Are we alone?

Got teeth? Keith doesn't.

JoeHawks is a fine gent
Joined:
May 24, 2010
Posts:
1,666
Liked Posts:
220
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j3j9nYgP4w]YouTube - Close Encounters Of The Third Kind pt14 End.[/ame]

THERE REALLY REAL
 

DewsSox79

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 24, 2010
Posts:
29,059
Liked Posts:
7,249
I would have to guess that the numbers dew gave were of the "visible planets" variety, otherwise, there would be absolutely no way to back up those kinds of estimations concerning stuff we can't even see. Think, Schrodinger's Cat.

yes.

anyone see the series ancient aliens on i think its history?
 

Lefty

New member
Joined:
Apr 19, 2010
Posts:
2,241
Liked Posts:
780
Another thing that bothers me about light-speed travel in pop culture is the depiction of the acceleration to light-speed as instantaneous, or nearly so. That's not possible, at least in the sense of a person strapped to a ship capable of light-speed. The greatest acceleration the human body can withstand is somewhere around the 20-30g range (20-30 times the gravitational pull of the Earth), and even those types of accelerations are only sustainable for very brief periods of time.

So, for a ship to accelerate from a stand-still to light-speed anywhere close to instantaneously would, without a doubt, kill everyone on board, to say nothing of the ship being able to sustain the acceleration as well.

Reaching the speed of light with humans needs to be done within their physiological limitations, and with where we are now, it would take a long, long time (figuring a ship that could somehow keep its human occupants alive during 20g acceleration for a long time, it would take a ship upwards of 30 days to reach the speed of light. For more realistic accelerations (2-3g), it would take upwards of six months to reach that velocity.

That's a small price to pay to get to a speed (or close to it, because reaching the speed of light is technically an impossibility) where you cease aging, but still.
 

GrinderBall41

Sox/B'Hawks/Bears/Purdue
Joined:
Jun 10, 2010
Posts:
666
Liked Posts:
166
Location:
NW Indiana
There are so many stars in the universe that even if you consider the probability of life forming very, very small (earth, and some microbes on mars) the probability of life somewhere out there approaches 1.

Will we ever really be contacted? Probably not.
 

Rush

**** it, Go Deep
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Apr 16, 2010
Posts:
13,285
Liked Posts:
7,400
Location:
North Carolina
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Carolina Hurricanes
  1. Duke Blue Devils
Just depends if other planets have facebook or not.
 

derosabomb

Joecawks is a dope
Donator
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
9,066
Liked Posts:
3,630
Location:
Chicago
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  2. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
mark zuckerberg is an alien. :shifty:
 

nickofypres

Super Nintendo Chalmers
Donator
Joined:
Jun 14, 2010
Posts:
7,127
Liked Posts:
3,072
Location:
Los Angeles, CA
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Toledo Rockets
Why was my post remove?

Shitty mods
 

tbo41fan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 26, 2010
Posts:
15,922
Liked Posts:
2,701
Location:
Chicago, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Fire
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Arizona Wildcats
wtf? i didnt remove his post
 

Stapler

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2010
Posts:
2,277
Liked Posts:
500
I don't think so, and I really think authors, Hollywood directors and people in general are really missing the point when they talk/think/write about hostile aliens visiting Earth.

I mean, think about it: we (humans) are a very primitive, war-like species, and where has that gotten us in the space exploration game? Sure, we've sent some of our people to the moon (363K kilometers at its closest point), but that's merely six one-thousandths of the distance to Mars (at its closest point), and at that distance we've only been able to send a few bolt-buckets. Fantastic. So, with our war-like tendencies (even though we are still very early on in the evolutionary game), we barely have the technology to walk to the end of one block and back in our own solar system after, what, a couple thousand years of existence?

What's more, the technology needed to make inter-stellar travel even thinkable is so far away from us it's humorous. Some kind of space-warping propulsion system would be necessary (even traveling at light-speed would take way too long outside of the nearest star systems), and we can't even agree on the math that postulates its feasibility. Then we need to discover how to power such a propulsion system (nuclear energy isn't going to cut it, and we are just starting to figure out matter-antimatter collisions), figure out how to counteract the tissue degeneration humans go through in a zero-g environment (can we harness gravitons to create an Earth gravity analogue, or can we make centripetal exercise equipment work for the long-haul?), design and build the ships (who's paying for that? Certainly such an endeavor would wreck the world economy in its current configuration) and on and on and on with the things we can barely comprehend at our stage.

So, to do all of that and actually somewhat-master inter-stellar or inter-galactic travel, I'm positive that any species actually doing that stuff would have abandoned most (if not all) forms of armed conflict long before they were even capable of beginning the long road to that end. And murder, genocide, slavery and war would all be extremely primitive practices to them, and viewing us as a species would inspire "you guys still do that stuff?" kind of reactions.

Obviously I could go on and on about this subject (if anyone is intrigued, though I doubt it, I'd be happy to), but this post hits the high notes pretty well.

Good post; however, I disagree with a couple of your assertions.

First, "war", or any conflict with sybiosis, dramatically increases advancement. From microbial evolution to advances in human technology, battle/war/conflict forces adaptation (resistance through advancement), or extinction. This truth is fundemental to all earthly things; why would, or should, it be different for alien life?

I would contend that war is the ultimate boost-up for everything from medicine (war against desease) to communications (war against spacetime). My favorite recent example: we went from flying in paper covered sticks with a tiny motor to jet power in less than four decades because of war. Beep beeps on a telegraph wire to live streaming video wirelessly, on a handheld device, in less that two hundred years is a close second. War is neither good or bad, it's simply necessary for advancement. What alien wouldn't recognize that

Second, human beings are very far removed from "primitive".

In our current "modern human" form, now known to be on average about 98% homo sapien and 2% neandertal, we have only existed for about 100K years. See my first point.

In that extremely short period of time we have become the masters of all life on the entire planet, one that has harbored countless diverse lifeforms for billions of years. Even tracing our parent's parents back to when grandmother first climbed down from the tree and stretched her legs upright, we have only existed for a few million years; mere minutes by earth's clock and barely a discernible fraction of a second in the 14 billion years of the known universe. And we got to where and how we are so fast by killing, cooking and eating other creatures.

What do you bet aliens taste like chicken?

And so it goes that in a relatively short order we will know all things knowable, do all that is doable, and/or become extinct. Either way, we are probably about half way there, and far from primitive.


To the original question, are we alone? No.

As other posters have pointed out there is likely life on other planets and moons within our own solar system, and we now know our system is nothing out of the ordinary. Given the mathmatical probabilities, the universe is teeming with life.

But things get a little tricky looking for "intelligent" life; it isn't a question of where to look (goldilocks zones) but rather when we are looking.

If you had happened past our planet a million years ago in your spaceship would you have thought it contained "intellegent life"? No.

If you were listening to Earth from your advanced alien SETI project 1000 years ago, or even 100, would you have detected intelligent life here? No.

We only started broadcasting our own existence in the last century and didn't start really screaming "We're here", until about 80 years ago; and now we are growing quiet again. That is a pretty short window of spacetime with which to notice even a nearby neighbor, assuming you are even listening for them during that specific time relative to your own in the first place. And how long have we been able to listen out for them? Hardly any time at all.

To really put things into perspective consider that nothing you see in the night sky is actually when/where you are seeing it, and the farther away from you that thing is, the longer gone it is from that place or time you perceive it to be.

Know that the star you look up at tonight might have gone nova a thousand years ago and really no longer exists; but the news of it's death hasn't reached us because the light of it's destruction is too slow to have overcome the distance yet.

The odds of life out there? A sure bet.

The odds of advanced life existing at the same time as us at a reachable distance even for radio waves? A long shot.

The odds of aliens visiting us from a star system 4 or more light years away to throw a probe in our ass? A sucker bet.

We aren't alone, but we probably might as well be. Time.
 

Scoot26

Administrator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
41,418
Liked Posts:
28,518
Another thing that bothers me about light-speed travel in pop culture is the depiction of the acceleration to light-speed as instantaneous, or nearly so. That's not possible, at least in the sense of a person strapped to a ship capable of light-speed. The greatest acceleration the human body can withstand is somewhere around the 20-30g range (20-30 times the gravitational pull of the Earth), and even those types of accelerations are only sustainable for very brief periods of time.

So, for a ship to accelerate from a stand-still to light-speed anywhere close to instantaneously would, without a doubt, kill everyone on board, to say nothing of the ship being able to sustain the acceleration as well.

Reaching the speed of light with humans needs to be done within their physiological limitations, and with where we are now, it would take a long, long time (figuring a ship that could somehow keep its human occupants alive during 20g acceleration for a long time, it would take a ship upwards of 30 days to reach the speed of light. For more realistic accelerations (2-3g), it would take upwards of six months to reach that velocity.

That's a small price to pay to get to a speed (or close to it, because reaching the speed of light is technically an impossibility) where you cease aging, but still.


This to me is why we havent met any other species out there. I do think there is plenty of other life out there..but the speed of light causes alot of limitations to travel. Life might be 100 or so light years away..or even more.

I'm not an expect on this subject at all, so i'll leave the science with you and believe what you say. I've just had a understanding that traveling at the speed of light is nearly impossible.
 

EnjoyYourTiger

That weird bear thing.
Donator
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
3,945
Liked Posts:
935
Location:
peoria/ chicago, il
Good post; however, I disagree with a couple of your assertions.

First, "war", or any conflict with sybiosis, dramatically increases advancement. From microbial evolution to advances in human technology, battle/war/conflict forces adaptation (resistance through advancement), or extinction. This truth is fundemental to all earthly things; why would, or should, it be different for alien life?

I would contend that war is the ultimate boost-up for everything from medicine (war against desease) to communications (war against spacetime). My favorite recent example: we went from flying in paper covered sticks with a tiny motor to jet power in less than four decades because of war. Beep beeps on a telegraph wire to live streaming video wirelessly, on a handheld device, in less that two hundred years is a close second. War is neither good or bad, it's simply necessary for advancement. What alien wouldn't recognize that

Second, human beings are very far removed from "primitive".

In our current "modern human" form, now known to be on average about 98% homo sapien and 2% neandertal, we have only existed for about 100K years. See my first point.

In that extremely short period of time we have become the masters of all life on the entire planet, one that has harbored countless diverse lifeforms for billions of years. Even tracing our parent's parents back to when grandmother first climbed down from the tree and stretched her legs upright, we have only existed for a few million years; mere minutes by earth's clock and barely a discernible fraction of a second in the 14 billion years of the known universe. And we got to where and how we are so fast by killing, cooking and eating other creatures.

What do you bet aliens taste like chicken?

And so it goes that in a relatively short order we will know all things knowable, do all that is doable, and/or become extinct. Either way, we are probably about half way there, and far from primitive.


To the original question, are we alone? No.

As other posters have pointed out there is likely life on other planets and moons within our own solar system, and we now know our system is nothing out of the ordinary. Given the mathmatical probabilities, the universe is teeming with life.

But things get a little tricky looking for "intelligent" life; it isn't a question of where to look (goldilocks zones) but rather when we are looking.

If you had happened past our planet a million years ago in your spaceship would you have thought it contained "intellegent life"? No.

If you were listening to Earth from your advanced alien SETI project 1000 years ago, or even 100, would you have detected intelligent life here? No.

We only started broadcasting our own existence in the last century and didn't start really screaming "We're here", until about 80 years ago; and now we are growing quiet again. That is a pretty short window of spacetime with which to notice even a nearby neighbor, assuming you are even listening for them during that specific time relative to your own in the first place. And how long have we been able to listen out for them? Hardly any time at all.

To really put things into perspective consider that nothing you see in the night sky is actually when/where you are seeing it, and the farther away from you that thing is, the longer gone it is from that place or time you perceive it to be.

Know that the star you look up at tonight might have gone nova a thousand years ago and really no longer exists; but the news of it's death hasn't reached us because the light of it's destruction is too slow to have overcome the distance yet.

The odds of life out there? A sure bet.

The odds of advanced life existing at the same time as us at a reachable distance even for radio waves? A long shot.

The odds of aliens visiting us from a star system 4 or more light years away to throw a probe in our ass? A sucker bet.

We aren't alone, but we probably might as well be. Time.

exploding_head_3.jpg
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
46,552
Liked Posts:
35,790
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
Good post; however, I disagree with a couple of your assertions.

First, "war", or any conflict with sybiosis, dramatically increases advancement. From microbial evolution to advances in human technology, battle/war/conflict forces adaptation (resistance through advancement), or extinction. This truth is fundemental to all earthly things; why would, or should, it be different for alien life?

I would contend that war is the ultimate boost-up for everything from medicine (war against desease) to communications (war against spacetime). My favorite recent example: we went from flying in paper covered sticks with a tiny motor to jet power in less than four decades because of war. Beep beeps on a telegraph wire to live streaming video wirelessly, on a handheld device, in less that two hundred years is a close second. War is neither good or bad, it's simply necessary for advancement. What alien wouldn't recognize that

Second, human beings are very far removed from "primitive".

In our current "modern human" form, now known to be on average about 98% homo sapien and 2% neandertal, we have only existed for about 100K years. See my first point.

In that extremely short period of time we have become the masters of all life on the entire planet, one that has harbored countless diverse lifeforms for billions of years. Even tracing our parent's parents back to when grandmother first climbed down from the tree and stretched her legs upright, we have only existed for a few million years; mere minutes by earth's clock and barely a discernible fraction of a second in the 14 billion years of the known universe. And we got to where and how we are so fast by killing, cooking and eating other creatures.

What do you bet aliens taste like chicken?

And so it goes that in a relatively short order we will know all things knowable, do all that is doable, and/or become extinct. Either way, we are probably about half way there, and far from primitive.


To the original question, are we alone? No.

As other posters have pointed out there is likely life on other planets and moons within our own solar system, and we now know our system is nothing out of the ordinary. Given the mathmatical probabilities, the universe is teeming with life.

But things get a little tricky looking for "intelligent" life; it isn't a question of where to look (goldilocks zones) but rather when we are looking.

If you had happened past our planet a million years ago in your spaceship would you have thought it contained "intellegent life"? No.

If you were listening to Earth from your advanced alien SETI project 1000 years ago, or even 100, would you have detected intelligent life here? No.

We only started broadcasting our own existence in the last century and didn't start really screaming "We're here", until about 80 years ago; and now we are growing quiet again. That is a pretty short window of spacetime with which to notice even a nearby neighbor, assuming you are even listening for them during that specific time relative to your own in the first place. And how long have we been able to listen out for them? Hardly any time at all.

To really put things into perspective consider that nothing you see in the night sky is actually when/where you are seeing it, and the farther away from you that thing is, the longer gone it is from that place or time you perceive it to be.

Know that the star you look up at tonight might have gone nova a thousand years ago and really no longer exists; but the news of it's death hasn't reached us because the light of it's destruction is too slow to have overcome the distance yet.

The odds of life out there? A sure bet.

The odds of advanced life existing at the same time as us at a reachable distance even for radio waves? A long shot.

The odds of aliens visiting us from a star system 4 or more light years away to throw a probe in our ass? A sucker bet.

We aren't alone, but we probably might as well be. Time.
This is probably, without a doubt, the best post I have read on this message board. Without question.

Please post more.
 

Lefty

New member
Joined:
Apr 19, 2010
Posts:
2,241
Liked Posts:
780
Good post; however, I disagree with a couple of your assertions.

First, "war", or any conflict with sybiosis, dramatically increases advancement. From microbial evolution to advances in human technology, battle/war/conflict forces adaptation (resistance through advancement), or extinction. This truth is fundemental to all earthly things; why would, or should, it be different for alien life?

I would contend that war is the ultimate boost-up for everything from medicine (war against desease) to communications (war against spacetime). My favorite recent example: we went from flying in paper covered sticks with a tiny motor to jet power in less than four decades because of war. Beep beeps on a telegraph wire to live streaming video wirelessly, on a handheld device, in less that two hundred years is a close second. War is neither good or bad, it's simply necessary for advancement. What alien wouldn't recognize that

Second, human beings are very far removed from "primitive".

In our current "modern human" form, now known to be on average about 98% homo sapien and 2% neandertal, we have only existed for about 100K years. See my first point.

In that extremely short period of time we have become the masters of all life on the entire planet, one that has harbored countless diverse lifeforms for billions of years. Even tracing our parent's parents back to when grandmother first climbed down from the tree and stretched her legs upright, we have only existed for a few million years; mere minutes by earth's clock and barely a discernible fraction of a second in the 14 billion years of the known universe. And we got to where and how we are so fast by killing, cooking and eating other creatures.

What do you bet aliens taste like chicken?

And so it goes that in a relatively short order we will know all things knowable, do all that is doable, and/or become extinct. Either way, we are probably about half way there, and far from primitive.

I think you are intertwining "war" with "necessity" a bit too much. Necessity has proven to be a powerful force with which to bring about change throughout viewable history, and war is a way that we as a species create necessity, which in turn brings about development, change, etc. However, necessity can exist without war (though probably not without conflict, with war being a sub-category), and it is entirely possible--probable, even, with the expanse of the Universe--a species could attain the technological heights required to travel through the cosmos without the artificial necessity created by war.

This is not to say that every species that is able to travel through their solar system, galaxy, etc. hasn't engaged in warfare at some point in their history, but I contend that the technological heights demanded by inter-stellar travel are too high to be brought about by the advancements attached to warfare, and it just doesn't seem like a practical evolution of the benefits of armed conflict.

And I maintain that we are still a very primitive species, at least relative to what it would take to traverse the solar system and our section of the galaxy with ease. Although we have become adept at war, we still engage in it, are motivated by it, and sometimes use it to valuate sections of our history and current population. We are still very in love with war, an undeniably primitive practice.

What's more, our technological advancements are all great and cool for us on this planet, but they aren't any great shakes in the scheme of everything. Our mechanized vehicles, power sources and even the way we process food to create energy are all grossly inefficient. Nuclear power is cool, but we are still pretty bad at it (as far as efficiency and waste goes), supposed "clean" energy sources are also inefficient and not very "clean". Yeah, in the context of what we see on this planet and what we can see around our section of the galaxy, our technology rules all, but when you think about what it would take to travel through space for extended periods of time to explore, colonize other planets and meet other intelligent life forms, we might as well be still rubbing sticks together to create fire.
 

Top