Why Haven't Aliens Contacted Us Yet? (Fermi Paradox)

catseye

For the greater good
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,043
Likes
2,921
Points
159
Location
York
I've measured the speed of thought in a First Year Psychology practical using a tachistoscope and a timer. You stop the timer after you recognise the word (of various length) that's been flashed up. Plot the average response time against the length/number of letters in the word and extrapolate back to the Y axis, that gives you a reponse time for no letters ie your reaction time. Deduct that from your response times and divide by the number of letters in the word. Average speed of thought across the class was 10 ms (milliseconds) per letter. Fast but not pan-Galactically fast.
Do you not have to build in time to press the button? That might take longer than the actual recognition of the word.
 

gerhard1

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
857
Likes
835
Points
94
Having just read the entire thread, I see one problem. Now, to be fair, some of you folks have alluded to it, and that is that life outside of the earth has not been established. I know of no confirmed alien encounters or proven artifacts. It is assumed to exist. The assumption has a lot of good logic behind it, but it is still, at its' core, an assumption.

We won't (and can't) prove that extraterrestrial life does not exist. This type of proof is a logical impossibility. The burden of proof, therefore, is on those who assert its' existence. About the only way the question of alien life can be answered is if they show up and announce themselves, or an unmistakable signal is received.

Until then, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
 

Shady

Mary Queen of Scots...temping as DEATHS Kitty
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
7,357
Likes
8,577
Points
284
Good luck in your endeavours as you have set an excellent example of the narrowness of the human race.

As be free to believe what you want as hence why some are chosen and others are not.
I think he was eluding to none being on Earth either, which given the way we are headed, he may be right.

So, why do these aliens bother with us at all? And why not contact us en masse? Why are they sneaking around?, to be honest i do not trust the sneaky buggers, altho the greys with big eyes are cute
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
9,601
Likes
9,845
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
I have done so on another thread in this forum a few minutes ago.
It would be helpful to provide a link, together with an explanation of what the link is!

It may be helpful in the future to build on threads already established, and not to start more?
 

catseye

For the greater good
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,043
Likes
2,921
Points
159
Location
York
Why would aliens bother, though?

We don't hover over termite mounds, lie down with our heads inside and try to communicate with the termites to help reason them out of destructive behaviour. We just exterminate them.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,261
Likes
19,850
Points
284
Location
Eblana
I think he was eluding to none being on Earth either, which given the way we are headed, he may be right.

So, why do these aliens bother with us at all? And why not contact us en masse? Why are they sneaking around?, to be honest i do not trust the sneaky buggers, altho the greys with big eyes are cute
They have carried out a hybrid breeding programme for generations in Cromer.
 

Georgek

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
190
Likes
85
Points
28
Location
Nottingham
The brain is all I've got to make sense of this.
Believe what you like...but the brain is faulty.
The mind is the true you and the only fault is our communication between our mind and our brain.

The brain has no sense as it rationalises things that suit it. It can be tricked but the mind cannot.
The failure being lost data between mind and brain.

I prioritise my mind in favour of my brain, so my brain listens to my mind...not the other way around.
 

Georgek

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
190
Likes
85
Points
28
Location
Nottingham
We won't (and can't) prove that extraterrestrial life does not exist. This type of proof is a logical impossibility. The burden of proof, therefore, is on those who assert its' existence. About the only way the question of alien life can be answered is if they show up and announce themselves, or an unmistakable signal is received.
I have already proven it with my Cyprus UFO picture posted it on this forum. I have a picture of Cyprus taken from about 50-70 miles altitude with a UFO. Grain structure is proof that it is not a satellite image and it matches an inferior one taken by the Apollo crew.

The only way that this picture could have been taken is from a space craft. As I have neither the means and expense to be launched into space, unless someone can show me my space ship in my back garden, I have the proof. If science is too scared to study the picture that be their fault not mine.

Until then, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
Or should I say...."Let us not fall too much behind"
 

Georgek

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
190
Likes
85
Points
28
Location
Nottingham
I think he was eluding to none being on Earth either, which given the way we are headed, he may be right.

So, why do these aliens bother with us at all? And why not contact us en masse? Why are they sneaking around?, to be honest i do not trust the sneaky buggers, altho the greys with big eyes are cute
I think the answer is obvious Shady. You need to see my mental scars and some of the death threats I received. Someone found out where I lived and when I 'logged on' to this other particular forum, I found a picture of my house with a rifle pointing to my office window where I was doing my typing. This guy had superimposed a Google image with a rifle.

The aliens are here to save us from ourselves and to ensure that we do not pollute space with our junk.

They are worried about our genetic DNA as it is bow corrupt and as Iw ill say no more about this
 

Shady

Mary Queen of Scots...temping as DEATHS Kitty
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
7,357
Likes
8,577
Points
284
What is the other forum and can we have a link please?
 

Georgek

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
190
Likes
85
Points
28
Location
Nottingham
What is the other forum and can we have a link please?
That was back in 2008 as the forum is no longer there. If you are referring to the gun picture?

The UFO one is on this forum posted early this morning.

(I like the cat. We have a Maine Coon same colour)
 

Bad Bungle

Dingo took my tray bake.
Joined
Oct 13, 2018
Messages
1,038
Likes
2,564
Points
153
Location
The Chilterns
Do you not have to build in time to press the button? That might take longer than the actual recognition of the word.
Sorry I wasn't clearer, it was 35 years ago - you take the average response time to recognise a word with 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 etc letters and plot a graph. The X axis is Time (independent variable) in ms and the Y is the number of elements in the word - it was pretty much a straight line. By extrapolating the line back to where it crosses the X axis (not Y as I said last night), you find the response time for 0 letters - this is the average reaction time (by which I meant reflex time) to press the button. Subtract the reaction time from the response time and you get the processing time taken by the brain. Divide by the number of letters in the respective word and you get ~10ms per letter. The speed of Thought.
 

Krepostnoi

Popular orange vegetable
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,712
Likes
4,863
Points
159
Sorry I wasn't clearer, it was 35 years ago - you take the average response time to recognise a word with 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 etc letters and plot a graph. The X axis is Time (independent variable) in ms and the Y is the number of elements in the word - it was pretty much a straight line. By extrapolating the line back to where it crosses the X axis (not Y as I said last night), you find the response time for 0 letters - this is the average reaction time (by which I meant reflex time) to press the button. Subtract the reaction time from the response time and you get the processing time taken by the brain. Divide by the number of letters in the respective word and you get ~10ms per letter. The speed of Thought.
I thought at least some people recognise at least some words by their overall shape, though, rather than processing the individual letters. Surely, also, familiarity with the particular word must play a part in the speed of recognition - by way of off-the-cuff example, would people recognise "bier" as quickly as they would "beer"? There must be more to decoding than simply length, I would have thought.
 
Last edited:

gerhard1

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
857
Likes
835
Points
94
Having just read the entire thread, I see one problem. Now, to be fair, some of you folks have alluded to it, and that is that life outside of the earth has not been established. I know of no confirmed alien encounters or proven artifacts. It is assumed to exist. The assumption has a lot of good logic behind it, but it is still, at its' core, an assumption.

We won't (and can't) prove that extraterrestrial life does not exist. This type of proof is a logical impossibility. The burden of proof, therefore, is on those who assert its' existence. About the only way the question of alien life can be answered is if they show up and announce themselves, or an unmistakable signal is received.

Until then, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
I have already proven it with my Cyprus UFO picture posted it on this forum. I have a picture of Cyprus taken from about 50-70 miles altitude with a UFO. Grain structure is proof that it is not a satellite image and it matches an inferior one taken by the Apollo crew.

The only way that this picture could have been taken is from a space craft. As I have neither the means and expense to be launched into space, unless someone can show me my space ship in my back garden, I have the proof. If science is too scared to study the picture that be their fault not mine.



Or should I say...."Let us not fall too much behind"
How on earth is that picture proof of anything? All I saw was a blurred image of something with an equally blurred circular shape in the lower left corner.

I'm sorry, but that picture is far from convincing.
 

Bad Bungle

Dingo took my tray bake.
Joined
Oct 13, 2018
Messages
1,038
Likes
2,564
Points
153
Location
The Chilterns
I thought at least some people recognise at least some words by their overall shape, though, rather than processing the individual letters. Surely, also, familiarity with the particular word must play a part in the speed of recognition - by way of off-the-cuff example, would people recognise "bier" as quickly as they would "beer"? There must be more to decoding than simply length, I would have thought.
I'm sure you're right, nothing seems straight-forward when studying the mind - and the brain is rather good at filling in the gaps when letters have been left out of words, suggesting a grasp of shape. But as a First Year Practical we were given common words, no foreign ones or emotive ones (swear words) or spelling mistakes and the results showed a clear correlation between the length of the word and the time taken to process it. There is also a very fast transient type of memory ("Iconic") (Practical 2) that may help the brain remember the start of a word by the time it gets to the end of it. Anyway we're going off thread - the speed of Thought is slower than the speed of Light and slower than the speed of Fantasy.
 

Georgek

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
190
Likes
85
Points
28
Location
Nottingham
How on earth is that picture proof of anything? All I saw was a blurred image of something with an equally blurred circular shape in the lower left corner.

I'm sorry, but that picture is far from convincing.
Then why does this not apply to what NASA have shown in their early pictures?

You still do not get the point.

Regardless if what you can or cannot see by the inferior structure of my picture it is clearer and BETTER that that taken by the NASA astronauts on their space mission. Anyone can see that the pictures are identical irregardless of their purity.

The point that I was putting across was:-

I have contained a picture which is identical in structure but better in quality which resembles identically to one taken by NASA. Assuming that both pictures depict the same area (which you have avoided answering) then it has to show that the picture that I had provided, must have been taken from a space craft through the absence of horizontal satellite lines.

Irregardless the truth is there and the lines and dots synchronise in the exact the manner that shows the truth.

Believe what you like, but then ypu will need to validate your reasoning to thousands of other pictures taken by NASA.

So what do you see here 'gerhard1' ?



https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/13/18308652/katie-bouman-black-hole-science-internet

Go and tell science that there is nothing there as it is a blurred picture of a doughnut.

Ahhh...that is different because they are respectable.

Tell us why this is NOT proof of a Black Hole as all you can see is a blurred image.

So what Mr 'gerhard1' is telling me/us, is that it is not what you have what counts but WHO you are!



 
Last edited:

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,604
Likes
2,193
Points
154
So what Mr 'gerhard1' is telling me/us, is that it is not what you have what counts but WHO you are!
Well, yeah, because when you have dedicated your life to 12+ years of rigorous university study and, more importantly... peer review (Peer review is super-important. Here is a link that will explain why), and then gone into a professional life where you have dedicated your life to obtaining reliable and repeatable experimental results and following the most rigorous scientific methodology you can, based on international best practice, the individuals involved have actually bothered to really engage with the information at the deepest level possible. Now compare that to most amateurs, or worse, actual frauds, and you can see why the academics are skeptical.

Now I won't say that there isn't a bit of professional jealousy involved, and the astronomers and physicists aren't protecting their professional territory like a medieval guild privilege, but they also guarantee us a much higher and more reliable measure of quality than the amateurs. More importantly, the professional academics have generally replicated their results multiple times, and anyone following in their footsteps can achieve the same results. Very few amateurs ever do that, but that is not the same as saying that no amateur scientists do that, for example, here is a short list of some very famous and successful amateurs: Famous amateur scientists link.

The main thing that I rely on academics for is to ferret out frauds via peer review.

As to the black hole photo, once you come to terms with how amazingly difficult even that "blurry photo" was to take, is seems miraculous. For a start, black holes are black, and space is black, so there's that. Then you have the issue that black holes swallow even light. Then there is the issue of the incredible distances involved. The fact is that the glowing part is merely the light particles being sucked into the black hole, and in fact the, black part in the middle, which is the actual black hole is not blurry, and would normally be completely invisible.
 
Top