Do Aliens Exist?

[pywakit]

Short answer ... there is a high probability they do.

But why haven't we detected any?

"Maybe it's because they are using technology far beyond our abilities." ~ Seth Shostak @ SETI

Maybe not. The excuses (such as the one above) offered by SETI researchers (and parroted by believers) for our lack of finding artificial signals emanating from the cosmos are, upon unbiased analysis, flimsy at best. All one has to do is look at the Fermi Paradox, the Drake Equation, and many other popular proposals objectively to see the underlying problems associated with all of them.

For example, Fermi assumed FTL technology was possible, and therefore intelligent species older than ours must have achieved it somewhere along the line. With all due respect to Kaku and others, this is hardly a given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

And of course we know the Drake Equation was never an actual hypothesis or theory supported by any evidence ... rather, it was little more than mathematically organized wishful thinking on the part of Drake, dreamed up to encourage funding. Successfully, I might add.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

No, I think the answer is stupidly simple. There is another ... better ... reason as to why we have not detected any confirmed artificial signals; a not only possible solution, but plausible one seemingly ignored by researchers and masses alike.

"Human" may be ... by far ... the best, the most advanced life form the universe can produce.

The only life form that will ever achieve the capability to make a radio, let alone leave the planet.

This just in ...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/billions-of-earthlike-planets-found-in-milky-way/

Even with the potential of billions of earth-like planets in the MWG alone, we still haven't detected a signal ...

I suggested on the "Big Bang Evidence For God" thread that "Life is an extremely rare by-product of the natural laws of space. Intelligent, technologically advanced life is even rarer."

I insisted (despite Alex's protests) we had "literally millions of samples" and "billions of locations" to support this 'hypothesis'.

Let's start with the millions of samples.

How many species on earth have achieved technology capable of creating radio? One.

Can I be so sure of this? Could there have been a technologically advanced species equal to or greater than ours earlier in our history? I often wondered about this as a child in the 50s and 60s. But soon it became apparent this was not a viable possibility.

Certainly any advancing species would have had to eventually develop radio. After all, there are only so many known ways to achieve rapid communication, and they would have had to deal with the same laws of physics, chemistry, etc that we have.

What is the likelihood of a species being curious (or driven) enough to achieve radio and space travel and not leaving a shred of evidence behind?

And what are the chances they jumped from fire to FTL? Possible, I suppose. But not plausible. And by the same line of reasoning, we can also effectively rule out other species on other worlds jumping from 'nothing' to FTL technology. They would have invented (and used) radio at some point.

No, if there had been a species before us on earth that achieved radio, we would have found the evidence in space, or on the moon, on Mars ... somewhere. It stretches credulity to the extreme to suggest they could have (or found it necessary to) destroy every last little bit of space junk that would have been an inevitable by-product of radio communication and space exploration.

We were the first.

Millions of samples ...

Sharks. Turtles. Birds. Reptiles. How long have they existed? There is good evidence sharks (in a plethora of different forms) may have existed for as many as 420 million years.

How close are they to achieving radio? After all this time? If they had another 2 or 3 billion years, would they ever build a radio? Possibly. But they wouldn't be sharks anymore.

Turtles? Same story. Hundreds of millions of years and they are still turtles. Birds? Will they ever make a radio? No.

There have been millions of species on this planet. A planet arguably very well suited for life to flourish and evolve. Yet, even after (in numerous cases) hundreds of millions of years, none have come anywhere near radio. And, in their present forms, never will. Isn't this obvious?

How about hominids? Once again, there have been numerous species that have existed for millions of years. How much longer before chimps develop radio? Gorillas? They never will ... as long as they remain in their present forms.

What about the humanoid species? Neanderthals? Homo erectus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Evidence from molecular biology

The closest living relatives of humans are gorillas and chimpanzees.[19] With the sequencing of both the human and chimpanzee genome, current estimates of similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%.[19][20][21] By using the technique called a molecular clock which estimates the time required for the number of divergent mutations to accumulate between two lineages, the approximate date for the split between lineages can be calculated. The gibbons (Hylobatidae) and orangutans (genus Pongo) were the first groups to split from the line leading to the humans, then gorillas (genus Gorilla) followed by the chimpanzees and bonobos (genus Pan). The splitting date between human and chimpanzee lineages is placed around 4-8 million years ago during the late Miocene epoch.[22][23][24]

Evidence from the fossil record

There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages.[25][26] The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from 7 million years ago, and Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago and Ardipithecus kadabba dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these have been argued to be a bipedal ancestor of later hominins, but in each cases the claims have been contested. It is also possible that either of these species are ancestors of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other apes. The question of the relation between these early fossil species and the hominin lineage is still to be resolved. From these early species the Australopithecines arose around 4 million years ago diverged into robust (also called Paranthropus) and gracile branches, one of which (possibly A. garhi) went on to become ancestors of the genus Homo.

The earliest members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis which evolved around 2.3 million years ago. Homo habilis is the first species for which we have positive evidence of use of stone tools. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, and their main adaptation was bipedalism as an adaptation to terrestrial living. During the next million years a process of encephalization began, and with the arrival of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled. Homo erectus were the first of the hominina to leave Africa, and these species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. One population of H. erectus, also sometimes classified as a separate species Homo ergaster, stayed in Africa and evolved into Homo sapiens. It is believed that these species were the first to use fire and complex tools. The earliest transitional fossils between H. ergaster/erectus and archaic H. sapiens are from Africa such as Homo rhodesiensis, but seemingly transitional forms are also found at Dmanisi, Georgia. These descendants of African H. erectus spread through Eurasia from ca. 500,000 years ago evolving into H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis. The earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago such as the Omo remains of Ethiopia, later fossils from Skhul in Israel and Southern Europe begin around 90,000 years ago.

Homo habilis made stone tools. They had exactly the same materials to work with that we have now. They had essentially the same pressures and challenges we have now. Extremes of weather, food, predators, etc. And how close did they get to radio after a million years or so?

Modern homo sapiens emerged a mere 200,000 years ago. And only 50,000 years ago did they begin to exhibit modern behavioral patterns.

They went from fire and stone tools to space in 50,000 years. 50,000. All other species (physical configurations) had millions, if not hundreds of millions of years to accomplish radio. None came close.

What can we infer (if not conclude) from this?

First and foremost, it takes an extremely specialized life form to create a radio. If the life form lacks any of homo sapiens specializations, radio is not going to happen. Again, millions of 'failures' ... only one success.

The life form must have sufficient brain power to observe and comprehend the world around it, and just as importantly, learn how to manipulate it in extremely complex ways. The life form would need to develop mathematics. Physics, chemistry, electro-magnetism, etc.

So what about those 'other' planets?

Well, we can eliminate all exoplanets similar to the others in our solar system. Clearly, it is going to be rather difficult to have evolved complex, intelligent life forms on a waterless world, such as Mars. Or on a gas giant. Or on a planet that's 700 above zero Celsius. Or 700 below. You can say all you want about earth's extremophiles, but none of them are going to ever be able to manipulate the environment ... or create mathematics. Both of which are prerequisites for radio.

How about 'earth-like' planets? I don't think earth-like is sufficient. Yes, our evolution (both the planet and us) was in many ways serendipitous, and were it not for a big rock, given the previous history of earth (equally serendipitous) we would probably not be here. But it comes back to how specialized we are. We are, among millions of species, the only ones uniquely qualified to build radios. Even the smallest variations appear to preclude such an achievement.

Given the serendipitous nature of our existence, while clearly possible, it (millions of intelligent species) remains exceedingly unlikely as a common feature of the universe in such a short (13.7 billion years) time.

Happily, there are many chances for this to have happened in an observable universe containing anywhere from 200 to possibly 500 billion (or more) galaxies ... each with as many as a trillion stars (on average). Especially if those galaxies (again, on average) contain several billions of planets very similar to earth.

When Frank Drake began his search for extraterrestrials in 1960, he had high hopes for detecting an artificial signal. Indeed, when SETI began, even using the relatively primitive tools of the day, the expectation was that we would discover 'alien' life forms within a mere 5 years. I was around then, and I was very excited about it. If for no other reason than to prove Christian dogma/theology was bullshit.

Over 50 years later and no signal confirmed to be artificial. Our technology ... our ability to detect, ability to analyze the data ... has improved on the order of several magnitudes during that time. And nothing.

We have 'observed' literally billions of locations since 1960.

NO SIGNAL.

If there are (or were) multitudes of intelligent, advanced life forms in the observable universe, it is absurd to suggest (as Shostak has) that they could be using technology beyond our ability to detect. Or as others have suggested, that they are all (or mostly) xenophobes. Or that they use magic, or telepathy. Or they simply aren't interested. Or they all killed themselves off.

Billions upon billions of intelligent (and varied) species in the universe, and no evidence?

Absurd.

Just us?

Equally absurd.

By the way, what would be the point of creating a universe of 200 to 500 billion galaxies, each with billions or trillions of planetary systems ... all just to support one species? Rather inefficient for an omnipotent god, don't you think? Wouldn't one galaxy be sufficient? Or less?

Oh wait. That's what Christians were so sure of: Earth was all by itself, except for those little lights in the 'firmament'.

Whatever ...

In any case, we do have millions of samples, and billions of locations.

Yes, there is in all likelihood other intelligent, radio-capable life in the universe.

I don't remember which scientists suggested this, but I must agree with them (in part): It might take an entire galaxy (or more) to produce just one radio-capable species. I would go even farther and suggest it might take a million or more galaxies to produce just one radio-capable species.

But we know it happened at least once. And even if it takes a billion galaxies, that still means there are (or were) around 200 to 500 radio-capable species in the observable universe.

And in all likelihood, they are identical to us.

 

[Balerion]

It's absurd to think that fifty years is a long time. Cosmically speaking, we've only just started listening. If there are in fact civilizations sending radio signals (of which there is no guarantee), the likelihood of us catching one in such a short period of time is virtually nil. It's far more probable that those signals either missed us (arrived at some point during the billions of years prior to SETI) or have yet to arrive (a signal sent fifty thousand years ago from a star on the opposite end of the galaxy won't reach us for another 150,000 years).

I also don't buy this idea that we're the gold standard of evolution. The reason we only took 50,000 years to go from fire to radio communication is because we had this same brain at the outset of that time period. Expecting an orangutan to build a radio is asinine, since orangutans don't have our faculties. But this genetic closeness to our fellow primates implies that our intelligence isn't quite so advanced as you seem to think. Radio-capability might very well be the equivalent of a bird building its own nest, in the grand scheme of things. It's even plausible that more advanced civilizations don't send radio signals because they know there's no use. After all, what would we do with an artificial signal, were we to receive one? Rejoice, panic, prepare a message to return, maybe all of the above? But of what practical use would our communication be? Perhaps more advanced civilizations communicate in ways that will rule out "primitive" ones such as ours?

I mean, it's all possible. And far more likely than the notion that all other advanced civilizations are identical to us and communication solely through radio messages.

 

[Rhaedas]

It's a big universe.

As far as hearing or seeing anyone, we wouldn't be able to detect ourselves even on this side of the galaxy. Look at what Kepler has found. Now look at the small area of this arm it was looking. And Kepler likely wouldn't see our planet. Our broadcasts from years ago haven't gotten very far, and most are too weak to be able to detect them even if you were listening for them.

 

[pywakit]

It's absurd to think that fifty years is a long time.

I didn't say it was.

Cosmically speaking, we've only just started listening.

Irrelevant. SETI researchers were sure we would detect signals 45 years ago. With (then) current technology. This was based upon their unsupported beliefs of countless intelligent life forms in the observable universe.

If there are in fact civilizations sending radio signals (of which there is no guarantee), the likelihood of us catching one in such a short period of time is virtually nil.

I don't think you have thought that through. Are you seriously suggesting there is no guarantee that out of (presumed) millions or billions of civilizations that have existed in the past throughout the entire observable universe none transmitted radio, whether inadvertently or deliberately?

By the way, I forgot to mention another 'Shostak' idiotic excuse. He said just a few years ago (when challenged by critics) that "we have only 'carefully' examined only about 1,000 stars."

Hmm. Let's see how much sense that makes. Started in 1960. By 2010, fifty years later, we have only examined 1,000 stars? That's an average of 20 stars per year. Do you really think at this pace we would EVER detect a signal? 200 billion stars in the MW divided by 20 per year. Screw that. Let's assume we now possess technology (we don't) that allows us to 'carefully examine' a million stars a year. Gosh. Now it will only take 200,000 years to 'carefully examine' all the stars in the MW.

Absurd.

It's far more probable that those signals either missed us (arrived at some point during the billions of years prior to SETI) or have yet to arrive (a signal sent fifty thousand years ago from a star on the opposite end of the galaxy won't reach us for another 150,000 years).

If there were millions (or billions) of radio capable civilizations scattered across the cosmos throughout the last 10 billion years or so, don't you think one or two errant signals would have arrived at our location during the last 50 years? Your argument is ludicrous.

I also don't buy this idea that we're the gold standard of evolution.

No doubt.

The reason we only took 50,000 years to go from fire to radio communication is because we had this same brain at the outset of that time period. Expecting an orangutan to build a radio is asinine, since orangutans don't have our faculties. But this genetic closeness to our fellow primates implies that our intelligence isn't quite so advanced as you seem to think.

I didn't say that. Please pay closer attention. I said radio requires an extremely specialized species. In fact, the differences between radio capability and not are quite small.

Radio-capability might very well be the equivalent of a bird building its own nest, in the grand scheme of things.

Was there supposed to be a point in that comment?

It's even plausible that more advanced civilizations don't send radio signals because they know there's no use.

And out of (potentially) billions of civilizations that achieved it, none were sent/leaked accidentally? Again, absurd.

After all, what would we do with an artificial signal, were we to receive one? Rejoice, panic, prepare a message to return, maybe all of the above? But of what practical use would our communication be? Perhaps more advanced civilizations communicate in ways that will rule out "primitive" ones such as ours?

I don't think we were particularly concerned about where our radio/tv signals went when we first started broadcasting. We were pretty sure God created the universe just for us. Lol.

Yes, it is possible there are ways to communicate beyond our 'puny' technology. But, as I already mentioned, the odds of all those billions of intelligent civilizations leaping from beating on logs to FTL technology and bypassing radio are rather slim, wouldn't you say?

I mean, it's all possible.

Possible, yes. Probable, no. Not even remotely. Do you not get it? We are talking millions or billions of advanced civilizations, according to even fairly pessimistic estimates.

And far more likely than the notion that all other advanced civilizations are identical to us and communication solely through radio messages.

Got any evidence (or even anything in support) that any particular biological design (other than human) can accomplish all that is necessary to achieve radio? Other than science fiction?

No.

 

[pywakit]

It's a big universe.

Indeed.

As far as hearing or seeing anyone, we wouldn't be able to detect ourselves even on this side of the galaxy.

Your point?

Look at what Kepler has found. Now look at the small area of this arm it was looking. And Kepler likely wouldn't see our planet. Our broadcasts from years ago haven't gotten very far, and most are too weak to be able to detect them even if you were listening for them.

Rhaedas, that is irrelevant. Our broadcasts have nothing to do with it. The universe has been around for 13.7 billion years, give or take. Certainly it was a bit hot in the beginning, but the window for intelligent, radio-capable life to exist somewhere has to be at least 10 billion years. Don't you think the odds of NONE of those civilizations broadcasting non-directional radio signals at some point in their technological evolution are a bit slim?

Or are you suggesting that all radio-capable civilizations achieved this at about the same time?

And must I point out the obvious? If non-directional radio signals emanating from some world are (or would be by the time they got here) "too weak" to detect, then why did we bother to listen for them in 1960? And why would we be listening now? Not to mention all the money and energy expended ...

What a foolish waste of time.

 

[pywakit]

All that said, I suppose I should add ...

I am all for continued searching.

Yes, the odds are stupidly low. But even if the odds were a billion to one against (and I think they are even less than that) I would have no problem with some of my tax dollars going for this.

The Catholic church still insists the only other life in the universe is supernatural. God, angels, etc.

I want them to have to try to explain the existence of intelligent, biological life ... other than us.

 

[Balerion]

I didn't say it was.

The whole premise of your post is that it's been 50 years and we "still" don't have a signal. You clearly believe that this is indicative of some shortage of intelligent alien life.

Irrelevant. SETI researchers were sure we would detect signals 45 years ago. With (then) current technology. This was based upon their unsupported beliefs of countless intelligent life forms in the observable universe.

Read it again, chief. I didn't say anything about our technology not being able to receive the radio communications. I said that expecting to actually hear one in just a 50-year span is insane. Do you have any concept of how long it takes radio waves to travel these distances?

I don't think you have thought that through. Are you seriously suggesting there is no guarantee that out of (presumed) millions or billions of civilizations that have existed in the past throughout the entire observable universe none transmitted radio, whether inadvertently or deliberately?

Of course there are no guarantee. We don't know anything about potential alien life. Our only safe guess is that it would be carbon-based. But at any rate, the point of my comment was, again, that the chances of us picking any of these signals up in just one 50-year span are infinitesimally small. Imagine if our closest intelligent neighbor was 1000 light years away. Even if they started pounding us with radio signals 500 years ago, it'll still be another 500 before we get them. Or if that neighbor sent them 1500 years ago, we missed them by about half a millenium. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this.

By the way, I forgot to mention another 'Shostak' idiotic excuse. He said just a few years ago (when challenged by critics) that "we have only 'carefully' examined only about 1,000 stars."

Hmm. Let's see how much sense that makes. Started in 1960. By 2010, fifty years later, we have only examined 1,000 stars? That's an average of 20 stars per year. Do you really think at this pace we would EVER detect a signal? 200 billion stars in the MW divided by 20 per year. Screw that. Let's assume we now possess technology (we don't) that allows us to 'carefully examine' a million stars a year. Gosh. Now it will only take 200,000 years to 'carefully examine' all the stars in the MW.

Absurd.

I honestly don't know what you're driving at here. How is he supposed to work outside of the limitations of the budget and current technology? What is it you want him to do?

If there were millions (or billions) of radio capable civilizations scattered across the cosmos throughout the last 10 billion years or so, don't you think one or two errant signals would have arrived at our location during the last 50 years? Your argument is ludicrous.

Why are you so sure they would? Do you have any conception of how big the universe is? Even just the size of our galaxy? It's ludicrous that you're not taking that into account. Even if there were a billion advanced civilizations in the universe, that would equate to about one every hundred galaxies or so. So how the hell is it that you're demanding a signal in one fifty-year span? It's entirely possible that even if there were billions of species specifically sending radio signals into the cosmos that we'd never get one.

I didn't say that. Please pay closer attention. I said radio requires an extremely specialized species. In fact, the differences between radio capability and not are quite small.

It's easy to say it requires an extremely specialized species when you only know of one that has ever been capable of it. I would wager that we're not as special as you think.

Was there supposed to be a point in that comment?

Obviously. The point being that our "extremely specialized" species might not be the golden standard you think it is.

And out of (potentially) billions of civilizations that achieved it, none were sent/leaked accidentally? Again, absurd.

Again, I never said that. Your straw man tactics only show how pitifully weak your position is. I simply offered that radio might not be the primary means of communicating between these hypothetical civilizations. If it is, then I return to my initial point, which is that it's insane to expect a signal in the 50-year window SETI has been listening. Even if the universe were teeming with advanced civilizations, the distances between them would in all likelihood be in the hundreds or thousands (if not millions or billions) of light years.

Yes, it is possible there are ways to communicate beyond our 'puny' technology. But, as I already mentioned, the odds of all those billions of intelligent civilizations leaping from beating on logs to FTL technology and bypassing radio are rather slim, wouldn't you say?

This is a false dichotomy. They would not have had to bypass radio for us to not have heard from them. It's even possible that very distant signals have weakened to the point of not being able to distinguish them.

Possible, yes. Probable, no. Not even remotely. Do you not get it? We are talking millions or billions of advanced civilizations, according to even fairly pessimistic estimates.

What do you not get about the amount of stars and galaxies in the universe? A billion advanced civilizations all living right now would equate to one civ for every one hundred galaxies (probably less, since there are most likely more than one hundred billion galaxies in the universe). Do you know how far away the closest galaxy is to us? Twenty-five thousand light-years. Do you understand that?

Got any evidence (or even anything in support) that any particular biological design (other than human) can accomplish all that is necessary to achieve radio? Other than science fiction?

No.

And how many life-supporting planets are in your sample?

Exactly.

 

[Balerion]

All that said, I suppose I should add ...

I am all for continued searching.

Yes, the odds are stupidly low. But even if the odds were a billion to one against (and I think they are even less than that) I would have no problem with some of my tax dollars going for this.

I think it's a waste of time and money. There's virtually no chance we catch a signal, and about the same odds that we can make heads or tails of it if and when it comes. If the signal comes tomorrow, great, but I doubt there will be any practical change in the world.

The Catholic church still insists the only other life in the universe is supernatural. God, angels, etc.

I want them to have to try to explain the existence of intelligent, biological life ... other than us.

Considering that the signal is merely going to be a pattern that we won't be able to decipher, the Church won't likely have to change their position. A clarification would be all that was required. "God speaks in radio waves," or something to that effect.

 

[pywakit]

My responses to your prior comments above in bold italics, you, then my responses in blue. Hopefully readers will keep it straight ...

Quote Originally Posted by pywakit

I didn't say it was.

The whole premise of your post is that it's been 50 years and we "still" don't have a signal. You clearly believe that this is indicative of some shortage of intelligent alien life.

That is incorrect. SETI's failure to date is just one part of the equation.

Irrelevant. SETI researchers were sure we would detect signals 45 years ago. With (then) current technology. This was based upon their unsupported beliefs of countless intelligent life forms in the observable universe.

Read it again, chief. I didn't say anything about our technology not being able to receive the radio communications. I said that expecting to actually hear one in just a 50-year span is insane. Do you have any concept of how long it takes radio waves to travel these distances?

Uhh, up to billions of years? And for the record, my screen name is pywakit. Not chief.

Well, you have just dismissed a plethora of highly respected scientists as 'insane'. They are the ones who expected to detect an artificial signal within 5 years (let alone within 50 years). Not me.

I don't think you have thought that through. Are you seriously suggesting there is no guarantee that out of (presumed) millions or billions of civilizations that have existed in the past throughout the entire observable universe none transmitted radio, whether inadvertently or deliberately?

Of course there are no guarantee. We don't know anything about potential alien life. Our only safe guess is that it would be carbon-based. But at any rate, the point of my comment was, again, that the chances of us picking any of these signals up in just one 50-year span are infinitesimally small. Imagine if our closest intelligent neighbor was 1000 light years away. Even if they started pounding us with radio signals 500 years ago, it'll still be another 500 before we get them. Or if that neighbor sent them 1500 years ago, we missed them by about half a millenium. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this.

Unless the laws of physics, chemistry, etc are different elsewhere in the universe, then any 'potential' alien life would be faced with the same problems we faced ... and that's assuming they live on a nice comfy planet like ours with the necessary natural resources readily available. Seriously, you are not thinking this through. You really think any physical form under any physical conditions could achieve all the necessary preliminary steps needed to create a radio?

Balerion, we have already 'glanced' at billions of stars. We don't need to examine them carefully, as Shostak said. We have highly sophisticated computers that can sift through all the noise. If there are (were) billions of advanced civilizations, as SETI researchers have insisted, then there would have to be artificial signals embedded in the natural background radiation. Even if the broadcast window was 5 minutes (absurd) before they all went to tight beam transmissions, our detectors would be literally flooded with signals.

On the other hand, if the number of advanced civilizations is (was) extremely small, then you would be correct: We could easily be too soon, or too late. But again, I must point out that the experts in this field were convinced they would detect signals long ago.

By the way, I forgot to mention another 'Shostak' idiotic excuse. He said just a few years ago (when challenged by critics) that "we have only 'carefully' examined only about 1,000 stars."

Hmm. Let's see how much sense that makes. Started in 1960. By 2010, fifty years later, we have only examined 1,000 stars? That's an average of 20 stars per year. Do you really think at this pace we would EVER detect a signal? 200 billion stars in the MW divided by 20 per year. Screw that. Let's assume we now possess technology (we don't) that allows us to 'carefully examine' a million stars a year. Gosh. Now it will only take 200,000 years to 'carefully examine' all the stars in the MW.

Absurd.

I honestly don't know what you're driving at here. How is he supposed to work outside of the limitations of the budget and current technology? What is it you want him to do?

Once more. SETI researchers were sure they would detect a signal within 5 years. With the technology (and budget) they possessed at the time. They made assumptions regarding the prevalence of intelligent, radio-capable life in the universe. Drake was instrumental in crafting these assumptions. For half a century, they have been scratching their heads wondering where they went wrong. The first place they should have looked was at Drake's equation. Instead, they have looked everywhere but Drake's equation. I honestly feel for the guy. He desperately wants there to be aliens out there. But he needs to face reality. The reason we haven't detected any signals is because there aren't any to detect. Or more accurately, the number of advanced civilizations in the universe is (contrary to Drake's beliefs) extremely low.

If there were millions (or billions) of radio capable civilizations scattered across the cosmos throughout the last 10 billion years or so, don't you think one or two errant signals would have arrived at our location during the last 50 years? Your argument is ludicrous.

Why are you so sure they would? Do you have any conception of how big the universe is? Even just the size of our galaxy? It's ludicrous that you're not taking that into account. Even if there were a billion advanced civilizations in the universe, that would equate to about one every hundred galaxies or so. So how the hell is it that you're demanding a signal in one fifty-year span? It's entirely possible that even if there were billions of species specifically sending radio signals into the cosmos that we'd never get one.

Yes, I have some concept of how big the universe is. No, it's not possible that if billions of civilizations have transmitted radio signals over billions of years we would not detect them. Unless the laws of physics vary from one location to another. Last time I checked, they don't.

I didn't say that. Please pay closer attention. I said radio requires an extremely specialized species. In fact, the differences between radio capability and not are quite small.

It's easy to say it requires an extremely specialized species when you only know of one that has ever been capable of it. I would wager that we're not as special as you think.

No, it's easy to say it requires an extremely specialized species when millions of different physical forms failed to accomplish it. Given far more time to do it than homo sapiens. *sigh

Think you can build a radio with flippers? Wings? Stubby fingers? Your tongue? Telekinesis?

Was there supposed to be a point in that comment?

Obviously. The point being that our "extremely specialized" species might not be the golden standard you think it is.

I'm sorry if I am stomping on your beliefs in this matter. But the fact remains that millions of different physical configurations were NOT able to achieve radio. Not in millions of years. Given millions more, they still could not have achieved it. Homo sapiens did it in 200,000. What does that tell you?

And out of (potentially) billions of civilizations that achieved it, none were sent/leaked accidentally? Again, absurd.

Again, I never said that. Your straw man tactics only show how pitifully weak your position is. I simply offered that radio might not be the primary means of communicating between these hypothetical civilizations. If it is, then I return to my initial point, which is that it's insane to expect a signal in the 50-year window SETI has been listening. Even if the universe were teeming with advanced civilizations, the distances between them would in all likelihood be in the hundreds or thousands (if not millions or billions) of light years.

On the contrary, SETI's position is weak. The Drake Equation is weak. Shostak's excuses are weak. I never claimed radio is the primary means of communication. I claim that any advanced species would have had the same hurdles to overcome we did. Radio would come before FTL. Now do you want to propose these advanced civilizations bypassed radio?

To the rest of your comment ... radio waves are quite capable of traveling long distances. Unless you have information to the contrary.

Yes, it is possible there are ways to communicate beyond our 'puny' technology. But, as I already mentioned, the odds of all those billions of intelligent civilizations leaping from beating on logs to FTL technology and bypassing radio are rather slim, wouldn't you say?

This is a false dichotomy. They would not have had to bypass radio for us to not have heard from them. It's even possible that very distant signals have weakened to the point of not being able to distinguish them.

Then unless there are advanced civilizations within a few thousand light years, we might as well shut the whole thing down for good. Oddly, the researchers are still at it. Apparently they don't share your belief that radio waves degrade so quickly.

Possible, yes. Probable, no. Not even remotely. Do you not get it? We are talking millions or billions of advanced civilizations, according to even fairly pessimistic estimates.

What do you not get about the amount of stars and galaxies in the universe? A billion advanced civilizations all living right now would equate to one civ for every one hundred galaxies (probably less, since there are most likely more than one hundred billion galaxies in the universe). Do you know how far away the closest galaxy is to us? Twenty-five thousand light-years. Do you understand that?

Yes. Thank you. Lol. Then why are we bothering to look? Clearly we don't have the technology to detect FTL transmissions. In any case, we are not interested in the civilizations living today. We are interested in the ones who lived in the past. Up to billions of years past.

Got any evidence (or even anything in support) that any particular biological design (other than human) can accomplish all that is necessary to achieve radio? Other than science fiction?

No.

And how many life-supporting planets are in your sample?

Exactly.

One. With the same laws of physics, chemistry, electromagnetism, and gravity as any other in the observable universe.

 

[pywakit]

I think it's a waste of time and money. There's virtually no chance we catch a signal, and about the same odds that we can make heads or tails of it if and when it comes. If the signal comes tomorrow, great, but I doubt there will be any practical change in the world.



Considering that the signal is merely going to be a pattern that we won't be able to decipher, the Church won't likely have to change their position. A clarification would be all that was required. "God speaks in radio waves," or something to that effect.

Lol. Absurd. Whether we can decipher it or not, it will be sufficient proof of other intelligent physical life in the universe.

 

[Rhaedas]

Your point?

Rhaedas, that is irrelevant. Our broadcasts have nothing to do with it. The universe has been around for 13.7 billion years, give or take. Certainly it was a bit hot in the beginning, but the window for intelligent, radio-capable life to exist somewhere has to be at least 10 billion years. Don't you think the odds of NONE of those civilizations broadcasting non-directional radio signals at some point in their technological evolution are a bit slim?

Or are you suggesting that all radio-capable civilizations achieved this at about the same time?

And must I point out the obvious? If non-directional radio signals emanating from some world are (or would be by the time they got here) "too weak" to detect, then why did we bother to listen for them in 1960? And why would we be listening now? Not to mention all the money and energy expended ...

What a foolish waste of time.

My point in mentioning our radio broadcasts was an example of what we would look for, although the question then is, how long should a radio civilization last before it evolves to a more direct and isolated communication media like wire or fiver optics? Maybe we missed a few windows of our neighbors, and they stopped looking for the same reason.

But the biggest thing is that as a signal spreads, it loses power density, by the inverse square law. It quickly gets lost in the background noise.

Just because we did something 50 years ago doesn't mean we were right.

As to your point of there possibly being older civilizations that have been around a while, it's debatable, as are many things, when life could have developed in the universe. The first generations had little to no heavier elements, as they hadn't been formed yet from supernovae, so 10 billion might be early. On the other hand, we might be just out of reach of the interstellar highways and just don't know it.

 

[Balerion]

That was a terrible way to respond to a post. You're lucky I'm even bothering, given the mess below.

That is incorrect. SETI's failure to date is just one part of the equation.

Nonsense. You based your entire argument on the fact that we haven't gotten a signal yet. Everything that follows is based on that.

[quote[Uhh, up to billions of years? [/quote]

Exactly. So why is it that you're expecting one, for all intents and purposes, today?

And for the record, my screen name is pywakit. Not chief.

I don't particularly care what your screen name is, pal.

Well, you have just dismissed a plethora of highly respected scientists as 'insane'. They are the ones who expected to detect an artificial signal within 5 years (let alone within 50 years). Not me.

First of all, it was a handful of astronomers and businessmen who founded SETI, not a "plethora of highly-respected scientists." Secondly, what would give them any reason to believe they would pick up a signal within 5 years?

Unless the laws of physics, chemistry, etc are different elsewhere in the universe, then any 'potential' alien life would be faced with the same problems we faced ... and that's assuming they live on a nice comfy planet like ours with the necessary natural resources readily available. Seriously, you are not thinking this through. You really think any physical form under any physical conditions could achieve all the necessary preliminary steps needed to create a radio?

Another straw man. Are you incapable of intellectual honesty? When the hell did I ever say that any physical form under and physical conditions could achieve the necessary preliminary steps needed to create a radio? Oh right, I didn't. Have some integrity and discuss the points I actually made, instead of the ones you've pretended I've made.

Balerion, we have already 'glanced' at billions of stars. We don't need to examine them carefully, as Shostak said. We have highly sophisticated computers that can sift through all the noise. If there are (were) billions of advanced civilizations, as SETI researchers have insisted, then there would have to be artificial signals embedded in the natural background radiation. Even if the broadcast window was 5 minutes (absurd) before they all went to tight beam transmissions, our detectors would be literally flooded with signals.

On what authority do you claim that their "highly-sophisticated computers" shouldn't have to carefully examine stars? What about the technology makes such study superfluous? I'm 99% sure you don't have the answer to either of those questions, and your protests are the impotent whines of someone who doesn't understand the project but feels the need to criticize it anyway.

And I say again, it isn't a matter of just looking at the background radiation and picking signals out. Those signals are radio waves that need to reach us for us to be able to hear them. So the absence of signals literally says nothing about the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Just like the fact that we haven't seen any genuine alien spacecraft says nothing about their existence. It's the same thing. Would you argue that having never witnessed a living alien being is evidence against their existence? Obviously not, yet that's precisely what you're arguing here with the lack of radio signals.

On the other hand, if the number of advanced civilizations is (was) extremely small, then you would be correct: We could easily be too soon, or too late. But again, I must point out that the experts in this field were convinced they would detect signals long ago.

I'm correct even if there are a hundred billion advanced civilizations in the universe. There could be ten million such civilizations in the Milky Way alone and there would be no reason to expect that we would have intercepted a signal by now. Compared to the time the universe has existed, and the time that it takes such waves to traverse space, the lack of a signal in one fifty-year span literally means nothing.

I also find your claims regarding their expectations to be spurious.

Once more. SETI researchers were sure they would detect a signal within 5 years. With the technology (and budget) they possessed at the time. They made assumptions regarding the prevalence of intelligent, radio-capable life in the universe. Drake was instrumental in crafting these assumptions. For half a century, they have been scratching their heads wondering where they went wrong. The first place they should have looked was at Drake's equation. Instead, they have looked everywhere but Drake's equation. I honestly feel for the guy. He desperately wants there to be aliens out there. But he needs to face reality. The reason we haven't detected any signals is because there aren't any to detect. Or more accurately, the number of advanced civilizations in the universe is (contrary to Drake's beliefs) extremely low.

Once more, there would be no reason to be sure that a signal would come in five years. Even taking the Drake Equation at its most pie-in-the-sky liberal limits, the amount of power necessary for anything but a very close neighbor to contact us goes beyond mere accidental radio pollution. Not to mention the fact that it would have to be pointed in our exact direction. The practical requirements for such a signal amounts to an advanced civilization essentially doing what we're doing now, and intentionally broadcasting with powerful equipment at specific areas of the sky--and one of those areas would have to be ours. Otherwise, we'd never see it, and radio waste just wouldn't be strong enough to be plucked out of the background even if it were coming in a continuous stream. I mean, think about our own radio broadcasts. Let's say it reaches a civilization five hundred light-years away. It will be so weak, distorted, and decayed by then it probably won't be recognizable.

Yes, I have some concept of how big the universe is. No, it's not possible that if billions of civilizations have transmitted radio signals over billions of years we would not detect them. Unless the laws of physics vary from one location to another. Last time I checked, they don't.

For one, I doubt you know the first thing about the laws of physics. Secondly, that is simply incorrect. It's not only possible that we haven't intercepted a radio signal from one of billions of civilizations, but it's far more likely that we wouldn't have than we would have. And unlike you, I've actually explained why it's improbable that we would have caught one in the last 50 years.

No, it's easy to say it requires an extremely specialized species when millions of different physical forms failed to accomplish it. Given far more time to do it than homo sapiens. *sigh

Here's a better way to look at it: There is only one planet in the known universe that we can sustain life, and it happens to have a radio-capable civilization. We're 1 for 1.

Think you can build a radio with flippers? Wings? Stubby fingers? Your tongue? Telekinesis?

Another straw man. I never said anything of the sort. I'm saying that just as the eye has evolved independently several times on this planet alone, it's feasible that the requirements for radio-building evolve independently. Evolution isn't done, you know. There will be more divergences and new species and perhaps new intelligent species.

I'm sorry if I am stomping on your beliefs in this matter. But the fact remains that millions of different physical configurations were NOT able to achieve radio. Not in millions of years. Given millions more, they still could not have achieved it. Homo sapiens did it in 200,000. What does that tell you?

It tells me that we are so far the only species capable of doing it on this planet. I also know that roughly 1% of the species that have ever existed on Earth are still extant. It's conceivable that those extinction events interrupted an evolutionary chain that would have lead to an intelligent species emerging 2 billion years ago. Who's to say?

On the contrary, SETI's position is weak. The Drake Equation is weak. Shostak's excuses are weak. I never claimed radio is the primary means of communication. I claim that any advanced species would have had the same hurdles to overcome we did. Radio would come before FTL. Now do you want to propose these advanced civilizations bypassed radio?

Another straw man. I never said they bypassed radio, nor did I say that bypassing radio was a requirement for us to have not intercepted a signal from an advanced civilization. Is this a reading comprehension issue, or are you simply incapable of honesty?

To the rest of your comment ... radio waves are quite capable of traveling long distances. Unless you have information to the contrary.

I never said they weren't capable of traveling long distances. But they do distort and decay, and the size of the universe requires such a signal to be sent in our direction with a ton of power behind it if we're going to hear it.

Then unless there are advanced civilizations within a few thousand light years, we might as well shut the whole thing down for good.

Which is exactly why I said it was a waste of time and money.

Oddly, the researchers are still at it. Apparently they don't share your belief that radio waves degrade so quickly.

Of course they do. I didn't invent the concept of radio waves being distorted or decaying. They're simply hoping to get lucky and catch a signal, but it's an exceptional longshot.

Yes. Thank you. Lol. Then why are we bothering to look? Clearly we don't have the technology to detect FTL transmissions.

I love how you seem to think there are no steps other than radio and FTL communications, the latter being a laughably vague concept. I'm now beginning to realize that the whole of your scientific knowledge comes from science fiction.

As to why they're looking, as I've said, I have no idea. I think it's a waste of time. I'll also say this one more time, and hopefully it will sink in: Even if the universe were teeming with life, there is no reason to expect that in any given 50 year period we would intercept an electromagnetic radio signal. There are too many ways for such signals to not reach us for us to expect one would as soon as we turn on our listening devices. That isn't to say it couldn't happen, but the odds are extremely low.

One. With the same laws of physics, chemistry, electromagnetism, and gravity as any other in the observable universe.

[/quote]

And that planet already has a radio-capable civilization. I'd say the chances of such civilizations existing elsewhere are pretty high. But here's the thing about the universe: it's so big that even if we were a very rare phenomenon, that would still amount to billions and billions of advanced civilizations existing at any given moment.

You actually do seem to think that we're a rare bird, which I would probably agree with, but your numbers are all out of whack. Billions and billions of radio-ready civs would still qualify as a rare phenomenon, given that each galaxy has billions of stars and likely tens of trillions of planets. In order for your claim that "we should have heard something by now" to be accurate, advanced life would need to be the rule, not the exception. There would need to be such a civ--or at least had been at some point in the past--on every star, or maybe every other star. Then it might be plausible to suggest that something is amiss if we're not catching signals. But that's only the beginning of the requirements. Timing is everything: Even if every star has or had an advanced civ on it, why would we suspect that there's always such a civ? We could theoretically be the last surviving civ within a hundred light-years, even in such a scenario where life is literally everywhere. Or we might be the newest of all the civs in that same range, having already missed out on the others' attempts to communicate via radio waves. There are so many variables, saying "We should have heard them by now" is ridiculous.

 

[Balerion]

Lol. Absurd. Whether we can decipher it or not, it will be sufficient proof of other intelligent physical life in the universe.

It would be evidence, not proof. And to what end? So the Church can do what they've always done and simply change their story? They also used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth.

Also, I'm fairly certain you don't know what "absurd" means.

 

[pywakit]

My point in mentioning our radio broadcasts was an example of what we would look for, although the question then is, how long should a radio civilization last before it evolves to a more direct and isolated communication media like wire or fiver optics? Maybe we missed a few windows of our neighbors, and they stopped looking for the same reason.

I think a race curious enough to have developed radio and related technologies would also be curious to know if there are other races in the universe.

I also think it is a common mistake for us to presume alien life forms would view/perceive the universe in some unfathomable (alien) way. This idea made much more sense when we knew almost nothing of the universe, relatively speaking. But knowing what we do now, it is appears far more probable that aliens would be 'forced' to engage with the universe just as we have: painstakingly building upon their knowledge, devising means and methods for discovery, observations, experiments.

For any race to have created radio, they must have built upon and developed the foundations of science just as we did. They would require logic. And just as our increasing knowledge has forced us to think in specific ways relating to the universe, so too would their thinking be forced along the same lines. In short, any advanced race must have developed similar thought processes to us. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but I can't see any logical alternative.

Of course we would look for radio. Not a whole lot of choices available to us. Yet. And it's entirely possible that someday we may have to concede radio is the only choice available in this universe.

I wouldn't doubt for a second that we have missed windows of opportunity. Still, we look with the expectation that we will find. Someday.

But the biggest thing is that as a signal spreads, it loses power density, by the inverse square law. It quickly gets lost in the background noise.

I agree. Thankfully we no longer have to physically listen for anomalous signals.

Just because we did something 50 years ago doesn't mean we were right.

Of course. But that's missing the point. The highly educated and very knowledgeable (for their day) people involved at the time still had what they considered to be reasonable expectations of detecting a signal in the short term. They obviously were not thinking it was a "one in a billion shot".

It is also worth noting that funding for such a project (as SETI) was no easy task in a society dominated (and governed) by conservative Christians, as the existence of intelligent, biological aliens ran seriously afoul of Christian dogma.

Christians were willing (back in the 60s) to tolerate fictional depictions of aliens ... just so long as they remained fictional. But they were not about to encourage real-life attempts to find proof of their existence. Visionaries like Drake had no choice but to appeal to the general public ...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AAS...21913306S

Abstract

Building upon the advancement of technology during the Second World War and the important scientific discoveries which have been made about the structure and components of the universe, scientists, especially in radio astronomy and physics, began seriously addressing the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence in the 1960s. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) quickly became one of the most controversial scientific issues in the post Second World War period. The controversy played out, not only in scientific and technical journals, but in newspapers and in popular literature. Proponents for SETI, including Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, and Philip Morrison, actively used a strategy of engagement with the public by using popular media to lobby for exposure and funding. This paper will examine the use of popular media by scientists interested in SETI to popularize and heighten public awareness and also to examine the effects of popularization on SETI's early development. My research has been generously supported by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.

As to your point of there possibly being older civilizations that have been around a while, it's debatable, as are many things, when life could have developed in the universe. The first generations had little to no heavier elements, as they hadn't been formed yet from supernovae, so 10 billion might be early. On the other hand, we might be just out of reach of the interstellar highways and just don't know it.

I can't argue with a 10 billion year window being (perhaps) overly optimistic. Certainly we have reasons to believe the window for intelligent life is much smaller. Still, we have yet to observe any population III stars. To my knowledge anyway. I think it is safe to say the jury remains out on when the first population I stars formed, and we continue to observe phenomena that appear to be at odds with popular theories relating to the evolution of matter in the universe. Further, we can't assume intelligent life requires at least 3 or 4 billion years to develop. Our development may have been stunted by any number of factors. On the other hand, we might be one of the speedier ones. At the moment, we have no way to know.

 

[Mazulu]

Just to comment about advanced alien intelligences, the ones that can travel superluminally will also communicate between worlds superluminally as well. There are probably inhabited worlds out there that have world to world communication satellites. Let's say an alien wants to place an order on GalacticAmazon.com for a product that's manufactured in another solar system. They place their order. The order is communicated to an orbiting satellite, which relays the message superluminally to another planetary system with a superluminal tranceiver satellite; then to the manufacturer. Then, the manufacturer loads the product aboard a superluminally travelling cargo ship, and the product arrives 1 week later from a world 10 light years away. Advanced aliens signal via hyperspace, not space-time because space-time is too slow.

Conclusion: we should not be surprised that we cannot detect advanced alien communications.

 

[Rhaedas]

Assuming of course that FTL communication, travel, etc is possible. It may be we're all stuck within our own little islands, and any residual noise we may hear from anyone nearby is the only thing we'll ever have.

 

[pywakit]

Balerion, it would be too cumbersome to go through your comments so I will just respond to relevant points ...

1. I don't expect a signal detection today. On the contrary, I have no expectations of such a discovery in my lifetime. I simply observed that the original SETI researchers had expectations of quick signal detection. And apparently Shostak still believes we will in the short term. Within the next 24 years, to be exact.

http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_shostak_et_is_probably_out_there_get_ready.html

Perhaps he is still insane.

2. My hypothesis is based on all the relevant data currently available, contrary to your repeated comments. In fact, my hypothesis relies far more on observations of earth's millions of species than on the lack of detection. I think it requires a highly specialized species to build a radio. By extension, it is very unlikely the universe is crammed with copies of us.

3. I suspect even back in the 60s researchers such as Drake and Sagan were aware of the physical properties of radio waves. Lol. Yet they were (apparently) confident our technology was adequate at the time to detect degraded signals against the much 'louder' noise of the cosmos. Further, they were of the opinion that life was relatively common, and intelligent, radio-capable life was not especially rare. I believe Drake estimated around 1,000,000 radio-capable species existed (or had existed) in the MW alone.

4. I'm not criticizing SETI. Again, just making observations as they relate to my hypothesis. Try to remain calm. Yikes.

5. My hypothesis is that intelligent, advanced, radio-capable life is extremely rare in the universe. Absence of evidence is (of course) not evidence of absence. Still, if radio-capable life is 'routine' if not common, then the sheer numbers involved would suggest a high probability of stumbling across a signal. Clearly you would disagree with this. Obviously Shostak would disagree with you.

6. What does spurious mean? I looked it up and still don't understand it.

7. Need I remind you that Drake hoped to detect aliens using a single channel back in 1960? Over optimistic to be sure, but one can hardly characterize him as an idiot.

8. You are correct. I know next to nothing of physics. Other than they appear to be the same throughout the observable universe.

9. While you may be enamored of your explanation as to why it is 'insanely' improbable we would have detected a signal by now, even if the galaxy/universe was teeming with radio-capable life, it is clear that at least some scientists (presumably) familiar with the myriad of issues involved are not in agreement with you.

I guess they have a bit more confidence in our ever-increasing ability to (potentially) separate artificial signals from the natural background. Despite their failures to date, I am reasonably confident they know what they are talking about. With that in mind, it is my contention that if the universe does indeed host millions or billions of radio-capable life forms, and these life forms may have existed over the last several billion years ... at least ... then there should be a very high number of artificial signals coming from any and all directions.

My underlying point remains ... our lack of detection could ... repeat could ... lend at least minimal support for my hypothesis. But again, my hypothesis relies more on the requirements needed to achieve radio in the first place. I think they are much too stringent for there to be a high number of radio-capable species in the universe.

10. I agree that evolution isn't 'done'. That said, one could make a case for the human species already starting to 'devolve'. Certainly, from a physical standpoint, we are in the US. Survival of the fittest is a thing of the past. We now strive to ensure the survival of everyone, regardless of genetic defect.

In any case, any evolving species will have to deal with the same physics we did. I doubt any 'new' species that achieves technological advancement will find the universe to be any different than we do.

11. Yes, our planet could have produced a radio-capable species much earlier in it's history. However, I stand by my hypothesis that it would have to be identical to us. Or no go.

12. I don't think you can state categorically that we will require any detectable radio source to be directed specifically at us and have "a ton of power behind it". But I could be wrong. Lol.

13. I meant degrade to the point of no longer being able to detect them. Of course they know they degrade.

14. Interestingly, I have gotten most of my science knowledge from the old Tom Swift and Tom Corbett books from the 50s. You are indeed observant.

15. As I have stated, it is my contention that intelligent, radio-capable life is so extremely rare that the number of such species in the observable universe may very well be less than 500. Perhaps even less than 100. If I am correct, the odds of detecting intelligent life are essentially nil.

As with my cosmological model, I concede I could be very wrong. Time will tell.

 

[Mazulu]

Assuming of course that FTL communication, travel, etc is possible. It may be we're all stuck within our own little islands, and any residual noise we may hear from anyone nearby is the only thing we'll ever have.

If FTL communication/travel does exist, which is the better strategy of discovering it? My strategy where we assume it exists and then try to figure out how to find it? Or your strategy where we assume it doesn't exist and we don't look for it?

There is also still a big question about where the big bang came from. All science knows is that the big bang started as a singularity. I offered the idea that there is a big bang nursery out there somewhere; something that spits out singularities which explode into big bangs, like our universe did. How boring it would be if they were all like ours. So I thought: maybe each singularity (universe) has unique values for physics constants like c, h and G. If that were true, then there could be other universes near ours or even overlapping with ours. Some of those universes might have a significantly higher speed of light than our universe. All we would be missing is some way to interface with another universe with a higher speed of light, inject our spaceship into the other universe, and then zip along in this other universe until we re-enter this universe. That could be how FTL drives work. If true, then ET might use coexisting universes for transmitting communications.

Do we have any hard evidence that this is true? Nothing concrete, testable or reproducible. All we have is this odd situation where a universe just springs into existence from (we don't know what).

 

[Mazulu]

Whatever alien life exists in the universe, some of them are sure to be carbon based.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/meteor.html#c2

Carbocaceous meteorites contain carbon, some contain amino acids.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion, it would be too cumbersome to go through your comments so I will just respond to relevant points ...

How so? The way I responded means all you have to do is press "Reply With Quote." There's no mess, and I'll know what you're responding to when you write something. Now I have to continually cross-reference my last post following each of your answers. If this is how you're going to play the game, then I'm done after this post. Have some common courtesy and make it easy for others to respond.

1. I don't expect a signal detection today. On the contrary, I have no expectations of such a discovery in my lifetime. I simply observed that the original SETI researchers had expectations of quick signal detection. And apparently Shostak still believes we will in the short term. Within the next 24 years, to be exact.

http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_shostak_et_is_probably_out_there_get_ready.html

Perhaps he is still insane.

Another misrepresentation of my words. I never said anyone was insane, I simply said it was insane to think that we'd hear something in such a short amount of time. And yes, expecting to hear a signal within 24 years is crazy. Though I have to admit, the more I learn of SETI, the more it reminds me of a Bigfoot tracking company, or professional ghosthunters.

2. My hypothesis is based on all the relevant data currently available, contrary to your repeated comments. In fact, my hypothesis relies far more on observations of earth's millions of species than on the lack of detection. I think it requires a highly specialized species to build a radio. By extension, it is very unlikely the universe is crammed with copies of us.

And I say again, it is a fallacy to assume that it takes our exact design to create a radio. Look at how many different species do other things that we do, such as build habitats and use tools. Most of them don't even have hands. Building a radio is simply levels of complexity beyond that, so there's no reason to believe it can't be done by some other form factor, if you'll forgive the term.

3. I suspect even back in the 60s researchers such as Drake and Sagan were aware of the physical properties of radio waves. Lol. Yet they were (apparently) confident our technology was adequate at the time to detect degraded signals against the much 'louder' noise of the cosmos.

You keep appealing to authority, offering no explanation as to why they would have expected such a signal. It's almost as if you don't know...

Further, they were of the opinion that life was relatively common, and intelligent, radio-capable life was not especially rare. I believe Drake estimated around 1,000,000 radio-capable species existed (or had existed) in the MW alone.

That's still pretty rare. There are like 400 billion stars in the galaxy, so that's one intelligent species every 400,000 stars. Even if we were an outlier, and had several such civs within a few hundred light-years of us, the odds are that we'd either have missed their signals or they hadn't arrived yet. But it's more likely that even if intelligent life were as common as all that, they'd still be so far away from us that the likelihood of picking up a signal would be slim. And the farther away the civilization, the more precise and powerful the signal would have to be. We're not catching Alpha-Centaurian "I Love Lucy" episodes unless they beamed them to us.

4. I'm not criticizing SETI. Again, just making observations as they relate to my hypothesis. Try to remain calm. Yikes.

Don't play games. No one has lost their cool here, and my critique of your argument is fair. And for whatever it's worth, I'm not knocking you for being critical of them, I'm knocking you for mouthing off without having a clue as to what you're actually talking about.

5. My hypothesis is that intelligent, advanced, radio-capable life is extremely rare in the universe. Absence of evidence is (of course) not evidence of absence. Still, if radio-capable life is 'routine' if not common, then the sheer numbers involved would suggest a high probability of stumbling across a signal. Clearly you would disagree with this. Obviously Shostak would disagree with you.

The irony here is that you and Shostack have taken a similar tack, in that neither of you have really articulated why it's probable that we would have or will received a signal. You both say it's a numbers thing, but you both seem to ignore the practical limitations of such signals as well as make huge assumptions. Even if every star had intelligent life on it, the distances between them and the unknown variables (such as, are they even using radio? Are they attempting to contact ET like we are? If so, when did they stop, or how long ago did they start?) make it impossible to say that anything of the sort is likely in such a small window.

6. What does spurious mean? I looked it up and still don't understand it.

Where's the facepalm smiley?

Adjective
Not being what it purports to be; false or fake: "spurious claims".
(of a line of reasoning) Apparently but not actually valid: "this spurious reasoning results in nonsense".​

7. Need I remind you that Drake hoped to detect aliens using a single channel back in 1960? Over optimistic to be sure, but one can hardly characterize him as an idiot.

I never characterized Drake as an idiot. However, expecting to detect an alien signal using one channel is idiotic. "Overly optimistic" is more than a gross understatement.

9. While you may be enamored of your explanation as to why it is 'insanely' improbable we would have detected a signal by now, even if the galaxy/universe was teeming with radio-capable life, it is clear that at least some scientists (presumably) familiar with the myriad of issues involved are not in agreement with you.

I guess they have a bit more confidence in our ever-increasing ability to (potentially) separate artificial signals from the natural background. Despite their failures to date, I am reasonably confident they know what they are talking about.

Another appeal to authority. If you can't tell me why they would disagree, then why are we having this discussion? You're clearly in over your head.

With that in mind, it is my contention that if the universe does indeed host millions or billions of radio-capable life forms, and these life forms may have existed over the last several billion years ... at least ... then there should be a very high number of artificial signals coming from any and all directions.

And again you fail to address the problem of variable times, distances, or signal decay. You can keep saying "but the numbers!" until you're blue in the face, but until you address my points, it's just noise from another clueless schmoe.

My underlying point remains ... our lack of detection could ... repeat could ... lend at least minimal support for my hypothesis.

Not at all. It hasn't been long enough to say. And as I've said before, there's every possibility that we would never receive a signal in a billion years.

But again, my hypothesis relies more on the requirements needed to achieve radio in the first place. I think they are much too stringent for there to be a high number of radio-capable species in the universe.

Another fallacy. You're talking about the only known species to build a radio and making the assumption that it must be the only way to achieve such a thing. In reality, there may be a hundred different ways to get there. Or a thousand. Or a million. You simply don't know.

10. I agree that evolution isn't 'done'. That said, one could make a case for the human species already starting to 'devolve'. Certainly, from a physical standpoint, we are in the US. Survival of the fittest is a thing of the past. We now strive to ensure the survival of everyone, regardless of genetic defect.

There is no such thing as "devolution." If you're implying that we are weakening, that's probably true, but we have medicine to counteract that. At any rate, I don't know what your point is here.

In any case, any evolving species will have to deal with the same physics we did. I doubt any 'new' species that achieves technological advancement will find the universe to be any different than we do.

I don't know what physics has to do with it. There's no way another intelligent species follows our exact path up the technological tree. Another species might never discover radio waves, or they might advance more quickly than we did.

11. Yes, our planet could have produced a radio-capable species much earlier in it's history. However, I stand by my hypothesis that it would have to be identical to us. Or no go.

Well that's just stupid.

12. I don't think you can state categorically that we will require any detectable radio source to be directed specifically at us and have "a ton of power behind it". But I could be wrong. Lol.

Don't worry, you're wrong. Radio waves expand and weaken the further into space they travel, so even if one was headed right for us, from a sufficient distance it wouldn't even be recognizable against the background radiation. That, along with distortions from gravity and whatever else might get in the way, make long-distance radio communications--especially accidental long-distance communication--highly unlikely. Unless some far-off civilization targeted us specifically, we're not likely to hear from them. Life would have to be very common, or at least very close, to pick up accidental transmissions. And all of that is possible. After all, we targeted several places and sent out messages. But then factors of time come into play, and the likelihood of us catching one in a fifty-year span is virtually nil.

13. I meant degrade to the point of no longer being able to detect them. Of course they know they degrade.

I don't care what you meant, frankly, because you appear to be talking out of your backside.

14. Interestingly, I have gotten most of my science knowledge from the old Tom Swift and Tom Corbett books from the 50s. You are indeed observant.

Trust me, you don't hide it well.

15. As I have stated, it is my contention that intelligent, radio-capable life is so extremely rare that the number of such species in the observable universe may very well be less than 500. Perhaps even less than 100. If I am correct, the odds of detecting intelligent life are essentially nil.

You would be right if that's how rare life was. But there's simply no way of knowing if that's true or not, and looking at earth isn't a very good measure, since it's the only planet we know of that can sustain life and it also happens to sustain a radio-capable lifeform. That fact either implies that radio-capable life is abundant, or it implies nothing at all.

As with my cosmological model, I concede I could be very wrong. Time will tell.

Considering that you base it on fallacies and half-remembered comic books from the 50s, I'd say the chances of you being wrong are high.