Acient Aliens and the Theory vs god

[bobroonie]

I find this theory to be very interesting, not necessarily truth, but another window for us to examine since nobody really knows how, or why we are the way we are today.

Most people laugh at Aliens but relic in the thought of god/gods.

Why is this?

God, a magical being which only proof of ever existing is the INTERPRETED writings of ancient man, yet it is considered truth to so many.

Yet ET's are treated as fantasy even though the mathematical probability is very high that there is some kind of life out in the cosmos.

On one hand you have a "magical" answer to unknown questions. On the other you have a none magical answer to those same questions.

Why is the none magical answer the outlandish or crazy talk. Yet "god" and all his magical glory is considered to be "truth".

The Ancient alien theory opens up millions of possibilities when you think that it is quite possible somewhere in the cosmos there can quite possibly be intelligent life that has been around roughly 3 billions years (giving the universe roughly 11 billion years to cool down and expand out of massive density to even have the ability to have life) longer then earth.

If you put religious text into non-magical stories, basically read the bible or any religious text and take out any and everything that is interpreted as "magical" and find a way to rationalize the stories with non-magical possibilities it tells a very different story that is more realistic then the god theory.

To put time into perspective, the earliest fossil primates are 70 million years old. At this time the last of the dinosaurs were still living, but a few million years later they were gone. The first primates were small shrewlike creatures.

Evolution of our own technology, from the wheel around 3500 BC to space shuttles around the mid 1900's, your looking at a time line of roughly 6000 years.

In terms of the cosmos, if the earth is still a newborn baby our most advanced technology we have on earth today is even more minuscule. And things we do today on the regular were not possible and considered to be fantasy a thousand years ago.

My questions are

Do you believe that it is even possible for aliens of any kind to exist?

Was Niel Armstrong an ET or alien when he visited the moon?

If Armstrong was an ET, how can people say aliens don't exist when a human became an Alien when he left earth to visit the moon?

If it is possible for an alien of any kind to exist, this would mean earth is the homeland of aliens, to other aliens. Now could any of these aliens be more technologically advanced then those on earth?

Would primitive man know the difference between technology and god?

Why do people believe in Magical beings or god, yet find Aliens to be fantasy?

Are we limiting alien technology to our own?

[McCulloch]

bobroonie, are you supposing that intelligent life forms elsewhere in the galaxy have overcome the limitation of the speed of light?

[bobroonie]

So your asking me.

Are there any Aliens in the ridiculously vast cosmos that have some how harnessed the speed of light.

I don't know.

I don't know what technology they might have.

Breaking the speed of light by millions might not be the way to go for them. I don't know.

Are they able to bend space and time? I don't know, but it is proven time and space can be bent. For instance, time on earth is not the same as time on the moon. And it's proven space itself can be manipulated by mass and gravity, but can it be harnessed.

My question to you is.

Because we have not, does that mean others can't either?

Are we the most technology advanced species in the cosmos?

If are technology is limited to our own knowledge of the time, how can we say something is "impossible", if there is even the slightest mathematical probability of possible technology. Seeing as how most of what we do today would have been considered "impossible" a thousand years ago.

My main question would be,

If there is a realistic non-magical possibility of intelligent aliens, how are they looked at as fantasy and "god" a magical being seen as fact to so many?

I personally feel that the distance is not an issue, it's time. And they might have a billion more of it then we do.

Man has figured out a way to fly across the entire world with ease. There was a time not to long ago when we had to walk from a cave to a water source.

[Icarus Fallen]

Do you believe that it is even possible for aliens of any kind to exist?

Since the United States alone is bursting at the seams with one "kind" of "alien" (namely that of the 'illegal' variety), I'd have to say: yes.

Was Niel Armstrong an ET or alien when he visited the moon?

Neil Armstrong is a terrestrial being who had the privilege of setting foot on extra-terrestrial soil ...and of becoming an alien lifeform (at least from a purely lunar perspective) in the process.

However...

If Armstrong was an ET, how can people say aliens don't exist when a human became an Alien when he left earth to visit the moon?

...at no point during his famous journey to and from the Moon did Armstrong become an extra-terrestrial lifeform.

There's a clear distinction between terrestrial 'aliens' and extra-terrestrial ones; and since it's the existence of latter that many people are skeptical about here on Earth, appealing to the presence of the former as a legitimate reason to believe in the latter ...isn't very compelling.

Why do people believe in Magical beings or god, yet find Aliens to be fantasy?

That might be a really good question, if not for the fact that many followers of religious dogma are often too scared to honestly consider any 'possibilities' beyond the scope(s) of their preferred canon(s).

Are we limiting alien technology to our own?

Many do.

But then, as I see it, that's their problem.

[Icarus Fallen]

At least we can rest assured in the knowledge, that at the end of the day, the truth of our origin (be it natural, supernatural, entirely terrestrial or not) will never buckle in the winds of speculation, ...religious or otherwise.

Whatever's the case ...is the case, irrespective of our ignorance as to what is, in fact, the case. -- And to me, that's a beautiful thing.

[McCulloch]

Are there any Aliens in the ridiculously vast cosmos that have some how harnessed the speed of light.

I don't know.

I don't know what technology they might have.

It is not a matter of what technology they might have. It is a matter of whether our understanding of physics is fundamentally and massively wrong. It seems to me that we have arrived at a reasonably good understanding of certain things. The limiting factor of the speed of light is one of them. Traveling at the impossibly fast, speed of light, it would take 4.24 years to reach Earth from Proxima Centauri, the nearest star. The likelihood of there being anyone interesting there is very very remote. Star Trek is fiction.

[Icarus Fallen]

Micky C,

...It seems to me that we have arrived at a reasonably good understanding of certain things. The limiting factor of the speed of light is one of them. [...]

The only "limiting factor" necessarily in play here ...is that of your own worldview.

The belief, that nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum, is not only speculative; it's called into question on the sub-atomic level by the phenomenon known as 'non-locality'.

[Icarus Fallen]

And if you're looking for some relatively recent science on the matter, here you go, McC.

As explained here:

A preprint published in 2007 by Profs. Günter Nimtz and Alfons Stahlhofen[4] described an experiment which sent a beam of microwaves towards a pair of prisms. The angle provided for total internal reflection and setting up an evanescent wave. Because the second prism was close to the first prism, some light leaked across that gap. The transmitted and reflected waves arrived at detectors at the same time, despite the transmitted light having also traversed the distance of the gap. This is the basis for the assertion of faster-than-c transmission of information.

Granted, Günter Nimtz has his opponents, but the opposition is completely interpretive in nature. That is, operating within Nimtz's paradigm, superluminal travel in quantum tunneling has been demonstrated by his double-prism experiments.

[McCulloch]

Granted, Günter Nimtz has his opponents, but the opposition is completely interpretive in nature. That is, operating within Nimtz's paradigm, superluminal travel in quantum tunneling has been demonstrated by his double-prism experiments.

The most that you can get from these experiments is that you might be able to send a signal instantaneously between particles which were at one time together. I cannot see how, even theoretically that could be translated into superluminal travel.

[Icarus Fallen]

From here:

One central tenet of special relativity theory is that light speed is the greatest speed at which energy, information, signals etc. can be transmitted. In many physics-related internet newsgroups, claims have appeared that recent tunneling experiments show this assumption to be wrong, and that information can indeed be transmitted by speeds faster than that of light - the most prominent example of "information" being a Mozart symphony, having been transmitted with 4.7 times the speed of light. [...]

Characteristic of the discussion of the FTL/tunneling experiments is that the experimental results are relatively uncontroversial - it is their interpretation that the debate is about. As far as I can see, right now there is a consensus that in neither of the experiments, FTL-front velocities have been measured, and that thus there is no contradiction to Einstein causality or to special relativity's claim that no front speed can exceed light speed. The discussion how much time a particle needs to tunnel through a barrier has been going on since the thirties and still goes on today, as far as I can tell. [...][emphasis IF's]

Not unlike opposing exegetical views as to the 'proper way' to read holy writ, interpretation is everything. Yes, even in scientific circles.