Kevin's Watch

Loremaster wrote:

Esmer wrote:One of my pet theories is that it's humans from the future trying to avoid our inevitable extinction.

That is a cool theory. Do you ever read about John Titor?

Wasn't there a thread about him here awhile back? I remember some mention of the (internet?) "phenomena" about him?

Esmer wrote:

Loremaster wrote:

Esmer wrote:One of my pet theories is that it's humans from the future trying to avoid our inevitable extinction.

That is a cool theory. Do you ever read about John Titor?

Wasn't there a thread about him here awhile back? I remember some mention of the (internet?) "phenomena" about him?

Yeah, I think I started that thread. Interesting phenomena. If it was a hoax, the guy who did it put a hell of a lot of effort into it.

I think it is possible we have been visited, but I havent seen any evidence that convinces me of it. The thing that gets me is that is was only about 68 years between Kitty Hawk and The moon landing. That itself is amazing and shows that we cannot imgaine what is possible.

Think of what would be possible in 100 years (if we don't blow ourselves up, that is).

for this same reason, I think SETI might be a waste of time. I doubt ET Uses radio frequencies or even light to communicate. I think that in 100 years we will be using pricipals of quantum entaglement or some other instant communication trick that has no ability to be tracked or detected. that doesn't seem too far fetched.

The question is, would they be looking at those frequencies to find us, or do they even care?

As far as aliens among us, hell we are still discovering new species all of the time. I dont think it would take much for them to fool us.


But then there is fermi's paradox: If there is life out there, where are they?

Esmer wrote:One of my pet theories is that it's humans from the future trying to avoid our inevitable extinction.

I had heard something like this before. There is a theory that suggests that the "aliens" or "UFOs" we see from time to time are not from another planet but are humans from the distant future. I guess the idea assumes that its easier to travel through time than it is to travel between stars or galaxies. Great ideas for science fiction. Not too sure any of it holds water. Of course it certainly would be cool if we were dealing with time travelers knowing at some point in the future we would become them. Sort of reinforces the notion that the human race will survive to evolve beyond what we now find familiar.

If there are time travellers from the future, then obviously we don't risk extinction. Because how could they go back to prevent it if it had happened?

--A

Avatar wrote:If there are time travellers from the future, then obviously we don't risk extinction. Because how could they go back to prevent it if it had happened?

--A

Well, maybe prevent a disaster.

Puh-lease. If alien life forms have never visited Earth how do you hope to explain Sgt Null?!

Marv wrote:Puh-lease. If alien life forms have never visited Earth how do you hope to explain Sgt Null?!

Poor Null.

There are stranger things in heaven and on Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies...



--A

'In my father's house are many mansions'

- John 14

I voted 'don't know', but I personally am marginally inclined to think it likely that sometime in the age of the Earth (currently understood to be 4,600,000,000 years) - which is reckoned at perhaps one third the age of the Universe itself, there has been contact with alien life. (Assuming that there IS alien life, which IMO is considerably more likely).

Okay, I realise that the whole age of the Universe thing is a bit iffy, but upon what else are we to base our suppositions that is better than contemporary astronomical theory? So given for the sake of argument that the Earth has been in existance for 1/3 as long as the Universe itself, and as long as there is tons of life out there (albeit ludicrously distant from us), there has been ample time for some serious technological advancement among life forms that may have achieved sentiency, say, 5 billion, 6 billion, 7 billion years ago and equally ample time for some fairly extensive eons of universe-cartography, exploration, colonisation, tourist development - you name it - amongst the universe's more mature resident species. If the universe can expand by billions of light-years in that amount of time, I think it's safe to assume that some of its earliest children have been expanding not that far behind it. well, that's my anyway!

Sorry, that last post was a bit off topic!

Ur-Monkey, the issue is complicated by Stellar Fusion. It is unlikely intelligent life would have evolved earlier in the universe's age, as there were fewer elements (like Iron, Carbon, etc) made by stars. As the universe has aged, those elements are produced and in greater quantities. I really doubt we would have intelligent life say 1 billion years after the big bang (even up to 7b), as it is almost impossible for lightweight elements such as hydrogen, helium, etc, to form chains of molecules that allow life to arise.

You could say that the start of the window of opportunity for life is roughly around the birth of our sun.

Yeah, I see your point...but don't some stars (especially supernovae that produce heavier elements) have a much shorter lifespan than our own, small but stable, sun? And if so, couldn't there have been notably more generations of the nebulae-stars-supernovae-nebula cycle before our solar system developed?

ur-monkey wrote:Yeah, I see your point...but don't some stars (especially supernovae that produce heavier elements) have a much shorter lifespan than our own, small but stable, sun? And if so, couldn't there have been notably more generations of the nebulae-stars-supernovae-nebula cycle before our solar system developed?

Correct. However, many of the stars that were generated in the early times of the universe still exist - the universe is populated with these ancients. So there have been less cycles to manufacture heavier elements.