4merper4mer

Religion has zero to do with this. It is easy to believe both God and aliens are real, only one of them is real or that neither is real. You make a good point about the possibility of other dimensions but that isn't what I mean when discussing aliens,. I mean aliens from our known universe. It is far from self important to look at facts rather than hope or supposition. The fact is that we have been listening for signals for decades. We've detected information from billions of years ago, millions of years ago, thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago and from present day. We've done so while looking in every direction. We have gathered an incredible amount of data and zero bytes of that data indicate anything alien in origin. The point isn't that we can ever know that something doesn't exist. We can't. But if the universe was teeming with life we would know by now even using our relatively crude technology. We would have known within minutes of detecting our first signals from space. That is math, not self importance. The more we listen and the less we hear, the more likely it is that we're alone. Every minute that goes by without detecting anything proves over and over again the extreme rarity of intelligent life out there. It is very clear that the existence of intelligent life in any given place is like hitting the lottery. And we hit it. This isn't like the Powerball though. Think of having to hit the right 100 numbers and the Powerball from a pool of a trillion numbers,. It appears to be something like that. Sorry. I only saw about 5 episodes of the show and one had Drake's equation in it. None of them had his mother.

Sheldon is a proponent of Drake's equation which is why I call it sitcom math.

Lol a cave man drew something. 11 seconds is an eternity and yet staring at the heavens via SETI and other boondoggles has yielded in 40 years. Next up : 40 years is nothing even though 11 seconds is eternity. That should be another mathematical hoot.

I acknowledge all parts of the equation, not just the ones that fit my "belief".

Keep that mind closed and keep focusing on denominators and ignoring numerators.

You need to keep reading the earlier parts of this thread because you are using sitcom math to make your point when in reality it refutes your point. How many planets have been found in the habitable zones that do not have at least one giant disqualifier for being truly earth like? That number is zero. What is zero times 100 baziliondy trillion? You are correct that there are likely vastly more which are undiscovered. Establishing the rarity of Earth is currently an impossible task but something called the rare Earth hypothesis explains that the rarity of Earth is very likely a mirror image to the enormity of the number of planets out there. Couple that with the complete lack of any detected signal, add a pinch of Occum's Shaver and you have a recipe for the most likely reality.

Keep believing Trekkies. But ignore that Spock dude who stresses logic.

You are a true believer. Of course things can't totally be ruled out but to say what he used wasn't math is simply denial. The overall point is we are never going to find them because we haven't already. And you left out the part where Kurzweil in fact thinks we're alone.

Pretty much the same math I used:

I didn't protest any math. I used it. You've used unfounded mockery thus far. Pursuit of the truth sometimes leads us to results that disappoint. Whether exhilarating or disappointing, the results of logic are always instructive. Try using it and listening to it some time soon. It was a discussion in this thread and it should be easier to find than currency conversion tables.

As I've stated multiple times, it is in this very thread on pages in the 20-40 range.

That's clever. Did you read the math? I'm eager to hear your refutation.

Math has shown that there are no life forms elsewhere in the universe capable of communicating with Earth. Those have been the goal posts since early in this thread and haven't moved. The basis of the thread is UFOs so it should be clear we aren't talking about microbes or monkeys, although the math is starting to pile up against the existence of the latter off Earth as well.

I like everything I hear except the part where he spoke with free agents we were considering. He certainly didn't convince any decent player to join because none did.

Shirley. Redefining intelligent is a desperation heave. We're talking about being intelligent enough to send signals into space. Whales or Dolphins don't cut it and Canadians count as human. It's not closed minded. It's math.

He really is pathetic.

How much infinite is enough infinite?

The first 90% of your post is unnecessary because I have no argument with it and agree with it. At no point have I made an argument against it or anything like it. The part starting with "Nah" reminds me of the monkeys covering their eyes, ears and mouths in memes and such. The previous sentence is where your argument fails. It isn't a matter of "thinking" when something has been proven. 2+2 is 4 whether someone has learned it or not. Basic math is all that is needed to discern that a search for aliens will forever remain fruitless. If you choose to actively avoid it, that does not erase its existence or somehow make it false.

Whoa. Try to focus. Paragraph 1:. I have no argument which says we have learned everything about math; or science for that matter. You clearly haven't read the earlier parts of this thread. We hadn't discovered Higgs Boson until recently. Did I state or even think it was fake? No. Why? Math. Aliens don't exist and relatively simple math is all that is needed to determine that. I think that's a bummer but I don't get emotional about it. The rest:. If you accept time as linear, which is at least somewhat in question, we're still learning how to do things. We are using math and science to learn. One of the things we've learned is that we are the only ones learning. You are disagreeing with things I'm not even saying. Go back to the earlier parts of this thread, I believe around pages 20-40, if you want to understand what I'm saying.

So you've reviewed the math in this thread? What part of it seems incorrect to you?

You can do all the research you need to realize your oversight right here in this thread. There are other places as well. Nice desperation gotcha heave with the "we are aliens" bit. I'm sure you're joking but in case not I'll just clarify that I meant humans are the only intelligent species. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me but disagreeing with math seems futile.

I get all of that but I thought you were making an obtuse joke because Fillmore was named after a duck and ducks can't talk. I re-emphasized that the other Presidents serving before the microphone also made no mistakes speaking into one. This bolsters your refutation whether or not you were joking about ducks.

Sorry for the confusion about the math. I can see how you misunderstood what I meant. I was not referring to the 115 thing as dumb as it is. I was in fact saying math is not an opinion in reference to the existence of aliens. The math is clearly spelled out in earlier pages of this thread. I fondly refer to it as sitcom math at this point. I share many people's interest in outer space and have mixed feelings on the value of modern space travel. Ultimately is will be necessary for the survival of the species, I'm just not sure if the stuff we are doing today provides true value. We will need several quantum leaps in our knowledge to be able to travel the immense distances we face. Does piddling around with rovers on Mars that cost billions advance that cause more than funneling those billion into advancing simulations and observations made from Earth? I honestly don't know. What I do know, and what anyone being honest with themselves also knows, is that finding another advanced civilization amongst the stars is not going to happen. It has been mathematically eliminated more emphatically than a baseball team that is 23 games out of a playoff berth on September 30.

Cruz getting banned from Twitter in 3...2...

I agree that your post provided an incomplete refutation. I'm glad to help out.