We just shoot them down, then send an Engineer into them.Darkhelmet wrote:
Or, what if they have giant walkers like in War of the Worlds (H.G. Wells)?
Except we can. Unless we're lacking big chunks of knowledge in our understanding of basic physics and chemistry, any life found is going to conform to one of very few possible (for it to exhibit the properties of life) chemical make-ups.SenorToenails wrote:
This is a neat topic of discussion, even if we can't 'begin to fathom' what aliens might be like.xBlackPantherx wrote:
That works better. But, still, odds are that we couldn't begin to fathom what actually beings would be like beyond bacterium and very small, simple organisms.SenorToenails wrote:
Or he could simply mean "extraterrestrial".
I agree with you.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Except we can. Unless we're lacking big chunks of knowledge in our understanding of basic physics and chemistry, any life found is going to conform to one of very few possible (for it to exhibit the properties of life) chemical make-ups.
How do you know there aren't elements/ways or scenarios for living that we don't know about??SenorToenails wrote:
I agree with you.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Except we can. Unless we're lacking big chunks of knowledge in our understanding of basic physics and chemistry, any life found is going to conform to one of very few possible (for it to exhibit the properties of life) chemical make-ups.
Because as I said, there would have to be massive holes in our understanding of how things work for that to be true. Massive, galaxy sized holes.xBlackPantherx wrote:
How do you know there aren't elements/ways or scenarios for living that we don't know about??SenorToenails wrote:
I agree with you.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Except we can. Unless we're lacking big chunks of knowledge in our understanding of basic physics and chemistry, any life found is going to conform to one of very few possible (for it to exhibit the properties of life) chemical make-ups.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-03-20 10:42:15)
There very well could be, though I doubt it. But as far as our understanding of life is concerned, there are fewer possibilities than you might think.xBlackPantherx wrote:
How do you know there aren't elements/ways or scenarios for living that we don't know about??
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-03-20 10:48:15)
So with this you say that "life" in this case is the only one based on the human perception of it? Sir, you are wrong if you assume this. Maybe there is more than Carbon based life out there, but if the "scientists" continue saying that there is no life rather than Carbon based, they are also wrong.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Because as I said, there would have to be massive holes in our understanding of how things work for that to be true. Massive, galaxy sized holes.xBlackPantherx wrote:
How do you know there aren't elements/ways or scenarios for living that we don't know about??SenorToenails wrote:
I agree with you.
Maybe this is off topic, but human knowledge is getting closer to it's limits. The difference of human and wild life is that wild life evolves around his environment, humans change it at their pleasure thus not evolving.
Just my 2 cents.
Sorry, did I say anything about only carbon based life forms?Yaocelotl wrote:
So with this you say that "life" in this case is the only one based on the human perception of it? Sir, you are wrong if you assume this. Maybe there is more than Carbon based life out there, but if the "scientists" continue saying that there is no life rather than Carbon based, they are also wrong.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Because as I said, there would have to be massive holes in our understanding of how things work for that to be true. Massive, galaxy sized holes.xBlackPantherx wrote:
How do you know there aren't elements/ways or scenarios for living that we don't know about??
Maybe this is off topic, but human knowledge is getting closer to it's limits. The difference of human and wild life is that wild life evolves around his environment, humans change it at their pleasure thus not evolving.
Just my 2 cents.
No. I did not.
There are other possibilities. Those possibilities are known to science. Those possibilities are extremely limited and limiting.
Your knowledge may be getting close to it's limits, but don't assume that about me or any of the rest of us.
We'd shoot them then look at their bodies ofc
And teabag their slimy dead alien faces so they knew we meant business.SEREMAKER wrote:
hmmmmmmmmmmm
srsly : Independence Day .
me : as soon as they poked there heads out .................................. BOOM HEADSHOT
Last edited by daddyofdeath (2008-03-20 11:12:11)
Then steal their spaceship so we can infiltrate their base and rape them, whilst they all line up waiting for another one to spawn, but it wont cos we have it
Too much?
"I'll get my coat"
Too much?
"I'll get my coat"
Get them back for all the unnecessary "anal probing" they've been doing to humans over the years.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've always thought it might happen the other way 'round:
What if alien life discovered us? (Thinks of the Twilight-Zone episode: To Serve Man).
What if alien life discovered us? (Thinks of the Twilight-Zone episode: To Serve Man).
If the universe is infinite then the possibilities of life are infinite and therefore infinite combinations of known and unknown elements and there is essentially a 100% chance that there are different factors that can create life other than our known "Goldie-locks" factors. Do you know how tremendously ridiculous the amount of knowledge we have yet to obtain, comprehend or even fathom?? It's extraordinary and the fact that some people think there are very few possibilities beyond what we, as humans, know, is just preposterous.
1. Bush declares war on alien terrorists.
2. ?????
3. Earth is destroyed.
2. ?????
3. Earth is destroyed.
Excuse me, but no? That isn't a fact. That's a theory. Personally i don't believe that light is the greatest speed achievable. Not to say i know more than Albert E. but i just don't think light and time have a connection.DrunkFace wrote:
One can not travel faster then the speed of light. /current scientific knowledge.SEREMAKER wrote:
" to think we will ever have any meaningful communication or contact "DrunkFace wrote:
ummmmm wat?
watch the movies " Contact " and " Close Encounters of the Third Kind " and you know what I'm talking about
15 more years! 15 more years!
I'm pretty sure he's talking about right now. And the G-Forces from traveling at that speed would probably pulverize your body, so the technology to do that will not be around until atleast the 3rd millenium.Mitch wrote:
Excuse me, but no? That isn't a fact. That's a theory. Personally i don't believe that light is the greatest speed achievable. Not to say i know more than Albert E. but i just don't think light and time have a connection.DrunkFace wrote:
One can not travel faster then the speed of light. /current scientific knowledge.SEREMAKER wrote:
" to think we will ever have any meaningful communication or contact "
watch the movies " Contact " and " Close Encounters of the Third Kind " and you know what I'm talking about
Very true. To Mitch, go watch Futurama. It's very.....historicalPoseidon wrote:
I'm pretty sure he's talking about right now. And the G-Forces from traveling at that speed would probably pulverize your body, so the technology to do that will not be around until atleast the 3rd millenium.Mitch wrote:
Excuse me, but no? That isn't a fact. That's a theory. Personally i don't believe that light is the greatest speed achievable. Not to say i know more than Albert E. but i just don't think light and time have a connection.DrunkFace wrote:
One can not travel faster then the speed of light. /current scientific knowledge.
No, not very true. G-forces result from acceleration, not velocity. It's perfectly possible to travel at any speed without being pulverized.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Very true. To Mitch, go watch Futurama. It's very.....historicalPoseidon wrote:
I'm pretty sure he's talking about right now. And the G-Forces from traveling at that speed would probably pulverize your body, so the technology to do that will not be around until atleast the 3rd millenium.Mitch wrote:
Excuse me, but no? That isn't a fact. That's a theory. Personally i don't believe that light is the greatest speed achievable. Not to say i know more than Albert E. but i just don't think light and time have a connection.
That's what relativity is all about.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-03-20 22:28:43)
The forces being pressed against your body would kill you, regardless.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, not very true. G-forces result from acceleration, not velocity. It's perfectly possible to travel at any speed without being pulverized.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Very true. To Mitch, go watch Futurama. It's very.....historicalPoseidon wrote:
I'm pretty sure he's talking about right now. And the G-Forces from traveling at that speed would probably pulverize your body, so the technology to do that will not be around until atleast the 3rd millenium.
That's what relativity is all about.
NOOOO!Poseidon wrote:
The forces being pressed against your body would kill you, regardless.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, not very true. G-forces result from acceleration, not velocity. It's perfectly possible to travel at any speed without being pulverized.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Very true. To Mitch, go watch Futurama. It's very.....historical
That's what relativity is all about.
What forces?
There are no forces pressing on your body if you are not accelerating.
Think about this:
You're travelling on a train, on a really smooth track, in a perfectly straight line and at a constant speed.
Now, if you throw a ball straight up into the air, will it, from your perspective, go straight up and down or not?
The answer is - It will go straight up and down.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-03-20 22:39:01)
Well, I'm no science wiz or anything, but when you're traveling at the speed of light...aren't you accelerating?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
NOOOO!Poseidon wrote:
The forces being pressed against your body would kill you, regardless.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, not very true. G-forces result from acceleration, not velocity. It's perfectly possible to travel at any speed without being pulverized.
That's what relativity is all about.
What forces?
There are no forces pressing on your body if you are not accelerating.
Think about this:
You're travelling on a train, on a really smooth track, in a perfectly straight line and at a constant speed.
Now, if you throw a ball straight up into the air, will it, from your perspective, go straight up and down or not?
The answer is - It will go straight up and down.
1) It would take quite a long time to go from a standstill and move along the process of slowly accelerating to the speed of light, at a speed that wont kill you.Poseidon wrote:
Well, I'm no science wiz or anything, but when you're traveling at the speed of light...aren't you accelerating?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
NOOOO!Poseidon wrote:
The forces being pressed against your body would kill you, regardless.
What forces?
There are no forces pressing on your body if you are not accelerating.
Think about this:
You're travelling on a train, on a really smooth track, in a perfectly straight line and at a constant speed.
Now, if you throw a ball straight up into the air, will it, from your perspective, go straight up and down or not?
The answer is - It will go straight up and down.
2) If you are already moving at the speed of light you arent accelerating unless you can go faster than the speed of light.
No. Acceleration is change in velocity. Light has a constant velocity. If you are travelling at a constant velocity, you are not accelerating.Poseidon wrote:
Well, I'm no science wiz or anything, but when you're traveling at the speed of light...aren't you accelerating?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
NOOOO!Poseidon wrote:
The forces being pressed against your body would kill you, regardless.
What forces?
There are no forces pressing on your body if you are not accelerating.
Think about this:
You're travelling on a train, on a really smooth track, in a perfectly straight line and at a constant speed.
Now, if you throw a ball straight up into the air, will it, from your perspective, go straight up and down or not?
The answer is - It will go straight up and down.
Correct, but irrelevant - no one said "Accelerating from stand-still to the speed of light in a short amount of time would kill you" they said "travelling at the speed of light would kill you".It would take quite a long time to go from a standstill and move along the process of slowly accelerating to the speed of light, at a speed that wont kill you.
One is true, the other isn't.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-03-20 22:59:02)
they better bring bimbos
and quote me on that one!
and quote me on that one!