Reaper

I'll go with a more optimistic approach and say that out of the assumed 100, about 3 are actively listening out there right now. Given the extreme lack of data about the nature of extra-terrestrial civilizations its very hard to say; there is a possibility that our guesses are way off. ========================================= Perhaps we should also make a poll to try to guess how many aliens out there currently believe they are the center of the universe...

What are you talking about? Infinity has been quantified, why can't forever be:-p?

I think you need to be a little more specific with your question. Are you talking about the present? Or at any time in the galaxy's long history? And do they have to be alive right at this minute?

Well, I can see that this thread is well under way. And you guys on the opposite side seem to be doing a little better now (well, certainly better than some other nameless group at some other forum I'm posting at...). However, some of you seem to fail to provide citations and are misrepresenting the data (or users posts) presented. So, I will ask of you that in order to provide an effective counter arguments, that you actually provide us with some genuine research being done or convincing evidence that show that the graphs are indeed missing something critical. But you haven't demonstrated it to be wrong. Just because it is a wiki doesn't mean its invalid or wrong. Can you be a little bit more specific here? Can you actually show us where this happened? And most importantly, can you provide us a peer reviewed study that is not in complete agreement. You are making claims, now you have to back them up. This is nothing more than a strawman on your part.

ewww.. I don't think I even want to know what is going in thedarkshade's head.

Bump! Yes, I decided to bump this, for the sole reason of making sure that everyone, especially new members, will get to bear witness of the idiocy of the OP and the topic

I also got some DVD's, the Universe series season 1. Just started watching them today. On the side note, how surprising I find it when the history channel now actually shows more science then the discovery channel nowadays...

Just watched this video, another good one by cdk. It kinda made me feel a little guilty and a bit stupid watching it. But it did make me think and gives even more reason as to why our current investment in the Iraq war is just plain stupid. Enjoy....

I think this passage is appropriate for this thread: "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." —Alice in Wonderland.

I got Half Life 2, and some The Office episodes.

The launching of Cosmos 1 (and some other notable space projects) did not require a government though. Also, as time progresses the per capita income, GDP, GNP, and the overall economy as it exists today will likely continue to rise overall; it has been ever since we've progressed up the technological and social ladder. And, maybe not in the U.S., but certainly elsewhere. It is also conceivable that independent organizations, such as corporations or non-profit ones for example, will be able to gather enough resources to undergo and fund such an effort in the future independently of the governments. Indeed, organizations and corporations already earn way more than governments do, and they are now largely the ones responsible for funding many major projects ranging from space travel to feeding the hungry today. =================================================== As for potential benefits associated with these habitats, I can list several. For example, tourism. Not every benefit has to be tangible you know. Also, such habitats can easily be adaptable to being able to serve as harvesters or something. They could also act as zero-g industrial plants. Or docking stations. On the contrary, they can do a great many of things; their functions need not be restricted to serve as population control you know. It's not entirely due to genes though. Even if we do find those genes responsible for some aspect of it, aging will still happen, simply because of sheer erosion of our bodies. It may not even be possible to extend our life much beyond 120 or 130 unless we make some radical changes in our cellular processes or physiologies. But that was because the elements necessary to make such products were already there. We do have a good idea of what of elements there are in the kuipier belt or similar locations around stars, and so far there is no reason to believe that there are very many heavy elements out in the fringes. Our supernova models and star formation models don't really predict that we will find such materials in large quantities very far out from a star system simply because of how they are distributed (lighter ones get blown off first, then the heavier ones, also, heavier ones tend to concentrate together.) And that is true. For all we know, we could discover just about anything out there. It's not like we haven't been surprised before since we started looking out into the stars...

I think we should lock this thread now. The OP got what he wanted, and there really is no reason that this argument should continue with someone who very clearly will not sway in his beliefs. BTW, all current geological (never mind physics for a moment), fossil records, age of meteorites, historical records, etc, disprove the idea of a young earth (or any kind of literal interpretation of the bible) in any case. ============================= But, I sometimes have to wonder, why is it that some people insist on a literal errant bible even though the bible makes no literal sense to begin with, nor is it necessary? For instance, what is wrong with simply accepting this explanation here:

I agree with that point. Ok, but that holds only if the Dyson Sphere is fully built. What if it is only half built, or a quarter built? Clearly, gravitational problems are going to arise that would have to be taken to account. Not that I haven't been doing some research on the subject though, I found a link that does describe the possibility of building one and how it may be done: http://photonswarm.com/futurology/?article=11 Wiki also provides some good ones too. I think also usable building material was also an issue, since not all of the solar system's mass can actually be used to make the sphere. You might be able to use comets or other icy bodies for fuel and energy, but you'll also need heavy metals and heavy elements too to sustain such a life style, and large quantities of that are mostly found within star systems, which would basically defeats the purpose of never having to go to one as you are proposing. While your method might be good for traveling between star systems, you cannot hold this kind of life style for an indefinite period of time, eventually you are going to have to stop at a star system before you run out of usable resources, or energy, or both for that matter. To further support my point, just because we developed the capability to last for months on end out on the oceans of Earth didn't mean we no longer needed land to live off of, and the same holds for interstellar travelers; just because they can travel between stars doesn't mean they will no longer need to depend on them.

It's mass is the same, but the gravitational pull of an object is also dependent on it's density and size. So, there would indeed be some gravitational problems that you would have to account for when engineering something like a full-blown Dyson Sphere. I have read one of them. They are very good novels too, though some of the science is a bit sketchy in them. None that we know of that is . That is true. To live in space or to travel between stars, or build a Dyson Sphere, or whatever, there would certainly be some problems they would have to overcome. Which does mean, of course, if they have managed to solve them, would be yet another reason for why extraterrestrials may not settle on Earth, or on large rocky bodies similar to it, simply because planets would be too much of a hassle, especially with the atmosphere they might have to deal with and a relatively high gravitational pull compared with smaller bodies such as asteroids or small moons. As for Skeptic's habitats, I do agree that they would be problematic if they decide to stay on one for an indefinite period of time. Maybe most humans wouldn't, but who's to say that an advanced alien civilization won't either? Certainly their ideologies or religions or ethics will be radically different from ours. And as for humans, there is still transhumanism; Even if a small minority end up supporting such radical changes in the far future, that is really all that is needed for them to become the dominant species or whatever in space; to use natural selection, such humans that much adapted would be far more likely to survive than those humans who aren't, and therefore would be more likely to reproduce, and less likely to go extinct . And that I do agree with that. I wasn't proposing that we rely solely on genetic manipulation, but that it will certainly help us in being able to adapt to the outer space environment or other planets. Certainly, if we can slow the rate at which our health deteriorates via biotechnology to the point where we can last for even a couple of decades in space without having to go back to Earth or a planetary body, then it would make engineering challenges of living in space a lot simpler and far less resource and energy intensive. I'm pretty certain that we can and maybe will at least do that much, assuming we don't go extinct first. The reason I asked if you were kidding is because the sun, or, well, any star is capable of producing far more energy output then any fusion reactor we (or an advanced civilization) could ever make! Plus, our own Earth could be considered a giant spaceship that is made habitable by, guess what, our own sun. Our fossil fuels contain stored energy that originated from our sun. Even the material for fusion is star-stuff. Those simple fact alone would be enough that living like the way you described for very long would be completely idiotic, whether to us humans or to an alien civilization. You could never be able to maintain that for an indefinite period of time; eventually you would have to settle around a star system, for both the energy you could obtain AND for the simple fact that star systems usually contain a lot of the material necessary to maintain even a space faring one. Plus, why go through all that trouble when you could just tap into energy that comes right from a star or a black hole (or pulsar, etc), which will last for at least a few billion years. This would hold true even with a hypothetical nomadic space faring one...

Oh, ok then. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I had sworn I read otherwise. But, just in case, remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... ==================================== You know what, I'll go over there to richarddawkins.net and debunk their claims right now.... Hey, our old friend Farsight is also there too!

Exactly, that's what I was getting at.

That is shifting the burden of proof though. Regardless, one could very easily argue out this though if one knows enough about physics...

If we are going to assume a full blown Dyson Sphere (where it is all closed off), then it may not need to orbit its star at all; all it would have to do is move at the same speed relative to its star. All the bodies in our solar system including the sun are moving at the same speed, more or less, around the center of the galactic core. Though that doesn't mean that it doesn't have problems in general; for instance I'm sure a full blown Dyson Sphere will probably cause some gravitational issues around its own star, as well as some other nearby star systems or bodies near the star system... Well, with a ring system, you would definitely need some major orbital adjustments and other mechanisms, so I do agree with that point. But, its not so much because the star would move out of the ring; it's more like that because without any, the ring itself would probably get pulverized by the star's own gravity! One only has to look at what happens when a large body gets too close to a gas giant for example. I'm not arguing that a civilization should, but that settling on moons (or other small bodies) instead of planets would probably be better (assuming that they find moons about as small as our own solar system). Low gravity bodies and worlds does bring in a great deal of benefits in terms of energy requirements, colonization/exploration/exploitation of its new star system (don't need nearly as much fuel to go from one body to another), some form of radiation protection, and most of all I would imagine that it is much more adaptable or survivable. We don't know the effects of high gravity on the human body, or any other life form, as of yet. We do have quite a bit of data on how Earth organisms fare in microgravity though, and not all of them are as disadvantaged as we are; the reason it's bad for us humans is because our bones weaken by losing calcium and muscle atrophy happens quite quickly. Likewise I also suggested that gas giants would be of much better use than planets like Earth or Mars sized ones, not necessarily for colonization but for resource and energy purposes and for propulsion of any future space craft that will travel around their local star system. And then of course, there are nebula, black holes, etc. I think its safe to assume that a civilization sufficiently advanced enough to travel around its own solar system and to travel to other star systems will have already transcended such limitations such as the need for artificial gravity. IMO, if we can get rid of the need for that, then it would make living in space far easier than it is right now, and far less energy intensive. Genetic manipulation that will come about in this century will certainly help us with space colonization and overcoming the several challenges that we will face. You are kidding, right?

Guys, I wouldn't bother arguing with Stan. The language of his posts seems to suggest that he's pretty much here to troll, and that no amount of evidence, or indeed logic, will sway his position. Not really. A lot of what is described about them (Creationists) is generally true. ======================================= Alright enough rant: The links you provided are either speculation at best, or don't support your position at all. For example, if the speed of light does actually change it doesn't imply a young earth; this is known as the slippery slope fallacy.

I know this is an old thread, but any talk of the nature of extra-terrestrial civilizations has always interested me. Plus, I don't want to start a new one since there's a bunch of good discussion here... I'm going to add my two cents to this and try to rekindle discussion on this topic: For one, I do think that the Dyson Sphere (or something similar) is a pretty strong argument for why we may not see vast galactic empires or large scale interstellar colonization if we assume that FTL travel isn't possible (and even if it is, I read somewhere that such technology if it could be, such as making a wormhole for example, would take up so much energy that it probably wouldn't be practical). I read somewhere, and I'll try to find the source again (I think it was in a book though), that the solar system possesses enough resources to support a few quadrillion human beings, assuming that the population does ever get that high, and can do so for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Of course, it is probably unlikely that our population will ever get that high, which of course means that the resources in our own solar system are virtually inexhaustible. As well, our own sun produces about 4 x 10^33 erg/sec, and will continue to produce a vast amount of energy for billions of years. So with this alone there probably wouldn't be a purely economic reason for going out into the galaxy. Of course, exploration (scientific or otherwise) of the galaxy would probably occur via robotic probes. If colonization of the galaxy were to occur, the reasons would probably be different other than for purely economic, political, etc. For example, some people might want to leave the solar system out of adventure (as had been mentioned earlier), or out of religious reasons, or political, or any number of reasons; if one can be found, then it will probably occur no matter how illogical or irrational or unscientific they may be. It is entirely possible for a civilization to go out just for the heck of it, or for sheer thrills (humans, for example, have been known to go off on lengthy conquest campaigns even when it was unnecessary...). Of course, economics would absolutely need to be taken to account (e.g. possible multi-generational ships). Now, I have read various possible explanations of the Fermi Paradox, and the idea that a civilization would be able to colonize an entire galaxy in a cosmological blink of an eye. Even though it may technically be possible to do that, assuming there was a constant drive, I don't necessarily believe that it could happen that fast. For one, traveling around in a multi-generational ship is probably going to make who ever is on it very weary, and once they reach their destination they will probably stay there for an indefinite period of time. And then of course it is possible (and most likely IMO) that a given civilization that colonizes and starts to exploit their solar system's resources will only send a few (we will say less than 100 or 1000, obviously more than one will need to be sent in order to ensure that at least some will be successful) of those ships out into the galaxy should they ever decide invest in them. And then of course, there is no telling whether the colonists of those star systems will decide to invest in continuing colonization of the galaxy after they establish themselves. Also, once they establish themselves, whatever civilization that flourishes (or not) will probably go a different route then it's parent civilization (some may be expansionist, while others may not, or some may even die off). This and other factors of course would probably slow the expansion of a given civilization by a great deal and it is entirely possible that they may only go out to a limited number of star systems before they stop expanding, and so even after a billion years they may never colonize the entire galaxy. For all we know, the colonization effort may have begun 2 billion years ago (to pick an arbitrary number that has been flung around alot in this thread) by an alien civilization, but they still probably haven't finished colonizing the galaxy as of yet (or may have stopped after some point). ============================ Another idea that has also been flung around in this thread is the idea that they might not colonize planets at all, which I find interesting. And, after thinking about it, it probably would make a lot more sense. If we take a look at our own plans for colonizing for example, I know that the only bodies or planets in the solar system that has been seriously considered for possible human colonization are Mars and Titan. Venus, for example, will probably never be colonized. And even with a planet like Mars there are already formidable problems facing us such as a hostile environment (you will only survive for tens of seconds on Mars without a spacesuit), radiation, etc. It seems to me that planets are pretty much a big hassle, and that it is probably easier to just create an artificial environment on an asteroid or a moon or something. As we all know, asteroids, comets, and moons have the great advantage of having extremely low gravity (and therefore wouldn't require nearly as much resources and energy to exploit them) and have a great many valuable resources; asteroids have metals and other useful elements, comets have water and organic material (and therefore can potentially sustain life), and moons at least provide a solid base on which potential colonists to other solar systems can inhabit. Also, gas giants might probably be much better for interstellar travelers than planets like Earth (e.g. for resources or energy extraction, or for propelling themselves to get around their star system via gravitational assist). This of course would give rise to a sort of nomadic lifestyle by a given civilization. So, maybe there have been several visitors to our solar system over the past billion years, but they may have decided to stay around the asteroid fields, the gas giants, and the Kupier Belts rather than settle on Earth. Another thing that I've been thinking about is that maybe interstellar travelers would value places like black holes, nebula, or supernova remnants, much more than star systems. Black holes, for example, can provide a huge amount of energy and resources for a given interstellar traveler to base their colony off of. Nebula, of course, have a very large amount of elements and other resources, in addition to having young stars. So maybe, these civilization do go out, but they don't settle on small rocky planets like Earth, but rather go to black holes. I know that black hole cities have been hypothesized, and a colony or civilization around one will probably last for an indefinite period of time. My two cents, you can feel free to pick them apart if you wish... =================================== More food for thought... Speaking of theoretical civilizations in science-fiction, I do have a couple of examples of races that do not colonize planets, both from the game Homeworld and its sequels: and It seems to me that if this is the preferred methodology of galactic colonization (preferring space and small asteroids or black holes to planets) among species, then it is entirely possible that there does exist a vast galactic empire right at this moment, but don't bother with planets such as Earth. And IMO these type of civilizations similar to the ones above are entirely possible and plausible, even without FTL technology. So, that might be yet another reason as to why we don't seem to find any evidence of interstellar aliens having visited Earth. Indeed, basing their civs on nomadic lifestyles such as the ones described above could certainly have many advantages and benefits as opposed to colonizing planets (e.g. low maintenance, chances of being wiped out by a comet or a supernova would certainly drop dramatically, probably close to 0, etc). Also the reason I put italics around the communication part is because there is the possibility (IMO more than likely) that once they do begin to go out they will probably not spend that much time and resources to maintain communications with their home star system, especially if FTL travel is indeed not possible (why would they? They are after all hundreds of trillions of miles away...). And I have read about this sort of scenario in my readings on galactic colonization, where, say 10-20 million years from, now a group of creatures that were descended from humans may one day travel to Earth and probably not recognize that it was indeed their home world, and if there is still a civilization there they may see it as completely alien....

Hey, what do you know, I'm a member of that forum too by the same user name (though I don't post there nearly as often as I do here )

These two statements: And Maybe it's not exactly saying what I just equated too, but its the same general idea, and these statements do fall along those lines. I've made no strawman here. Notice how they imply a general conclusion "because X, therefore all bad". That's my two cents anyway.

It's not so much that religion is exempt from criticism, but rather whether his particular criticism was valid. In the teacher's particular case, he made some pretty nasty ad hominems and hasty generalizations. Saying that religion is bad/not true because people have used religion to oppress other people is exactly the same as saying that evolution is bad/not true because people have used it to create Social Darwinism (And therefore justified oppression of other people through it). Both conclusions are not valid, and they both can be seen as offensive simply because those statements make some pretty hasty assumptions about people who accept religion, evolution, or both. So, while the link from the OP does actually make an effort to sympathize with both sides here, I don't think in this particular case it was challenging beliefs. Pretty much, it was more or less saying "The catholic church did X,Y,Z in the past, therefore all Christians are bad/wrong" or "Some Christians believe X,Y,Z, therefore all of them are bad". Or since he does add conservative in here, "Some conservatives believe X,Y,Z, therefore they are all bad/wrong". The conclusions drawn from the statements are invalid, and they can be seen as rather offensive. Plus, given the tone of the speech (and the fact that this seems to happen every day at class), it seems to me that the teacher was pretty much preaching (which is against First-Amendment Rights). And, there are already enough generalizations of any group as it is. As an atheist intellectual-in-training, I see no need or reason to stoop down to their level

Skeptic........ After 10 pages it has become obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Especially when you made that comment about uncertainty. We have shown you again and again and again how and why your analysis was flawed, and yet you seem to have the magic ability to continue no matter how ludicrous your argument became. Just face it, you are a denier. And I don't care if the mods give me infraction points for that statement, because after what I observed here I think it is valid description. I will ask you again, even though I know you probably won't do it, SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS WITH MORE THAN JUST HAND WAVING AND ANSWER OUR DAMNED QUESTIONS THE RIGHT WAY. AND YES, YOU KNOW THE PROPER WAY TO DO IT (e.g. credible sources, valid data, etc) And stop trying to avoid the counter-arguments, its now just starting to get really annoying.

You want to argue over this SkepticLance, then take your handwaving over here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30362