Intoscience

Yes, so fundamentally based on our current understanding of physics and technological capabilities any meaningful and practical interstellar travel is near on impossible. Unless you can consistently harness huge amounts of resource over a very long period of time. So therefore we can conclude that IF E.T has visited Earth from outside our solar system then it must imply that either the warping of space and/or the dilation of time can be practically harnessed in some way that we have yet to discover.

Though interesting, discussions on "realistic" interstellar travel based on our current understanding of mainstream physics and technology is a bit pointless. Delving into the engineering requirements alone, aside from human biological limitations and vulnerabilities shows that its basically practically impossible to go any significant distance. Its pretty obvious that "if" aliens are doing such then they have discovered either physics we are yet unaware of and technology which is beyond our understanding. All our realistic assumptions on this subject are, and can only be based on human experience. The reality being that if interstellar travel is practically possible in a meaningful and useful way for humans, then traditional reaction propulsion systems are not the way forward. This then brings us back to what we currently consider as "sci-fi speculation", warp drives, anti gravity mechanisms and so forth. This is what Bob Lazar's claim has been since the 1980's to this day. Whether you believe his story or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he claims a type of "gravity warp field" is the mechanism which the craft operates with. Sci-fi, hoax or other, objectively this makes more sense for interstellar travel than slow, inefficient reaction propulsion systems (ironically what Bob was an accomplished engineer in). The point being, as outlined originally, reaction propulsion systems are a pointless mode of interstellar travel. You can tackle the physics and engineering all day long but the conclusion will remain the same. Either aliens have never been here or ever will, or they have and we have yet to learn how to do it ourselves.

All life as we know it is made from matter, simple. So you have 2 options outside this: Option 1. Life emerging from pure energy, which we have no real examples, evidence, or models for. Option 2. life emerging spiritually, which we would define as "super natural" again we have no real examples or evidence for. Both these examples extend our current definition of life outside of what would be considered mainstream. If you want to propose an alternative to life as we know it (matter based), then by all means crack on. But if you are going to make propositions outside of the mainstream and bring them to a "science" forum then you better have some credible, testable evidence to support your claims.

Thank you, that makes perfect sense.

I find this interesting, and would like you to expand on your reasoning further.

Sounds to me a poor excuse for not facing up to the responsibility of your actions.

Though I do side on the no designer argument I can't help but feel much like what Markus stated. I have yet to find a compelling argument for the need of a designer, but many for the non requirement of design or designer. However because our knowledge still lacks, and the evidence supporting theories on and around how the universe initially began, and how life (as we know it) initially began, then I do beg the question. I'm happy to dismiss wild claims, especially those focused/built around religious beliefs. So at this juncture, I would remain on the - random evolutionary models bench. A little part of me wishes/hopes that a designer was indeed required, this may give some extra meaning to it all. Especially so if humans are intended to be just that little bit extra special.

Or the ultimate escape. Depending on your beliefs. If a person is an atheist who doesn't believe in any form of after life or transcendence, or reincarnation then death means full stop, the end in every sense. But you can be an atheist and believe in some form of continuum. (as per what The Vat stated) For a person to be be punished then they need to be judged.

Agreed, Going back to this recent claim Either the film makers of close encounters knew something no one else did, or the person making these claims is very unimaginative! I read that the latest NASA report on UAPs states that they have no reason to believe that any of the UAPs are non terrestrial. However, they do go on to state that the findings are inconclusive and many of the phenomena remain unknown both in construct and in origin. they also state that some of the evidence suggests that some of the objects are not moving as fast as reported and maybe just "drifting" with currents. This last part I find rather odd and I'm not convinced. Many of the objects where witnessed on multiple occasions by various experienced air force personal. I find it hard to believe that they would all mis-construe what they witnessed. I do however remain sceptical of "alien" visitations. But I'm not in the club of completely ruling them out. What may convince me more to join the "believers" is if we discovered new physics which may allow for, or at least theorise, a plausible practical method of long-distance short time space travel by meaningful physical objects.

I would have structured the sentence differently, because when I read the first part it came across as though you condoned Jimmy Saville's actions. Any person/s who abuse children deserve something!

hmmm... uncannily The sad thing being that all this does is fuel the stigma surrounding aliens and the possibility of their existence.

The problem is that the public cannot discern what is fact and what is fiction these days, especially so on subjects like this. People tend to buy into what ever is trendy at the time and with social media so accessible and also easily manipulated then the general public can be convinced of fiction over fact without much question.

I'm not sure that is true though. Even if aliens were visiting (i'm not advocating they are) then why would we still not explore our local neighbourhood anyway? The question would be why are we not using the so called captured technology to make it easier for us to explore our local neighbourhood? The so called "whistle blowers" have claimed that the government has being back engineering this technology for over half a century, and included in that are claims of test flying anti gravity devices. It all smells of a diversionary tactic to cover up advanced technology testing that is human in origin.

I'm not, I'm advocating that in order to integrate transgender then the rules should consider the new definition of what a woman is. They are not changing the definitions, society (a group of) are changing the definition. The governing bodies are attempting to integrate this new definition into sporting categories. I'm not!!! The rules have to consider the new definition to enable integration. How that is achieved is beyond me since the original definition was fundamentally based on biology. Now its not, so now the ruling boards need to consider this.

I never advocated it was. There is an undeniable difference between male and female physical performance. The current world athletic championships highlight this as we speak. So where predominantly does that extra performance come from? cause it sure aint all just psychological. It comes from physiological attributes that are fundamentally biological differences.