Occam's Razor says: Aliens!

[Stryder50]

I've a whole range of other ideas and comments to toss for consideration, but when "Oh MammaMamma" came passing through, couldn't help but think how the late and great scientist and sci-fi author, Arthur C. Clark, gave us a hint long ago that something like this might happen.
...
Rendezvous with Rama
Clarke's award-winning novel Rendezvous with Rama (1973) was optioned for filmmaking in the early 21st century[85][86] but this motion picture was in "development hell" as of 2014. In the early 2000s, actor Morgan Freeman expressed his desire to produce a movie based on Rendezvous with Rama. After a drawn-out development process, which Freeman attributed to difficulties in getting financing, it appeared in 2003 that this project might be proceeding, but this was very dubious.[85] The film was to be produced by Freeman's production company, Revelations Entertainment, and David Fincher has been touted on Revelations' Rama web page as far back as 2001 as the film's director.[86] After years of no progress, Fincher stated in an interview in late 2007 (in which he also credited the novel as being influential on the films Alien and Star Trek: The Motion Picture) that he is still attached to helm.[87] Revelations indicated that Stel Pavlou had written the adaptation.

In late 2008, Fincher stated the movie is unlikely to be made. "It looks like it's not going to happen. There's no script and as you know, Morgan Freeman's not in the best of health right now. We've been trying to do it but it's probably not going to happen."[88] In 2010, though, the film was announced as still planned for future production and both Freeman and Fincher mentioned it as still needing a worthy script.[89]
...

Arthur C. Clarke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rendezvous with Rama is a science fiction novel by British writer Arthur C. Clarke first published in 1973. Set in the 2130s, the story involves a 50-by-20-kilometre (31 by 12 mi) cylindrical alien starship that enters the Solar System. The story is told from the point of view of a group of human explorers who intercept the ship in an attempt to unlock its mysteries. The novel won both the Hugo[4] and Nebula[5] awards upon its release, and is regarded as one of the cornerstones in Clarke's bibliography. The concept was later extended with several sequels, written by Clarke and Gentry Lee.
...

Rendezvous with Rama - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[fncceo]

Locals ONLY!

 

[Stryder50]

 

[Stryder50]

Oumouamoua

Major question and issue is did " Oumouamoua " continue to pass on through, or has it slowed and altered course to be "captured" into Sol System and remain here in orbit. ???

Also, has it displayed other evidence of being of intelligent desing and purpose, versus just another chunk of inter-stellar debris having wandered by ... ???

 

[zaangalewa]

... Occam's Razor says: Aliens! ...

Wrong: Occams razor says "No aliens!".

What is the problem? A nearly endless number of possibilities where life could be in our universe - and a nearly impossible situation that life is able to exist at all anywhere - except on planet Erarth. The only what we "know" in this contetxt is that a nearly endless big number times a number which is nearly 0 gives a result. But what is the result of nearly oo times nearly 0? We know only it is 1 (because we exist) or perhaps it is greater. That's all. The result is 1 <= x < oo.

But what has this to do with Occams razor? Nothing at all. It shows only that we don't know the result whether living aliens exists or not exist here in our universe. (Btw: This question is totally different from the question whether god exists or not exists). It makes not any sense to use Occams razor, if we don't know anything and are not able to make a [provable] hypothese ... says Occams razor about Occams razor.

We need for nothing, what we like to explain, the hypothese "aliens did do it". That's the same answer as to say "We don't know". 1I/ʻOumuamua (I=interstellar object) has its origin not in our own solar system - that's all what we seem to know about it. We also don't know where 2I/Borisov comes from. For example asteroid (514107) Kaʻepaokaʻawela seems also to have an interstellar origin - but still we don't know this. So the question might be how many interstellar objects arrived in total in our solar system.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A Harvard professor has just released his book about Oumouamoua. He declares scientists are bending over backwards to avoid the simplest idea: It was an alien spacecraft.

Harvard astronomer argues that alien vessel paid us a visit

Discovering there's intelligent life beyond our planet could be the most transformative event in human history— but what if scientists decided to collectively ignore evidence suggesting it already happened?

phys.org

"Sound kooky? Avi Loeb says the evidence holds otherwise, and is convinced his peers in the scientific community are so consumed by groupthink they're unwilling to wield Occam's razor."

Occam's Razor? By what stretch of the imagination is an alien craft from another star system a simpler idea than a rock? What is the craft made of? How does it go? If they could navigate to another star system, why did they have to follow a virtually ballistic path through ours? Why not stay longer? What are their lifespans, and how long did it take to get here? Why no detection of any electromagnetic signals from the craft? Why such an elongated shape that would lend itself to destruction and deformation under strong forces?

If the craft loses mass to accelerate, how massive was it originally? If it loses that much mass for a small acceleration (basically, passive "thrust", the way you would move on a skateboard after throwing a ball), how in the hell did it ever make the trip before running out of mass?

I am sure we could come up with 1000 more unanswered questions that arise.

Occam's Razor, indeed. A cheap trick to sell books, is what it is.

Besides changing course and speed, yeah it's just another space rock

 

[K9Buck]

Do you acknowledge the possibility that there are no gods?

Do you acknowledge the possibility that you do not actually exist?

 

[K9Buck]

Locals ONLY!

View attachment 473642

Her shirt selection tells me that she must be a green supremacist.

 

[K9Buck]

If extraterrestrials exist then they too are a part of God's creation and plans. To my knowledge, the bible doesn't discuss this. It did correctly state that space is expanding, a scientific concept not verified by human scientists until recently.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Please explain how it is impossible for the universe always to have been. ...

The universe expands - more concretet the spacetime itselve expands. This means the universe was more little yesterday ... and the day before yesterday ... and the day before 13.8 billion years (Last approximation of the concrete age of the universe. First approximation was 6000 years, when the first genius - a priest as far as I heard - liked to know the exact number of years since creation).

We know our theories break down in the moment when the universe is most little for our theories. So it looks like there was nothing before (- or we are blind for this before). About this "before of creation" said Augustinus it makes not any sense to ask what was before the very first moment, because there was no before before. He said: The mighty word of god's creation is a timeless word.
This was about 1700 years ago - and since this time Catholics think god made everything out of nothing, because why not to say so if something feels like to be nothing, smells like to be nothing, looks like to be nothing and gives us not any possibility for any imagination or plan what it could be, if it would be anything else than nothing. The only "strange" thing in this thought: God seems also to exist in or around every nothing.

So everyone who has a better idea is welcome - everyone else too, because this is not an essential of the Christian belief in god - except that god is not a liar. Reality is really real - and so it is really possible that there was indeed nothing before god created the worlds and the heavens. For our universe a serios physicist found out that it bis really possible that our universe came out of an empty space with quantum fluctuations (well known from the idea 'Hawking radiation'). And such a fluctuation is in our world here what's indeed nearly nothing.

 

[K9Buck]

... Please explain how it is impossible for the universe always to have been. ...

The universe expands. This means it was more little yesterday ... and the day before yesterday ... and the day before 13.8 billion years (Last approximation of the concrete age of the universe. First approximation was 6000 years, when the first genius - a priest as far as I heard - liked to know the exact number of years since creation). We know our theories break down in the moment when the universe is most little for our theories. So it looks like there was nothing before - or we are blind for this before. About this "before of creation" said Augustinus it makes not any sense to ask what was before the very first moment, because there was no before before. It makes not any sense to ask this quesion. He said: The mighty word of god's creation is a timeless word. This was about 1700 years ago - and since this time Catholics think god made everything out of nothing, because why not to say so if something feels like to be nothing, smells like to be nothing, looks like to be nothing and gives us not any possibility for any imagination or plan what it could be, if it would be anything else than nothing. So why not to call it just simple nothing? The only "strange" thing in this thought: God seems also to exist in every nothing. So everyeo whi has a btter idea is welcome - everyoe else too, because this is not an essential of the Christian belief in god - except that god is not a liar. Reality is really real - and so it is really possible that there was indeed nothing before god created the worlds and heavens. For our iunvi8eres a hyhcjts fud out thet it bis relal possible that our unvrese came out of an empty space with quantum fluctuations (well known from the idea 'Hawking radiation'). And such a fluctuation is in our world here what's indeed nearly nothing.

The thing about guys like Fortfun is that he'll go along with ANY theory, as long as it doesn't include an intelligent creator, you know, like "God". It's called "ABG" (anything but God) theory. He's a BIG proponent!

 

[zaangalewa]

... The thing about guys like Fortfun is that he'll go along with ANY theory, as long as it doesn't include an intelligent creator, you know, like "God". It's called "ABG" (anything but God) theory. He's a BIG proponent!

If I call mathematics the "spirituality of physics" and the experiment the "god of physics" then the relations are clearer. What to find out in a physics without mathematics? What says a theory without reality (observation, experiment)? And what happens if someone thinks it exist many truthes and not only one common truth in physics and/or all natural sciences?

So many discussions from militant atheists, nihilists and others in this context are only empty phrases. The "trick" of physics is something else: Physicists don't know what gravitation is for example. And - don't be surprised - they don't ask what it is. They ask only "What is gravitation doing?". So physicists for example use a mathematical construct like "spacetime". This idea was - as far as I know - from Mr. Minkowski. He just simple multiplied time with lightspeed. So: 1 second times 299,792,458 meter/second = 299,792,458 meter. And with this they make now a 4 dimensional mathematical space object. And this object is perfect for calculations. They can find out with this mathematical object everything they like to find out in context masses and curvature of the 4 dimensional space(time). But this means not that time and space are the same. It is still a belief that spacetime exists. That's why one day a physicist is perhaps able to find a much better theory - or instrument. But this will make not wrong, what they found out with the instrument spacetime.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Major question and issue is did " Oumouamoua " continue to pass on through, or has it slowed and altered course to be "captured" into Sol System and remain here in orbit. ???

It's long gone.

Wrong: Occams razor says "No aliens!".

In this specific case? Agreed. Please read the OP before commenting. Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The thing about guys like Fortfun is that he'll go along with ANY theory, as long as it doesn't include an intelligent creator, you know, like "God".

There may be gods. Lots of them. But saying "gods did it!" isn't a scientific theory. It explains nothing and replaces one mystery with another. So you are correct to imply that such a thing is not part of and has no place in a scientific theory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We know our theories break down in the moment when the universe is most little for our theories. So it looks like there was nothing before (- or we are blind for this before)

Right. So that means you don't know if the universe began or has always been. So we are in agreement.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Besides changing course and speed, yeah it's just another space rock

Which space rocks do quite often, via outgassing. This is the most basic stuff of this material, Francis. Like, square one. Please read up before commenting again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If extraterrestrials exist then they too are a part of God's creation and plans.

Now you're talking. As you may be slowly figuring out, you can sprinkle "god did it!" on anything you like. It yields no useful knowledge or predictions and has no bearing on scientific method. So sprinkle away. The only time you are wasting is your own.

 

[zaangalewa]

We know our theories break down in the moment when the universe is most little for our theories. So it looks like there was nothing before (- or we are blind for this before)

Right. So that means you don't know if the universe began

No. We know that we are not able to take a look over the point where it had started to exist.

or has always been.

I case the theory of relativity is true - and we have not any factual idea about, why it should be wrong - we know that spacetime itselve is expanding. So in a very first moment was no space and no time (and no energy and no information). It makes not any sense to say "outside" of space is something or "before" time started something moved.

So we are in agreement.

No. I say only: "Why not to call just simple "nothing" this, what we are not able to say anything about." You speak about an "always been" - what makes not any sense if no time is existing. "Always been" is the same as to say "13.8 billion years old".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. We know that we are not able to take a look over the point where it had started to exist.

False. That is the point where we can start to observe it.

So in a very first moment was no space and no time

Only the "first moment" you can see. Many mathematical models exist for the universe to exist before then, and you coulf not possibly say they are false with any confidence.

Fact is, you don't know. Therefore, you cannot rule it out. If you think you can, you should publish your research and get famous.

 

[zaangalewa]

No. We know that we are not able to take a look over the point where it had started to exist.

False. That is the point where we can start to observe it.

?

In which place do you like to stand without place? In which time do you like to see something without time?

So in a very first moment was no space and no time

Only the "first moment" you can see. Many mathematical models exist for the universe to exist before then, and you coulf not possibly say they are false with any confidence.

Fact is, you don't know. Therefore, you cannot rule it out. If you think you can, you should publish your research and get famous.

The theory of relativity is general knowledge and we know that the universe expands. Sure everyone can make an mathematical model where time and space always was. This approximation is good enough for nearly everything what we like to know. But indeed spacetime started to expand. Once all energy of the universe was in a place which was more little than an atom. What was before no one knows, no one is able to know, because there was no before. We have nothing, what we are able to say about. The word of creation was a timeless word. Many people replace "timeless" with "since ever" on psychological reasons. But in this context timeless means timeless = without time.