Tell E.T. skeptics where to stick it

[TeknoNurd]

To the skeptics (no offence): "There are more stars in our galaxy that grains of sand on every beach on Earth, we live in a universe that has billions of galaxys in it, and in all of this, we humans are the only self aware, intelligent living beings???"

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that point, though it IS arguable. So far, we've only found one instance of life, in 2 solid data points (earth and moon). We've found no obvious sign anywhere else. The one datapoint of life we know of has yet to establish an off-world foothold. The guesswork begins with our one data point. Life seems innevitable to us because we are surrounded by it. We may be a fluke for some reason we've yet to identify. The drake equation may be missing one variable that makes the chances of life elsewhere virtually non-existant.

Until we find that killer variable, I'll agree the universe is teaming with life, though we'll likely never encounter it.

 

[Zachary Smith]

That's a misconception. People said it was impossible to control an aircraft above the speed of sound. They weren't saying it was impossible to go that fast. Bullets and rockets were already proven to go faster than sound. A whip moves faster than sound. That's why it cracks.

The "sound barrier" was an apparent limit in aircraft engineering. The "light barrier" is a limit set by physical law. There's no comparison. Just because you can break one barrier does not make it any more possible to break the other.

The point being that the "experts" who said "such and such" and proclaimed the "impossible" were WRONG. Dead wrong. It doesn't matter why they were wrong or the differences in the specifics of the issues at hand. The "experts" were wrong and that permits latitude to question the credibility of "experts" on other matters.

I know what you mean, but it's still comparing apples to oranges. When the "experts" said it was impossible to control a manned supersonic aircraft with the technology in use, people started working on new technologies that would allow it. There were provable examples that things could fly supersonic, so it was a matter of discovering the right technique in order to prove the "experts" wrong.

Now, when "experts" say that the laws of physics don't allow anything to be accelerated past the speed of light, there is a great deal of evidence that says they're right. So we should... what? Get new experts? Make up new laws of physics? We can't just start working on new technologies unless they're based on something. So, what does that leave us?

I don't mean to say that we won't discover a means. I'm just saying that there isn't much latitude right now to do so. The sound barrier "experts" were only describing our ability to build airplanes. The light barrier "experts" are describing our best knowledge of how the world works. Both things can change, but one is a LOT harder to change than the other.

On the other hand, if we make a breakthrough tomorrow, or if the aliens land, I'll take it all back.

I guarantee that if there is EVER any incontrovertible demonstration of FTL propulsion by an outside species, the EXACT SAME experts who presently claim it is "impossible" will be lining up to offer their theories and ideas on "how it's done".

 

[Itisnotlogical]

^^

An open mind is great, but don't be so open that your brains fall out.

This isn't about what "people" say. "People" are idiots. The people that say things are impossible are generally not educated on the topic of which they speak.

IF it turns out our understanding of physics is wrong and it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light AND IF there are plenty of alien societies out there... THEN some of them have had not millions, but billions of years to figure out FTL travel, and visitors to earth would likely be common-place. So, either intellalient life isn't plentiful, or FTL travel isn't possible (or both). My reading/hope is that alien life is plentiful, so it is likely FTL travel isn't possible.

At any rate, starting now for a maybe in a million years (I think we're looking at 5,000, but that's neither here nor there) for a mission most likely to fail catastrophically, it's best to wait and build more local and immediate technology and experience. Telling people that don't believe in aliens "where to stick it" could end up foisting us on our own pitard... rather uncomfortably. Right now, we simply have belief, and they don't.

Maybe there's some alliance of aliens that decided it wasn't best to panic the people with .50 calibur machineguns and atomic weapons, and that unless we start actively sending out spacecraft with the clear intent of finding them they should stay the hell away. Or, maybe as has been said before, they simply don't find us interesting enough, like... some kind of insect that no one's ever seen before. Sure, it's new, nobody's ever seen one, but it's just another variant of pest. We step on it and move on. I sure hope the aliens don't decide to step on us Also, maybe there's some sort of gravity distortion or a special type of fuel in their galaxy(s) that allows them to go faster than light.

 

[skep155]

It doesn't matter if they live for 2000 years and can spend another 2000 in suspended animation; the chances of anyone stumbling on our little rock are infinitessimal.

Who knows- maybe their home planet is a star like the sun, and the concept of planets made of things like soil and rock is infinitely fascinating to them. Who knows what the hell an alien would do? The other application for the word "alien" is for something foreign and unfamiliar. I hate to use a sci-fi show to prove my point, but it is a Star Trek forum. Despite McCoy's and Spock's insistance that something like a silicon-based life form absolutely cannot exist in "The Devil in The dark", they found one anyway.

Thats a little different. In theory silicon based lifeforms could exist, but we also know that Carbon is better at forming complicated chains of molecules and maintaining the bonds, so we think its more likely that aliens will be carbon based.

Our universe is governed by laws, if aliens exist their physiology will not be able to break these laws. There are certain elements which life will just not be based on unless they exist in another universe where the physical laws are different. Your not going to find Lithium based life anymore than your going to find a beer bottle with a brain.

Theres a big difference between alien life existing and alien life visiting us. The first one is probable and the second one is not. The "oh but you don't know how aliens would think/do things" argument is the same argument that religious people use when you question the mind of god.

Also, maybe there's some sort of gravity distortion or a special type of fuel in their galaxy(s) that allows them to go faster than light.

If aliens exist they will abide by the laws of the universe and they will not be able to travel faster than light. They might be able to circumvent the speed of light, warp drive isn't technically travelling faster than light for example its just warping space and changing the relative speed of light. Or they could use worm hole technology in theory which is still sub light travel but involves punching a hole in space. But they will NOT be able to travel faster than light in actuality. You cant travel faster than light anymore than you can go North of the North Pole or draw a circle thats also a square.

 

[TeknoNurd]

^^

An open mind is great, but don't be so open that your brains fall out.

This isn't about what "people" say. "People" are idiots. The people that say things are impossible are generally not educated on the topic of which they speak.

IF it turns out our understanding of physics is wrong and it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light AND IF there are plenty of alien societies out there... THEN some of them have had not millions, but billions of years to figure out FTL travel, and visitors to earth would likely be common-place. So, either intellalient life isn't plentiful, or FTL travel isn't possible (or both). My reading/hope is that alien life is plentiful, so it is likely FTL travel isn't possible.

At any rate, starting now for a maybe in a million years (I think we're looking at 5,000, but that's neither here nor there) for a mission most likely to fail catastrophically, it's best to wait and build more local and immediate technology and experience. Telling people that don't believe in aliens "where to stick it" could end up foisting us on our own pitard... rather uncomfortably. Right now, we simply have belief, and they don't.

Maybe there's some alliance of aliens that decided it wasn't best to panic the people with .50 calibur machineguns and atomic weapons, and that unless we start actively sending out spacecraft with the clear intent of finding them they should stay the hell away. Or, maybe as has been said before, they simply don't find us interesting enough, like... some kind of insect that no one's ever seen before. Sure, it's new, nobody's ever seen one, but it's just another variant of pest. We step on it and move on. I sure hope the aliens don't decide to step on us Also, maybe there's some sort of gravity distortion or a special type of fuel in their galaxy(s) that allows them to go faster than light.

As someone else pointed out, these are similar rationalles as those for why an omnipotent god hides it's presence.

Again, asuming FTL travel is possible, not one but perhaps millions of intellegences millions or billions of years more advanced than us have it. With FTL travel, they can get here easily from the ends of the universe. You're asking us to believe that all (not most, but every last one) of these intellegences are in complete agreement with either non-interference or non-interest. Not one intellegence, or one individual among these intellegences is able to disregard/ignore/disobey this massive accord. In fact, every space fairing intellegence must be a part of the accord. Sure, it's possible. Now, we can paint any scenario we want and call it "possible" or "impossible to disprove", but that's not a good enough reason to buy the bridge. Heck, get three humans together and you won't get that kind of agreement, yet we're asked to believe it can happen among millions of varying, likely mutually mysterious, intellegences.

Again, we only have the data point of earth to point at as an example of what intellegent life is like. What do "we" find uninteresting? There is nothing someone somewhere is not studying. So, are we positing that each individual of each intellegent alien species are uninterested in the small things (like us)? That seems quite the reach.

So, rather than imposing all these unneccessary attributes on all those aliens, the simplist explanation is that our current understanding of physics in regard to FTL travel is correct, that it is not possible. This leaves all sorts of aliens with all sorts of motivations and attributes, perhaps many of which we cannot comprehend. They just suffer the same physical limitation we do... they cannnot travel FTL.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I'd argue that FTL or lack of it is less important than the scarcity/density of intelligent life when talking about the posibility of making contact with ET - one would be surprised how much of the galaxy a species can explore in a few million years with only sublight capabilities.

 

[TeknoNurd]

I'd argue that FTL or lack of it is less important than the scarcity/density of intelligent life when talking about the posibility of making contact with ET - one would be surprised how much of the galaxy a species can explore in a few million years with only sublight capabilities.

Realistically, not so much IMHO. If it takes thousands of years to get from one system to another, how often can you go back? Not only is the universe big, it's old. Visit earth 50,000 years ago, you miss us, likely 50,000 years from now, you will miss us also. Also, a trip that takes thousands of years calls for generational ships, which a world economy can only build/afford very few.

In other words, it is possible for us or other aliens to spread to nearby systems, but it's not only a matter of distance but timing. Once you have self-sufficient generational ships, they spend the vast majority of their time between systems. There is a lot of space in space

The non-existence of visitors is only an arguement against FTL travel, not aliens.

 

[Deckerd]

I'd argue that FTL or lack of it is less important than the scarcity/density of intelligent life when talking about the posibility of making contact with ET - one would be surprised how much of the galaxy a species can explore in a few million years with only sublight capabilities.

Realistically, not so much IMHO. If it takes thousands of years to get from one system to another, how often can you go back? Not only is the universe big, it's old. Visit earth 50,000 years ago, you miss us, likely 50,000 years from now, you will miss us also. Also, a trip that takes thousands of years calls for generational ships, which a world economy can only build/afford very few.

In other words, it is possible for us or other aliens to spread to nearby systems, but it's not only a matter of distance but timing. Once you have self-sufficient generational ships, they spend the vast majority of their time between systems. There is a lot of space in space

The non-existence of visitors is only an arguement against FTL travel, not aliens.

Well said. We should get that one laminated and posted somewhere.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

TeknoNurd
Thousands of years from one star to the next, TeknoNurd? A few tens of years, actually, if the ship travels close to the speed of light - which is definitely possible. The Milky way is 100.000 light years in diameter - that means a ship could traverse the entire galaxy in ~100.000 years outside time (significantly less ship time due to relativity).

An advanced civilization could send numerous ships to explore/colonize the galaxy. Each of these ships will explore a swath of the galaxy until they reach their destination. And once in the target system, the crew of the ship could start a colony, that will build/send ships further out in only a few hundred years. And the cycle repeats itself.

Now - let's say the homeworld sends 10 ships (per average) every year. In 100.000 years, this civilizaton has sent 1.000.000 ships to explore the galaxy. You can add to that number the ships the colonies will build - and you'll see that in a few million years, an interstellar flight capable species has not only explored the entire galaxy, but has established a presence everywhere in it.

And that's just one species. What if there are thousands on species capable of that? If intelligent life is abundant, the chances of making contact are significant - with or without FTL drive.

When one talks about sufficiently large amounts of time, the feasability of FTL is irrelevant.
And our galaxy is old - life (even intelligent life) could have appeared 5-6 BILLION years ago (all the required conditions - that we know about - were met).

 

[Deckerd]

How would they pay for it? Why would they do it? Why would any species do such a haphazard thing?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Deckerd
Pay for it?
Any species capable of relativistic flight has enourmous resources at its disposal. Any such species has colonized its entire solar system/has access to its resources. Any such species has eficient nanotechnology that can transform these raw materials into anything they wished. 10 ships per human year - they won't even feel the strain.

Why would they do it?
If there are only a few intelligent/technological species in the milky way, you could make a case that they may have no motivation to "do it" - but it's a forced case: these species will have different factions with different agendas.

If there are thousands of such species, some of these species will want to explore/colonize the galaxy (it's overwhelmingly probable) - in order to expand, to explore, for the adventure, because of population pressure (there are many reasons that make sense from an evolutionary point of view - and not only; humanity colonized the Earth starting from Africa - why did our ancestors did it?).
If only one species had this drive and had a few million years at its disposal, that species would be EVERYWHERE in the galaxy - including our neighborhood.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Pure speculation, of course but it could very well be that in 1,000 years the whole debate about FTL travel might seem as quaint to them as we might regard the ancients debating over the impossibility of sailing a boat to the moon.

There may be ways around FTL limitations. Other methods of travel we have never considered. Even perhaps quantum teleportation, who knows? Other species may have discovered methods of actually manipulating the "laws" of physics in order to do whatever they want.

Someone used the example that suggesting breaking the light barrier was as absurd as trying to travel north from the north pole. Well, open a stable worm-hole at the north pole with the exit appearing at the south pole and you could travel north into infinity. Hmmmm?

 

[TeknoNurd]

TeknoNurd
Thousands of years from one star to the next, TeknoNurd? A few tens of years, actually, if the ship travels close to the speed of light - which is definitely possible. The Milky way is 100.000 light years in diameter - that means a ship could traverse the entire galaxy in ~100.000 years outside time (significantly less ship time due to relativity).

An advanced civilization could send numerous ships to explore/colonize the galaxy. Each of these ships will explore a swath of the galaxy until they reach their destination. And once in the target system, the crew of the ship could start a colony, that will build/send ships further out in only a few hundred years. And the cycle repeats itself.

Now - let's say the homeworld sends 10 ships (per average) every year. In 100.000 years, this civilizaton has sent 1.000.000 ships to explore the galaxy. You can add to that number the ships the colonies will build - and you'll see that in a few million years, an interstellar flight capable species has not only explored the entire galaxy, but has established a presence everywhere in it.

And that's just one species. What if there are thousands on species capable of that? If intelligent life is abundant, the chances of making contact are significant - with or without FTL drive.

When one talks about sufficiently large amounts of time, the feasability of FTL is irrelevant.
And our galaxy is old - life (even intelligent life) could have appeared 5-6 BILLION years ago (all the required conditions - that we know about - were met).

First, Resources... you don't have enough. 10 generational ships a year? Do you have any concept the impact such an effort would have on an economy? Imagine taking a few trillion $ of the world economy for a number of years, then shooting it down the crapper. That's what an expedition to the stars is because the home planet receives zero benefit. There is no way an economy could muster 10 generational (or colonization) ships of a year. If they could manage one ship in 10 years, it would be a bankrupting acheivement... Even going that fast would likely be a last ditch effort if their world is ending for some reason.

Second, Speed... you can't go that fast. We're talking a big, big ship to hold enough population and resources for colonization. Just under light speed is a small ship making a dash. A big ship with human life aboard, you cold only accellerate so fast, then decelerate so fast, in fact most of the trip would be doing one or the other, and it would take a lot of time.

Third, Time... you don't have enough. Just our technology has advanced exponentially (and will continue to do so), there are a number of ways we (and any other civilization) have and will have to end us. Even without completely ending us on purpose or by accident, how long do you think we can support 10s of billions of people on this planet and still put any effort to a colonization ship? These would be issues not unique to us.

Fourth, Time... We may not have enough. While the universe may have gobs of space and time, species may not. Look how many times our planet was knocked to it's knees. Such things may be more common place that it appears to us, heck that could be the missing element of Drake's equation. Maybe, intellegences don't have time to develop as often as we think, or time to become self-sufficient space farers. Look how long it took for us to appear after the last Earth strike. Will we have time to get self-sufficiently off the planet? Is doing so even on our radar?

Fifth, motivation... We don't have enough. Right now, we are still focussed on survival. Does an intellegent species, aware of their mortality, ever start thinking of species survival rather than self survival? Really, would the USA (or its voters) allow the choice to have the citizens live as a third world economy to fund even one generational/colonization ship? And, when we do that, can we count on adversarial countries to let us? Would this be an issue for aliens? Most likely, since evolution counts on competition and survival of the fittest, it's likely most alien civilizations would not be utopias of peace, just like us.

Sixth, the mission... Exploration doesn't justify a generational ship. You bankrupt your world to create the generation ship, and they go exploring. Thats a lot of accellerating and decellerating. It will take years for your finding to get back to earth (if that is possible at all). If you've got a self-sufficient generational ship, you don't need to explore, you just need to find a planet that seems likely to setup home at. And, since your ship is self-sufficent, finding a new planet is not all that criticial anymore. So really, you're ship can explore forever.

Seventh, the mission... Colonizing is not that quick a process. You're talking a small population taming a world. It's gonna take a lot of time to get the society where the need to create another ship (or relaunch the original). You've travelled thousands of years, your ancesters have checked a few star systems, but nothing homy. You finally found a homy place, and have settled it. Until resources get low, or something goes terribly wrong, are folks really gonna want to get on the ship again? I'd guess that any colony would be a few thousand years old before it would be time to send the ship off again. I wouldn't let the ship go before because, well, it's a great life raft if something goes wrong.

Eighth, oops. You're travelling light years in a pretty fragile bubble of air. Is simply surviving the trip realistic?

Space is a big, old place. It is loaded with room and time. With all that room and time, I think it's likely intellegent life springs up all over the place. Without FTL travel, everyone is pretty isolated.

Now, in 40 years we'll be able to upload our minds into computers. Computers are much less fragile in space, and time is much less of an issue to a computer. Even though flesh and blood humans won't get out there, computers with our intellect will. By then, we may have common access to that intellect, and may be able to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel other planets... or at least recordings/transmissions. But, alas, even this is not something ETs seem to be doing much of as we've not had a bunch of their "probes" dropping in. This may be an argument against there being other space faring species out there.

If "a sufficiently advanced" society could do whatever, then it would be getting done thousands or millions of times over or thousands or millions of years. So whatever their doing, it's not getting them to our neck of the universe.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

If "a sufficiently advanced" society could do whatever, then it would be getting done thousands or millions of times over or thousands or millions of years. So whatever their doing, it's not getting them to our neck of the universe.

Yes - and that means life (sufficiently advanced life) is probably scarce in our corner of the universe. Maybe due to an unknown factor in the Drake Equation?
It does NOT mean that these advanced civilizations cannot reach us with only relativistic space travel - because, according to physics, they can.

About your other objections - you greatly underestimate the economic capabilities of a species with advanced nanotechnology - see my previous post.

About speed - according to physics, you can go that fast. We - humans - don't know how to do it today - but we're relatively primitive. If the laws of physics allow something, than a civilization advanced enough can do this something.

About cataclysms - this seems a great motivator for colonizing other star systems, becoming practically immortal as a species.
Population pressure - another great motivator for colonizing other stars.
And I've further treated the "motivation" problem in my previous post.
I have no problem with beleiving that humanity will fly to the stars if and when the resources needed for that will be relatively trivial. Other countries will opose the program? Most likely, all countries will send colonists - and that's assuming politics as we know them will apply to us in the future/apply to alien species.

The mission these relativistic ships will have - exploration AND, more often than not, colonization.
And about building colonies - how long do you think it will take? A few hundred years? A few thousand? In cosmic time, that's peanuts.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Mankind will NEVER travel to the moon in a ship of any kind! How can you sail in a place where there is no wind or row in a place where there is no water?

 

[TeknoNurd]

Mankind will NEVER travel to the moon in a ship of any kind! How can you sail in a place where there is no wind or row in a place where there is no water?

In it's way, this is true. Unless Apollo worked in a way contrary to common understanding, no one sailed to the moon.

More generally:

It's funny how the "given enough time everything will happen" arguement is used to support wishful thinking for the future. Our future is hundreds, thousands, millions of species past... if it can be done, they've done it. If travel everywhere on whim can be done, it's been done, it's being done.

Evolution works through individuals, and competition between individuals. This would be true not only for us, but other intellegent species. While "doing it for the species" is a great thought, it is not enough to motivate enough individuals into believing it's best for their self-interest. It may not be a motivator until enough individuals see enough resources failing, then the question is at that point will their be enough resources/time to "do it for the species".

I've said that there are two choices... 1) That intellegent life isn't that frequent; or 2) FTL travel isn't possible. There actually is a third possibility... by it's nature, for some reason, intellegent *technological* life is short lived. Perhaps they eat up resources too quickly, are too self serving, too destructive, or who knows. But, as the result of one of these three reasons, they're not showing up here with any frequency.

Ponder this... in one hundred years (probably less), we will be able to send out self maintaining, self replicating, autonomous space craft. They would be small and innexpensive, so easy to send out hundreds a year for as many years as we choose. "Given enough time" these do-dads would be easiliy cluttering a fair chunk of our part of the Milky Way, and it would spread exponentially. Better than landing on every rock we encounter, it would be better to orbit it and watch, perhaps making a phone call home if it sees something interesting.

Most everyone here would say this is reasonable. Until we ponder why it hasn't happenned. We don't have a thousand of these orbitting watching our rock. Why aren't all those advanced technological agencies like we will be doing it?

Chance might miss us in the short term, but I keep getting reminded that universal time is very long, which would make pretty much everything that is possible happen, but pretty much happen and spread everywhere.

For me, the big question isn't if intellegent life is out there (I think there is lots). It's what's keeping them from coming here? The "best" reason is that intersteller travel is extremely difficult or undesirable. The reason this is "best" is all the other reasons pretty much have us/them not existing long enough to get "out there". *IF* we demonstrate FTL travel is practical or doable, it makes the discussion one of survival, not exploration.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I really hate it when those who don't believe in aliens try to stick rules that apply to humans on to possible aliens. Who knows, maybe aliens don't breathe air! Maybe they breathe some other gas, or don't even breathe at all. I'm sure had humans evolved on say, the Moon, we would have adapted to live in that environment. Look at ants, for instance. They live in a hive-type society, with one dominant Queen ruling over all other ants within the colony. They can survive for up to a week underwater. Just because they came into existence on Earth doesn't mean they have to be just like us.

Many scientists are open to the idea of alien life-forms existing in non-Earth conditions - one has only to look at the life that exists at the bottom of Earth's oceans for similar examples.
It is where people have had personal experiences that cannot be proven (which is not to say there is no evidence), where things get ugly.

 

[Itisnotlogical]

^^
Then explain why every time I see a TV program about aliens, the skeptics always get the last word and the believers get less lines then an extra on STV.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Mankind will NEVER travel to the moon in a ship of any kind! How can you sail in a place where there is no wind or row in a place where there is no water?

In it's way, this is true. Unless Apollo worked in a way contrary to common understanding, no one sailed to the moon.

EXACTLY. My point was that we had to REDEFINE the NATURE of how one travels between "here" and "there". It WAS impossible to get to the moon using the only means of travel the ancients had. We changed the METHOD of HOW to get from here to there and suddenly the impossible becomes possible.

 

[Shatmandu]

I'm sure had humans evolved on say, the Moon, we would have adapted to live in that environment.

Would you be interested in a Timeshare opportunity that's too good to pass up?

Joe, representing the King Sultan of Nairobi