Are we alone in the universe?
04 Jun 2011, 10:14 am
Fnord wrote:
The big Bang theory boils down to this: The universe originally did not exist. Then it did.
It's as simple as that.
No it is not that simple. In the Steinhardt Turok version the (so-called) Big Bang rose from a collision of two branes. In their theory the cosmos is eternal and the (so-called) Big Bang was just an intermediate event in its eternal career.
ruveyn
04 Jun 2011, 10:24 am
ruveyn wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The big Bang theory boils down to this: The universe originally did not exist. Then it did.
It's as simple as that.
No it is not that simple. In the Steinhardt Turok version the (so-called) Big Bang rose from a collision of two branes. In their theory the cosmos is eternal and the (so-called) Big Bang was just an intermediate event in its eternal career.
ruveyn
Link? Never mind, I'll google it...
Before I do, what were these two branes composed of?
Is there a standard mathematical model for it, or did they have to invent a new branch of mathematics just to support their theory?
04 Jun 2011, 10:29 am
The universe may have always existed. Nobody knows. Large bodies can be accelerated to high speed by intelligent beings. Any large mass can be accelerated to a high speed as long as there is enough power but would take ever increasing amounts of energy when near the speed of light just to get a fraction closer. Matter- antimatter rocket are the closest theoretically to this but would take you to 50% of the speed of light.
Last edited by robin45 on 04 Jun 2011, 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
04 Jun 2011, 10:53 am
SammichEater wrote:
Nice copy and paste from Wikipedia.
Grade: expelled for plagiarism
Grade: expelled for plagiarism
Would you prefer that I "copied and pasted" from a text on the Philosophy of Debate? Regardless of the source, the truth is always the truth.
SammichEater wrote:
Now, as I was saying ... Just because we haven't made contact with aliens doesn't mean that they don't exist.
By the same reasoning, just because there is no valid material evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, it does not follow that extraterrestrial intelligence does exist. In fact, given the utter lack of such evidence, the only viable position on this matter is a firmly stated "We just don't know". All else is speculation/
Have you ever heard of the now-infamous Drake Equation? At first glance, it seems to indicate the presence of intelligent life everywhere, but when you actually dig into it, it is based on a dumpload of assumptions.
N = R* x fp x ne x fe x fi x fc x L
Where:
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy (fairly easy to estimate)
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets (assumed)
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets (ranges from 1/4 to 1/9)
fe = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point (assumed)
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life (assumed)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space (assumed)
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space (assumed)
Thus, this particular "proof" could be massaged to mean anything.
But here's another interesting take:
Atomic Rocket Website wrote:
Apes or Angels
Consider the high improbability that any two Earth-like planets will form and evolve to the exact and ideal conditions that develop and support carbon-based life.
Consider also the number of mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's past. It is unlikely that the same number of these would occur on another Earth- like world at exactly the same time and with the exact same frequency.
Finally, consider the cultural developments in Earth's history, and apply a few "What Ifs." What if Democracy had never developed beyond the conceptual stage? What if Rome had never fallen? What if Columbus had never received any financial backing from the Spaniards? What if the Nazis had developed the atomic bomb first?
Would any of one of these events have delayed or advanced human development by as much as 0.001%? One value given for the age of the Earth is 4.567 billion years. A +/- 0.001% change would set human evolution back by 4.567 million years (Apes), or advance it by 4.567 million years (Angels).
Thus, by "Apes & Angels" one could say that any two worlds that formed at exactly the same time, and that have had billions of years to go from dust to sentient life, could differ by as much as 9.134 million years in evolution!
A divergence of only 0.000001% would still separate the two extremes by 9.134 thousand years. With this value, one alien world could have a bronze-age culture (year = 2560 BCE), while another could be far ahead of our own, both culturally and technologically (year = 6574 CE). Maybe not "Apes & Angels" but perhaps "Spearchuckers & Supermen"?
Consider the high improbability that any two Earth-like planets will form and evolve to the exact and ideal conditions that develop and support carbon-based life.
Consider also the number of mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's past. It is unlikely that the same number of these would occur on another Earth- like world at exactly the same time and with the exact same frequency.
Finally, consider the cultural developments in Earth's history, and apply a few "What Ifs." What if Democracy had never developed beyond the conceptual stage? What if Rome had never fallen? What if Columbus had never received any financial backing from the Spaniards? What if the Nazis had developed the atomic bomb first?
Would any of one of these events have delayed or advanced human development by as much as 0.001%? One value given for the age of the Earth is 4.567 billion years. A +/- 0.001% change would set human evolution back by 4.567 million years (Apes), or advance it by 4.567 million years (Angels).
Thus, by "Apes & Angels" one could say that any two worlds that formed at exactly the same time, and that have had billions of years to go from dust to sentient life, could differ by as much as 9.134 million years in evolution!
A divergence of only 0.000001% would still separate the two extremes by 9.134 thousand years. With this value, one alien world could have a bronze-age culture (year = 2560 BCE), while another could be far ahead of our own, both culturally and technologically (year = 6574 CE). Maybe not "Apes & Angels" but perhaps "Spearchuckers & Supermen"?
Thus, it can be seen that even if an alien civilization exists, it is just as likely that they would be primitive stone-age people as techno-mages. Again, this "Apes or Angels" hypothesis is another of those "No valid material evidence" = "We just don't know" ideas.
Anything beyond that is unfounded speculation.
Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1027
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
04 Jun 2011, 10:58 am
A «Large Body» is somewhat ambiguous. You can most-certainly accelerate an astronaut at a fast rate of spinning for his aeronautical-training but, when it comes to the acceleration of planets, I would cast a skeptical-glance at that notion (and do you mean «Intelligent Beings» by standards of human-like sentient-species...because...humans have proven to be pretty damn stupid rather often even to this very day [the statistics to drunk-driving is but one mere example out of multitudes]). I don`t think that those hyper-fast-spinning pulsars are due to «Intelligent beings» but seem to occur naturally on their own under the right conditions.
Why don`t you use the programme from http://universesandbox.com/ and play with your own universe for a bit. I would also STRONGLY RECOMMEND that you take an Astronomy Course at an Accredited School if you haven`t already. I got an A in my most-recent astronomy class with only two or three other persons having a higher grade/score than I but even I recognise that the information may have changed or have been since updated to require that I need to do more reviewing.
Don`t just jump to conclusions though about what extra-terrestrial-life may be capable of because, for all you or I know, even if they can be seen/detected (assuming they both exist and are visible in the material-spectrum), you need to keep in mind that they may have different kinds of elements/compounds to work with, and may not necessarily have the same kind of matter to work with in order to develop what we call technology (and even if they did it is still no guarantee that the matter/atoms/molecules necessarily react the same way in other co-ordinates of the universe as they would within the earth`s nitrous-environment).
robin45 wrote:
The universe may have always existed. Nobody knows. Large bodies can be accelerated to high speed by intelligent beings. Any large mass can be accelerated to a high speed as long as there is enough power but would take ever increasing amounts of energy when near the speed of light just to get a fraction closer. Matter- antimatter rocket are the closest theoretically to this but would take you to 50% of the speed of light.
_________________
Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.
04 Jun 2011, 11:27 am
Ban-Dodger wrote:
Whilst we are at this, you have made mention of some formulas, perhaps came across the equations and solved it yourself or read it out of a book somewhere. Can you please reference the title of said book and its authors and/or the equations/experiments that lead to these formulas so that I can try to read through them or work through the formulas personally for myself ?
Try the FCC website or any standard physics text. Look up the section on determining frequency and wavelength of an electromagnetic wave.
Ban-Dodger wrote:
I also know what are GHz in mathematical-reference as I work with and trouble-shoot computers a lot. Also, I am NOT your «philosophical enemy» as you seem to have it out for me by your obvious responses, and would allude to something like what is described by EBTX, a man whose writings I have been following for some years now.
The EBTX website is as woo-woo as they come. It is also the realm of conspiracy theorists, who rely mostly on innuendo, open-ended questions, distorted facts, and outright lies to assert their claims.
Ban-Dodger wrote:
Several «moral principles» have been described in his (Click-Able Link →) JANOTI (← Click-Able Link) section that many UFO-Skeptics tend to violate (and if you bother reading all of the way through to the Lenz Law Analog it will also describe closer to what I mean by the whole «philosophical-opponent» thing of which I am not your opponent). Once you learn to understand other people, they no longer become philosophical-opponents to be defeated, but instead are more like lost allies who have not yet learnt to over-come their over-aggression.
Simple facts are neither moral nor immoral. You either have valid material evidence to back up your claims or you don't. Stating a claim (such as "Space Aliens are real") without valid material evidence to back it up does not make you my "philosophical enemy", instead it makes you a wooist.
Ban-Dodger wrote:
Also, I must ask, are you seriously insinuating that you think I pose as a heavy danger and threat to rational and civil behaviour, such that my willingness to even read books on parapsychology somehow automatically makes me criminally dangerous to the point where you can honestly believe that I would go about committing barbaric acts of evil and wickedness and depravity upon others simply because of some «woo-woo-sounding» words that I had bothered to use ? I honestly get that impression by those who believe that anybody who accepts any amount of «woo-woo-dom» as having any amount of possibility thinks that the woo-woo must somehow be the most-dangerous thing to have ever walked the face of this planet.
How about providing valid material evidence to support your claims instead of employing Ad Hominem attacks to poison the well?
Ban-Dodger wrote:
I only ask this because I am trying to understand the thoughts and emotions that go through the Randi-style fan-base. Can I honestly ask you to give an honest answer as to what you honestly feel when you hear such names as Dean Radin or Marcello Truzzi?
Indifference. Neither of them made any advancements in science. Mostly, they just expressed their woo-woo opinions as fact, and then complained that no real scientific review board would validate their findings. Of these two things - science and opinion - the former begets knowledge, the latter only ignorance.
Ban-Dodger wrote:
I get the impression that many of the behaviours against woo-woo-dom are some-how emotionally charged and/or emotionally controlled so if you would be willing to «set aside» our «paradigm-differences» for a moment...
In other words, you want me to stop disagreeing with you. No dice; especially when I am right.
Ban-Dodger wrote:
... and «contribute» to our community a bit, perhaps answer me honestly as to whether or not the subject or word of para-psychology gives you discomfort, and if it does, why do you think it is so?
Feelings are irrelevant to facts. "Para-Psychology" itself is false science. It contributes nothing to the advancement of science, and none of its practitioners have discovered any principles that stand up under objective review, and not a single one of them has won a Nobel prize (or even James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge).
Ban-Dodger wrote:
And if not, then, I only have questions for you as to specifically where those formulas and numbers came from, what books and which authors, and the equations/experiments behind how I could try and field-test it for myself. Thanks.
Is it safe to assume that you have no real training in electronics theory, and that you are largely self-taught? Any of the ones listed below will suffice.
Basic Electronics - Grob This is the standard textbook for freshman electrical theory - even ITT Technical Institute uses it.
Cognitive Radio Communication and Networks: Principles and Practices
GROL Plus: General Radiotelephone Operator License Plus Radar Endorsement
Now, go learn something useful.
Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1027
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
04 Jun 2011, 12:43 pm
Fnord wrote:
Indifference. Neither of them made any advancements in science. Mostly, they just expressed their woo-woo opinions as fact, and then complained that no real scientific review board would validate their findings. Of these two things - science and opinion - the former begets knowledge, the latter only ignorance.
I have seen plenty of contrary material on this subject.
Sir William Crookes was the pioneer whose innovations lead to the development of the Cathode Ray Tube which also contributed to discovery of the X-Ray (also a useful device in medical-professions).
Targ & Puthoff were also pioneers in the earliest developments of the laser.
Yet they are still [strike]vindicated (I didn't realise this word was re-defined in the dictionaries)[/strike] chastised in near-all publications «skeptical» in their «skeptical-identities» and it comes across to be as only being so because of even the slightest interest in researching that «woo-woo» as you Randi-fans seem to like to call it~I just find it hard to believe that they didn`t contribute anything to science merely because a few people decided to «Ad Hominem» them in perpetuity.
`Tis perfectly fine with me if you want to be «right» on everything but I would personally prefer to expand my paradigm rather than to be simply «right» under some given context (anything can be made to be right or wrong if the context changes as all lawyers know innately). What was «right» yesterday could just as well become «obsolete» tomorrow (feel free to reject that statement since I am not going to bother proving it nor providing evidence).
Fnord wrote:
The EBTX website is as woo-woo as they come. It is also the realm of conspiracy theorists, who rely mostly on innuendo, open-ended questions, distorted facts, and outright lies to assert their claims.
Are you sure you are «right» about that…？ I am quite certain that I can find plenty of web-sites/pages that are FAR more «woo» than the web-site of EBTX (and he never was part of the 9/11 crowd until after he personally investigated to see what those "nuts" were raving about after which point he describes it as opening a whole can of worms to something he never would have considered prior to his investigation).
Fnord wrote:
Feelings are irrelevant to facts. "Para-Psychology" itself is false science. It contributes nothing to the advancement of science, and none of its practitioners have discovered any principles that stand up under objective review, and not a single one of them has won a Nobel prize (or even James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge).
Feelings are quite relevant to one`s rationality. The angry person, such as a hate-filled terrorist, cannot think rationally nor sanely. And no I am not going to «prove» it or «present evidence» for this claim because I assume that you have already gone through enough life-experiences to have been able to observe this phenomenon for yourself.
Regarding Nobel Prizes...I am also going to name Brian David Josephson (born Cardiff, Wales, UK, January 4, 1940) is a British physicist whose discovery of the Josephson effect as a 22-year-old graduate student won him the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics, which he shared with Leo Esaki and Ivar Giaever. He is currently a professor at the University of Cambridge where he is the head of the mind-matter unification project in the Theory of Condensed Matter research group. He is also a fellow of Trinity College.
Then it goes on to say Josephson is one of the most well-known advocates of the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena. He has said that the scientist's motto should be, "Take nobody's word for it" (nullius in verba), which he says also includes the idea that, "if scientists as a whole denounce an idea this should not necessarily be taken as proof that the said idea is absurd: rather, one should examine carefully the alleged grounds for such opinions and judge how well these stand up to detailed scrutiny."
His «Mind-Matter» association (aka: woo-dom to the Randi-crowd) seems to indicate that he qualifies as both a para-psychologist and as well as being a Nobel Prize-winner. Well, I don`t know, perhaps there`s just something mentally deficient within me if you`re always right and I am unable to come to the same conclusions when I double-check your claims with findings of contrary documentation, and I`ll just leave it at that since I`m only describing my personal-subjective human-experiences rather than trying to provide evidence or prove anything.
Fnord wrote:
Is it safe to assume that you have no real training in electronics theory, and that you are largely self-taught?
Why not. I would probably also say that it`s safe to assume that most of your knowledge of anything related to the para-normal comes from the JREF and its founder and CSICOP and authors such as Joe Nickell, Ray Hyman, Richard Dawkins, publications such as Skeptical-Inquirer and web-sites such as SkepDic.
I should also point out that it doesn`t appear accurate to lump researchers of anomalous phenomenon with being the same thing as practitioners of useless religious rituals (feel free to reject this statement also since I am also not going to bother providing evidence nor proving it since I adhere to the standard that obtaining evidence or proving things is one`s personal-responsibility and as I cannot prove my personal-experiences, considering the fact that human-experiences are a subjective phenomenon, I can only «describe» what my experiences are, even though you are unable to replicate them and come to the same conclusions).
Thanks for the references/books anyway. I will get started on them as soon as I visit the library.
_________________
Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.
Last edited by Ban-Dodger on 05 Jun 2011, 5:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
04 Jun 2011, 9:26 pm
Fnord wrote:
SammichEater wrote:
Nice copy and paste from Wikipedia.
Grade: expelled for plagiarism
Grade: expelled for plagiarism
Would you prefer that I "copied and pasted" from a text on the Philosophy of Debate? Regardless of the source, the truth is always the truth.
SammichEater wrote:
Now, as I was saying ... Just because we haven't made contact with aliens doesn't mean that they don't exist.
By the same reasoning, just because there is no valid material evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, it does not follow that extraterrestrial intelligence does exist. In fact, given the utter lack of such evidence, the only viable position on this matter is a firmly stated "We just don't know". All else is speculation/
Have you ever heard of the now-infamous Drake Equation? At first glance, it seems to indicate the presence of intelligent life everywhere, but when you actually dig into it, it is based on a dumpload of assumptions.
N = R* x fp x ne x fe x fi x fc x L
Where:
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy (fairly easy to estimate)
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets (assumed)
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets (ranges from 1/4 to 1/9)
fe = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point (assumed)
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life (assumed)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space (assumed)
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space (assumed)
Thus, this particular "proof" could be massaged to mean anything.
But here's another interesting take:
Atomic Rocket Website wrote:
Apes or Angels
Consider the high improbability that any two Earth-like planets will form and evolve to the exact and ideal conditions that develop and support carbon-based life.
Consider also the number of mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's past. It is unlikely that the same number of these would occur on another Earth- like world at exactly the same time and with the exact same frequency.
Finally, consider the cultural developments in Earth's history, and apply a few "What Ifs." What if Democracy had never developed beyond the conceptual stage? What if Rome had never fallen? What if Columbus had never received any financial backing from the Spaniards? What if the Nazis had developed the atomic bomb first?
Would any of one of these events have delayed or advanced human development by as much as 0.001%? One value given for the age of the Earth is 4.567 billion years. A +/- 0.001% change would set human evolution back by 4.567 million years (Apes), or advance it by 4.567 million years (Angels).
Thus, by "Apes & Angels" one could say that any two worlds that formed at exactly the same time, and that have had billions of years to go from dust to sentient life, could differ by as much as 9.134 million years in evolution!
A divergence of only 0.000001% would still separate the two extremes by 9.134 thousand years. With this value, one alien world could have a bronze-age culture (year = 2560 BCE), while another could be far ahead of our own, both culturally and technologically (year = 6574 CE). Maybe not "Apes & Angels" but perhaps "Spearchuckers & Supermen"?
Consider the high improbability that any two Earth-like planets will form and evolve to the exact and ideal conditions that develop and support carbon-based life.
Consider also the number of mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's past. It is unlikely that the same number of these would occur on another Earth- like world at exactly the same time and with the exact same frequency.
Finally, consider the cultural developments in Earth's history, and apply a few "What Ifs." What if Democracy had never developed beyond the conceptual stage? What if Rome had never fallen? What if Columbus had never received any financial backing from the Spaniards? What if the Nazis had developed the atomic bomb first?
Would any of one of these events have delayed or advanced human development by as much as 0.001%? One value given for the age of the Earth is 4.567 billion years. A +/- 0.001% change would set human evolution back by 4.567 million years (Apes), or advance it by 4.567 million years (Angels).
Thus, by "Apes & Angels" one could say that any two worlds that formed at exactly the same time, and that have had billions of years to go from dust to sentient life, could differ by as much as 9.134 million years in evolution!
A divergence of only 0.000001% would still separate the two extremes by 9.134 thousand years. With this value, one alien world could have a bronze-age culture (year = 2560 BCE), while another could be far ahead of our own, both culturally and technologically (year = 6574 CE). Maybe not "Apes & Angels" but perhaps "Spearchuckers & Supermen"?
Thus, it can be seen that even if an alien civilization exists, it is just as likely that they would be primitive stone-age people as techno-mages. Again, this "Apes or Angels" hypothesis is another of those "No valid material evidence" = "We just don't know" ideas.
Anything beyond that is unfounded speculation.
You attack him for saying "six", and then take us on a journey that ends with the conclusion that its really "half of a dozen"!
05 Jun 2011, 1:15 pm
Fnord wrote:
N = R* x fp x ne x fe x fi x fc x L
Where:
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy (fairly easy to estimate)
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets (assumed)
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets (ranges from 1/4 to 1/9)
fe = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point (assumed)
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life (assumed)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space (assumed)
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space (assumed)
Thus, this particular "proof" could be massaged to mean anything.
.
You are quite right in disdaining the Dreck ... ops I mean the Drake equation. It is nonsense on stilts. There is no way of getting at all the factors empirically.
ruveyn
07 Jun 2011, 2:09 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Fnord wrote:
N = R* x fp x ne x fe x fi x fc x L
Where:
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy (fairly easy to estimate)
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets (assumed)
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets (ranges from 1/4 to 1/9)
fe = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point (assumed)
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life (assumed)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space (assumed)
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space (assumed)
Thus, this particular "proof" could be massaged to mean anything.
.
You are quite right in disdaining the Dreck ... ops I mean the Drake equation. It is nonsense on stilts. There is no way of getting at all the factors empirically.
ruveyn
Thats fantastic that you are able to declare the Drake equation to be "dreck" and to be "nonsense on stilts" because it demonstrates that you have a better idea.
So lets hear your better idea. Using only empiracally proven factors show us how many, or how few alien civilizations there are.
07 Jun 2011, 3:32 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Fnord wrote:
N = R* x fp x ne x fe x fi x fc x L
Where:
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy (fairly easy to estimate)
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets (assumed)
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets (ranges from 1/4 to 1/9)
fe = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point (assumed)
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life (assumed)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space (assumed)
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space (assumed)
Thus, this particular "proof" could be massaged to mean anything.
.
You are quite right in disdaining the Dreck ... ops I mean the Drake equation. It is nonsense on stilts. There is no way of getting at all the factors empirically.
ruveyn
Thats fantastic that you are able to declare the Drake equation to be "dreck" and to be "nonsense on stilts" because it demonstrates that you have a better idea.
So lets hear your better idea. Using only empiracally proven factors show us how many, or how few alien civilizations there are.
What good is a product if one is unable to determine the factors? The equation is worthless for getting real and definite numbers.
We have no way (for example) to determine what fraction of stars have planets. We do not have the technology for studying dark rocky planets about distant stars. We are fortunate to be able to detect some planets around some stars but that does not give us a numerical value for the above factor.
In addition we have detected not one single signal from a distant "civilization". SETI is being shut down for lack of money and more important, lack of results.
ruveyn
07 Jun 2011, 4:58 pm
ruveyn wrote:
...
In addition we have detected not one single signal from a distant "civilization". SETI is being shut down for lack of money and more important, lack of results.
ruveyn
Broadly, I'd agree with you.
In addition we have detected not one single signal from a distant "civilization". SETI is being shut down for lack of money and more important, lack of results.
ruveyn
I'd suspect that the reason we haven't had any "radio" contacts from other advanced civilisations is that they "move on", much as we will. I hope that there's a very small gap between a vague idea of reality and total control of the same.
_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer
07 Jun 2011, 5:03 pm
lau wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
...
In addition we have detected not one single signal from a distant "civilization". SETI is being shut down for lack of money and more important, lack of results.
ruveyn
Broadly, I'd agree with you.In addition we have detected not one single signal from a distant "civilization". SETI is being shut down for lack of money and more important, lack of results.
ruveyn
I'd suspect that the reason we haven't had any "radio" contacts from other advanced civilisations is that they "move on", much as we will. I hope that there's a very small gap between a vague idea of reality and total control of the same.
That is pure speculation on your part devoid of any evidential support. Your conclusion is empirically worthless. It is a hypothesis that cannot be tested and therefore cannot be falsified.
ruveyn
07 Jun 2011, 5:26 pm
ruveyn wrote:
lau wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
...
In addition we have detected not one single signal from a distant "civilization". SETI is being shut down for lack of money and more important, lack of results.
ruveyn
Broadly, I'd agree with you.In addition we have detected not one single signal from a distant "civilization". SETI is being shut down for lack of money and more important, lack of results.
ruveyn
I'd suspect that the reason we haven't had any "radio" contacts from other advanced civilisations is that they "move on", much as we will. I hope that there's a very small gap between a vague idea of reality and total control of the same.
That is pure speculation on your part devoid of any evidential support. Your conclusion is empirically worthless. It is a hypothesis that cannot be tested and therefore cannot be falsified.
ruveyn
... and I totally agree.
_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer
07 Jun 2011, 5:34 pm
... however... my personal opinion of why we haven't had ET sending us soap operas, is that there is a narrow margin between sending out a radio signal, and going on to something else (which I can only guess about).
(Edited to change the weird "ratio signal" to a more comprehensible "radio signal".)
_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer
Last edited by lau on 08 Jun 2011, 5:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
