1 (current)
2
# 9544 byalbonnici@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 2:28 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hello Gang,
Here a very recent article from New Scientist magazine concerning SETI.
Aliens need a lot more time to find us
"So, where is everybody?" Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi reportedly quipped to fellow physicists in 1950, when discussing why we haven't seen any signs of alien civilisations if, as many believe, our galaxy is teeming with life. Now, a maths model may have an answer to Fermi's paradox. Rasmus Bjork of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen has calculated that eight probes travelling at a tenth of the speed of light and each capable of launching up to eight sub-probes would take about 100,000 years to explore a region of space containing 40,000 stars.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10995-aliens-need-a-lot-more-time-to-find-us.html
# 9545 bylucioc@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 3:10 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 1/22/07, Alex Michael Bonnici wrote:
(...)
> "So, where is everybody?" Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi reportedly quipped to fellow physicists in 1950, when discussing why we haven't seen any signs of alien civilisations if, as many believe, our galaxy is teeming with life. Now, a maths model may have an answer to Fermi's paradox. Rasmus Bjork of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen has calculated that eight probes travelling at a tenth of the speed of light and each capable of launching up to eight sub-probes would take about 100,000 years to explore a region of space containing 40,000 stars.
(...)
just an eye blink in a universe that has been existing for billions
and billions of years.
# 9546 bySMARTASPAPER@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 4:39 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
(http://aolsvc.pictures.aol.com/NASApp/ygp/Start?event=DirectPictureView&shareInfo=mFQYMXJcDsUPmGPW829ZIq4pDvp60HIVkFcY1yfR8Lp76ebX7zvmrc7pyg28G5lMhjPZqxws
hcMC
lTlDfBHjwA+YY9bzb1ki/5tInNpwcBg=&pageName=AlbumViewFromEmails) aliens what?
I am afraid we are too late for all that. they have come and gone. it
appears we have learned something that advanced our space and scientific
community to fast for us commoners to comprehend. they had to shove a little our way
(via Internet games GPS etc.) allowing us to catch up to their reality.
no this is not a stick in the sky. this was taken next to Otis air force
base on cape cod ma. where I lived and found to have sm. cell lung cancer from
benzene arsenic radon diesel fuel etc. I did not see this flying in the sky.
it was my teenage daughter who saw this picture a wk. later and pointed it
out to me.
all this can enhance what the "governments" have already conspired on in
space for the oligarch's and their needed ones........by then this should pretty
much be a modern third world. would you not think so?
# 9547 byjoe@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 3:41 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Jan 22, 2007, at 02:28 UTC, Alex Michael Bonnici wrote:
> quipped to fellow physicists in 1950, when discussing why we haven't
> seen any signs of alien civilisations if, as many believe, our galaxy
> is teeming with life. Now, a maths model may have an answer to
> Fermi's paradox. Rasmus Bjork of the Niels Bohr Institute in
> Copenhagen has calculated that eight probes travelling at a tenth
> of the speed of light and each capable of launching up to eight sub
> -probes would take about 100,000 years to explore a region of space
> containing 40,000 stars.
..quoting a bit further: "When Bjork scaled up the search to include
260,000 such systems in our galaxy's habitable zone, the probes took
almost 10 billion years - three-quarters the age of the universe - to
explore just 0.4 per cent of the stars"
So, let's review: it takes ridiculously long to explore the whole
galaxy with 64 non-replicating probes. ...Umm, OK... but the relevance
of this is not clear to me. In real life, we wouldn't be talking about
a cilivization sending out eight probes (each with eight sub-probes)
and then sitting on their hands for ten billion years. We'd be talking
about cilivizations expanding from star to star. This is a
population-growth situation, not a fixed-number-of-probes problem. The
growth is basically exponential, until the galaxy starts getting full.
A few hundred million years is all it takes to reach that point.
It amazes me that otherwise respectable scientists (like Drake) and
mathematicians (like the Bjork guy) continue to make such basic
mistakes. They need to get some friends in the ecology department,
where population dynamics have long been understood.
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9548 byoevega@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 5:12 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I am afraid there is only a clear result.
search. No live whatsoever has been found in the solar system as
yet, either.
For me, that means the probabilities of finding an allien
civilization in this galaxy have been falling continuously.
Perhaps, because we are actually alone! That's all.
Omar
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2007, at 02:28 UTC, Alex Michael Bonnici wrote:
>
> > "So, where is everybody?" Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi reportedly
> > quipped to fellow physicists in 1950, when discussing why we
haven't
> > seen any signs of alien civilisations if, as many believe, our
galaxy
> > is teeming with life. Now, a maths model may have an answer to
> > Fermi's paradox. Rasmus Bjork of the Niels Bohr Institute in
> > Copenhagen has calculated that eight probes " travelling at a
tenth
> > of the speed of light and each capable of launching up to eight
sub
> > -probes " would take about 100,000 years to explore a region
of space
> > containing 40,000 stars.
>
> ..quoting a bit further: "When Bjork scaled up the search to
include
> 260,000 such systems in our galaxy's habitable zone, the probes
took
> almost 10 billion years - three-quarters the age of the universe -
to
> explore just 0.4 per cent of the stars"
>
> So, let's review: it takes ridiculously long to explore the whole
> galaxy with 64 non-replicating probes. ...Umm, OK... but the
relevance
> of this is not clear to me. In real life, we wouldn't be talking
about
> a cilivization sending out eight probes (each with eight sub-
probes)
> and then sitting on their hands for ten billion years. We'd be
talking
> about cilivizations expanding from star to star. This is a
> population-growth situation, not a fixed-number-of-probes
problem. The
> growth is basically exponential, until the galaxy starts getting
full.
# 9549 byhenry@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 5:25 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
There is only the echo.
>
> I am afraid there is only a clear result.
>
> SETI has not find any green monster at all during its 40 years
> search. No live whatsoever has been found in the solar system as
> yet, either.
>
> For me, that means the probabilities of finding an allien
> civilization in this galaxy have been falling continuously.
>
> Perhaps, because we are actually alone! That's all.
>
> Omar
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@ wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 22, 2007, at 02:28 UTC, Alex Michael Bonnici wrote:
> >
> > > "So, where is everybody?" Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi reportedly
> > > quipped to fellow physicists in 1950, when discussing why we
> haven't
> > > seen any signs of alien civilisations if, as many believe, our
> galaxy
> > > is teeming with life. Now, a maths model may have an answer to
> > > Fermi's paradox. Rasmus Bjork of the Niels Bohr Institute in
> > > Copenhagen has calculated that eight probes " travelling at a
> tenth
> > > of the speed of light and each capable of launching up to eight
> sub
> > > -probes " would take about 100,000 years to explore a region
> of space
> > > containing 40,000 stars.
> >
> > ..quoting a bit further: "When Bjork scaled up the search to
> include
> > 260,000 such systems in our galaxy's habitable zone, the probes
> took
> > almost 10 billion years - three-quarters the age of the universe -
> to
> > explore just 0.4 per cent of the stars"
> >
> > So, let's review: it takes ridiculously long to explore the whole
> > galaxy with 64 non-replicating probes. ...Umm, OK... but the
> relevance
> > of this is not clear to me. In real life, we wouldn't be talking
> about
> > a cilivization sending out eight probes (each with eight sub-
> probes)
> > and then sitting on their hands for ten billion years. We'd be
> talking
> > about cilivizations expanding from star to star. This is a
> > population-growth situation, not a fixed-number-of-probes
> problem. The
> > growth is basically exponential, until the galaxy starts getting
> full.
> > A few hundred million years is all it takes to reach that point.
> >
> > It amazes me that otherwise respectable scientists (like Drake)
and
> > mathematicians (like the Bjork guy) continue to make such basic
> > mistakes. They need to get some friends in the ecology
department,
# 9550 byspider_boris@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 6:14 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- Henry Stafford wrote:
> There is only the echo.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am afraid there is only a clear result.
> >
> > SETI has not find any green monster at all during
> its 40 years
> > search.
Of course, SETI has mainly been searching on frequency
bands that we ourselves do not use for communication.
If human beings don't use the Hydrogen Alpha frequency
for communication, then what makes us think that
aliens would use that band? To truly do a SETI, we're
going to have to go to the far side of the moon to
block signals from earth and search across a very wide
spread of frequencies, including the ones that we
ourselves use for communication.
> >No live whatsoever has been found in the
> solar system as
> > yet, either.
Wasn't there headlines a few weeks ago to the effect
of "there was life found on mars by viking and we
killed it"?
> >
> > For me, that means the probabilities of finding an
> allien
> > civilization in this galaxy have been falling
> continuously.
Or that we haven't been looking effectively.
Ed
# 9551 bysqorpo@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 6:49 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Alone??? No way... Even if you subtract all the solar systems in our
galaxy with stars not conducive to life, and subtract the ones too
close to the center to allow for life, you still end up with a huge
amount of possibilities.. If you consider that it's taken us a few
million years to evolve to the point of even looking outside our own
solar system for other life.. The chances of us finding other beings
with advanced enough technology for us to be able to detect them from
this distance is very slim.. Not to mention where to look? The
vastness of just our galaxy alone is daunting.. The proverbial "Needle
in a haystack" is minuscule compared to this.. But that has nothing to
do with the overwhelming possibility of them being there... Somewhere..
# 9552 bymikecombs@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 7:35 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jake
> with advanced enough technology for us to be able to detect them from
> this distance is very slim.. Not to mention where to look? The
> vastness of just our galaxy alone is daunting.. The proverbial "Needle
> in a haystack" is minuscule compared to this..
I happen to think that the very subject of this maillist (the assertion
that orbital habitats may make superior homes in comparison to planets)
has a bearing on this controversy:
Are We Alone in the Galaxy? The View from the High Frontier
http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/alone.htm
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 9553 byjoe@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 8:47 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Jan 22, 2007, at 18:48 UTC, Jake wrote:
Way! Either that, or we're in a nature preserve (i.e., the ETs know
darn well we're here and are choosing to conceal themselves from us).
Those are the only two plausible possibilities.
> Even if you subtract all the solar systems in our
> galaxy with stars not conducive to life, and subtract the ones too
> close to the center to allow for life, you still end up with a huge
> amount of possibilities..
Right. Probably a billion or more.
> If you consider that it's taken us a few
> million years to evolve to the point of even looking outside our own
> solar system for other life.. The chances of us finding other beings
> with advanced enough technology for us to be able to detect them from
> this distance is very slim.. Not to mention where to look?
>From what distance? If they wanted to talk to us, the distance would
be "zero" and the place to look would be "right here," because they'd
be here already. In fact, they'd have been here millions (probably
hundreds of millions, if not billions) of years ago.
Look, the universe is more than 12 billion years old; the odds that two
civilizations are going to arise in the same galaxy within a few
hundred million years of each other are extremely slim. (Technically,
what's ridiculously slim is the chance that the *first* two
civilizations to arise will be within a few 100MY of each other... for
civilizations in the middle of the bell curve, it's a different story.)
Someplace is going to be first, just by luck, and it's going to be
first by hundreds of millions of years -- which, remember, is not very
long on a geological timescale. But it's long enough to colonize the
whole galaxy, once you've got interstellar travel.
So, either (a) we're the first, and we'll be colonizing the whole
galaxy within a few hundred million years, and as we do, we won't
encounter any other civilizations; or (b) we're not the first, and the
galaxy has been thoroughly settled for billions of years, and ET is
hiding right outside the nature preserve they've designated for us.
> The vastness of just our galaxy alone is daunting..
It's vast, but not too vast to colonize. Now, the whole universe is
another story... there may well be advanced civilizations in other
galaxies, that we haven't found out about yet (and maybe never will).
> The proverbial "Needle in a haystack" is minuscule compared to this..
It would be, except that we're not looking for a needle. It's more
like, looking for life in a pond. You don't have to look far, because
if there's life in it at all, it's *teeming* with life. You can pretty
much sample any drop of it, chosen at random, and if you find no
microorganisms at all, then the whole pond is sterile. So too with the
galaxy. Once the first civilization develops interstellar travel, the
whole galaxy will be teeming with life in fairly short order.
> But that has nothing to do with the overwhelming possibility of them
> being there... Somewhere..
I'd like to think so too, but we can't let our wishes cloud our
thinking. The universe doesn't always turn out the way we'd like.
Maybe we are in a nature preserve, but if so, it's unlikely we'll find
out about it until our keepers are good and ready to introduce
themselves. Till then, we should proceed on the assumption that we're
all there is, and if anybody's going to bring life to the galaxy, it's
up to us.
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9554 bydante_feditech@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 8:59 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Jake
> Alone??? No way... If you consider that it's taken us a few
> million years to evolve to the point of even looking outside our own
> solar system for other life..
tomorrow on an impact course, we'd have three weeks to live. Asking how long
a civilisation will take to come into existance is the wrong question. A
better one is asking how likely is it that a civilisation will develop to
the point where it can prevent or survive a comet or asteroid pressing the
planetary reset button?
And that's not such a simple issue. It did after all take 65M years to
develop intelligent lifesince the last impact. That may sound a long time,
but between 200 and 550 million years ago, there was a mass extinction event
every 50 milion year or so. How typical is that? I've no idea.
The other problem is the difference between 'can' and 'want'. We could have
gone to to the Moon soon after finishing World War II. We could have gone to
Mars soon after landing on the Moon. We could have built SSPS and Island 3
colonies back in the 1970s. But we didn't do those things. We could today be
immune to asteroid impact (at least in terms of species survival) but we
chose not to be. If any given species 'chooses not to be' until it's too
late, then they will die out and not spread to the stars.
> From: Ed Minchau
> Of course, SETI has mainly been searching on frequency
> bands that we ourselves do not use for communication.
There is an old story about a man who looses his contact lense at one end of
a street, but searches for it at the other end. When asked why by a
stranger, the man tell him, "Because this is where the street light is."
> To truly do a SETI, we're going to have
> to go to the far side of the moon
And then there's the story of the twit who does the same thing, and ignores
the implications of the torch lying right next to the street light.
While it is true tha tthe Moon's mass will block radio waves, a very large
sheet of baking foil will do pretty much the same job - and will not be
vaulnerable to the Moon's annoying habit of turning constantly, and
sometimes pointing at the sun, or it's gravity well.
I agree that we should look across a wider spectrum than just SETI now
covers, but the prospect may still not be so simple. The maximum range
aliens could detect Earth at is currently only a about 60 LY. Even
theoretically, assuming all out current electricity is pumped into radio and
similar detection capacity to our own, the range is only about 5,300 LY.
That's not that big in galactic terms. And the aliens still have to be
loking right at us to discover that we're here.
John
# 9555 byspider_boris@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 9:47 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- ANTIcarrot wrote:
> frequency
> > bands that we ourselves do not use for
> communication.
>
> There is an old story about a man who looses his
> contact lense at one end of
> a street, but searches for it at the other end. When
> asked why by a
> stranger, the man tell him, "Because this is where
> the street light is."
Which is effectively what we have done by only looking
at the hydrogen alpha frequency.
>
> > To truly do a SETI, we're going to have
> > to go to the far side of the moon
>
> And then there's the story of the twit who does the
> same thing, and ignores
> the implications of the torch lying right next to
> the street light.
>
> While it is true tha tthe Moon's mass will block
> radio waves, a very large
> sheet of baking foil will do pretty much the same
> job - and will not be
> vaulnerable to the Moon's annoying habit of turning
> constantly, and
> sometimes pointing at the sun, or it's gravity well.
*smacks forehead* d'oh. you're right.
Ed
# 9556 bysqorpo@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 10:11 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I don't really like having my post picked apart to this extent...
Discussion is great.. Comments, opinions, and criticism is helpful,
but to this extent is somewhat offensive... However.. With all that
said.. I agree on most of your points.. Now let me pick them apart...
able or advanced enough to be detected doesn't make us alone.. Do they
have to be equal to us to be considered intelligent? I don't think so..
I believe advanced beings have been or are "here" now.. But they would
have faced the same problems we do and maybe some different.. Like
interstellar travel, life support, ect.. Maybe it's just not feasible
for them to send a "welcome wagon".. Maybe the journey is done in
generations or through cryogenic hibernation and the explorers are not
able to return with their findings.. Or maybe they have (to take from
star trek) a prime directive.. Especially considering if they have
been "watching us" wage war and hoard resources they may not want to
risk themselves being exploited..
The chances of two or more civilizations evolving in the same galaxy
within a few hundred million years may not be as slim as you think.
After all.. We had at least 3 separate ones arise right here on earth..
Your analogy of "life in a pond" is way off base.. I mean yeah.. If
there was some civilization so advanced they dominated the whole
galaxy. Then maybe you would be right, but this is obviously not the
case or we would probably be living under their control now.. I think
the advanced enough ones to look for us are... The advanced enough
ones to travel to us have.. And all others are still trying to figure
out where they came from and how to stay alive...
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
# 9557 bysqorpo@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 10:22 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Good paper.. So what is your conclusion??
competition, economics, ect.. It seems in the nature of at least human
civilizations to let these things impact our own technologies.. I
would assume it is in the nature of other beings too...
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike" wrote:
# 9558 byjoe@... on Jan. 22, 2007, 10:41 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Jan 22, 2007, at 22:10 UTC, Jake wrote:
Sure! That's how we learn from each other.
> What I was trying to say was that just because other beings may not be
> able or advanced enough to be detected doesn't make us alone..
If by this, you mean that there may be life out there but no other
civilizations, then I would agree.
If you mean that there may be other civilizations, which remain stuck
in a pre-spacefaring stage essentially forever... well, I find that
hard to believe. Seems like a civilization is either going to advance
to the space-settling stage (as we have nearly done), or die out (as
the dinosaurs did, whether they had civilization or not). Moreover,
they're going to do one or the other pretty quickly, on a geological
timescale. Our civilization only arose a few tens of thousands of
years ago, after all. Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for millions of years,
and even that was just an eyeblink -- the vast majority of Earth's
history, there was nothing more advanced than microorganisms.
So, when we finally get out into the galaxy, I wouldn't be at all
surprised if we find other planets with microscopic life. But I'd be
quite astonished by the very improbable case of finding a planet where
civilization arose within a few tens of millenia of our own, and so
have not yet started settling the galaxy.
> I believe advanced beings have been or are "here" now.. But they would
> have faced the same problems we do and maybe some different.. Like
> interstellar travel, life support, ect..
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that aliens have
been here on Earth? Or walk among us today? You do hear that sort of
claim from UFO and conspiracy nuts, but not generally on serious
discussion lists. It's remotely possible, of course, but flies in the
face of Occam's Razor.
> Maybe it's just not feasible
> for them to send a "welcome wagon".. Maybe the journey is done in
> generations or through cryogenic hibernation and the explorers are not
> able to return with their findings..
Hmm, I think a point has been missed. If they're out there at all,
they settled the *entire* galaxy -- except for any areas they purposely
avoided for some reason -- millions of years ago. They don't have a
long journey to go; they'd be right next door, and obviously watching
us, since they have eschewed the resources of our solar system.
> Or maybe they have (to take from star trek) a prime directive..
Yes, that's the "nature preserve" hypothesis. Not outrageous, but not
really in line with Occam either. As Mike's article points out, surely
if the whole galaxy were settled millions of years ago and were now
teeming with advanced civilized life, we'd see SOME sign of their
engineering works. Yet we see nothing we can't adequately explain with
fairly simple astrophysics. (Except the whole dark matter/dark energy
quagmire, but I think that points more to a misunderstanding of gravity
on a large scale than to any engineering effect.)
Still, it's far more likely that we're in a nature preserve than, say,
that there are dozens of civilizations out there that have not yet
started to colonize other stars.
> The chances of two or more civilizations evolving in the same galaxy
> within a few hundred million years may not be as slim as you think.
Well, I've worked through the math. It really does turn out to be
extremely unlikely. I can go into more detail if you wish, but in a
nutshell, this is because the time-to-emergence would follow a normal
distribution, and in any normally distributed population, the outliers
are rather far apart relative to the standard deviation. In my
simulations, it's occasionally possible for the second civilization to
arise before the first one has entirely settled the galaxy, but even
that is rare. All other civilizations that arise at all, find
themselves in a long-since-inhabited galaxy.
Note that this result is not sensitive to parameters such as the
likelihood of life on any particular planet, the likelihood of life
disappearing from any particular star system, etc.
> After all.. We had at least 3 separate ones arise right here on
> earth..
Hmm, no, not really. In all of Earth's 4.5-billion-year history, there
has been exactly one civilization: humanity. The various branches
you're thinking of are all part of that same Homo sapiens development.
You can sort-of make an analogy with different human cultures, and it
still works, but the scale of everything is different. And you end up
with pretty much the same result: to the extent that the cultures
really were isolated, it's extremely unlikely that when they finally do
come into contact, they'll be at the same level of technological
development. Did the Europeans find, say, the Australian Aborigines
with guns and clocks? Why not? Well, it's obvious that if they're
really independent, it's extremely unlikely that they'll develop to the
same point at the same time (within a few decades, say). Yet for some
reason, many people have trouble applying the same argument to the
galaxy as a whole. (Not talking about you, Jake, so don't get ruffled;
just making a general observation.)
> Your analogy of "life in a pond" is way off base.. I mean yeah.. If
> there was some civilization so advanced they dominated the whole
> galaxy.
But that's the whole point. The first civilization to start colonizing
the stars WILL do exactly that, and in fairly short order. How could
they not? Expanding into new niches is a property of life, ANY life,
even mathematical simulations of life. As long as you have
reproduction and variation, it will will happen.
> Then maybe you would be right, but this is obviously not the
> case or we would probably be living under their control now..
Right! Exactly. So, most likely, they're not out there at all, and we
happen to be the first or only civilization our galaxy will produce.
(Or else, we really are living under their control now, and don't
realize it -- c.f. "nature preserve.")
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9559 byoevega@... on Jan. 23, 2007, 12:06 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
>
> Alone??? No way...
In Spanish there is the perfect saying about this: "Better alone
than in bad company". It would be tragical mankind find out its
neighbourghs are a bunch of poisonous octopus with ambition...
In any case, I believe the probabilities in the "Drake equation" are
not only a lot smaller than the actual guessings, but that the
number of terms are at least three times as much.
I believe in "Rare Earth".
Sorry, but the idea live is common is just a BELIEF, like its
opposite as well. There is not clue as yet about how common is life
in the universe.
The only thing I know is that the solar system used to be
inhabitated by Martians, Venusians, Moon-people, Jovians, etc., like
Lowell or Flammarion believed. Today those planets are steril.
The same is happening in the neighbouring stars that remain silent
no matter how hard SETI tries to hear it.
Perhaps we are alone after all. That's also a possibility.
Omar
# 9560 bymikecombs@... on Jan. 23, 2007, 2:32 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jake
Thanks.
> So what is your conclusion??
That one's views on this topic are (at least in part) a consequence of
whether one foresees technological civilizations as having to make do
with planets, or accepts that they're more likely to live in orbit in
structures of their own manufacture. But if you're asking what my
personal opinion is; since lean toward the latter view, I suspect we may
be alone in the Milky Way.
> I think there are some variables to consider as well.. Like wars,
> competition, economics, ect.. It seems in the nature of at least human
> civilizations to let these things impact our own technologies.. I
> would assume it is in the nature of other beings too...
Wars might wipe out one side, but I think would be unlikely to wipe out
both sides if there were any extraplanetary colonies in existence.
Thus, the winners would tend to be those most successful at establishing
far-flung colonies. Competition, if anything, would make the kind of
intentional embrace of low-growth or zero-growth which I disparage in my
paper unlikely. Economics, also, will tend to favor those with the most
colonies and expanding the most rapidly. So I think all of these
combine to make galactic-breadth growth more likely, and a deliberate
decision to take a pass on the option less likely.
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 9561 bySMARTASPAPER@... on Jan. 23, 2007, 8:26 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
>
> From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jake
>
> > Good paper..
>
> Thanks.
>
> > So what is your conclusion??
>
> That one's views on this topic are (at least in part) a consequence
of
> whether one foresees technological civilizations as having to make
do
> with planets, or accepts that they're more likely to live in orbit
in
> structures of their own manufacture. But if you're asking what my
> personal opinion is; since lean toward the latter view, I suspect
we may
> be alone in the Milky Way.
>
> > I think there are some variables to consider as well.. Like wars,
> > competition, economics, ect.. It seems in the nature of at least
human
> > civilizations to let these things impact our own technologies.. I
> > would assume it is in the nature of other beings too...
>
> Wars might wipe out one side, but I think would be unlikely to wipe
out
> both sides if there were any extraplanetary colonies in existence.
> Thus, the winners would tend to be those most successful at
establishing
> far-flung colonies. Competition, if anything, would make the kind
of
> intentional embrace of low-growth or zero-growth which I disparage
in my
> paper unlikely. Economics, also, will tend to favor those with the
most
> colonies and expanding the most rapidly. So I think all of these
> combine to make galactic-breadth growth more likely, and a
deliberate
> decision to take a pass on the option less likely.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>
milky way is that not a black hole that galixy's are made of? black
hole sucking in most matter what is not colides forming new galixy's?
# 9562 byjoe@... on Jan. 23, 2007, 9:13 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Jan 23, 2007, at 20:26 UTC, smartaspaper wrote:
> hole sucking in most matter what is not colides forming new galixy's?
Wow, I can't quite make heads or tails of that. But just grabbing on
to the few recognizable keywords, maybe this will help: the Milky Way
is the name of our galaxy, which is a fairly ordinary spiral galaxy.
Like most galaxies, there is a supermassive black hole at the center,
but this is nothing to worry about; our solar system can no more fall
into it than the Earth can fall into the Sun.
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9563 bysqorpo@... on Jan. 24, 2007, 12:54 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
So by this criteria laid out by you and others including the sources
cited in your paper.. If a more advanced civilization searched from a
distance for intelligent life in our solar system even only 2 or 3
hundred years ago, they would have concluded there was none to be found..
# 9564 byjoe@... on Jan. 24, 2007, 2:32 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Jan 24, 2007, at 00:54 UTC, Jake wrote:
> cited in your paper.. If a more advanced civilization searched from a
> distance for intelligent life in our solar system even only 2 or 3
> hundred years ago, they would have concluded there was none to be
> found..
Yes, but that's the unreasonable, Star-Trekian scenario where the first
two civilizations to appear are only a few hundred years apart, instead
of many millions.
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9565 bydougmay@... on Jan. 24, 2007, 3 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
>
> On Jan 23, 2007, at 3:12 PM, joe@... wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2007, at 20:26 UTC, smartaspaper wrote:
>
> > milky way is that not a black hole that galixy's are made of? black
> > hole sucking in most matter what is not colides forming new
> galixy's?
>
> Wow, I can't quite make heads or tails of that. But just grabbing on
> to the few recognizable keywords, maybe this will help: the Milky Way
> is the name of our galaxy, which is a fairly ordinary spiral galaxy.
> Like most galaxies, there is a supermassive black hole at the center,
> but this is nothing to worry about; our solar system can no more fall
> into it than the Earth can fall into the Sun.
>
supermassive black hole. While the supermassive black hole itself
doesn't have nearly enough gravity by itself to hold our galaxy
together, the entire core is very dense, and together it has enough
gravity to hold us safely in orbit. There is no danger of the galaxy
collapsing into the black hole. Also there may be thousands or even
millions of tiny black holes scattered around our galaxy. These would
mostly be quite small and would have very little gravitational impact
until you passed within a few hundred miles of them. Of course, being
black they would be invisible, but there effect on nearby light and
other objects could be detectable. There probably is a tiny black
hole somewhere within 3 or 4 stars of Earth (perhaps 100,000 years
away by space shuttle), but it would not represent any kind of
barrier to space colonization. In fact, you could even place a space
station in orbit around one! Some people have even speculated that
these black holes could be used as a source of energy by an advanced
space colonial civilization, but that is a little bit too ambitious
for us at this point, I'm afraid.
doug
# 9566 byjoe@... on Jan. 24, 2007, 3:10 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Jan 24, 2007, at 03:00 UTC, Douglas May wrote:
> millions of tiny black holes scattered around our galaxy. These would
> mostly be quite small and would have very little gravitational impact
> until you passed within a few hundred miles of them. Of course, being
> black they would be invisible, but there effect on nearby light and
> other objects could be detectable. There probably is a tiny black
> hole somewhere within 3 or 4 stars of Earth
Though the smaller a black hole is, the faster it evaporates. So I'm
not sure how tiny a black hole could be, and still stick around long
enough for us to find it. Anybody know?
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9567 bydante_feditech@... on Jan. 24, 2007, 6:19 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Combs, Mike
> Are We Alone in the Galaxy? The View from the High Frontier
> http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/alone.htm
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3aa.html
Scroll down half way to 'Killing Star':
When we put our heads together and tried to list everything we could say
with certainty about other civilizations, without having actually met them,
all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior:
1. THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.
If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us.
It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being
self-sacrificing.
2. WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.
No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of
any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless
when necessary.
3. THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.
For a moment, think of civilisations not as blasing beacons of hope and
knowledge, but as stealthy nuclear submarines, desperately trying to be
quiet, least they are detected first.
John
# 9568 bymikecombs@... on Jan. 24, 2007, 2:30 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jake
> cited in your paper.. If a more advanced civilization searched from a
> distance for intelligent life in our solar system even only 2 or 3
> hundred years ago, they would have concluded there was none to be
found..
No, that's not it at all. Think in the opposite direction. The point
is that a civilization 200,000 or 300,000 years more advanced than us
can be expected to have completely settled the entire Milky Way, and in
such a manner that the evidence would be plain from interstellar
distances. And additionally, that there's no reason to simultaneously
believe that yes, there are other technological civilizations out there,
but no, for some reason not a single one of them is more advanced than
us by 200,000 or 300,000 years. Those spans of time seem long from our
perspective, but mathematically, the odds of ET civilizations being that
close to our age are vanishingly small.
Regards,
Mike Combs
1 (current)
2