We think that our sun is 4 billion years old
We think that life has evolved in the last 4 million years. Lets say we figure out intergallactic travel in the next million years. That means if a star is, on average, 4.005 billion years old, the critters on it should have figured out intergalactic travel. round it to 4.
Stars started forming when the universe was born and cooled down, about 14 billion years ago, but the first gen of stars http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2381935.stm did not develop heavy metals. Our sun is thought to be the second gen sun, which was able to create rocks, essentially, which are planets, So our sun was formed 10B ABB (antes Big Bang). I don’t know how many stars are being formed every billion years, but the Hubble says LOTS have been formed. so, any sun with planets formed from 10B ABB to 13.995B ABB should have had some chance of having intergalactic-traveling critters on them.
There are 0.1B stars in just our Milky Way, http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_index_0.html which contains stars of roughly the same age as ours, although we are further out on one arm and our star is older than most. so, okay, maybe 1 million stars are older than ours, Which means, the skies should be dark with about a million other-planet representatives, just from the Milky Way. Where are they?
More food for thought. Let us run our imaginations wild. Maybe it’s just our imagination hasn’t imagined it so it’s not there yet. Come on folks start rendering on ye blender to make up for this stuff. If all the blenderartists simultaneausly tried to imagine it . . . do you think we could make it appears ?
Let me see, you guys host the idea that aliens exist… but whenever anyone says they are one everybody laughs.
I mean really, CD has been telling all his life that he is really a dragon, but nobody even ponders whether he really is one. (At least ‘dragons’ were real creatures)
I don’t see any difference between the two.?
Are you referring to photosynthesis or an organism that produces its own food without external energy input? The latter is impossible.
The difference is that there is scientific evidence which supports the possible occurrence of abiogenesis in other systems, such as the discovery of organic compounds in space.
When the people making those claims of being aliens supply us with testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, then we will (or should) stop laughing. Until that day comes, though… 
-Laurifer
Were they? I didn’t know… You mean they could breathe fire and fly with great big wings? Or are you just talkin’ about dinosaurs?
Yes and I’m an alien, I have huge eyes, 3 fingers (total), and green/grey skin depending on my mood…Right…
Dragons were created by the imagination of humans. When you can find proof that they exist/ed let me know. About no one even pondering whether he is one or not…I’m not even going to go there…
I personally don’t think aliens exist, and I’m not going to try to convince people that they don’t, and I won’t be convinced by anyone that says they do exist.
I think there was a documentry on dragons being real on discovery… I’m not sure. I missed it.
What if you was kidnapped by aliens and had experiments done on you that you never signed a contractual waive of disclaimer ? Would that make you believe ?
If that happens I’ll let you know, or until I see proof that they exist, meaning a body (in person) I won’t believe that they exist. But then again there are ways of faking “proof”.
If I get abducted I’ll just call CD and get him and his “dragon” friends to save me…pfft…
The idea that dinosaurs, or ‘dragons’ breath fire is not far fetched at all.
Historically speaking:
In the Bible the Leviathan is said to have been able to breathe fire.
(Please take into note that not only is the Bible a ‘religious book’, but is a useful historical record that has not in any single point, been disproved)
And why are there no stories of fire breathing birds, or even tigers, that is because these stories have some truth in them.
Scientifically/Evidence wise:
The Bombardier Beetle can basically ‘breath fire’. Check it out.
Also many fossilized dinosaur skulls have unexplained empty passages.
The use of these passages is unknown. Some people believe that those
passages “act as “gas tanks” for the combustible mixture used to breathe fire.”
Back on topic:
I do not believe that aliens exist, not in this universe at least.
Cheers!
Yeah, I think that was it. They had gas tanks, with methane and helium and some others. They had a tooth at the back of their throat which would rub against another one to create a spark. The gases in their (?)gas chamber helped them to fly as well.
You might be thinking of the Komodo Dragon, which isn’t the same as the dragon that most people think of when they hear that word. In this case, we’re talking about the mythical fire breathing dragon with wings and really tough scaly skin.
Please, lets get off the dragon subject, It’s not headed anywhere. If you would like to continue this discussion please show some courtesy and start your own thread. Thanks.
On this note, I’ve found a really interesting video where tiny implants were taken from people who claimed to be abducted by aliens. After running some tests at two different locations, scientists concluded that a small portion of the material on the implant came from an extra-terrestrial origin.
Here’s the video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nB31wd3mPSQ
What do you think?
I know what a Komodo dragon is, and if you noticed, I said I missed it. I saw only part of it. It talked about dragons, yes the scaly fire-breathing ones. That’s where I got the methane/ helium/ tooth bit. They really did exist.
sigh
I’ll start a thread for those of you who would like to continue the dragon discussion, but please stay on topic here. I wouldn’t want this thread to get closed because this subject could spark a religious debate.
You can give your views on the dragon issue here: http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1204848
Religious?! What are you talkin about? Where does that come in? Anyway, nobody wants to discuss it further. As for the aliens, I’ve already given my views.
ok, back on topic : ]
I think it’s quite possible that faster-than-light travel is impossible - that is, it’s not so much an engineering problem as it is something forbidden by physics (relativity). So, even an advanced alien civilization would just be stuck in a little pocket of space. Kinda depressing…
Yes, true. But when you think about it (and i mean a lot) Einsteins theory of special relativity could kinda work at speeds faster than the speed of light. You see, as your speed increases towards the speed of light (say in a ship of some sort), time slows for the ship, relative to the rest of the universe. So, an assumption has been made that the speed of light is the ‘maximum’, but you could also assume that time can flow backwards.
Thus, once you get faster than the speed of light, time starts to reverse. Its kinda a balancing act between time & speed. So theoretically it can be ‘inversely’ balanced as well.
I guess its hard to work out all of this stuff, until someone or something actually reaches the speed of light, and tries to push on.
And even if none of that is possible, theres always the bending of space and time. That provides us with another long distance travel option, with equal problems and theorys… I guess its more appealing, because its nothing to do with traveling across a massive static line through space, but more about bending the fabric of space to meet our needs, and just ‘hopping over’.
Yeah, look at the Hubble Deep Field, with every galaxy on there having thousands of stars, and tell me were the smartest things around.
Not saying I believe that we’ll ever get in contact with them, it’ll probably be the other way around.
Wormholes!
The bromide is “Causality, Relativity, FTL travel: chose any two.”
You cannot have all three. Read the link for details.
Physicists want to hold on to relativity and causality. So they choose to get rid of FTL travel. They do not want to get rid of relativity, because it has been tested as accurate to about nineteen decimal places, and it would have to be replaced with something that is just as accurate. They do not want to get rid of causality since that more or less destroys the entire basis of science.