Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Alien civilizations could be doomed to stagnate or collapse


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, astrobeing said:

 

First thank you very much for the reply to my previous comments on how life began ( In my opinion it’s very difficult to believe that life is so rare in a Universe filled with the same chemical components that allowed life to begin and thrive on Earth, or planets that can support some form of life are rare) we’re certainly not an in depth example of the process so let me clear this up.

I am a very firm believer in the Panspermia Theory and that early Earth was seeded with the building blocks of life from space. Between 4.5 billion years ago and 4 billion years ago the Earths surface was a sterile blank slate, do to the high temperatures of the Earths creation. When Earths surface cooled to a point where liquid water could remain on the Earths surface which approximately occurred 500 Million years after the planets formation ( approximately 4.5 billion years ago ) this was the first step toward the formation life!

Currently, the most favored explanation for where the early Earth got its water is that it acquired it from water-rich objects (planetesimals) that made up a few percent of its building blocks. These water-rich planetesimals could have been both comets and asteroids in addition to the water that arrived with them, they also brought a number of chemical compounds. This primordial debris included ammonia, carbon dioxide and organic molecules such as amino acids, amphiphiles and nucleobases—the building blocks of proteins, cell membranes and RNA and DNA, respectively.

The earliest life forms that existed on Earth we know of at this time were microscopic organisms (microbes) that left signals of their presence in rocks about 3.7 billion years ago. Approximately 3.5 billion years later more complex life forms developed from microscopic organisms in shallow bodies of water. Evidence of these microbes was preserved in the hard structures ( Stromatolites ) which they made, and also which date to 3.5 billion years ago. Stromatolites were created as sticky mats of microbes that trap and bind sediments into layers. Minerals precipitate inside the layers, creating durable structures even as the microbes die off. In fact Stromatolites are the oldest living structured life’s forms still alive on Earth today.

5 hours ago, astrobeing said:

I don't think my confused. These chemicals didn't just appear out of nowhere. They were generated through events. If you study the history of Earth you'll find that it went through several changes that allowed the creation of life, and most importantly, prevented its destruction.

See above!

5 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Yes, read this paper!!! Each theory (and they are just theories) clearly describes a long series of extremely unlikely events and conditions. As you know the likelihood of a series of events is the product of all its probabilities so the end result is gigantically improbable.

I don’t believe these events or conditions are extremely unlikely and neither do biologists and astrobiologists do to the vast size of our Universe. As far as probabilities are concerned there's one thing we can be sure of in this entire series of unlikely events, that occurred  one after the other, nothing that occurred at any point had an infinitesimal likelihood. Instead, every single event, including the creation of life here on Earth does not have a infinitesimal likelihood of occurring over and over again according to Bayes' theorem, across our Universe according to mathematical probabilities. 

This mathematical idea is devastatingly simple, but its consequences are incredibly complex and it has far reaching concepts. On its own, Bayes' theorem is simply a rule to tell you the probability that something is true, given knowledge of conditions that are related to the thing you're trying to measure and the time allowed for a reoccurrence.

5 hours ago, astrobeing said:

This huge paper also leaves out many many other critical factors, like what was needed to keep life from destruction. Well it did touch on bombardment but didn't acknowledge how fortunate that bombardment stopped because it would have exterminated all early life. There easily could have been an event that changed Earth's environment enough to wipe out all life. Somehow Earth avoided this.

It also didn't include a fundamental problem of life: it consumes all resources and dies. This nearly led to the destruction of all life on Earth two billion years ago.

Unfortunately getting from life to an intelligent civilization is vastly more complicated topic than what that paper described. If things had gone differently, Earth could still be inhabited by unintelligent dinosaurs right now with no intelligent beings anywhere.

I will add this as food for thought, it may interest you or it may not. Well what many people fail to realize is that when early biogenesis events first occurred on Earth carbon based life may not have been the only the life forms to occur. While this is theoretical there is a current hypothesis that non-water based life may have originally existed side by side with water based life, and died out as conditions on Earth changed because of the oxygen rich atmosphere that developed. In the beginning oxygen was poison the life forms that first began developing on Earth The basis for this theory has resulted from scientific studies and simulations being carried out concerning Saturns moon Titan. 
 

Titan is the only object in our solar system besides Earth, that presently has both rainfall and erosion due to liquid movement. But the water it has is locked far underground and the moon is too cold to support an impact from water anyway. Researchers have discovered after poring over data sent back by Huygens, the surface does have hydrogen cyanide in its sediment, brought down from the atmosphere by methane and ethane rain. these molecules are that drove the design of the simulations—the researchers wanted to see if they could form the basis of reactions that could lead to the creation of polymers such as polyimine. Which the researchers note are conducive to the formation of prebiotic reactions leading to a formation of life. 
 

The simulations showed that such reactions are possible and that the structures that came about were also able to absorb sunlight in the wavelengths present on the Titan surface. This has prompted researchers to suggest their work, and that done by others indicates that a return to the planet by a new probe might be in order, one able to test for a different form of life, or at least its precursors.

I hope I have better explained my thoughts on the subject than I did previously and I hope this doesn’t create further confusion.

Be well Astrobeing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2022 at 5:07 AM, Myles said:

I think there are many reason why we haven't had contact.  Maybe the small slice of time we are in is too late or too early so be alive together. 

i assume there is probably just a small % on intelligent life out there.   Who knows what kinds of living things may be on livable planets.   The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.   Dinosaurs ruled for 165 million years.  Humans have only been around for around 250,000 years and only technologically advanced enough to send signals for the past 50 or so years.  They may just be too far away.

What about communicating with drums and smoke signals hundreds of years ago? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

Oh right-- ALL the conditions (whatever they are is irrelevant with regards to looking at it in general) that created life on earth. 
Many people suggest life in our universe is rare because the likelihood of these conditions all coming together to create life is highly unlikely....

I'm suggesting it may not be as rare as some seem to think... IMO all these amazing conditions are normal throughout the universe & life is abundant.

I mean, what's the point of such a vast universe if there's nothing much living in it= just tons of rocks & gas.. Oh well, what do I know- it's just an opinion/ feeling whatever

Great post, thanks for sharing. These conversations always lead in one or two directions based upon the current schools of thought in the scientific community. One side says life is plentiful across our Universe ( Astrobiologists) and the other side says life Earth is a rare and unlikely event ( Astrophysicists ) and then their are cross overs from both communities.

1. Fermi Paradox - presents the belief that other intelligent life in the Universe Is unlikely.

Intelligent Life in Cosmology: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0058.pdf

2. Drake equationhttps://www.wikizero.com/en/Drake's_Equation

3. A joint analysis of the Drake equation and the Fermi paradoxhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6411.pdf

From Cosmos to Intelligent Life: The Four Ages of Astrobiology: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5042.pdf

2 hours ago, astrobeing said:

So when you said...

... you didn't know what conditions I was talking about, yet you claimed they were "the norm" in the universe?

And now you're asking me to tell you what you disagreed with?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

What about communicating with drums and smoke signals hundreds of years ago? 

How far beyond the atmosphere can those signals travel?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

How far beyond the atmosphere can those signals travel?

Dunno, maybe we should ask SETI who are expecting the phone to ring at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

Dunno, maybe we should ask SETI who are expecting the phone to ring at any time.

SETI aren't looking for smoke signals or listening for drums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

SETI aren't looking for smoke signals or listening for drums.

What are they looking for?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

What are they looking for?

Not the "drums and smoke signals" you raised, for some puzzling reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Not the "drums and smoke signals" you raised, for some puzzling reason.

And you took that literally did you?  :lol:  The point I was making was that intelligent life in the universe, if it exists, could be thousands of years ahead of us in technology and to think they could be listening or looking out for signals in the way we communicate here on earth is naive.

And no, I wouldn't have a clue how they could search for other intelligent life, but I doubt they're going to be waiting for a broadcast from Orson Welles to reach them in 250,000 years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

And you took that literally did you?  :lol:  The point I was making was that intelligent life in the universe, if it exists, could be thousands of years ahead of us in technology and to think they could be listening or looking out for signals in the way we communicate here on earth is naive.

And no, I wouldn't have a clue how they could search for other intelligent life, but I doubt they're going to be waiting for a broadcast from Orson Welles to reach them in 250,000 years.

It doesn't matter what ET technology is like. 

Our fingerprints/footprints have only been leaving our atmosphere for the last 50-100 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

It doesn't matter what ET technology is like. 

Our fingerprints/footprints have only been leaving our atmosphere for the last 50-100 years.

"Our fingerprints/footprints have only been leaving our atmosphere for the last 50-100 years." and that intelligent life was too far away to be listening to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also IT DOES MATTER what technology is like.  Give Napoleon a few M249 automatic machine guns and there would have been no Waterloo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

"Our fingerprints/footprints have only been leaving our atmosphere for the last 50-100 years." and that intelligent life was too far away to be listening to them.

 

2 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Also IT DOES MATTER what technology is like.  Give Napoleon a few M249 automatic machine guns and there would have been no Waterloo.

That analogy limps, badly.

The detection technology doesn't matter.  A detector would have to be within the sphere of evidence we've produced to detect any  evidence we've produced.

The level of technology doesn't change to space/time that we've polluted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

 

That analogy limps, badly.

The detection technology doesn't matter.  A detector would have to be within the sphere of evidence we've produced to detect any  evidence we've produced.

The level of technology doesn't change to space/time that we've polluted.

The Hubble and even more so, the James Webb telescope have detected galaxies we never new existed 30 years ago.  Do you think the sphere of evidence we've produced changed from then to now or does that analogy limp as well?

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

The Hubble and even more so, the James Webb telescope have detected galaxies we never new existed 30 years ago.  Do you think the sphere of evidence we've produced changed from then to now or does that analogy limp as well?

Miles specifically mentioned signals that we've been emitting.  So the sphere of evidence we've produced would've expanded by about 30 light years in all directions.

20130115_radio_broadcasts.jpg.webp

Contrasting output with input demonstrates that that your Hubble analogy limps just as badly.

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Miles specifically mentioned signals that we've been emitting.

Contrasting output with input demonstrates that that analogy limps just as badly.

No it doesn't,

You're the one stating technology and detection levels don't matter referencing space time dilation. A) Input and output space time dilation in space would be the same and 'B) you wouldn't have a clue what technology looks like in a thousand years.  Going by my limped analogies I'd say we'll probably advance from smoke signals.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

No it doesn't,

You're the one stating technology and detection levels don't matter referencing space time dilation. A) Input and output space time dilation in space would be the same and 'B) you wouldn't have a clue what technology looks like in a thousand years.  Going by my limped analogies I'd say we'll probably advance from smoke signals.

You better quote where I said that.  I didn't mention dilation at all?

I was talking about a sphere that takes up space/time of about a radius of 100 light-years.  I even provide a picture for you to join the dots.

ET has to put "ears" within that "ball" to hear our "voice".

All the light that we see from billions of years ago doesn't change what we've emitted of the last century.

Input ad output are as different as send and receiving.  ET detection technology doesn't change what we've emitted.

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You better quote where I said that.  I didn't mention dilation at all?

I was talking about a sphere that takes up space/time of about a radius of 100 light-years.  I even provide a picture for you to join the dots.

ET has to put "ears" within that "ball" to hear our "voice".

All the light that we see from billions of years ago doesn't change what we've emitted of the last century.

Input ad output are as different as send and receiving.  ET detection technology doesn't change what we've emitted.

Gawd, what aren't you understanding?  I'll go back to my initial thought.

'The point I was making was that intelligent life in the universe, if it exists, could be thousands of years ahead of us in technology and to think they could be listening or looking out for signals in the way we communicate here on earth is naive.'

You keep on falling back on our current understanding and knowledge based on our current levels of technology as if all we know now is all there is to know.  How do you know ET needs to put ears within a certain distance to hear our voice?  This is all speculation talk, like ET's even existing, but if there are other civilisations out there there is a possibilty that some have developed thousands of years before us and there is also that possibility that they have taken a similar development path that we took.  In which case they could be at a level 2 or 3 civilisation according to the Kardashev scale.

This is what Wiki says about a level 3 civilisation:

A civilization in possession of energy at the scale of its own galaxy, with energy consumption at ≈4×1044 erg/sec. Lemarchand defined civilizations of this type as having access to power comparable to the luminosity of the entire Milky Way galaxy, about 4×1044 erg/sec (4×1037 watts).

Do you think this type of civilisation would need to eavesdrop on noises from the rest of the galaxy to know there are others out there?  If you do, I rest my case.

Then again, all this is just speculation like the thought ET's are too far away or that they exist at all.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Gawd, what aren't you understanding?  I'll go back to my initial thought.

'The point I was making was that intelligent life in the universe, if it exists, could be thousands of years ahead of us in technology and to think they could be listening or looking out for signals in the way we communicate here on earth is naive.'

You keep on falling back on our current understanding and knowledge based on our current levels of technology as if all we know now is all there is to know.  How do you know ET needs to put ears within a certain distance to hear our voice?  This is all speculation talk, like ET's even existing, but if there are other civilisations out there there is a possibilty that some have developed thousands of years before us and there is also that possibility that they have taken a similar development path that we took.  In which case they could be at a level 2 or 3 civilisation according to the Kardashev scale.

This is what Wiki says about a level 3 civilisation:

A civilization in possession of energy at the scale of its own galaxy, with energy consumption at ≈4×1044 erg/sec. Lemarchand defined civilizations of this type as having access to power comparable to the luminosity of the entire Milky Way galaxy, about 4×1044 erg/sec (4×1037 watts).

Do you think this type of civilisation would need to eavesdrop on noises from the rest of the galaxy to know there are others out there?  If you do, I rest my case.

Then again, all this is just speculation like the thought ET's are too far away or that they exist at all.

You are misapplying the Kardashev scale here.

ET can only detect what we have emitted.

https://www.planetary.org/articles/3390

ET may have great capability to put detectors through out the universe.  It won't change what we have emitted.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Black Red Devil said:

Gawd, what aren't you understanding?  I'll go back to my initial thought.

'The point I was making was that intelligent life in the universe, if it exists, could be thousands of years ahead of us in technology and to think they could be listening or looking out for signals in the way we communicate here on earth is naive.'

You keep on falling back on our current understanding and knowledge based on our current levels of technology as if all we know now is all there is to know.  How do you know ET needs to put ears within a certain distance to hear our voice?  This is all speculation talk, like ET's even existing, but if there are other civilisations out there there is a possibilty that some have developed thousands of years before us and there is also that possibility that they have taken a similar development path that we took.  In which case they could be at a level 2 or 3 civilisation according to the Kardashev scale.

This is what Wiki says about a level 3 civilisation:

A civilization in possession of energy at the scale of its own galaxy, with energy consumption at ≈4×1044 erg/sec. Lemarchand defined civilizations of this type as having access to power comparable to the luminosity of the entire Milky Way galaxy, about 4×1044 erg/sec (4×1037 watts).

Do you think this type of civilisation would need to eavesdrop on noises from the rest of the galaxy to know there are others out there?  If you do, I rest my case.

Then again, all this is just speculation like the thought ET's are too far away or that they exist at all.

Your right on target, and there is nothing wrong with your comments here, I don't understand why so many people wish to argue these points. Its all theoretical anyway, which means simply that there is no completely right or wrong answer. 

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

What are they looking for?

While space is usually described as a vacuum, it does contain some gas and dust.  Over great distances that gas and dust absorb many types of radiation but radio waves pass through nearly unimpeded.  For interstellar communication, a particular range of radio frequencies, “microwaves” from 1 GHz to 10 GHz, are particularly good choices.  At lower frequencies our galaxy emits prodigious amounts of radio waves creating a loud background of noise.  At higher frequencies the Earth’s atmosphere, and presumably the atmosphere of other Earth-like planets, absorbs and emits broad ranges of radio frequencies.  The result is a quiet “Microwave Window” through which efficient radio communication is possible.

Signals produced by technology for communication can be much narrower than any known astrophysical source.  The bottom half of the diagram shows the spectrum of the signal from the Pioneer 10 spacecraft.  The frequency scale has been expanded by nearly a factor of 10.  The narrow signal component on the left is further expanded by a factor of 100 to show the very narrow frequency components of the data in the signal.  This illustrates a clear way to distinguish extraterrestrial communication signals for astrophysical signals: look for very narrow frequency components.  Most SETI programs take this approach, breaking the radio spectrum into many millions of very narrow frequency channels.

There are two basic strategies.  We could examine the entire field but only sift through the top few centimeters of soil.  If a gold nugget is near the surface anywhere in the field, we’ll have a good chance of finding it.  We could study the chemistry and geology of the surface and select particulars spots where we will dig deep looking for gold.  If the gold is buried well below the surface, this strategy has the best chance. In SETI, there are two basic search strategies.  Sky surveys sweep a telescope over large areas of the sky looking for strong signals that may come from any direction.  Targeted searches point a telescope at the direction of selected stars.  By dwelling on a star for long periods of time, a targeted search is sensitive to weaker signals.

SETI Observations

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You are misapplying the Kardashev scale here.

ET can only detect what we have emitted.

https://www.planetary.org/articles/3390

ET may have great capability to put detectors through out the universe.  It won't change what we have emitted.

 

OK, I'm done here mate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple facts are that humans have been broadcasting for about 100 years.

The Kardashev scale does ot change what we've been doing, nor does it change the properties of a sphere.  Thus the inverse square law applies.

Allowing for a civilisation to overcome the issues of attenuation doesn't resolve the paradox created from magical, misanthropic, rationalisation.  That is detecting something that you don't detect.

You don't get to resolve this paradox by rewriting history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

OK, I'm done here mate.

You should be.  Hand-waving, moving goal posts, and projecting to others is an embarrassing look for you.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Golden Duck said:

You should be.  Hand-waving, moving goal posts, and projecting to others is an embarrassing look for you.

You're too obtuse to bother with.  I felt like I was trying to rationalise with a 5 year old kid.  Can't be bothered.  Enjoy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

You're too obtuse to bother with.  I felt like I was trying to rationalise with a 5 year old kid.  Can't be bothered.  Enjoy.

If your going to get upset because words have definitions, you're unlikely to have many happy days.

 
Quote

 

detector
/dɪˈtɛktə/
 
noun
  1. a device or instrument designed to detect the presence of a particular object or substance.

 

Reflect on that and have fun with your paradoxes.
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.