354 replies to this topic

[OverSword]

psyche101, on 04 February 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Disclosure?

Yeah, any day now isn't it.

Been hearing that crap for over 20 years. You will forgive me if I do not hold my breath.

Actually disclosure is happening now, per the methods described in the Brookings report.  Very gradually.  Example of how disclosure is done.  In the 70's Mars was a lifeless, waterless, desicated ghost world. then they say 'Oh we were wrong, there's water in the form of ice on Mars'  Then a report is published that chances are life is lkely most common on desert worlds.  Next as they use these probes to drill and test they will confirm fossilized life, in a hundred years they will report ruins and so on and so on.  The thing is high ups at NASA have been fairly certain of all of this for decades.

As far as disclosing aliens on earth or visiting earth.....ain't happening so nothing to disclose.

[bison]

Abramelin, on 04 February 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated in a 2003 lecture at Caltech:

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...

Another objection is that the very form of the Drake equation assumes that civilizations arise and then die out within their original solar systems. If interstellar colonization is possible, then this assumption is invalid, and the equations of population dynamics would apply instead.

One reply to such criticisms is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it was not meant to be science, but intended as a way to stimulate dialogue on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally. Indeed, Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference.

http://en.wikipedia..../Drake_equation



.

The Fermi paradox, like the Drake equation, was intended as a basis for discussion, not as rigorous science, in itself. It is less specific than Drake, about the several factors bearing on the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations, and less dependent on them.
It is not concerned with the number of civilizations in the galaxy, but with the existence of at least one, besides our own. This is, of course, much more probable than an arbitrarily large number of stellar civilizations.  
If even one civilization can refrain from destroying itself, master the challenges of long term survival, and finally expand into the entire galaxy, the question becomes: Where are they?
The fact that they are not unambiguously apparent to us is sometimes used to suggest that there is some insurmountable barrier to galactic colonization. This does not appear to be the case. Fermi realized that even at speeds well below that of light, the age of the galaxy should allow elder civilizations more than sufficient time to occupy the entire galaxy, at even very modest rates of expansion.
Perhaps a more nuanced question would be: Why are we not able to unambiguously discern their presence?  A tentative answer: Because they don't wish us to, at this time.

Edited by bison, 04 February 2013 - 04:14 PM.

[harleyblueswoman]

https://www.facebook.../SiriusTheMovie

https://www.facebook...dBeyond?fref=ts

Edited by harleyblueswoman, 04 February 2013 - 06:45 PM.

[scowl]

OverSword, on 04 February 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

Actually disclosure is happening now, per the methods described in the Brookings report.  Very gradually.  Example of how disclosure is done.  In the 70's Mars was a lifeless, waterless, desicated ghost world. then they say 'Oh we were wrong, there's water in the form of ice on Mars'

Did you not hear that it was necessary to send probes to Mars to discover this water?

And if we all believed in the 70's that there was no water on Mars (which isn't true), why did we send probes to look for the stuff?

[Abramelin]

bison, on 04 February 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

The Fermi paradox, like the Drake equation, was intended as a basis for discussion, not as rigorous science, in itself. It is less specific than Drake, about the several factors bearing on the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations, and less dependent on them.

It is not concerned with the number of civilizations in the galaxy, but with the existence of at least one, besides our own. This is, of course, much more probable than an arbitrarily large number of stellar civilizations.  
If even one civilization can refrain from destroying itself, master the challenges of long term survival, and finally expand into the entire galaxy, the question becomes: Where are they?

The fact that they are not unambiguously apparent to us is sometimes used to suggest that there is some insurmountable barrier to galactic colonization. This does not appear to be the case. Fermi realized that even at speeds well below that of light, the age of the galaxy should allow elder civilizations more than sufficient time to occupy the entire galaxy, at even very modest rates of expansion.

Perhaps a more nuanced question would be: Why are we not able to unambiguously discern their presence?  A tentative answer: Because they don't wish us to, at this time.

I have another question: why do we think we know what's necessary to travel great distances in space?

We have not the faintest clue, and we base our ideas and fantasies on what we are capable of now.

It's like asking a Neanderthal about what he thinks is needed to use lightning ("electricity") as a source of energy.

WE know, but he would not have had any idea what the hell we were talking about.

[scowl]

Abramelin, on 04 February 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

I have another question: why do we think we know what's necessary to travel great distances in space?

Because we've done it.

[bison]

We don't need to know precisely how something can be accomplished to realize that it might be done, someday. Trips to the Moon were dreamed of, centuries before rocketry was well enough understood to accomplish this. We can speculate on stellar travel, using the best concepts currently as our disposal. Many of these will, of course, prove to be largely incorrect, by the test of time. We don't know, really, how far we are from grasping the rudiments of stellar space travel. Dr. White's work at NASA suggests at least the possibility that we may be much closer to this point than the Neanderthal  comparison would suggest.

Edited by bison, 04 February 2013 - 08:08 PM.

[PersonFromPorlock]

Well, religious opinion will be divided, and some of the divisions will be contentious. Not a lot new, there.

[harleyblueswoman]

http://siriusdisclosure.com/

[bison]

Some fundamentalist religious persons maintain, seemingly in all seriousness, that reported extraterrestrials are actually demons. One can image how they might react to the open presence of and routine contact with ETs.

[psyche101]

Sky Scanner, on 04 February 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

I'm not sure that either of those men's opinions tell us much about the bigger question, beyond giving their individual opinions. If life has no other option then to come into existence through the natural paths of science (which I believe, as apposed to any divine question) then the lack of evidence to suggest such, against the sextrillions amounts of stars, only reminds us that we have merely peaked around the curtain so far, it doesn't tell us anything about the likely hood of finding such evidence. (drakes equation is even less convincing, it would have been easier if he had just written "my equation is a whole lot of if's, buts and maybe's" )

They are not supposed to answer any question as far as I know, they are thought experiments. What they illustrate is what life is something we need to think about, not just assume that because there are many stars that the Universe is teeming with life. To date, we have no evidence of other life. Even if we find a microbe on Mars, if it's signature matches that of life on earth, it is not really an Alien, it's an ancestor. The building blocks for life are abundant, but that does not mean they have been put together. And whilst life is likely to be abundant in the Universe  Intelligent life, and that is what TSR is referring to, is not likely to be abundant according to the best minds on the subject.
We can say "we have no idea" and that is fine, but is someone says "The universe is teeming with life" well I am afraid there is just no proof of that, and these thought experiments should make one think, and consider, perhaps that is not the case after all.

Abramelin, on 04 February 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated in a 2003 lecture at Caltech:

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...

Another objection is that the very form of the Drake equation assumes that civilizations arise and then die out within their original solar systems. If interstellar colonization is possible, then this assumption is invalid, and the equations of population dynamics would apply instead.

One reply to such criticisms is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it was not meant to be science, but intended as a way to stimulate dialogue on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally. Indeed, Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference.

http://en.wikipedia..../Drake_equation

Yes, as I said above it is a thought experiment, like Schrodinger's cat. It means we should think about blurting out "facts" about alien life, because any "Fact" on alien life is nonexistent. I had the same whine some time ago, I thought I was the last one to understand this as entirely a thought experiment. However it does provide tighter paramaters than the claim of "The Universe is Teeming With Life" because reality is, outside of this rock, we have not a clue, and UFO's are not proof that such life exists. Statistics say there should be other life. But teeming? Even the Universe has a Goldilocks zone. Not just planets in solar systems.
And, I bet rags to riches that it is more accurate than everything Stanton Friedman has ever had to say, tied in a bunch and folded over.

I figured some thought would not hurt when we are told the Universe is teeming with life, in fact, it is more curious that my post drew more attention than that silly claim to begin with. Curious. Why do you suppose that might be?

Edited by psyche101, 04 February 2013 - 10:04 PM.

[Sundew]

"Is proof of alien life a risk to society?" I suppose that depends on what that life is. Things like UFOs, crop circles, etcetera, not withstanding, I see no convincing hard evidence of sentient advanced alien life that has been proven beyond any doubt. As for other forms of life akin to microbes, plants or animals on earth, I fail to see where that would have any effect at all as a "risk", to religion or otherwise. If religion assumes that God is transcendent and omnipotent and made the entire universe from nothing, than it would hardly be surprising that He created more than just matter and energy, stars and planets in the vastness of the cosmos, if for nothing more than His own enjoyment.

How man and/or religious people react to such a discovery has been shown throughout history. We once believed that everything revolved around the earth, including the sun, moon and stars. They did not however, humans, being rather egocentric, made a lot of assumptions which were later shown to be incorrect. We assumed the planets were just little "wandering" balls of light in the sky, until technology allowed us to see them close up. What we saw far exceeded the wonders of what we previously knew, it did not lessen them. Did this diminish the concept of God as Creator or enhance it? I would argue the latter. The same with discovering the atom, DNA, etcetera. The deeper we explore the more wondrous things appear. Some religious people assume that there CAN be no life outside of the earth, and while we have no proof as of yet that there is extra-terrestial life, I believe the discovery of "worms" or "fish" on the moons of Jupiter again would add to the wonder and mystery of the created order to those of us who believe in God.

It is doubtful that finding microbes on Mars or creatures on Europa would profoundly change the day to day life of Earth as we know it. It would be a great scientific discovery, it would expand our horizons, but really, there are still the mundane things of life that will go on despite the news. I only hope that giving that life seems to always find a way to get a foothold in the most unlikely places, we are very careful about introducing any such life to Earth. We have president as to what happens when terrestrial organisms are introduced to non-native ecosystems; we have no such president about alien organisms.

[psyche101]

OverSword, on 04 February 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

Actually disclosure is happening now, per the methods described in the Brookings report.  Very gradually.  Example of how disclosure is done.  In the 70's Mars was a lifeless, waterless, desicated ghost world. then they say 'Oh we were wrong, there's water in the form of ice on Mars'  Then a report is published that chances are life is lkely most common on desert worlds.  Next as they use these probes to drill and test they will confirm fossilized life, in a hundred years they will report ruins and so on and so on.  The thing is high ups at NASA have been fairly certain of all of this for decades.

As far as disclosing aliens on earth or visiting earth.....ain't happening so nothing to disclose.

But I would call that "Science" not disclosure? Nothing is being hidden, NASA is merely cautious. They cannot say "Life existed on Mars" without proof, because then people will jump all over them and say "Where is it?" We hope, and some say expect, to find life on Europa and possibly Titan. Nothing hidden there, form the moment life was suspected, we knew about it.

[psyche101]

bison, on 04 February 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

Some fundamentalist religious persons maintain, seemingly in all seriousness, that reported extraterrestrials are actually demons. One can image how they might react to the open presence of and routine contact with ETs.

That is interpretation of an event for you. Some claim the Fatima event was a UFO, yet Religious figures were positively identified. That is why eyewitness testimony is mostly useless, people do not give an honest account, they interpret what they have seen.

One man's alien is another man's goblin.

[psyche101]

Abramelin, on 04 February 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

I have another question: why do we think we know what's necessary to travel great distances in space?

We have not the faintest clue, and we base our ideas and fantasies on what we are capable of now.

It's like asking a Neanderthal about what he thinks is needed to use lightning ("electricity") as a source of energy.

WE know, but he would not have had any idea what the hell we were talking about.

What else would one do though? Beyond looking at physics, heck, even quantum physics, we do have an understanding of space, if not an intimate knowledge of it. We know that E=MC2, we know what distances we are dealing with, we know how fast a photon can travel the Universe. What be the point in allowing for imaginary technology that nobody could ever possibly do more than dream about?