From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Why don't we merge the history of this page and its improperly-spelled brother, extraterrestial? The other one has been transformed into a redirect, and it seems a shame to strand the article history there. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:01, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Alien invasions[edit]

How come there is never an alien invasion when it would be #really, really, useful#? Anna Livia (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Disproving the aliens[edit]

Where would it be appropriate to add [1]? Anna Livia (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Another disproof[edit]

None of the supposed aliens ever says 'Take me to your leader.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe they're anarchists? --Scherben (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A comment from a TV show[edit]

(Korean drama Stranger) The narrator character asked if he believes in aliens, says yes, and when asked why says it would otherwise be a waste of Space. Anna Livia (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

He didn't consider that nearly everything is just empty space? Even ourselves? --Scherben (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Alien radios[edit]

Any conspiracies about this topic yet? Anna Livia (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracies? Not that I'm aware of. Since there's not yet a reasonable scientific explanation, there's just people saying "it's aliens" without substantiation. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
As there are a number of them and they are 'regular' logically they are a natural, non-intelligence-created phenomenon - but RWians can observe the evolution of any 'odd theories' relating to the subject. Anna Livia (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The logic "x is regular, there is more than 1 of x, x is natural" doesn't hold. Blinking lights on radio towers, for example. Natural causes are the thus-far only valid explanation for previously unexplained, now explained astronomical phenomena, but the strict logic you're laying out isn't consistent with real examples of artificial phenomena. We should have a substantiated physical theory before we start concluding with certainty. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
As they all occurred at roughly the same period in the history of the universe and seem to be of 'the same kind' while widely dispersed, and given that pulsars were initially thought to be of sentient origin but turned out to be natural, there is a reasonable chance that these phenomena are 'natural' in origin. (But 'we are of natural origin.') If they were more dispersed in time then the possibility of 'high-technologic stage organic and/or constructed life intervention' might well increase (with 'the rules of science' leading to the same Doomsday Weapon being created by various routes.) 'Something involving a number of the first galaxies of a particular type to evolve reaching the ends of their lifespans' is probably slightly more plausible (as a non-astrophysicist). Anna Livia (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
If FRBs are artificial, I'll walk around Rationalwiki naked, and make you all sick. --Scherben (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
How would you be observed on RW?
Have there been any developments on the subject?
The trick is in knowing when 'natural phenomena didit' and when 'sentient entities (whether or not we would recognise them as such) didit' is the logical starting point. Anna Livia (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Alien 'life'[edit]

Will mention this in case it gets developed by the alien involvement group. Anna Livia (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The real 'aliens have landed' movie[edit]

Can be found here. Anna Livia (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)