/sci/ - Science & Math

Also if we do meet another lifeform, even non-sentient, what are the chances it would end up being smallpox in the Americas 2.0?

There's no reason to assume an intelligent system would be in a form we could recognize.

>>4093056

How could we not recognize order in disorder? That's pretty much the definition of life, no?

Its not like they're going to be energy beings... most likely... they're going to form for the same reasons our life formed from abundant lipid forming atoms.

>>4093031
In the picture, what is the number in purple, on the top? too lazy to do it

Also, what are the green things?

i could sit here and type you an essay on why you're assuming too much, but i'd rather just sum it up by saying:

we don't have the technology yet to detect terrestrial planets in exosolar systems.

>>4093073
space invaders

>>4093073
Nm, just found it.. didn't notice the filename.

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

If anybody else cares

>>4093078

>>4093078

The paradox arises from if we're sending messages out into space shouldn't the vast amount of other races be sending messages out into space too? We should be able to receive electromagnetic signals with what we have.unless you're saying they're so advanced what they communicate with hasn't even been discovered by us yet.

>>4093105
you're making 2 assumptions:
- they use the electromagnetic spectrum as a form of information trafficking (as we do)
- if they do use the same method as we, they have to have used a wave which can penetrate interstellar medium (such as radio waves)

then you made assumptions based on those assumptions:
- the waves had enough time to reach us
- we detected those waves before the civilization became eradicated

see pic (unsure of its credibility/accuracy, but it gives you an idea). we've been (unknowingly) transmitting these signals into the cosmos for over 100 years and this is the product.

>>4093131

its not like EM trafficking arose because we liked it; it arose because its the best possible medium that we know of. As such any civilization will most likely have to go through an EM phase before they transcend to something like quark communication. thus there will be radio waves from their planet

Now if they have gone to some other form of communication likelihoods of space travel is high.
Thus unless theres like 2 civilizations in the entire galaxy on the opposite sides of the galaxy they should've seen a hint of us.

I honestly doubt we'd care if the civilization was there or not once we received their message. Just knowing we're not alone would be plenty would it not?

>>4093131

Don't forget that retrieving information from those broadcasts at anything past 10 AU is basically impossible as it's background noise

>>4093148

if thats true what the fuck is the point of SETI?

How about
>there really are so many other advanced civilizations out there
There aren't.

>>4093149

Basically nothing. Radio waves are not suitable for any form of interstellar communication.

>>4093150

Seems like a massive waste of space, no?

>>4093148
>>4093149
>>4093154

Retrieving information from the data is unnecessary. SETI searches for the existence of radio broadcasts from an area at all.
It would be "static" but it would be more than background noise. And more importantly, it would be constant.

>>4093155

The cosmos does not exist for life. Life is a coincidence.

>>4093031
no civilization is going to understand that shit

>>4093178

is that what you believe?

>>4093190
believing doesn't have anything to do with it

>>4093145
>thus there will be radio waves
>will
assumption.

>Just knowing we're not alone
i personally believe we will find evidence for life on the satellites of jupiter and saturn. is this good enough for you? that would prove copernicus's mediocrity right and that we are not alone. however, my question is how does this enhance your daily life? will this make waiting for the bus that much better, knowing that some galactic being is doing some menial daily duty too? or does it have something to do with helping you determine your own purpose as a human being? why not tackle your own insecurities of purpose by other methods than relying on something that likely will not happen in your lifetime?

Too far away for us to detect, obviousfuckingly.

I go even further.

When I kill an ant I think of this. The universe of the ant is limited, they just want sugar, they just walk around on the floor and on the walls, they don't realize the potencial destruction of a grown mammal. If a drop of water can trap the ant, how could it survive in a world like this? But the power of the ant is in number. Even if we kill dozens of ants everyday without even noticing, I'm sure it's an incredibly hard task to kill all the ants in the world. That being said, how is it for an unlucky ant to be stomped by something the ant doesn't understand?

Now think about this: meteors are a threat. If the right rock hits us, we are all dead. There are trillions of meteors out there, potentially deadly. However, "it's alright" you'd say, because space is so vast and there is so much time it balances the danger off in a way that we can safely say that in the next 100 years Earth will still survive.

>>4093199
>just noticed something
>replying to my own post
>classy
pluto isn't a planet! bring voyager back! we have a correction to make.

>>4093206 cont.

But we know this today and this knowledge is recent. Nothing was stopping meteors from hitting us before astronomy was able to observe them. A rock could have killed everyone in ancient Egypt once and for all and with a bang. How would it be for them? Much like the squeezed ant. They where there minding their business when suddenly, swoosh: death.

My point is: just like an earthquake could take us by surprise, meteors are flying above our heads and we just recently learned of this threat. Maybe an eagle could drop a turtle on your head, or the sun could sneeze abnormal radiation one day for no reason. There is danger in every scale. More than just discussing astronomy here, what is that of which we don't know about that is able to obliterate us, with no time for us to even despair.

>>4093199
>man saying hi
>woman being beta
sexist science was better

>>4093199

Initially it probably won't make much of a difference, but i firmly believe the knowledge that we're not alone will bring humans together, and we will forget out petty differences.

>>4093210

I still don't understand your point. Are you saying we shouldn't worry whats out there because a meteor could murder us at anytime, or perhaps the fact we're not dead is proof of some kind of higher protection?

light years away, and just like us they haven't broken the speed of light.

>>4093210
man how high are you? you realize shit hits us all the time right? our pale blue dot burns most of it up before it hits the ground. like you said, there's trillions of interplanetary debris floating around out there. the likelihood of being hit by something large enough to cause an ELE is statisically inevitable, yet also statistically improbable.

we get hit about about 3 big ass objects once every million years. remember that object we believe took out the dinosaurs? they happens quite often (in earth terms), but the likelihood of being struck by one before humans kill themselves off or leave the planet is quite unlikely. so don't lose sleep over this thought.

>>4093250

but as any good blackjack player knows statistics mean nothing.

>>4093031
They've probably looked at our planet, classified us as a bunch of warmongers, and are avoiding us till we evolve or kill ourselves off.

>>4093239
None of those. My point was to show the idea only. The danger is large, but the space between things is also large. The data we have secure us that we won't see in our lifetime something as big as the end of the world.

But, it's interesting to think that we didn't know this before at all. Even if the danger is incredibly small, assuming there is an undefined amount of hidden threats, it grows likely that something we don't understand might kill us.

Take the ancient world example. A regular storm is coming and a man knows that he will probably survive it for he is 50 years old and he has seen a lot of those, so he goes inside his house and he is calm about it. On that day, a meteor fucks everything up and he won't even know.

>>4093250
And then I move to what you said. I agree with all of that, but that is the storm that is coming. We know we will survive it, I'm not worried about meteors, I'm worried about the unknown.

The dinosaur example you gave is good. Dinosaurs were abundant for millions of years. Millions. A million years is already too much. A year takes too long to pass. We live 100 years tops and a million years is a ten thousand times more than what we live. And they were there for hundreds of millions of years. Just picture: how unlucky was the last generation of dinosaurs to witness such striking end?

I'm not trying to make a religious point or to pretend we are lucky to be here. It's just something to think about. I have yet to make a conclusion.

(I'm not high, but I definately was when I thought of all this).

>>4093269

>implying to reach domination of the planet evolution doesn't require warmongering

A Lion doesn't care how much you want to hold hands and sing at the rainbow... it likes the way you taste.

>>4093280
I like the way you taste too.

>>4093276

So we get wiped out tomorrow because we're complacent in the fact that we won't be wiped out? But why then would knowing change anything? We cant do shit about it might as well remain in ignorant bliss.

>>4093283

Wanna meet up some time? Maybe for dinner?

>>4093299
Will we be singing and dancing and holding hands? No thanks.

I'd rather just eat.

>If there really are so many other advanced civilizations out there, where are they?
There aren't. Life is more like an exception, a fluke that just happened to find some unique conditions on a small planet. Stop projecting your escapism on "other worlds" type of thinking, which is a substitute for religion.

>>4093312

Hey with amino acids being found on comets, and 5 earthlike planets being found its becoming increasingly likely that we're not unique.

And if we are unique... why Earth, and not another Earthlike planet?

>>4093276

>how unlucky was the last generation of dinosaurs to witness such striking end?

Dinosaurs did not get blown up by a meteor.

A meteor scattered dust and most dinosaurs could not adapt to the conditions created.

The extinction was not one event for one generation, but a long-lasting one that lasted thousands of years.

>>4093324

Which under his previous statement that a million years is an instant geologically a thousand would be a blink of an eye.

>>4093318
I'm sure there are some bacteria or algae out there in oceans below ice on a few planets, but that doesn't necessarily increase the odds of finding what we think it's advanced life. This is usually defined based on our perception of ourselves.

If there is another form of life which is developed enough to make complex artifacts then I don't think we will have any common point to understand it. I think it would look and act entirely referential to its own embodiment.

>>4093326

Except it isn't.
Ten thousand years is not "a blink" to even ten million. And even if it were, Time is not to be mocked. Every nanosecond is a chemical reaction, a radioactive decay. Change over short time is no less meaningful than change over long time.

Either way, what his stream of absolute nonsense is even about has nothing to do with the thread at hand.

>>4093312

>we're a special little snowflake

No we aren't. What are the odds that there's a planet with the exact same position and composition of our own in the entirety of the universe? Pretty fucking good.

>>4093347
How do you compute the odds of other life existing on other planets? We barely know of the existence of a bunch of other planets besides our own.

>If there really are so many other advanced civilizations out there, where are they?
You answered your own question: OUT THERE.
See, the universe is a HUGE fucking place. And of ALL the trillions of stars out there, we have only been able to transmit detectable signals to about half a dozen (ASSUMING target civilizations even have the technology to receive them, and are even listening). What are the odds that there is actually a civilization on one of those stars? Almost nonexistent. What are the odds that some other civilization out there that is trying to contact US is even close enough for us to hear? Almost nonexistent. That doesn't mean they aren't out there, SOMEWHERE. All it means is that we will probably not be able to know that they exist... well, not for a VERY long time, if ever.

>>4093335

Eh im a geologist time is mocked by me... hell my field defines time... but i digress... humans think time is relevant because we have limited amounts... the earth and the universe couldn't give less of a shit.

>>4093334
idk a lot of what our lifeform, spcies, and civilization is is things based on mechanics common to the universe. We use schops for our base building blocks because they're among the most common elements in the universe. We use radiowaves and other such things because they're produced naturally. Evolution of a higher being would dictate that they too would use the easiest form of everything the universe has to offer.

>>4093358

have a drake equation

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[3]

>Because it will take 25,000 years for the message to reach its intended destination of stars (and an additional 25,000 years for any reply), the Arecibo message was more a demonstration of human technological achievement than a real attempt to enter into a conversation with extraterrestrials.

CARL SAGAN CONFIRMED FOR DICK WAGGLER!

>>4093384

but if you, like most of /sci/, believe that it is not possible to breach the speed of light then wouldn't the fact we sent that 50,000 LY message as early as possible be a good thing?

>>4093358

We find the building blocks for life almost everywhere we look. There's ice on the moon, amino acids in asteroids and so on and so forth. Given that, when you find an Earth-like planet, there's a pretty good chance there's life there. How many Earth-like planets have we discovered with our limited view of the universe? Now think about all the ones we haven't seen.

>why haven't we met them?

We haven't even made it to Mars.

>>4093372
>the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
Based on astronomical estimations, which somehow change just as science changes in time with new theories.

>the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
I think it's not only possible, but very much probable that there are plenty of planets with water which don't support/have life on them. Maybe a few might have some microscopic forms of life.

>the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
How can this be computed?

>the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
Hypothetical, again.

>the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

I think the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim. How the fuck most people on /sci/ ask this on most topics on biology/pscyhology and other soft sciences topics, but not on these daydreaming topics?

>>4093288
>So we get wiped out tomorrow because we're complacent in the fact that we won't be wiped out?

Not "because", it's not a cause. Knowing doesn't change a thing besides having the knowledge itself. We can't do shit, but to know it's going to happen changes our relationship to it.

Let me try once again to explain myself. The man in the storm knew the probability of being killed and it was little, so he was calm. But he died all of the sudden anyway. We know the probability of a meteor to strike and it's little so we are clam. See what I mean? It might be incredibily small, close to zero probability, but there is a probability of you not being here at the next second, even if you know there is no man pointing a gun at you or meteor heading to Earth.

It's silly to be worried about it, it's just an interesting thing.

>>4093324
>>4093326
>>4093335
I didn't mean to imply dinosaurs dissapeared over night, though I can see how you could read that in my post. But some did and that's what counts.

Thousands of years is big and small, it depends on what you are going for. It's small for a species or for geology, but it's big for an individual. Some dinosaurs reproduced and had hundreds of generations going on after the meteor and before eventually going extinct. Millions of days.

>>4093031
nigger, we are part of them. our universe combines with others to create the cells of other universes and so on to infinity

it goes like this
multiverse -> universe -> galaxies -> solar systems -> planets -> carbon based life forms -> cells -> atoms -> quarks -> multiverse

damn didnt you even go to school

False: If you saw a door frame sitting in the middle of a room, completely unattached to a wall, how would you differentiate between entering or exiting? You wouldn’t. No matter what direction you go through that door, you will always be in the same room regardless of your starting position. Portals are no different. Entering and exiting are the exact same act and completely indistinguishable. It’s strictly “All or Nothing”.

>>4093360
There are over 14000 stars within 100 light years of earth.

Bullshit, this sort of fantasising is the product of humanity's long dependence during childhood on parental care. So people ask these questions for the same reasons some people believe in "supernatural" beings, parents in the sky who might be "out there". The human psyche can't process the notion of material indifference when it developed in an artificially comfortable world. People don't want "the truth" they want an exciting delusion.

>>4093462

Radio signals only reach out at maximum of 20 light years, before they are UNMEASURABLE due to background noise.

>the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point

>How can this be computed?

How can this be computed? Well, Our planet had water, and went on to develop life at some point, THAT IS A FACT because we are here today, so AS FAR AS WE KNOW EVERY SINGLE planet with water will if it lasts long enough develop life.

>>4093462
Yep, but the odds of a planet having intelligent life are less than that.

Doesn't mean there aren't thousands upon thousands of advanced civilizations out there, though.

>>4093788
>so AS FAR AS WE KNOW EVERY SINGLE planet with water will if it lasts long enough develop life.
Herp-dee-derp
J

>>4093426
>multiverse

someone's tarded in the head

>>4093804

What? Prove to me every single planet with flowing liquid oceans doesn't evolve life

Prove it.

Oh wait you can't. And you have no evidence.

And I can, because it happened to us. At least I have evidence.

You fucking mad or something kid? Welcome to logic

>>4093896
>every single planet
>it happened to us
>every planet
>us

You have no argument. Not in this debate.

>>4093902

Tell me how many things happen only once in the universe.

Tell me what percentage of things can only happen once out of everything.


Now do you realize how stupid you are believing earth is our LITEL SNOWFLAKE :XP :P GODS GLORY!

>>4093808
"Macroscopic quantum superpositions, a.k.a. the "many-worlds interpretation" or MWI, was proposed in 1957 and brought to the general attention of the scientific community in 1970. Ever since, MWI has steadily gained in popularity. As of 2008, MWI may or may not be endorsed by a majority of theoretical physicists (attempted opinion polls conflict on this point). Of course, Science is not supposed to be an opinion poll, but anyone who tells you that MWI is "science fiction" is simply ignorant."

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/

>>4093907
Guesswork doesn't add credibility.

And please stop with the implications, you are killing me.

>>4093925

Please point to the guess work?

And please stop dodging questions that do have answers as far as we know it.

How many things happen only once in the universe?

Most likely, it's somewhere around 1. (The Big Bang)


1 out of 10000^trillion things that happen.

You really think it's more like

2 (Life) out of 10000^trillion things that happen.

That's just incredible dense, you're either of lower intelligence or trolling.

>>4093896
>And I can, because it happened to us. At least I have evidence.
That only proves it's possible. It doesn't prove that "EVERY SINGLE planet with water will if it lasts long enough develop life". You pulled that one out of your ass.

So fuck off retard.

>>4093896

>And I can, because it happened to us.

That isnt a proof that all planets with liquid oceans develop life.

Its just a proof that a planet that has a liquid ocean has also developed life.

Correlation in Particular case doesnt imply Causation in Universally all cases.

Logic kid, you dont have it.

I once thought that "the abundance of stars is good evidence for other life forms." But then I realized that reasoning is fallacious, as it ignores the possibility of other universes. (Not that other universes actually need to exist. It's just that the anthropic principle only requires our universe to contain one example of life. If barren universes that happen to have one example of life by a freak accident are more common than ones brimming with life, then we could expect to be the former.)

>Its just a proof that a planet that has a liquid ocean has also developed life.

Thanks for admitting defeat.

So you think it can never happen again? You still haven't told me how many things happen only once in the universe. It's Ok, just leave this thread, you don't have to embarrass yourself by answering.

>If there really are so many other advanced civilizations out there, where are they?

>>4094023
The burden of proof is on you to show that other star systems and galaxies have developed life.

>>4094023

>Thanks for admitting defeat.

Its hilarious how delusional children like you are.

>So you think it can never happen again?

What can never happen?

>You still haven't told me how many things happen only once in the universe.

You've never asked.
And how exactly is that connected to this conversation?

>It's Ok, just leave this thread, you don't have to embarrass yourself by answering.

I think you've embarrased yourself plenty for you and me both.
Im unsure if i can top your feat of embarrassment.

>>4093202
If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy.

> If there really are so many other advanced civilizations out there, where are they?
They reach singularity.
THREAD OVER

>>4093907
Well, only one species on this planet developed articulated language.
What were the odds of this happening in only one in a few milions of species and why didn't other species develop it?

>>4093031
there's any number of life bearing planets in the universe from 0 to as many planets as there are in the universe.
We can't definitely answer where the number falls on the scale other than it has to be at least 1 and less than 1 less than as many planets are in the universe.
And that's only assuming we're absolutely sure there is no form of life on mars.
Just saying, arguing this stuff is retarded.

>>4094064
Neanderthals had it, Denisovans had it.

>>4094050

>You've never asked.
And how exactly is that connected to this conversation?

Oh I never asked? Let's see who is the delusional one:

>>4093933
>>4093907
and in my original post


I must be the delusional one right, when you pick and choose what you want to even see.

>And how exactly is that connected to this conversation?

If you really can't deduce how that is related then I really feel bad for you, but I'll spell it out for you.

99.999999999999999999999999% of things that happen, WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. (The big bang has proabably only happened once, but who knows, it could have happened multiple times, so then it would be 100%)

Is it becoming more clear now? No? Ok

Life on earth is a thing, that happened (We're here now) so it has happened, correct?

99.999999999999999999999% of things that happen, happen more then once.

IE: LIFE


You think that it will never happen or has never happened ever? Holy shit son, you're the most delusional fucker I've ever seen.

Now that I've destroyed everything you stand for and your argument in addition to your pride you can leave.

Have a great day buddy.
>>4094064
>Well, only one species on this planet developed articulated language.

Holy shit that is stupid, only one species on this planet is remotely intelligent. (And even then, many primates and Dolphins/Killer whales actually do use a "language" to communicate with each other)

You must be really stupid, even more stupid then the others I am arguing with.

>>4094040

There's no possible way for us to show you that proof at this moment, our technology and telescopes aren't good enough. Give me a few years and I will gladly show you.

>>4094075
You assume that they were different species, like cats and dogs. They were more like cousins on the same evolutionary branch. (http://www.pnas.org/content/96/13/7117.long.).)

>>4094077
I said articulated language, not any form of communication. I might have better added written language. No other species got even close to having that.

>>4094100

One species on this planet has written language.
Only One species on this planet is intelligent.


Coincidence? (Most likely any "intelligent" species will use a "language" at some point to facilitate their development)

>>4094040
>burden of proof is on you
This might be a demand for unobtainable evidence. If we don't have the means of observing aliens, then the odds of us not observing life given that it exists are equal to the odds of observing life given that it doesn't exist.

>>4093417
>he thinks he's smarter than Drake
>ohgodmysides.

>that feel when the unique life snowflake fags leave after being proved to be illogical and destroyed

>>4094102
No. There are other species who have some degree of what we call "intelligence". But they don't have a type of intelligence shaped by articulated and written language. It's very likely that this has contributed to a specific type of animal consciousness, which is unique on this planet, as far as we know.

>>4093066
because there could be more dimensions than physics currently prooves. Life could exist in dimensions which we cannot even comprehend.

Burden of proof, alienfags. Burden of proof.

So far, there have been no empirical proof. But go ahead and cling to your fantasies and "hurr it's a probability because I guessed it to be."

Yeah, intelligent life is probably out there. You'll never meet it though.

>>4094104
If we don't have the means of observing a teapot orbiting the sun, then the odds of us not observing a teapot orbiting the sun given that it exists are equal to the odds of observing a teapot orbiting the sun given that it doesn't exist. So, if I claimed that a teapot were orbiting the sun, would it rest upon you to prove that no such thing exists (And consider this: there are teapots on Earth, so there must be teapots all around the universe, right?)

>>4094118
>he thinks he's smarter than Drake
appeal to authority, is this all you can do?

/1/

Some of you fags are so narrow minded. So many people here are claiming, "Well we haven't been visited by them, and he haven't communicated with them, then where are they?" There are much larger implications and many ways to try and gauge why/where/when intelligent civilizations can/will form.

To do this, all we have to do is try to hypothesize what we would do as a species once we have reached a certain level of technological and scientific advancement. The Kardashev Scale is a good place to start. Consider the following:

>Type I: a civilization able to harness all of the power available on its planet. Earth specifically has an available power of 1.74×10^17 W (dominated by the incoming solar radiation).

>Type II: a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from its home star. The Sun outputs approximately 3.86×10^26 W.

>Type III: a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a whole galaxy. The actual value of this figure is extremely variable, since galaxies vary widely in size. Power output from the Milky Way is estimated at approximately 4×10^37 W.

>Type IV: a civilization which controls the energy output of the visible universe; this is within a few orders of magnitude of 10^45 W. Such a civilization approaches or surpasses the limits of speculation based on current scientific understanding, and may not be possible.

>>4094162

/2/


In order to explore our solar system, we need to be a Type 1 Civilization. In order to explore our Galaxy, we need to be a Type 2 Civilization, and so on and so on. So you can see how much energy is (hypothetically) needed to be able to freely control, colonize, and habitat certain areas of space. Again, this is an estimate and hypothetical.

With even sub-light technology that is possible with our current technological and scientific understanding, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy (hypothetically). The Milky Way is estimated to be almost as old as the Universe; 13.2 billion years old, while the universe is only 13.7 billions years old. That's enough time for the Galaxy to be colonized 2,600 to 260 separate times based on time scale alone (basically, not including the fact that you could have two civilizations attempting to colonize at the same time, within a few million years of each, etc).

We have yet to see a shred of evidence that this has ever happened. No Dyson Spheres, no artifacts, no structures, no ships, no probes, no signals, nothing. NOTHING. Again, this is a huge *YET*, as there may be other reasons why we can't detect their signals, their probes, etc. But if you think about this math alone, it makes no sense that we have not seen anything at all even remotely showing that there's another civilization out there. So, what's happening? Are they dying before they get off their home planet? Is there no one else? Have they evolved in a way that we cannot detect/notice?

>>4094135


Get angry and sage the thread, the most logical stance is to think that we're probably not alone. Deal with it kid, you'll learn when you grow up.

>>4094142
When you use an analogy it has to actually make sense and be the same to be a proper analogy

Yes, there a teapots on Earth, Is it logical for a teapot to be in space and orbit the sun? No, according to NASA, no one has ever set a teapot in space to orbit the sun and there is no logical or scientific reason for that.

>>4094166

All that proves is there are likely no Type III or above civilizations. It's probably not possible to be a Type II civilization, or it's happened a very very small number of times.

Even with current technology we couldn't detect a dyson sphere at any respectable distance. Again, I think you fail to realize how large space is and the distances involved, even if every single star was shooting out many probes and ships, we would likely never see any of them.

>>4094182

You're failing to understand the concept of time. You're assuming that every star is shooting out probes and ships right now; when you consider how long it would take another race to make it here with even our current level of technology, then you realize it's been a long time for a lot of possible civilizations to be traveling in our Galaxy.

And if Type 2 civilizations existed, we could detect them rather easily.

>Since it seems most likely that these collectors would be made up of heavy elements not normally found in the emission spectra of their central star–or at least not radiating light at such relatively "low" energies as compared to that which they would be emitting as energetic free nuclei in the stellar atmosphere–there would be atypical wavelengths of light for the star's spectral type in the light spectrum emitted by the star system. If the percentage of the star's output thus filtered or transformed by this absorption and reradiation was significant, it could be detected at interstellar distances

Yet we haven't. So, in our galaxy, it's pretty much safe to assume that either A) We're missing something, or B) It's never happened.

>>4094197

Still, my statement stands, even if there were millions of probes in the Oort cloud we wouldn't be able to detect them or even know they existed.

You can run some numbers If you want, I'm not going to do it for you but planets suitable for life are not stable for ever, life doesn't last for ever, there's a very small window of a planets life where Intelligent life can exist, when you factor that in, even if they were sending out probes every year they existed and could we would likely never ever discover one.

Intelligent life is most likely quite rare, but it's out there. We're not missing anything, (or they're all waiting for us to reach a certain level before contacted us, but that doesn't sound to logical)

>>4094228

The Oort cloud isn't even proven to exist yet.

>>4094263
there's a good reason for that; it's completely hypothetical

>>4094263

replace Oort cloud with 50,000 AU diameter orbit examining our planet.

What's the point of arguing semantics.

>>4094272

So points made based on hypothetical areas in space are what, moot?

>>4094276
those hypothesis were made to breach the gap in logic.

i.e., if the universe is so old, why are there still frozen comets?

oh, hey, they must replenish themselves periodically in an "Oort cloud"

when there is no Oort cloud, the original problem resurfaces: how come there are young comets?

>>4094166
> We have yet to see a shred of evidence that this has ever happened. No Dyson Spheres, no artifacts, no structures, no ships, no probes, no signals, nothing. NOTHING. Again, this is a huge *YET*, as there may be other reasons why we can't detect their signals, their probes, etc. But if you think about this math alone, it makes no sense that we have not seen anything at all even remotely showing that there's another civilization out there. So, what's happening? Are they dying before they get off their home planet? Is there no one else? Have they evolved in a way that we cannot detect/notice?

You already know the answer. Obviously you're not a SPACEBRO and aren't married to the romantic idea of being a spacefaring civilization.

Lifeforms kill themselves off. Look at our own example. We've already started World War III in the Middle East just for the privilege of chewing up all the world's petroleum. We'll kill ANYONE who gets in our way for that. We'll never cooperate enough to make a space-based economy.

It's not just our violent simian natures. It's WORSE than that. By the time lifeforms start using TOOLS, they cease to adapt to their environments by default. Tools are the admission that you can't adapt. And that produces such a deep environmental dependency that extinction is very much risked.

The Silent Sky shows the supremacy of economics. THE ABSENCE IS THE EVIDENCE.

>>4094285

oh look its this guy.

I'm out

>>4094291
angry simian guy wins by tko

>>4094228
your contention is that intelligent life exists on other planets, and yet, you have no evidence whatsoever to support your position. and logically, it makes no sense to assume that, since life is present on earth, it must be present elsewhere.

>>4094304
This.

Thank you.

>>4094304
You could also point out that a sample size of 1 in the face of possible billions, is a bad statistical circumstance to extrapolate with.

>>4094334

This.

Thank you.

>>4094334
aye, but the fantasy that life elsewhere is going to save us, to solve all of our problems, with their super technology, isn't a rational thought; it's a fantasy. it's hard to disabuse fantasies with facts; people like their fantasies, and cling to them, regardless.

>>4094353

No one with a scientific mind or anyone in this thread even hinted at that.

>>4094362
you have to understand where the desire to believe in things despite the evidence, despite logic, comes from

it takes different forms; the person i was responding to believed that intelligent life is somehow monitoring our progress, and will contact us when we're "deserving" or "ready"

this is clearly a fiction, and it was clearly expressed above, in this very thread

>>4094353
>aye, but the fantasy that god is going to save us, to solve all of our problems, with his super powers, isn't a rational thought; it's a fantasy. it's hard to disabuse fantasies with facts; people like their fantasies, and cling to them, regardless.

Fix'd; also, you're talking to the wrong board bro.

>>4094376
hook, line, and sinker

and i know where i am, tyvm

>>4094375

No one suggested that, and the only guy who mentioned it said it wasn't very logical. Try again.

>>4094379
>hook, line, and sinker

you used that incorrectly.

>>4094394
not at all; i got you to see how clinging to faith in science and clinging to faith in God are interchangeable

and /sci/ mocks "blind" faith in God, yet takes a cripple's word for everything

>>4094413

How can you compare to two when one of them has one variable of extremely strong evidence (Life on earth) and the other has no evidence at all and is contradicted by millions of things.

>>4094427
i'm comparing science and religion, both faith based positions, to see which one is more logical, and is supported by a proponderence of the evidence

so far, the bible says the earth is special

and science says we have no proof of life anywhere else in the universe

so far, there is no conflict

>>4094413


So life and the big bang are the only two things that exist that can only happen once? That's hilarious, I'm leaving this thread now.

>>4094440
no, just life, and weren't you leaving much earlier?

>>4094413
>yet takes a cripple's word for everything

Except, a study showed that many in the field of Physics would not label Stephen Hawking as being in there Top 5 list of modern Physicists. He was cool in the 80's, has a sad story, and is now a public figure. So again, you're wrong.

Chances are, any advance civilizations there are in the universe have achieved singularity before leaving their planet for other systems. The desire to "escape death" is very strong, and systems which do not perpetuate themselves, quite frankly, die.

Another likelihood is that they communicate via entanglement as opposed to lightspeed communications, so that we would never be able to detect they were there in the first place. It'd be much like a blind man and a deaf man trying to communicate with each other. Unless the blind man were lucky enough to bump into the deaf man, the blind man would never know he exists. And even then, he could just move out of the way.

Of course, these are just guesses. But the point is that there's so much in the universe that we don't understand, we can either pretend that all anomalies we see are aliens, or they are forces which we have yet to understand. Aliens, more or less, are the new "God". Which, ironically, might even be more apt than we guess.

Long story short, there's somewhere between 0 and infinity other civilizations out there in the universe. But we haven't shown that any exist, and we can't prove that they don't. Ultimately, there really is no way to know until we actually come across aliens.

Schrodinger's Catbox is a bitch.

>>4094453
yeah, that's kind of my point. scientists come, and scientists go, and what they leave behind is just refuted later as incorrect

but, oh boy, this new crop of scientists, wow, they really do have all the answers

>>4094470

Angry Simian guy pretends he knows the answer for 100% and we're a unique snowflake.

>>4094481
why would you want to argue that we are not a unique snowflake?

>>4094480
They build on the latest discoveries... I don't uh, I don't quite understand what you're saying. Or why you're here on this board. You know you're on /sci/ right?

>>4094490
indeed, thank you again for the directions.

tell me, when you build on a lie, when do you find the truth?

>>4094494
Full blown retard here.

Oh wait, I meant Religious Zealot.

Same thing.

>>4094498
indeed, but doesn't that depend on the outcome? which is in the future?

>>4094481
How does writing a post about how inconclusive the search for aliens is translate to me knowing I'm %100 convinced about anything? I don't get it.

>>4094525
i do not agree with your assertion that the use of tools is a failure to adapt, when tools are gleaned from the environment and adapted for our use

>>4094532
It's more of a trend I noticed than anything else, honestly. Not just in regards to life, but everything in general. But I'll use life as an example, anyway. I'm using terms really broadly, but it's mostly to achieve an overarching concept.

"Life" starts. If life is capable of "evolution", it'll be more likely than life that is not capable of evolution. Life that is static will not adapt and will succumb to entropy. At this point, the trend has been set in motion where those that can adapt to their environment will overcome those that don't. It becomes a self-repeating trend that encourages itself, and eliminates all possibilities in the way. Most things that we consider "intelligent", though, are thing which are aware of their own "process".

Once "intelligence" is achieved, "evolution" itself must "evolve", or again, it succumbs to entropy. When I talk about singularity, it's not necessarily that I think life must rely on tools to survive. But I do think it should be both aware and able to modify itself so that it may continue the trend which bore it.

I can think of many forms of life that may or may not be like we describe it currently. But I can't imagine any form of life which would survive without following this trend in the long run, as the end of the trend means "death" itself. Singularity, to me, is the step beyond intelligence where the modifications are far quicker and much more deliberate.

I know this isn't the exact definition of singularity: but I don't imagine that the path singularity takes will be any different than this.

i'm not saying it's aliens.. but it's not aliens

>>4094525

This is not me, Violent Simians Guy.

>>4094532
> i do not agree with your assertion that the use of tools is a failure to adapt, when tools are gleaned from the environment and adapted for our use

I don't care if you agree or not. It's true by definition. If you need TOOLS TO SURVIVE, then you've failed to adapt. Take away your fucking tools (meaning also all your ability to make use of PETROLEUM) and you'll most likely just die off, along with about 5 or 6 of our 7 billion people. You're not ADAPTED to survive in your non-tool environment.

Remember: Your agreement with the truth isn't required. It's true regardless of your support. Learn to identify the truth or be FUCKING RUN OVER BY IT.

>implying other planets have gods
check mate virgin neckbeards

>>4094602
>the step beyond intelligence where the modifications are far quicker and much more deliberate.
This sentence doesnt make sense to me. What step "beyond intelligence", what is beyond intelligence? How did you find that out, besides making some nebulous projection of wishful thinking "more is better" type of reasoning?

>>4094797
>tripfag on /sci
>calls others virgin neckbeards.

ISHYGDDT

>that mediocre feel when someone decided to express their pure retardation by saying life can only develop in the hurrdurrgoldielocks zone

>If there really are so many other advanced civilizations out there, where are they?

Why do you assume their existence is long enough for us to be around simultaneously?

We're about primed to blow ourselves to shit these days, and radio hasn't been around much longer than 100 years.

>>4094851
> We're about primed to blow ourselves to shit these days, and radio hasn't been around much longer than 100 years.

That was Sagan's fear. He suspected from our violent simian behavior trend that technological civilizations destroy themselves. He never used the term "violent simians" that I know of, but his understanding of the the Human so-called brain must have impressed that deep suspicion on him. He hoped for better.

BUT. DAT. SILENT. SKY. He couldn't explain that away, could he? That couple of factors in the Drake Equation had to have been a LOT smaller than his fellow pasty-white scientists were willing to admit.

>>4093031
>where are they?
Pic related, their signals probably haven't even reached us yet, and that's assuming the signal itself hasn't degraded into nothing.
Sure, no wave patterns are actually 'destroyed', but energy of the signal can and will decrease as it travels, while also being masked by other signals on the same vector as it.

If the universe is unbound in size to where the lack of matter creates matter through quantum flux, you could simply telleport an arbitrarily large amount of distance away from any other life you may be associated with and make the universe appear vacant when you start your own little planet experiment! yay!

The more pertinent question is why are we still alive when it would be so easy to conquer the galaxy with only the technology we have now.

http://pastebin.com/zp79qR2v

>>4095305
Indeed. Unless all the other species don't like imperialism among the stars for some reason there should be others. I think we are utterly alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCLa6drPdjg

"I have seen the maw of the void yawn wide, where dark planets roll unheeded without aim. Where they roll in their horror with without purpose, reason, luster, or name."
HP Lovecraft

>Implying they want to talk to us

How often do you talk to head hunting tribes in Paupa New Guinea? They are pretty low on the totem pole of technological advancement on earth

How about extreme tribal societies in Africa and South America

WHY would aliens want to do something we don't with a larger technological (end energy) cost?

>Pic related

>>4095321
It's less a matter of talking an more a matter that they should already have conquered the Solar system tens of milllions of years ago.

>>4095305
The "muzzle flash" from taking out an entire civilization with relativistic weapons or otherwise immediately alerts civilizations around you that your civilization is dangerous. And bam, you're civilization gets bombarded by other civilzations with relativistic weaponry.

>>4095325
Has the United States went around dominating every country in a similar way on our scale? No we found better ways to do it

Why would an alien not have better ways to dominate polities on a larger scale

The whole premise of the paradox is erroneous. If we scale it down and apply it on earth none of it makes any damn sense. So why would it make sense when you scale it up?

>>4093031

They're all Spirals

>>4094886
Except that even during the Cuba missile crisis we didn't come close. Or the fact the in the 50s when the Russians had a total of 20 bombs and 4 ICBMs SAC actually could have won a nuclear war and taken over the planet as a single unipolar empire due to their bomber advantage and the fact ti took the ICBMs 48 hours to prep for launch.

Nuclear capable civilizations need not be like ours, but nuclear weapons do not always mean MAD. Sometimes they could mean the first party that gets them wins and becomes the permanent hegemony.

Sagan's work as a planetary astronomer was quite good but don't think that his or anyone else's pseudophilosophical babble has any real relevance. His assumption is still that, and assumption. And by it's nature a difficult one to quantify.

>>4095335
But if it is scaled up it does make sense. The reason the USA cannot conquer everyone is because it could never hold its acquisitions. Even all the Great Powers combined could not easily or profitibily hold all the rest of the world in sway militarily. And that is even without great powers waging proxy war against each other or independent actors selling weapons to anyone to turn a profit. Being the most powerful does not make one able to be a hegemon.

But the vast majority of stellar systems would be uninhabited. They would be open ground to conquer by simple colonization. Given how our species acts which is more likely? That we will colonize and exploit every single environment we can inhabit. Or that we will leave the galaxy in some pristine state for some sissy philosophical, moral, or aesthetic reason.

>>4095335
Related: China went on a tear like it was going to rule the world

then they turned inward and decided nothing was more important then china. and they stagnated

Lets say we have a KI or KII civ. And they control a planet/solar System

Why would they want to get involved outside of their home

They could just as easily decide they have done all the awesome they need to do

>>4095357
But the problem is that there is a knowledge gap.
One of the key principles of engineering and physics in general is that, whetever it is, you can scale up up and down and still expect it to function. If it cannot, then there is some unknown principle that begins to effect the system's workings at that macro or micro scale.

>>4095357
How can you administer territories over a large scale even with faster then light travel and communication?

Thats orders of difficulty harder then what we have on earth. We can communicate near instantaneously anywhere on earth and organizing political/military/economic systems togther is VERY hard. And we are in a much more integrated system then space would be. Also you can't go around nuking planets from orbit if they are habitable. Habitable planets have lots of resource benefits. So you would have to vanquish planets with troops. ANd the larger the area you need to secure the more troops. So its the same type of problem the USA has. Even if we had 10 percent of our population in the military (and have them well equipped) we couldn't take over the world. Its just not a practical feat militarily

>>4095364
So their are (at minimum) Political, Economic, and Cultural reasons to answer the Fermi paradox

their may also be feats of management and engineering that are difficult as well

also we assume exponential technology growth involved here. What if the curve starts declining to a more sane baseline. So how can we assume their are that many civilizations more advanced (in a significant way) then ours?

>>4095363
Which is why we need to remain vicious, sociopathic, imperial, xenocidal bastards. The universe belongs to those strong enough to claim it. That wonderful pristine cosmos of diverse civilizations squatting around and being content can be ruined by one bad apple. Lets be that bad apple.

And we could strip the terrestial planets away to nothing in 10 million years so then there would be a reason to pick up and scatter to repeat the process. It would force our expansion. But why wait. Humans like to conquer and explore. We are takers and killers, it's what we do. We need to reinforce that part of our nature by whatever means we have available to ensure our perpetual survival.

Also it is a good idea to spread to avoid getting killed off entirely by a supernova.

>>4095373
Hard to say. Could be many, could be few.
see
>>4095138

And my point with the whole scaling up and down thing is that many systems that appear sociological are actually physical, and if they don't work when scaling then we need to let the scientists do their research and figure out what we're missing.

>>4094886
>the Drake Equation

Nobody takes the Drake equation seriously.

It's meant to illustrate in a simplified manner how unlikely it is that we are the only species to ever have achieved an "advanced" civilization, but it is based entirely on false premises.

For instance the equation assumed half of all stars would have planets, before we had even observed any evidence of extrasolar planets.

There was no basis for that presumption, and since then it's looking like 50% was perhaps too low a guess.

>>4095377

Russians made a doomsday device which kept them from being retarded in the cold war.

All we need is a device and implant it on another world and turn it on to produce ourselves again. So to save our genetic materials we don't need to go there ourselves. We can send our dna and let them work out the details.

Also we can disagree with the nature of human nature. People become less violent when they have more success. (and have less need to be violent)

>>4095368
We don't need to administrate it. Each stellary system would be a pocket empire on it's own. Each one constantly sending out colonizing objects to infest other stellar systems.

Interstellar empires are impossible unless it was like the early colonial empires and the stellar systems were only a few light months apart.

Taking over an unoccupied stellar system is just colonizing it and in the process preventing any other intelligences from doing so.

Never trust a xeno. Humanity being alone for eternity is better than taking the risk of slow encroachment and extinction due to extraterrestrial intelligences taking potential habitats from us. The longer we are established in a stellar system and the more of it's mass we have turned into humans and supporting industry the more chance we have to hold that stellar system from alien encroachment.

>>4095380
Well I mean lets take a prime directive like reason:
They don't want to interfear with a developing civilization

that may be sociological

then their was my other example: We don't talk to headhunters in the jungle ... so why would they want to talk to us if they are that much more advanced then us

You don't even associate often with people less advanced then you in your own community

Also sociological.

>>4095390
>Russians made a doomsday device which kept them from being retarded in the cold war.

No they didn't this is not doctor strange love. They had Dead Hand later in the 60s which ensured strike back capability even if their central command and control was eliminated by a surprise attack, we had a similar plan. Nobody had a dooms day weapon other than the effects of all the warheads combined. And even then since all the warheads would be falling on the Great Powers it is questionable whether that would have killed the human race or even destroy all industrial civilization. Both the effects of radiation, the amount of radiation expected to be released, and the nuclear winter effect were overestimated for many years.

>>4095400
A deadman device is a doomsday device

>>4095403
No Dead Hand is not at a doomsday device. It strikes enemy strategic assets. Essentially all the missiles would be fired at US and Wesern European Cities. With a few more for Japan, and South Korea.

A Doomsday device is designed to cause huge casualties to assets outside the territory of your enemies. The Dead Hand and it's US conterpart didn't target the South America, Africa, or Austrailia. Though India may have been a target.

Even a full exchange of all the nukes would not destroy every major city in the world. All the great powers would be shattered. MAD just means that both sides of the fight lose not that every living human dies. The effects of the war were overestimated by those for and opposed to the MAD strategy.

Nuclear winter was particularly overblown, as was found out latter in the 90s when we started to learn more about how much energy it takes to get particulates into the atmosphere, their distribution, and how they act once they get up their.

It is a little farfetched to claim that intelligent life (meaning human level or higher) on our planet proves its existence anywhere else. Relatively it developed quite recently, so we can't even possibly judge if it will not turn out as an evolutionary dead end.

I love the idea that dark matter is actually billions of Dyson spheres. It's outright inspiring.

>>4094040
The burden of proof is on you to show the earth is round instead of flat. Lol. Or that the earth circles the sun.

In just the past few years hundreds of exosolar planets have been discovered. A few of those are terrestrial size. Wait a couple more years when a satellite is lofted that will detect the presence of gases produced by organic life.