stars, some of them have planets around them. We know that we live on one of the eight planets in the solar system. Until 20 years ago we thought that our solar system was the only one, today we know of at least 700 more planets (and this is mainly from measuring a very limited area in space by the Kepler spacecraft), at least some of them are similar to Earth (rocky planets).
Decomposing the equation
If there are other solar systems with planets similar to Earth, how many of them even have life? We don't know either, we can guess, maybe one in a thousand? One in a hundred thousand?
We then have to ask the question how many of these species are intelligent? There can be planets with different types of life forms on them corresponding to fungi, spores, algae, ferns. This is biological but not intelligent life.
The next question is if there is already intelligent life, have they developed technology that enables interstellar travel? The pharaohs, for example, were an intelligent species, they built pyramids and made Moses and the children of Israel work hard, but they did not fly into space. The question is how long does it take for an intelligent civilization to develop the technology that would allow it to communicate across galactic distances and the last question is how long does such a civilization survive? This is a question we don't know the answer to, because we only have one example.
Let's do some calculations for each of the shoes in the equation. Regarding planets outside the solar system - 676 solar systems are known today, and in them more than 859 planets (128 stars have more than one planet). Most of them are of the 'hot Jupiter' type, but there are also some with rocky planets in the life zone. The conclusion - there are many places similar to us. We can measure the temperature and composition of the atmosphere and identify for example water vapor.
Where is everybody?
Let's make a conservative assumption that there are a thousand places in the galaxy that have a technological communication culture. The big question is where are they all? A question known as the Fermi paradox. This question has several possible answers. One is the "principle of mediocrity": we don't really interest them; Another reason is the "rare land": we are the first / the only ones / they are extinct; Another possibility is the "zoo principle": they watch us, do not interfere; Alternatively, they haven't arrived yet, or they simply missed us; Another interesting approach is that, in fact, we are the result of the invasion! (was in the past); And of course there is always the possibility that the technological difficulty to reach / transmit is too great; Or alternatively they visit but we just don't see them except for a few virtuous individuals and secret keepers - all the conspiracy theories of the type that can be found in black' or 'cases in the dark'.
According to the reports of all kinds of alleged witnesses who have claimed to have seen/encountered/been abducted, there are several different levels of possible encounters with aliens. The first type is simply watching a UFO from a close range, without its effect on the environment; The second type: like the first type but with an effect, for example on cars and the like (electrical effects, signs of fire); The third type: aliens can be observed inside the UFO or in its immediate vicinity, but not necessarily while interacting with them; The fourth type: Kidnapping: invitation/taking by force and return. The aliens perform medical experiments, invasive tests, implants. And finally, the fifth type: a one-way ticket: You are beamed up never to return
What do we do in the event of an alien invasion?
In light of all this, one of the options is an invasion - they come, land on the lawn of the White House or the Knesset and say - surrender. But as we know, this did not happen. 99.99% and more of the reports can be explained simply as hallucinations or optical illusions; Some of them are pranks, scams and acts of cheating, ("Zomi" search) and others are simply incorrect explanations of natural phenomena such as clouds of various types, meteors and in particular those of them that are fireballs; Nearby planets (Venus) or atmospheric optics tricks and of course military systems that were secret at the time such as drones and balloons (as we saw not long ago - the aliens will have to wait. The CIA revealed documents about Area 51 and nothing to do with aliens https://www.hayadan. org.il/cias-declassified-documents-reveals-secrets-about-area-51-and-ufos-1706138/)
What would extraterrestrial life forms be made of?
Life everywhere will be based on the most common elements in the universe: hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen - formed inside stars in nuclear processes and the most common in the universe. It is likely that if life were to form in an extrasolar system, it would be based on these elements and not on rare compounds. But they will not necessarily be similar to us (gravitation is different, the composition of the atmosphere is not similar to ours, their evolution will certainly be different)
Some assumptions about technological cultures
The extraterrestrial culture could be: the top step in the planetary food pyramid - super-carnivores (like us), if they have traveled all the way through space to us, it is most likely a much more advanced culture than us technologically, scientifically, morally, and maybe we will find cultures that are at about the same stage of development as us.
Despite the enormous technological progress in the last hundred years, there may be a limit to the degree of development of an intelligent species. This means that a million-year-old culture will not necessarily be much more advanced than us.
And they came and decided to invade, how will we recognize their intentions? Again it is a range of possibilities starting from the utilization of the planet's resources: water and minerals; destroying and thwarting future threats from us; labor (labor) or food; colonization: new settlement; Asylum seekers / interstellar refugees. It is also possible that contact is accidental and unplanned or they are just conducting scientific research: another butterfly for the collection.
Assuming the invaders have complete technological superiority - if they have already reached interstellar flight capability and arrived here, then they are much more advanced than us and therefore the chance of surviving an attack is slim. However, the science fiction films showed that it would be possible to use asymmetric warfare (guerrilla) against them, to disperse the means of warfare in the jungles, to cut off their supply and communication lines, and perhaps locate their Achilles' heel.
What is the probability of finding a peace-loving extraterrestrial intelligence? The naive beliefs in the good intentions of the invaders do not stand the test of human history: for example, Cortez and the Aztecs in South America, who surrendered to him due to superior power but also due to the belief that people who come riding on an animal are gods. Also, most of the Indians died because they contracted the flu from the Spaniards who were not vaccinated against it.
The next issue is should we make contact with an extraterrestrial culture? In fact we already did. The Voyager 2 spacecraft launched in 1977 carried with it a golden CD with scientific, mathematical and astronomical messages about human culture. The spacecraft has already left the solar system and is moving in the galaxy (see news from yesterday https://www.hayadan.org.il/voyager-1-lteft-solar-system-1309130/. In another 40,000 years it will pass by another star (sun). ..and if there is someone there, maybe he will catch the spaceship. Assuming he decodes the message, how long will it take for his answer to arrive?
listening to the radio
And of course the most common option is the radio broadcasts, As it appears, for example, in the book "Contact" According to Carl Sagan: It is clear that in the vast distances between the stars, contact can only be made by radio transmissions; We are leaking into space unintended radio noise from the last century... the signals have already spread to a range of 80 light years from here.
As for searching for radio signals, the question is whether the search should be passive or also active - that is, broadcast out? Who is authorized to broadcast on behalf of the human race? What to broadcast? How to mark our intentions? How will we communicate with them?
This is where the set of SETI searches based on detecting transmissions in the electromagnetic spectrum comes into play. As part of it, the distributed computing project SETI@home also operates: billions of hours of computing signals.
So far, after 20 years of searching, no signals have yet been found in the radio field that would testify to an encrypted transmitter of an intelligent culture. On the other hand, it is possible that intelligent cultures do not transmit at all in the radio field, for protection purposes.
Our possible reactions in case of indirect contact: assuming there will be no physical encounter, it is about decoding a signal that is not "natural noise". We need to find out if this is a deliberate signal or just an administrative broadcast? If the signal is complex and complicated, a scientific dispute is expected - see for example the issue of global warming; Is a sweeping denial expected from religious and political establishments, among other things, for fear of undermining the existing order?
How to prepare for contact with extraterrestrial intelligence?
Here the four principles of Alan Goodman from Georgetown University (1985) come to our aid:
- Whoever finds evidence of contact will publish it
- Any answer will be made after international consultation
- Aliens who arrive will be considered diplomatic envoys
- If it turns out that the aliens are a threat, no country will act without the approval of the UN Security Council
In the same context, there is also the SETI contact protocol that examines certainty and verification and ensures the application of universal principles such as the right to self-defense
In conclusion Prof. Yair says: There is life in the galaxy, but the probability of meeting is low. Unfortunately, they still haven't arrived or called, but we're not ready!
More on the subject on the science website (and this is only a part)
- Why are there apparently no aliens?
- Review of the film Contact based on Carl Sagan's book
- Hello, is this Bloomfield? Or how we will communicate with intelligent aliens
- The enduring fascination of the Roswell incident is indicative of the way we will respond when real aliens land here
- How do you make contact with other life forms in space?
- Carl Sagan - Knowledge is our destiny, intelligence on Earth and beyond
- What will our first encounter with extraterrestrials look like?
- What do the aliens look like?
- A question in the Knesset - have UFOs landed in Israel?
- How long will it take to reach the nearest solar system?
76 תגובות
What will we do when aliens arrive?
If they come here - assume that they are more technologically advanced than us
Let them think what happened to the natives in Australia (Aborigines) or America - when the Europeans arrived there -
Or what happened to living at all wherever man has reached in the world
It is likely that this is what will happen to the humans when outsiders arrive here
The last thing humans need is hoping for flying saucers or aliens to come here
It would always be nice if they were at such a distance that you could communicate with them in space
From a distance of light years of broadcasts
But not to allow a physical meeting where they arrive here
Because a physical encounter will end very badly for humans
I did not understand how you introduced spores.
Spores are not a plant. It is a type of "embryo" and also the way and method of its culture. Plants such as ferns and azures reproduce by means of entanglements. It's like registering the woman's egg or human sperm as a creature or fertilized egg / fertilized sperm. Next time open a dictionary!
It is possible that you were right 59 that I said this based on a science program at National Geographic, but as you said, there is no such chance.
Yaronan
The nearest relevant planet today is 16 light years away, yet I agree with you that the chances seem to be zero.
As far as I understand, the closest planet to Earth that has a chance for life is 59 light years away.
There is no chance in the world that they are already here because in fact you have to fly at the speed of light 59 years in one direction not to mention that you also have to come back. So even if there is, it is highly doubtful to zero that the chance of ever meeting does not exist.
Answers to Avi Cohen
Father, good morning.
Good and constructive comments and questions like yours deserve answers.
1. My answer to Nisim regarding "what I don't believe in" (and I do not believe in all of the above) was intended to create a common basis with him for the continuation of the discussion and not to make everyone who does believe strange or gullible. From my point of view - a person in his faith will live on the condition that he is not obsessed with killing everyone who does not share.
2. The amount of believers in a particular religion certainly does not make it correct. As a non-religious person, I attest to myself as someone who observes with great amusement all those who hold monotheistic religions and find it difficult to understand how intelligent and educated people crowd into various prayer houses and devoutly offer prayers, about 90% of which are devoted to glorifying and praising their God who obviously needs constant confirmation of the way they perceive Him.
3. Human science advances using the "skip and fortify" method. Relatively rarely does the paradigm change with a big noise (the heliocentric versus the geocentric concept, Newton's laws versus Aristotle's, quantum theory versus Laplace, relativity versus Newton, etc.) and then science fortifies as much as it can around the new paradigm as if it were the last and eternal one. Any attempt to challenge the Torah paradigm is met with sayings such as "there are no quasi-crystals, there are quasi-scientists" (Linus Pauling, two-time Nobel Prize winner referring to Shechtman's work).
It may be surprising, but not every time foreign intelligences are referred to they are personified. (You will surely agree that in order to write such a sentence you need to know all the above references, and I have a feeling that you don't spend your time obsessively reading everything that cartoonists write around the world). Your speculations about the possible difference in the nature of the intelligence of extraterrestrial cultures are completely acceptable.
4. And now for the important thing. Hundreds of thousands of people all over the world tell a story with very similar elements (I don't want to go into details here so as not to lose you or other readers prematurely) It is possible to accept the story as a true description of experiences that the narrator went through, to analyze these stories individually and as a whole, to build a picture as complete as possible and from it make necessary generalizations and draw conclusions (that's how science works, isn't it?) or alternatively understand that humanity is going crazy - hundreds of thousands of people are hallucinating and losing touch with reality, repeating a delusional story on a viral scale. This should also be investigated using the same method, preferably one hour before. The problem is that the scientific establishment refuses to do both things in an orderly manner. A number of scientists (including those who specialize in mental health) put their academic souls in their hands and entered this minefield. The results are fascinating but most people have never been exposed to it. If you want, I will send you some links on the subject.
Mark, his book A Demon Haunted World comes to warn against beliefs of your kind and not to promote them. where did you get it from?
Besides, if it's original (I'm not so sure about it) you have a script for a film in the style of the fifties.
First of all, not only are they already here, they have always been here. These are the scum who lead our lives in the hell called Earth (ALPHA ERIDANI in their language) and which was created by them for the sole purpose of abusing the souls they kidnap from other places in the universe and bring here, to this ghetto planet.
They don't want us to know about them and the atrocities they commit (such as the people who worked for them in genetic research during the Holocaust) otherwise they would have been discovered a long time ago. Apparently in the ancient wars they kidnapped us (or rather our ancestors) so hard that today they are afraid to show their faces in public.
At the time there were series like the 'V' series that were meant to warn people about them, especially about the reptilians taking over, that biblical snake. But the human race has inherent mental limitations set in place by those beings (they are the ones who created us, we can all be considered descendants of the reptilians, the serpent, because Cain was a reptilian and we are all his descendants.
The human race is too screwed up to understand warnings like these.
Since the human race was created for the purpose of gold mining to protect the atmosphere of the tenth planet (Star X, Nibiru), it was not given a significant mental capacity and therefore we are extremely inferior in terms of our brain development which is thousands of meters behind the mental capacities of the other alien groups, among them the 12 tribes who are actually Various groups of human-alien hybrids.
As for Carl Sagan, he knew a lot more than you think. Because this is how he also wrote his book "A Haunted World".
As of this moment, many abductees are still being held hostage in reptilian underground bases mainly in Dolce New Mexico and no one is doing anything for them while they are being tortured and dying by the thousands. If you continue to laugh and mock this issue, eventually there will be no one left to save on the face of the entire planet.
Kobi and Nissim, I actually have a problem with the logic of both of you, if there is a person who does not believe in UFOs, does not believe in Uri Geller, not in Loch Ness, and not in Big Foot, but he believes in God, then he is more strange or gullible than someone who believes in UFOs , but not the rest?
On the other hand Nissim asked a good question, if a billion people believe in Jesus, Muhammad or Krishna does that mean their religion is correct?
What should be our yardstick for the correctness of things?
If science doesn't know does that mean it doesn't exist? According to this logic, space-time would not have curved around the stars in Newton's time, because Einstein had not yet discovered his theory...
In addition, every time we talk about extraterrestrial civilizations, they are personified, or perhaps "Haretz" from the language of Eretz, and put human characteristics on them: like a "brutal conqueror", just as the Spanish were towards the Indians. It is assumed that they are predators, because "only predators develop intelligence" etc...
What about swarm intelligence? Why can't they be like ants, when individually they are not very intelligent, but together they act intelligently?
It's true that we don't have any other examples besides God, but not necessarily everything has to be like here...
Hello Nissim.
I also don't believe in Uri Geller's magic, don't believe in Big Foot, don't believe in Loch Ness monster reports, and don't believe in God of any kind. That is, we have a common base from which to start, but we cannot continue this discussion seriously if you do not allow me to present you with evidence (not proof) that this is a serious phenomenon. Let's go down to a little more subtle resolutions - I again ask you to watch the movie I linked in the previous comment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdbd6I9of4 . If even after him your position remains as it is now, we can part amicably and each one fortify himself in his own paradigm about reality. Continue Happy Holidays - Kobi
Kobe Elder
I don't know how to explain all of Uri Geller's magic, but that doesn't mean I'm close to believing he has "powers". I also don't know how to explain many revelations of God, of other gods, and of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster.
But - I need proof. Maybe it's my personal problem, but I've never seen a reliable UFO report. I have seen pictures and videos and none of them are convincing. I've heard stories that just don't make sense to me. I've seen videos of you that are just a joke (I've been dealing with quants for almost 25 years and I have a bit of understanding on the subject).
Listen, the amount of lies surrounding the UFO matter is shameful. I remember they claimed that Neil Armstrong saw a UFO on the moon. If I wanted to prove that there are UFOs, I think I would bring one solid piece of evidence out of the "15000000" reports. Do you really want to say that there isn't one small appendage in all of these spaceships? When you land in a foreign place, whether it's a foreign country, or a foreign planet, something always remains from the vehicle that landed. Of all these spaceships there is nothing?
A billion and a half people believe in Jesus, but that doesn't mean he existed.
for miracles,
I'm glad we can agree on some things. As you said, it also annoys me that there are all kinds of people who use the subject for their personal purposes and also all kinds of charlatans consciously or unconsciously.
I think that by "establishment" you don't mean the scientific establishment but the political establishment, and as in politics, the best interests of the residents are not always in front of their eyes, but to serve their interests and those of those who pour money into them... mention the issue of climate warming denial?
In any case, there is no point in the residents turning to the "scientific establishment" to get answers, as Zvi Yanai said when he was the director of the Ministry of Science: "In order to check every testimony coming from the citizens of the country, a special office for UFOs and aliens will be required. The Ministry of Science is busy with a much more interesting and important issue: the promotion of science in the State of Israel and the exploitation of the economic potential inherent in scientific research."
If that's the case, are you surprised that they don't turn to scientists?
In addition to this, he continues to show a lack of knowledge on the subject: "It is amazing that in 50 years of supposedly intense meetings held by the aliens with officials, workers, farmers, housewives and pensioners, not a single meeting took place - with a physicist, biologist, chemist, or astronomer..."
And here is a partial list of astronauts who saw UFOs: Gordon Cooper, Donald Slayton, Robert Witt, Joseph A. Walker, Ed Witt, James McDevitt, James Lovell, Frank Borman, Scott Carpenter... Astronomers who saw UFOs Partial list: Clyde Tombaugh discovers Pluto, Edmund Haley discovers the comet, Seymour L. Hess, Walter Webb, Gordon Graham, James Bartlett, Percy Wilkins, Frank Halstead, Monte Isana, Benito Reno, Jacques Shepoy, Lincoln Lafayette, J. Helen Heyncke, etc...Physicists: Carl Mitchell, Henry Carlock, C. an island. Manley...Presidents: Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan...
Regarding the pilots in the Far East - I lived in the Far East for years, and except for the Filipinos and Burmese and some Koreans, everyone else's English is simply terrible. The Japanese only learned English from high school or elementary school, and many of the Japanese businessmen whose English is not the best, and also pilots - this is a very Japanese accent - and it is also very inappropriate for a Japanese to "borrow" from luggage and drink more while working - after that, it is acceptable. In addition, the alcohol in the pilot's body does not leave radar signatures. Have a good night: Oiso Minsai Gozaimsk 🙂
Oh, it's recommended, for those who want to get a taste of the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnwwMFajSU4
Nice evening.
First, thanks for the compliment on the writing. (Some claim that I'm also a good singer. You can click my name on YouTube and judge). Since the late 15,000,000s, about 49 reports of UFO incidents of all types have been received. There is no doubt that many of them are wrong in good faith, just as there is no doubt that many of them were (and are) invented and come in order to serve the various interests of the reporters. But, some of them are very difficult to refute. To illustrate the difficulty in refuting, here is a link to a film ranking the ten most fascinating UFO incidents (in the opinion of the film's editors) that have occurred in human history. In the film there is authentic material + illustrations of these cases and an explanation of why they were chosen to lead the list. The main character in the film is Stanton Friedman whom I mentioned in my previous response. The curious viewers are invited to try and give a national explanation for the events described. If you haven't been able to fully refute them all, then curiosity should naturally arise in you. The length of the film is XNUMX minutes and it is spoken in English (unfortunately without Hebrew translation).
Have a pleasant viewing and a successful rebuttal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdbd6I9of4
First of all, it's nice that there is a discussion on the topic here because I think it's important enough that it should be discussed.
Second, I will summarize a number of things that are important for people to understand and check.
The whole issue is about alien technology and they have no way to get here and the distances are so great - this is one of the most primitive and stupid approaches a human being can adopt. I will explain: during the history of science the accepted opinions were those of some great scientists were about as closed as those of religion itself. that a human being will be able to fly? Will it reach space yet? Calculations by great scientists led them to the conclusion that this is a complete waste and will never happen. Yes, these were also the scientific approaches in the past and it takes a very limited number of people to advance the technology and the scientific breakthrough due to one discovery or another.
What do we know about technologies that are 1000 years old or more? is nothing. We from the point of view of science today believe that wormholes can be created or used to get from one place to another. Yes it is still theoretical but it is also theoretically acceptable.
Science itself believes that there is intelligent life in space somewhere, "but why and how will they get here?" - are you kidding me? What do you know about such an advanced breed? nothing either.
In the aspect of proofs and approaches of science and the other vegetables, in which we assume that there is indeed something to the claim that there are aliens here and hide it, and eliminate proofs in the process. What we think we can check:
- At the beginning of this sensational discovery, there were probably all kinds of rumors and documents circulating within the army/intelligence, etc., in which they express their concern about the issue. (And do you know - as part of the freedom of information in the United States in 76, this is exactly what was revealed. If those documents show what the military/CIA and more think, why ignore it, and also support only the fact that they say "all cases can be refuted"? Prepare the approach the science in it?)
- We also thought that information from inside would leak out here and there, and because we as humans are good at being our own number one enemy, we also out of boredom will engage in deceiving people and falsifying everything possible. Thus making the subject itself (which is probably the biggest since the dawn of mankind) look like one big joke - so why investigate when you can clearly see a lot of fakes on the surface and you can treat the whole phenomenon as complete nonsense? - You will not find more scientific than this. And in addition, the one who is probably hiding the information thought exactly about this direction and its consequences and probably hit a bull's eye.
After all, it is clear that military women with the highest ranks in most of the world's armies, pilots, astronauts (and not one and not two, anyone who bothers to check will find out much more), government officials, former agents, police officers and more, are probably all as stupid as they are presented because they are easily made Mistaking a truck for a spaceship hovering over the road and shining in every direction! After all, everyone is either lying or wrong. Right?
The Blue Book project was one big fake and its goal from the beginning was to answer the absolute majority of the cases even without an investigation. This is what people who worked with the army on the project say and have said. Do research. The army was involved in the investigation from the beginning.
But when it's convenient then we choose not to look at all the cases, we choose to concentrate on what we are sure is fake, because it will surely present the issue correctly. The testimonies of skilled people are completely ignored (policemen/armymen/pilots/radar testimonies and more).
Let's assume that there was a concealment of the issue here and it was indeed true, so you fell into the trap we set for you. What will happen if you investigate the whole phenomenon a little more. Instead of defending our worldview where we assume we know nothing and start from there? And think about it, if today we are trying to discover life in another place and if we had the possibility to come and explore it we would do so. What makes you think that if there is very advanced life in the universe, they don't know we are here, or they are not here already. Maybe from the beginning...
Kobe Elder
Now you quote me and interpret my words. What I wrote is just a personal feeling. And that's really my feeling. You did not quote from a reliable source. On the other hand... this 14th report is much closer to what I say and what others say....
(And the truth is that I wrote this number because someone else threw it here).
I admit this is not a verified number, and let's ignore it with your permission.
Regarding the book - I would love to read it. As I say over and over again, let there be aliens...
Regarding Glaze - I completely agree with you. But - 20 light years is quite far, let's not fool ourselves. On the other hand - it's not an unreasonable distance...
Kobi - you write beautifully. But, when you read testimonials, you mostly read things that are, let's say, delusional. Crop circles, the routes in Peru, batteries from the past, the pyramids, experiences of abduction and interrogation, radar films of fighter planes (civilian planes don't have any of you who know how to lock and measure being...), Roswell and so on. All these are explained without aliens.
In addition, today there are tracking systems that track every metal part of a few centimeters in space.
To summarize - I think it is right to investigate and search and I think that to this day there is no confirmation for the claim that foreigners visited here... (not even God...)
Avi Cohen
I agree in principle with what you say. But, there is also an opposite problem. Instead of teaching people who see an unusual atmospheric phenomenon to go to atmospheric experts before they turn to those who believe in aliens, or gods, we (not me) allow all kinds of idolaters to shout that they, and only they, know the truth - and worse, educate people to think that the "establishment" He is a negative body that only wants to hurt.
And regarding the line - if I was on this plane... He would land with a little less wine than the amount he took off with....and you know that the Far East pilots have fluent English and the pilot sounds a little.... You know…
You have to agree that is more likely than a spaceship the size of a block of flats…..
Hello Nissim.
Honestly, I thank you for the detailed and pleasant response to the Bible. Now that the tones have calmed down a bit, we can move on to a substantive discussion that can help both sides. I declare in advance that I have no intention of "passing you over" - I have no chance of succeeding in doing so. I'm trying to distill my arguments against yours until the moment we don't have an argument about the facts but about the interpretation that each of us gives them.
First I want to address your answers:
1. In your first reply to me in the comment chain above on September 14, you wrote and I quote:
"Regarding the evidence for aliens that were here - I would say that 99.99% has been disproved and 0.01% has not yet been disproved. There is no reason to think otherwise."
You didn't make that number up. You heard or saw it somewhere and accepted it as it is because it fits your worldview. It's definitely human. The facts I know are completely different.
2. The book "Journey to Reason - The Search for Life in the Universe" was published by Proza in 1999. One of the authors, Hagi Netzer, is an astrophysicist from Tel Aviv University. The draft of the book was read by other Israeli scientists whose names are mentioned in the introduction. The last two chapters of this book discuss the UFO phenomenon in detail without taking an explicit position and leave the question open. In my opinion, this is the best book written in Hebrew on the subject, and I recommend that both camps read it from start to finish. The discussion afterwards will be more fruitful and quieter.
3. Regarding the closest solar system to us (currently known) you are right. This is the Gliese 581 system which is about 20 light years away from us. It is currently known that this sun has 6 planets, one of which is in its life-supporting zone and two more are on the edge of this zone. Full information can be found at the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581
It seems to me that any decent lecture dealing with the subject must contain this information, otherwise people get the feeling that even if there is life in the galaxy, it is "thousands of light years" away from us. I have no proof that there is gliese 581 life of any kind, but this immediacy is thought provoking. By the way, not many people know that within a radius of 16 light years from us there are 55 suns, at least six of them have at least one planet, and one of them has four planets. See the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closest_stars (It is not currently known about the inventions of these planets in the life-supporting zone)
4. As for report 14, you correctly cite the conclusions that this report presents, but they do not agree with the numbers in the tables. It was Stanton Friedman (Canadian Jew, one of the most senior ufologists in the world today) who pointed out the contradiction between the tables of report 14 and the report's verbal conclusions. You can see this in his book: FLYING SAUCERS and SCIENCE published in 2008 with an enthusiastic introduction by Dr. Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the moon. And this is the place for an interesting anecdote: the scientific advisor of the "Blue Book" project, aka the astronomer Alan Heinke, who ran around America during the research years in order to explain to people that what they saw were balloons, swamp gas, flocks of birds, ball lightning, various clouds, etc., completely reversed himself after The end of his position and in 1972 he published a fascinating book The UFO Experience which became one of the main books in UFOlogy.
5. I make sure to bring all these references to illustrate the fact that this is not my invention or that of any of my colleagues, this is a very serious field in which educated and intelligent people are engaged. Of course, this does not prove anything, since people of this type have brought humanity more than once, but a significant part of us is not delusional, a charlatan, a fool or any other derogatory thing. By nature, this field also attracts other types of people, but we are not all made of one piece.
6. I would like to point out here that among those who are convinced that UFOs are real there are very serious people, including scientists including physicists, generals in several armies, military and civilian pilots, many astronauts, governors of states (American and at least one Russian) and even several presidents. I meet some of them every year at a world conference that takes place in February in Phoenix, Arizona. I travel there at my own expense with a deep feeling that this is the greatest story in human history that is hidden from the public for weighty reasons. Those who wish to know these reasons are brilliantly detailed in Richard Dolan's book AD After Disclosure published in 2010.
I know that I was not able to convince anyone from the "opposing camp" - paradigms do not shatter after a few keystrokes. All I ask is that you give us a little more respect when you realize that there are also thinking people on the other side.
Miracles
I apologize for the long responses, I hope at least someone finds interest in them.
I will answer your questions:
1. I don't know about more than one version - where does the information come from? I am familiar with the version that the FAA employee managed to hide from the CIA.
2. Again on the same topic: remember what happened to the pilot? He was transferred to the office...that's reason enough for the pilot to keep quiet.
3. I agree with you, but none of the phenomena you mentioned causes radar returns. If you are trying to explain a phenomenon, don't leave out the inconvenient facts for the theory.
4. Many film directors do research on observatories, such as Steven Spielberg in "Encounters of the Third Kind", and include motifs from the observatories in the films. In addition, the film you saw is a simulation, it may not be accurate.
5. What is your experience with radar screens? I have some experience with this, and I also saw a huge radar signature.
6. I won't even consider…
Miracles,
Censorship is not necessarily scientific but human, and therefore more serious than scientific, because it thrives not only on the scientific establishment and people who belong to it, but also on other bodies such as the police, the army, and any other human framework. I think this is a certain part of human behavior, that sometimes individuals are required by society to compromise their opinion, even if they are sure of its truth, for the purpose of belonging to the social collective. There are a few in society who are willing to go against these conventions. One of the mechanisms that maintain this censorship is mockery, as the point demonstrated in his responses, and you too in section 6 (don't you believe that Hayne created a radar signature on the ground radar?)
In addition, if the censorship were scientific, it could be changed more easily.
I didn't say you saw an alien, or a spaceship, but it is possible that your observation, or someone else's, could lead to new understandings regarding the nature of the universe (one of which could be a spaceship, or ball lightning, etc...) Therefore, it is important not to censor these cases, and to rise above human nature The one that makes us censor things that are not acceptable as social conventions.
Avi Cohen
There is no scientific censorship here in principle. What I saw was strange but for a moment I didn't think it was an alien...
The story of the Japanese plane is interesting. I have a few problems with this story:
1) There is more than one version of the audio recording. Someone fabricated something...
2) There were other crew members on the plane, why can't I find evidence of the other crew members?
3) There is no shortage of very strange phenomena at high altitude, especially in latitudes far from the equator. For example - the northern/southern lights. For example lightning from the clouds upwards.
4) The spaceships described are familiar to me from some movie....
5) I didn't see anything unusual in the picture of you in the best
6) The airplane cargo was lots and lots of wine……
I'm not saying it wasn't a visit from spaceships from another world. But logic (my) says that this is probably an atmospheric phenomenon….
Miracles,
The problem is different. Here, you yourself are testifying about an experience you had (I don't know if it's true or not, but let's assume it's true). You want to share this experience with others, and tell the experience to someone like a point.
Point, for reasons known only to him (or not), immediately accuses you of charlatanism and undermining the foundations of science, and does so with such fervor that you think that in a moment he will set you on fire at the stake.
What will happen to your story from here on out? You will not share this story with another person and certainly not with any scientific/official body.
Thus, a zeal that may seem to be intended to protect, according to Puntu's perception of science, only prevents science from getting the "whole picture", and there are perhaps thousands of other people who will feel the same way you do!
We have created a system here that creates independent censorship, which not only determines by itself what is acceptable and what is not, but perpetuates the situation by selecting the information that will reach the consciousness of the scientific establishment, without any need for secret organizations and conspiracies.
In addition, I ask you to watch the story of the Japanese pilot who reported a UFO and the price he paid for it was a transfer to an office position, and also the pilot authority investigator who investigated the case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P51LmirTJI8
There is more information on the web and YouTube: FLIGHT 1628 UFO
Kobe Elder
A) I didn't mention any 99.99% so what do you want from me?
b) I don't know this equation...I didn't find the reference. The Drake equation is refutable to me - there are assumptions there without any foundation. I don't know what you're after but I think there is life elsewhere. Only a fool would bet how many inhabited planets there are in our galaxy….
c) I think the nearest planet is around 20 light years.
d) I read report 14 cover to cover. I admit that I didn't delve into every table there, it's a bit boring... and it says exactly what I said - there is no reason to think that some of the observations that will be studied there are something alien...
Kobi - It really bothered me that they pulled one sentence out of a report while ignoring what the report specifically says. I personally think it shows a lack of integrity and I jumped at that.
Yossi Simon
Your calculation is wrong. I will go with you. A sequence of 20 amino acids and there are 64 different acids. 64 to the 20th power is 1.3 times 10 to the 36th power.
It sounds like a lot - but... there are 10 out of 30 bacteria in the world. If a bacterium lives for a month (a bacterium that is sent...) then for 100000 years it is enough for each bacterium to grill a sequence of bases once to randomly generate RNA as you wanted.
You wrote "Let's assume that everyone has the same chance to be created". So let's assume not. Let's assume there are 4 chains of 5 amino acids. Each such chain was created in a completely different process. 5 acids is 20 bases. 4 to the power of 20 is a trillion. And 4 assembly is 24. That means if a wave of bacteria in my body makes one attempt then there is a good chance of RNA formation in every person - once a month 🙂
Lanisim good evening.
I am still waiting for your concrete references to the following questions:
A. Where did the number 99.99% come from?
B. What is your position regarding the Netzer / Ben Best equation (see reference above)?
third. Do you know how far away from us is the nearest planetary system that has a planet in the habitable zone?
d. Have you ever seen "Special Report 14"? By the way, it is about 300 pages long. In case the raw material interests you, I am attaching here the link to a PDF document which is a scanned copy of this report. Fascinating material even for those who think that UFOs did not exist and were not created. http://ia700706.us.archive.org/31/items/ProjectBlueBookSpecialReport14/pbbsr14.pdf
Of course you don't have to answer me, but if you do, please try to do it in a more gentle and polite way, i.e. without triple question marks, no insulting nicknames, no unreasoned assertions like N.K.W.D.H. And this is for several reasons:
You don't know me, you don't know my age, what academic degrees I have, you don't know how many universities I attended, you don't know what I do and besides, in addition to all my faults, I have a weak heart and am easily offended.
Thanks in advance - Kobi
I personally would not get into a spaceship and fly millions of years to check if the wheat in Iowa has grown yet. It does not make sense. But it also doesn't make sense to me that we are the only ones (some of us at least), in an almost infinite universe, with intelligence.
Among the respondents - the Drake equation was mentioned here.
Note that the Drake equation does not attempt to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations in the universe, but rather the number of radio-emitting civilizations in the universe.
This is actually the big failure of the ST project. When you put numbers to your best judgment into the Drake equation, most scientists agree on a number between 10,000 and 1,000,000 intelligent civilizations. This is why a scientist like Fermi asked, so where are they?
The only one I've read who tries to give an approximate reasonable answer to this perplexing question is Ray Kurzweil. And his argument is simple.
Every intelligent civilization that reaches the stage of electromagnetic (radio) transmission advances at an ever-increasing rate, so that within 200-300 years, it no longer needs this type of transmission and it ascends a developmental stage (let's say, even gives up a biological lifestyle). When you search in a 14 billion year old universe, someone or someones broadcasting on the radio, a few hundreds of years old, exactly at the time you are looking for him, you get exactly the media silence that STE receives.
Dear Lansim!
2. You asked what is the probability of RNA formation?
As you know, it consists of 20 amino acids that are written in a code between 4 letters when it consists of three components. One of the ingredients is an organic base numbering four: adenine, sitolin, guanine, and uracil.
When the order determines the function of the protein just like the binary code of a computer program, now look at its length in terms of the number of molecules. And in terms of the order of the atoms.
Construct a set containing all possible chains of chained molecules. Let's assume that everyone has the same chance of being created).
Build a set of chains that match the definition of RNA and you will prove that the ratio between the number of members is less than 1 part (10 to the power of 100).
2. Without referring to your actual argument with Hanan, your arguments are not logical, and are not valid for example with a "non-serious scientist" as you defined, will present a simple mathematical proof of Fermat's theorem, then we will reject the proof.
3. Using nonsense and nonsense terms does not add to and strengthen a logical argument in any way. To remind you, for years Prof. Dan Shechtman (I hope I am not mistaken in his name) was called a derogatory term by senior scientists, and the end is known.
4. A person who uses his mouth to call those he disagrees with nonsense, so please respect him and let him present with a committee his skills in his abilities to solve thinking problems, solutions whose correctness can be verified. Like for example the matter with root years.
It is very possible that I agree with your opinion on the subject of aliens, but I was not able to get to the bottom of your opinion on the subject.
Hanan Sabat
what did I say? You took a serious study and pulled out one number from there that strengthens your claim, even though it is clearly written otherwise within the same study? What do I say to think of you?
Hanan, why is what I say wrong? I saw in myself a phenomenon that I cannot explain, and the truth is quite scary. I guess it was a lightning bolt... but I'm not convinced. But there's no reason in the world to assume it's an alien…..
Miracles - when a gentleman of your kind calls me a charlatan or advises me not to write here, I am not offended - I have no reason to be offended by someone who does not have a minimal culture of speech and certainly does not think of leaving this wonderful site, but I am surprised that they still give you a platform and do not block you from writing Here are your insults….
Hanan Sabat
You quoted from a study that shows, according to the authors of the study, that there is no evidence for UFOs. You chose one figure that at a certain stage of a long calculation shows, so to speak, that a significant percentage of the observations were not deciphered. The research has a sequel that you deliberately ignored, because it does not match your opinions.
It's not nice for you to have a mirror in your face, is it? Here you come if a winning quote shows you that you didn't understand the research (to say the least).
Hanan, I am not claiming for a second that there is no life in space. I personally strongly believe that there is. In the past, I was very interested in UFOs. I discovered several interesting things:
1) Serious scientists say that there is no evidence of alien visitation, as of today.
2) The alleged evidence that there were such visits does not match what I expect from such a visit.
3) There are many natural phenomena that are quite amazing….
4) There are physiological explanations for many phenomena, such as those people who are kidnapped, interrogated and returned.
5) Many (most?) of those who believe that such visits have evidence, also believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, km-trails, homeopathy and other nonsense.
6) Even when there is a study that shows A, there are people who believe that "not A". Why? See previous section.
If that offends you, then you don't belong on such a site.
Something to think about
Photos of the ocean floor made by google earth were recently published. Food for thought for all those trying to disprove the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial life
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2013/229/undersea-mystery-6.htm
The main question is, every time certain information is not convenient for the scientific mainstream, since it conflicts with the worldview and private beliefs of its people and may threaten their academic standing if they deal with it in public, do they go to the imagination drawer and bring up the thought exercise from there???
What would happen (and this is a thought exercise), if a senior lecturer were to present a lecture within, say, the Faculty of Physics at the Technion, under the title of a thought exercise, and present arguments that are not based on any reliable scientific research, but on his private beliefs, or on a quote from the Hebrew Wikipedia?
Why then, in front of the public, is it allowed to bring up "thought exercises" most of which advance arguments through statements and not through research? Is the public so ignorant and ignorant that it must receive information that originates from beliefs and feelings? Why is the public not allowed to hear about official scientific studies conducted in the field and to discuss them publicly, even if these are controversial?
Why does the public have to hear the same recycled information every time, which consistently ignores research and is based on beliefs. Is the repetition of familiar mantras such as "there are no scientific studies on UFOs"; "UFO studies based on photographs"; "All the evidence has been proven to be hallucinations", "99.99% of all cases have been proven to be wrong" and so on, incorrect and unfounded information, will only establish these perceptions in the public?
The following article was also published at the time, except that there at least Dr. Tsenza admits that it is all based on his private belief... But I ask myself - is the purpose of websites, institutes and universities to promote thought exercises and beliefs, while ignoring existing studies (even if these studies are objectionable ?):
https://www.hayadan.org.il/why-there-are-probebly-no-aliens-080412/
The "Scientists' Night" framework is an exceptional framework, the goal of which is to bring the public closer to the world of science. But is what we saw here the use of the objective scientific approach to present a subject, or ignoring all the rules of scientific research, scientific objectivity and the scientific method?
Hanan Sabat
Co-chairman, the Israeli association for the study of UFOs and extraterrestrial life
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
Does Prof. Yoav Yair have a "match" in the universe or in the solar system? (thought exercise)
According to the professor's considerations arising from probability calculations, the answer in his opinion is yes. And it can be assumed that nowhere does Prof. Yoav Mertzah match at the moment, for the moment when the wild man will invade the open cauldron where he carries out his research.
I do not understand how Yoav Yair states in the decisive ruling that there is indeed a planet containing life such as the Earth.
The problem is wording and language. Let him say "I believe...", "I believe... ". I (Yossi) personally also believe (that there is life/that there is no life) beyond the earth.
According to the article, it relies on individual parameters such as the number of solar systems for example, but there is not even one mention that expresses how many necessary conditions exist at any given moment that allow life to exist on Earth.
Even if there is a certain life form, how confident is it that the universe in which this life form spends its time is compatible with the structure of our universe (according to the current physical model), maybe there are life forms that do not need food, like merciful demons?
"Intelligent life"
I have no idea where the insight comes from, because only man is gifted with an intelligent life,
First it is necessary to define well this concept in general and the concept of reason in particular. I do not rule out the possibility that the ant is gifted with intelligence more than a human. It is known that plants also decipher reality and communicate with each other.
If we take a newborn baby, we will cut him off from the developed world, and abandon him among monkeys in a remote forest. After twenty years, hoping that he survives, we will examine where his wisdom led him. I'm convinced that he won't even store food for the nest.
Regarding probabilities and quantum theory, according to my understanding, the atomic disintegration occurs according to its conditions (known/or unknown). Probability expresses the observer's ability to guess the decay/place of the electron or other occurrences but has no control.
point
Some reminders from history. When the first trains were developed, there was someone who said that no train could travel at a speed greater than 40 km/h because the air would be sucked out of it. Towards the end of the 19th century, one of the great physicists, Lord Kelvin, said that all the discoveries in physics had already been discovered and then came relativity and quantum theory. In 1903 (or 1909 I don't remember exactly) there was someone who said that no body heavier than air can rise up and fly. In the same year the Wright brothers flew the first airplane. Meanwhile. Aviation has evolved a bit. A little more than 20 years ago, a man named Drexler claimed that it was possible to build devices made of atoms. He was kicked out of every university. Today this subject is at the forefront of industrial research and development. This is called nano machines. There is a book about his story in Hebrew.. In Ort there is at least one textbook on the subject. In the 19th century there was a writer in France named Jules Warren. One of his books was The Flight to the Moon. I assume you have heard of this author and read him. In England in the 19th century there was a mathematician named Babbage who designed the first computer. He was the only one who discussed this topic at that time. This computer was built from wooden gears. A few years ago a group of researchers built this computer in practice with the materials that were in use at that time. The computer does work and is able to calculate up to 15 places after the point. And a bit of distant history in the 1st century, there was a mathematician and physicist named Heron in Alexandria who actually built the first steam engine. All that remains is to think in the most logical way who is delusional and who is not. I hope you can do it.
By the way, I just want to clarify one thing - the Drake equation assumes that 100% of the planets where life can develop (that is, planets that are in the life zone) did indeed develop life.
This is a very, very problematic figure.
In our solar system, there are about 4 bodies that supposedly have the potential for life to develop,
And yet only one of them developed life and it exists today (probably).
All four of these bodies are in the habitable zone of the solar system, all are Earth-like planets or moons, and 3 of the four have atmospheres. And yet only one of them has developed life and a developed ecosystem today.
So apparently there are many other factors here - such as the existence of plate tectonics that stabilizes the greenhouse gases, a magnetic field that prevents the escape of the atmosphere, and many other factors that must exist in order for life to exist.
In addition, if life is indeed discovered in Europa, then the Drake equation can be thrown into the trash - because apparently the existence of large moons around gas giants is much more common than the existence of Earth-like planets where all the delicate conditions for the existence of chemistry of life are met.
Such a system of life, on the moons as in Europe, is much easier to preserve than a system that depends on the position of the planet around its sun, and on a delicate balance of greenhouse gases, etc.
On the other hand, if most life really exists on Europa-like moons around gas giants, then this provides an answer to the Fermi paradox - most life in the universe simply does not know of the existence of a universe outside of the vast ice sheets that surround the oceans in which they live.
We just have to hope that we are the ones who found the aliens and not the other way around, otherwise our chances of surviving as a race are probably zero.
To the honorable Mr. Nissim, something about truth and lies:
In time reversals, it is possible for one to see a tree and one to see a house, and this is not true and false, only parallel worlds, which are positioned according to those who know how to deal with it. (Go look for people) With respect
Living sane people object to a small number of delusional people making a lot of noise and slandering the rest of the people.
Miracles
With somber grief I have to say you didn't understand the saying. Try to delve deeper and think in terms of psychology and social psychology. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to get to the root of things. Think you're Goffman and/or Ann Marshall McMahon and/or Robert Merton.
The "resistance" of the opponents of UFOs comes from the resistance to lies. You think someone doesn't want to see aliens??? 🙂
Looking a little from the side, the sum of all reactions and counter-reactions is very large. That alone is worth research in itself. Is there anyone who is ready to pick up the gauntlet. The appropriate field is probably communication - how are the reactions received on a controversial topic and what are the patterns of reactions to the controversial topic on other controversial topics. Also.
And as a matter of fact, she said that I heard many years ago where the opposition of the opponents of UFOs came from - the one who peeps does not like being peeped at.
Hanan Sabat There are more reports from children about monsters than there are reports from alien enthusiasts about aliens.
Nissim - it's a shame that you hide behind casual nicknames, but calling someone a "charlatan" is slander of the lowest kind, but apparently a cultural discussion is beyond your mental abilities... The oral development…
I must say that I am amazed every time by the poor level of some of the commenters... especially those who have not yet been released
point:
dont worry.
I'm not confusing probability with probability and I'm talking about probability.
There are things in the real and deterministic world where it is appropriate to incorporate probability into dealing with them, and if you don't believe that, you are welcome to face me in the games as I mentioned.
I do think that all the calculations about the probability of life on other planets in the current state of knowledge are bullshit, but this does not change the above fact and as a result it also does not change the fact that the sweeping generalization you made (and you also included the meteor in it to make it clear to us that you are really confused because calculating the chances A meteor strike is a logical thing to do) is not correct.
I read the entire report. The summary is in the body of the report and is certainly not intended for fools. Like I said... you chose something that is convenient for you and pulled out a given name.
There is a lot of data there. These data have been summarized in a table. Finally - the tables were summarized in a few paragraphs. But you, like any charlatan, choose what you think represents what you believe a priori.
Whoever wrote the report is not an idiot. He looked for an explanation for what he saw in the graphs and investigated the unknown cases. And the conclusion of all the authors of the report is what I wrote.
I'm sorry I confused you with the facts. It always annoys charlatans….
Read the report itself, dear Nissim, and go through the summarizing tables... Not the verbal summary intended for fools and journalists....
Hanan Sabat
You must not have read the report yourself... that's pretty obvious. So here is the summary:
Thus, the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this
study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small, since the
most complete and reliable reports from the present data, when isolated.
and studied, conclusively failed to reveal even a rough model, and since
the data as a whole failed to reveal any marked patterns or trends.
Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is
considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified i
aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technology
cal developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge
Successfully…..
Hanan Sabat
In the 14th report that you mention, things are written that are very different from what you are saying. Out of 4000 cases they checked there are 12 that are possibly spaceships. But - there is no correlation between these 12, meaning that each one describes a different "spaceship". Therefore, the report states that there is no reason to think that there is even one sighting of a spacecraft...
Do you have an explanation for your story? Or are you going to apologize for wasting people's time with your nonsense? who am i kidding You must have a wonderful excuse…..
As I argued a point - the problem of the reluctance to deal with a scientific study of the phenomenon, originates from a psychological problem. Here, too, you raise a series of arguments without any factual or research basis, emerging directly from the world of imagination and hubris...
Miracles - allow me to ignore your slanders, which at best stem from pure ignorance.
And Michael,
Do not confuse probability with probability.
Probability is a number determined by calculations and considerations of symmetry or empirical results and assumptions of symmetry to future events.
And this means that in order to calculate a probability we need either to have the knowledge to calculate it (which is equivalent to knowing all the processes that lead to the event and their probabilistic weights), or to have a great many results that we can apply to what we want to calculate.
These two do not exist when it comes to calculating the explanations for the creation of life, and certainly not for intelligent life.
All that remains to be asked is whether it is reasonable. And it is likely a more subjective matter than a scientific one because it is based on personal beliefs and worldviews.
In any case, regarding life, we assume that it was created once on Earth, and intelligent life was also created once (and as Nissim emphasized that of all living forms, only we are intelligent), so it would certainly be reasonable to think that it is unlikely that there would be life elsewhere. until proven otherwise.
Hanan, UFO = unidentified object. And as such, there are many, many objects in our world that those who do not deal with them do not recognize them.
The onlooker is dumbfounded by the pathological eagerness of monster fans to defend their fantasies about all kinds of strange creatures. It seems more like some imaginary friend they were missing in childhood.
They like to appropriate the delusions about obemim as if they are responsible for the truth, when in fact nothing else besides obemim is of particular interest to them. This fact also adds to the ridiculousness of all those eager for imaginary friends.
Father, please block all delusions of all kinds. Let them go to the sites they deserve.
Hanan Sabat
Project Blue Book unequivocally stated that there are no UFOs. Some of the observations have not been deciphered, but the report states that there is no reason to think that a) they represent unknown technology and b) that they point to something that came from space.
So stop being a charlatan. You select a small chapter from the report and see that in this small chapter there are relatively more unsolved cases. Your method is called cherry picking and many idiots fall into this trap. no names……
And for those who know how to throw numbers into space:
18.5% of all the studies reviewed in Report No. 14 of the Blue Book remain "unidentified" and open for research.
Between 30% and 50% of all cases investigated in the Condon report remain "unidentified" and open to research...
It is appropriate to do homework before casually scattering numbers... all the arguments about 99.99 percent and other nonsense, these are pure inventions and distortions. There is no research that has proven this...
Avi - the "Blue Book" project, conducted by the American Air Force in collaboration with the BMI Institute; The University of Colorado study (Condon report), the COMETA study and many others are studies that are "in the minds of UFO enthusiasts"?????
Have you heard of these official scientific studies ????
Hanan Sabat
Adi Zohar
what are you trying to say??? Where does the stupidity come from that we do not communicate with tribes in Papua-Guinea? I actually think that we are guilty of over-communication with the members of these tribes... and it is possible that we should not communicate with members of other stars either...
apology
Dear Yoav. I apologize immediately for the two failures that I attributed to you for not being unfair to you, and would like to open a new page with you in our intellectual relations. I would like to receive from you (or try to) the source for the 99.99% number that appeared in the article (regardless of the blue book that I am citing to support my argument). Such a number has a bewitching effect on people's minds and conveys to them that in fact everything is far-fetched when the situation in reality is very far from that. I would be happy to provide you with serious sources for the number I mentioned in my previous response.
And to Nissim's response regarding the humor hidden in the Drake equation - you can't hold a stick at both ends. Either you accept the assumptions that the mainstream science assumes when it refers to the subject (Drake is the darling of this community) or you don't. The method of throwing off the discussion table any claim that does not fit the paradigm will not take us far. And a little to expand the topic: in the book by Hagi Netzer (Professor of Astrophysics at Tel Aviv University) and Ami Ben Best "Journey to Reason" (1999) they set up another equation that comes to the conclusion that 40 million civilizations have been created in our galaxy since its creation (p. 150). They even point out that even if they are wrong by a factor of 100 it is still about half a million civilizations. Yoav cautiously settled for 1000 …….
For the purpose of encouraging the discussion, I am attaching a trivia question: at what distance is the closest solar system to the earth (as far as we know at this moment), how many planets revolve around it and is there any planet among them that is in the zone that allows life as we know it?
This lecture is tainted with globalocentrism (belief in the centrality of the earth in the universe) just like the wrong paradigm that was accepted in the past that "the sun revolves around the earth". Have we humans tried to communicate with germs or with a sophisticated processor. Despite Kepler's recent discoveries, where does the confidence come from that the composition of possible intelligent life will be based on the common materials in the universe and therefore similar to us? Unfortunately we are not in the center of the universe and not even in the center of our galaxy: the "Milky Way". In fact, we are in the "Orion" arm of the galaxy, 26,000 light years away from its center, which is denser in stars. It is much further than a remote tribe in Papua Guinea from Tel Aviv and we do not try to communicate with the members of this tribe even once in a hundred years even though we are sure they are there and even that they are "intelligent".
Yoav Yair
The only thing I don't agree with is the reference to the UN Security Council... Not exactly a functioning body unfortunately 🙁
First of all, the lecture is very interesting and its approach is refreshing. Many thanks to Prof. Yoav Yair and also to Avi Blizovsky who published the things.
To Hanan and the other complainants:
I really don't understand you, you should be the first to congratulate an article like the one below. Finally there is a person from the "scientific establishment" who comes and says, let's really see what can be innovated on this subject following all the latest scientific discoveries. Although this is only a kind of "theoretical exercise" and also a popular science lecture, the small but significant step that Prof. Yair has taken here is to be congratulated.
And you, instead of congratulating, come with complaints... think ahead a little, and you will realize that "deceivers and opponents of the UFO and extraterrestrial theories" must have come out against the article, and now you also apparently "supporters of the UFO and extraterrestrial theories" are coming out against it... so what conclusion will Prof. Yair and others have that "Just thought" to follow him? It's not worth dealing with the issue at all, because you get less and less!
Without having anything to do with my personal views on the subject, you came out not wise, neither in science nor in the way of the land or in politics...
I mentioned Area 51 because I wanted to refer a link to an important article from two weeks ago about the disclosure of details about Area 51 and the denial of connection to aliens.
It was possible to give up on it and settle for the link below.
my father
Thanks for the grade on logic \ accusations of lies... she just asked things that I didn't say at all in the lecture. And it was precisely my father's agile keyboard that wrote them. I didn't talk about Area 51 and the Blue Book at all - I talked about MUFON and showed graphs that the amount of reports is continuously increasing - but I ruled out the possibility that we are under attack. Of course, these are subtleties that those who were not at the lecture cannot know, and at this time of desire on Yom Kippur\ I forgive the slanderers
Kobe Elder
A. Today we have no reason to be convinced that there is life elsewhere in our galaxy. The Drake equation is a joke - a small part of the parameters are indeed known, but for the rest of the parameters we have no idea what their value is. He says that 100% of the stars that are suitable for life will actually develop life. We have no reason to think so. After that he says that 10-20% of them will develop intelligent life. Hmmmmmmm... There are something like 10 million species today, which is about a percent of the species that existed. That means one species in a billion thinks it is intelligent…..
Regarding the evidence for the aliens that were here - I would say that 99.99% has been disproved and 0.01% has yet to be disproved. There is no reason to think otherwise.
There were no UFOs in Area 51, as c. Yafit Orat, N.K.V.D.H.
Why on earth do you think science is against aliens? What science opposes is the lies of those who bring "evidence" of alien visits. I'm dying to meet an alien 🙂
My dear father.
First of all, this is an opportunity to thank you for the wonderful work you do on your site, I browse it often and learn a lot from it. In my opinion, the phenomenon of UFOs and its effect on human society does not receive the place it deserves in your eyes, but as someone who has been dealing with the subject for many years, I also understand the reasons very well and this is not the place to go into detail.
As someone who is convinced that UFOs are a real phenomenon that has been accompanying humanity for many years, I found many points of light in your current article summarizing Prof. Yair's lecture and I detail:
A. There is life somewhere in the solar system or the universe (in addition to life on Earth, of course).
B. With reference to the Drake equation, it is conservative to assume that there are a thousand places in the galaxy that have a communication technology culture on them.
third. There is a possibility that there are extraterrestrials who observe us and do not interfere, and moreover - they may have invaded here in the past and we are the result of the invasion.
d. Prof. Yair is well versed in characterizing the types of encounters (according to the Heink scale) with the exception of a slight variation on the fifth type (and there is also a sixth)
God. An encounter with extraterrestrials could be fatal for humanity, the belief in the good intentions of invading extraterrestrials is naive.
and. In relation to SETI it is possible that extraterrestrials do not transmit on the radio at all
G. We are not ready (to meet aliens)
Certainly not bad loot for a mainstream physicist.
Every basic lecture given by professional ufologists contains these points, and it seems that Prof. Yair's involvement in the STS 107 shuttle mission exposed him quite a bit to the field.
Where does he "screw up" despite everything?
A. The statement that 99.99% or more of the reports can be given simple explanations is simply a gross lie, and in light of Prof. Yair's orientation in the other topics of the phenomenon, I can only assume that he does so consciously. Even the "Blue Book" project that took place in the USA between the years 52-69 and was managed by a "committee" failed to provide plausible explanations for about 30% of the reports it examined! . This percentage is also preserved in the tens of thousands of reports that are made today in the world every year!
B. The statement that the CIA's publications about the happenings in Area 51 and the conclusion that it follows that the place has no connection to UFO matters would have given him a failing grade in the logic course in the first year and since I am convinced that this is a very intelligent person, I am sure that he does not really think so.
(To all the demons and aliens, how can one conclude from a statement by a government body that denied the existence of the place for decades that it is engaged in action A there that it is not engaged in action B there?)
So what is really going on here? From what I understand Shitin, I understand that Prof. Yair is much closer in his positions to those of the American astrophysicist Prof. Michio Kaku (if you want, I will send you links) who clearly sympathizes with the positions of UFOlogists and who claims that we are a tiny bit away from finding the "smoking gun" that will prove to the general public that the phenomenon of the thick Water is real. I conclude that the two failures attributed to Prof. Yair's duty are an expression of the need for self-defense against his predatory colleagues in the academy who would be happy to tear him to pieces if he only dared to publicly smash the statue of denial that was proudly placed in the Hall of Science.
Happy New Year to all of us.
Hanan, friends - if you were at the lecture, I'm sure you would have enjoyed it. The position I presented actually supported the possibility that there are advanced civilizations and did not at all rule out the possibility that they are indeed on their way here. I presented arguments for the different possibilities of touch and how the very touch heralds their absolute superiority. This was not a "conservative position" but on the contrary, a somewhat subversive approach, which says: let's assume what happens if an event with a very, very, very low probability (but not zero) does occur.
Boaz
What are you talking about??? Look how beautiful they entered the Syrians when they attacked with gas!!! Men among men!!!
I would not let the UN take care of a stray dog...
The fact that in the case of violent aliens, someone trusts the UN Security Council, it really sounds like a good joke.
Hanan, first of all he used the best available scientific knowledge, that which does not exist except in the minds of the supporters of the obim is not scientific knowledge.
Second, it is a popular science event for the general public.
Yossi - the words of my friend, Prof. Yair simply do not pass the test of scientific research. Prof. Yair ignores all the research that exists in this field, all the projects and testimonies and a huge variety of published official information.
There is no question of mocking here, but on the contrary, I find it rather puzzling the insistence of the scientific mainstream in Israel, to ignore research and advance arguments through statements. It is possible that the problem is more psychological than research, since this is an article that is all indeed a thought exercise, but which is based on nothing but imagination and private beliefs and at the same time ignores a lot of scientific information that exists in this field.
I'm interested in what grade a student or PhD student would receive from Prof. Yair, if he were to submit such an article, based solely on imaginary theories, while completely ignoring research information.
Hanan Sabat
Joseph
Chariots of the Gods contains a theory and collects fabricated facts to fit the theory. The idea of aliens is of course not stupid, but the lies surrounding it are extremely stupid.
And just a question - what exactly is the probability of RNA formation? I did not find this figure anywhere ……
And no one rules out panspermia.
There are areas such as aliens where no conclusive evidence can be found. Even so, a book like Chariots of the Gods deserves to be written, and it opens the mind to a renewed interpretation of the various mythologies. There should be people like Professor Yair who deal with such unfunded issues. Enough mocking.
Today we do not know about aliens, but the probability of the formation of RNA is too low for the age of the earth, so panspermia at least cannot be ruled out.
point:
Probability is a great way to relate to the unknown.
The truth is that apparently there really are probabilities in the universe (as suggested by most interpretations of quantum theory) but even without these probabilities, the term "probability" can be seen as a representation of the uncertainty arising from our limited knowledge.
In light of your words, I would very much like to compete against you (for big money) in various games in considerations for choosing the right step involving probability, when you undertake not to consider considerations of this type.
The outcome of this contest has already been decided and I even know what it is.
If the aliens have technological advances like us, then they cannot transmit to us. If they advance a million years, then they use communication techniques that we cannot receive with any equipment we have today. They won't come here because they are probably made of molecules similar to ours, but not exactly, and Earth will be extremely toxic to them. So what's left?
Intelligent life is not a matter of probability. It is a process that either happens or it doesn't.
We live in a deterministic world. The meteor that hit and wiped out the dinosaurs was not a matter of probability. He had to hit because of his position and speed and the physical laws that apply to him. There was no probability in that.
The same train of thought can be applied to many events that took place, without which there would have been no room for the creation of humans.
Therefore, there is no probability of creating intelligent life. There is only a given physical condition that leads to it or does not lead to it.
If they don't want to be found out, they had no problem hiding themselves. Of course they don't need light and sound shows to get rid of us and if they don't want to hide themselves why don't they just make official contact. In any case, if they come here to conquer us, I propose to voluntarily enslave them
They are watching us. Search for STS 088 on Google and read the background to this object that has surrounded us for decades and was first discovered by Nikola Tesla (the signals it transmits were discovered. The object itself was first seen by NASA) and is known as the "Dark Knight". If the pictures look like Pibrook to you, then you are invited to see them on NASA's website:
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=STS088&roll=724&frame=66
Try to write 66 instead of 65. Then also try 67, 68, 69 (a little hard to see), 70.
Note that 71 has been deleted...
My friend Prof. Yoav Yair as usual, and how expected, once again reproduces to the public arguments that lack any research basis... But let's…
By the way, NASA has long since published a complete study for such a case and not SETI, whose entire contribution to humanity amounts to one screen saver...
Hanan Sabat
The Israeli Association for UFO Research
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL