# How do you envisage aliens will look when we finally meet them?



## Mighty mouse (Dec 28, 2006)

I think I read somewhere that our form, a two legged bipedal, is the most likely evolutionary occurance.

I suspect where you get life you get a lot of life, so of the survival traits, lack of susceptibility to disease and environmental change rather than intelligence will prevail. So I confidently expect thick skinned, squat types rather than 16 legged spiders with huge brains. Birds with brains would be good though.

Knowing our luck we will probably get evangelical harpies that try to sell us the equivalent of the Big Issue before moving on. Imagine it, religious zealots using androids to disseminate their message. Just accept the word and get a free android. Bliss


----------



## Kitera (Dec 29, 2006)

Big heads and slimy body! Weird slit eyes and....no hair!


----------



## mosaix (Dec 29, 2006)

If they're advanced then they must be able to manipulate tools of some kind. The first and most basic step is "How do they do this?"


----------



## steve12553 (Dec 29, 2006)

I just hope we're able to recognize them as life forms when they do show up. We're in just about the ideal spot in the Universe for carbon based life forms. Our Solar system has enough complex molecules for metal. Many solar systems don't. Maybe the inhabitants of those can manipulate simple molecules into more complex molecules. (Gas into metal).


----------



## HoopyFrood (Dec 29, 2006)

They'll be an intelligent shade of blue that needs to be refracted through a prism!

Sorry...too much of a Hitchhiker's fan, I guess! 

Um...perhaps they'll send their equivalent of a chimp or a dog first!

Ah, you can't really say for certain, I suppose, because who knows what random evolutionary processes have taken place out there. And if the universe is as expansive and infintive as some believe, then technically every single possible appeareance could be out there!


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 29, 2006)

Good post, Hoops! Said what I'd have said, only much more succinctly...


----------



## Harpo (Dec 29, 2006)

I think they could be like a mobile coral reef, a community of microorganisms which group together to make one amorphous being.

Or like termites maybe?


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 29, 2006)

genetic-enegeneering parasites (the flood)

parasitic or symbiotic worms (dream catcher)

grays

they look like us!

there are no aliens

slugs and caterpillars

bugs

rapidly evovling insectiod reptilians (tyranids)

evil clowns

buckyball-like structures

intelligent elements

floating brains

fishmen

lizardmen

really hot hermaphroditic cat people or fox people or lizardmen that believe sex is something to be enjoyed every chance you get (how they got into space, I'll never know, maybe an advanced form of multi-tasking?)

whales

something like a cross between a snail and a mantis


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 29, 2006)

Pedantry:
Intelligent aliens? If not, my first suggestion is "very small"; there are many more microscopic than large organisms, and they've inhabited a wider selection of environments.


----------



## BookStop (Dec 29, 2006)

What makes you think we haven't met them already?


----------



## Alurny (Dec 29, 2006)

They might be un-noticeable to the human eye/mind..


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 29, 2006)

Pedantree (please imagine the branches, it's too complicated to draw it)
Intelligent aliens?:If not, probably very small (there are far more microscopic than large organisms, and they're adapted to a wider range of environments)
If intelligent, did they find us or did we discover them (considering that the first extraterrestrial hookup being a random meeting in an interstellar filling station is improbable)
If they've come to Earth, some way of manipulating matter is essential. Similarly, some sensory organs capable of getting information from outside their immediate environment (probably electromagnetic radiation {light, radio waves, infra red, gammas}; but a sensitive gravity detector, or something that translates one energy into another is possible)
Some form of technology to endure the rigors of space travel (a space living organism is possible, but timescales lower the probability of it visiting [The black cloud]
A size within three orders of magnitude of a human being (too small, the only way to get the complexity is to use neutronium or equivalent, which couldn't visit, too big, and not only do you have difficulties transporting it, but "nerve" impulses, restricted to light speed, slow its reaction time until it could barely detect us. There might be a sentient planet, but we are going to have to visit it.)
If we're visiting someone elses planet, then recognising sentience might be the first major problem. If it doesn't build motorways or eat hamburgers, how do we know it's intelligent. Indeed, we don't have a definition of "intelligent" which can be agreed on for this planet. If it doesn't require technology, its means of manipulating the environment might not be clear at all, and though we'd know we'd seen an alien, we wouldn't know we'd seen a sapient one.

But (_ignoring a huge tangle of potential choices on his paper_) I consider the most likely first contact with an intelligence not descended from our DNA to be with one created by ourselves, springing from our present computers; and that won't look like anything, much.


----------



## Nikitta (Dec 29, 2006)

They're blue. They have fairly small bodies and relatively long legs. They have 3 legs each with feet that are a bit like our hands, but much much tougher, though they can use tools with them. They have 4 eyes each. They're excellent at jumping.

or maybe I'm just bored...


----------



## Alurny (Dec 29, 2006)

? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I was bored too.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Dec 29, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> Good post, Hoops! Said what I'd have said, only much more succinctly...


 
*Bows* A-thank you.

And I know what your post would've been like...a foot long for a start


----------



## Morpheus42 (Dec 29, 2006)

Ok. I'll won't do a JD here.

If they are advanced enough to get here, then they might understand that
a different appearance might not be the best for first contact.
So if they look horrible,then they either are not for peace, or are not advanced enough


----------



## ClintonHammond (Dec 29, 2006)

IDIC

  Infinite diversity
  Infinite combinations

  Personally, I don't care what they look like, I just wish they'd hurry up and get here!


----------



## Nikitta (Dec 29, 2006)

Alurny: Heh! Surprisingly close to the image that popped into my head only the eyes were placed differently. Well done anyway!


----------



## Saolta Oiche (Dec 29, 2006)

I think they'll look very shocked and rather curious about us.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 29, 2006)

Saolta Oiche said:


> I think they'll look very shocked and rather curious about us.


 
On that, I'm reminded of an old cartoon (_National Lampoon_ or _Heavy Metal_, I think) spoofing *Close Encounters of the Third Kind* ... when the alien reaches the Mother Ship, all battered and bruised and is asked: "So, how did it go?" his(?) response: "Level this planet!" If _they_ really took a good look, _we_ might not have a _chance_ to see them... that might well be their response.....


----------



## HoopyFrood (Dec 29, 2006)

Yeah, it's be like Hitchiker's (again!!)...the only time we realise aliens are here is when they're telling us Earth is about to be demolished!


----------



## Harpo (Dec 29, 2006)

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly!"


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 30, 2006)

they might decide to wipe us out because the most advanced species on the planet has a natural tendency to blow the **** out of what it doesn't understand or like before they check it out to see if it's harmful.

on an alternate note, our bodily systems are pretty much organic versions of the motor vehicles we use... take in products that contain the fuel we require to operate through one hole, then internally burn the fuel while what's left gets discarded out the back end as waste

granted cars are much faster at doing this so it is more probable that this is the reason why the polluting gasses are so damaging, and the fact it is built out of things more durable than organics, and they only have a 'youth' period of around four or five years, then it's middle and old age before it gets scrapped.  so, think how mellow the combustion must be for our bodies... new thought, what if we [humankind] developed a slower-burning combustion cycle for vehicles with solid/liquid waste elimination

more messy, but the pollution is constrain to the ground and not blown all over the place, need a different design too, imagine what a car would look like passing solid and liquid 'exaust', wouldn't that make it a artificial construct instead of a machine?

so, yeah back to aliens, would their method of obtaining energy to survive, function, and develop be the same combustion Earth-forms and the stars use or will it be something different?  like feeding off gravity waves, thus they would populate areas of stellar turmoil and super-heavy planets and planetiods

or maybe they feed off of another's essence (aka. soul) thus they develop to sapience and begin 'farming souls' instead of being parasitic or active and passive hunting of prey (i.e. hunting spiders and net-weavers)


----------



## ClintonHammond (Dec 30, 2006)

" I'm reminded of an old cartoon (_National Lampoon_ or _Heavy Metal_, I think) spoofing *Close Encounters of the Third Kind* ... when the alien reaches the Mother Ship, all battered and bruised and is asked: "So, how did it go?" his(?) response: "Level this planet!"

Well, that wasn't Heavy Metal, at least not the movie... 

"the most advanced species on the planet has a natural tendency to blow the **** out of what it doesn't understand"

Based on what evidence?


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 30, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Well, that wasn't Heavy Metal, at least not the movie...


 
No, the magazine, which was also published by the people behind _National Lampoon_ (the magazine); began as an American version of the French _Metal Hurlant_, then quickly took its own tack. Most, if not all, of the material in the film was drawn from the magazine. The comic I referred to was one which appeared back in 1977 or early 1978, shortly after *Close Encounters* was originally released....

MÃ©tal Hurlant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heavy Metal (magazine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 2, 2007)

I don't think we'll ever meet any--the stars are too far apart--thank goodness. If they weren't (too far apart), we might have to endure what animals endure on Earth if we met the wrong ones. Or worst yet, could you imagine any alien race to have the misfortune of having humans come to their planet and humans were more advanced. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Jan 3, 2007)

Define "meet." If we encounter some sort of microbe or weird bacteria on Mars, does that count? Granted, the conversation won't be so hot, but I'm not sure that's an important criteria; I've hung out with record label publicists...

What if we encounter an advanced probe, something along the lines of our Voyager space craft? Does that count as meeting them? If so, we're talking about complicated looking toasters.

I don't know. I've heard that the bipedal creature is a good bet for climbing up the evolutionary ladder, but it just seems like life takes on so many shapes, so many forms, that intelligence could arrive in any of an infinite amount of packages. I'm inclined to agree that tool-use would be helpful, but who knows -- maybe aliens developed trunks to manipulate objects, instead of opposable thumbs. Then they created advanced robots, who in turn built the aliens' spaceships. Impossible to speculate.

But fun.


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 3, 2007)

I agree, one must define "meet." I'm thinking of contact with an "intelligent" species. Intelligent-->sufficiently technically capable of making contact, probably by radio or laser. I don't think this will happen. Check the Drake Equation. The problem is that tech savvy species probably don't last very long--for obvious (Darwinian) reasons. Probability of sender and receiver lining up in time is vanishing small even if there are thousands or millions of such candidates--and I think there are.

Physical contact is probably impossible. If it is not, then they will have to come here--we're not capable and probably never will be. If they are smart enough to come here, they would be to us as we are to ants--no contest. Better hope they're friendly--and if they are they probably don't want to talk to us, we're not that interesting.


----------



## Sibeling (Jan 4, 2007)

Well, if they arrive here, they must be very clever to make fast spaceships, therefore, they will have large brains, therfore, they will have big heads.

Or, on the contrary- they will have only one central brain for all their race and the brain will control them from their planet..


----------



## SpaceShip (Jan 4, 2007)

First, with disbelief; secondly, scared - very scared.


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 4, 2007)

Hmm, interesting speculation, but I, personally, have a feeling that these "aliens" as they are famously called, look no different from us.

I mean, they can be human beings existing on their own "evolved planet" (which is basically what Earth is, after all) who are also searching the heavens for intelligent life.

As much as I enjoy science fiction stories that involve hostile extraterrestrials, I also get seriously disappointed by the xenophobia the authors are reflecting upon the readers.
Yes, I do know that 'alot of people fear what they don't understand' but isn't time to step out of this "dark age psychological disorder" and walk into the "_dare to know more_" portal? Hehehe...

I mean, come on! The Universe is infinite!


----------



## SpaceShip (Jan 4, 2007)

AHJ87 said:


> I mean, come on! The Universe is infinite!


How do you know?????????


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 4, 2007)

I don't know, hehe.
I just trust my intuition that's all.

Plus... how do you know the Universe is not infinite??????


----------



## Nesacat (Jan 5, 2007)

They are probably here and all around us and reading this thread and probably posting in it as well ...


----------



## Saolta Oiche (Jan 5, 2007)

We may actually be aliens! We just don't know it!


----------



## Urien (Jan 5, 2007)

As an alien I find much of this thread deeply upsetting.


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 5, 2007)

Mitochondria are alien in nature.


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Jan 5, 2007)

AHJ87 said:


> I don't know, hehe.
> I just trust my intuition that's all.
> 
> Plus... how do you know the Universe is not infinite??????




Well... We know it has an edge. Now, granted, that edge is expanding, but it means the universe isn't actually infinite. 

On the other hand, there _could_ be an infinite number of universes, and perhaps something might find a way to cross from one universe into our universe. Though I'm more often wondering why anything would _want_ to do that...


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 5, 2007)

> On the other hand, there _could_ be an infinite number of universes, and perhaps something might find a way to cross from one universe into our universe. Though I'm more often wondering why anything would _want_ to do that...


 
String theory's awesome! hehe


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 5, 2007)

Dr. Atomic said:


> Well... We know it has an edge. Now, granted, that edge is expanding, but it means the universe isn't actually infinite.
> 
> On the other hand, there _could_ be an infinite number of universes, and perhaps something might find a way to cross from one universe into our universe. Though I'm more often wondering why anything would _want_ to do that...



Actually, the universe probably hasn't got an edge; it is non-infinite but non bounded, and expanding at the speed of light, and any point in it can be accurately considered as the centre from which it's all expanding (it can't be expanding _into _anything, because to have dimension into there has to be spacetime, and the definition of the universe is that it is everything that exists, all the matter and energy and all the spacetime, too)
Still while, if you accept the big bang theory, the universe is non-infinite, it is still unimaginably large, and there's space for lots of strange things, even without introducing suplementary dimensions.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 5, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> Actually, the universe probably hasn't got an edge; it is non-infinite but non bounded, and expanding at the speed of light, and any point in it can be accurately considered as the centre from which it's all expanding (it can't be expanding _into _anything, because to have dimension into there has to be spacetime, and the definition of the universe is that it is everything that exists, all the matter and energy and all the spacetime, too)
> Still while, if you accept the big bang theory, the universe is non-infinite, it is still unimaginably large, and there's space for lots of strange things, even without introducing suplementary dimensions.


Oh yes. I found this site a while ago, and it has the most humbling pictures you will ever see:
Astronomy Picture of the Day

Here's a picture from it; these are whole _galaxies_ approximately _*twelve billion light years*_ away:makes our problems look small, doesn't it?


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Jan 5, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> Actually, the universe probably hasn't got an edge; it is non-infinite but non bounded, and expanding at the speed of light, and any point in it can be accurately considered as the centre from which it's all expanding (it can't be expanding _into _anything, because to have dimension into there has to be spacetime, and the definition of the universe is that it is everything that exists, all the matter and energy and all the spacetime, too)
> Still while, if you accept the big bang theory, the universe is non-infinite, it is still unimaginably large, and there's space for lots of strange things, even without introducing suplementary dimensions.



Now how can I possibly argue with that?


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 5, 2007)

Dr. Atomic said:


> Now how can I possibly argue with that?



Very easily, actually; you merely disagree with me. My infallibility is noticeably permeous, and, while I might defend my positions, it's not at the expense of listening to others'.

Oh, you meant that as a _rhetorical_ question


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Jan 5, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> Very easily, actually; you merely disagree with me. My infallibility is noticeably permeous, and, while I might defend my positions, it's not at the expense of listening to others'.



Ah, but what you wrote sounded authoratative -- and in some parts of the Internet, _sounding_ right is often as good as _being_ right.


----------



## ScottSF (Jan 5, 2007)

SpaceShip said:


> First, with disbelief; secondly, scared - very scared.


 
You win spaceship!  I had a smart alec response but yours is way better. Props!


----------



## Mighty mouse (Jan 9, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> Actually, the universe probably hasn't got an edge; it is non-infinite but non bounded, and expanding at the speed of light, and any point in it can be accurately considered as the centre from which it's all expanding (it can't be expanding _into _anything, because to have dimension into there has to be spacetime, and the definition of the universe is that it is everything that exists, all the matter and energy and all the spacetime, too)
> Still while, if you accept the big bang theory, the universe is non-infinite, it is still unimaginably large, and there's space for lots of strange things, even without introducing suplementary dimensions.



I have, for my sins, just been wading through Lee Smolin's 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity'.
He suggests that string theory and loop quantum gravity may be part of a single theory. 

The 'fairly precise' analogy he offers is space is not empty but woven from a network of loops.
Strings are large loops in the weave. We can just 'see' these, not the smaller weave.
So string theory could turn out to be an approximation of a more fundamental theory describing the entire 'weave' where strings are descriptions of small waves travelling through spin networks.

So, I think I would have to disagree with non-infinite as if the universe is made of this 'weave', like the once touted ether, it does not necessarily derive from the big bang. But I may be missing something here (perhaps quite a lot!).


----------



## Whitestar (Jan 11, 2007)

I have mixed feelings on this. A part of me strongly believes in extra terrestrial life, however, the prospects of them looking more or less like us, as in bipedal species is slim to none. Different planetary atmospheres and environments will form different lifeforms. Evolution occurs through accidents and probabilities, so its a little hard to swallow that there are bipedal aliens out there. You only need to look at our own planet to have that fact verified. Look at how many strange and weird species exist on Earth, especially in our oceans. The reason why we've become so used to seeing such "aliens" is because Hollywood has imbedded in our brains as to how aliens might or should look like. Plus, its easier and cheaper to employ actors masquarading as aliens, as oppose to creating truly exotic aliens with CGI. On the other hand, there's a part of me that believes we are alone in the universe and if that turns out to be true, then its our obligations to expand our seeds of life out there in the universe. From there, our descendents will evolve on different planets and will perhaps become alien!


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 12, 2007)

Whitestar said:


> On the other hand, there's a part of me that believes we are alone in the universe and if that turns out to be true, then its our obligations to expand our seeds of life out there in the universe. From there, our descendents will evolve on different planets and will perhaps become alien!


 
Most likely would, unless it's a planet with an_ extremely_ low radioactive count, and shielded from nearly all cosmic radiation, as well. In which case, there's not likely to be much of a variety of lifeforms available on any planet we colonize ... including edible plant and/or animal forms. Even without the radiation itself, there'd be some alteration (great or subtle, depending) from absorption of an alien biochemistry; unless we really did start from scratch with a completely barren planet, seeding it with anaerobic bacteria on up....

I'm still betting that, if we really are going to get out there, we're going to have to do a little genetic playing ourselves, alter willing (or perhaps not-so-willing) members of our own species to survive in alien environments. This would probably be a fair amount of time off (though one can never tell), but we're really not likely to find anything resembling earth closely enough for our survival for a very long time.

Sadly, though, I think the likelihood of encountering any species is very close to nil. (I won't say it's impossible, but it is _highly_ improbable.) So we may never have the answer... but it is nice to speculate ... and to hope...


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 12, 2007)

I think the probability is high, if we get out there, of meeting other species; I base this on the length of time between the possibility of life on Earth, and its existence. However, I see no great evidence that intelligence is a long term survival factor, so have to admit to the high probability of them being of the intellectual capacity of slime moulds (no, I didn't say anything about politicians, American or otherwise)
But check out more recent theories of evolution; it no longer requires Asimovian "pebble in the sky" radioactivity, the mutability is already encoded in our genes, just hunting for an environment where it can express itself.


----------



## Leonardo (Jan 12, 2007)

Before I speculate in the probability of meeting other intelligent species, I think I'd like to see a definition of intelligence itself; If we consider intelligence whatever it is that makes us realize that we are infact alive, and that we can do whatever we feel like doing and screw all our instincts, then it's a concept we really don't know anything about. 

People call it different things; The soul, the self, God. But how does it work? There could be different types of intelligence, beyond our scope of understanding. I have no doubts that there are species alive in all corners of the universe, but I'm very sceptical towards whether or not it would make a difference when we met them. To go along with the Douglas Adams trend, for all we know mice might be smarter than men.

Meeting with another intelligent lifeform requires us to do more than just travel to a planet that has one.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 13, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> But check out more recent theories of evolution; it no longer requires Asimovian "pebble in the sky" radioactivity, the mutability is already encoded in our genes, just hunting for an environment where it can express itself.


 
Hmmm. I was thinking more along the lines of something other than Asimov; but thanks for the update, as I have indeed fallen woefully behind on the latest models for evolutionary mechanisms; about time I brushed up on such, methinks....


----------



## paul l (Jan 25, 2007)

I think aliens will look like ants ( VERY BIG ANTS ) and will take revenge by    stamping on humans.


----------



## jackarcalon (Jan 26, 2007)

Their cells might be immortal even if the aliens aren't. When they die, they disintegrate into a cloud that then tries to infect other organisms.


----------



## Who's Wee Dug (Jan 26, 2007)

Different


----------



## Kelvin Zero (Jan 27, 2007)

An expanding sphere of vanishing galaxies.

The stars are either being walled off to make use of every piece of starlight or dismantled to make use of all their mass.

Because the effect is propagating at near light speed, the near edge of the sphere may reach us shortly after we first detect it.


----------



## fire-in-my-soul (Feb 21, 2007)

About the size of a great dane (big dog), strong. feline style eyes. thick fur+6 legs, three each side, for balance. large ears and slightly longer hairs positioned around the body that act as vibration detectors. extremely fast. neolithic style culture.


----------



## RidderMark (Feb 22, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Most likely would, unless it's a planet with an_ extremely_ low radioactive count, and shielded from nearly all cosmic radiation, as well. In which case, there's not likely to be much of a variety of lifeforms available on any planet we colonize ... including edible plant and/or animal forms. Even without the radiation itself, there'd be some alteration (great or subtle, depending) from absorption of an alien biochemistry; unless we really did start from scratch with a completely barren planet, seeding it with anaerobic bacteria on up....
> 
> I'm still betting that, if we really are going to get out there, we're going to have to do a little genetic playing ourselves, alter willing (or perhaps not-so-willing) members of our own species to survive in alien environments. This would probably be a fair amount of time off (though one can never tell), but we're really not likely to find anything resembling earth closely enough for our survival for a very long time.
> 
> Sadly, though, I think the likelihood of encountering any species is very close to nil. (I won't say it's impossible, but it is _highly_ improbable.) So we may never have the answer... but it is nice to speculate ... and to hope...


 
Good post. I also think we shouldn't resort to thinking of life in only carbon based forms. More often then nought indiviudals think of life in how it relates to lifeon Earth. Oxygen, Water, the chemical reactions that drive this Earth often are what people look for when trying to find life outside of our Solar system.

What I think is important to understand is that life is simply biology making use of chemistry. All life is, is the exchange of energy through chemical reactions to support the life of an organism. Who is to say that biology cannot evolve to convert sulfur into energy, or hydrogen, or any manner of elements.

Then, if we cannot base life on the chemical make up of carbon based life forms, how does that apply itself to what Aliens will be capable of evolving into? Unfortunately this is a very difficult question.

I also agree with you J.D. that humans, to make the travels through space, may indeed have to loo kinward to create the possibility to travel outwardly to the great beyond. However the dangers of deep space, the types of energy that may likely bounce around the universe outside of the heliosphere of systems, and most importantly the distances that seperate us from other systems (even if we travel at the fastest possible speed according to the theories of special relativity by Einstien, intersteller travel would take years at a minimum). This brings the problems of communciation as signals also cannot travel faster then the speed of light (besides gamma bursts, but even then these decelerate back to light speed when the energy collides with physical mass i.e. protons/electrons/nuetrons), making communicating between these "islands" very difficult. That is unless you test the theories of known physics and apply hypothesis of wormholes, jumpgates, etc. etc.

Anyways that's far off subject. I think the first alien life forms we will ever meet will be microbial in nature, and that to introduce forms of alien microbial life into a place like Earth is inherintly dangerous. Alien life will never get closer then our outer Atmosphere to Earth IMO.


----------



## RidderMark (Feb 22, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> Actually, the universe probably hasn't got an edge; it is non-infinite but non bounded, and expanding at the speed of light, and any point in it can be accurately considered as the centre from which it's all expanding (it can't be expanding _into _anything, because to have dimension into there has to be spacetime, and the definition of the universe is that it is everything that exists, all the matter and energy and all the spacetime, too)
> Still while, if you accept the big bang theory, the universe is non-infinite, it is still unimaginably large, and there's space for lots of strange things, even without introducing suplementary dimensions.


 
I agree with this too .

Personally I have always been a little skeptical of the Big Bang Theory. We know a massive energy event happened some 13 bilion years ago, but it is all completely speculation as to what that high energy event was. We just assume it was the explosion that made the universe.

As it is, being that our view of space is limited to what visable light allows us to see within our small visage (I forget the name of the theory, set down by Hubble which shows that entire galaxies can infact move away from our solar system faster then the speed of light, making it impossible for us to see them at a certien point. It is a lightly complicated theory but involves the expansion of space, the movement of galaxies through space, and how over long distances these two things can infact stop us from being able to see entire galaxies due to sheer physics.) of space. To be able to produce theories that involve the birth and death of an entire universe, we should have a larger picture of the universe and it's workings. Even now we have little understanding of the planets and moons that surround us. I think it is impossible to think we have any idea of the complex and massive thing we know as the universe. Every civilization through time has had an answer for the heavens, and thought themselves to know the "big picture" better then those before them. I think we are no different. The unknown is scary for humans, so to avoid that, sometimes we look to things as fact when it could be the farthest thing from it.

Of course that's just my two cents.


----------

