Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Most people think there must be advanced civilizations out in the galaxy. But, sometimes I wonder.
A more advanced race would make themselves known by their works. All the years of SETI have turned up zilch. Our radio waves have had time to get >100 light years away from Earth; an advanced planet could be much farther away, and we'd detect their signals/radiations. It seems like we should have found SOMEthing by now.
Could it be that we, Earth, are the front-runners? Either the most technologically advanced race in the galaxy, or the only one currently this advanced? Mankind has actually mastered some pretty staggering technology. We are almost at the point of being able to see the very beginning of the universe! We also have the ability to completely obliterate ourselves. Maybe this is a path that others have trod before us?
What do you think? Is there anyone out there? Are they ahead or behind us developmentally? Do they already know about us? Or, are we "it"?
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
kcbridgeman
member
Reged: 03/26/09
Posts: 92
Loc: Kansas City, MO
|
|
I don't agree that we should have found something by now. I do believe there is other intelligent life out there, as to whether they are more or less advanced is nothing more than a guess. They may be more advanced, but advanced in different ways than we did. We can only base how technology advances based on how we have so far. I hope SETI finds something, but the odds are exponentially stacked against it. Take the Pioneer 10 space probe for example. It's already/only some 66 A.U. away from Earth, and we have a hard time picking up its weak signal, although it is heavily distorted with static. Eventually Pioneer's signal will be weaker than the static which fills the universe and we will no longer be able to detect it. This is just a fraction of the distance of distant planets that "could" have intelligent life. All we can do is keep looking for the needle in the haystack.
--------------------
Orion XT10/Telrad/Stellarvue F50M RACI
Numerous Eyepieces
Starry Night Pro Plus 6/Pocket PC w/Pocket Stars
Who are we? What are we? We find that we inhabit an insignificant planet of a hum-drum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. ~ Carl Sagan
|
jayscheuerle
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 4263
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Powerful radio signals are on the decline as we become more hard-wired and use low-energy devices like cell phones. The first of any that would have been detectable were broadcast from the '32 Olympics.
Perhaps the use of powerful radio waves are a short-term passing technological phase?
Perhaps they realize that distances make communication little more than a novelty, stop looking for it and concentrate on local issues?
It's a catch 22. The universe is so big that it seems there has to be some other intelligent life out there, but the universe is so big that it makes it extremely unlikely that any direct contact will ever be made. - j
--------------------
Fight indignorance!
120ED, 12" f/5 Green Goblin, 6" f/5 Eero2, 4.5" f/8 PortaBowl, 8" f/5 Big Red Ed.
The PortaBowl-a $100 4.5" f/8 ball-scope YOU can build!
|
hfjacinto
Almost got me
Reged: 01/12/09
Posts: 3057
Loc: Union,NJ
|
|
Rick,
I once read that the issue might not be amount of civilizations but might be time, look at us, we are going into the digital age, eventually radio and TV transmission will stop, TV is definitely dieing and how difficult is it to pick up a very faint signal across space. It is getting difficult to pick up Voyagers and they haven't even left the sun's gravitational well.
Lets look at Alpha Centauri, if there was intelligent live there, if they no longer use radio or other forms or electromagnetic radiation, they might be there and we just don't know. If we send a space craft that can travel at 1/3 the speed of the light, it would take 12 years to get there and 4 years to send a signal back, can we be certain that we would even be able to pick up the signal from the background noise?
What if the speed of light is the speed limit, the amount of stars that humans can visit is limited to around 100 stars, and that is if we can get a spacecraft close to the speed of light. If we can't, we might be limited to around 25 stars we can visit with multi generation ships. Space is called space for a reason, there is a lot of SPACE between objects.
--------------------
Celestron 9.25 w/FeatherTouch Focuser, ASGT Mount
Meade SN6 w/Moonlite Focuser, LXD75 Mount
Orion EON 80 MM APO Refractor
5,6,9 MM Zhummel Planetary 17 MM Nagler T4
31,36 MM Hyperion 15,19,23 MM Axiom LX
6.7,8.8 MM Meade UWA & 11,13 MM Nagler T6
Planetary, OIII and Narrowband Filters
Thousand Oaks Dew Control w Kendrick Heaters
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 4424
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
The other issue is signal coding. An AM signal is pretty easy to detect - it's big, and it's not random at all.
Digital signals are much harder to distinguish from random hiss. A well compressed digital signal becomes more and more like background noise (less repetition, since compression works by removing repeated sequences). Signals that are intentionally encrypted also look more like random background noise (intentionally so).
For all we know, the "background static" that we hear all the time could be the compressed digital signal of lots of more advanced civilations talking about us, wondering when we will learn enough to figure out the code and talk back. 
And then there are all the time and distance issues everyone else is talking about. Add to that that an advanced civilization may not want to waste energy broadcasting in all directions, but move toward directional broadcast in the name of efficiency. If they design their signals to go from sender to receiver in a relatively narrow angle, with only enough energy to ensure good reception at the intended distance, then we would never pick it up from even a few light years away. A lot of our wireless technology is moving in that direction in the name of energy conservation already.
Jarad
--------------------
|
StarmanDan
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/27/07
Posts: 626
Loc: China Spring, Texas
|
|
I personally find it hard to believe that out of all the billions of stars in our galaxy and of the billions of galaxies in the universe, that we are "it". If Earth is any example, wherever the conditions allow, life will try to make a stronghold. Now the definition of "intelligent" is debatable, dolphins are clearly "intelligent", but lack the ability to create the technological advances we enjoy. I think there is intelligent life out there, it's just a matter of whether they have the ability to communicate their existence to the rest of the universe.
--------------------
"Starman" Dan Doyle
Texas Astronomical Society of Dallas
Central Texas Astronomical Society
8" LX200GPS w/ST80 guidescope, Canon 350D+DSI Pro
150mm f/8 Sky Watcher Refractor
10" f/4.5 Homemade Dob
RV-6 Criterion Dynascope
http://darcstar.wordpress.com
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
If Earth is any example, wherever the conditions allow, life will try to make a stronghold.
That's the whole problem right now - Earth is the only example we have. That's why it's SO important that we go all out to discover if there is indigenous life on Mars, Europa, etc. If there is, then you're right, and life is most likely ubiquitous. If that is indeed the case, then it looks brighter for other advanced civilizations. But we don't really know anything, yet - it's all just speculation.
Personally, I'm in the "teeming with life" universe camp. But so far, from the best we've been able to discover, we have no proof of it at all.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
ColoHank
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 669
Loc: western Colorado
|
|
Intelligent life out there? No doubt. But that's not the issue...
The stream of signals intentionally beamed our way by one distant civilization drifted past Earth a hundred and fifty years ago -- just a wink in time, but decades before we had the means to detect them. Stay tuned for the next stream, which is due to reach us from a different distant source a hundred thousand years from now. By the time those signals arrive, the sending civilization may be extinct, and so, perhaps, will we. Not only is space immense, but so also is time.
--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
8mm, 12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
Homebuilt Galileo scope and very large and ugly homemade tripod
other odds and ends, including iPod Touch with StarMap Pro (what a marvelous combo)...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.
|
 lightfever
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 09/27/04
Posts: 1477
Loc: Macomb Michigan
|
|
Quote:
That's the whole problem right now - Earth is the only example we have. That's why it's SO important that we go all out to discover if there is indigenous life on Mars, Europa, etc. If there is, then you're right, and life is most likely ubiquitous. If that is indeed the case, then it looks brighter for other advanced civilizations. But we don't really know anything, yet - it's all just speculation.
So so true, and we could check Mars and Europa in a relatively short time.
Just try to convince the other 90% of the population that this is a venture worthy of spending money or risking lives.
--------------------
Mark
Tasco 15-TE 76mm Sky Watcher 80mm ED AT-111
XT8i (with Woden re-figured mirror)
12.5" f/6.3 Dob (Underconstruction)
36mm Siebert, 24mm Pan, 13mmT6, 10mm XW, 4.7 UWA
8.8mm, 6.7mm, 4.7mm Meade 4000 UWA
Various Ortho's, Brandons, Nikon zoom and a Pentax 5mm XO
|
Pedestal
Post Laureate
Reged: 03/11/06
Posts: 3992
Loc: Smoggy Bottom, Baytown,Texas
|
|
We live "out in the sticks", in a poor neghborhood, on the wrong side of the galaxy. Nobody wants to talk to us.....
--------------------
Hubert
---------------------------------
www.smoggybottom.org
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
Quote:
The stream of signals intentionally beamed our way by one distant civilization drifted past Earth a hundred and fifty years ago ...
Now you tell us! 
On the "immensity of time" front: the galaxy was 5 billion years old when the Sun was born, and it took less than 5 billion years for us to evolve. So it's easily conceivable that there may be civilizations in the galaxy that are more than (even much more than) a *billion* years older than we are.
As these civilizations slowly expand into space, even at less than light speed, that span of time would allow such civilizations to easily colonize the entire galaxy. Suppose one such civilization sent colonies to the two nearest stars. Then, a million years later, each of those colonies sent colonies to the two nearest stars farther out. Etc. That's still a thousand doubling times over a billion years, and they'd run out of *stars* after just 40 doubling times.
More grist for the "why aren't they here already" mill.
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Posts: 13768
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
|
My pet theory is that if they are going from star to star, they aren't going to the inner planets in those star systems. They are concentrating on the Oort Clouds and Kuiper belt equivalents, finding cometary resources far more available and economically accessible in the distant reaches than in massive gravity wells.
So, when we get to the point of exploring our own Oort Cloud, take care. Those bodies out there may already be claimed.
--------------------
"Since the process of science generates more mysteries than it solves, we can never learn everything, we'll simply generate new ignorance at the speed of knowledge."
"S.O.E." (Sauron's Other Eye), with 16" Royce conical mirror: A permanent work in progress.
10" Homebuilt dob, old Coulter mirror
Under Construction: The "Eye of Sauron" Observatory!
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
An argument can be made that a hypothetical billion-year-old civilization probably doesn't care about living on planets any more, but if they *did*, a million-year (as posited in my previous post) doubling time would be an *extremely* low population growth rate.
Evidence indicates that the human population hit a low point of just a few thousand about 70,000 years ago (quite possibly due to the eruption of the Lake Toba supervolcano). Since then we've gone from those few thousand primitives to populating much of the planet. Imagine how quickly a planet could fill when starting with a few thousand individuals with all the trappings of a modern civilization already in place.
On the other hand, if we truly *are* alone (at a minimum, say, in our galaxy), we will quite probably *fill* it in just a few tens of millions of years, unless something radical occurs. We'll then need to start thinking about crossing the intergalactic gulf.
Isaac Asimov wrote a story once in which immortality sped up the human population doubling time to once every ten years. The story points out that, after populating every habitable planet in this galaxy, it would, of course, require just 10 years to fill a *second* galaxy ...
I don't really know what to make of the implications of all this, except that "Where is everybody?" looks like a more-and-more interesting question all the time.
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
MRoedel
sage
Reged: 11/10/06
Posts: 459
Loc: Michigan
|
|
Look at your boss and your co-workers: there's very little of it down here. 
--------------------
Mike Roedel
Homo sapiens is the species that invents symbols in which to invest passion and authority, then forgets that symbols are inventions. -Joyce Carol Oates, writer (b. 1938)
|
jayscheuerle
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 4263
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
There's always the chance that the most intelligent of civilizations looks at the world they were made for and decides to take care of it and appreciate its splendor to the fullest. They reduce their population to the point where their planet can keep up with repairing the ecological damage a technological society inevitably causes and live in harmony with the rest of the planet. They use their intelligence to improve the quality of life, not the quantity of lives, and understand the folly of more=better.
Not every intelligent civilization necessarily follows the Star Trek path. - j
--------------------
Fight indignorance!
120ED, 12" f/5 Green Goblin, 6" f/5 Eero2, 4.5" f/8 PortaBowl, 8" f/5 Big Red Ed.
The PortaBowl-a $100 4.5" f/8 ball-scope YOU can build!
|
hfjacinto
Almost got me
Reged: 01/12/09
Posts: 3057
Loc: Union,NJ
|
|
If you look at human population growth, it has pretty much stopped in all developed nations. Germany, Japan, France, Italy and the US (without immigration) would have negative population growth (just to name a few). Currently the world population is growing because of Asia, Latin America and Africa. With the advent of birth control, many people have stopped at 2 children which is not enough to keep the population growing. A more advanced society might have died out because all of its members stopped having children. In 2050 when the world population starts declining this will be a bigger issue than now, as all our current economic modules assume population growth.
There is an excellent book "The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century" by George Friedman if you have a chance please read it.
The reason we probably haven't heard from another civilization is probably that they only live around millions of years before they die out.
--------------------
Celestron 9.25 w/FeatherTouch Focuser, ASGT Mount
Meade SN6 w/Moonlite Focuser, LXD75 Mount
Orion EON 80 MM APO Refractor
5,6,9 MM Zhummel Planetary 17 MM Nagler T4
31,36 MM Hyperion 15,19,23 MM Axiom LX
6.7,8.8 MM Meade UWA & 11,13 MM Nagler T6
Planetary, OIII and Narrowband Filters
Thousand Oaks Dew Control w Kendrick Heaters
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
There's always the chance that the most intelligent of civilizations looks at the world they were made for and decides to take care of it and appreciate its splendor to the fullest. They reduce their population to the point where their planet can keep up with repairing the ecological damage a technological society inevitably causes and live in harmony with the rest of the planet. They use their intelligence to improve the quality of life, not the quantity of lives, and understand the folly of more=better.
I wonder who they are?
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
Quote:
There's always the chance that the most intelligent of civilizations looks at the world they were made for and decides to take care of it and appreciate its splendor to the fullest.
To be sure, there is always that chance. But all it takes is *one* expanding civilization to fill the galaxy over a timescale *much* shorter than a billion years.
Quote:
They use their intelligence to improve the quality of life, not the quantity of lives, and understand the folly of more=better.
There really aren't too many circumstances where more does not equal better, except in golf!
The scenario you describe is so *completely* foreign to my thoughts and attitudes that I actually find it vaguely *disturbing*. It fairly screams "ennui" to me; I honestly don't think a civilization like that could long survive.
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
jayscheuerle
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 4263
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Quote:
The scenario you describe is so *completely* foreign to my thoughts and attitudes that I actually find it vaguely *disturbing*. It fairly screams "ennui" to me; I honestly don't think a civilization like that could long survive.
Quite the opposite! It's a society of creating and doing, writing and cooking, building and dancing, hiking and painting. We're still a technologically young culture and quite hung-up on our tech toys of the moment. The average person spends around 5 hours a day being fed entertainment by the television or the internet. We watch more than we do.
I'm saying intelligent societies will appreciate cooking over take-out, a scenic vista over a background in Vista, and looking at the stars over pictures of stars.
The ennui you speak of comes from when life becomes virtual entertainment instead of tactile absorption. The more toys we have, the less we actually do. Just ask any parent of a teenager that's "bored", yet surrounded with computers, cell-phones, mp3 players, video games, etc.
I'll take a week in the mountains over a week on 42nd Street anytime. Just let me bring my bass, a sketchbook, a small scope, my doggies, and ingredients for a big batch of chili. I don't need no stinkin' entertainment. I'll entertain myself–thank you very much! - j
--------------------
Fight indignorance!
120ED, 12" f/5 Green Goblin, 6" f/5 Eero2, 4.5" f/8 PortaBowl, 8" f/5 Big Red Ed.
The PortaBowl-a $100 4.5" f/8 ball-scope YOU can build!
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
Isaac Asimov wrote a story once in which immortality sped up the human population doubling time to once every ten years. The story points out that, after populating every habitable planet in this galaxy, it would, of course, require just 10 years to fill a *second* galaxy ...
I remember that story. The ultimate planning computer in another dimension outlived the rest of the universe, and after pondering for eons, ended up with "Let there be light". Classic Asimov!
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
I'm with Jay. It seems like a more advanced, introspective culture would necessarily move in this direction. The technology is only useful and intriguing until you become bored with the artifice and learn to do things yourself.
Example: I used to love to use all sorts of electric guitar effects. Until, that is, I had "the big epiphany" and learned to actually play the instrument. Learned to create effect, mood, tension, release, using just the instrument and my fingers - letting the actual music populate the vision I created.
I think civilizations go through the same process. Of course, I can't prove it.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
Quote:
I remember that story. The ultimate planning computer in another dimension outlived the rest of the universe, and after pondering for eons, ended up with "Let there be light". Classic Asimov!
Yup; The Last Question. Asimov said he saw more reader interest in that story than any other one he ever wrote. I've seen it at the top of some "Best Science Fiction Short Story Ever" lists. It's certainly my favorite.
Personally, I'd rather take a trip to Beta Lyrae than a weekend in the mountains with a guitar, though. I'm just sayin'.
And would you really rather wander the same mountains you've wandered a dozen times before, or go explore a whole planet no one else has ever seen?
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
jayscheuerle
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 4263
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Quote:
And would you really rather wander the same mountains you've wandered a dozen times before, or go explore a whole planet no one else has ever seen?
The more likely scenario would involve spending your entire life in a can with the remote chance of stepping on a lifeless rock (if we're talking outside the solar system). But even with the Moon and Mars as alternative choices, I'll find more diversity and life in a teaspoon of Mountain soil than I will on those two planets in their entirety. Besides, our world is full of mountains and seas and canyons and meadows and forests and glaciers and lakes and rivers. And in those places, you'll find deer and raccoons and bears and wolves and salmon and hawks. And the air will smell good. And you can eat the life that you find.
You'd be hard-pressed to find somebody who's explored a double-digit percentage of Earth. It's a grand place if you're interested in looking around! - j
--------------------
Fight indignorance!
120ED, 12" f/5 Green Goblin, 6" f/5 Eero2, 4.5" f/8 PortaBowl, 8" f/5 Big Red Ed.
The PortaBowl-a $100 4.5" f/8 ball-scope YOU can build!
|
ColoHank
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 669
Loc: western Colorado
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And would you really rather wander the same mountains you've wandered a dozen times before, or go explore a whole planet no one else has ever seen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more likely scenario would involve spending your entire life in a can with the remote chance of stepping on a lifeless rock (if we're talking outside the solar system). But even with the Moon and Mars as alternative choices, I'll find more diversity and life in a teaspoon of Mountain soil than I will on those two planets in their entirety. Besides, our world is full of mountains and seas and canyons and meadows and forests and glaciers and lakes and rivers. And in those places, you'll find deer and raccoons and bears and wolves and salmon and hawks. And the air will smell good. And you can eat the life that you find.
You'd be hard-pressed to find somebody who's explored a double-digit percentage of Earth. It's a grand place if you're interested in looking around! - j
Amen. And Bravo!
--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
8mm, 12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
Homebuilt Galileo scope and very large and ugly homemade tripod
other odds and ends, including iPod Touch with StarMap Pro (what a marvelous combo)...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.
|
Mister T
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/01/08
Posts: 572
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Good post!!
AND!!!...
We are STILL discovering new life-forms at a surprising rate here on Terra
--------------------
Tony
"After the Laws of Physics, everything else is opinion"
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Zhumell Classic 10" Dob
Televue 2x Barlow
8mm hyperion and rings
Oberwerk 11x70 Binoc
old camera tripod
mags and books
Meade 60mm refractor
Whatever Santa brings me for X-mas
Elmira-Corning Astronomical Society,
http://www.corning-cc.edu/visitors/observatory
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
Personally, I'd rather take a trip to Beta Lyrae than a weekend in the mountains with a guitar, though. I'm just sayin'.
Well, yeah! I can always go to the mountains next weekend!
Quote:
And would you really rather wander the same mountains you've wandered a dozen times before, or go explore a whole planet no one else has ever seen?
The new planet, no doubt! (I'll be in those mountains next weekend, remember).
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Kobayashi
professor emeritus
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 742
|
|
Quote:
Personally, I'd rather take a trip to Beta Lyrae than a weekend in the mountains with a guitar, though. I'm just sayin'.
There are many places on Earth that were once as inaccessible as Beta Lyrae. How often do you go on expeditions to those places?
|
cpsTN
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/26/07
Posts: 1365
Loc: Murfreesboro, TN -- 36N 86W
|
|
It depends on what you call intelligent. There could be a planet out there entirely populated by insects. They are intelligent, by the strict definition, but they are not going to be sending signals that we can detect.
If I am the only person in North America and there is a giraffe in Africa, how am I ever going to know?
--------------------
Charles Sands
Observing since 12/29/86
8" f/5.9 dobsonian (Zhumell DSH-8), with 8x50 RACI
70mm f/5 achromatic refractor (Orion GoScope)
15x70 Celestron SkyMaster binos
S&T's POCKET SKY ATLAS
Kodak EasyShare Z915 digital camera
--------------------
The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament sheweth His handywork
Psalm 19:1
|
cpsTN
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/26/07
Posts: 1365
Loc: Murfreesboro, TN -- 36N 86W
|
|
God does, but we normally don't listen.
--------------------
Charles Sands
Observing since 12/29/86
8" f/5.9 dobsonian (Zhumell DSH-8), with 8x50 RACI
70mm f/5 achromatic refractor (Orion GoScope)
15x70 Celestron SkyMaster binos
S&T's POCKET SKY ATLAS
Kodak EasyShare Z915 digital camera
--------------------
The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament sheweth His handywork
Psalm 19:1
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I'd rather take a trip to Beta Lyrae than a weekend in the mountains with a guitar, though. I'm just sayin'.
There are many places on Earth that were once as inaccessible as Beta Lyrae. How often do you go on expeditions to those places?
Name one place on the Earth's surface that was ever as inaccessible as Beta Lyrae. And by inaccessible, I mean impossible to physically get to.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Kobayashi
professor emeritus
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 742
|
|
Quote:
Name one place on the Earth's surface that was ever as inaccessible as Beta Lyrae. And by inaccessible, I mean impossible to physically get to.
There were many places that were once technologically impossible to get to - and impossible is impossible, there's no "less impossible". The bottom of the Marianas trench, for example.
|
hfjacinto
Almost got me
Reged: 01/12/09
Posts: 3057
Loc: Union,NJ
|
|
Center of the Earth. I think we have a better chance to get to Beta Lyrae.
A rotating asteroid with hollowed out living quarters and using Nulcear ION propulsion could get us to Beta Lyrae in 4000 years assuming (assuming we can refuel with water to break down to Hydrogen and Oxygen) we can get up to 20% of the speed of light.
The cost would be astronomical, but the technology exists.
I don't know how we can get to the center of the earth. I don't think we have the technology.
Edit- Missed a 0 on 400, should have been 4000
--------------------
Celestron 9.25 w/FeatherTouch Focuser, ASGT Mount
Meade SN6 w/Moonlite Focuser, LXD75 Mount
Orion EON 80 MM APO Refractor
5,6,9 MM Zhummel Planetary 17 MM Nagler T4
31,36 MM Hyperion 15,19,23 MM Axiom LX
6.7,8.8 MM Meade UWA & 11,13 MM Nagler T6
Planetary, OIII and Narrowband Filters
Thousand Oaks Dew Control w Kendrick Heaters
Edited by hfjacinto (11/19/09 11:58 AM)
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1665
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
Quote:
Powerful radio signals are on the decline as we become more hard-wired and use low-energy devices like cell phones. ...Perhaps the use of powerful radio waves are a short-term passing technological phase?...
An interesting thread that comes up often, and one of the interesting comments above. Given our rate of communication technology change, I think it might be very hard to figure out what types of communication to look for.
Some of the sattelite arrays coming up in the coming decades, (ESA Darwin array) and the Webb telescope may provide better information on exo-solar planet characteristics, and weed out some similar biogeophysical candidates.
Of course, given the growing information we now have re organic and pre-biotic chemistry in the galaxy, and stellar nurseries, it pretty safe i would wager to say, well, where there is smoke there is fire, as the saying goes.
Intelligence is also a continuim it seems, at least in our little sample of one, i.e. Terra. Given only an N=1 so far re an advanced tool making specie capable of complex symbolic thought, we really cannot say yet that is a good survival strategy, as the saying goes amongst some.
Kinda hope it is  , cheering for the home team and all....
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Edited by moynihan (11/19/09 12:10 PM)
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Not to split hairs, but I did say "on the Earth's surface"...
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1665
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
Quote:
Not to split hairs, but I did say "on the Earth's surface"...
Sorry, do not understand that one, at least in regard to my post...
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
groz
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 03/14/07
Posts: 1288
Loc: Duncan, BC
|
|
Quote:
Name one place on the Earth's surface that was ever as inaccessible as Beta Lyrae. And by inaccessible, I mean impossible to physically get to.
Wind the clock back a ways, to the days before internal combustion, power on the sea was by sail, and power on land was animal power of some sort. The south pole was in those days as inaccessible as Beta Lyrae is today. The problem was really simple, it was impossible to carry enough fuel and supplies via dog team, or other animal power, that could operate in the climate, and carry enough for the round trip from the shores, to the pole, and return. A few adventurous souls did die in the attempt, they ate the dogs to survive, but, ran out of dogs, and the cold got them. Look carefully at the records of those that did finally succeed, and you'll see they carried a significant supply of whale oil, and, that was the difference between succeeding in the round trip, and perishing on the way.
Internal combustion changed that. The internal combustion engine allowed the fuel supply to be shrunk in terms of mass and volume, to the point it was possible to build a vehicle that could do the round trip, pretty much self contained, and a wonderful side effect of that engine, heat, solving a big chunk of the climate problem. Even so, the early sno cats did first head out and build fuel cache dumps, which were used later on the final trek. Even with the benefit of internal combustion, they first need to go out and drop supplies for the trip.
The advent of the twin otter on skiis, gps navigation, and lots of other little technology improvements, made it an almost routine event in the antarctic summer, but it's still a major challenge to move from a shoreline location out to the pole itself during the winter. Far from routine, and, if it's absolutely necessary, then the 'experts' are called in, because even the folks that do it routinely during the antarctic summer, aren't ready to make that trip during the winter.
I spent many years working as a 'backwoods' pilot, and, I've seen many corners of this world that have been seen by only a handful of folks. They are out in the bush, and folks there actually have to be 'self contained'. You cant dial 911 for an ambulance, there is no phone. You cant run to the store for a quart of milk, there is no store. The nearest takeout joint is 500 miles away, and, if you want a 'brand name', you get to fly over a thousand miles.
It is my experience, that the vast majority of folks professing to want to 'go out and explore the unexplored', really mean, they want somebody else to do it, so they can follow on behind after the bridges and roads are built, the restaurants are built and operating, with cellular coverage extended into the area.
If folks are really bent on exploring, there are still a number of corners of this planet that have had little/no exploration. Lots of people talk about it, but, when you actually get out there, and see what's really happening, very very few actually want to _do it_ once they realize what that entails. I can remember a few times, dropping off loads of supplies after landing on the tundra, and, my main thought was 'looks like fun for a couple days, but, sure am glad I'll be back in town tonite'. Without an airplane to do the lift, those spots would be physically impossible to reach. In summer, to much open water for ground based transport, to much ice for water based. In the winter, the ice makes surface transport impossible, the ridge lines and heaves make it a no-go for the sno-cat.
An interesting aside, whenever one gets into a conversation with folks professing to want to go explore the stars, or mars, or any of these places, I always just ask a simple question. Did you enjoy the trip thru antarctica? The answer is invariably 'never been there'. It's a lot more 'attainable', and, a lot more hospitable place. So why isn't everybody lining up to go ?
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Posts: 2053
Loc: Virginia
|
|
Quote:
Name one place on the Earth's surface that was ever as inaccessible as Beta Lyrae. And by inaccessible, I mean impossible to physically get to.
I'd say this one at least qualifies as in the running:
Final Frontier....
The challenges involved in this exploration will be very comparable to those needed to look for life in Europa, a fact not lost on NASA as it looks ahead to planned Europa missions.
I would also agree with the earlier sentiments regarding what is left of life on this earth that has yet to be explored (even beyond the exotic variety at thermal vents and such, i.e., where "extremophiles" flourish). To suggest we don't have a lot yet to discover/understand regarding the diversity of life on earth and mechanisms of evolutionary change (which should convey to life elsewhere in the universe, BTW) is misguided. Added to that, it has been estimated that we lose more species unknown to science each year (due to both "natural" processes of extinction and those based on human activities) far faster than new species are identified.
--------------------
Hooville
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not to split hairs, but I did say "on the Earth's surface"...
Sorry, do not understand that one, at least in regard to my post...
No, not you. I was talking about the Marianas Trench and the Center of the Earth.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Posts: 2053
Loc: Virginia
|
|
I'd consider that which is under water but not below the crust to be on the surface - especially if you are talking about where the life is.
--------------------
Hooville
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Name one place on the Earth's surface that was ever as inaccessible as Beta Lyrae. And by inaccessible, I mean impossible to physically get to.
I'd say this one at least qualifies as in the running:
Final Frontier....
Per the article:
"During the next five years the researchers will acquire and develop the technologies needed for this ambitious project. During the 2012-2013 Antarctic winter season the research team will go 'deep field' into West Antarctica to sample water from the lake in the search for tiny life forms never before seen..."
That's a lot more accessible than Beta Lyrae. That said, it's a fascinating project! I hope they can do it without introducing contamination into the lake.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Posts: 2053
Loc: Virginia
|
|
True Rick, but even a few years (certainly decades) ago it would have been deemed impossible. The drilling conditions were simply too extreme and the location too remote. As it is, the engineering challenges will be intense even by today's standards.
I just hope they don't introduce microbes that the ecosystem has never seen before, which could grab a foot hold and change the dynamic of the niche (or worse). I guess one more bubble of possible life to insert ourselves into and alter.
--------------------
Hooville
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
groz,
I agree with almost everything you said, except the poles were reached with a fairly limited application of creativity, determination, and technology. Beta Lyrae is as inaccessible now as it was then. ("Limited" beng a relative term!)
And as to why everyone isn't lining up to go to Antarctica, well, it's already been done, hasn't it? 
But you're right: by "I want to explore space", I mean I want to watch from my comfortable home while someone else explores space and tells me what they see. Someone else who is much tougher and smarter than I am.
Everyone wants to see great things done, but only a few of us are great.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
Quote:
... by "I want to explore space", I mean I want to watch from my comfortable home while someone else explores space and tells me what they see.
Well, speaking as a person for whom "roughing it" means the satellite TV went dead in the motorhome, let me just say that I WANNA GO THERE IN PERSON! I would be willing to put up with nearly *anything* (except cold; please say the ship won't be cold -- I can't stand cold) to go to Mars or Beta Lyrae or the center of a globular cluster or *anywhere* like that!
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
Reged: 06/29/07
Posts: 3138
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Make that 2 of us! (as long as it isn't cold) I hope that a heater is standard equipment on the spacecraft.
--------------------
Alanon the Wizard (a literary character, not the organization)
Dan
12.5" Obsession #1531
WO 98mm FLT (aluminum tube)
WO ZenithStarII 80mm ED
Coronado PST Ha
Edited by alanon (11/19/09 03:23 PM)
|
groz
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 03/14/07
Posts: 1288
Loc: Duncan, BC
|
|
Quote:
I would be willing to put up with nearly *anything* (except cold; please say the ship won't be cold -- I can't stand cold) to go to Mars or Beta Lyrae
Well, space is cold. You may want to read up on apollo 13 for an idea of what happens when the heaters quit for a few days. Bottom line is, over a long period, quit they will, so, it's back to that 'tough' aspect of being an explorer. Tough enough to carry on, no matter what the adversity.
Altho I've never done the mission myself, got a few friends that have done it many times. Here's a shot of 'summer' down under. I've done many a beer with some of the folks in this shot, both before, and after this trip. This was taken just outside of rothera, while converting from wheels to skiis, so they could carry on south to the real area of work.
Hmm, lessee, if cold is an issue, that rules out the moon, and mars, both poles on this planet. It also rules out any long duration mission in a tin can spaceship. So, I'm curious, aside from the beaches in hawaii, just where would you go exploring that isn't cold ?
Heck, this isn't even 'exploring', it's just the logistics of coming and going, to a place you folks seem to think is 'easy'.
Edited by groz (11/19/09 03:29 PM)
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
Quote:
An interesting aside, whenever one gets into a conversation with folks professing to want to go explore the stars, or mars, or any of these places, I always just ask a simple question. Did you enjoy the trip thru antarctica? The answer is invariably 'never been there'. It's a lot more 'attainable', and, a lot more hospitable place. So why isn't everybody lining up to go ?
I grew up in central Wisconsin. Snow and ice? I been there and I done that; turned down the t-shirt. Absolutely *no* interest in going to Antarctica. If I *won* a trip to the South Pole, sure, I'd go -- but I probably wouldn't cross the street to enter the contest.
Now Mars or some compelling extra-solar destination? I'm in.
I am the kind of person who would be happy in those middle-of-nowhere places you talk about, groz. Given a well-stocked larder, plenty of fuel, a backup for the heating system  , and satellite Internet , I'd be happy all by my lonesome for months to years at a time.
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
And indoor plumbing.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
Reged: 06/29/07
Posts: 3138
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Would I go to Antartica? No.
Would I go to The Mariana trench? NO. (well maybe)
Would I stick my head in a lions mouth? No.
Would I go on a 1 way mission to the reaches of space? Where do I sign up? The fact is that I would have gotten on a shuttle the day after the Columbia disaster.
The difference is in the magnitude of the experience, and achievement. I am not a thrill seeker, but the personal experience of space travel, and the knowledge gleaned from it far outweighs the possible risk as long as the odds are somewhat favorable. To achieve such goals may require risk as well as sacrifice, but manageable risk is worth an achievement such as space travel. That is my opinion on it.
--------------------
Alanon the Wizard (a literary character, not the organization)
Dan
12.5" Obsession #1531
WO 98mm FLT (aluminum tube)
WO ZenithStarII 80mm ED
Coronado PST Ha
Edited by alanon (11/19/09 03:43 PM)
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
Quote:
Hmm, lessee, if cold is an issue, that rules out the moon, and mars, both poles on this planet. It also rules out any long duration mission in a tin can spaceship. So, I'm curious, aside from the beaches in hawaii, just where would you go exploring that isn't cold ?
I don't care if the *place itself* is cold; I just want a temperate climate in the ship and my space suit. Excrement occurs, of course, and I'm willing to take that chance, but I *will* pass if you tell me the ambient temperature in the space ship is gonna be 20 below.
I can't live without oxygen, either, but that doesn't mean I refuse to explore anyplace that doesn't have oxygen!
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
I am the kind of person who would be happy in those middle-of-nowhere places you talk about, groz. Given a well-stocked larder, plenty of fuel, a backup for the heating system , and satellite Internet , I'd be happy all by my lonesome for months to years at a time.
That's the problem with being the explorer, the first one there: no food, no fuel, no nothing but what you scrounge up for yourself. A tough road, especially someplace like Mars. I used to think like that too, but I stopped kidding myself eventually. I'll never climb Everest or go to the pole.
But I'm sure glad somebody does!
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Posts: 2053
Loc: Virginia
|
|
I would gladly go to Antarctica and at various times in my career I tried to make it happen but so far, no luck. It is a pretty expensive place to get to on your own as an eco-tourist and I know from friends who have travelled there on NSF's dime that the trip can be - gut wrenching (lets leave it at that). Pretty ferocious seas. But, it is still on my "Bucket List". Granted, it is not to everyone's taste, I'm sure.
--------------------
Hooville
|
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
Reged: 06/29/07
Posts: 3138
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Quote:
And indoor plumbing.
Opening up the Doctor Dentons trap door in space would really be an experience I wouldn't want either.
--------------------
Alanon the Wizard (a literary character, not the organization)
Dan
12.5" Obsession #1531
WO 98mm FLT (aluminum tube)
WO ZenithStarII 80mm ED
Coronado PST Ha
|
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
Reged: 06/29/07
Posts: 3138
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Quote:
I would gladly go to Antarctica and at various times in my career I tried to make it happen but so far, no luck. It is a pretty expensive place to get to on your own as an eco-tourist and I know from friends who have travelled there on NSF's dime that the trip can be - gut wrenching (lets leave it at that). Pretty ferocious seas. But, it is still on my "Bucket List". Granted, it is not to everyone's taste, I'm sure.
I can certainly respect that, Doug. In fact I can see why it is valued by you, and others. There is a ton of sciencific and personal knowledge to be gained. I was just using it as a personal example, my friend.
And for those of you who like to stick your heads in a lions mouth? Good on ya! I'd even like to watch.
--------------------
Alanon the Wizard (a literary character, not the organization)
Dan
12.5" Obsession #1531
WO 98mm FLT (aluminum tube)
WO ZenithStarII 80mm ED
Coronado PST Ha
Edited by alanon (11/19/09 04:02 PM)
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Posts: 2053
Loc: Virginia
|
|
I got that Dan - I'm just one of those rare individuals who actually likes the cold. At least I did when I was younger. Maybe things are different now that I've been in Virginia for the last 20 years. What might be a real challenge though is boredom, if you are trapped at McMurdo in a hut for a couple of months. Can't exactly pop out to get an ice cream.... err, hot apple pie maybe.
--------------------
Hooville
|
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
Reged: 06/29/07
Posts: 3138
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Quote:
Can't exactly pop out to get an ice cream.... err, hot apple pie maybe.
Ahh yes, but if the goal is worthwhile enough to a person, there is little that one won't sacrifice to attain it.
--------------------
Alanon the Wizard (a literary character, not the organization)
Dan
12.5" Obsession #1531
WO 98mm FLT (aluminum tube)
WO ZenithStarII 80mm ED
Coronado PST Ha
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
What might be a real challenge though is boredom, if you are trapped at McMurdo in a hut for a couple of months.
I dunno - did you ever see "The Thing"? The Pole is where that stuff happens.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
Reged: 06/29/07
Posts: 3138
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What might be a real challenge though is boredom, if you are trapped at McMurdo in a hut for a couple of months.
I dunno - did you ever see "The Thing"? The Pole is where that stuff happens.
So much for boring, but if it messes with my apple pie? I'm outa there!
--------------------
Alanon the Wizard (a literary character, not the organization)
Dan
12.5" Obsession #1531
WO 98mm FLT (aluminum tube)
WO ZenithStarII 80mm ED
Coronado PST Ha
Edited by alanon (11/19/09 04:21 PM)
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1665
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
Quote:
... The fact is that I would have gotten on a shuttle the day after the Columbia disaster...
Ad Astra per Aspera
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
scopethis
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 05/30/08
Posts: 825
Loc: Kingman, Ks
|
|
So us humans on this sphere search for something else in the universe that can think. If one accepts that evolution is a factual concept, then the human species is a fluke; an accident. Suppose the great comet/asteroid or whatever never happened; that there was no demise of the dinosaur. Would there be an "intelligent" life on this planet now?
|
jayscheuerle
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 4263
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the concept. All species are flukes as evolution is not directed. 99.999% of all species have gone extinct and there are reasons other than asteroids that could have wiped out the dinosaurs. Our level of intelligence has only recently been an evolutionary success story and there's no reason to believe that it's the final word. It's obvious that it has its downsides as well. Based on our past performances (hi neandertals!), I'd wager that we'd probably wipe out any species that threatened our level of intelligence.
I think if we found a planet that had intelligent beings (let's say the adults were around as intelligent as five year olds), we'd probably treat them like curiosities or pets, not with respect as equals. Of course, if a more intelligent species showed up here, you can be that WE'd expect to be treated as equals.
Our intelligence takes us far, but it's the combination with upright walking, opposable thumbs and vocal mechanisms that enable speech that has enabled us to be builders, hunters and storytellers. - j
--------------------
Fight indignorance!
120ED, 12" f/5 Green Goblin, 6" f/5 Eero2, 4.5" f/8 PortaBowl, 8" f/5 Big Red Ed.
The PortaBowl-a $100 4.5" f/8 ball-scope YOU can build!
|
ColoHank
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 669
Loc: western Colorado
|
|
Jay:
Right on! I'd describe natural selection as the evolutionary mechanism, though, rather than the concept. In addition to those enabling physical attributes you cite, I'd also mention that the human brain just about triples in size during the first year after birth.
Gotta wonder what form we'll take and what mental powers we'll possess a million years hence as we continue to evolve, if indeed our species endures.
--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
8mm, 12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
Homebuilt Galileo scope and very large and ugly homemade tripod
other odds and ends, including iPod Touch with StarMap Pro (what a marvelous combo)...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.
|
jayscheuerle
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 4263
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Since we've filled up the planet, we're going to need to lose our propensity towards violence, which may have been an asset thousands of years ago, but doesn't help much on a city bus.
IMHO, I think we'd be happier if we were simpler. Our brains our wired full of neurosis. We're not a happy species, but we are a creative one. Tradeoffs... Success as a species doesn't appear to be about happiness. The old "ignorance is bliss" thing applies. I guess that's where recreational and prescription drugs come in, simplifying us for the moment.
Sci-fi sees our future like it envisions aliens. Smaller, with bigger brains, and effeminate bodies due to lack of physical labor. Sounds like a bit of self projection.
We are the last of the bipedal hominids. We are the first to have been the only one. It would be kind of neat to have a branch split off that would live side-by-side with our more familiar form, but I don't have much faith in our ability to get along with a slightly different version. We can't even harmonize across races and genders too well. It may be that unnatural selection is going to limit how quickly we evolve.
Great stuff to think about! - j
--------------------
Fight indignorance!
120ED, 12" f/5 Green Goblin, 6" f/5 Eero2, 4.5" f/8 PortaBowl, 8" f/5 Big Red Ed.
The PortaBowl-a $100 4.5" f/8 ball-scope YOU can build!
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1665
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
While discussing Exobiology or Astrobiology(the topic of this thread)
intro link is nearly impossible to do (as in discussing the earthly catagories in biology) without using the E word or the N S words, i hope the powers that be do not lock this thread due to "local standards". That would be a pity, this is a fun read.
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Edited by moynihan (11/20/09 12:24 PM)
|
jayscheuerle
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 4263
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
E & NS are scientific topics with scientific answers, so they belong here in the scientific forum. What should be avoided is the insertion of G, which has no place while discussing scientific matters.
That's pretty straightforward. - j
--------------------
Fight indignorance!
120ED, 12" f/5 Green Goblin, 6" f/5 Eero2, 4.5" f/8 PortaBowl, 8" f/5 Big Red Ed.
The PortaBowl-a $100 4.5" f/8 ball-scope YOU can build!
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1665
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
Quote:
E & NS are scientific topics with scientific answers, so they belong here in the scientific forum. What should be avoided is the insertion of G, which has no place while discussing scientific matters.
That's pretty straightforward. - j
Gravity? 
Just kidding, understand your reference, totally agree.
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Posts: 2053
Loc: Virginia
|
|
Quote:
E & NS are scientific topics with scientific answers, so they belong here in the scientific forum. What should be avoided is the insertion of G, which has no place while discussing scientific matters.
That's pretty straightforward. - j
could not agree more.
--------------------
Hooville
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Posts: 13768
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
|
Quote:
E & NS are scientific topics with scientific answers, so they belong here in the scientific forum. What should be avoided is the insertion of G, which has no place while discussing scientific matters.
That's pretty straightforward. - j
Legitimate science that deals with the possibilities and limitations inherent in exobiology are relevant to this forum and fully on topic. The biological mechanisms and processes of development that affect those life forms, including evolution, natural selection, drift, and even "controversial" topics such as group or kin selection are not to be suppressed on my watch.
Heck, with the advent of biotechnology, even "intelligent design" is not out of bounds, as long as it relates to the actual engineering or breeding aspects of building life forms.
But since this is a science forum, what's not up for discussion is that which science by definition can't discuss -- which includes the supernatural and all its derivations.
(Neither, BTW, will those belief systems be criticized here. Don't ask, don't tell. We'll just stick to the science.)
--------------------
"Since the process of science generates more mysteries than it solves, we can never learn everything, we'll simply generate new ignorance at the speed of knowledge."
"S.O.E." (Sauron's Other Eye), with 16" Royce conical mirror: A permanent work in progress.
10" Homebuilt dob, old Coulter mirror
Under Construction: The "Eye of Sauron" Observatory!
|
hfjacinto
Almost got me
Reged: 01/12/09
Posts: 3057
Loc: Union,NJ
|
|
If Gravity didn't Intelligently Design inteligent life what did, was it google.
Sorry I had to throw that one in.
Now back onto topic. The human brain has gotten so large that birth is becoming difficult. If evolution continues on its current path we will be unable to have "natural" childbirth, but as a technological species this shouldn't be a problem, unless we get to the point that technology takes over. One reason that maybe we haven't heard from other technological advanced society has taken over is that they get so technologically advanced that they no longer have the capability to explore, technology does everything for them (has any one seen Wall-E)
--------------------
Celestron 9.25 w/FeatherTouch Focuser, ASGT Mount
Meade SN6 w/Moonlite Focuser, LXD75 Mount
Orion EON 80 MM APO Refractor
5,6,9 MM Zhummel Planetary 17 MM Nagler T4
31,36 MM Hyperion 15,19,23 MM Axiom LX
6.7,8.8 MM Meade UWA & 11,13 MM Nagler T6
Planetary, OIII and Narrowband Filters
Thousand Oaks Dew Control w Kendrick Heaters
|
Mister T
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/01/08
Posts: 572
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
Now back onto topic. The human brain has gotten so large that birth is becoming difficult.
tell my mom about it!!!
--------------------
Tony
"After the Laws of Physics, everything else is opinion"
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Zhumell Classic 10" Dob
Televue 2x Barlow
8mm hyperion and rings
Oberwerk 11x70 Binoc
old camera tripod
mags and books
Meade 60mm refractor
Whatever Santa brings me for X-mas
Elmira-Corning Astronomical Society,
http://www.corning-cc.edu/visitors/observatory
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Posts: 13768
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
|
Actually, the modern human brain is, on average, slightly smaller than that of either Cro-Magnon man or Neandertals.
Of course, now that humans have achieved, and are still developing, the understanding of biology, a lot of what is true about human evolution up to and including Homo sapiens will no longer necessarily be the case in the future. A threshold has been crossed, where humanity has the ability, if not the will, to direct its own evolution, and at a rate far faster than anything natural selection could accomplish.
--------------------
"Since the process of science generates more mysteries than it solves, we can never learn everything, we'll simply generate new ignorance at the speed of knowledge."
"S.O.E." (Sauron's Other Eye), with 16" Royce conical mirror: A permanent work in progress.
10" Homebuilt dob, old Coulter mirror
Under Construction: The "Eye of Sauron" Observatory!
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1665
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
BTW:
The new, December National Geographic Magazine cover story is this topic.
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
MMICKELS
Aluminum Knight
Reged: 01/20/04
Posts: 28973
Loc: The Land of Shake and Bake
|
|
I read that the human brain has become 10% smaller over the last 500,000 years. It might be that we as a species no longer need to have many and varied skills to survive. We are becoming specialists that don't need all the extra knowledge. As far as "intellegent" life goes, what definition will we use?
--------------------
Mark
"Never eat more than you can lift"
Miss Piggy
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Posts: 2053
Loc: Virginia
|
|
I was going to suggest sentience but a quick Google suggests that this term has largely been co-opted by the animal rights movement to mean an animal that experiences "pleasure and pain". A bit broader definition than I would like........ I always considered it first and foremost to mean self aware. But the old Wik points out the term "sapient life" (new one on me) to indicate "human-like" intelligence, wisdom, judgment and the like. Problem is, there seem to be lots of humans, even in my own extended family, who would just barely qualify.
I guess I'm now thinking that maybe one can't easily define intelligent life - the question is whether we will "know it when we see it" (like Supreme Court Justice Potters' famous line from many years ago regarding pornography). Of course if a blob of green ooze ever shows up in a star cruiser blasting us with photon torpedos, they would get my vote for intelligent life.
As for brain size and intelligence that correlation can only be taken so far. Our brain cases may have gotten smaller but there are other ways of packing in the neurons and this is "why" our brain tissue is so intricately contorted, convoluted and layered.
--------------------
Hooville
|
jayscheuerle
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 4263
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Big brains require a LOT of energy. They also don't correlate directly to intelligence unless you take into account the percentage of the animal that they make up. If we're at the point where size doesn't help us much anymore, then we'd probably be better off smaller all the way around... - j
--------------------
Fight indignorance!
120ED, 12" f/5 Green Goblin, 6" f/5 Eero2, 4.5" f/8 PortaBowl, 8" f/5 Big Red Ed.
The PortaBowl-a $100 4.5" f/8 ball-scope YOU can build!
|
Glaucus
member
Reged: 07/12/09
Posts: 65
|
|
There is almost surely no class 2 or higher civilization in the milky way. And very probably also none in any near galaxy. There could be a class .5 civilization in a near galaxy. Maybe a handful. But maybe none at all.
Yeah, there are a lot of galaxies out there. But the odds against intelligent life can be just as big. It doesn't matter how many galaxies there are. More galaxies just proves it's more possible for the odds of intelligent life to be closer to infinitesimal.
And intelligent life better be rare because it seems life won't be. And if life is common and intelligent life is extremely rare, we are screwed.
You can argue that a class 3 civilization could hide it's existence from us. But their energy use by definition would be huge. You can't just hide that.
They could let us see a fake universe. But if that is true we can't trust anything we can see. So it's one of those useless assumptions you are never even going to try to exclude.
There's no theory to explain why other intelligent life can't be older than ours. Yes, maybe very young galaxies all have active nuclei. And yes, you need heavier elements as well. But then still you can have older civilizations that are old enough to be millions of light years away for us to observe right now.
Edited by Glaucus (11/23/09 09:32 AM)
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
Quote:
There's no theory to explain why other intelligent life can't be older than ours.
Indeed. The results from the Kepler spacecraft are going to really be interesting in this regard. Kepler is monitoring about 100,000 relatively-quiescent main-sequence dwarf stars, looking for habitable-zone planets. A large percentage of these stars have to be older than the Sun, and a fair fraction will be at least a billion years older than the Sun. If it turns out that lots of these stars have habitable planets, that's going to turn up the heat on the "Where is everybody?" line of thought.
I've already argued that a civilization a billion years older than ours would have easily filled the galaxy by now on an *extremely* conservative presumptive time scale, unless they all decided to stay home and spend their days picking flowers and throwing clay pots instead of exploring the galaxy. In fact, any civilization more than about 50 million years older than ours can reasonably be expected to have done so.
So the fact that they aren't here already argues for their non-existence, at least for civilizations vastly older than our own. (Or it may mean that we are quarantined until we can invent warp drive and are deemed ready to join the Federation.)
Quote:
There is almost surely no class 2 or higher civilization in the milky way. And very probably also none in any near galaxy.
I presume you are talking about the civilization classification scheme where a class 2 civilization is one that has harnessed the entire energy output of its star.
I am quite curious as to why, other than possibly the "where is everybody?" argument, you think there is such a dearth of these civilizations.
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Robert Zubrin uses this scale in "Entering Space":
Class I: Has mastered the resources of the home planet.
Class II: Has done the same for the home solar system.
Class III: An interstellar civilization.
Also, consider this: a race a billion years ahead of us may have abandoned space travel millenia ago, and have no interest in contact with alien races. In Star Trek, they wear togas and have butt-shaped heads, and they want us to leave them alone.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Shadowalker
Unilateral Space Dictator again
Reged: 11/23/04
Posts: 5025
Loc: Poplarville, MS, USA
|
|
Let's look at it a different way. Let's say there's a civilization 50 LY from us. Given our electromagnetic emissions since we first started radio, what would it take for us to be detected by this civilization? We do emit some strong radio signals. Our FM broadcast band - a lot of that energy goes into space. The signals we beam to comm satellites are both focused and strong. Those will go quite a distance.
Still, the inverse square law works against us. That's a lot of loss of field strength in 50 LY.
Let's say the field strength at the Clarke Belt is 1. That's some 40,000km from earth. 50 LY is 473 * 10^12 km. If the d equals that, the field strength would be reduced by the square of the inverse. Back of the envelope calcs say that's a reduction by factor of 4.5 * 10^-30. That's a lot. Probably pretty hard to detect.
And that's only 50 LY.
Not sure what the capability of SETI is. Antenna gains, signal to noise amps, background radiation all play a part. Does anyone know? Could SETI detect us from 50 LY?
edit: Well, more of a warning. I'm prone to decimal errors in my back of the envelope calcs
--------------------
Tom Nicolaides
http://www.first-light.org
One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions.
— Wernher von Braun
Edited by Shadowalker (11/24/09 06:01 PM)
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
Quote:
.
Also, consider this: a race a billion years ahead of us may have abandoned space travel millenia ago, ...
I don't find this particularly likely, but I'll concede the possibility.
Quote:
... and have no interest in contact with alien races.
*This* I can buy, especially if it's "have no interest in contact with alien races that are a billion years less advanced".
The kind of race to be *concerned* about, if you're of a bent to consider such things at all, is a race like Eric Frank Russell's Raidans, who, having invented faster-than-light travel, believe it is their basic right to conquer and subjugate any race they come across.
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
Reged: 06/29/07
Posts: 3138
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Perhaps they found the rest of the universe silly, and went back to making clay pots for their bouguets. 
What? It could happen.
--------------------
Alanon the Wizard (a literary character, not the organization)
Dan
12.5" Obsession #1531
WO 98mm FLT (aluminum tube)
WO ZenithStarII 80mm ED
Coronado PST Ha
|
d1anderson
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 10/11/07
Posts: 762
Loc: 33.8N 98.5W
|
|
Yes Virginia.....
--------------------
Clear Skies
Dewayne
-------
Z12 dob
MEADE DS2130AT NEWT 494goto
MEADE NG60 REFRACTOR
The more you look the more you'll see!
Don't forget to register at www.scopebuddies.com
|
groz
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 03/14/07
Posts: 1288
Loc: Duncan, BC
|
|
Quote:
I am quite curious as to why, other than possibly the "where is everybody?" argument, you think there is such a dearth of these civilizations.
The 'where is everybody?' argument is flawed, it's drawing a conclusion from a null result. It's the same as the 'you are with us or against us' argument, works on the presumption of only two possibilities, and, draws conclusions based on the lack of result for one side of the argument. It's the same kind of logic that some folks use to draw conclusions on the existence of a diety of some form.
But, the lack of 'everybody' being here has many possible explanations. I'll present a few simplified theories, and let you choose which is correct based on the null result from the 'where is everybody' argument.
a) 'They' dont exist, hence, they are not here.
b) 'They' dont have the technical capability to get here. (this would put 'them' in the same boat as us).
c) 'They' are a fully intergalactic civilization with the ability to travel the universe easily and quickly. The milky way happens to be a 'nature preserve', and 'we' are nothing more than an anthill in a backwoods corner of that nature preserve. 'we' are so small, insignificant, and common that 'they' dont even bother to take a serious look at 'us' on the way past, with the occasional exception of some student working in the park doing the grunt work of doing the basic data gathering for various park research programs.
In the mad quest to discover 'them', I think a lot of folks tend to believe that 'they' will be very similar to us in both technical ability, and in ideals. Just remember some sci-fi out of our childhood years, 'they' could well arrive based on the book 'To Serve Man', and not until much later will we realize, that's not a philosophy book, it's a cookbook.
The quest to discover 'them' is one of those areas where the old adage 'careful what you wish for' really does hold significant cause for pause and thought.
|
Glaucus
member
Reged: 07/12/09
Posts: 65
|
|
Quote:
It's the same kind of logic that some folks use to draw conclusions on the existence of a diety of some form.
Which is universally accepted as correct by both monotheists and atheists.
If you ask me the deity example shows it's not a fallacy.
Any intelligent life will have come into being by Darwinistic processes. So they want to survive. Yes, they could rewrite their genes or they could design new life themselves. But that is something secondary.
They will also be using energy. They will use more energy the more technological advanced they are. Disputing this is trying to cheat physics as we know it.
So yeah, if there is a civilization 100 million years old just around the corner they will inhabit a lot of star systems and they will be using a lot of energy. Energies in the order of magnitude for us to observe it.
Edited by Glaucus (11/25/09 12:34 PM)
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
Which is universally accepted as correct by both monotheists and atheists.
If you ask me the deity example shows it's not a fallacy.
I don't follow your logic here. Your first statement doesn't make sense.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 4424
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Quote:
They will also be using energy. They will use more energy the more technological advanced they are. Disputing this is trying to cheat physics as we know it.
I am not sure that they will necessarily use more energy the more advanced they are. They may also use it more efficiently. The computer I am typing this on is both several thousand times faster than the computer I had in high school (a Corona PC with an 8mhz 8086 processor), and also uses LESS energy. It has better shielding and emits less RF noise, too. The car I drive today gets 21/27 MPG and has 212 horsepower (2001 Subaru Outback), the car I drove in high school got 6/8 MPG and only had about 160 HP ('74 Chevy Caprice Classic). I suspect my next car will use even less energy.
Quote:
So yeah, if there is a civilization 100 million years old just around the corner they will inhabit a lot of star systems and they will be using a lot of energy. Energies in the order of magnitude for us to observe it.
Again, this assumes they don't care at all about efficiency. Energy that we might observe is wasted from their point of view. Maybe they are all astronomers, and have good light pollution laws (all their streetlights have full cutoff covers, so all the light goes down, not up). In that case, they could be using plenty of energy, but not letting it get to us.
Heck, maybe the "dark matter" halo around the galaxy is actually made up of millions of Dyson Spheres, each harnessing nearly 100% of the energy output of a star. They have plenty of energy to burn precisely BECAUSE they don't let it get to us.
Jarad
Edited by Jarad (11/25/09 02:30 PM)
|
Michael A. Earl
vendor- Canadian Satellite Tracking and Orbit Research
Reged: 11/17/08
Posts: 1334
Loc: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
|
|
I cannot prove this, but what if there is some upper limit to ANY civilization's progress? Our own species is already running into the problem of sustainability. What if there is a limit to progress before sustainability is no longer possible? What if that limit always lies beneath interstellar travel and/or communication?
It might be possible that no species in existance has ever reached the ability to travel to other stars simply because their civilizations destroy themselves before they reach that level.
We almost did just that in October 1962. It is only logical to think that other civilizations accomplished what we almost did: destroyed themselves.
In our civilization, progress is normally placed far ahead of the ability to sustain it, mainly at the expense of our environment and ecosystems. Is this behaviour universal?
This brings up another problem. Can progress exist if environment and ecosystems are 100% protected? This is a tough question, but could explain why we have never been visited by others or have never received transmissions from other life forms.
It is possible that other civilizations reached their "Soylent Green" phase and destroyed themselves long before they were able to travel to other stars?
Just wondering...
|
kcbridgeman
member
Reged: 03/26/09
Posts: 92
Loc: Kansas City, MO
|
|
Quote:
They will also be using energy. They will use more energy the more technological advanced they are. Disputing this is trying to cheat physics as we know it.
I don't buy into this whole "cheat physics as we know it" argument. As was discussed in the anything impossible question posed in a different thread, too often limitations that we accept are based on what we know as fact at the present time. This doesn't mean they will be facts later. As an example, 1500 years ago by the physics we knew then, we were the center of the universe. The sun and moon moved around the sky, but as far as we knew, we weren't moving. When discussing a more technological society, especially by 50 million years, we cannot begin to comprehend, little less speculate their energy use.
--------------------
Orion XT10/Telrad/Stellarvue F50M RACI
Numerous Eyepieces
Starry Night Pro Plus 6/Pocket PC w/Pocket Stars
Who are we? What are we? We find that we inhabit an insignificant planet of a hum-drum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. ~ Carl Sagan
|
Shadowalker
Unilateral Space Dictator again
Reged: 11/23/04
Posts: 5025
Loc: Poplarville, MS, USA
|
|
Quote:
I don't buy into this whole "cheat physics as we know it" argument. As was discussed in the anything impossible question posed in a different thread, too often limitations that we accept are based on what we know as fact at the present time. This doesn't mean they will be facts later. As an example, 1500 years ago by the physics we knew then, we were the center of the universe. The sun and moon moved around the sky, but as far as we knew, we weren't moving. When discussing a more technological society, especially by 50 million years, we cannot begin to comprehend, little less speculate their energy use.
I think things are a little different now. The difference between now and 1500 years ago is that we now have a much better idea of what we don't know. Before the Enlightenment not much thought was given to this. Now science questions everything - at least science is supposed to. In general I think the scientific method is what's different today.
--------------------
Tom Nicolaides
http://www.first-light.org
One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions.
— Wernher von Braun
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 4424
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
I don't think there is any need to invoke "cheating physics as we know it". We already know about directional signalling (lasers of various frequencies), signal processing, encryption, and we are experimenting with quantum communication methods where every photon transmitted gets received in such a way that we can tell if the signal was intercepted. An advanced civilization that has simply learned to apply the physics we are already aware of could communicate quite efficiently without any detectable signal left over for us to detect, even if they were within 1 light year. They wouldn't need to be millions of years ahead of us, we will likely be able to do that in a few more decades.
For uses other than communication, efficiency will likely be even more important to them. The more advanced they are, the less likely we are to detect them unless they are actively trying to communicate with us. Others have already pointed out many reasons why they might not be interested in doing so.
Jarad
--------------------
|
Glaucus
member
Reged: 07/12/09
Posts: 65
|
|
Quote:
I don't follow your logic here. Your first statement doesn't make sense.
Generally, monotheists don't believe in deities. That they make one exception is, well, the exception.
We should disbelief in things unless we are forced to do otherwise. If there are no civilizations observed when our understanding suggests we should observe them if they exist, then we have to assume they don't exist. That doesn't mean they can't exist. It just means that we suspend disbelief if we don't assume they don't. You can't proof something doesn't exist. So it makes no sense to believe in something because you can't. You will have to believe in anything human fantasy can conceive of.
More advanced civilizations will be able to use energy more efficiently. But they will also use more energy. We can't see efficient use of energy. We can observe energy. We don't see any huge energy sources out there.
There are just going to be some universal traits of intelligent life because evolution will work for the same reasons on any planet. They will want to populate other star systems so they will be able to survive. And if they are advanced enough, they will. And to do so they need a lot of energy regardless of how efficient their use of energy is.
If intelligent life is common then to me it seems a lot more probably that intelligent life destroys itself rather than that it consciously decides not to use huge amounts of energy. It's not about communication. If they use stars as fuel we will observe stars that are used as fuel because we observe stars. If their energy usage is lower then yes we probably won't notice it. Especially not if they are on the other side of our galaxy.
Edited by Glaucus (11/25/09 08:39 PM)
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 4424
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Quote:
We should disbelief in things unless we are forced to do otherwise.
I don't quite agree. We should maintain an open mind until given evidence one way or the other. I cartainly don't think we have evidence that other civilizations exist. But neither do we have evidence that they do not exist.
Quote:
If there are no civilizations observed when our understanding suggests we should observe them if they exist, then we have to assume they don't exist.
Again, I wouldn't say we must assume they don't exist. I think we have to treat it as an open question for the moment.
Quote:
You can't proof something doesn't exist.
Agreed. But, as we search further and further, we can place limits on what could exist (i.e. things that are below the limit of detection of the searches we have done). At the moment, we have not made a very comprehensive search, so the limit of detection leaves a lot of possiblilities.
Quote:
So it makes no sense to believe in something because you can't. You will have to believe in anything human fantasy can conceive of.
I'm not suggesting that I believe that alien life or civilizations definitely exist, but I think it is possible. Given the size of the universe, I would even lean towards probable, although I also think it is probable that they may be too far away for us to ever interact with.
Quote:
More advanced civilizations will be able to use energy more efficiently. But they will also use more energy. We can't see efficient use of energy. We can observe energy. We don't see any huge energy sources out there.
I disagree here on several levels.
First, we see lots of energy sources out there: Stars, supernovas, neutron stars, black holes, quasars, GRBs, etc. Some of them produce astounding amounts of energy. We are assuming these are all from natural sources (which is the correct assumption to start with). That doesn't mean that some advanced civilization couldn't be harnessing some fraction of the energy from one or more of them.
Second, we don't see all energy out there. We only see what happens to come our way. My point about efficiency is that we won't see the energy that some other civilization uses. We will only see the energy they waste that happens to fly off in our direction. In other words, we will only see it if they are extremely inefficient in their use of energy. All the energy we produce on earth would only be detectable a few hundred light years away if we beamed 100% of it out into space. And we are beaming less out there now than we were before, because it's wasted. We have lots more signals going around, but modern communication (cell phones, etc.) uses a lot weaker signal strength now than even 20 years ago. I remember my first "car phone" - it had a battery pack that could run my scope all night now. It produced a much stronger signal than my current phone, because there were fewer cell towers, and the tower receivers weren't as sensitive as they are now. Modern phones use less energy, and that trend will continue. One of the best ways to increase signal efficiency is to make it directional - don't send the signal everywhere, only in a narrow beam towards the intended recipient. Once they do that, we will never see it - it's not heading toward us.
Quote:
They will want to populate other star systems so they will be able to survive. And if they are advanced enough, they will. And to do so they need a lot of energy regardless of how efficient their use of energy is.
They may well need a lot of energy to do that. That doesn't mean that we will see it - we will only see what they waste. A space ship that needs to travel between stars needs to be very efficient - otherwise it will not be able to carry enough fuel. That means the only place that should see any significant emount of energy is along the line of travel (i.e. in the line of the exhaust, asuming they are using some type of reaction drive). If we can see it from far away off to the side, then it won't be efficient enough to make the journey.
Quote:
If they use stars as fuel we will observe stars that are used as fuel because we observe stars.
Um, we do observe stars. Quite a few of them. How would you tell whether or not someone near one of those stars is using a solar panel?
Quote:
If their energy usage is lower then yes we probably won't notice it.
No, if their energy use is efficient, we won't notice it even if it's huge. If they can utilize 100% of the energy from a star, we see 0%.
If they do something like the Ringworld, and can capture something like 10% of a star's output, we would see nothing unless it was close enough for us to resolve the ring from the star (in other words, within a few dozen light years with current technology).
If they build a Dyson Sphere, we will see nothing but maybe some IR, which would look like a brown dwarf.
I won't assume that such things exist, because I have no evidence. But I won't say that they can't exist just because we haven't seen them yet. We haven't looked closely enough to rule out a number of plausible scenarios yet.
Given the number of stars and planets out there, I think it is likely that life will exist somewhere else. How common is it? I don't know. How common is intelligent life? I would think significantly less common than simple forms of life. Is it out there somewhere? Probably. Will we ever see it or meet is? Probably not in our personal lifetimes. If our civilization makes it to other planets, then maybe some of our descendants will encounter something. If light speed is a true hard limit, then I think such encounters will be rare, if they every happen at all.
But I wouldn't count on advanced civilizations producing huge amounts of energy we can see. I would think they are more likely to be sitting near some source of energy that we can see, and harnessing it. Minor ones would use prosaic sources like a star (as we use our sun, which is the source of all energy on earth except nuclear and geothermal). Really advanced ones might be harnessing more exotic sources like magnetars, black holes, quasars, etc. But how would we tell if someone is sucking off a few percent of the output of a quasar? That's an almost unimaginable amount of energy, but we would never see the difference from here.
Jarad
--------------------
|
John Fitzgerald
In Focus
Reged: 01/04/04
Posts: 2165
Loc: AR
|
|
If we were to discover an earthlike planet with some form of life around a relatively nearby star, would we mount a mission to it, and how long would it take us to do so? If Mars was an exact twin of Earth, except for humans, would we have already visited it?
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
Quote:
The 'where is everybody?' argument is flawed, it's drawing a conclusion from a null result.
This, of course, doesn't actually make it *flawed*. But the argument doesn't draw conclusions; it merely presents a conundrum.
Quote:
But, the lack of 'everybody' being here has many possible explanations.
Granted. The whole point of the "where is everybody" argument is that such explanations *are*, in fact, necessary. It is not a trivially-dismissed problem.
Quote:
a) 'They' dont exist, hence, they are not here.
Check.
Quote:
b) 'They' dont have the technical capability to get here. (this would put 'them' in the same boat as us).
The problem with this argument is that, if there are a fair number of civilizations, at least some of them would be much older than we are. Assuming at least some of those are exploratory civilizations, they should have filled the galaxy by now even at slower-than-light speeds.
Of course, if there are very few civilizations (e. g., on the order of one), your argument may hold.
Quote:
c) 'They' are a fully intergalactic civilization with the ability to travel the universe easily and quickly. The milky way happens to be a 'nature preserve', ...
Also within the bounds of possibility.
Quote:
The quest to discover 'them' is one of those areas where the old adage 'careful what you wish for' really does hold significant cause for pause and thought.
I quite agree.
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
hfjacinto
Almost got me
Reged: 01/12/09
Posts: 3057
Loc: Union,NJ
|
|
I think many of you missed a point, if they are so technologically advanced that they can travel through space what is to say that they haven't invented birth control?
The assumption that there will be billions and billions of people might be a false assumption. The population curve might be really large as diseases start being eradicated but once you get to a certain point, the population starts declining as not enough life is being born to replenish the ones that die.
The reason no one has contacted us yet could be that the life cycle of intelligence stops itself. Intelligence is an evolutionary dead end.
There may be be enough people to pilot a ship, but too few to establish colonies. The cosmos could be swarming with space craft that 1) Takes too long to get to the nearest stars and 2) When the capability to travel interstellar is acquired the population growth is falling and colonization is not a worthwhile pursuit.
--------------------
Celestron 9.25 w/FeatherTouch Focuser, ASGT Mount
Meade SN6 w/Moonlite Focuser, LXD75 Mount
Orion EON 80 MM APO Refractor
5,6,9 MM Zhummel Planetary 17 MM Nagler T4
31,36 MM Hyperion 15,19,23 MM Axiom LX
6.7,8.8 MM Meade UWA & 11,13 MM Nagler T6
Planetary, OIII and Narrowband Filters
Thousand Oaks Dew Control w Kendrick Heaters
|
Starhawk
professor emeritus
Reged: 09/16/08
Posts: 637
Loc: Tucson, Arizona
|
|
Let's go ahead and ask the obvious question: What are we listening for? Hoping someone out there is broadcasting next week's lottery numbers?
What are we ramping up to maximum power and beaming out there? I haven't heard of any projects to beam a gigawatt signal from earth broadcasting the cure for cholera, methods of refining metals, or our physics texts to the stars in the hopes some civilization just discovering radio will tune into them and get a great leap forward. But I have lost count of how many times I have read claims of how we are going to hear from some sort of super-advanced civilization if SETI succeeds, with our fondest wishes for immortality and wealth in the offing, with a nice side order of "I told you so" to make the skeptics feel sheepish.
There seems to be an inner need for some folks to find some other life out there. At first there was Frank Drake's equation used to suggest we shouldn't be able to look in any straight line without getting a coherent signal beamed at us by a civilization out there. Now after coming up empty for several careers' worth of looking, we are hearing pleas to consider the possibility of alien bacteria and pond scum being out there, somewhere.
Enrico Fermi is famous for the question of if intelligent life is common, where are they? Well, we may be at the point of determining the universe has a lot more ways of exterminating life on planets than it does for creating it. Heck, all it would take is for a subtle rearrangement of continents on this one to do away with our civilization. Drop the magnetic shield and our water is gone in no time. Lose the moon and we tumble and have chaotic seasons, and an atmosphere as thick as Venus. And apparently we needed that big hit early on to have plate tectonics so earth could reject heat from the interior without turning the surface molten from time to time. But after that, big impacts became a hazard.
And of course, the one distant transmission we do get reliably is the voice of death itself; the gamma ray burst.
So, it I'm personally not too surprised we aren't finding anything. And as the bar has been lowered to the point where we are talking about finding microbes, I'm not sure why anyone but a biologist would care if we find life or not. Except, perhaps, it is a little terrifying to imagine a universe around us being so deadly not even microbes have a chance.
So, lest you think I have no sense of fun, I offer a new proposition: YOU CAN CHOOSE! Yes, you can choose what universe you would like, and for sake of discussion, it is so! All I ask is for you to be a sport and state why you would like your choice to be the case. Note, I accept any reason as being a valid response:
(A) The universe has intelligent life. Lots of it. Everywhere. It just takes a while to get around at sub-c, and those electric bills always put broadcasting the font-o-knowledge on the back burner. But hey, someday we might get to have long, involved negotiations on who can use the names of their territories as the authentic source of fermented fruit beverages.
(B) The universe is dead. Except for us, it's deader than a kipper on a cracker. I mean dead as a rock on a barren salt flat. Nothing is out there. No one is waiting to pick up a conversation. No inscrutable artifacts drifting in the dark. No one using star drives or wormholes to zip around. Not even pond scum making planets smell funky. On the bright side, no one is out there waiting to contest ownership.
-Rich
--------------------
I lost count of my scopes. Now I just want mobility.
Edited by Starhawk (11/25/09 11:34 PM)
|
astrotrf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/30/07
Posts: 950
Loc: Rodeo, NM
|
|
Quote:
I think many of you missed a point, if they are so technologically advanced that they can travel through space what is to say that they haven't invented birth control?
The assumption that there will be billions and billions of people might be a false assumption.
This is certainly one possibility. But remember that we are not necessarily talking about simply *one* civilization here. Suppose that there are a *thousand* civilizations, each at least 50 million years older than ours. How likely do you think it is that *all* of them fall prey to negative population growth?
--------------------
Terry (astrotrf)
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Posts: 2053
Loc: Virginia
|
|
Quote:
And as the bar has been lowered to the point where we are talking about finding microbes, I'm not sure why anyone but a biologist would care if we find life or not.
Pretty hilarious - well, as a biologist I guess you'd expect me to say the following but I'll say it anyway: finding evidence of life off earth, even as lowly as pond scum hardly qualifies as a low bar.
I fully expect it to be out there but even so, I wouldn't discount the importance of such a finding. Surely of interest to biologists and other scientists but from a societal standpoint the implications of a discovery of life - in whatever form - would be enormous and on the order of a modern day Copernican revolution, at least among the lay public.
But from a scientific value standpoint why should the search for extraterrestrial pond scum be any less exciting or important than the search for planets outside our solar system? Planetary systems mean potential substrates for life. Bacterial slime would confirm at least the potential for more complex life forms beyond that thin "surface-film" that we know as earth's biosphere. As a biologist I could care less about whether the life discovered is a slime covered rock or a vulcan with a high IQ. Granted, the prospect of sitting down and having a beer with a vulcan would probably be a lot more fun.
And from a purely practical standpoint, the discovery of microbial extremophiles in the most hellish environments on earth (i.e., conditions that would have been deemed impossible to support life less than 50 years ago) has revealed fascinating new metabolic pathways and enzymes. One such enzyme led to the polymerase chain reaction technique, which absolutely revolutionized almost overnight molecular biology (and snared a Nobel Prize). Who knows what is out there and how it might have adapted to local "conditions" (and what we might learn from such exotic life).
I think the average Joe's expectations for what might constitute significant life elsewhere have been influenced by too many Hollywood movies. The implication being that unless we find ET any discovery of life would just be too ho-hum?
I believe I'm correct in saying that it wasn't biologists who suggested SETI or similar searches for intelligent life that by design offer such a narrow focus and remote prospect for success. Moreover, the current excitement for exobiology and the "search for microbes" did not arise as some kind of default position resulting from failures of SETI-type initiatives to find ET at the controls of a Ham radio. Instead, excitement has been building in this area for decades because of discoveries of rich ecosystems at deep sea thermal vents and more recently due to the great successes of solar system exploration. For example, I'd argue that the evidence pointing to liquid water under the ice of Europa is a pretty big deal. Conditions that make liquid water possible are what excite the exobiologists and its presence so close to home is what makes it worth looking. And this makes a heck of a lot more scientific sense than waiting for ET's call or day dreaming about prospects for interstellar/intergalactic travel.
--------------------
Hooville
|
Starhawk
professor emeritus
Reged: 09/16/08
Posts: 637
Loc: Tucson, Arizona
|
|
Quote:
Pretty hilarious - well, as a biologist I guess you'd expect me to say the following but I'll say it anyway: finding evidence of life off earth, even as lowly as pond scum hardly qualifies as a low bar.
I fully expect it to be out there but even so, I wouldn't discount the importance of such a finding. Surely of interest to biologists and other scientists but from a societal standpoint the implications of a discovery of life - in whatever form - would be enormous and on the order of a modern day Copernican revolution, at least among the lay public.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have spent my entire career as an engineer in space programs. In the late 1990s, I never told people what I did because I would immediately get ridiculous questions about Roswell and the aliens. More lately, that has mercifully died away so it is possible to feel like I am doing work someone out there takes seriously.
Your speaks to what I am getting at. That announcement got made 10 years ago about the Martian meteorites. There was no big societal change as a result. Extremist sects didn't stop preaching their views. It didn't make the Taliban look to the sky, the universe anew, and start preaching tolerance.
What would probably make an impression is finding evidence of a place where life has mastered its domain. Given how little of Earth's history has intelligent life, it doesn't look like a prevalent mode, and given the way we have gone tearing through resources, it may be quite temporary. But if we were finding places where life, and advanced life, clearly had taken over the planet and is vibrant and growing, then it might start to make sense to wonder if we'd find intelligent life before long.
The examples we have held up as probable abodes of life so far are places like Mars, where the visual images coming back make the Sahara look appealing. That is followed up with the data on surface conditions so severe the pressure would boil your blood before you had time to realize the atmosphere was poisonous, the temperature was going to freeze you solid, and the surface radiation was lethal. To come back to that and say, "But look, if you dig deep enough in the right spot, there are some microbes in the rocks" isn't exactly inspiring for dreams of colonization. In fact, notice how movies about going to Mars invariably are introducing fantastic elements to make the place better with a warm, breathable atmosphere, yet it is still lethal, but at least plausibly survivable.
What I keep hearing is a massive drumbeat claiming life is out there, lots of it, maybe lots of intelligent life, and the building blocks fill the comets, the universe may be teaming with life. Yet, the score thus far is 0 for everything we have looked at. The only living thing found off the earth was an earth microbe dried and preserved on the lens of a Surveyor probe. Listening to the continuing discussion on how we must be surrounded by all sorts of life sounds more like a militant reaction to religion than any sort of observation-based science.
I know the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But to keep pushing a steadily evolving grandiose vision of a universe full of life in myriad guises when we find nothing and the solar systems we are finding outside of ours seem to rule it out isn't a good story.
And you are right- where is the middle ground? What if we found a world with a breathable atmosphere, but not one sign anything more intelligent than a pine tree had ever been there, isn't that a good find? Sure, if we could find somewhere where the surface wasn't molten or frozen, that would be a good start.
As for microbes and extremophiles, yes, they exist in inhospitable places. Yes, maybe there is some really great science waiting to be done out there. Maybe there is something alive under Europa's ice. Maybe several ice moons with liquid water layers have life barely eking out a living. And a bit of work under the Antarctic ice sheet could perhaps indicate what sorts of things to look for. But that isn't a new world waiting for us to live on.
And that is why most of this discussion is skirting around is the reason most people care; the hope someone could someday go there, and better yet, stay. If not, then we might as well be talking about science fiction.
But at the same time, there is a lot of evidence showing the universe regularly makes life of any comprehensible sort untenable. Does anyone think we should expect M87 to be teaming with life? How about when a supernova goes off nearby? Will we remain in good shape as the Milky Way drives through Andromeda and a massive wave of star formation kicks off?
What's wrong with keeping an eye out, but officially being pleasantly surprised to find life instead of being disappointed at having a long shot not pan out?
-Rich
--------------------
I lost count of my scopes. Now I just want mobility.
|
hfjacinto
Almost got me
Reged: 01/12/09
Posts: 3057
Loc: Union,NJ
|
|
In terms of being out there, we as a species have been to the Moon and we discovered that there is no life on the moon. But lets be serious, the moon has no atmosphere and minimal water and we landed in some of the least interesting places. Have we gone to craters on the poles? We just don't know.
On Mars we sent Vikings to deserts, they produced some inconclusive evidence. When scientist tried the same tests in Antarctica, they found no proof of life, but Antarctica has life.
Until we get to Mars and really look for life (especially) in Valles Marineris we don't know if it exists anywhere else.
Saying there is no life in the universe is like saying that there are no whales, becuase I never saw one.
--------------------
Celestron 9.25 w/FeatherTouch Focuser, ASGT Mount
Meade SN6 w/Moonlite Focuser, LXD75 Mount
Orion EON 80 MM APO Refractor
5,6,9 MM Zhummel Planetary 17 MM Nagler T4
31,36 MM Hyperion 15,19,23 MM Axiom LX
6.7,8.8 MM Meade UWA & 11,13 MM Nagler T6
Planetary, OIII and Narrowband Filters
Thousand Oaks Dew Control w Kendrick Heaters
Edited by hfjacinto (11/26/09 02:00 PM)
|
Joad
Wordsmith
Reged: 03/22/05
Posts: 13595
|
|
I think that discussions such of these rotate upon a dialectical axis of science and desire. In my case, for reasons I cannot explain even to myself (but which are most certainly not religious in origin), I think that my desire is that there be no other life in the universe. Period.
BUT . . .
I am completely persuaded by the argument of sheer scale: that an unimaginably large universe filled with an unimaginably large number of galaxies (and other phenomena that we cannot even guess at) is mathematically certain to contain a good deal of life in many (often unimaginable) forms.
And I know that even as I write this post, the big breakthrough could be occurring, and a postcard from the stars could be coming in.
But I doubt it. The same unimaginably large universe may indeed be so large that a really large number of life forms have no way of communicating with each other precisely because of the scale involved. As I believe Colonel Hank has said, the "message" might have reached earth when the dinosaurs still roamed, and the next message could arrive long after our own extinction.
--------------------
12.5 inch Portaball + Osypowski platform
LX10
Oberwerk BT100 45° binocular
Orion binoviewer + ScopeStuff extender (so it focuses at f/4.9)
|
94bamf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/15/08
Posts: 983
Loc: Kansas City,Mo
|
|
I don't really understand how somebody could draw a conclusion on the possiblity of intelligent life in our galaxy of over 100 billion stars, or the universe as a whole, based on our limited exploration and understanding of our own solar system. How does not finding "obvious" life on the Moon or Mars qualify for evidence for the existence of life in a galaxy so large with so many possible "other" planetary/solar systems? Considering the numbers of stars in our own galaxy, it seems to me you would have maintain a pretty negative mindset to believe it isn't "probable" for there to be other life out there somewhere..
Ken
--------------------
Telescopes:
Celestron C6 SCT
Celestron 8 inch Starhopper Dob
Celestron Oynx 80ED
Binoculars:
Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 8x42
Zen Ray Summit 10x42
Celestron 10x42 Noble
Celestron 10x42 Regal
Celestron 10x50 Noble
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II
Celestron 15x70 Skymaster
Zhumell 20x80
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Posts: 2053
Loc: Virginia
|
|
Quote:
And that is why most of this discussion is skirting around is the reason most people care; the hope someone could someday go there, and better yet, stay. If not, then we might as well be talking about science fiction.
-Rich
I can only speak for myself of course but I'm pretty "neutral" on the subject of life elsewhere and the interest I have is not due to a longing to colonize other worlds and exchange phone numbers with aliens. There is a perfectly valid reason to look for life on a place like Europa. Based on what we think we know about origins of life on this planet we hypothesize that conditions might be right on a place like Europa.
To test this hypothesis we go, we melt through the ice and we sample the ocean and maybe either find life there and/or conclude the conditions are right or wrong for life. Then we either go back and try again or give up until there are reasons and capabilities to look elsewhere.
But - from my vantage point - we are asking the question in the first place because we want to better understand how life caught a foothold here on earth. Our knowledge on this subject is very weak and the question is as fundamental to biology as you can get. In my view, you have to ask whether the science is solid, whether the question is important, and whether we stand to learn something significant from the doing of the experiment. And that will likely hold whether we find life or not in Europa's oceans. Either way, we stand to learn a bit more about the origins of life and what it took for it to emerge - wherever it exists, and even if it only exists here on the blue marble.
I agree with you though - I'm not sure why there should be so much disappointment when SETI, for example, fails to find a signature signal. It always struck me as such a "Hail Mary" pass in the first place. And as for Europa, I truly think we stand to learn a lot even if the place turns out sterile. If there is liquid water in quantity within our reach, we should go and check it out.
--------------------
Hooville
|
Starhawk
professor emeritus
Reged: 09/16/08
Posts: 637
Loc: Tucson, Arizona
|
|
Yes, the universe is really big. But to say that bigness implies any hypothetical case someone posits must be true, somewhere doesn't logically follow. There are a lot of people on earth. That doesn't imply one of them must have every arbitrary attribute we can think to name.
Here is an alternate example in how this plausibility argument has played out in real life. It used to be the case where airplanes were required to have more than two engines to be certified for transoceanic travel. The reason was simple: If an airplane loses one engine to one cause, what if it loses another engine to another cause? It sounds rational, plausible, and conservative. But the real data from the dawn of aviation to the present day says it is not. The case where an airplane loses more than one engine to independent causes in one flight has never happened. Cases where planes have lost multiple engines in one flight are from single casues; the plane which landed in the Hudson lost two engines to the same cause- the same flock of Canada Geese.
The intelligent life in the universe is the same argument- it sounds really plausible to say, "There are so many stars out there, even if life is a low probability, there will be life everywhere." Gosh, it sounds so reasonable, and we are here, aren't we? But there are a lot of really unusual things about Earth. It may be really, really unusual to find life, and it may always be on a short clock.
And I don't think this is pessimism. I'm just going on what I've seen, or at least someone has seen and been able to credibly document.
But this "What if" argument is starting to dominate our space research efforts, to the detriment of purposes which could have very real and near term benefits for people. For example: Asteroids don't have much potential for finding life, but they do have a lot of resources for making things from near to where they could serve practical purpose. Why not have some space missions reserved for developing robotic refining of materials and construction of hardware in space? True, the potential to take a crack at undoing religious movements or starting new ones is pretty low, but it could mean being able to deploy small, inexpensive machines and get 50 meter space telescopes in return.
-Rich
--------------------
I lost count of my scopes. Now I just want mobility.
|
Mister T
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/01/08
Posts: 572
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Just consider the Drake Eq. for a minute...
first we aren't even sure how many (more) terms there might be to the EQ.
second with our limited exploration (even of THIS planet) we can't begin to assign factors to the terms we have.
and since we still aren't sure how large the numbers we are dealing with (size of the universe or no. of planets) we could be off by 100's of orders of magnitude in either direction.
If there is one thing science has taught us in our short history is that 'blanket' proclamations rarely use a blanket big enough to cover all the possibilities.
--------------------
Tony
"After the Laws of Physics, everything else is opinion"
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Zhumell Classic 10" Dob
Televue 2x Barlow
8mm hyperion and rings
Oberwerk 11x70 Binoc
old camera tripod
mags and books
Meade 60mm refractor
Whatever Santa brings me for X-mas
Elmira-Corning Astronomical Society,
http://www.corning-cc.edu/visitors/observatory
|
Andy Taylor
twistin' by the pool
Reged: 09/24/08
Posts: 648
Loc: Tangled Feet, UK
|
|
I've been lurking here and following a very very intersting thread. Hats of to you guys...
My take...?
I sit and look at the Hubble deep field picture and see all the myriad galaxies within this tiny snapshot of the universe and I cannot concieve of the idea of no life there.
It's a gut feeling.
The tragedy is that we will never, ever know for sure.
Their carbon is the same as our carbon. They have the same water. They have the same solution for pi as we do. The laws of physics are the same for them as us.
They are 'out there' as far as I'm concerned.
--------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Equipment list of shame:
A strange heap of assorted junk that when thrown together and dragged out into the dark shows me the wonders of the universe...
And then dews up...
-------------------------
With sufficient thrust a pig will fly perfectly...
|
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/05
Posts: 2053
Loc: Virginia
|
|
Hard to argue with the "gut logic" of that Andy... I share the same "feeling".
--------------------
Hooville
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6267
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
The tragedy is that we will never, ever know for sure.
Ah, not necessarily true! If life is discovered on Mars, Europa, Enceladus, or any of the possible suspects (or all!), it would go a long way toward vindicating the "life is ubiquitous" viewpoint. That's why it's so important to really search the local neighborhood for other life.
If, however, life isn't found anywhere in the Solar System except Earth, then what you say is unfortunately correct.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
THEPLOUGH
Very Worried
Reged: 01/11/08
Posts: 6659
Loc: Carlisle, Cumbria, ENGLAND
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Name one place on the Earth's surface that was ever as inaccessible as Beta Lyrae. And by inaccessible, I mean impossible to physically get to.
I'd say this one at least qualifies as in the running:
Final Frontier....
The challenges involved in this exploration will be very comparable to those needed to look for life in Europa, a fact not lost on NASA as it looks ahead to planned Europa missions.
I would also agree with the earlier sentiments regarding what is left of life on this earth that has yet to be explored (even beyond the exotic variety at thermal vents and such, i.e., where "extremophiles" flourish). To suggest we don't have a lot yet to discover/understand regarding the diversity of life on earth and mechanisms of evolutionary change (which should convey to life elsewhere in the universe, BTW) is misguided. Added to that, it has been estimated that we lose more species unknown to science each year (due to both "natural" processes of extinction and those based on human activities) far faster than new species are identified.
Sounds like some thing from a DAN BROWN novel.....
--------------------
Geoff...
Nexstar 8SE ...Plus bits & pieces
|
deSitter
Post Laureate
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 3338
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's the whole problem right now - Earth is the only example we have. That's why it's SO important that we go all out to discover if there is indigenous life on Mars, Europa, etc. If there is, then you're right, and life is most likely ubiquitous. If that is indeed the case, then it looks brighter for other advanced civilizations. But we don't really know anything, yet - it's all just speculation.
So so true, and we could check Mars and Europa in a relatively short time.
Just try to convince the other 90% of the population that this is a venture worthy of spending money or risking lives.
I am always at a loss to understand why money is always the key factor here. Money means what we want it to - as long as people are making "it", then everything is fine. Going to Europa would create just pantsloads of high paying and interesting jobs - new technologies would emerge that would create even more - this isn't speculation, we saw it happen with the Apollo program. No one seems to mind spending infinite money on B2s and F22s that have no mission and solve no problems - if one argues against these programs then people say "But think of all the lost jobs!!" - well for once, think of all the uncreated jobs from just sitting here stewing! The value of exploration has no bottom line - humans either explore or perish, it's that simple.
-drl
|
deSitter
Post Laureate
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 3338
|
|
Maybe the Universe is so big so that it's impossible for us to attack each other. Maybe that's how "It" intended things to be. It worked for the Earth for awhile.
I've often thought that one could make a good book dealing with the effects of an invasion of ideas from remote 1-way contact with aliens. That is, we can't talk back, they can't attack, but we're left with contemplating something "different" than us. How would we react? Like scared children? Probably.
-drl
|
ColoHank
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 669
Loc: western Colorado
|
|
Quote:
I am always at a loss to understand why money is always the key factor here.
Money matters because it costs money to explore, and because other compelling needs are in the queue for our limited funds.
Quote:
Going to Europa would create just pantsloads of high paying and interesting jobs - new technologies would emerge that would create even more - this isn't speculation, we saw it happen with the Apollo program.
If that contention were true, private enterprise would be falling all over itself to underwrite costs and profit from such a bonanza. But it isn't. And where are those high-paying and interesting Apollo jobs today?
Quote:
The value of exploration has no bottom line - humans either explore or perish, it's that simple.
It's not that simple. To date, our failure to explore other worlds has had absolutely no effect on our ability to survive. Whether or not we perish as a species will depend more on how we manage our Earthly affairs than on our commitment to explore other places in the solar system. History has taught us, time and again, that the people, institutions, and governments most likely to decline are those that don't know how to live within their means.
I'm all for robotic space exploration as means to expand our base of knowledge about the universe and ourselves, but if we get to the point where we think it's necessary to ensure the survival of our species, we will have already lost the game.
--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
8mm, 12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
Homebuilt Galileo scope and very large and ugly homemade tripod
other odds and ends, including iPod Touch with StarMap Pro (what a marvelous combo)...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1665
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
Quote:
...I am always at a loss to understand why money is always the key factor here...
Money is (i think) a key component in our complex expression of what an ethologists would call reciprocal altruism.
This has allowed cooperation at greater distances in both space and time. This has advantages (if one views social complexity as an advantage), and as is often all too apparent, its disadvantages.
While money (apparently for us) does "enable" various behaviors/activities, it is currently one of the major boundaries of our solution space, therefore, limiting possible personal & collective world lines.
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Edited by moynihan (01/08/10 07:45 AM)
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Posts: 13768
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
|
That's one way of putting it. 
--------------------
"Since the process of science generates more mysteries than it solves, we can never learn everything, we'll simply generate new ignorance at the speed of knowledge."
"S.O.E." (Sauron's Other Eye), with 16" Royce conical mirror: A permanent work in progress.
10" Homebuilt dob, old Coulter mirror
Under Construction: The "Eye of Sauron" Observatory!
|
Andy Taylor
twistin' by the pool
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: