Aliens?

[Gargamel]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltrends/nasascientistfindsevidenceofalienlife

http://news.discovery.com/space/has-evidence-of-extraterrestrial-life-been-found-110305.html

Aliens for real?

Another scientist has found evidence of alien life in a meteorite.

Possible hoax though, as the publishing journal seems to have a bad rep.

[Oberon]

Time will tell, but I think it's rather inevitable that there is life outside of this planet, one would have to be extremely arrogant to think that we are the only intelligent life in this universe or indeed this was the only planet to contain lifeforms.

[Armistead]

I believe in aliens as much as I believe in Santa Claus. If all the sightings, wrecks, etc were true, we would have some hard facts by now.

[Raptor1]

I believe in aliens as much as I believe in Santa Claus. If all the sightings, wrecks, etc were true, we would have some hard facts by now.

It is by far more likely that aliens exist than that they don't, especially the non-sentient kind. It's just the intelligent ones being around here that is somewhat more doubtful...

[razark]

I believe in aliens as much as I believe in Santa Claus. If all the sightings, wrecks, etc were true, we would have some hard facts by now.
There's quite a bit of difference between UFOs and microbes.

Our first contact with alien life will probably be a discovery of microbes of some sort. However, I'm feeling a bit skeptical about this one. If it's that big a discovery, why release to an online journal instead of the press conference the engineered arsenic-bacteria got?

We'll see how it plays out.

[Gargamel]

why release to an online journal instead of the press conference the engineered arsenic-bacteria got?

We'll see how it plays out.

Because Like the cold-fusion press conference, that turned into a debacle. Press conferences circumvent the standard procedures for publishing discoveries. Now, in this case, their choice of publications does bring into question the veracity of the discovery. At least this time, on the surface, they are openly and willingly opening this for peer review, in fact they seemed to encourage it, so as you say, we'll see.

[razark]

Because Like the cold-fusion press conference, that turned into a debacle.
True. However, if they had sufficient evidence, the "We found aliens!" thing would be worthy of a televised conference.

Press conferences circumvent the standard procedures for publishing discoveries.
I think NASA would be playing the alien life card for every dollar they could get their hands on. Morale is low, PR lacking, funding is getting very tight, and they're even having to look at getting rid of some civil servants.


Gordon Cooper: You boys know what makes this bird go up? FUNDING makes this bird go up.
Gus Grissom: He's right. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Time will tell, but I think it's rather inevitable that there is life outside of this planet, one would have to be extremely arrogant to think that we are the only intelligent life in this universe or indeed this was the only planet to contain lifeforms.

I agree, but I also believe that there is no life outside of this planet that will ever be of any use or interest to us beyond scientific curiousity. If there was any reachable life that could teach us anything useful, we'd have long since detected their communications signals. If such life was capable of reasonable interstellar travel, we'd have long since discovered both their communications signals and possibly the exhaust of their drives, provided they were engaged in the last 30 years or so.

The only thing we will likely ever discover within our very limited reach, which is made so by the laws of physics and sheer practicability, are dead planets and perhaps some primitive life-forms that are not adapted to life on Earth or any planet or moon in our solar system, making them unexploitable.

For all practical purposes, we are stuck here, and nobody will ever know we are here.

[Gargamel]

True. However, if they had sufficient evidence, the "We found aliens!" thing would be worthy of a televised conference.




If you remember, back in the 90's they did just that. They found evidence of life on Mars from a martian meteorite they found in Antarctica. They (NASA) went on TV yelling We found Aliens! Clinton even went onto live TV that night to announce it. Within a few months, after peer review, there was enough 'evidence' and opposing theories to cast doubt onto the accuracy of the claim. Not that it was a Hoax, but the data could have been explained by other means (contamination, mineral deposits, etc).

So in this case, they are following the standard procedure as much as possible. Let the peer reviews confirm it, then NASA goes beserk.

I can (almost :D) guarantee you, if they prove aliens exist, their funding will go through the roof. At least until everybody stops and asks, why?

[Feuer Frei!]

Until the day that they found Alien lifeform that looked anything like these guys:
http://i56.tinypic.com/4uywxz.jpg

only then will i be truly interested.

2 chances of that happening though: Buckleys and ******* all! :yep:

[Gargamel]

I agree, but I also believe that there is no life outside of this planet that will ever be of any use or interest to us beyond scientific curiousity.
The problem with that statement is that Xenobiology is an unknown sciece. Without ever studying anything, there is no way to ever say that is true or not.


If there was any reachable life that could teach us anything useful, we'd have long since detected their communications signals. If such life was capable of reasonable interstellar travel, we'd have long since discovered both their communications signals and possibly the exhaust of their drives, provided they were engaged in the last 30 years or so. There are almost an infinite number of frequencies that could be broadcast on, and we have to directionally focus our receivers to listen for these signals. Now multiply that by the number of stars to listen to.... You get the idea why it's taking so long. And then you have to process each glump of data to figure out whats out there. (Coincedentally, if you want to help with that, you can join me help filter the data while your computer is not doing anything functional by joining BOINC (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/) and installing the SETI@Home (http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/) project (There's an enigma decoding project too for you subnuts :O: ), and they make for decent screensavers).

Your saying we should be able to see the exhaust from a single ship within 30 years travel, when we are having difficulty detecting asteroids the size of small towns that are a few days/weeks away?



For all practical purposes, we are stuck here, and nobody will ever know we are here.

Probably true, but nothing ventured nothing gained. Kennedy's to the moon speech is coming to mind.

[razark]

Within a few months, after peer review, there was enough 'evidence' and opposing theories to cast doubt onto the accuracy of the claim.
And that's why I said "sufficient evidence". The bar has been set pretty high. First, they'd have to show it was life, and not something else. Then, they'd need to show it was not terrestrial in origin. Thank you, cold fusion, ALH84001, and general apathy.

At least until everybody stops and asks, why?
Nah. Something like that would never happen...

[UnderseaLcpl]

The problem with that statement is that Xenobiology is an unknown sciece. Without ever studying anything, there is no way to ever say that is true or not.

True enough, but I still think the probability of finding anything worthwhile is small enough that there is no need to actively invest in xenobiology or much beyond localized space exploration, not including orbital observatories.



There are almost an infinite number of frequencies that could be broadcast on, and we have to directionally focus our receivers to listen for these signals. Now multiply that by the number of stars to listen to.... You get the idea why it's taking so long. And then you have to process each glump of data to figure out whats out there.

I used to think the same thing myself. However, once I began studying as a radio operator and took the time to get into the nuances of advanced elements like antennae theory and waveform propagation, I am no longer so sure.

The means by which SETI attempts to detect transmissions through ground-based directional receivers is actually kind of silly. Any type of long-range communications, such as those that would be used to communicate between planets or between a planet and a long-range probe, rely upon powerful transmitters that must operate on relatively long wavelengths to overcome interference.

Think of it this way: a large electromagnetic wave is a lot like a large wave of water, or a very loud sound. It may hit obstacles and suffer some loss of integrity as a result, but the wave is still mostly intact unless it runs into something bigger than it is. Even then, it retains enough energy to bounce off of whatever it hits and then bounce again multiple times and can still be received by the intended recipient. However, it will also be recieved by anyone else within "earshot".

In the void of space, there is virtually nothing that can block a large wave, so it is very likely that we would have detected such transmissions by now if they emanated from a reachable source.

Now, it is possible that an advanced civilization might employ some kind of advanced directional transmission technology that had enough raw power to overcome EMI and enough accuracy to reach a cosmically distant receiver, but such a method of transmission would generate enough "bleed-off" radiation that it would be detectable from a tremendous distance. There is no such thing as a truly "directional" transmitter aside from a physical connection. All antennae are sources omni-directional radiation to some degree, and when you consider the amount of power that it takes to transmit a short-wave signal or a microwave signal reliably over a long distance, those power requirements would be very high.

Hence, we would detect the "spilled" radiation from either source quite easily, assuming we employed an omni-directional reciever in very high orbit, away from the tremendous destructive interference of the earth's atmosphere and magnetospher. Beyond that, it's just a matter of looking for recurring instances of patterned EMF, which a computer can do easily, and interpreting the data.

This is why I say SETI's approach is kind of silly. If they really wanted to find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence, they'd abandon this ridiculous approach of using ground-based dish receivers tuned to look for specific frequencies from specific sources, a few at a time. An orbital omni-directional receiver, which essentially amounts to a large, lightweight EM tuning-fork in space would serve the same purpose and do it much better.


(Coincedentally, if you want to help with that, you can join me help filter the data while your computer is not doing anything functional by joining BOINC (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/) and installing the SETI@Home (http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/) project.

Thanks for the info and the links:up: I'll take a look and consider joining the effort, provided it doesn't add any unreasonable strain to my already somewhat-taxed system resources. I really need to invest in a newer computer.:cry:

As much as I complain about SETI, the organization is there already, and if they have a way for me to help I might as well try it.

Your saying we should be able to see the exhaust from a single ship within 30 years travel, when we are having difficulty detecting asteroids the size of small towns that are a few days/weeks away?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. You're thinking in terms of active detection. Asteroids are small, cold rocks in space. To detect them, we have to actively paint them with a signal of sufficient power to generate a return, but without so large a wavelength as to miss the object entirely or bounce in a direction not aimed at our receivers. Think of it as looking for a periscope that is millions of miles away with decimetric radar.

A spacegoing vessel that is capable of interstellar or even interplanetary travel at practicable speeds, on the other hand, would generate a tremendous amount of heat radiation by virtue of the energy needed to accelerate its mass, and then slow it down on approach. Even for a very lightweight vessel, we're talking about trillions of kilojoules of energy. That kind of energy would show up on our radio telescopes.

Probably true, but nothing ventured nothing gained. Kennedy's to the moon speech is coming to mind.

And what did we ever get from the moon? It cost us the equivalent of $150 billion or so in today's currency just to land there once and get a some rock samples. Then we went there repeatedly. A lot of scientific data was gleaned in the process, but how much of it do we ever use? How much of that money would have been better-directed at developing something practical, like satellite technology or economic priorities?

[Sailor Steve]

I'm disappointed in you guys. After all, Superman's an alien. :O:

[STEED]

There is no life out there and sooner the world sees that the sooner we can all go mad.

Sorry...Barking mad. :rotfl2:

[Growler]

Whether there is other life in the universe or there isn't, either way, the ramifications are staggering. I mean, after all, if we as a planet are entirely unique in all of the universe, haven't we got better things to be out there doing than fighting amongst ourselves? We're like unsupervised kids in an empty amusement park with free tickets to everything, and we're fighting over who stands in line where. And if there is other life out there, wouldn't we be better served by not looking like an unruly gang of kids absent parents?

[TLAM Strike]

I agree, but I also believe that there is no life outside of this planet that will ever be of any use or interest to us beyond scientific curiousity. If there was any reachable life that could teach us anything useful, we'd have long since detected their communications signals. If such life was capable of reasonable interstellar travel, we'd have long since discovered both their communications signals and possibly the exhaust of their drives, provided they were engaged in the last 30 years or so.

The only thing we will likely ever discover within our very limited reach, which is made so by the laws of physics and sheer practicability, are dead planets and perhaps some primitive life-forms that are not adapted to life on Earth or any planet or moon in our solar system, making them unexploitable.

For all practical purposes, we are stuck here, and nobody will ever know we are here. Well just finding life forms that live in extremely harsh environments could be useful in the long run. Imagine finding a lifeform that survives on Europa a moon deep in Jupiter's radiation belt, a complex lifeform that can survive that would be interesting to study to learn how it survives such radiation exposure.

Also outside (or maybe inside) our star system just finding remains of an extinct alien civilization would be worth any $ spent on going there. Who knows what technologies or ideas they left behind.

True enough, but I still think the probability of finding anything worthwhile is small enough that there is no need to actively invest in xenobiology or much beyond localized space exploration, not including orbital observatories.



I used to think the same thing myself. However, once I began studying as a radio operator and took the time to get into the nuances of advanced elements like antennae theory and waveform propagation, I am no longer so sure.

The means by which SETI attempts to detect transmissions through ground-based directional receivers is actually kind of silly. Any type of long-range communications, such as those that would be used to communicate between planets or between a planet and a long-range probe, rely upon powerful transmitters that must operate on relatively long wavelengths to overcome interference.

Think of it this way: a large electromagnetic wave is a lot like a large wave of water, or a very loud sound. It may hit obstacles and suffer some loss of integrity as a result, but the wave is still mostly intact unless it runs into something bigger than it is. Even then, it retains enough energy to bounce off of whatever it hits and then bounce again multiple times and can still be received by the intended recipient. However, it will also be recieved by anyone else within "earshot".

In the void of space, there is virtually nothing that can block a large wave, so it is very likely that we would have detected such transmissions by now if they emanated from a reachable source.

Now, it is possible that an advanced civilization might employ some kind of advanced directional transmission technology that had enough raw power to overcome EMI and enough accuracy to reach a cosmically distant receiver, but such a method of transmission would generate enough "bleed-off" radiation that it would be detectable from a tremendous distance. There is no such thing as a truly "directional" transmitter aside from a physical connection. All antennae are sources omni-directional radiation to some degree, and when you consider the amount of power that it takes to transmit a short-wave signal or a microwave signal reliably over a long distance, those power requirements would be very high.

Hence, we would detect the "spilled" radiation from either source quite easily, assuming we employed an omni-directional reciever in very high orbit, away from the tremendous destructive interference of the earth's atmosphere and magnetospher. Beyond that, it's just a matter of looking for recurring instances of patterned EMF, which a computer can do easily, and interpreting the data.

This is why I say SETI's approach is kind of silly. If they really wanted to find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence, they'd abandon this ridiculous approach of using ground-based dish receivers tuned to look for specific frequencies from specific sources, a few at a time. An orbital omni-directional receiver, which essentially amounts to a large, lightweight EM tuning-fork in space would serve the same purpose and do it much better.


Thanks for the info and the links:up: I'll take a look and consider joining the effort, provided it doesn't add any unreasonable strain to my already somewhat-taxed system resources. I really need to invest in a newer computer.:cry:

As much as I complain about SETI, the organization is there already, and if they have a way for me to help I might as well try it.


Yes, that's what I'm saying. You're thinking in terms of active detection. Asteroids are small, cold rocks in space. To detect them, we have to actively paint them with a signal of sufficient power to generate a return, but without so large a wavelength as to miss the object entirely or bounce in a direction not aimed at our receivers. Think of it as looking for a periscope that is millions of miles away with decimetric radar.

A spacegoing vessel that is capable of interstellar or even interplanetary travel at practicable speeds, on the other hand, would generate a tremendous amount of heat radiation by virtue of the energy needed to accelerate its mass, and then slow it down on approach. Even for a very lightweight vessel, we're talking about trillions of kilojoules of energy. That kind of energy would show up on our radio telescopes.



And what did we ever get from the moon? It cost us the equivalent of $150 billion or so in today's currency just to land there once and get a some rock samples. Then we went there repeatedly. A lot of scientific data was gleaned in the process, but how much of it do we ever use? How much of that money would have been better-directed at developing something practical, like satellite technology or economic priorities?

I agree there are problems with the way SETI looks. I'm a strong believer in "Visual SETI" that is searching space for mega-structures built by highly advanced species. Also scanning a different parts of the spectrum for evidence of advanced spacecraft in flight (when gamma ray busters were 1st discovered some assumed they were either the star drives of advanced spacecraft or the "Big Honking Space Guns" of some interstellar war.)

[Gargamel]

True enough, but I still think the probability of finding anything worthwhile is small enough that there is no need to actively invest in xenobiology or much beyond localized space exploration, not including orbital observatories.

:doh: That's like the Europeans saying there probably isn't anything worth looking for on the other side of this ocean, so let's not go looking (Although politically today, they may agree).

However how highly unlikely it is, could we risk the chance that a superior or group of superior intelligences are just waiting for us to attempt contact, so they can go "Oh Hai! Welcome to the club, Xithinbob over there makes a mean martini, feel free to use the pool!"


I used to think ...... and interpreting the data.

What I understand from that is that you are assuming they are ussing a transmitter designed for insterstellar communications. This is not what SETI is looking for. They are looking for normal everyday radiation coming from a civilization, along with any possible "stellar beacons".

Thanks for the info and the links:up: I'll take a look and consider joining the effort, provided it doesn't add any unreasonable strain to my already somewhat-taxed system resources. I really need to invest in a newer computer.:cry:

BOINC is really cool. They have many many many different cloud based supercomputing problems they are working to solve (plate tectonics, weather, chess, gravity waves, etc etc) and the apps only run in the background when your processor is not being utilized (ie screensaver). It's been my screensaver for many years.

As much as I complain about SETI, the organization is there already, and if they have a way for me to help I might as well try it.


:up:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Well just finding life forms that live in extremely harsh environments could be useful in the long run. Imagine finding a lifeform that survives on Europa a moon deep in Jupiter's radiation belt, a complex lifeform that can survive that would be interesting to study to learn how it survives such radiation exposure.
It would be interesting to study, I'll give you that, but I think that what would be more useful in the long-run is devoting the resources needed to undertake such a mission to solving practical problems on the perfectly good planet we already have.

To clarify, I'm not saying that we shouldn't ever attempt to explore other planets or other star systems. I'm just saying that we're not quite ready for it yet, and I think that throwing public resources at faint hopes that there might be some form of life we might learn something useful from is not the wisest use of said resources at the moment.

Consider: As it is now, private industry and governments alike are already throwing considerable resources into developing more efficient energy-generation technology. Eventually, they'll succeed. We'll need that tech to develop a viable platform for extraplanetary or extrasolar exploration anyway, so why invest resources in detecting something we can't reach and have no use for at the moment?


Also outside (or maybe inside) our star system just finding remains of an extinct alien civilization would be worth any $ spent on going there. Who knows what technologies or ideas they left behind.

An attractive possibility, but not a probable one. Even if there were an extinct alien civilization within our currently very limited reach, odds are that nothing useful would remain.

As a thought experiment, imagine that we suddenly went extinct today. We've been sending and receiving organized high-power transmission en masse for almost a hundred years. No advanced civilization within at least 30 light-years (generously rounding down) has responded. If a civilization existed that was at least equivalent to ours in terms of technology, they would have responded by now, or we would have at least picked up their broadcasts, so we can safely assume that that no such civilization exists within 30 light-years.

Now imagine what would be left of our civilization by the time they got here. There wouldn't be much left, even if they were somehow capable of travelling at light-speed. All of our most advanced technology requires constant maintenance and power and energy of some type. There would be no useful record that they didn't already understand.


I agree there are problems with the way SETI looks. I'm a strong believer in "Visual SETI" that is searching space for mega-structures built by highly advanced species. Also scanning a different parts of the spectrum for evidence of advanced spacecraft in flight (when gamma ray busters were 1st discovered some assumed they were either the star drives of advanced spacecraft or the "Big Honking Space Guns" of some interstellar war.


I'll have to do more research on visual SETI before I can from an opinion on that, but at least we agree on something:up:


:doh: That's like the Europeans saying there probably isn't anything worth looking for on the other side of this ocean, so let's not go looking


That is not the same thing. Columbus was already aware that the world was roughly global in structure, and the Greeks and Persians had figured that out mathematically long before him.

In this case, mathematics strongly suggest that there is nothing reachable.


What I understand from that is that you are assuming they are using a transmitter designed for insterstellar communications. This is not what SETI is looking for. They are looking for normal everyday radiation coming from a civilization, along with any possible "stellar beacons".


Then either you have misunderstood or I have offered an inadequate explanation. Probably the latter. I will explain further when I have more time. Bear in mind, I'm not saying you are wrong.

At the moment, though, I have to go to work.


edit-2 Goddamnit! No sooner do I finish editing this post after getting out of the shower when I get a call saying my work order has been cancelled. <double-facepalm>

[Madox58]

Not long ago smoke and huge fires were the means of long distant signaling.

Why assume that we can detect any type advanced signaling?
Or any type advanced Space Crafts Drive systems?

We've barely scratched the Stealth surface in the last 50 years.

So detection based on our technology is like trying to detect a pebble thrown in the Red Sea from New York.
We probably have a better chance of actually doing that!

And if there is intellegent life out there?
They probably feel about as good about visiting us,
as I do about walking through Harlem after dark with a wad of money taped to my forehead.

[Platapus]

I like that Calvin and Hobbs comic : "the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there is that they have never chosen to visit us"

[Madox58]

We also can barely detect Ground Side Aliens crossing our borders.
And they use our technology!
How the hell are we going to detect off planet Aliens?
:hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

Not long ago smoke and huge fires were the means of long distant signaling.

Why assume that we can detect any type advanced signaling?
Or any type advanced Space Crafts Drive systems?

We've barely scratched the Stealth surface in the last 50 years.

So detection based on our technology is like trying to detect a pebble thrown in the Red Sea from New York.
We probably have a better chance of actually doing that!
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/5681/sulaco2.jpg
The Why... (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardetect.php)


The Space Shuttle's much main engines could be detected past the orbit of Pluto. The Space Shuttle's manoeuvering thrusters (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science/msg/54f4d01ceba2eb51) could be seen as far as the asteroid belt. And even a puny ship using ion drive to thrust at a measly 1/1000 of a g could be spotted at one astronomical unit.

If the spacecraft are torchships, their thrust power is several terawatts. This means the exhaust is so intense that it could be detected from Alpha Centauri. By a passive sensor.And if there is intellegent life out there?
They probably feel about as good about visiting us,
as I do about walking through Harlem after dark with a wad of money taped to my forehead. Bring'em on! :rock:
And I hope they come in at light speed those punks! (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/slowerlight.php#Relativity) :haha:

We will have a few thousand years notice to advanced our tech and build a fleet to ships to wait for them...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game)


It would be interesting to study, I'll give you that, but I think that what would be more useful in the long-run is devoting the resources needed to undertake such a mission to solving practical problems on the perfectly good planet we already have. This planet and the and whole stinking universe it sits in wants to kill us. ;)

We got to get the heck out of here! :o

An attractive possibility, but not a probable one. Even if there were an extinct alien civilization within our currently very limited reach, odds are that nothing useful would remain.

As a thought experiment, imagine that we suddenly went extinct today. We've been sending and receiving organized high-power transmission en masse for almost a hundred years. No advanced civilization within at least 30 light-years (generously rounding down) has responded. If a civilization existed that was at least equivalent to ours in terms of technology, they would have responded by now, or we would have at least picked up their broadcasts, so we can safely assume that that no such civilization exists within 30 light-years.

Now imagine what would be left of our civilization by the time they got here. There wouldn't be much left, even if they were somehow capable of travelling at light-speed. All of our most advanced technology requires constant maintenance and power and energy of some type. There would be no useful record that they didn't already understand. Well that assumes they develop technologically evenly in all departments. What if they make a sudden leap in one and the others by accident or design remain undeveloped?
They might get here and be like "OMG what are these transistor things!"


I'll have to do more research on visual SETI before I can from an opinion on that, but at least we agree on something:up: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28916124/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Great thing from my perspective is that it allows for possible communication with both less advanced and more advanced civilizations. A less advanced civ might put a giant mirror on their planet to flash out a message or a more advanced one might build a giant structure with a message.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@ Gargamel - Alright, I promised an explanation when I had time, and now it seems I have the time, so here it goes.

You say that SETI is searching for normal, everyday communications from other cultures. Any culture that would use any practical form of instant communication would be forced to rely upon electromagnetic waves.

Nothing in the universe, not even the most powerful stars or black hole mass-jets, can accelerate anything beyond the speed of light,and we can detect those, once they have travelled to us. If there were such a thing as an alien civilization that could project tight-beam comms without us intercepting their radiation bleed-off, we would have long since detected their thermal output. There is no such thing as undetectable energy output in space, especially when it requires exceeding the energy output to accelerate even a light particle-wave beyond the speed of light.

[Madox58]

Again this is based on what 'We' understand as Cosmic Laws.
:nope:

If this type thinking and 'belief' was carried to the extreme as you see it?
The World would still be flat and America would not exist cause the World is flat.

We do NOT have all the answers and there are somethings 'believed'
to travel faster then light.
There's even some research into this with all the muckity muck theories and so on.

[TLAM Strike]

Again this is based on what 'We' understand as Cosmic Laws.
:nope:

If this type thinking and 'belief' was carried to the extreme as you see it?
The World would still be flat and America would not exist cause the World is flat.

We do NOT have all the answers and there are somethings 'believed'
to travel faster then light.
There's even some research into this with all the muckity muck theories and so on.

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/244/motivator07e31e7a7b0a96.jpg


:O::O::O:

[Madox58]

And until someone comes along and proves him wrong does not make him right.
Hell, no one can even prove him right at this time in history!
It's called 'Theory' for a reason!

"a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

[razark]

"a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."
Ugh. No.

(sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.

(sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.

[Madox58]

And where is the actual evidence of Einstiens Theories?
One must travel at the speed of light to prove it true!
Getting 'close' does not totally prove the whole theory.

But detecting Aliens is the topic is it not?

[Growler]

Not only is the universe capable of more than we imagine, it's capable of more than we can imagine. ~ J. B. S. Haldane (attributed)

[UnderseaLcpl]

Again this is based on what 'We' understand as Cosmic Laws.
:nope:
Fair to venture, not to assume. This is based upon what irreducible mathematics understand as cosmic laws, more or less.

I don't like the idea any more than you do. Einstein makes the universe no fun at all.



If this type thinking and 'belief' was carried to the extreme as you see it?
The World would still be flat and America would not exist cause the World is flat.

I believe I already covered that when I was responding to Gargamel. The fact that the globe was spherical and the precise circumference of it had been mathematically determined by the Greeks over 2000 years ago.

This subject is very different from what you posit. Mathmatics tell us that it is not possible to accelerate anything beyond the speed of light, even energy, and we know from observation that the vast majority of the galaxy is too far away for us to ever hope to visit or even communicate with.


We do NOT have all the answers and there are somethings 'believed'
to travel faster then light.


And where is the actual evidence of Einstiens Theories?



True, we don't have all the answers. What we do have is a lot of empirical evidence and an irreducible mathmatical model. Light-clocks on rapidly orbiting spacecraft tick slower than their earth-based counterparts. Unstable particles from the sun that have lifespans of microseconds somehow survive the eight-minute journey to earth. That's just the stuff I can recall off the top of my head, but that alone is evidence enough to show that Einstein's theory of relativity has been demonstrated.


But detecting Aliens is the topic is it not?

Sort of. The OT was that evidence suggesting the existence of extraterrestrial microbial life had been found, and then I kind of derailed the thread by :oops:.......well, just go back and read my previous posts.

By way of apology, I have taken some time and detected Aliens for you: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/

:D

[Gargamel]

F
I believe I already covered that when I was responding to Gargamel. The fact that the globe was spherical and the precise circumference of it had been mathematically determined by the Greeks over 2000 years a

Right, That's a well known fact, but the stance you are taking is the same as saying, Yup the world is round, I can see water that way, must only be water, not worth going over there.

[Gargamel]

And of course.... the other shoe drops....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110307/ts_alt_afp/usspacebiologyastrobiologynasa_20110307213642

http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-refutes-alien-discovery-claim-110307.html

[TorpX]

No surprise. The people who are involved in these claims seem to have a big emotional investment in the idea. It calls into question their objectivity and makes me very skeptical. One finds the same sort of thing in all the ESP nonsense.


One frequently hears the argument that since there are so many planets out there, there is bound to be life on some of them. That is like saying that because Lucky Lewis has a winning lottery ticket, and there are a lot of lottery tickets, there must be lots of other winners too. Not so. Episodes of Star Trek/Aliens/Whatever may be entertaining, but they are not science.

[razark]

That is like saying that because Lucky Lewis has a winning lottery ticket, and there are a lot of lottery tickets, there must be lots of other winners too.
The problem with that is we know how many lottery tickets there are, we know how often they win. Lottery tickets have the odds printed right on them.

We know of a lot of planets now, but we don't have any idea how common life is in the universe, or even what conditions are strictly needed for life. At some point, we may even have to come up with a broader or narrower definition for "life".

[Task Force]

Aliens/ET/Life in space... Of course there are, look at some deep space pictures, and think that we are the only planet with life on it. Hell there is more than likely other life in this solar system. while not ET, it still is life.

[TorpX]

[QUOTE=razark;1615317]The problem with that is we know how many lottery tickets there are, we know how often they win. Lottery tickets have the odds printed right on them.

/[QUOTE]
Lotteries do not always have a known number of tickets or known odds. We do not even know the "lottery" is honest. Life may be unique here. Some people want there to be life out there, so they construct theories to support this. This is more in the realm of philosephy than science.

If I go to the beach and find a $20 gold piece, it doesn't mean I can get rich if I keep digging. Nor does it mean I am likely to find more. It doesn't even mean there are any more. Life on one single planet does not make a pattern. This is true even if we want there to be life or think it would be "neat".

[Gargamel]

One frequently hears the argument that since there are so many planets out there, there is bound to be life on some of them. That is like saying that because Lucky Lewis has a winning lottery ticket, and there are a lot of lottery tickets, there must be lots of other winners too. Not so. Episodes of Star Trek/Aliens/Whatever may be entertaining, but they are not science.


You're misrepresenting the facts there. First, according to the Drake Equation, the Chances of there NOT being intelligent life is insanely small, not to mention the chances of there being any type of life. The equation is based upon very simple math, and some very logical assumptions. Even assigning microscopically (I'm avoiding using derivatives of infinite here, even though it applies better here) odds of life into the equation, the sheer size of the numbers being dealt with makes it a practical solution. The equation does not state that there is life out there, just the chances of it being there. That's where you hear the "bound to exist" argument come from, albeit slightly misrepresented.

And to put it in contrast, the odds involved with the Drake equation make any lottery devised by man to seem like a coin flip.

Your example about the lottery is a simple observers paradox, which ironically negates the rest of that argument. Your second post describes a raffle, not a lottery, very similar, but statistically different.

Lotteries have set odds before the drawing, raffles have variable odds up until the drawing. Lotteries can have multiple winners (multiple tickets with same number), raffles can have only one winner.

As to an honest lottery/raffle (for arguments sake, they are identical), that would imply an outside force upon the results. Which, is outside of, and the ultimate goal of this type of research.


If I go to the beach and find a $20 gold piece, it doesn't mean I can get rich if I keep digging. Nor does it mean I am likely to find more. It doesn't even mean there are any more.

But you don't know till you dig, or at least take a sample to test.

You're point is it may be unique. That is very well, all the more reason to preserve what we have. But, other than to just bury ones head in the sand, I cannot think of one valid reason to go looking for life.

[Madox58]

I cannot think of one valid reason to go looking for life.

For the same reason Man looked for anything.
Because it must be there in the mind of the searcher.
Human nature is to discover and control anything that comes to mind.
That in itself makes it valid.
What is searched for will always be debated until it is found.
Once found?
A whole new debate will start about if it was worth finding.
And if what is found is deadly?
We'll crucify the discovery and all involved if we survive.
If it's a discovery that works for us?
We'll stack Honors and rewards on those that found the Grail.


I still believe that IF there is a Race able to transcend great distances at will to visit us?
We do not have the technology to detect them.
(Again we can't detect Earth bound Aliens when they want to 'Visit' us!)
I'd also think they would look upon as as we look upon Termites or Ants.
Fun to play with for roughly 5 minutes. Then we wipe them out.

[TLAM Strike]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. You're thinking in terms of active detection. Asteroids are small, cold rocks in space. To detect them, we have to actively paint them with a signal of sufficient power to generate a return, but without so large a wavelength as to miss the object entirely or bounce in a direction not aimed at our receivers. Think of it as looking for a periscope that is millions of miles away with decimetric radar.

My astronomy professor was just talking about them doing that down at Aricibo when he was there two years ago. At night Aricibo sends out "pings" and paints the asteroid belt and other places to search for and image them.