have they found anything?

[edteach]

This is another expen. of money that could be used else where. like looking for alturnitive sources of energy, ways to run our autos with out oil.

[Puppycow]

All expenditures of money are expenditures that could be used elsewhere. I think this is a pretty good one.

[Jimcalagon]

This is another expen. of money that could be used else where. like looking for alturnitive sources of energy, ways to run our autos with out oil.

I'm trying to think of a polite reply to this without including the words "drop" and "ocean". I'll get back to you.

[Rob Lister]

This is another expen. of money that could be used else where. like looking for alturnitive sources of energy, ways to run our autos with out oil.

SETI receives no government support. It is entirely privately funded. If you don't like it, don't donate.

[edteach]

its a waist of time and I wont donate

[ravdin]

its a waist of time and I wont donate

Your contribution will be sorely missed.

[Fnord]

This is another expen. of money that could be used else where. like looking for alturnitive sources of energy, ways to run our autos with out oil.


This thread is a waste of bandwidth that could be used elsewhere. Like in an on-line course that teaches correct spelling, proper grammar, and appropriate punctuation.

It's a waste of time and I won't reply.

;)

[NorfolkAtheist]

This is another expen. of money that could be used else where. like looking for alturnitive sources of energy, ways to run our autos with out oil.

You're going to look pretty foolish when we finally do make contact and the aliens end up telling us the secret to running our "autos with out oil."

[JAStewart]

I think that SETI is a decent idea, but I just don't think I actually know what it is doing. I dunno if its a waste of money or not, if it was the only thing searching for aliens then maybe it would be worth it but otherwise I dunno.

[tofu]

the aliens end up telling us the secret to running our "autos with out oil."

"Simple," they'll say, "just use the sap of the common elibo tree which grows in most pod-stalk forests."

"uh, we don't have those" we'll say.

(75 years later)

"LOL! you guys are screwed then!" they'll say.

[JAStewart]

Wouldn't contact with Aliens be somewhat futile, based on the fact that the difference in time between us and the other life be so vast? (like, based on the time it would take for the signal to travel?)

[tofu]

"contact" in this context, mostly means just knowing that someone else is out there. Back and forth communication isn't going to happen. I think there are three different categories of signals that we might find:

1. those that are incidental to the operation of a civilization - basically, radars and such. These are easy to find because of their power, but give us no information at all.

2. messages that they send to themselves - like their version of TV. This sounds like it'd be great, but in reality, we would have almost no hope of understanding them, or putting them into any kind of context. I'd love to be proven wrong though. Note that it's also quite likely that an advanced society compresses or encrypts all of its communications, and by definition those would be indistinguishable from random noise (though still possibly detectable). A really advanced civilization might even communicate between colonies or ship-to-colony via optical wavelengths, which would be so highly directional that we have little chance of seeing them. I think this category of signal is the least likely for us to find.

3. a message that an advanced civilization sends out specifically to alert the rest of the galaxy that it exists - as in the movie Contact. This would be the holy grail for SETI, because this kind of message would be designed to be decoded, and designed to be interesting.

At any rate, none of those situations involves communication with the aliens. Sure, if we find one, we'd start sending transmissions back. But then, in hundreds of years, when our signal gets to them, they would have to get lucky to hear us.

The most important thing about SETI would be knowing we're not alone - and that is certainly important enough to justify the effort.

[Radrook]

Wouldn't contact with Aliens be somewhat futile, based on the fact that the difference in time between us and the other life be so vast? (like, based on the time it would take for the signal to travel?)

In the film CONTACT the aliens provided a means to get around the signal time delay problem.

[JAStewart]

Ah right. Well I watched Contact, the movie, and thought that it was pretty boring. This was like, 8 years ago or something though.

[rwguinn]

These folks who say it's a waste of time and mone make me think of a fellow I went Elk hunting with, once.
After 2 hours of climbing and bushwaking, we got to a saddle about a half hour before dawn. He looked around, procalimed "There's no elk here - let's go!"
I let him, and less than an hour later was filling my Deer tag at that location.
(Since I had to muscle it down the hill by myself, I didn't share, either!)
Never went hunting with that guy again, nor did anybody else in the party..

[T'ai Chi]

What are SETI's accomplishments so far? What are their 'deliverables'? Do we know more about 'ET' now than when they started?

[CFLarsen]

What are SETI's accomplishments so far? What are their 'deliverables'? Do we know more about 'ET' now than when they started?

Have you asked them?

[T'ai Chi]

These folks who say it's a waste of time and mone make me think of a fellow I went Elk hunting with, once.
After 2 hours of climbing and bushwaking, we got to a saddle about a half hour before dawn. He looked around, procalimed "There's no elk here - let's go!"
I let him, and less than an hour later was filling my Deer tag at that location.
(Since I had to muscle it down the hill by myself, I didn't share, either!)
Never went hunting with that guy again, nor did anybody else in the party..

Yikes. I hope the ETs don't read this and think that we're going to hunt them down.

I see what you're saying, but

a) we know elk exist, it isn't an extraordinary claim
b) elk hunting doesn't cost millions of dollars
c) one can use your analogy to argue that we should continue believing in gods, and just about every other topic

[CFLarsen]

Yikes. I hope the ETs don't read this and think that we're going to hunt them down.

I see what you're saying, but

a) we know elk exist, it isn't an extraordinary claim
b) elk hunting doesn't cost millions of dollars
c) one can use your analogy to argue that we should continue believing in gods, and just about every other topic

What you are suggesting is that we stop funding science.

[rwguinn]

Yikes. I hope the ETs don't read this and think that we're going to hunt them down.

I see what you're saying, but

a) we know elk exist, it isn't an extraordinary claim
b) elk hunting doesn't cost millions of dollars
c) one can use your analogy to argue that we should continue believing in gods, and just about every other topic

Might I suggest that you use the space between the ears for something other than a hatrack?
1.It's a BIG da*n universe. The odds are that something exists out there. Just because we know elk exist does not mean that we can find them at first glance.
2. You've never gone hunting, have you:D. A hunt is a substantially larger piece of my budget than SETI is of the Federal budget (Especially since it is mostly private funding)
3. No--it means we should never stop searching for answers. Patience is required
And you missed the more impartant part of my analogy--I filled a DEER tag. Sometimes the answers we get are not the ones we sought--but are useful in their own way. It is called "serendipity"

[T'ai Chi]

Might I suggest that you use the space between the ears for something other than a hatrack?


Certainly. And I'd consider your suggestion with the same attentiveness that I consider all other heckles by random pseudoskeptics. Fair?


1.It's a BIG da*n universe. The odds are that something exists out there.


Then anything you want to exist can exist if you're claiming that. It is the typical

big universe --> high probability of anything existing


3. No--it means we should never stop searching for answers.


Well I agree with that; I'm all for research. But you gotta wonder when to stop as a foolish way to spend valuable resources when it looks like no answers are coming in.

[fuelair]

its a waist of time and I wont donate
With, truly, no reference to your topic - only to your forum name - I do so hope you are not actually involved in education in any way!!!:)




Hadn't seen TC was here - but should have expected it. Same message - just different reason.

[rwguinn]

Certainly. And I'd consider your suggestion with the same attentiveness that I consider all other heckles by random pseudoskeptics. Fair?



Then anything you want to exist can exist if you're claiming that. It is the typical

big universe --> high probability of anything existing



Well I agree with that; I'm all for research. But you gotta wonder when to stop as a foolish way to spend valuable resources when it looks like no answers are coming in.
So, who gets to decide if a line of research is "valuable"?
You?

Just to let you know--research ALWAYS pays back much, much more than its cost.
If your type had been in charge of the space program (a useless endevor, certainly) we'd all have 5 channels on our vacuum tube TV's (no satellites!), big black rotary phones in every house, and the internet would only be a Science Fiction background.
No video games, no Ipods, and many more people dying from heart attaqcks and cancer--not to mention the crippling effects of joint injuries--no cat scans, no joint replacements,

[Olowkow]

I have come to the conclusion that some people just do not put a high value on the rational or on reality. This is similar in nature to the low esteem I have for the supernatural. However, the former seem to feel insult when this is pointed out to them, while I feel pride when I am deemed a realist.

What is real here is the need for man to explore, to invent, to think. This is why SETI exists. Curiosity and wonder are built into our species and it is part of the reason we still exist as a life form. Of course, watching I Love Lucy reruns may be less of a "waist of time" for the OP.

I suspect that the OP would marvel at the stupidity of owning or admiring expensive art, or at the inanity of musical talent. But this is what makes us human. The equipment they have is some of the most exquisite stuff in the art of electronics. You can even get PC software which doubles as a screen saver that helps with the computer time searching for a signal.

I think it is quite cool. As for the budget, it is on the wane unfortunately:

http://openseti.org/Budget.html

[Soapy Sam]

In all honesty, if SETI announced a definite, repeatable hit tomorrow, I can't imagine being more than mildly surprised. I doubt it would fundamentally affect my life, or anyone else's. A number of books would be written, some by woos claiming previous contact, some by scientists discussing probabilities.
If the signal contained usable information ("Contact" style), that would be something else, but most probably it would be the equivalent of "Reality TV", only with more legs.

[MilwaukeeMike]

This is another expen. of money that could be used else where. like looking for alturnitive sources of energy, ways to run our autos with out oil.

I agree, at least with moving the money to other areas of research. I still think there could be life out there, but come on, do we really think we are going to find them by searching for radio signals. I saw a show on this and humans on a galactic level would be considered slugs compared to the possible life out there. Are we to assume life that could be millions of years more advance than us still using radio as communication? They could be using something we cannot even fathom. I think a more plausible idea is there is life out there and it is on a micro biotic level.

[bigred]

So, who gets to decide if a line of research is "valuable"?
You?I think he's expressing his viewpoint, as are you and all of us on this thread - in fact I think that's the point of this site, for the most part.

Just to let you know--research ALWAYS pays back much, much more than its cost.I can't wait to hear how SETI has done this.


If your type had been in charge of the space program :rolleyes: "his type?" So since he questions SETI's usefulness, surely he would've questioned the entire space program's usefulness? What evidence do you have for this? Has he done so in the past?

Also, the space program from the start pretty much produced immediate, tangible benefits. What has SETI done in that regard?


No video games, no Ipods, You say that like it's a bad thing.





What is real here is the need for man to explore, to invent, to think.
...all which can be (and for almost all of man's existance, has been) done w/o SETI's existance.

Curiosity and wonder are built into our species and it is part of the reason we still exist as a life form. No argument there...

I suspect that the OP would marvel at the stupidity of owning or admiring expensive art, or at the inanity of musical talent. :rolleyes: More lame and unjustified cheap shots.

And in fact I have marvelled at the stupidity of owning or admiring expensive art - when it was owned or admired because of its price, something which has nothing to do with how good a given piece of art is. Pretentiousness in art (esp paintings and such) is all the rage.

You can even get PC software which doubles as a screen saver that helps with the computer time searching for a signal. Is that still around? Yeah I thought that was pretty cool too.

PS and FYI, I'm all for SETI. I just think it's pointless and does nothing for a "pro SETI" viewpoint to rip on someone because they dared to question it.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why is it people want to talk in ignorance?

The Planetary Society is the prime sponsor of SETI research http://planetary.org/special/seti .

It is fully self-funded by its supporters and volunteers. They make the decision about what they will do. It's not your money they spend. It's not the government's money they spend.

When freeking sports players get millions of dollars a year, what the PS spends is insignificant.

When the UK was cancelling its space program ISTR a comment that they could actually have funded a very good one if they spent the equivalent of what was been spent in the country on advertising laundry detergents.

Priorities anyone?

:mad::mad:

[The Gnomon]

The Planetary Society is the prime sponsor of SETI research http://planetary.org/special/seti .

It is fully self-funded by its supporters and volunteers. They make the decision about what they will do. It's not your money they spend. It's not the government's money they spend.



Just think - If they redirected their billions to global warming and world peace, they could make the world a utopia! :boggled:

Certainly the world would be a better place if we could each tell everyone else what to do with his/her money and time. Somewhere in the multiverse, we would all be gods.

In this particular instantiation of the multiverse, however, we are, with some limitations, free to devote time and money to whatever we wish, no matter how worthwhile. The advantage of this is that we dissipate our energies in a variety of directions rather than have a powerful authority focus our energy on a few worthless projects (e.g. wars). The disadvantage is that we run the chance of opening new avenues of interest, inquiry and understanding, thus undermining the authority of the rulers. :eek:

BTW - I demand you give up your hobbies, as they do not please me.

[tumnus]

Then anything you want to exist can exist if you're claiming that. It is the typical

big universe --> high probability of anything existing

Well I agree with that; I'm all for research. But you gotta wonder when to stop as a foolish way to spend valuable resources when it looks like no answers are coming in.

Indeed, big universe. Chances of anything near us is probably quite remote. But it cant hurt to try and take a look, rather than sit on our bottoms. That's one of the good qualities of humans, that they think of ways of finding out about stuff. How long has it been going on for now? twenty, thirty years? That's not very long, (unless you think the earth is 6000 years old or so) and there's a lot to look at.

They're funding themselves, its a drop in the ocean in terms of resources (I like when the fellow compared it to the amount sports stars earn!), so what's the big deal. An they're curious, because they don't know one way or the other, and would like to at least try and find out.

Of course, some people have all the answers already, so they can keep sitting on their bottoms.

[JHA]

This is another expen. of money that could be used else where. like looking for alturnitive sources of energy, ways to run our autos with out oil.

There is a way; it's called "pushing". :D

Why do you think so many cars have heated rear windows?

Looking for ET hasn't been exactly futile; it got the distributed computing idea off the ground and now there are dozens of very worthy projects in which one could participate. I particularly like the one that analyses climate data; that could lead to better decision-making by our glorious leaders and the avoidance of (very) expensive mistakes.

There are also several involving medical research ... hope y'all get cracking soon on one or the other of these.

[Richard Masters]

All expenditures of money are expenditures that could be used elsewhere. I think this is a pretty good one.

I personally like SETI, but I understand why others wouldn't want to pay for projects like it and NASA

[Ottis]

In all honesty, if SETI announced a definite, repeatable hit tomorrow, I can't imagine being more than mildly surprised. I doubt it would fundamentally affect my life, or anyone else's.......

The definite existence of ETL would answer one of the basic questions that I've had since childhood. I believe it would make a HUGE difference in many peoples outlook on life and our place in the universe.
I'm not saying anything against Soapy Sam, I just don't understand his mindset..

[Radrook]

It wouldn't affect my concept of my place in the universe at all.

[godless dave]

I agree, at least with moving the money to other areas of research. I still think there could be life out there, but come on, do we really think we are going to find them by searching for radio signals. I saw a show on this and humans on a galactic level would be considered slugs compared to the possible life out there. Are we to assume life that could be millions of years more advance than us still using radio as communication?

Why do you assume they would be millions of years more advanced than we? Even if they are, they weren't always that advanced. At some point in their development, they may have used radio. Those signals would still be traveling through space.

[Radrook]

They might all be living in tents and wearing loin cloths.

[amb]

The late Carl Sagan had an input in SETI. For that reason alone, in memory of the man it should be continued.
If restrictions were placed on Christopher Columbus, perhaps America would not have been colonised.

[El Greco]

The definite existence of ETL would answer one of the basic questions that I've had since childhood.

What was that question ? Whether there are aliens out there ? I've decided a long time ago to believe that statistically there must be. And that also we won't be making any kind of contact in my lifetime.

I believe it would make a HUGE difference in many peoples outlook on life and our place in the universe.

I don't think so. Maybe for a little while, but as soon as people realize we can't pick up a phone and talk to them, everything will slowly return back to normal.

Unfortunately I don't even know whether man will ever make contact with an alien civilization or we'll disappear from the universe without ever having that chance.

[TeslaPRG]

When we look at the tiny amount of money being spent on SETI compared to what we spend on our own self destruction SETI is actually insanely under funded even with our private donations. I believe that any discovery in this area would definitely be the most profound discovery since the theory of evolution in helping mankind understand itself. Critics of SETI I have discovered also criticize other research science. Science should not have to be focused on helping enterprise exclusively, it's o.k. for us to learn for the sake of knowledge.

paul

[Radrook]

The late Carl Sagan had an input in SETI. For that reason alone, in memory of the man it should be continued.
If restrictions were placed on Christopher Columbus, perhaps America would not have been colonised.

I thought America had been already colonised by the Indians when Christopher showed up.

[Unalienable]

http://www.zenfilm.org/productionhouse/Horton.jpg

We are here!
We are here!
We are here!
We are here!

[amb]

I thought America had been already colonised by the Indians when Christopher showed up.
Perhaps I should have added; colonised by a superior civilization. A more advanced one. That's evolution, survival of the strongest or fittest. That's the way it works
Same thing here in Australia. When Captain Cook landed here, the Aboriginals were still living as they did 40 thousand years ago. And would still be doing so today.

[CFLarsen]

That's evolution, survival of the strongest or fittest. That's the way it works

Not "strongest". Just "fittest".

[amb]

This is what theist find too hard to accept. The cold, cruel, fact of evolution by natural selection. Survival of the fittest. 99% of all earth life has in the 3-4 billion years of it's existence become extinct. Extinction is the norm, not the exception.

[godless dave]

I thought America had been already colonised by the Indians when Christopher showed up.

Settled but not colonized. There was nobobdy living here when the first wave of American Indians showed up.

[Radrook]

Settled but not colonized. There was nobobdy living here when the first wave of American Indians showed up.


Finally someone caught the fine distinction between the twain.

[amb]

Nevertheless. more advanced societies conquer less advanced ones. Been like that since the year dot.[ Most of the time.] From time to time some societies revert back because of corruption. Look at Mugabe in ex-Rhodesia.

[Soapy Sam]

The definite existence of ETL would answer one of the basic questions that I've had since childhood. I believe it would make a HUGE difference in many peoples outlook on life and our place in the universe.
I'm not saying anything against Soapy Sam, I just don't understand his mindset..

You're not alone there:D

Look, you would be interested. So would I, though to a lesser extent. My argument is that most people have more pressing interests and would care very little if at all.

Lets be clear what we're talking about.
SETI are searching for patterned radio signals from extra terrestrial sources, which are not produced by known natural process- ie not pulsars or whatever.
This, they infer, would imply the existence of ET intelligent life.

First , that inference is not rock solid. There could be natural processes we know nothing about that might produce an apparent signal. In fact that's exactly what happened when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first pulsar. But let's ignore that. Assume they find something "real".

How far away is the source? If it was "in our backyard", we would have found it before now, without SETI. The larger the sphere we search, the higher the chance of a find- but also the further back in time that signal originated.
The highest probability is that we find signals thousands, or tens of thousands of years old. In that case, the chance of ever communicating with the source is zero. Each message would take longer than recorded human history.

Let's say we get amazingly lucky and find a source less than 100 light years away. We must now translate the signal . That won't happen in a week or a year, as we have no referents. (In the case of the novel "Contact", the message deliberately included such referents, making it easy to break. Any real message from space is likely to be a communication between two aliens (probably alien machines) that we happen to intercept, not a message tailored for us. Let's say after a decade we have enough of a sample to send a simple response."Hi! We're here!" We will get no answer in my lifetime, or probably in yours, unless you are very youthful indeed. (I'm nearly 53 and that is a factor in "understanding my mindset").

Surely, it would be fantastic to know there is other intelligence out there, but practically how would it affect you personally? And you are actually interested in such matters. I guarantee the majority of people are not. They care about what happens to their family, their neighbourhood, maybe their country, but they don't give a damn about what happens ten thousand miles away. Why would they care what happens 100 light years away?

My bet is that after a brief flurry of interest in the press, most of it ill informed, the whole issue would be left to the scientists in a matter of weeks.
ETA- Except for the conspiracy theorists, who would create an industry denying it was real.


Obviously a deliberate "Contact" scenario is very different. In that case I think I'd be as excited as anyone else. But how likely is that?

[Radrook]

People already believe in extraterrestrials-God and his angels and it definitely has had a deep impact on their lives. : )

[Soapy Sam]

Quite. But that is as you say, belief. Belief has a far greater impact on some lives than knowledge.
If SETI had a contact, it would be a scientific fact- which would be of little interest to those who believe in angels.

[Elvis666]

[QUOTE=bigred;3326775]I can't wait to hear how SETI has done this./QUOTE]

For one, they pioneered the practical application of distributed computing over the Internet by donated CPU cycles. Those same techniques are now being used in research with more "down-to-earth" benefits.

[Radrook]

Strange that someone who claims to love factual accuracy should consider it a virtue to blatantly misrepresent a group of people that way.

BTW

Denying existence of something doesn't prove it doesn't exist. Absence of proof doesn't constitute proof of absence. That's a basic given. To smugly assert otherwise is unscientific- a mind-set which is supposedly anathema to atheists.

[amb]

A needle in a giant haystack. I wish it wasn't so. But I doubt there is any intelligent life within at least 100-200 light years away. That's not to say there's NO life closer to us, there may well be marine life under the frozen oceans of Titan or other moons in our own back yard. But intelligence may be very rare. Intelligence enough to send radio signals into the cosmos are probably a factor of 1 in a million.

[godless dave]

Strange that someone who claims to love factual accuracy should consider it a virtue to blatantly misrepresent a group of people that way.

BTW

Denying existence of something doesn't prove it doesn't exist. Absence of proof doesn't constitute proof of absence. That's a basic given. To smugly assert otherwise is unscientific- a mind-set which is supposedly anathema to atheists.


What post are you responding to?

[Radrook]

What post are you responding to?

Post number 51

[godless dave]

What part of post 51 blatantly misrepresented a group of people?

[Kilgore Trout]

Quite. But that is as you say, belief. Belief has a far greater impact on some lives than knowledge.
If SETI had a contact, it would be a scientific fact- which would be of little interest to those who believe in angels.

I'm not so sure.. I think it might get a few people thinking, especially if certain questions or ideas are given much thought. Such as, if there are aliens, was there an alien version of Jesus? It would also seem that God didn't create the universe just for us.

I'm not saying the pope is going to throw his hands up in the air and say they had a good run, but it's all over now. Some will just deny it outright, some nutters may even say it's the word of God, but I think there would be a few that give it serious thought with respect to their beliefs.

I might be overestimating the number of people that this affects, but I think it will to some extent anyway.

[Radrook]

It would definitely have a great impact on all religious people since their views about their place in the universe might have to be modified to accommodate that discovery. There is nothing in the Bible, for example, that tells us that we are the only material creatures with intelligence in this vast universe. In fact, some have suggested that certain scriptures which refer to the host of heavens is referring to those extraterrestrials. However, for those religionists who vehemently insist that Man alone reflects the divine image, it will definitely require a complete about face if they are proven wrong.

Issues such as the following would immediately emerge:
Should these creatures be considered our spiritual brothers? An investigation as to whether they in fact do reflect God's image in terms of love justice wisdom and power determine the conclusion. For example, if the aliens turn out to be hostile to mankind then they will be seen as a race of sinful beings perhaps influenced by Satan or their equivalent of one. If they are benign, then they will be not so readily evaluated and the evaluation will be between being our spiritual equals or else somehow our inferiors.

All this would depend on their moral standards and how those moral standards affect their individual members and other creatures they might chance to come in contact with.

But most importantly in this religious evaluation would be whether they do or they do not believe in a creator. If they don't, and claim to never have, never have, then they will be perceived as our spiritual inferiors. If they do, then the nature of that belief will have to be examined and evaluated. What kind of deity do they worship. Is there concept so alien as to be irreconcilable with the Christian one? Or does it describe essentially the same God from a different but yet acceptable perspective?

[amb]

I agree with physicist Paul Davies. Seti is a good thing but very much doubt it will ever find other intelligent creatures. It's like dropping a nail clipping into the Pacific ocean.
Even if some life form is ever found, how do we communicate if it's 100 light years away.
We say ''hello how are you'', their response ''not bad'' will take 100 years to get here. Very hard to hold a conversation. At best, future generations may know that we are not alone in this infinate universe. If only for that purpose, then it's worth it.

[Safe-Keeper]

a) we know elk exist, it isn't an extraordinary claimThe existence of elk as a species was not in question - the existence of elk in the hunting area was.

Perhaps I should have added; colonised by a superior civilization. A more advanced one. That's evolution, survival of the strongest or fittest. That's the way it worksAppeals to tradition and nature constitute logical fallacies. I subscribe to a Scandinavian-wide history magazine, and this issue featured a quote from a physician who said it was perfectly natural that half of the country's children died before the age of eight, and that it was pointless to worry about this since it was the way nature worked.

b) elk hunting doesn't cost millions of dollarsChristianity costs billions of dollars, doesn't it? Have you proven the existence of God yet?

c) one can use your analogy to argue that we should continue believing in gods, and just about every other topicNo, because SETI doesn't really believe in aliens. SETI says there might be aliens out there, technically, and that we should investigate the possibility. This is a far cry from believing in a specific god. Look at it this way: if SETI suddenly sat down and wrote a book describing what the aliens looked like, where they lived, how their mindsets worked, how they evolved and what wars and other struggles and triumphs they went through, what they wanted of us, and how their civilization would end - all without having seen a single alien or even finding proof they existed in the first place - then it would be a decent comparison to Christendom. As it stands, though, the SETI stance is more reminiscent of agnosticism.

We say ''hello how are you'', their response ''not bad'' will take 100 years to get here. Very hard to hold a conversation. At best, future generations may know that we are not alone in this infinate universe. If only for that purpose, then it's worth it.How far can our stronger radio signals travel, anyhow? I heard in a documentary (Life Without People, or whatever it was called) that they dissipate into background noise after only a light year or two?

Even if some life form is ever found, how do we communicate if it's 100 light years away.I don't really care too much, to be honest. I'd be overwhelmed enough to realize there was intelligent life out there to get to the communication bit:).

[amb]

The existence of elk as a species was not in question - the existence of elk in the hunting area was.

Appeals to tradition and nature constitute logical fallacies. I subscribe to a Scandinavian-wide history magazine, and this issue featured a quote from a physician who said it was perfectly natural that half of the country's children died before the age of eight, and that it was pointless to worry about this since it was the way nature worked.

Christianity costs billions of dollars, doesn't it? Have you proven the existence of God yet?

No, because SETI doesn't really believe in aliens. SETI says there might be aliens out there, technically, and that we should investigate the possibility. This is a far cry from believing in a specific god. Look at it this way: if SETI suddenly sat down and wrote a book describing what the aliens looked like, where they lived, how their mindsets worked, how they evolved and what wars and other struggles and triumphs they went through, what they wanted of us, and how their civilization would end - all without having seen a single alien or even finding proof they existed in the first place - then it would be a decent comparison to Christendom. As it stands, though, the SETI stance is more reminiscent of agnosticism.

[quote]How far can our stronger radio signals travel, anyhow? I heard in a documentary (Life Without People, or whatever it was called) that they dissipate into background noise after only a light year or two?I'm not to sure about radio signals, but light travels for billions of years without dissipating.

[Radrook]

....

No, because SETI doesn't really believe in aliens. SETI says there might be aliens out there, technically, and that we should investigate the possibility. This is a far cry from believing in a specific god.

True, they don't claim because they aren't sure.


Look at it this way: if SETI suddenly sat down and wrote a book describing what the aliens looked like, where they lived, how their mindsets worked, how they evolved and what wars and other struggles and triumphs they went through, what they wanted of us, and how their civilization would end - all without having seen a single alien or even finding proof they existed in the first place - then it would be a decent comparison to Christendom.

False analogy. Christianity doesn't operate on the basis of non-proof as you describe. The basis for Christian belief in God is described by Paul in the letter to the Roman congregation:

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So did the Hebrews:

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.


As it stands, though, the SETI stance is more reminiscent of agnosticism.

....

True.

[davefoc]

I don't have anything to add to this thread. Mostly I just wanted to get subscribed to it.

El Greco pretty much summed up my thoughts. Probably there's some sentient technologically capable life out there but I think it's very unlikely to be detected in my lifetime.

As time as gone on, my various readings on this subject have gradually reduced my expectation of any kind of extraterrestrial contact. Based on an article in Scientific American that I read a few years ago it seems that only stars in a narrow band of the milky way are viable for life as we know it. Then for life to exist as we know it some rather fortuitous circumstances need to surround the planet that life exists on. And I suspect that they don't occur very often. And just the simple fact that SETI has been listening for a long time and hasn't found anything is beginning to provide negative evidence for the existence of civilizations near enough for us to detect.

[amb]

Because of the almost infinite number of galaxies out there there is bound to be, somewhere a life producing planet orbiting a sun similar to our own.
But if our earth is any example animal life, let alone intelligent animal life, would be almost impossible. Seti will not ever find another earth. Sure there may be billions of planets with simple life like bacteria in existence. The chance of another earth forming and intelligent beings evolving is probably a trillion to one chance.
A few years ago a very good book was released titled; ''Rare Earth.'' by two respected scientists named, Prof. Peter D. Ward and Astronomer Prof. Donald Brownlee of University of Washington in Seattle. I thoroughly recommend this book to inquiring minds such as mine.

[Radrook]

As a theist I see no difficulty whatsoever in there being life. Any type of life, whether intelligent, or non intelligent since from my standpoint that all depends on God's decision.

However, I do recognize that there are many areas in our universe which seem to be hostile to life as we know it. Such as the inner galactic regions where radiation is too intense due to the density of number of stars found there. Or on those planets recently discovered which display extremely elongated elliptical orbits which would cause them to be showered by lethal radiation on one extreme while freezing on the other. Or On planets whose orbits are too near their star making them veritable ovens. Or on planets that might be circling some cepheid variable, those stars which expand and shrink in response to what appears to be some inner core instability which makes the tug and war between outward radiation and gravity a dramatic one. All these conditions seem to mitigate against most earth-based forms of life being able to exist there.

[amb]

I on the other hand being an atheist believe no god is necessary for the start of life in any planet if the conditions are right. Like I said in my previous post, bacterial life could be in more abundant places than Drake ever imagined , perhaps in our own solar system. After all there have been more than a couple of life starting cycles right here on earth after catastrophic collisions with huge asteroids that extinguished all life that had maneged a toehold beforehand and had to start over. But Animal life is an entirely different matter and needs billions of years to evolve with a steady state sun like ours which according to a few astronomers are rare in our galaxy.

[godless dave]

Because of the almost infinite number of galaxies out there there is bound to be, somewhere a life producing planet orbiting a sun similar to our own.
But if our earth is any example animal life, let alone intelligent animal life, would be almost impossible. Seti will not ever find another earth. Sure there may be billions of planets with simple life like bacteria in existence. The chance of another earth forming and intelligent beings evolving is probably a trillion to one chance.

That's still pretty good odds.

But Animal life is an entirely different matter and needs billions of years to evolve with a steady state sun like ours which according to a few astronomers are rare in our galaxy.


Yellow stars like our sun are among the most common in the universe.

[Old Bob]

Hi, why bother with setti, when we know the gov. works with ET. The moon rockets saw saucer's sitting on the edge of a crator watching them. So many people have had contact, can't all be stupid. Our spirit guides say they are real. The Gov. next act may be a false ET. invasion, time will tell. Cheers Old Bob

[amb]

That's still pretty good odds.




Yellow stars like our sun are among the most common in the universe.I thought suns like ours are quite rare. Yellow suns are very common, but their mostly giants and short lived unlike our sun which will probably live in the vicinity of 10 billion years. Even if your right, it;s complement of planets have to be something like our solar system. With gas giants like Jupiter and rocky planets like earth at just the right distance from it's sun to have any chance of life evolving.

[Soapy Sam]

Hi, why bother with setti, when we know the gov. works with ET. The moon rockets saw saucer's sitting on the edge of a crator watching them. So many people have had contact, can't all be stupid. Our spirit guides say they are real. The Gov. next act may be a false ET. invasion, time will tell. Cheers Old Bob

Bob is this a wind-up, or are you serious? Honestly, I can't tell, not knowing you.

Whichever- welcome to the forum.

[Jimbo07]

That's still pretty good odds.

With an estimated 100 billion stars in our galaxy (1x1011), you would need only ten galaxies to get 1 trillion (1x1012). Now, I don't know how many galaxies there are, but let's use the conservative estimate of 4 million (probably billions)

Galaxy Estimate (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=40)

and pull 1 in 1000 stars as "candidates" out of my butt...

(1x1011x4x106)/(1x103x1x1012) = 400 potential civilizations!

Not bad! Too bad we're too far apart to meaningfully communicate. My guess is that the number of planets with something resembling life is actually much higher... but that's a guess.

[amb]

Jimbo that's what I perceive as well. because of the astronomical numbers we are dealing with, the odds greatly favour probably millions of other life bearing planets scattered throughout the cosmos. But the nearest one to us may be in the Oder of anything between 1 to 5 or higher billion light years away.

[Radrook]

We were discussing this recently and my son said the following:

"If numbers determine probability, and probability is so great due to the astronomical numbers involved, then we should expect the vacuum to be abuzz with their communications. Yet we are met with an unnerving deathly silence instead."

Given the eons that transpired before we appeared in recent universal history and developed signal-detection abilities some type of communication signal should be easily evident.

We have to remember that our star is a second-generation star supposedly produced from the material of another star that went supernova. Prior to that there was a universe with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars with who knows how many planets in orbit about them.

Our sun is said to be approx. five billion years old. If indeed the top estimates of fifteen-billion years for the age of our universe is correct, then that leaves a full ten-billion years prior to the sun's ignition for civilizations to develop. A billion is a thousand-million. So that means that ten-times a thousand-million years transpired before our sun ignited its fusion engine. Two-thousand-million years more for the earth to take form. Three-thousand-million more for us to get to the present.

That by itself makes the silence even more eerie.

BTW

I am aware of the diverse conditions of the universe prior to the sun's appearance as a second generation star. So please deduct whatever time is necessary from my estimates.

[davefoc]

An interesting thought Radrook, but it has a flaw I think.

Signal intensity will fall off with distance. At some point the intensity of the signal falls below the local noise level for that particular frequency and the signal becomes undetectable.

So there could have been lots of civilizations that have come and gone that produced a signal that passed us by that can't be distinguished from the noise.

This is a somewhat complicated issue that I know only a little bit about. I don't remember the numbers now but I don't think SETI has much hope of detecting a signal from a planet that is much more than 50 light years away which of course is a minuscule distance compared to the distances of the galaxy and the size of the galaxy is minuscule compared to the overall universe.

Even at those kind of distances a civilization with really large antennae that they have decided to aim at us is required or a civilization that is sending out massively powerful signals omnidirectionally is required.

I wish I could remember more of the actual numbers here but whatever the actual distances that allowed for the likely detection of a signal they were hugely less than the size of the galaxy. This is one of the reasons that I think it is so unlikely that SETI will ever detect a sentient civilization.

[thesyntaxera]

This is total speculation, and laugh if you must..but...

What if looking for radio signals is the wrong way to go...perhaps radio transmission is just the first step in communication?

For instance, lets say the LHC validates the Higgs field hypothesis...couldn't it hypothetically be concievable that the field itself could transmit data or communications with a suffciently advanced technology...or perhaps something utilizing entanglement of electrons?

I was just thinking about this after watching some Borg episodes...don't mind me...

[davefoc]

This is total speculation, and laugh if you must..but...

What if looking for radio signals is the wrong way to go...perhaps radio transmission is just the first step in communication?

For instance, lets say the LHC validates the Higgs field hypothesis...couldn't it hypothetically be concievable that the field itself could transmit data or communications with a suffciently advanced technology...or perhaps something utilizing entanglement of electrons?

I was just thinking about this after watching some Borg episodes...don't mind me...

Right now the only two kinds of signals that might be used from what I know would be electro-magnetic and neutrino beams. I've never heard of anybody actually proposing a neutrino beam but it seems at least conceivable since there have been at least proposed experiments to see if neutrinos could be produced in one place, transmitted through the earth and detected at another location.

But there have been suggestions that there are other possibilities than the microwave frequencies that are mostly commonly scanned by SETI efforts. One such idea is optical laser pulses. This is a technical paper about the possibility:
http://seti.harvard.edu/oseti/tech.pdf

I didn't read through the whole thing but they propose that detection of emitters within a radius of about 1000 LY is possible.

Here is a document that I found discussion the detection range limits for different kinds of earth produced electro magnetic radiation:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html

The actual table is about 2/3 of the way through the paper. I put a copy of the table below:

-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Source | Frequency | Bandwidth | Tsys | EIRP | Detection |
| Range | (Br) |(Kelvin)| | Range (R) |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
AM Radio | 530-1605 kHz | 10 kHz | 68E6 | 100 KW | 0.007 AU |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
FM Radio | 88-108 MHz | 150 kHz | 430 | 5 MW | 5.4 AU |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
UHF TV | 470-806 MHz | 6 MHz | 50 ? | 5 MW | 2.5 AU |
Picture | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
UHF TV | 470-806 MHz | 0.1 Hz | 50 ? | 5 MW | 0.3 LY |
Carrier | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
WSR-88D | 2.8 GHz | 0.63 MHz | 40 | 32 GW | 0.01 LY |
Weather Radar| | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Arecibo | 2.380 GHz | 0.1 Hz | 40 | 22 TW | 720 LY |
S-Band (CW) | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Arecibo | 2.380 GHz | 0.1 Hz | 40 | 1 TW | 150 LY |
S-Band (CW) | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Arecibo | 2.380 GHz | 0.1 Hz | 40 | 1 GW | 5 LY |
S-Band (CW) | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Pioneer 10 | 2.295 GHz | 1.0 Hz | 40 | 1.6 kW | 120 AU |
Carrier | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+

Notice that a one terawatt signal transmitted from a Arecibo sized antenna is required to reach a range of 150 light years.

So you not only have to envision an advanced civilization. You have to envision an advanced civilization that decides to construct a vastly powerful transmitter, a massive antenna and the desire to use them to engage in what is likely to be only one way communication with a fellow advanced civilizaton.

Seems like a long shot to me.

[amb]

I believe you have better odds at winning lotto than Seti has of finding intelligent lifeforms of any kind.

[thesyntaxera]

Right now the only two kinds of signals that might be used from what I know would be electro-magnetic and neutrino beams. I've never heard of anybody actually proposing a neutrino beam but it seems at least conceivable since there have been at least proposed experiments to see if neutrinos could be produced in one place, transmitted through the earth and detected at another location.....snip....

Thanks for the information. It really put's into perspective the difficulty and improbability of the task before them.

I am still hopefull, and I will still be running my seti @home just in case.

To bring up another idea...the drake equation...how respectable is it? I have read that there could potentially be as many as 30 billion earth like planets in our galaxy, and it just makes me wonder...

[amb]

Thanks for the information. It really put's into perspective the difficulty and improbability of the task before them.

I am still hopefull, and I will still be running my seti @home just in case.

To bring up another idea...the drake equation...how respectable is it? I have read that there could potentially be as many as 30 billion earth like planets in our galaxy, and it just makes me wonder...
With all due respect to Mr Drake, I believe he is wrong. If that number was correct we would by now be telling our visitors to go away, there would be literally thousands of them knocking on our doors. Anyway, I think he mentions that number for the whole universe, not our galaxy alone which has an estimated 3 billion stars.

[davefoc]

With all due respect to Mr Drake, I believe he is wrong. If that number was correct we would by now be telling our visitors to go away, there would be literally thousands of them knocking on our doors. Anyway, I think he mentions that number for the whole universe, not our galaxy alone which has an estimated 3 billion stars.

from the wikipedia article on the milky way:
The stellar disk of the Milky Way galaxy is approximately 100,000 light years in diameter, and is believed to be, on average, about 1,000 light years thick.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way_galaxy#cite_note-7) It is estimated to contain at least 200 billion stars[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way_galaxy#cite_note-8) and possibly up to 400 billion stars,Still, based on my understanding 30 billion earth like planets sounds like way too many. The likely habitable location range for an earth like planet in our solar system is just a little beyond the earth and a little closer to the sun than the earth. So even if earth like planets occur occasionally they have to have an orbit radius that is pretty close to earth's to be habitable for advanced life similar to us. (I guess the range is somewhat larger if we're only talking bacteria or maybe creatures that are vastly different than us).

But that's not enough they have to be in the habitable zone of the galaxy and this places additional restrictions on the number. Too far from the galactic center and not enough heavy elements for life. Too close and radiation fries your brains.

[Old Bob]

Hi thanks for the welcome, no it's not a windup Google the Apollo transcripts. If you want to hear your spirit guides don't ingest cannola oil flouride or sweetner as the first two bugger your chi. We have 11 underground bases and I would think some would be involed with ET. Cheers Old Bob from down under.

[davefoc]

-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Source | Frequency | Bandwidth | Tsys | EIRP | Detection |
| Range | (Br) |(Kelvin)| | Range (R) |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
AM Radio | 530-1605 kHz | 10 kHz | 68E6 | 100 KW | 0.007 AU |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
FM Radio | 88-108 MHz | 150 kHz | 430 | 5 MW | 5.4 AU |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
UHF TV | 470-806 MHz | 6 MHz | 50 ? | 5 MW | 2.5 AU |
Picture | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
UHF TV | 470-806 MHz | 0.1 Hz | 50 ? | 5 MW | 0.3 LY |
Carrier | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
WSR-88D | 2.8 GHz | 0.63 MHz | 40 | 32 GW | 0.01 LY |
Weather Radar| | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Arecibo | 2.380 GHz | 0.1 Hz | 40 | 22 TW | 720 LY |
S-Band (CW) | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Arecibo | 2.380 GHz | 0.1 Hz | 40 | 1 TW | 150 LY |
S-Band (CW) | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Arecibo | 2.380 GHz | 0.1 Hz | 40 | 1 GW | 5 LY |
S-Band (CW) | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Pioneer 10 | 2.295 GHz | 1.0 Hz | 40 | 1.6 kW | 120 AU |
Carrier | | | | | |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------
Just redisplayed table above for easier reading, AU = astronomical unit (avg. distance of earth to sun), LY = light year

[thesyntaxera]

Well..Mr. Drake didn't come up with the 30 billion number...that I pulled from this article on space.com:

30 Billion Earths? New Estimate of Exoplanets in Our Galaxy
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/jupiter_typical_020128.html

It sounds like they are looking for solar systems such as ours by identifying jupiter like planets that function as a "protector" for potential inner planets.

So how many Jupiters are out there orbiting Sun-like stars in the Milky Way Galaxy?

"At least a billion, but probably more like 30 billion," Lineweaver told SPACE.com.

And the math behind that?

"There are about 300 billion stars in our galaxy. About 10 percent (or 30 billion) are roughly Sun-like," he explained. "At least 5 percent (1.5 billion) but possibly as many as 90 percent or 100 percent (about 30 billion) of these have Jupiter-like planets."

These estimates would vary based on exactly what you call Jupiter-like or Sun-like, Lineweaver said.

What about Earths?

The calculations, which are part of a paper that has been submitted to the journal Astrobiology, don't bear directly on worlds like our own. But with what's known of planet formation, some speculation is possible.

"A reasonable guess is the same number of Earths as Jupiters," Lineweaver said.

That, however, depends heavily on how one defines Earth-like. If one includes rocky planets in general, like Mercury, Venus and Mars, "then they are probably more common than Jupiters," he said. If, however, you mean rocky planets with liquid water at the surface, "then we really can't answer that very well. They may be as common as Jupiters, or they may be much less common."

Alan Boss, an expert in planetary system formation at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, said the new calculations for Jovian twins seem reasonable. Trying then to estimate the number of Earth-like planets requires "a leap of faith, but one which appears to be plausible," he said.

"As the veil covering the unseen portions of discovery space is lowered in the next decade, I expect we will find that Jupiter-like planets are commonplace," said Boss, who was not involved in the new study. "Whether or not that also means Earth-like planets are common can only be proven by NASA's Kepler mission."

Kepler, recently approved to launch in 2006, will monitor 100,000 stars for telltale dips in light indicating an Earth-sized planet in an Earth-like orbit has crossed in front of the star. While it would not take photographs, Kepler could provide the first census of planets that have the potential to support life.

Though the article doesn't provide much in the way of actual fact, it is an interesting thought to ponder...the kepler mission they mention toward the end looks promising, maybe then we will have a better picture?

[davefoc]

The issue of how many earth like planets there are in the galaxy depends on how one defines earth like planet.

If earth like means a planet capable of sustaining complex life the number might be very small.

Here's an article that represents a pessimistic view:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01o.html

The gist of it is that the life sustaining earth like planet needs to be in a solar system with a sun similar to ours and in a nearly circular orbit about the same distance the earth is from the sun.

It also needs to be in a galaxy habitable zone and here's where stuff takes a very pessimistic turn. The solar system can't be too close to the center (brain frying radiation and too many comets) and it can't be too far away (not enough heavier elements) and it can't be in the galaxy arms (similar problems to being too close to the galactic center) and it can't be in an orbit around the galactic center that causes it to transition into the arms.

So if this guy is right don't be looking for that message from E.T. any time soon. We might be the only sentient life in our galaxy and most probably the only sentient life within range of any kind of advanced civilization transmitters.

[Radrook]

To be earhlike in the truest sense of the word they would also need a moon of adequate density and distance in order to stabilize their axis rotation angle. Otherwise they will have a chaos of weather and seasons as these planets wobble erratically. In fact, rotational instability due to lack of a stabilizing moon is one hypothesis put forth in an attempt to explain the factors leading Mars' present condition.

[amb]

Not forgetting for a moment all the coincidences that produced life here.
I think bacterial life is even greater than Drakes equation. But animal life, let alone intelligent animals like us are a rarity not a common occurrence.

[thesyntaxera]

Not forgetting for a moment all the coincidences that produced life here.
I think bacterial life is even greater than Drakes equation. But animal life, let alone intelligent animals like us are a rarity not a common occurrence.

In this vein, yesterday I was looking about on google video and happened across a channel 4 documentary series I hadn't seen for awhile...it was the "What we still don't know.." series, particularly the "are we alone" segment:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7086762533420568365

In the video some folks make the case that life is not a coincidental/chance occurrence but something that was inevitable through chemistry given the vastness of space, and the timescales involved.

Anyway...they make and interesting case...

[Radrook]

Is it possible for impossibility to be inevitable?

[thesyntaxera]

Is it possible for impossibility to be inevitable?

I guess that depends...

[amb]

In this vein, yesterday I was looking about on google video and happened across a channel 4 documentary series I hadn't seen for awhile...it was the "What we still don't know.." series, particularly the "are we alone" segment:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7086762533420568365

In the video some folks make the case that life is not a coincidental/chance occurrence but something that was inevitable through chemistry given the vastness of space, and the timescales involved.

Anyway...they make and interesting case...
Martin Rees is a world wide treasure. Listen to his speech on astronomy on the same site, the man is a genius.
The are we alone segment makes a lot of sense also. After all, look up at the sky, the process of molecular self-assembly is common place in our universe.
The countless stars and galaxies which arose spontaneously by a process of self-assembly is proof of that. So life has to be possible in countless worlds. Even intelligent life. But earth life-like planets must still be very rare. There may be thousands in our galaxy alone, but where do you look in such a vast cosmos? It's like looking for a needle in a haystack the size of Texas.

[Radrook]

I guess that depends...


Is it possible for all possibilities to be inevitable then?

[thesyntaxera]

Is it possible for all possibilities to be inevitable then?

Again, I guess it all depends...

What do you think?

[Radrook]

Again, I guess it all depends...

What do you think?


That depends. : )

[davefoc]

...

Notice that a one terawatt signal transmitted from a Arecibo sized antenna is required to reach a range of 150 light years.

So you not only have to envision an advanced civilization. You have to envision an advanced civilization that decides to construct a vastly powerful transmitter, a massive antenna and the desire to use them to engage in what is likely to be only one way communication with a fellow advanced civilizaton.

Seems like a long shot to me.

I wanted to revisit this because I assumed something that was wrong when I made my original post.

The transmit power that is listed in the table is EIRP (Effective Isotropic Radiated Power). This value takes into account the gain of the antenna. For a transmitting antenna this is the ratio of power transmitted in a particular direction to the power that would have been transmitted if the antenna had radiated omnidirectionally. A spot light could be seen to have gain in the same way.

I did a calculation based on the formulas they supplied to see how powerful a transmitter would need to be with an Arecibo sized antenna to achieve the one terawatt output they listed assuming a 2ghz signal. According to my possibly incorrect calculations the hypothetical extraterrestrial sentient being only needs a 250KW transmitter and attach it to an Arecibo sized (305 meters) antenna and aim it at earth and his signal should be detectable with the Earth's Arecibo antenna when the earth's Arecibo's antenna is pointed at him and receiving on the right frequency.

Of course, even with the much reduced transmitter power required we're still expecting a lot from our extraterrestrial radio building alien. He needs to not only build his giant antenna but he has to aim it and only very limited aiming either for receive or transmit is possible with the Arecibo antennae on earth since it is built into the ground. Overall still a big long shot to detect a signal from as far away as 150 LY's I think.

[Jimbo07]

Talk of exotic communications frequencies (or even methods) discounts the idea that ETI wants to be found. If it did, it might be reasonable to search the Water Hole:

The Water Hole (http://www.setileague.org/general/waterhol.htm)

[amb]

Simple life on Earth seems to have emerged quite quickly, whereas it took nearly 3 billion years for multi cellular organisms to come on the scene. This disparity of timescales suggests that there may be severe barriers to the emergence of any complex life. Intelligence could therefore be exceedingly rare even if simple life were widespread. Certainly our own emergence was the outcome of time and chance. What would have happened if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out? Evolution may have followed a completely different path. The chain that led to mammalian evolution that led to us may have been foreclosed. We can't say whether any other species would have taken our role.
Some scientists claim that even in a complex biosphere, the emergence of intelligent life was a fluke. I will stick to my hypothesis that intelligent life out there is exceedingly rare.
That's not to say we are alone. Just one of perhaps a thousand other intelligent lifeforms in the cosmos. Only because of the trillions of other galaxies out there.

[Soapy Sam]

The answer to the specific question of dinosaur extinction may well be that (had the rock not hit) a technical civilisation could have existed by 60MY ago. The ornithomimids show a very high brain / body mass ratio.

Your general point is correct though. The Drake - type calculations concentrate on space and tend to ignore time. The probability of two civilisations evolving near enough to one another in both space and time to allow even lightspeed communication is not great.
My own suspicion is like yours. Simple life in some form may be relatively abundant, but intelligence may be extremely rare, with the combination of two intelligences as near neighbours in spacetime simply being vanishingly improbable.

[shadron]

Some of the useful aspects of SETI:

Definition and refinement of requirements for such a search - this will help with the organization of other low probability, high-payoff searches, such as for earth-bound asteroids.

Improved listening gear (they've made several advances into miniaturizing and organizing radio gear, how to handle interference, multiple channel recording, etc).

On-the-side discoveries - several "false alarms" have turned out to be interesting discoveries in their own rights. Can we put pulsars in this category, or were they too early?

Developments in distributed computing - all the PCs running protein folding have outrun all other computer projects in terms of computer power used, developed on the SETI model.

It is the classic small effort expended to reach a low probability goal, with a relatively large payoff if it happens. Besides, how else are we to resolve Fermi's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox)?

[amb]

S.Sam Is probably right. Both Fermi and Drake fail to take s/time in their calculations.
There could have been and gone hundreds of civilizations before our own. Seeing that our sun is a second generation star and and seeing that all the first generation stars consisted of mostly hydrogen and no carbon until the first supernovas spewed the elements for planet building into the cosmos billions of years ago. Even if life started much earlier on some galaxy far, far away, it would be from at least a second generation star, never a first. That could mean that given the flukes required for intelligence, we may well be one of the first to arrive or there may be some civilizations out there just thousands of years older or younger. Either way, we may never have contact with another civilization.

[Jimbo07]

Intelligence: A Rare Cosmic Commodity (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080410-am-intelligence-model.html)

Now, the idea that SETI will be fruitless (at least with regards to ETI), resonates with me and my feelings of how the universe is unfolding. I have a story in mind about continuing to search for (but never finding) ETI, even if humans had colonies on other planets.

However... these are just feelings, and I'm making no claim to data...

Is Watson simply pulling the 10% figure out of his posterior?

Without reading his actual article, I don't know...

[jammonius]

The seti search is the functional equivalent of dipping your toe into the Pacific Ocean for about .000001 of a nanosecond while hoping a dolphin touch it. And that might be an overstatement.

[Seismosaurus]

Er, the Drake equation does factor in time. That's why the final term of it is the time a civilisation can be expected to endure.

[amb]

The seti search is the functional equivalent of dipping your toe into the Pacific Ocean for about .000001 of a nanosecond while hoping a dolphin touch it. And that might be an overstatement. Another good example would be a homeopathy medicine.
Diluted down to one billionth part of a teaspoon of water.
Not that I don't believe there's life out there, there's bound to be life somewhere considering the size of our galaxy let alone the universe.
So far things look a little bleak to say the least, in our vicinity anyway.
But it's still worth every cent that's spent, because we are an inquiring creatures that have to know one way or the other. Life may be in abundance out there, but it may be only bacterial type. Intelligence may be rarer than hens teeth. All the more reason to protect our environment and the health of planet Earth. :eye-poppi

[Radrook]

I don't if if they ever wil or won't find intelligent or non-intelligent ET life. One thing I do know for sure however, if they ever do find life, whatever its form might chance to be, it won't be there due to an infinite sequence of happy accidents.

[davefoc]

I don't if if they ever wil or won't find intelligent or non-intelligent ET life. One thing I do know for sure however, if they ever do find life, whatever its form might chance to be, it won't be there due to an infinite sequence of happy accidents.

??

[amb]

I don't if if they ever wil or won't find intelligent or non-intelligent ET life. One thing I do know for sure however, if they ever do find life, whatever its form might chance to be, it won't be there due to an infinite sequence of happy accidents. Please don't tell us that if life is found out there ''god did it''
All it it needs is one in a trillion chance and still be possible considering the almost infinite size of the cosmos and almost infinite number of galaxies out there. :eye-poppi

[Radrook]

Please don't tell us that if life is found out there ''god did it''
All it it needs is one in a trillion chance and still be possible considering the almost infinite size of the cosmos and almost infinite number of galaxies out there. :eye-poppi

So happy accidents become happier the more material you provide. I don't buy that.

BTW

Astronomers have never claimed that the universe is infinite.

[Jimbo07]

it won't be there due to an infinite sequence of happy accidents.

I fully agree!

i) The universe has a finite lifespan, so barring a "bouncing" universe, the idea of an infinite sequence of events is almost impossible...

ii) Not all of the accidents will have been happy!

:D

[amb]

So happy accidents become happier the more material you provide. I don't buy that.

BTW

Astronomers have never claimed that the universe is infinite. And neither do I.
I said almost infinite.
There are billions of stars in our galaxy alone, and there are billions of galaxies out there. The possibilities are endless
therefore almost infinite.

[amb]

I fully agree!

i) The universe has a finite lifespan, so barring a "bouncing" universe, the idea of an infinite sequence of events is almost impossible...

ii) Not all of the accidents will have been happy!

:D The more than 90% of life that has become extinct throughout earth's history is testimony to that.

[Jimbo07]

The more than 90% of life that has become extinct throughout earth's history is testimony to that.

You're a 1D10T! Nothing became extinct. Satan put those bones there to test our faith. Plus, oil has an abiological origin.

I pray for you! :mad:



















;)

[amb]

You're a 1D10T! Nothing became extinct. Satan put those bones there to test our faith. Plus, oil has an abiological origin.

I pray for you! You mean I can still be saved from damnation by your prayers? Thank you, thank you. I will buy you a beer if we ever meet.:p



















;)[/QUOTE]

[Jimbo07]

You mean I can still be saved from damnation by your prayers? Thank you, thank you. I will buy you a beer if we ever meet.:p

No, no, no. It's all more complicated. See, I pray that God will help you see the error of your own ways. Then it is up to you to open your heart to our saviour so that, through your own actions, He can save you from damnation. I mean, you can lead a horse to water, but a pinch in time is worth two in the bush!

Plus, the search for SETI is exactly the same as the search for God. If you don't believe my pastor, then you should believe the actress dressed as a scientist I saw in a movie!

...

Seriously, I'd love that beer!

:alc:

[amb]

No, no, no. It's all more complicated. See, I pray that God will help you see the error of your own ways. Then it is up to you to open your heart to our saviour so that, through your own actions, He can save you from damnation. I mean, you can lead a horse to water, but a pinch in time is worth two in the bush!

Plus, the search for SETI is exactly the same as the search for God. If you don't believe my pastor, then you should believe the actress dressed as a scientist I saw in a movie!

...

Seriously, I'd love that beer!

:alc:
Except that Seti may one day find that needle in a haystack.
The search for ''God'' is doomed to failure from the start.
Something that doesn't exist will never be found.
I would believe the actress before any pastor any time. Unless the pastor is discussing non religious matters. :p

[shadron]

No, no, no. It's all more complicated. See, I pray that God will help you see the error of your own ways. Then it is up to you to open your heart to our saviour so that, through your own actions, He can save you from damnation. I mean, you can lead a horse to water, but a pinch in time is worth two in the bush!

Plus, the search for SETI is exactly the same as the search for God. If you don't believe my pastor, then you should believe the actress dressed as a scientist I saw in a movie!

...

Seriously, I'd love that beer!

:alc:

Here's salt on the tail of your hops. Back to the mine!

The difference between SETI and God is the difference in shelling out ten dollars for a sweepstakes ticket and lending the same amount to your uncle to assist him in his research. In fact, that analogy applies in several ways.

[Jimbo07]

I see I took my joke too far...

[shadron]

Everything to excess!!

[Radrook]

I fully agree!

i) The universe has a finite lifespan, so barring a "bouncing" universe, the idea of an infinite sequence of events is almost impossible...

ii) Not all of the accidents will have been happy!

:D

True-but sufficiently numerically happy to get the job done while the unhappy ones not so drastically unhappy as to prevent the happy ones from mimicking a guiding mind.

[Jimbo07]

as to prevent the happy ones from mimicking a guiding mind.

a mind made of scrambled eggs, maybe...

[Radrook]

a mind made of scrambled eggs, maybe...

All I hear scientists say is how wonderfully complex nature is and marvelling at the way organisms are put together. You probably do the same until someone mentions ID. Then you panic and shift into the heckling and jeckling mode. It's that type of self-contradiction which seriously weakens your case.

[Jimbo07]

All I hear scientists say is how wonderfully complex nature is and marvelling at the way organisms are put together. You probably do the same until someone mentions ID. Then you panic and shift into the heckling and jeckling mode. It's that type of self-contradiction which seriously weakens your case.

Well, to be fair, it's not my case, because I am insufficiently expert to advance original thinking on the subject. That said...

I imagine there's a difference between 'wonderfully complex' and 'irreducibly complex' (the ID claim). Irreducible complexity has been dealt with many times, and many here would no-doubt call it bunk.

However, to borrow your phrase, wonderful complexity is not addressed often-enough. The body (forget human, just horse, chicken, etc.) is phenomenally intricate. We're barely able to wrap our pea-brains around it, and the brain still holds secrets... but these things aren't inscrutable. Complex, intricate and barely able do not mean unable. Some of the things that we have figured out suggest some strength and flexibility, but also a remarkable fragility! Key systems have little (or no) redundancy. There are so many failure modes that some are still unknown. They are energy inefficient.

In short, the body may have been designed by engineers, perhaps even clever ones, but they didn't have a robust Quality Assurance Process! :D

[shadron]

ISO-9000, 6 Sigma Darwinism?

[Leftus]

All I hear scientists say is how wonderfully complex nature is and marvelling at the way organisms are put together. You probably do the same until someone mentions ID. Then you panic and shift into the heckling and jeckling mode. It's that type of self-contradiction which seriously weakens your case.

All I hear geologists say is how wonderfully complex planet Earth is and marvelling at the way plate tectonics work. You probably do the same until someone mentions Flat Earth. Then you panic and shift into the heckling and jeckling mode. It's that type of self-contradiction which seriously weakens your case.

[godless dave]

All I hear scientists say is how wonderfully complex nature is and marvelling at the way organisms are put together. You probably do the same until someone mentions ID. Then you panic and shift into the heckling and jeckling mode. It's that type of self-contradiction which seriously weakens your case.

There is no contradiction.

[amb]

The only contradictions are found in the babble, not biology or abiogenesis.

[Radrook]

All I hear geologists say is how wonderfully complex planet Earth is and marvelling at the way plate tectonics work. You probably do the same until someone mentions Flat Earth. Then you panic and shift into the heckling and jeckling mode. It's that type of self-contradiction which seriously weakens your case.

Why would I panic when some ignoramus mentions a flat earth? Furthermore, what does such an imbecilic idea have to do with the possibility or impossibility of ID? NOTHING! They are mutually- exclusive completely unrelated topics. Trying to merge them is illogical. Comes under the term-obfuscation. Or perhaps begging the question? One thing is for sure, it definitely isn't cogent reasoning.

BTW

To me the belief in abiogeneisis is babble as it is to certain scientists who disagree with it despite their complete understanding of its unwarranted and unprovable assumptions.

[excerpt:


In The Beginning Was The Word
"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arthur Eddington,
(Astrophysicist): Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.


Excerpt


Evolution Roulette
"What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform.
There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

Pierre-Paul Grasse,
French zoologist in 'Evolution of Living Organisms' (New York: Academic Press, 1977),

Excerpt


I Give Up!
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?
There is another theory, now quite out of favor, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny.
I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.
I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

Dr. H. S. Lipson,
F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31,


http://unmaskingevolution.com/4-abiogenesis.htm

Bolding mine

[I Ratant]

"I can't wait to hear how SETI has done this."
"Well, here we are at the top of the mountain. No elk here, let's go home".

[Radrook]

"I can't wait to hear how SETI has done this."
"Well, here we are at the top of the mountain. No elk here, let's go home".

I don't think that SETI searches can ever justyify such a statement. SETI searches
are too meager and the top of the mountain seems to be forever beyond reach.

[amb]

The thing is, how do you search for a needle in a huge double sized haystack?

Billions of targets in our galaxy alone and life as we know it is so an unlikely event that if it did find intelligent life it would be regarded as a million to one shot.
Even life based on silicone for example would show some signs of intelligence that would be recognised by us if it exists.

I'm of the opinion that the cosmos is teeming with life. But it's only bacterial in nature or very primitive one celled at best.

[Radrook]

Just recently a planet that might be a candidate for haboring our type of life was discovered. The problem is that it's 20 light years distant. Since light travels at approx 186,000 mps that means that two-way communication would have to be at forty-year intervals. It also means that if there is intelligent life there they either haven't developed the technology yet, aren't interested in communicating, or else are communicating in some manner we havent been able to detect. The overall impression I get is that these overwhelming distances indicate that we were never meant to have contact with such beings if indeed they do exist.

[shadron]

Just recently a planet that might be a candidate for haboring our type of life was discovered. The problem is that it's 20 light years distant. Since light travels at approx 186,000 mps that means that two-way communication would have to be at forty-year intervals. It also means that if there is intelligent life there they either haven't developed the technology yet, aren't interested in communicating, or else are communicating in some manner we havent been able to detect. The overall impression I get is that these overwhelming distances indicate that we were never meant to have contact with such beings if indeed they do exist.

<hysterical reaction that radrook expects from me>The "impression you get"? You mean the Bible doesn't say? Oh, my, you're on your own, huh? I guess were supposed to assume that since god made them so far away we're not supposed to communicate and ask sticky questions like, "Do they have souls? Do they need to be saved, or did they pass their big test? Do they even have a religious concept at all? What do they think of the Big Bang, or evolution? Why are they not mentioned in Genesis, as all important things are?"

If we do find someone at that distance and they are communicating, I think we'll just send them wikipedia one page at a time, and read what they send, and eventually we'll sort of catch up to each other. But don't worry - you'll have at least 20 years to prepare.</hysteria>

[amb]

<hysterical reaction that radrook expects from me>The "impression you get"? You mean the Bible doesn't say? Oh, my, you're on your own, huh? I guess were supposed to assume that since god made them so far away we're not supposed to communicate and ask sticky questions like, "Do they have souls? Do they need to be saved, or did they pass their big test? Do they even have a religious concept at all? What do they think of the Big Bang, or evolution? Why are they not mentioned in Genesis, as all important things are?"

If we do find someone at that distance and they are communicating, I think we'll just send them wikipedia one page at a time, and read what they send, and eventually we'll sort of catch up to each other. But don't worry - you'll have at least 20 years to prepare.</hysteria>
Or the problem of what do they look like?
What if their intelligent dinosaurs? would that mean god is not really in our image? And that the babble is after all just that?

[Jimbo07]

Or the problem of what do they look like?
What if their intelligent dinosaurs? would that mean god is not really in our image? And that the babble is after all just that?

They've got this covered. "His Image" is a metaphorical statement... :boggled:

[Radrook]

<hysterical reaction that radrook expects from me>The "impression you get"? You mean the Bible doesn't say? Oh, my, you're on your own, huh? I guess were supposed to assume that since god made them so far away we're not supposed to communicate and ask sticky questions like, "Do they have souls? Do they need to be saved, or did they pass their big test? Do they even have a religious concept at all? What do they think of the Big Bang, or evolution? Why are they not mentioned in Genesis, as all important things are?"

If we do find someone at that distance and they are
communicating, I think we'll just send them wikipedia one page at a time, and read what they send, and eventually we'll sort of catch up to each other. But don't worry - you'll have at least 20 years to prepare.</hysteria>

Please note that whenever someone expresses his views on this subject that person doesn't necessarily do it in order to provoke any type of negative reaction but simply wishes to express his views as he sees things. I for example don't assume anyone here is trying to get me to react hysterically or in any other way when I read anything that goes contrary to my view. So why should anyone assume that about any of my views?

My opinion is simply my opinion. Now, if my opinion is perceived as a serious affront to other opinions and is viewed as being some type of challenge-then rest assured it isn't meant that way. It's simply my opinion which I feel I have a right to express as much as anyone else without coming under immediate attack. Hope that clears up things a little.

BTW

The questions asked here aren't insurmountable obstacles fact, they are easily answerable. But for me to do so would deviate the thread into the religious. However, if you wish to address those points feel free to post it in the religious forum and I'll be glad to respond to those supposedly insurmountable issues

.

[Radrook]

Or the problem of what do they look like?
What if their intelligent dinosaurs? would that mean god is not really in our image? And that the babble is after all just that?

The answer to your query is given in the minister's sermon in the film: "Village of the Damned" The film is on the free-film category on Comcast on Demand. The film is about extraterrestrial life-so it fits in nicely with the thread.

[amb]

I watched that movie years ago. I can't recall that scene.
I will try and watch it again. Great film as I recall. I love SF if not too outrages.

[Radrook]

I watched that movie years ago. I can't recall that scene.
I will try and watch it again. Great film as I recall. I love SF if not too outrages.

I enjoy well-written sci fi as well. Christopher Reeves, may he rest in peace, gave a fine performance as one of the children's foster parents. The sermon explanation comes approximately in the middle of the film where it has become clear to the towns-people that something is definitely wrong with the children.

[amb]

''The Day The Earth Stood Still'' In my humble opinion is still ranked as one of the best S/F movies ever.
I also loved the original ''Time Machine'' with Rod Taylor as the lead.

[Radrook]

''The Day The Earth Stood Still'' In my humble opinion is still ranked as one of the best S/F movies ever.
I also loved the original ''Time Machine'' with Rod Taylor as the lead.

Those two are my favorites as well. Also the following ones:

Forbidden Planet, War of the Worlds, Aliens. The series "Twighlight Zone" had some good Sci Fi episodes. "To Serve Man" was a good one.

[amb]

The original Star Trek was also a great series with a great story line in each episode.

I used to watch ''Twilight Zone'' [Rod Serling as narrator] religiously.

[JoeyDonuts]

I heard the Arecibo Radiotelescope actually received a reply from star cluster M13...alien television excerpts. A couple minutes' worth of the Zaphod Beeblebrox Show followed by an infomercial for prime swampfront timeshare property on Dagobah.

"Limited time offer this is. Act now you must."

[amb]

How does one invest in this opportunity of a lifetime?? I have my credit card on standby.

Please post instructions ASAP. ;)

[The Drain]

How does one invest in this opportunity of a lifetime?? I have my credit card on standby.

Please post instructions ASAP. ;)

There's two ways.
1. Take over Arecibo during the middle of the day when all astronomers are asleep and fire off your credit card details into the cosmos
2. Or you can send me your credit card details and I will pass them on.

[amb]

I think I'll wait for something a bit more tangible.

[JoeyDonuts]

I think I'll wait for something a bit more tangible.

Beaming your CC info into the cosmos...hmm interesting.

It begs the question though...what if our first contact from another civilization was that your card had been declined?

I wonder if you could dispute the charges if some intergalactic identity thief decides to place an order for 500 cases of Saurian Brandy and a lifetime subscription to Pon Farr Uncensored on your Discover.

If you believe any of this, I've got a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.

[Gravy]

I heard the Arecibo Radiotelescope actually received a reply from star cluster M13...alien television excerpts. A couple minutes' worth of the Zaphod Beeblebrox Show followed by an infomercial for prime swampfront timeshare property on Dagobah.

"Limited time offer this is. Act now you must."
The one that gets me is "Heads on: apply directly to the foreheads!"

[CrikeyBobs]

I imagine there's a difference between 'wonderfully complex' and 'irreducibly complex' (the ID claim).

As an example, a fractal (eg The Mandelbrot set) is most certainly "wonderfully complex", but its complexity can be reduced to very simple arithmetic, involving repeated applications of multiplication and addition. And fractals are not restricted to the abstract world of virtual art, there are also fractals in nature (Fractal#In_nature)

[Radrook]

How is the eye reducibly complex?

[Cainkane1]

Wouldn't contact with Aliens be somewhat futile, based on the fact that the difference in time between us and the other life be so vast? (like, based on the time it would take for the signal to travel?)
Is ancient literature worthless because we no longer have contact with Herodotur or Socrates? If we could contact aliens we would have a lot to share even if we could never meet in person.

[amb]

Sure. We send a message and we receive a response 500 years later. Quite a conversation starter that is.

[Radrook]

Dawkins warned that perhaps it would be better not to try to communicate.

[amb]

What will happen to religion if the impossible ever happens and an alien civilization does make contact with us?
I think it will be the greatest comedy act of all time watching the fundies scramble for an explanation. :D

[Radrook]

What will happen to religion if the impossible ever happens and an alien civilization does make contact with us?
I think it will be the greatest comedy act of all time watching the fundies scramble for an explanation. :D


What is it that you believe fundies believe that prevents their accepting God having created other creatures on other planets?

[amb]

Fundies believe in an Earth centered universe. They reluctantly accepted that the Earth orbits the sun. In their sacred scriptures, it states that God made Adam and Eve in their image. Nowhere in the babble [Genesis] does it state that God also made OOraku and AAnnau on a planet far, far away.
Imagine if ET making contact with us knows nothing of any gods yet they would be at least 1oo-3oo thousand years ahead of us on the evolution path, both biological and technology wise.
This very question was asked of a high ranking church official decades ago. His response was. '' Well, if they do not know of Jeebuse's sacrifice here on Earth, we would have to teach them about the good news of the gospels.'' Imagine that. ET traveling for perhaps hundreds of light years to be bible bashed by some fundy organization.

[Radrook]

Fundies believe in an Earth centered universe. They reluctantly accepted that the Earth orbits the sun.

Can you please provide the name of this denomination or denominations that still refuse to accept that the earth isn't the center of the universe? The reason I ask is because in all my years as spiritual disciplinarian : ) I have yet to meet one. I do know there are people who think the earth is flat. But they aren't religiously motivated.

In their sacred scriptures, it states that God made Adam and Eve in their image. Nowhere in the babble [Genesis] does it state that God also made OOraku and AAnnau on a planet far, far away.

That's because the Bible is a book for mankind and about it's place and responsibilities on this earth. The Bible actually does mention extraterrestrial non- human beings-angels.
In fact, it speaks of an invasion by those beings and their genetic experiments with mankind during Noah's day. So it isn't at all quiet about non-human life-forms. It's silence in reference to material non-human or extraterrestrial human life-forms doesn't prove that they don't exist. It merely might be that he chooses not to mention them.


Imagine if ET making contact with us knows nothing of any gods yet they would be at least 1oo-3oo thousand years ahead of us on the evolution path, both biological and technology wise.
This very question was asked of a high ranking church official decades ago. His response was. '' Well, if they do not know of Jeebuse's sacrifice here on Earth, we would have to teach them about the good news of the gospels.'' Imagine that. ET traveling for perhaps hundreds of light years to be bible bashed by some fundy organization.

There are ignoramuses who claim to know but know NOTHING. Or who claim expertise in Christian biblical teachings but when questioned reveal they are charlatans. The persons or person you just described fits that description. There are millions of fundamentalists who don't hold the views you describe. So it is a misrepresentation to describe them that way.

bTW
Your purposeful misspellings don't really convey anything other than your need to
mock, chortle, denigrate, and generally attempt to annoy those who consider those words sacred. In view of your chosen festering modus operandi I am forced to use the ignore option in order to clear my screen. In any case, nice try but no cigar.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Can you please provide the name of this denomination or denominations that still refuse to accept that the earth isn't the center of the universe? The reason I ask is because in all my years as spiritual disciplinarian : ) I have yet to meet one. I do know there are people who think the earth is flat. But they aren't religiously motivated.

I know of no official denomination but I know of a handful of individual Christians who believe the earth is fixed and unmoving.

Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine (http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/)

The Earth Is Not Moving (http://www.fixedearth.com/)

[amb]

I know of no official denomination but I know of a handful of individual Christians who believe the earth is fixed and unmoving.

Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine (http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/)

The Earth Is Not Moving (http://www.fixedearth.com/)
Thank you very much. You have saved me at least half an hour Googling for that info.
The funny thing is, these kooks take all this seriously. Deluded or mentally unbalanced?
Take your pick. :eye-poppi :boggled:

[Radrook]

There's a curious comment on the previous to prevcious post I'd like to address.
If indeed there are extraterresrials under the ID scenario then they would have been informed of their status just as we have been. So all the ridiculous confusion that would ensue due to the supposed big surprize wouldn't exist under that scenario now would it?
Of course under that other senario it would. But that other scenario has a false premise as it's basis.

[Ottis]

Wouldn't the whole "ID" idea almost guarantee the existence of ETI??

.....snip....Surely, it would be fantastic to know there is other intelligence out there, but practically how would it affect you personally? ...snip...

Practically, I would personally Know something fantastic!!!

.....snip.... And you are actually interested in such matters.. I guarantee the majority of people are not. ...snip...

I respectfully disagree with that, I at least hope you're wrong anyway..


<hysterical reaction that radrook expects from me>The "impression you get"? You mean the Bible doesn't say? Oh, my, you're on your own, huh? I guess were supposed to assume that since god made them so far away we're not supposed to communicate and ask sticky questions like, "Do they have souls? Do they need to be saved, or did they pass their big test? Do they even have a religious concept at all? ...snip....</hysteria>

Ha! and why don't we add; "pardon me, Do you have any Grey Poupon??" :D

But seriously, lets say that SETI comes to the conclusion that we are really alone in the universe. (i know it doesn't work like that, humor me on this) in science, isn't No just as important an answer as Yes??? And wouldn't being alone raise more questions then not??

[Radrook]

<hysterical reaction that radrook expects from me>The "impression you get"? You mean the Bible doesn't say? Oh, my, you're on your own, huh? I guess were supposed to assume that since god made them so far away we're not supposed to communicate and ask sticky questions like, "Do they have souls? Do they need to be saved, or did they pass their big test? Do they even have a religious concept at all? ...snip....</hysteria>

I never mentioned the Bible so you can't logically be referring to me

Well, if there is an ID and he created the distances, the hazards, the light velocity speed limits why is it illogical to think that he doesn't want us to get in contact? If indeed he'd wanted us to communicate more easily he could have just as easily placed them on Venus or Mars or have created a duplicate earth within our solar system.

As for sticky questions, why are they sticky? They are simply questions just like any other questions we have a right to ask. Neither do the answers to those questions present any particular difficulty as you seem to imagine. Why you think they do is beyond me.

Let me give you a demonstration:

Do they need to be saved?

Any intelligent creature at serious odds with the ID as you are describing it
is in need of being tweaked, correcte, or fixed.



Do they have a religious concept?

It depends on how they were designed. Animals don't have religious concepts.

Do they have souls?

Again that depends on whether the ID has chosen to grant them a soul as you conceive the word to mean.

None of those questions pose any insurmountable obstacle to religious faith. Why do you feel they do?

[amb]

It may not pose a problem to religious faith if ET was to show up tomorrow, but wouldn't that irreparable damage the idea that man's a special or ultimate creation of God?

[shadron]

Fundies believe in an Earth centered universe. They reluctantly accepted that the Earth orbits the sun. In their sacred scriptures, it states that God made Adam and Eve in their image. Nowhere in the babble [Genesis] does it state that God also made OOraku and AAnnau on a planet far, far away.
Imagine if ET making contact with us knows nothing of any gods yet they would be at least 1oo-3oo thousand years ahead of us on the evolution path, both biological and technology wise.
This very question was asked of a high ranking church official decades ago. His response was. '' Well, if they do not know of Jeebuse's sacrifice here on Earth, we would have to teach them about the good news of the gospels.'' Imagine that. ET traveling for perhaps hundreds of light years to be bible bashed by some fundy organization.

This is underlined by he question of the original sin. Adam and Eve sinned, and that made life imperfect for us because we are their children (guilt by presumed blood relation). It required god to send JC to help us out, because we couldn't have done it (whatever "it" is, and pity those who lived before JC and didn't get "it") ourselves. If ETs appear, the question is whether they were put "to the test", and whether they passed it or not. If they didn't, then they didn't need JC's sacrifice to straighten out their lives, or are they still waiting for "it"? Or maybe they answer to their own god, who did things a totally different way. If so, where does omnipotence go? If they have no equivalent concept then do they really have soul (or whatever god added to us to make us special), or are they just animals, even if more intelligent/cultured/<name the attribute> than we are? If they passed their test, does that make them superior morally to us? Do we take their word for it? Do they have to bow to our god if they passed, or we to theirs? Are our gods miscible? The theological questions go on forever, and have the potential of doing great harm to the population that believes in them - for example, an inferiority complex growing into unfounded xenophobia.

[Radrook]

This is underlined by he question of the original sin. Adam and Eve sinned, and that made life imperfect for us because we are their children (guilt by presumed blood relation). It required god to send JC to help us out, because we couldn't have done it (whatever "it" is, and pity those who lived before JC and didn't get "it") ourselves.

Those who lived before Jesus are covered by his ransom sacrifice.
Ever hear of the resurrection and reward promises?

Whatever it is they couldn't do, was refrain from sinning. Since the punishment for sin is death, then death could not be evaded. Jesus' death paid the price o death for all mankind leaving those willing to take advantage of it able to eventually gain eternal life. Not on their own merit-but because the penalty had been paid for them.


If ETs appear, the question is whether they were put "to the test", and whether they passed it or not. If they didn't, then they didn't need JC's sacrifice to straighten out their lives, or are they still waiting for "it"?

Jesus died as a man for the sons of Adam. That's why he took the human form. His death isn't applicable to other humans or creatures who are not of Adamic stock.


Or maybe they answer to their own god, who did things a totally different way. If so, where does omnipotence go?

There are people here on earth who answer to their own ideas of gods and omnipotence goes nowhere.


If they have no equivalent concept then do they really have soul (or whatever god added to us to make us special), or are they just animals, even if more intelligent/cultured/<name the attribute> than we are?

There are people right here on earth who differ in concepts and whom Christians still consider to have a soul and are considered humans and not animals.


If they passed their test, does that make them superior morally to us?

It would make them morally capable of doing God's will perfectly because they haven't suffered physical the consequences of sin. Would it make every individual in their group incapable of sin? No. Sin will continue to be a personal choice.


Do we take their word for it?

Mankind isn't that gullible. Especially since mankind has a tendency to deceive due to ulterior motives.


Do they have to bow to our god if they passed, or we to theirs? Are our gods miscible?

Why would a Christian feel he has to bow before a concept of God that comes across as totally alien? Did Christian missionaries begin bowing down to the God's of non-Christians
simply because they found concepts of other gods? One doesn't need an alien race to encounter that situation. It exists right here on earth right now and Christianity deals with it as it would deal with any such concept. By rejecting it.


sociological questions go on forever, and have the potential of doing great harm to the population that believes in them - for example, an inferiority complex growing into unfounded xenophobia.


Christians already believe in creatures superior to mankind both physically and intellectuially-angels-and they haven't developed and inferiority complex so far.


2 Peter 2:11
Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might,....

Psalm 8:4-6

4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,....

They simply consider them a sort of elderly big brothers whom God simply chose to make superior to us for his own good reasons. In fact, they are said to have witnessed the creation of the earth itself.



Job 38

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Yet that is accepted as given with no resentment nor ineferiority complex. So why would an additional big brother make any difference? It would simply be viewed in the same light. From a correct Christian standpoint.

[Ottis]

I would think (or at least hope) that the idea of religion is a mental illness unique to humanity. If not, then the universe, if/ when interstellar travel becomes possible, (assuming ETIs are out there) will be a very dangerous place to live in...
Those unwilling to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Radrook]

I would think (or at least hope) that the idea of religion is a mental illness unique to humanity. If not, then the universe, if/ when interstellar travel becomes possible, (assuming ETIs are out there) will be a very dangerous place to live in...
Those unwilling to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

That seems to assume that all religion has no beneficial sociological function. Which is of course absurd. If indeed humans invented religion as I'm sure you believe, then it was because it provided survival advantages. Brought psychological comfort in the face of the unknown for example giving mankind a sense of security he would otherwise have lacked during the time when the forces of nature all seemed hell bent on his destruction.

So it's really not strange from a purely atheistic viewpoint to expect other sentient reasoning creatures to avail themselves of the same psychological benefit. Furthermore, reasoning creatures don't usually conclude that complicated things which show organization towards a purpose assemble themselves magically without the guidance of mind. So it's far more likely that reasoning creatures conclude-as mankind had for most of its history and as the majority of mankind still does, that all this organization toward purpose was caused by an ID.

So IMHO it would be highly unusual and highly unlikely for an ET to be an atheist.

BTW
Such an ET might view atheism as a manifestation of insanity.

[Silentknight]

At this point I don't know whether to shudder or snicker in anticipation of the interplanetary wars that are sure to break out when fundies on Earth try to force their religious beliefs on fundies from other planets.

"See, this dead Jewish dude on a stick went through all that to pay for your sins! Now get down on your knees and accept him as your Lord and Savior!"

"Yeah, well this dead Tau Cetian burned in plasma radiation went through all that to erase the stains of wickedness from your spirit bodies! Now wave your appendages in the air and offer penance to him!"

"Blasphemy!"

"Blasphemy!"

(Cue thermonuclear exchange)

[Beerina]

Whatever it is they couldn't do, was refrain from sinning. Since the punishment for sin is death, then death could not be evaded. Jesus' death paid the price o death for all mankind leaving those willing to take advantage of it able to eventually gain eternal life. Not on their own merit-but because the penalty had been paid for them.

So God killed himself to satisfy his own wrath?


Why not just say, "Be ye kind"? And let in the good people who can live together peacefully, and make everyone else live life over and over until they learn?

[Beerina]

At this point I don't know whether to shudder or snicker in anticipation of the interplanetary wars that are sure to break out when fundies on Earth try to force their religious beliefs on fundies from other planets.


Depending on the size of the interstellar, intergalactic, or e'en inter-universal community, I would be scared ********.

With a few billion people, and a few thousand years, the most dominating memes to evolve we call "Christianity" and "Islam" *

But what if it were quadrillions or quintillions or nonillions of people, over billions of years (or hundreds of trillions, for that matter)?

Whatever meme came out on top of that hideous mess would sweep away some poor little evangelical Christian or threatening Imam without batting an eye.

Hell, they'll probably have a very well-polished mechanism already in-place for rationalizing invading a planet to quick-convert everybody.


Thanks to Dawkins, we should all be scared (dung free) of alien civilization.




* Though the secular religion of Vox Populi, Vox Dei, as wielded by charismatics to yoke big chunks of society as surely as religion or dictators did, is giving religion a future-threatening run for their money. :(










"Tell me, is the class moving too slow for you?"

[Radrook]

So God killed himself to satisfy his own wrath?

The purpose of the payment for sin wasn't to satisfy wrath, It was to liberate mankind from its obligation of paying for sin. What was actually satisfied was his need to show mercy.
Wrath is satisfied by destroying whatever is one is angered at.

BTW
I don't believe Jesus was or is God. All that was needed was perfect human needed to die, not a demi- god or God incarnate and that's what was provided. That's why Jesus is referred to as the second or last Adam.

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Why not just say, "Be ye kind"? And let in the good people who can live together peacefully, ....

What does that command really entail? It seems to require programing people so that they can't really choose. In that case their behavior has no value. It is tantamount to making people machines. Insects actually since they would go about doing things mostly on instinct.

and make everyone else live life over and over until they learn?

Because that would not fix their sinful nature. No matter how much they learned and tried they would still fall short and sin and have to pay the penalty of death. So a liberation from that flawed condition, a hopeless one actually, needed be provided. It was provided by having a sinless person pay the price leaving those who availed themselves of that provision by accepting it capable of attaining life eternal.

BTW
Technically speaking, Jesus was an extraterrestrial.

John 8:23
And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

[amb]

What a contradiction that is. A perfect man had to die to pay for some ridiculous, seemingly absurd sin that the first man was perceived to have committed by biting on an apple. You don't see how ridiculous that sounds? Where's the mercy in that? True mercy would be shown if at the last moment this man was spared the agony of crucifiction. All this proved is that the God of Christianity is nothing but a bloodthirsty god like all the rest of ancient mans myths.

[Silentknight]

(Snipped all the BS about the propitiatory sacrifice, the perfection of Jesus, moral teachings removing free will, ad hoc reasoning, and statements of 100% certainty about what people would not do.)

Technically speaking, Jesus was an extraterrestrial.

John 8:23
And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
Finally, something on-topic. It's still stupid though. Jesus was born to human parents and had human characteristics, flaws, and biological functions. If extraterrestrial claims are to be taken at face value without any other supporting evidence, then it implies that the claims of the Raëlians, Mormons, Scientologists, Heaven's Gate, et al should also be taken at face value. Looks like alien Jesus is going to have some competition.

[amb]

Finally, something on-topic. It's still stupid though. Jesus was born to human parents and had human characteristics, flaws, and biological functions. If extraterrestrial claims are to be taken at face value without any other supporting evidence, then it implies that the claims of the Raëlians, Mormons, Scientologists, Heaven's Gate, et al should also be taken at face value. Looks like alien Jesus is going to have some competition.

All that's happening in reality, is that the woo of the past centuries religious beliefe is moving into the 21st century. Now Jeebus comes to us in a UFO.

[Ottis]

I would think (or at least hope) that the idea of religion is a mental illness unique to humanity. If not, then the universe, if/ when interstellar travel becomes possible, (assuming ETIs are out there) will be a very dangerous place to live in...
Those unwilling to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
Radrook had a very good point;
That seems to assume that all religion has no beneficial sociological function. Which is of course absurd. If indeed humans invented religion as I'm sure you believe, then it was because it provided survival advantages. Brought psychological comfort in the face of the unknown for example giving mankind a sense of security he would otherwise have lacked during the time when the forces of nature all seemed hell bent on his destruction.
I should have said; ..snip..idea of religious fundamentalism is a mental illness...snip...

[Radrook]

To me a fundamentalist Christian is a person who adheres to the funadamentals of Christianity and their is NOTHING in those fundamentals which tell us to FORCE our beliefs on others. So what people here are referring to when they say Fundie isn't really what term should mean in the purest sense off the word. What it's really referringf to is an Unchristian practice which Christ himself would condemn as not his teaching.

So, an alien civilization based authentically based on those Christian fundamemntals would tell us that their way is right. However, they would not feel justified in shoving their beliefs down our throats as humans who are not really following the fundamentals did via wars and forced baptisms.

Now if that alien civilization adhered to the precepts of some other religious fundamentals wherein war is taught as a way to spread their beliefs, then the result of our contacting them might very well turn out as described.


BTW
I once saw a sci fi film where the aliens had actually seen the ID.
Supposedly their technology had made it possible. In my view their might be millions of planets all veritable paradises with
creatures who never fell into the predicament we have and who might automatically view atheistic claims as signs of mental deficiency or even insanity.

[Ottis]

My idea of a fundamentalist of any religion/ dogma/ politic is someone who is so set in their beliefs that they see any alternative to their views as an offense or attack, and see force as a reasonable reaction to that view.
Maybe I should use the term "extreme fundamentalist" or "extremest"...(?)
But I see your point, I once read Childhoods End by Arthur C Clarke, with a plot similar to what you mentioned. A plausible scenario to be sure.
PS; I actually read it many times, one of my favorite authors!

[Ottis]

PS; I grew up in a "fundamentalist" (maybe not "extremest") home, it did not leave a good impression on me. I saw books get burned and learned that I shouldn't ask certain questions, I hope I don't come off as bitter. (even if I am, a little..)

[Radrook]

I read Childhood's End as well some time ago. I do like some of the author's other stories, but that one I didn't enjoy. Probably because I was expecting pure sci fi and not a blend of the supposed supernatural. His 2001 a space Oddysee I enjoyed though. However the finale to the Space Oddysee series, [2020?] lacked the same punch. Wasn't he the one who gave NASA the idea of a space elevator? He included the ideait in the last Space Odysaee novel as well but had suggested it before that.

BTW
Arthur C. Clark has a tendency to represent humans as always in some way superior to aliens. Ever notice that?

[Ottis]

3001 was the last of the 2001 series, it definitely lacked the, ah, punch, of the original... Interesting, but rather "vanilla".....
My favorite A C Clarke novel was "The Songs of Distant Earth", and yes, he did have a habit of making the humans as somehow superior to the ETs...

[amb]

Maybe he believes he knows something we don't about any aliens. If we are not the first intelligent life to evolve in the universe, we are certainly one of the first.
The universe has not existed long enough for some other species to develop our state of intelligence. Seeing that it took 4.5 [aproxx] billion years for intelligent life to develop here, why would it be any different anywhere else in the cosmos considering it's around 13.7 billion years old and the elements that make up all life had to be made in the first and possibly second generation of stars.

[LarianLeQuella]

RE OT: I figure that we must search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence because, sod it all, there seems to be precious little of it terrestrially! :p

[nota]

well this board willnot allow me to post a link
but you can help search
along with 3,000,000 who already are linked to SETI

google seti at home

and learn how to join the hunt

[shadron]

Maybe he believes he knows something we don't about any aliens. If we are not the first intelligent life to evolve in the universe, we are certainly one of the first.
The universe has not existed long enough for some other species to develop our state of intelligence. Seeing that it took 4.5 [aproxx] billion years for intelligent life to develop here, why would it be any different anywhere else in the cosmos considering it's around 13.7 billion years old and the elements that make up all life had to be made in the first and possibly second generation of stars.

I don't think you can make that statement at all, for many reasons.

Consider only three happenstances about our natural history: the condensation of our star out of a cloud, the development of multicellular life, and the development of sentience (however you determine that, I'll just use a simplistic definition that sentience is development of a space-flight-capable race).

One: there is no reason that 4.5 billion years ago represents the first possible Stage III (I think that's the right wording for a heavy element star?) star creation date. Easily, that could be anywhere forward of our own happenstance by 2 billion years, possibly more.

Two: There is an estimated gap of 3.5 billion years from he development of monocellular life to multicellular. Granted that multicellular required that turbocharged atmosphere to be slowly created, why should it have not been 2 billion or 3 billion, rather than 4? We have no proof that life's development on our planet was optimal or early in any sense; in fact, we know that the earth snowballed (snowball earth) at least three times in the past, knocking back life to monocellular level living around hot deep sea vents. After the last such 50 million year episode 550 million years ago, multicellular life seemd to explode in creativity.

Three: Once multicellular life developed, we became locked into 160 million years of stagnation (one of many in the sense I'm using it here - not really stagnation, but rather that insufficient evolution occurred to develop sentient life in that period) because of the dinosaurs. Had not the dinosaur developed, then sentient life may have developed millions of years earlier.

There is, of course, no way to know if we are the first - some"one" has to be, somewhere. But there is no way to refute the possibility that there are civilizations anywhere from thousands to billions of years before us in time. Suppose only Sol and HD69830 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0421_050421_spitzer.html) had the magic stuff to develop sentience. Assuming all else is identical between us and them, except that they stared condensing out of the dust cloud a billion years before us, or there was a closeby high output star that cleared their area of dust earlier, or whatever. Consider a different scenario where all else is equal but they only had two snowballs to our three; then their sentience has several hundred million years head start. Assume all else is equal, but they didn't develop dinosaurs, or that their dinosaurs were limited in size or were only herbivorous, or perhaps developed sentience themselves; then their senience has, perhaps, a 100 million years head start. Perhaps all of these aspects were equal, but they didn't experience the collapse of their Roman's empire, or that their Archimedes was not slain and they had calculus available to them in their 2nd century BCE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3GIhfyLXwc); (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/palimpsest.html%29;) they could easily be a 1000 years ahead of us developmentally. Where will we be in a thousand years, if we don't happen to off ourselves in the meantime?

Supposing only that we are the only two, and that to develop sentience exactly the way Earth has is a one in a billion (at least) possibility, then there is a 50% chance that HD has a civilization many thousands of years advanced on ours. Given there are billions of star in billions of galaxies, the chance we are out front by anything up to thousands of years is so small as to be ridiculious. Hence Fermi's paradox.

[amb]

Fermi's paradox says, '' If there out there, why aren't they here?'' If they are in the vicinity of of our solar system, and they are 1000 years ahead of us, we would have evidence of their existence. We have sent probes out of our solar system already in the small amount of time since our first airborne flight less than 200 years ago.

[shadron]

Fermi's paradox says, '' If there out there, why aren't they here?'' If they are in the vicinity of of our solar system, and they are 1000 years ahead of us, we would have evidence of their existence. We have sent probes out of our solar system already in the small amount of time since our first airborne flight less than 200 years ago.

The most likely implication, though not the only one, is that space-faring civilizations are so rare, and thus so far apart on average that contact between thim is equivalently rare. Space is, after all, huge. Other possibilities are that there is no way around the Einsteinian speed limit in any way (folded space or what-not), that there is a concerted effort to keep knowledge of them from us (by them, not some human agency), and so on. It might be possible to argue that we're must be first, but the statistics for that are even worse than for star collisions (see below).

As for our probes - they were not designed to any such feat of detection. They would certainly be detectable by any space-faring party far beyond the range at which the would be able to detect any evidence, and ridiculously easy to avoid. Even if avoidance was not a desire the possibility of a random encounter that would provide us unambiguous proof of such on Earth would be minuscule. When I worked on the Viking project we used the camera system on it to take a group picture. The scan was so slow that certain members of the group were able to reposition themselves and get four images of themselves in the final picture. Any being on Mars that moved any faster than, say, a snake across the field of view would not be visible on a camera scan as more than, at best, a few pixels of averaged color.

I did a little back-of-the-envelope study for a thread about colliding galaxies a while back; there was incredulity expressed that a pair of galaxies could collide without suffering any star collisions. Reducing the 4.3 lightyear distance from sol to alpha cent to the distance from LA to NYC, the average star would be on the order of a foot across. Even in the center of the densest local star cluster we know about, the distance between stars would still be the distance of NYC to Boston, if I remember right. With things this thinly spread, and the fact that there are 200 to 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone, searching out brother civilizations is a task to boggle the mind.

[amb]

The universe is more than likely teeming with life. There may be life deep in the interior of Mercury for example. Life has been discorved inside a live volcano right here on earth.
Miles undersea in and around volcanic vents where there is no sunlight or no trace of oxygen.
But the chance that intelligent life has evolved on another planet in our galaxy is of the probability of a billion to one. And that's been very conservative.
It's only because of the likely trillions of star systems in the whole cosmos that may assure us that it may have happened more than once.
After all, the chance of someone winning lotto is so small that you may say it's impossible.
Yet, every week of so someone does win.

[shadron]

The universe is more than likely teeming with life. There may be life deep in the interior of Mercury for example. Life has been discorved inside a live volcano right here on earth.
Miles undersea in and around volcanic vents where there is no sunlight or no trace of oxygen.

Very true. I have little doubt that you are right on that, but, of course, our sample size right now is about 2.5 (we're getting close to a possible positive indication on Mars, and Europa looks promising, but the Moon hasn't panned out, as most scientists expected.)

But the chance that intelligent life has evolved on another planet in our galaxy is of the probability of a billion to one. And that's been very conservative.

On what data do you base this claim? Not that I doubt it really, but I know of no data to base it upon, unless you count negative SETI results as indicative, which is problematic.

It's only because of the likely trillions of star systems in the whole cosmos that may assure us that it may have happened more than once.
After all, the chance of someone winning lotto is so small that you may say it's impossible.
Yet, every week of so someone does win.

That is a false analogy. Lotto is designed such that the probability of a winning ticket being produced is in the .0000001 area, maybe an order of magnitude smaller than the inverse of the number of tickets they expect to sell. After a small number of random picks, they will hit on a ticket number that was actually sold. The chances of *you* winning are miniscule, but not the chances of someone winning - that's almost a certainty within a few week's time.

However, since you use this analogy I read you as saying that the way out of Fermi's paradox is to assume that space is too vast for the likely number of intelligent civilizations to ever be able to contact one another. That works for me.

That is not the same as your initial argument that we are the first such intelligence.

[P.J. Denyer]

2. messages that they send to themselves - like their version of TV. This sounds like it'd be great, but in reality, we would have almost no hope of understanding them, or putting them into any kind of context.

Well several years of the alien equivilent of 'Sesame Street' followed by the Open University could be informative.

And if instead we get their equivilent of 'East Enders', 'Big Brother' and 'Horsehead Nebula Idol' then at least we will have established that there is no intelligent life out there!

[Ottis]

.....snip.....and 'Horsehead Nebula Idol' then at least we will have established that there is no intelligent life out there!

Lol!! Or that the whole rest of the universe has enough sense to hide from us...

[amb]

Very true. I have little doubt that you are right on that, but, of course, our sample size right now is about 2.5 (we're getting close to a possible positive indication on Mars, and Europa looks promising, but the Moon hasn't panned out, as most scientists expected.)



On what data do you base this claim? Not that I doubt it really, but I know of no data to base it upon, unless you count negative SETI results as indicative, which is problematic.



That is a false analogy. Lotto is designed such that the probability of a winning ticket being produced is in the .0000001 area, maybe an order of magnitude smaller than the inverse of the number of tickets they expect to sell. After a small number of random picks, they will hit on a ticket number that was actually sold. The chances of *you* winning are miniscule, but not the chances of someone winning - that's almost a certainty within a few week's time.

However, since you use this analogy I read you as saying that the way out of Fermi's paradox is to assume that space is too vast for the likely number of intelligent civilizations to ever be able to contact one another. That works for me.

That is not the same as your initial argument that we are the first such intelligence.
Correction. I said either the first, or one of the first.
While primitive organisms such as microbes are very likely abundent across the galaxies, advanced life, depending as it does on a myriad of special circumstances, is altogether another kettle of fish. Multicelluar life-forms, let alone life-forms with whom we'd be able to communicate, must be exceedingly rare. Not impossible mind, but as I said, very rare.

[shadron]

Correction. I said either the first, or one of the first.
While primitive organisms such as microbes are very likely abundent across the galaxies, advanced life, depending as it does on a myriad of special circumstances, is altogether another kettle of fish. Multicelluar life-forms, let alone life-forms with whom we'd be able to communicate, must be exceedingly rare. Not impossible mind, but as I said, very rare.

Obviously not impossible, indeed :).

To sum up, you maintain it is rare because we are the first (or nealy the first), and presumably in some future age it will be more plentiful. I think its more likely that intelligent life itself is just plain rare. Neither of us has a knock-out argument over the other, and that's just the way it is.

[amb]

Obviously not impossible, indeed :).

To sum up, you maintain it is rare because we are the first (or nealy the first), and presumably in some future age it will be more plentiful. I think its more likely that intelligent life itself is just plain rare. Neither of us has a knock-out argument over the other, and that's just the way it is.

In a future age, in say, a million years, if we are still here and advanced beyond anyone's wildest dreams, where we reach a stage where we can actually change a planet into supporting some kind of animal life. In other words. We become the colonisers just as the Europeans colonized the Americas. But the problem of the speed limit, 186.000 mps will never solved,
Until we learn to break the laws of physics. I don't believe the human race will survive that long. I give it another 1000-3000 years at best.
We could be wiped out at anytime unless we eliminate the scourge of religion from the planet, which judging from the facts, is far than likely.
Islam is growing at an alarming rate, as is American fundamentalism which doesn't bode well for our survival.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Correction. I said either the first, or one of the first.
While primitive organisms such as microbes are very likely abundent across the galaxies, advanced life, depending as it does on a myriad of special circumstances, is altogether another kettle of fish. Multicelluar life-forms, let alone life-forms with whom we'd be able to communicate, must be exceedingly rare. Not impossible mind, but as I said, very rare.
I agree with rare, but that doesn't mean first or even one of the first.

It could be that everything is just so freakin' spread out in space and time, and life forms with whom we'd be able to communicate are so (relatively) rare that it's extremely unlikely that two will ever be in near enough proximity in time and space.

[amb]

Because of the vastness of the cosmos, there is bound to be other earths.
But if you study all of the accidents? that have occurred on earth to produce animal life in the time scales required. The chances of the same coincidences happening anywhere else are certainly bleak. Microbial life is more than likely spread right across the cosmos, but animal life I predict is extremely rare.

[JoeTheJuggler]

but animal life I predict is extremely rare.

And again, "extremely rare" is a relative idea.

Stuff is really spread out. Higher life forms could occur pretty regularly but still be rare enough that no two such planets would be in proximity in space and the life forms at the appropriate levels to communicate close enough in time for there ever to be communication.

In our sample size of one, we only had life at a level to communicate by radio once, and only (so far) for less than 100 years out of the 4.5 billion years life existed on Earth.

[amb]

Earth may be unique in our part of the quadrant. May be so even in the whole galaxy. When you consider the enormous number of coincidences that occurred here to produce animal life.
And of the millions of lifeforms that developed here, only one has acquired enough intelligence to even wonder about these questions.
For example. Earth has a large moon to stabilize it's orbit. Gravity is just right. The Earth has tectonic plates, a large gas world that acts like a vacuum cleaner in attracting huge asteroids that otherwise could hit the Earth a lot more frequently, thereby destroying all animal life, we are at just the right distance from our sun to keep the water in a stable liquid condition making life possible. All this and many more reasons why the Earth may indeed be very rare, as far as our galaxy is concerned.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Earth may be unique in our part of the quadrant. May be so even in the whole galaxy. When you consider the enormous number of coincidences that occurred here to produce animal life.

The lesson of our past anthropo- and geo- centrism failures makes me reluctant to declare anything is unique.

There are a LOT of stars in the galaxy, and a LOT of galaxies in the universe. So far, whenever we've been able to detect a given type of planet, we have found them in abundance. (Since gas giants are so common, I see no reason to think smaller rocky planets are exceptionally rare either.)

But again, "rare" and "common" are relative terms. Even though there are a lot of places and events in the universe, they're very very spread out in space and time.

[arthwollipot]

Do aliens have souls?

By this I mean, if intelligent aliens exist, would they have souls? In the same way that people have souls, I mean. If they have souls, then they would need to be saved, right?

How could you tell whether an alien has a soul or not? I mean we humans are always assumed to have souls, so I suppose that it would be best to assume that aliens have souls too, right?

Doesn't that mean that they would also be subject to the coming Armageddon - or does the end of the world not apply to the universe at large? Would aliens be subject to the Second Coming of Christ? Would they be required to worship Christ and be saved from the Beast just like humans?

In the Revelation, it is said that fornicators will be cast into the lake of fire. What if the intelligent aliens reproduce asexually? Would that count - it would not be a union between a man and a woman. Oh! What would that imply for the sanctity of marriage?

What would alien religion be like? Would they worship Christ? Wasn't Christ a man on this planet though? Would they have their own Christ or Christ-like figure? Would they have their own Bible? How is that different from terrestrial non-Christian religions?

Can any of these questions be reasonably speculated upon?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I mean we humans are always assumed to have souls, so I suppose that it would be best to assume that aliens have souls too, right?

I don't make that assumption, so humans are not always assumed to have souls.

[arthwollipot]

I don't make that assumption, so humans are not always assumed to have souls.My questions, insofar as they were not rhetorical, were directed at theists, particularly Christians. I probably should have made that clearer.

[amb]

The lesson of our past anthropo- and geo- centrism failures makes me reluctant to declare anything is unique.

There are a LOT of stars in the galaxy, and a LOT of galaxies in the universe. So far, whenever we've been able to detect a given type of planet, we have found them in abundance. (Since gas giants are so common, I see no reason to think smaller rocky planets are exceptionally rare either.)

But again, "rare" and "common" are relative terms. Even though there are a lot of places and events in the universe, they're very very spread out in space and time.
Gas giants have been discovered, I forget the number, is it 200? But they all seem to orbit their star at close proximity. Any rocky planets that may exist there are probably too far from their star to produce animal life. And another point to remember is that most stars in our proximity are too large or too small, or produce far too much ultra violet rays for animal life to evolve. And of course, a large number of these stars are binary systems. Not suitable for animal life of any kind.

My questions, insofar as they were not rhetorical, were directed at theists, particularly Christians. I probably should have made that clearer.

All your questions can be answered in a good S/F book my son.

Or better still, ask a catholic priest, or any member of the clergy for that matter. Then watch them squirm for an answer. :p

[Radrook]

The difficulties of contacting intelligent life has been recently made even more daunting by the idiea of multiple universes and dimensions.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Gas giants have been discovered, I forget the number, is it 200? But they all seem to orbit their star at close proximity. Any rocky planets that may exist there are probably too far from their star to produce animal life.
Not all of them are close orbits. The fact that we've mostly found gas giants in close orbits is because with the techniques we've used, that's what we were looking for.

There is no reason to think that rocky planets like the earth are unusual.

And another point to remember is that most stars in our proximity are too large or too small, or produce far too much ultra violet rays for animal life to evolve. And of course, a large number of these stars are binary systems. Not suitable for animal life of any kind.
Says who?

And how big exactly is "our proximity"?

I'll happily cede that there probably is no life form that's been capable of using radio communication within about the last 30 years or so within 30 light years of us. Beyond that, we simply don't know. And that's an awfully tiny slice of the universe.

At any rate, I'm certainly not arguing that we're likely ever to encounter life forms anything like us. I'm just saying that that statement is not incompatible with there being many such life forms in the universe spread out over space and time.

Here's what Carl Sagan had to say on the topic:
I'm often asked the question, "Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments--there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course as yet there is no compelling evidence for it. And then I'm asked, "Yeah, but what do you really think?" I say, "I just told you what I really think." "Yeah, but what's your gut feeling?" But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgement until the evidence is in.

And about the only new evidence we have since Sagan wrote that is something like 30 years of not finding a signal in the SETI radiotelescope scan of the skies. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so about all we can say is that SETI has yet to find a signal from an ET intelligence.

If I had to bet, I'd say it's very unlikely there's anything in our neighborhood right now. (Again, in the history of life on Earth, we've only had an intelligence capable of communicating by radio for the most recent eyeblink of time. In our sample size of one, we can say that this kind of intelligence arose, but not for most of the time. We, of course, have no idea of how long it will endure.)

ETA: Sagan quote is from the introduction to The Outer Edge: Classic Investigations of the Paranormal edited by Joe Nickell.

[amb]

I don't buy the argument that intelligent life is widespread. If a study of how life evolved on this planet, and the number of coincidences that occurred to make animal life possible,
the chances of it happening as a law of the universe suggests a designer. I don't believe in a designer. Granted, microbial life may be widespread in the cosmos. Animal life may be as rare as hens teeth. As for intelligence, we may well be alone in the galaxy, and in eons to come, it may be us that colonisers the galaxy and beyond if we don't meantime become extinct.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't buy the argument that intelligent life is widespread. If a study of how life evolved on this planet, and the number of coincidences that occurred to make animal life possible,
the chances of it happening as a law of the universe suggests a designer. I don't believe in a designer. Granted, microbial life may be widespread in the cosmos. Animal life may be as rare as hens teeth. As for intelligence, we may well be alone in the galaxy, and in eons to come, it may be us that colonisers the galaxy and beyond if we don't meantime become extinct.

I don't understand your reasoning (especially the bit I highlighted). Sounds like an argument from ignorance. If we can't explain something or don't understand something, then there must be a designer?

And that's aside from the fact that the way evolution through natural selection works is that the life forms end up adapted to the environment, not the other way around. So the "fine-tuned" argument is all backwards. In other words, these "coincidences" didn't happen with animal life in mind. Animal life evolved in the environment that existed. So saying that animal life couldn't have evolved if things were different than they are is pretty meaningless.

But I agree animal life and intelligence might be extremely rare. The question is, what is "rare"? If it turns out that there are earthlike planets around one of three single stars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7457307.stm), and the "coincidences" needed for animal life as we know it (which isn't really the question of ET intelligence anyway) only happens one in a million times, then it's still likely to happen at least thousands of times in our galaxy alone.

(And that's leaving off the possibility of "earth-like" moons around gas giants capability of sustaining life.)

Granted, that's a lot of "ifs", but if that's the case, is animal life "rare"?

I think for the purposes of SETI it is still likely to be spread out enough in space and time as to make contact or communication extremely unlikely--especially out here in the galactic suburbs.

[amb]

Billions of years ago this planet was void of any life. It was the start of life that transformed the planet. For example, there was no oxygen which aided the beginning of life as oxygen was toxic to many elements. It wasn't until microbial life transformed the atmosphere to something like we have today that made animal life possible.
Another furphy is that it is often said that the sun is a typical star, but this is entirely untrue.
The mere fact that 95% of all stars are less massive than the sun makes our planetary system quite rare.
Stars less massive than the sun, the habitual zones are located farther inward. but all gas planets so far discovered are roughly orbiting their star in this habitual zone. Which means the rocky planets may be too far form their sun to make animal life possible.
The giant rocky planets in your link could not possibly support animal life of any kind. Can you imagine the force of gravity on such a planet. And if they orbit their sun at such close distance, means the water [if any] would have escaped into space as vapour.
No water, no life.

[Radrook]

Wht did Isaac Asimov continually refer to Earth as the impossible planet in his pro-atheist arguments?

[JoeTheJuggler]

The mere fact that 95% of all stars are less massive than the sun makes our planetary system quite rare.
Do you have a source for this? I thought Sol was a main sequence star, which is what most stars are.

At any rate, the search for ET life (and ET intelligence) is not the same as the search for conditions similar to those of the Earth.

but all gas planets so far discovered are roughly orbiting their star in this habitual zone. Which means the rocky planets may be too far form their sun to make animal life possible.
Well I know for a fact that the highlighted part is not true. Extra solar gas giants have been found at a range of distances from their primary. That most of the planets (not "all" by any means!) have been found are massive gas giants close to their primaries is due to a bias in the techniques we use to find extra solar planets. (A point that was already made.)

See this list of confirmed extra solar planets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extrasolar_planets) and note the range in values of the semimajor axis.

It really seems that as we develop techniques for detecting extrasolar planets of a given mass, we have found them in abundance. The study I linked to above estimates that 1 in 3 single stars will have earth-like planets (or "super-earth" like--that is, rocky planets as opposed to gas giants).

We really don't know where we might find the "sweet spot" in a lot of circumstances. I already pointed out that gas giant satellites might provide good places too.

The point I keep making, though, is terms like "common" and "abundant" or "rare" are all relative. I reject that there is anything about the Earth that is "unique". In the history of science, that way of thinking has led us astray too often.

[Radrook]

To be honest, the only life that really would interest me would be the reasoning kind.
Animal life we already have right here.

[my_wan]

&quot;Simple,&quot; they'll say, &quot;just use the sap of the common elibo tree which grows in most pod-stalk forests.&quot;

&quot;uh, we don't have those&quot; we'll say.

(75 years later)

&quot;LOL! you guys are screwed then!&quot; they'll say.

Only 75 years? That practically puts them in our driveway.Why do you assume they would be millions of years more advanced than we? Even if they are, they weren't always that advanced. At some point in their development, they may have used radio. Those signals would still be traveling through space.Very simple. If we assume the Universe is 15 billion years old and you pick two civilizations at random what are the chances their technological development is within a million years of each other?Notice that a one terawatt signal transmitted from a Arecibo sized antenna is required to reach a range of 150 light years.So you not only have to envision an advanced civilization. You have to envision an advanced civilization that decides to construct a vastly powerful transmitter, a massive antenna and the desire to use them to engage in what is likely to be only one way communication with a fellow advanced civilizaton.Seems like a long shot to me.Yes and the odds get even worse if their signals passed us a few hundred thousand years ago before they give up trying.I wouldn't support any great amount of money spent on this but we should keep looking and listening.Is it possible for impossibility to be inevitable?This of course was a loaded question here as creationist often quote really outrageous odds against abiogenesis. Suppose the odds was 4*10^46 to 1. Would that make it practically impossible? Consider that this is roughly how many water molecules are on Earth each interacting with other molecules many times a second. That means a particular reaction given those odds will happen at least a few million times while you read this post. Life would have to be far more rare than that. Big numbers and tiny odds do not equate with impossible. Impossible only applies when the odds are 0 to infinity. In practical terms we can say long odds are essentially impossible only when we restrict those odds to relatively few interactions and/or a sufficiently short period of time.If you want some impossible odds consider God. He is supposed to be infinitely complex yet wasn't created. That makes the odds of his existence 0 to infinity. The complexity of God suggest a creater of God by the logic of creationism.

[I Ratant]

SETI has already made a discovery...
In every manner they've looked, we're alone.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Very simple. If we assume the Universe is 15 billion years old and you pick two civilizations at random what are the chances their technological development is within a million years of each other?
I have no idea, and neither do you. We don't know anything about the longevity of a technological civilization. Ours is only about 100 years old (using radio technology as a measure of "technological civilization").

It could be that such civilizations don't often survive their own technology. It could also be that large meteor strikes tend to wipe out such civilizations before they're capable of protecting themselves from such a disaster.

We just don't know.


SETI has already made a discovery...
In every manner they've looked, we're alone.
That's drawing a conclusion far beyond the dataset. We've only been looking for a radio signal in our sky for a fairly short time. At best you can conclude that there is no other civilization broadcasting radio waves in our vicinity in recent years. 30 years' searching is a very tiny slice of time, and the distances we'd be able to detect a signal such as the ones we've been broadcasting are similarly small.

Again, ET intelligence could be relatively common, but two such species might not ever encounter one another. Stuff is just so spread out in time and space.

And even if it's a "rare" thing, like one single star in a million (or even 1 in ten million or a hundred million) that ends up giving birth to an intelligence, there would still be lots and lots of them.

[Radrook]

If they are out there why all the silence? Given the age of the universe we should at least here a couple of indentifable beeps. Yes I know. They are supposed to have blown themselves to smitherines before they could beep. Strange that they can blow themselves up without beeping. I mean., even after they blew themselves up the beeps would still be around. Yet nothing. After all, considereing all the molecular interactions out there a beep or two from at least one of the thousands of civililizations that must have surely emereged from the primordial slime isn't too much to expect. Is it?

[davefoc]

If they are out there why all the silence? Given the age of the universe we should at least here a couple of identifiable beeps. Yes I know. They are supposed to have blown themselves to smithereens before they could beep. Strange that they can blow themselves up without beeping. I mean., even after they blew themselves up the beeps would still be around. Yet nothing. After all, considering all the molecular interactions out there a beep or two from at least one of the thousands of civilizations that must have surely emerged from the primordial slime isn't too much to expect. Is it?

This post seems to not take into account vastness of the universe and the limited range of known forms of communication between sentient entities .

The milky way galaxy in which our solar system exists is estimated to be 100,000 light years across. The estimates that were put forth earlier in this thread suggest that based on very optimistic assumptions it might be possible to detect a transmission made in the direction of the earth from as far away as 150 light years. But the distance that two planets with earth like technology and inclinations could detect each other at is actually substantially less.

My own guess is that based on recent pessimistic estimates of how common the conditions for habitable planets are and the very limited range of the ability to detect them and the failure up to now of SETI to detect signs of intelligent life and other arguments that humans will never detect signs of life from beyond the earth.

But that is a hugely different guess than that intelligent life is unique to the earth throughout the universe. The Wikipedia estimate for stars in the Milky Way was 200 to 400 billion. And the Milky Way is just one of 100's of billions of galaxies in the observable universe. My guess is that there are many planets with civilizations with sentient entities in similar states of advancement as the earth's but I think it is likely that it is beyond the limits of any possible technology to ever detect them.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If they are out there why all the silence? Given the age of the universe we should at least here a couple of indentifable beeps. Yes I know. They are supposed to have blown themselves to smitherines before they could beep. Strange that they can blow themselves up without beeping. I mean., even after they blew themselves up the beeps would still be around. Yet nothing. After all, considereing all the molecular interactions out there a beep or two from at least one of the thousands of civililizations that must have surely emereged from the primordial slime isn't too much to expect. Is it?

As has already been noted, they could have beeped for thousands of years, then blown themselves to smithereens or died of off "natural" causes long before we started listening. Remember, things are spread out in time. In the 4.5 billion years (or so) of our solar system, we've only had the ability to communicate by radio waves for about 100 years. That's what? About 0.000000002% of the time?

And then there's the distance. How strong does a signal have to a significant portion of the way across the galaxy and still be strong enough for us to detect it? I'm pretty sure SETI would only be able to detect signals in our neck of the woods.

So again, intelligent life could be "out there", yet it might still be reasonable to think that no two forms of it would ever encounter each other.

ETA: I just read davefoc's post. He said much the same thing I meant to say, but he did a better job of it.

[davefoc]

Hi JtJ,
On a totally unrelated subject my brother in law gave me juggling balls and a juggling instruction video for Christmas.

It happens that I can juggle a bit and decided to demonstrate my juggle and eat the apple trick. It was the only time in my life that I have ever gotten a significant round of applause. I kind of liked it. Anyway I've been practicing a bit over the last few days, but I suspect that I have already reached the limit that my talent and my inclinations about juggling are going to produce. I think consistency with four balls will elude me. It is hard for me to imagine that I am a member of the same species that includes people that can juggle more than four balls.

[arthwollipot]

To be honest, the only life that really would interest me would be the reasoning kind.
Animal life we already have right here.Really? Are you absolutely sure you wouldn't be interested if microbial (or even plant or animal) life was found on another planet?

I think this would be one of the most groundbreaking, world-changing discoveries ever.

[I Ratant]

Hi JtJ,
On a totally unrelated subject my brother in law gave me juggling balls and a juggling instruction video for Christmas.

It happens that I can juggle a bit and decided to demonstrate my juggle and eat the apple trick. It was the only time in my life that I have ever gotten a significant round of applause. I kind of liked it. Anyway I've been practicing a bit over the last few days, but I suspect that I have already reached the limit that my talent and my inclinations about juggling are going to produce. I think consistency with four balls will elude me. It is hard for me to imagine that I am a member of the same species that includes people that can juggle more than four balls.
.
I suspect the true origin of anyone that can fly r/c helicopters... These people cannot be of this earth!
http://www.vimeo.com/463570

[shadron]

Wht did Isaac Asimov continually refer to Earth as the impossible planet in his pro-atheist arguments?

The only references I could find relating Asimov to "impossible planet" are the jacket blurb on Foundation's Edge and a short story by the name by Philip K Dick in an Asimov anthology. Better luck next time.

[amb]

I will stick to my theory and predict that microbial life will be widespread in the universe, as we can see on our own earth that such life is capable of existing in the most hostile regions of our planet including inside a volcano, hot vents in the bottom of the oceans where there is no sunlight, or light of any kind, including oxygen. Even Ice has uncovered life in Antartica.
But animal life is a complete different kettle of fish. The chances of animal life ever occuring again a extreemley rare.

[Radrook]

The only references I could find relating Asimov to "impossible planet" are the jacket blurb on Foundation's Edge and a short story by the name by Philip K Dick in an Asimov anthology. Better luck next time.



Better luck in reference to what? Just because you couldn't find what I repeatedly read in one of his books doesn't mean I made it up. Actually I read Foundations Edge and don't recall coming across that statement. The statement wasn't made in one of his sci fi books. If memory serves me right, it was a book about religion where he was hell-bent on proving the Bible is drivel in terms of scientific descriptions. Asimov has, I believe. approximately three-hundred books in print. So finding a single expression as the one I referred to is a daunting task. Unfortunately I can't recall the exact book I read it in some twenty years ago. However, I'll start a search of my own and see if I can track it down.

[amb]

To carry that story a little bit further. What about a level of intelligence equivalente at least to us. What are the chances of that happening more than once? A random occurrence of that happening twice or more times must be like winning the lotto thrice in someones lifetime.
To believe otherwise creates a feeling of the universe been designed with life destined to occur where ever conditions seem right. That sounds like a designer creating just such a universe. I feel that intelligent life was a random accidente that is not likely to ever occur again. But given the countless galaxies out there with trillions of stars, there is bound to be another earth some where in the cosmos. I would hazard a guess and say perhaps a million at most.

[shadron]

Better luck in reference to what? Just because you couldn't find what I repeatedly read in one of his books doesn't mean I made it up. Actually I read Foundations Edge and don't recall coming across that statement. The statement wasn't made in one of his sci fi books. If memory serves me right, it was a book about religion where he was hell-bent on proving the Bible is drivel in terms of scientific descriptions. Asimov has, I believe. approximately three-hundred books in print. So finding a single expression as the one I referred to is a daunting task. Unfortunately I can't recall the exact book I read it in some twenty years ago. However, I'll start a search of my own and see if I can track it down.

Well then, Radrook, have at it and let us know what you come up with. Since you seem o be somewhat bent out of shape by his opinions about the bible, might I suggest "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" in two volumes? BTW, Asimov's own count of his books was somewhat in excess of 500, but that could be tempered by the fact that he was rather vain and possessive about that list; see the comment at http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/isaac-asimov/1-1-Just-how-many-books-did-Asimov-write.html.

As to why you should be so insulted when someone quesions your source, well, you are the one who made the assertion, so I presume you are the one to back it up. My admittedly superficial search led me to he belief that you are possibly mistaken, but if you aren't, then it's your job to substantiate it, not mine. It looks to me like you're just taking a cheap shot over the bow. I'll enjoy debating your proof that he was unfairly driveling all over the bible; heaven knows the Good Book's chock full of scientific gold nuggets.

Oh, and BTW, read the jacket blurb of Foundation's Edge for the quote; not the content, and not even his own writing. Or just google for it. Amazon will quote it for you.

[shadron]

To carry that story a little bit further. What about a level of intelligence equivalente at least to us. What are the chances of that happening more than once? A random occurrence of that happening twice or more times must be like winning the lotto thrice in someones lifetime.
To believe otherwise creates a feeling of the universe been designed with life destined to occur where ever conditions seem right. That sounds like a designer creating just such a universe. I feel that intelligent life was a random accidente that is not likely to ever occur again. But given the countless galaxies out there with trillions of stars, there is bound to be another earth some where in the cosmos. I would hazard a guess and say perhaps a million at most.

What, Amb, I have to believe that intelligent life is extremely rare or be a IDer? I think that's a rather jaundiced viewpoint. I would think rather that the intelligence lottery could be won by any planet with perhaps restrictive, but not necessarily rare, set of conditions; that intelligence is, rather than a low probability happening, but rather inevitable under those conditions, and further, that the conditions may be more relaxed than we can know now because we haven't investigated more than one such case. Any reasoning to back up your feelings, or is this just a swag (see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SWAG%20method)?

[arthwollipot]

But animal life is a complete different kettle of fish. The chances of animal life ever occuring again a extreemley rare.What makes you think that anything "above" the microbial stage will resemble any kind of plant or animal here on earth?

[I Ratant]

Other than pollution of the electromagnetic spectrum with sitcoms (W#dtoei fow***#s L[]:@%)and the alien version of Oprah, what would be the indicators SETI could detect that would show 1) life or 2) intelligent life?

[davefoc]

Other than pollution of the electromagnetic spectrum with sitcoms (W#dtoei fow***#s L[]:@%)and the alien version of Oprah, what would be the indicators SETI could detect that would show 1) life or 2) intelligent life?

It is very unlikely that alien civilizations are going to pick up television transmissions according to the table from this site:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html

see copy of table in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3557598&postcount=82

Note the range for UHF television (2.5 AU) and the range for the UHF carrier (0.3 LY). Neither estimate is enough to make it out to the nearest star. They don't list a range for VHF television but FM radio is in the middle of the VHF television band and the estimated range for that is 5.4 AU. Again no where near enough to make it to the first star.

The optimistic ranges for detecting a nearby planet are based on either massively powerful transmitters or highly focused outputs from large transmitters.

The calculations that I made in a previous post suggested that one would need an Arecibo sized antennae with a 250,000 watt transmitter to be able to send a detectable signal to a planet as far away as 150 light years.

This is easily with the capability of earth's technology. The Arecibo antennae has only limited steering capability. I think it is mostly constrained by the direction it is pointing as it rotates with the earth so there are lots of potential targets it couldn't be aimed at. The 250,000 watts could be pulsed so that no where near 250,000 watt of continuous power would be required. But will the powers that be that control enough of earth's resources ever feel like funding a major effort to transmit to unknown alien civilizations?

Post where the calculation was discussed:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3565450&postcount=94

I think the most likely intentionally produced electro magnetic radiation produced on the earth today that could be detected by an alien civilization would be from radars. These are focused and some of them are very powerful. I notice that the table lists the range of a particular weather radar as .01 light years. That doesn't validate my guess because it lists the range of a UHF carrier as .3 light years but I suspect that other radars would do better. Military radars might do much better.

But even if the ranges of military radars are much greater than what is listed for the weather radar in the table, the ranges are still probably much too small to get much beyond the nearest stars.

In another post I linked to an article discussing the feasibility of a laser transmitter to reach stars. If the powers that be wanted to dedicate some resources to this idea the authors suggest that we might hit a 1000 light years with a currently feasible optical laser. I think that bumps the stars for which a signal might be detected from about a 1000 that lie within 100 light years to about a 100,000 that lie within a 1000 light years.

The article on the possibility of optical SETI:
http://seti.harvard.edu/oseti/tech.pdf

[Radrook]

Well then, Radrook, have at it and let us know what you come up with. Since you seem o be somewhat bent out of shape by his opinions about the bible, might I suggest "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" in two volumes?

You have a quaint way of describing how you assume other people who disagree with you think. As for Asimov's Guide to the Bible, I already read it and wasn't impressed. Perhaps because of his impossible planet statement which requires that one put one's brain on hold in order to believe what he himself had trouble believing but told others to believe anyway.



BTW, Asimov's own count of his books was somewhat in excess of 500, but that could be tempered by the fact that he was rather vain and possessive about that list; see the comment at http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/isaac-asimov/1-1-Just-how-many-books-did-Asimov-write.html.

I was going by memory of his autobiography. So if that's the number it says then I guess one should take him at his word.

As to why you should be so insulted when someone quesions your source, well, you are the one who made the assertion, so I presume you are the one to back it up. My admittedly superficial search led me to he belief that you are possibly mistaken, but if you aren't, then it's your job to substantiate it, not mine.

I am not averse to having my sources challenged. What I am averse to is having devious ulterior motives and unethical modus-operandies attributed to me.

It looks to me like you're just taking a cheap shot over the bow.

That's an example right there.


I'll enjoy debating your proof that he was unfairly driveling all over the bible; heaven knows the Good Book's chock full of scientific gold nuggets.

I didn't say drivelling. That Im seeking desperately to debate the Bible on a SETI thread is your idea not mine.

Oh, and BTW, read the jacket blurb of Foundation's Edge for the quote; not the content, and not even his own writing. Or just google for it. Amazon will quote it for you.

I have no doubt that it might appear on the blurb.

[RecoveringYuppy]

And of course, a large number of these stars are binary systems. Not suitable for animal life of any kind.

I see this claim made a lot but what is the basis for it? Why would binary star systems necessarily be unsuitable for life (animal or otherwise)?

ETA (sorry for the repetition, didn't realize there was a second page to the thread)

[arthwollipot]

My understanding is that some binary stars are far enough apart from each other that each could potentially support a small planetary system. But I could be wrong about that.

When the stars are closer together, the three-body problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_body_problem) means that any planet influenced by the gravity of two stars would likely have a chaotic orbit, or may be hurled out of the system altogether. Any such planet (that stays in the system) would not have a consistent day/night or seasonal cycle, and would not be suitable for life as we know it.

Other kinds of life might be just fine though. We don't know.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Seems to me that there'd be a significant number of binaries that could avoid those issues. Rigil Kentaurus has two sun like stars orbiting at about the separation of the Sun and Uranus. That's far enough away that an Earth like planet would still have a significant day/night cycle and could have a stable orbit. Not sure how typical that system is.

The nights on such a system would occasionally have more light than our full moon but still, even at it's brightest, it would never eliminate a very definite day/night cycle.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star citation 60 puts the percentage of binary stars with possible stable orbits at 50-60%

[arthwollipot]

There you go.

[amb]

What makes you think that anything "above" the microbial stage will resemble any kind of plant or animal here on earth?

If the history of the Earth could be played back like a tape recorder, from the very beginning. We may not even be here having this discussion.
It could not possibly happen exactly the same way again. Remember, it was a hit from a huge asteroid that sterilized the earth and killed off the dinosaurs. It was not until the dino's disappeared that made possible the emergence of homo sapiens. Life as we know it, requires the conditions that exist here on earth. The tilt of earths wobble that gives us the seasons, the right distance from our very stable sun which has a limited amount of life friendly ultra violet light, a gas giant [Jupiter] that acts like a vacuum cleaner thereby ensuring that a large amount of asteroids don't hit us as often, giving the earth enough time for animal life to evolve.
Here is my list of why I believe we may be unique in this galaxy at least.
1. Right distance from our sun.
2. Right planetary mass.
3. Plate tectonics.
4. Right mass of our star.
5. Jupiter-like neighbor.
6. Oceans, [ not to much. Not to little.]
6. Stable planetary orbits. [ Giant planets do not create orbital chaos.]
7. A Mars. [Small neighbor as possible life source to seed an Earth like planet, if needed.]
8. And last but by no means least. A large Moon. [At a very right distance to stabilize the Earths tilt.]
9. Seasons not too severe.
10. Our atmosphere.
11. Right position in galaxy. [ not in center, edge or halo.]
12. The exact amount of carbon. [ Enough for life. Not enough for runaway greenhouse as Venus has]
13. Evolution of oxygen. [Invention of photosynthesis. Not too much or too little. Evolves at the right time.]
14. Wild cards. [Snowball Earth. Cambrian explosion. Inertial interchange event.]
Among many other reasons. We still don't know exactly where life began. Was the Earth seeded by asteroids or meteorites? Did it start here in a million coincidences with inorganic elements somehow becoming organic and then evolution taking over to produce what now exists on Earth?
When I was a kid, I always believed that if life [ especially intelligent life] was abundant in the universe, then there was a god. If not, we are an accident or a freak of the laws of physics.

[LarianLeQuella]

Again amb, your list seems to indicate a very earth-centric view of life. Since we only have ONE datapoint at the moment, how can you conclusively say your list is a requirement for intelligent life? All the items you list are the things that gave us OUR kind of life. It's like a recipe for chocolate chip cookies. You only post your mother's secret family version forgetting there are hundreds (if not thousands) of variations on chocolate chip cookies, not to mention that there is also oatmeal raisin, peanut butter, and millions of variations of even other types of cookies.

Now, at this moment we can't say one way or another for sure. As davefoc posted, even our electromagnetic pollution isn't really that detectable that far away. In order for radio signals to be detectable with any degree of certainty, they need to be deliberately beamed. As far as I am aware, even us humans have only done that once...

[davefoc]

Again amb, your list seems to indicate a very earth-centric view of life. Since we only have ONE datapoint at the moment, how can you conclusively say your list is a requirement for intelligent life? All the items you list are the things that gave us OUR kind of life. It's like a recipe for chocolate chip cookies. You only post your mother's secret family version forgetting there are hundreds (if not thousands) of variations on chocolate chip cookies, not to mention that there is also oatmeal raisin, peanut butter, and millions of variations of even other types of cookies.

Now, at this moment we can't say one way or another for sure. As davefoc posted, even our electromagnetic pollution isn't really that detectable that far away. In order for radio signals to be detectable with any degree of certainty, they need to be deliberately beamed. As far as I am aware, even us humans have only done that once...

True, perhaps about amb's geocentric thought process, but it is a nice list that organizes information that I've seen in various places. Those ideas are at least reason to suspect that intelligent life is very rare and intelligent life that exists at the same time is certainly even rarer.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The chances of animal life ever occuring again a extreemley rare.

I keep saying the same thing, but I'll make the point again: What exactly is "extremely rare"? 1 in a million? 1 in ten million?

Is it maybe more common for animal life and civilizations with radio communication technology to arise but not survive (or broadcast) for long periods of time?

Remember the numbers involved. Complex life and even intelligence could be rare enough never to encounter another such form of life, but still happen thousands or tens of thousands of times in the galaxy.

The significance of SETI's not finding a signal yet is pretty limited. We've only been listening for a teensy-tiny fraction of the existence of our solar system, and only have the ability to detect signals relatively close to us.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here is my list of why I believe we may be unique in this galaxy at least.
1. Right distance from our sun.
2. Right planetary mass.
3. Plate tectonics.
4. Right mass of our star.
5. Jupiter-like neighbor.
6. Oceans, [ not to much. Not to little.]
6. Stable planetary orbits. [ Giant planets do not create orbital chaos.]
7. A Mars. [Small neighbor as possible life source to seed an Earth like planet, if needed.]
8. And last but by no means least. A large Moon. [At a very right distance to stabilize the Earths tilt.]
9. Seasons not too severe.
10. Our atmosphere.
11. Right position in galaxy. [ not in center, edge or halo.]
12. The exact amount of carbon. [ Enough for life. Not enough for runaway greenhouse as Venus has]
13. Evolution of oxygen. [Invention of photosynthesis. Not too much or too little. Evolves at the right time.]
14. Wild cards. [Snowball Earth. Cambrian explosion. Inertial interchange event.]

First, in a universe with hundreds billions of galaxies and a galaxy with roughly 100 billion stars, why on Earth (so to speak) would you suspect that this constellation (so to speak) of conditions is unique? On what do you base that assumption?

Second, most of the items you list are not at all required for life to arise. Some of them aren't even required for our kind of life to have arisen. Number 10, for example. Since life arose on Earth "our kind of atmosphere" has changed dramatically. Related to that, number 13. First oxygen is an element and "evolved" in the hearts of stars going nova and creating heavier elements. Oxygen gas is O2, again not something that "evolved"--it's just chemistry. What do you mean by too much or too little? I suggest you read up on ecology. O2 is highly reactive and poisonous to many (probably most) forms of life on Earth. Organisms that rely on it evolved to be fittest in an atmosphere with O2 in it. There was no "coincidence" about it.

I find particularly troubling your point number 7. For this wild speculation (that life on Earth was seeded from life on Mars) to be true, you'd need to accept that there are 2 planets in our solar system capable of sustaining life. And you somehow use that point to argue that life on Earth is unique? Sorry, that's just illogical; that is, it's a contradiction. Also, was life on Mars seeded from somewhere else? Seems to me if you start speculating that life can be seeded from one planet to another, you're again arguing that life is relatively common and not at all unique to Earth.

[RecoveringYuppy]

... and only have the ability to detect signals relatively close to us.

How far away we can detect a signal is more a function of the transmitter than the receiver. If some distant civilization was working to make themselves known, they could arrange a single we couldn't miss.

[davefoc]

How far away we can detect a signal is more a function of the transmitter than the receiver. If some distant civilization was working to make themselves known, they could arrange a single we couldn't miss.

I take it you've read through the links and posts directed to this issue.

You are right that a sufficiently motivated group of sentient entities with the appropriate technology on a distant planet could make themselves known to us if they resided within a range of a 1000 light years or so. But the effort required is far beyond anything that civilizations on earth are seriously contemplating right now.

One reason for that is even if the effort succeeded in reaching a distant planet there is very unlikely to be a return signal and even if there was one the return signal may very well arrive after everyone is dead when the first signal was sent.

And it is important to realize that the receiver is an essential part of the issue. Antennas have a gain characteristic which is really a measure of their ability to focus. The reason that focus is so important for a receiving antenna is that the limiting factor on reception is noise and not gain. Gain is cheap and readily available, but at some point the signal is lost in the noise and can't be retrieved. Highly directional receive antenna (per force huge) improve the signal to noise ratio enormously and vastly increase the range that a signal can be detected at. Also, when trying to tease out a signal from a distant source out of the noise, the noise of the receiver itself can be a significant issue and that is why detectors in this kind of receiver are cryogenically cooled.

The point of all this is that even if the technology existed on two planets with sentient entities that were within a thousand light years or so of each other it is still unlikely that they would detect each other given that they both had earth like technology and earth like inclinations as to the desirability of making themselves known to distant planets.

[arthwollipot]

We currently have not worked out any way that life can exist without the specific arrangements of carbon atoms that earth-based life uses, so the geocentric assumption of carbon-based life is a reasonable one for the moment. But that doesn't mean that non-DNA based or even non-carbon based life doesn't or can't exist. It's just that we haven't worked out how it could happen.

[RecoveringYuppy]

@davefoc

Mostly agreed, but why 1000 light years?

And I'm not sure about setting up a beacon that would make us unmissable (given enough time) is beyond anything being contemplated by any civilization. A small show at such a project was actual done for a few minutes at Arecibo. I would think that if someone put their mind to it a beacon project would fall in the range of private funding (ala SETI).

[JoeTheJuggler]

How far away we can detect a signal is more a function of the transmitter than the receiver. If some distant civilization was working to make themselves known, they could arrange a single we couldn't miss.

Even so, the amount of searching we've done is infinitesimally small. If they're 150 plus light years away, it would take 150 years for their signal to reach us. When you get further away than that, obviously, the transit time takes even longer. We've only been able to produce radio signals ourselves for about 100 years.

For it to be likely that we'd receive signals from another civilization would mean they'd have to have been transmitting for at least the amount of time it takes a signal to reach us (or at least that long ago--we could get signals from a civilization that no longer exists).

I think the question is, are there other intelligences like us. So, we'd have to assume that their ability (and willingness) to transmit a signal is about the same as ours. How far away could our civilization be detected? And for how long?

It's a needle in the haystack.

ETA: Or even thousands or tens of thousands of needles in a really gigantic haystack. And some of the needles appear and disappear in relatively short periods of time--or possibly in periods of times shorter than the time it takes light from the needles to reach our eyes. OK, the analogy sucks. . . .

[shadron]

The NOVA program on Mars exploration has been released for public viewing here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mars/program.html . It is a good overview of Mars exploration, down through the findings of the Phoenix mission that just recently terminated. Unfortunately there is something in the first segment that has rights restrictions placed on it, so you have to skip the description of the Viking findings and start with the Opportunity/Spirit missions.

The program discusses a catastrophistic theory of Mars dessication that is a bit controversial, but which certainly has not been debunked; others see a simple freezing of the planet's core, caused by it's small size and its incapacity to retain heat, as the culprit, but the encountering of a large meteor (a billion years later than Earth may have encountered its moon creation event) does contain an explanation of Mars weird north/south topography.

[davefoc]

@davefoc

Mostly agreed, but why 1000 light years?

And I'm not sure about setting up a beacon that would make us unmissable (given enough time) is beyond anything being contemplated by any civilization. A small show at such a project was actual done for a few minutes at Arecibo. I would think that if someone put their mind to it a beacon project would fall in the range of private funding (ala SETI).

1000 years was the range suggested by the optical SETI guys. It is also in the ballpark of the 722 lightyears that the people who created the table I posted earlier for the largest transmitter that they analyzed. This transmitter seems wildly more powerful than something likely to be built but it's not completely out of the plausibility range. Much less than the 22 TW's listed for it actually need to be supplied. That number doesn't take in to account the gain of the antenna or the fact that the beam can be pulsed. Still I don't think anybody's going to be building one of those things in my life.

1000 light years also seems to include enough stars so that we'd have a reasonable chance of detecting a sentient civilization. My gut feel is that 100,000 stars is in the range of the minimum number to have a significant chance of finding a sentient civilization. The 100 stars or so that lie within 100 light years just seems like too small a number to me to have a reasonable chance of finding fellow sentients.

If the signal is pulsed, what is the minimum way to pulse it so that the receiving entity would be sure it is a purposefully created signal? It might be enough to randomly vary the time between the pulses a bit or maybe the pulse length. Theorectically you could transmit information in the signal. What should the message be? I don't know the answer to any of this I was just musing.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Theorectically you could transmit information in the signal. What should the message be? I don't know the answer to any of this I was just musing.
I always thought the idea of transmitting a list of prime numbers would be an easy way of saying "We're here, and here's the way we think." It would also be different enough from any natural source of radiation to leave little doubt that it's an artificial or intentional signal.

[amb]

First, in a universe with hundreds billions of galaxies and a galaxy with roughly 100 billion stars, why on Earth (so to speak) would you suspect that this constellation (so to speak) of conditions is unique? On what do you base that assumption?

Second, most of the items you list are not at all required for life to arise. Some of them aren't even required for our kind of life to have arisen. Number 10, for example. Since life arose on Earth "our kind of atmosphere" has changed dramatically. Related to that, number 13. First oxygen is an element and "evolved" in the hearts of stars going nova and creating heavier elements. Oxygen gas is O2, again not something that "evolved"--it's just chemistry. What do you mean by too much or too little? I suggest you read up on ecology. O2 is highly reactive and poisonous to many (probably most) forms of life on Earth. Organisms that rely on it evolved to be fittest in an atmosphere with O2 in it. There was no "coincidence" about it.

I find particularly troubling your point number 7. For this wild speculation (that life on Earth was seeded from life on Mars) to be true, you'd need to accept that there are 2 planets in our solar system capable of sustaining life. And you somehow use that point to argue that life on Earth is unique? Sorry, that's just illogical; that is, it's a contradiction. Also, was life on Mars seeded from somewhere else? Seems to me if you start speculating that life can be seeded from one planet to another, you're again arguing that life is relatively common and not at all unique to Earth.

The two planet theory goes something like this. Because of the constant bombardment of the planets by huge asteroids sterilizing a planet for millions of years, dividing this sterilasation between the two planets gives it a window of opportunity for life to evolve on one planet or the other.
Tectonic plates is what makes life possible on planet Earth, which requires a molten core which the Earth posses, and Mars doesn't, so even if microbial life originated on Mars, it would have died out had it not migrated to Earth in meteorites that were sent to Earth by asteroid collisions on Mars.
All this will one day be proven if we find microbial life underground on the planet, or on one of it's moons. Our moon has proved to be sterile unless we find microbial life deep underground on our satellite.

[Beerina]

Stars less massive than the sun, the habitual zones are located farther inward. but all gas planets so far discovered are roughly orbiting their star in this habitual zone. Which means the rocky planets may be too far form their sun to make animal life possible.


Not necessarily. Remember that the first realizable method to detect planets around other stars was by the star's "wobble" when a giant, nearby planet caused it to do so, barely perceptibly.

So it's not coincidence the most planets we've detected so far...have been giant planets close in to their stars. :)

[Beerina]

Even so, the amount of searching we've done is infinitesimally small. If they're 150 plus light years away, it would take 150 years for their signal to reach us. When you get further away than that, obviously, the transit time takes even longer. We've only been able to produce radio signals ourselves for about 100 years.

Unless, of course, they develop something else that lets them communicate faster, in which case, the universe would be abuzz but appear empty to the handful of 20th-century-ish civilizations scattered here and there.

[amb]

The speed of light is the limit. Nothing can travel faster than that. If civilizations are common in the universe, surely some must be say, a million years ahead of us technology wise, and make Fermi's statement of, if they're there, why aren't they here applies.

[arthwollipot]

That assumes that in a million years a civilsation will have technology to supercede the lightspeed limit (it's not just a good idea, it's the law!). This is by no means assured, and in fact by our current understanding it seems to be pretty much impossible in principle.

[amb]

We surely would have received at least a glimpse, or clue of any other life in the vicinity of our solar system had it been there. After all, we have had radio for close on to 200 years. The speed of light limit would not impede a civilization a million years ahead of us.