Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-class?
- Thread starter Bill Morris
- Start date
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
Conceivably. Or the Oort Cloud. But then, they'd have their own cometary belts and clouds to mine, and those of other neighboring star systems, so we'd probably be far from their first choice. I mean, we've detected a number of systems whose debris disks (corresponding to our Kuiper Belt) are dozens or hundreds of times denser than ours.
Fiction (and UFO conspiracy theory) requires Earth to be the single most fascinating place in the universe to everyone else in the universe. I just don't think we or our system would necessarily rate all that highly in the attention of anyone other than ourselves.
Conceivably. Or the Oort Cloud. But then, they'd have their own cometary belts and clouds to mine, and those of other neighboring star systems, so we'd probably be far from their first choice. I mean, we've detected a number of systems whose debris disks (corresponding to our Kuiper Belt) are dozens or hundreds of times denser than ours.
Fiction (and UFO conspiracy theory) requires Earth to be the single most fascinating place in the universe to everyone else in the universe. I just don't think we or our system would necessarily rate all that highly in the attention of anyone other than ourselves.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
The older books aren't bad stories, but when I read them again today with the knowledge I have now, it seems a little jarring, like they haven't done their homework (which in some cases is actually true). I'm going to continue with my idea for a science fiction novel, but will change the scope of it to more accurately fit real science.
I'm still waiting for that original science fiction of yours, Christopher, it'll no doubt be brilliant.
Fiction was not intended to be "believable" but just pure escapism. It is only in the last 10-15 years that responsible writers have been trying to put more realism and real science into their science fiction or fantasy novels.
The older books aren't bad stories, but when I read them again today with the knowledge I have now, it seems a little jarring, like they haven't done their homework (which in some cases is actually true). I'm going to continue with my idea for a science fiction novel, but will change the scope of it to more accurately fit real science.
I'm still waiting for that original science fiction of yours, Christopher, it'll no doubt be brilliant.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
That is absolutely, absolutely untrue. There have always been writers in every genre who have striven for realism, and there have been those who have taken a more fanciful approach. A century ago, Jules Verne strove to write "scientific romances" that were as realistic as the scientific knowledge of the day could make them, and looked with scorn on the more fanciful tales written by H. G. Wells. Hard science fiction as a genre was epitomized by authors like Hal Clement and Arthur C. Clarke in the 1950s (the term was coined in 1957) and by many later authors including Robert L. Forward, Charles Sheffield, and Kim Stanley Robinson in the '70s, '80s, and '90s into the present day.
Even the hard SF of the past is often based on assumptions we now know to be untrue, but that doesn't mean the authors weren't trying to be accurate. It just means that science keeps learning more about how the universe works.
And of course there's never been and never will be a requirement for science fiction to be scientifically accurate. That's just one possible stylistic approach.
That is absolutely, absolutely untrue. There have always been writers in every genre who have striven for realism, and there have been those who have taken a more fanciful approach. A century ago, Jules Verne strove to write "scientific romances" that were as realistic as the scientific knowledge of the day could make them, and looked with scorn on the more fanciful tales written by H. G. Wells. Hard science fiction as a genre was epitomized by authors like Hal Clement and Arthur C. Clarke in the 1950s (the term was coined in 1957) and by many later authors including Robert L. Forward, Charles Sheffield, and Kim Stanley Robinson in the '70s, '80s, and '90s into the present day.
Even the hard SF of the past is often based on assumptions we now know to be untrue, but that doesn't mean the authors weren't trying to be accurate. It just means that science keeps learning more about how the universe works.
And of course there's never been and never will be a requirement for science fiction to be scientifically accurate. That's just one possible stylistic approach.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
You cannot blame SF writers of the past with not knowing what we know today. Perhaps one should ask how the current stories will hold up after a half century or more elapses?
You cannot blame SF writers of the past with not knowing what we know today. Perhaps one should ask how the current stories will hold up after a half century or more elapses?
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
Not just one, but thousands. The idea has been around for decades, and was best codified in Gerard K. O'Neill's seminal work The High Frontier. You can get a good overview of it at these sites:
http://www.dyarstraights.com/msgundam/frontier.html
http://www.lunar-reclamation.org/papers/reinv_so.htm
And some more technical discussion here:
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Table_of_Contents1.html
http://www.artificial-gravity.com/Dissertation/Contents.htm
Not just one, but thousands. The idea has been around for decades, and was best codified in Gerard K. O'Neill's seminal work The High Frontier. You can get a good overview of it at these sites:
http://www.dyarstraights.com/msgundam/frontier.html
http://www.lunar-reclamation.org/papers/reinv_so.htm
And some more technical discussion here:
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Table_of_Contents1.html
http://www.artificial-gravity.com/Dissertation/Contents.htm
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
^^I did qualify my question with the word "feasible". There's likely to be be a big difference between what we can imagine and what we can realistically accomplish.
I'm not too optimistic about any undertaking that will take multiple generations to complete, and I'm not confident that the engineering problems with such a project can be overcome without such a long term committment.
---------------
^^I did qualify my question with the word "feasible". There's likely to be be a big difference between what we can imagine and what we can realistically accomplish.
I'm not too optimistic about any undertaking that will take multiple generations to complete, and I'm not confident that the engineering problems with such a project can be overcome without such a long term committment.
---------------
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
Aside from the logistics of getting into space and working in microgravity and vacuum, the engineering problems aren't that much greater than those involved in building a really big suspension bridge or dam or skyscraper. At least not for the early, small habitats, and the lessons we learn building those could be scaled up to larger ones. Well, getting a self-sustaining biosphere to work would be trickier than O'Neill assumed, but that's a problem that could probably be tackled within a generation.
And let's remember the context of the discussion, which is about the practicality of colonizing/conquering other star systems compared to alternatives. The point is not about whether artificial habitats are achievable next year; the point is that they're a damn sight simpler to achieve than interstellar drive or terraforming.
Aside from the logistics of getting into space and working in microgravity and vacuum, the engineering problems aren't that much greater than those involved in building a really big suspension bridge or dam or skyscraper. At least not for the early, small habitats, and the lessons we learn building those could be scaled up to larger ones. Well, getting a self-sustaining biosphere to work would be trickier than O'Neill assumed, but that's a problem that could probably be tackled within a generation.
And let's remember the context of the discussion, which is about the practicality of colonizing/conquering other star systems compared to alternatives. The point is not about whether artificial habitats are achievable next year; the point is that they're a damn sight simpler to achieve than interstellar drive or terraforming.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
I never found Jules Verne to be that accurate, even considering his extroplations based on science at the time. What I learned at university regarding the realism of dozens of science fiction novels from the 1850s to the present day, was simply that numerous writers took a couple of ideas and extrapolated a little, but did not actually go any deeper, to add that extra level of realism. Perhaps our level of realism varies, but I tend to prefer science fiction with multiple layers of realism, that make the story more enjoyable.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
^^All that shows is that not every university professor knows what he or she is talking about. It's clearly ludicrous on the face of it to make such simplistic generalizations about such a large number of writers. It's not like they all thought the same way or were forced to follow the same set of rules. There's always been a wealth of different approaches. And I've read plenty of SF from multiple decades that got very deep into realistic extrapolations. If anything, earlier SF did much better in terms of scientific accuracy than it did in terms of characterization and emotional depth. Maybe that's the kind of depth your professor was talking about and you just misunderstood -- although deeper characterization has been around in SF since the '60s and '70s, not just the '90s.
^^All that shows is that not every university professor knows what he or she is talking about. It's clearly ludicrous on the face of it to make such simplistic generalizations about such a large number of writers. It's not like they all thought the same way or were forced to follow the same set of rules. There's always been a wealth of different approaches. And I've read plenty of SF from multiple decades that got very deep into realistic extrapolations. If anything, earlier SF did much better in terms of scientific accuracy than it did in terms of characterization and emotional depth. Maybe that's the kind of depth your professor was talking about and you just misunderstood -- although deeper characterization has been around in SF since the '60s and '70s, not just the '90s.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
Back on topic, how close to humans would the "aliens" have to be to find this planet (pre-screw-up) habitable?
That's entirely possible, although he wasn't the best professor. I've kind of given up on science fiction for the moment, since I have all the new ST stuff to read, the rest of the Discworld novels and some other fantasy too.
Back on topic, how close to humans would the "aliens" have to be to find this planet (pre-screw-up) habitable?
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
Depends on how habitable you want. Habitable enough that they could eke out at least a marginal living here with technological assistance, nutritional supplements, drugs, etc.? Or habitable enough that it would be a more desirable place to live than an artificial habitat tailored exactly to their needs? In the latter case, their planet would have to be virtually an exact match to ours in gravity, biochemistry, metal ratios, atmosphere, solar influx, etc., and be close enough to be worth the trip.
Of course, there could always be a percentage of the population who'd find the idea of living in artificial habitats, no matter how perfect and Edenic by their lights, to be undesirable -- who'd rather see a horizon curving down instead of up, or who have some romantic notion about the challenge of taming a hostile world. In that case, they'd presumably need the same basic biochemistry, using mostly the same amino acids with the same handedness. We don't yet know how likely that is -- whether Earthly life uses those amino acids of that handedness because that's the only kind that can work, or just by the luck of the draw. I'm not sure if they'd need to use the same basic DNA coding language that we do; they wouldn't have to if it were just a matter of getting raw nutrients. But there'd have to be a similar protein/enzyme "code," I think, in order for nutrients to have the right effects on the body. Of course, they could just use our biosphere to grow their own indigenous foodstuffs, but that would entail more work, and if our biosphere isn't sufficiently nourishing for them, how would it be sufficiently nourishing for their world's plants or livestock?
Ideally they should come from a world with metal abundances equal to or greater than our own, since deficiencies are easier to compensate for than toxic excesses -- although chelating agents can be used for the latter, in theory. Their atmosphere would have to be reasonably close to ours in composition as well.
Of course, all this is assuming that they don't employ either terraforming (changing the world to fit themselves) or autoplasty (changing themselves to fit the world).
And as I mentioned before, the drawback of being too biochemically similar to the indigenous life is that its disease organisms could then infect you. Perhaps the best circumstance would be to come close enough that you could survive with nutritional supplements but that your chemistry would be inhospitable to native microbes, fungi, etc.
Depends on how habitable you want. Habitable enough that they could eke out at least a marginal living here with technological assistance, nutritional supplements, drugs, etc.? Or habitable enough that it would be a more desirable place to live than an artificial habitat tailored exactly to their needs? In the latter case, their planet would have to be virtually an exact match to ours in gravity, biochemistry, metal ratios, atmosphere, solar influx, etc., and be close enough to be worth the trip.
Of course, there could always be a percentage of the population who'd find the idea of living in artificial habitats, no matter how perfect and Edenic by their lights, to be undesirable -- who'd rather see a horizon curving down instead of up, or who have some romantic notion about the challenge of taming a hostile world. In that case, they'd presumably need the same basic biochemistry, using mostly the same amino acids with the same handedness. We don't yet know how likely that is -- whether Earthly life uses those amino acids of that handedness because that's the only kind that can work, or just by the luck of the draw. I'm not sure if they'd need to use the same basic DNA coding language that we do; they wouldn't have to if it were just a matter of getting raw nutrients. But there'd have to be a similar protein/enzyme "code," I think, in order for nutrients to have the right effects on the body. Of course, they could just use our biosphere to grow their own indigenous foodstuffs, but that would entail more work, and if our biosphere isn't sufficiently nourishing for them, how would it be sufficiently nourishing for their world's plants or livestock?
Ideally they should come from a world with metal abundances equal to or greater than our own, since deficiencies are easier to compensate for than toxic excesses -- although chelating agents can be used for the latter, in theory. Their atmosphere would have to be reasonably close to ours in composition as well.
Of course, all this is assuming that they don't employ either terraforming (changing the world to fit themselves) or autoplasty (changing themselves to fit the world).
And as I mentioned before, the drawback of being too biochemically similar to the indigenous life is that its disease organisms could then infect you. Perhaps the best circumstance would be to come close enough that you could survive with nutritional supplements but that your chemistry would be inhospitable to native microbes, fungi, etc.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
I'll have to think about that on a larger scale and do some research regarding the close stars which we know about and whether they're old enough to have habitable planets and life on said planets.
I have another question for you. What about the idea of "bioforming" that was used as a plot device in Threshold (Braga's series, not the VOY ep)? Turning us into them, how plausible is it really? And would the extradimensional "sound" actually rewrite our DNA?
I'll have to think about that on a larger scale and do some research regarding the close stars which we know about and whether they're old enough to have habitable planets and life on said planets.
I have another question for you. What about the idea of "bioforming" that was used as a plot device in Threshold (Braga's series, not the VOY ep)? Turning us into them, how plausible is it really? And would the extradimensional "sound" actually rewrite our DNA?
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
Regarding nearby star systems that may have habitable planets, Wikipedia's article on NASA's proposed Terrestrial Planet Finder has a list of the project's top 100 target stars (all within a few dozen light-years), showing their distances and other information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Planet_Finder
Regarding nearby star systems that may have habitable planets, Wikipedia's article on NASA's proposed Terrestrial Planet Finder has a list of the project's top 100 target stars (all within a few dozen light-years), showing their distances and other information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Planet_Finder
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
Here's a good source on nearby stars:
http://www.solstation.com/stars.htm
It was a very fresh and imaginative idea for an invasion story (and to give credit where it's due, the show was created by Bragi F. Schut, even though Braga ran the writer's room). But it wasn't entirely credible in the execution. Changing DNA won't really change a grown person's anatomy or biology that much, and it certainly won't change their knowledge or personality. DNA is just the blueprint, the software that the cellular machinery follows. Once the overall structure of your body has grown into place, that's that. See the discussion in the "Genetic manipulation, cloning" etc. thread lower down in this forum. Changed DNA might change the nature of new, replacement cells, but it won't alter things like your overall skeletal structure, any more than redrawing a blueprint after a house is built will change the shape of the house. It wouldn't change your brain structure either, since those cells aren't routinely replaced over the lifespan.
And I can see no way in which sound waves or radio signals could alter a genetic code. Those wavelengths are simply too big to have a targeted molecular-level effect like that -- it would be like trying to assemble watch parts by putting them in a box and bouncing it on a trampoline in the hopes that the oscillations would cause all the pieces to fall into the right places.
Still, "bioforming" is an intriguing idea, and it's possible there could be some more believable way of approaching the idea, maybe something involving advanced nanotechnology.
Here's a good source on nearby stars:
http://www.solstation.com/stars.htm
It was a very fresh and imaginative idea for an invasion story (and to give credit where it's due, the show was created by Bragi F. Schut, even though Braga ran the writer's room). But it wasn't entirely credible in the execution. Changing DNA won't really change a grown person's anatomy or biology that much, and it certainly won't change their knowledge or personality. DNA is just the blueprint, the software that the cellular machinery follows. Once the overall structure of your body has grown into place, that's that. See the discussion in the "Genetic manipulation, cloning" etc. thread lower down in this forum. Changed DNA might change the nature of new, replacement cells, but it won't alter things like your overall skeletal structure, any more than redrawing a blueprint after a house is built will change the shape of the house. It wouldn't change your brain structure either, since those cells aren't routinely replaced over the lifespan.
And I can see no way in which sound waves or radio signals could alter a genetic code. Those wavelengths are simply too big to have a targeted molecular-level effect like that -- it would be like trying to assemble watch parts by putting them in a box and bouncing it on a trampoline in the hopes that the oscillations would cause all the pieces to fall into the right places.
Still, "bioforming" is an intriguing idea, and it's possible there could be some more believable way of approaching the idea, maybe something involving advanced nanotechnology.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
Thanks, LCARS24, I'll look at both links.
Well, that's an idea to work on, I need a good few if I am to reach my new year's resolution of writing 250,000 words in publishable and fan fiction.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
Not quite. In certain radio frequencies Earth outshines the Sun by a factor of almost a thousand. The problem I see in picking out Earth's radio signals from background noise is not one of distance but of accuracy. It would be necessary to aim a parabolic directional receiver directly at Earth from such a distance. They'd have to know in advance where they want to look and for what wavelengths they want to look. And of course they would have to account for Doppler shift of the frequency. That's where the needle in a haystack comes in.
True enough. I don't see how any individual signals could be made out. The best they (or we) could hope for is that a strong set of radio emissions conclusively rule out a natural source. Making out individual modulation patterns would be asking too much. Though patterns giving away our sidereal rotational period might be possible.
That depends. In any case doing so is incredibly difficult and requires a lot of luck.
Agreed.
Interestingly enough, there might be another reason. Maybe we're first or are at least among the first wave of intelligent, technologically capable, life to emerge in our galaxy or at least our part of it. Somebody has to be first. Maybe it's us.
This would give us what I call an Asmoivian universe as opposed to a Roddenberian one. That is a universe with intelligent life either incredibly sparse as to make it solely human as opposed to a universe with frequent occurance of intelligent life.
Not quite. In certain radio frequencies Earth outshines the Sun by a factor of almost a thousand. The problem I see in picking out Earth's radio signals from background noise is not one of distance but of accuracy. It would be necessary to aim a parabolic directional receiver directly at Earth from such a distance. They'd have to know in advance where they want to look and for what wavelengths they want to look. And of course they would have to account for Doppler shift of the frequency. That's where the needle in a haystack comes in.
True enough. I don't see how any individual signals could be made out. The best they (or we) could hope for is that a strong set of radio emissions conclusively rule out a natural source. Making out individual modulation patterns would be asking too much. Though patterns giving away our sidereal rotational period might be possible.
That depends. In any case doing so is incredibly difficult and requires a lot of luck.
Agreed.
Interestingly enough, there might be another reason. Maybe we're first or are at least among the first wave of intelligent, technologically capable, life to emerge in our galaxy or at least our part of it. Somebody has to be first. Maybe it's us.
This would give us what I call an Asmoivian universe as opposed to a Roddenberian one. That is a universe with intelligent life either incredibly sparse as to make it solely human as opposed to a universe with frequent occurance of intelligent life.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
^^I'm skeptical of any hypothesis that requires us to be special or unique in some way. It's always been human nature to default to that assumption -- the sun and planets circle the Earth, our form represents the image of God, the Solar System is at the center of the galaxy, etc. -- and every such assumption has been systematically demolished by science. The assumption that we're the first technological civilization is an extraordinary claim (or rather, a claim that we are extraordinary among species in the galaxy) and it would thus require extraordinary evidence to support it. To me, it's far more reasonable to suppose that there are others out there and we simply aren't yet knowledgeable or lucky enough to have found them. Assuming that something doesn't exist just because we haven't found it yet is just another way of assuming that all reality revolves around us.
^^I'm skeptical of any hypothesis that requires us to be special or unique in some way. It's always been human nature to default to that assumption -- the sun and planets circle the Earth, our form represents the image of God, the Solar System is at the center of the galaxy, etc. -- and every such assumption has been systematically demolished by science. The assumption that we're the first technological civilization is an extraordinary claim (or rather, a claim that we are extraordinary among species in the galaxy) and it would thus require extraordinary evidence to support it. To me, it's far more reasonable to suppose that there are others out there and we simply aren't yet knowledgeable or lucky enough to have found them. Assuming that something doesn't exist just because we haven't found it yet is just another way of assuming that all reality revolves around us.
Re: Could alien astromoners recognize Earth as possibly M-cl
Otherwise they'll probably get blown up or blow us up.
And such is the view that most people, ie the majority of the planet, ascribe to. I hope that if and when aliens do land on Earth, they meet a Star Trek fan first.
Otherwise they'll probably get blown up or blow us up.
Similar threads
