UFO smoking gun?

[mistermack]

My own feeling about the fermi paradox is that we humans really are freaks, and that intelligence will generally reach a plateau and progress no further.

Evolution works, we know that. But it rarely goes further than the minimum needed for survival. If you look at Chimps, or Bonobos, or Dolphins, or Orangutans, they seem to have hit a brick wall in the intelligence stakes.

While humans evolved this huge brain, Chimps are much the same as our last common ancestor. 

Take out humans, and look at what's left, and most people would agree that intelligence levels off, once it reaches chimp or dolphin level. We don't know why we are so different, but it could be a one in a trillion occurrence. 

And don't forget that we very nearly went extinct ourselves, according to the dna evidence of a population bottleneck. Every other strain of humans is now extinct. A big brain is no guarantee of persistence of a species.

[Scott of the Antares]

From a shuttle mission apparently. If it isn’t fake, then it is certainly interesting.

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Scott of the Antares

[Moontanman]

On 5/30/2018 at 5:09 PM, Ten oz said:

Why does it matter if idiots have already made conspiracy theories about the Moon. Isn't that sort of you point about UFO's, that they aren't taken seriously enough in part because of some many hoaxes and the scientific community pretentiously being afraid of looking silly?

It matters for the same reason neither of us take all the UFO videos on you tube seriously, it's far too easy to fake and none of it is taken seriously by anyone outside the conspiracy theory community of believers...  

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

My own feeling about the fermi paradox is that we humans really are freaks, and that intelligence will generally reach a plateau and progress no further.

Evolution works, we know that. But it rarely goes further than the minimum needed for survival. If you look at Chimps, or Bonobos, or Dolphins, or Orangutans, they seem to have hit a brick wall in the intelligence stakes.

While humans evolved this huge brain, Chimps are much the same as our last common ancestor. 

Take out humans, and look at what's left, and most people would agree that intelligence levels off, once it reaches chimp or dolphin level. We don't know why we are so different, but it could be a one in a trillion occurrence. 

And don't forget that we very nearly went extinct ourselves, according to the dna evidence of a population bottleneck. Every other strain of humans is now extinct. A big brain is no guarantee of persistence of a species.

What kind of odds do you think we are talking about This is very important! It is estimated there are 100,000,000,000 planets in the Milky Way, let's say only 1 in a billion evolve a civilization that means 100 civilizations in the milky way. Many cosmologists think this is a very low estimate as it suggests less than one planet per star.  

BTW, to everyone who is discussing this, if aliens are so far advanced from us they are god like and can violate the known laws of physics at a whim then we are indeed no better than ants at a construction site. If this is the case then they are not part of our perceived reality and cannot communicate complex ideas to us any better than we can communicate to ants they should leave a construction site. 

How ever if you are saying we cannot communicate at all it should be noted that we can by using the same pheromones ants use. We already do this but while we can manipulate the ants into doing things via pheromones we cannot communicate complex issues with them. 

3 hours ago, Scott of the Antares said:

From a shuttle mission apparently. If it isn’t fake, then it is certainly interesting.

 

Ok, i have seen this, I didn't recognise the label but I am familiar with the "sighting" this is not evidence of anything anymore than unidentified lights in the sky are evidence of anything specific. 

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Now you're starting to lose my (well earned) respect.

That bothers me as long as me simply disagreeing with you isn't the cause of your loss. Perhaps you can elaborate on why I am losing your respect? 

If only this wasn't reported by Faux Noise!

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/05/31/supersonic-tic-tac-ufo-stalked-us-aircraft-carrier-for-days-pentagon-report-reveals.html

Edited May 31, 2018 by Moontanman

[mistermack]

Moontanman, just because a planet evolves a civilisation, that doesn't mean that they would ever have the ability to make contact across tens or hundreds of thousands of light years distance. If there ARE billions of planets in the Milky Way, then where do you choose to direct your message to? And why would you do that anyway? You might be inviting trouble.

I certainly wouldn't recommend that we should do it. So why should they do it?

We might have a distorted idea of the likelihood of a technological civilisation arising, because we are living in one. Ours might be a one in a billion freak chance, or it might not. We have no way of knowing. 

Then there's the problem of crossing vast expanses of space. The speculation about finding ways of defeating the laws of physics is probably way off the mark. It's hardly worth even considering. 

The amount of energy needed to accelerate something with mass to  a significant fraction of the speed of light is gigantic. And there is another inherent problem. If you expend that huge quantity of energy to accelerate, you need to carry the same amount of energy with you, in some way, so that you can decelerate at the other end of your trip. And that requirement puts up the mass of the ship, which puts up the required energy, which puts up the mass. So it's likely to be an exponential increase in the requirements, the faster you plan to travel.

If you want to travel a distance of ten thousand light years, and you are limited to 1% of the speed of light ( a huge number) then the trip will take a million years. 

I can't see us bothering with that kind of enterprise, so the same would probably go for aliens.

 

[Moontanman]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Moontanman, just because a planet evolves a civilisation, that doesn't mean that they would ever have the ability to make contact across tens or hundreds of thousands of light years distance.

This is true but what does it have to do with your assertion that we are freaks? 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If there ARE billions of planets in the Milky Way, then where do you choose to direct your message to? And why would you do that anyway? You might be inviting trouble. I certainly wouldn't recommend that we should do it. So why should they do it?

You could be right but if they have to follow the same laws of physics we do then it's doubtful they would be dangerous. The message could be directed in any of a great many ways. From aiming it directly at a star that has planets in it's habitable zone to a general omni directional broadcast. 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

We might have a distorted idea of the likelihood of a technological civilisation arising, because we are living in one. Ours might be a one in a billion freak chance, or it might not. We have no way of knowing.

I don't understand your meaning here, if we are one in a billion freak chance then there are untold billions of civilizations in the universe and at least 100 in our galaxy. 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Then there's the problem of crossing vast expanses of space. The speculation about finding ways of defeating the laws of physics is probably way off the mark. It's hardly worth even considering. 

This is only a problem if you assume aliens are visiting us directly. If they are colonising the galaxy via artificial habitats then they might stumble across us quite by accident. 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The amount of energy needed to accelerate something with mass to  a significant fraction of the speed of light is gigantic. And there is another inherent problem. If you expend that huge quantity of energy to accelerate, you need to carry the same amount of energy with you, in some way, so that you can decelerate at the other end of your trip. And that requirement puts up the mass of the ship, which puts up the required energy, which puts up the mass. So it's likely to be an exponential increase in the requirements, the faster you plan to travel.

This is only a problem if you are assuming they are traveling from one star to another directly. 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you want to travel a distance of ten thousand light years, and you are limited to 1% of the speed of light ( a huge number) then the trip will take a million years. 

This is true but you are assuming they would be traveling specifically to a destination instead of simply expanding as they use resources. 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I can't see us bothering with that kind of enterprise, so the same would probably go for aliens.

We have no clue as to the motivations of aliens and you are making the same assumptions when you assume they would be traveling directly from one star to another to explore that star system. 

[mistermack]

11 hours ago, Moontanman said:

This is true but you are assuming they would be traveling specifically to a destination instead of simply expanding as they use resources.

If they simply expanded, it would obviously be incrementally slow, compared to a deliberate voyage. It would be no surprise at all that we have never encountered aliens, if you were waiting for them to arrive due to expansion.

In any case, the concept of a need for expansion is not really a logical one. How long would it take, for humanity to exhaust the energy and materials of the solar system? Probably longer than the 4.5 billion years that it has existed. And if we did, we would only need to expand to the next available star. (which does have planets, I believe).

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

That bothers me as long as me simply disagreeing with you isn't the cause of your loss. Perhaps you can elaborate on why I am losing your respect? 

OK

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I am suggesting that we do have evidence and there are ways to gather even more poignant evidence,

Then present both your evidence and plan.

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

do you really dismiss all UFO reports as nonsense? They may not be alien spacecraft  but it is clear that UAP is and has been detected.

I ambivalent about it; it's an object and it's flying (maybe), it might be a magpie with a mirror or an atmospheric trick of the light and yes it might be an alien spacecraft; but since they bugger off without saying hello, it doesn't affect me, so (shrug) shit happens. 

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 My idea about the galaxy being colonised by artificial habitat aliens who avoid planets has just as much traction as his idea.  

But we do build on anthills.

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Except my idea is potentially falsifiable, his is not.. 

And this is why... FFS they are equivalent.

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

If they simply expanded, it would obviously be incrementally slow, compared to a deliberate voyage. It would be no surprise at all that we have never encountered aliens, if you were waiting for them to arrive due to expansion.

In any case, the concept of a need for expansion is not really a logical one. How long would it take, for humanity to exhaust the energy and materials of the solar system? Probably longer than the 4.5 billion years that it has existed. And if we did, we would only need to expand to the next available star. (which does have planets, I believe).

 It has been estimated that a civilization with technology similar to when we currently have could colonise the entire galaxy in  2.5 million years. You seem to be thinking that aliens would pick a destination go there and come back before going to another. What I am suggesting is that a civilization could send out artificial habitats that "lived off the land" and would make more habitats which would then make more. No going back the the home world and no colonizing planets just a steady advance as each habitat builds others and so on. 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

It has been estimated that a civilization with technology similar to when we currently have could colonise the entire galaxy in  2.5 million years.

If we don't die in the meantime.

9 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

What I am suggesting is that a civilization could send out artificial habitats that "lived off the land" 

 

Wait, what now . 

 

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 It has been estimated that a civilization with technology similar to when we currently have could colonise the entire galaxy in  2.5 million years. You seem to be thinking that aliens would pick a destination go there and come back before going to another. What I am suggesting is that a civilization could send out artificial habitats that "lived off the land" and would make more habitats which would then make more. No going back the the home world and no colonizing planets just a steady advance as each habitat builds others and so on. 

What you are suggesting isn't supported by anything other than your own thoughts on the matter. Evidence is where this thread sit deadlocked. There is no evidence to support any of your speculations. What's possible in theory and what exists in reality are not equals. 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

OK

Then present both your evidence and plan.

My plan is to detect artificial habitats operating in the Oort cloud via their waste heat. A torus shaped colony of 100 miles major axis and 20 miles minor axis and using fusion as a power source would struggle to get rid of waste heat. My evidence, such that is it, would be UFO reports some of which of course are inexplicable and drowning in data. 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I ambivalent about it; it's an object and it's flying (maybe), it might be a magpie with a mirror or an atmospheric trick of the light and yes it might be an alien spacecraft; but since they bugger off without saying hello, it doesn't affect me, so (shrug) shit happens.

If my idea has any traction aliens would have to be operating in the Oort cloud or kuiper belt, assuming the laws of physics are inviolate we should be able to detect them. UFOs cannot just be anything and not saying hello would be prudent if you wanted to study the inhabitants of a world in the planetary system  you find yourself colonising. 

A magpie with a mirror is so improbable as be less likely than aliens. So very many sighting cannot be something mundane unless you cherry pick the data much like the Washington, DC merry go round in 1957. 

Not only do I think it's quite probable that aliens would employ drones into planetary systems if they find out there is life there. While they may or may not send living beings in spacecraft to study us drones would almost certainly be deployed.  

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

But we do build on anthills.

Obviously we do but you are making an assumption here that aliens would be as gods to us. My proposal is rooted in the idea that aliens have to follow the same physical laws we do and they do not colonise planets at all or very seldom due to planets having so many disadvantages from an already established biosphere to gravity wells. Why risk it when you do not have to?  

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

And this is why... FFS they are equivalent.

This I cannot compute, did you mistype this? This doesn't seem to be relevant to his not being falsifiable and mine being falsifiable.  

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What's possible in theory and what exists in reality are not equals. 

Unless they're equally improbable...

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 It has been estimated that a civilization with technology similar to when we currently have could colonise the entire galaxy in  2.5 million years. You seem to be thinking that aliens would pick a destination go there and come back before going to another. What I am suggesting is that a civilization could send out artificial habitats that "lived off the land" and would make more habitats which would then make more. No going back the the home world and no colonizing planets just a steady advance as each habitat builds others and so on. 

If somehow, aliens could evolve with a high intelligence and tiny body on the scale of a virus, then it might be a practical proposition. 

I doubt it though. You have the problem of cosmic rays in empty space. No matter how small and lightweight your aliens, they would need massive shielding on their travels, which would defeat the advantage of a tiny size.

Once size increases, then everything gets harder. Your artificial habitat needs huge energy to get where it's going in a reasonable time. And then it needs to develop a full manufacturing capability, in an unknown environment, to be able to reproduce in a practical way.

You don't say if you are proposing purely robotic "habitats" or occupied ones.

Anyway, who's to say that a rival bunch of aliens don't come across your habitats, and simply adapt them to what they want?

[Moontanman]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If we don't die in the meantime.

This would be the ultimate way to ensure we do not become extinct. One habitat capable of building copies of itself could expand into billions vie the method am suggesting while the home world is destroyed. 

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Wait, what now . 

 

This is not a new idea, I have been playing this little dog and pony show for many years on this very forum.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

My plan is to detect artificial habitats operating in the Oort cloud via their waste heat. A torus shaped colony of 100 miles major axis and 20 miles minor axis and using fusion as a power source would struggle to get rid of waste heat. My evidence, such that is it, would be UFO reports some of which of course are inexplicable and drowning in data. 

If my idea has any traction aliens would have to be operating in the Oort cloud or kuiper belt, assuming the laws of physics are inviolate we should be able to detect them. UFOs cannot just be anything and not saying hello would be prudent if you wanted to study the inhabitants of a world in the planetary system  you find yourself colonising. 

A magpie with a mirror is so improbable as be less likely than aliens. So very many sighting cannot be something mundane unless you cherry pick the data much like the Washington, DC merry go round in 1957. 

Not only do I think it's quite probable that aliens would employ drones into planetary systems if they find out there is life there. While they may or may not send living beings in spacecraft to study us drones would almost certainly be deployed.  

 

Obviously we do but you are making an assumption here that aliens would be as gods to us. My proposal is rooted in the idea that aliens have to follow the same physical laws we do and they do not colonise planets at all or very seldom due to planets having so many disadvantages from an already established biosphere to gravity wells. Why risk it when you do not have to?  

This I cannot compute, did you mistype this? This doesn't seem to be relevant to his not being falsifiable and mine being falsifiable.  

 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Unless they're equally improbable...

[Moontanman]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What you are suggesting isn't supported by anything other than your own thoughts on the matter. Evidence is where this thread sit deadlocked. There is no evidence to support any of your speculations. What's possible in theory and what exists in reality are not equals. 

There is circumstantial evidence that some sort of non terrestrial technology has been visiting us how much if any of the UFO phenomena is non terrestrial can be debated but the idea of them traveling vast distances just to visit us is highly improbable. Sending drones to us from the oort cloud is not just doable it makes a lot of sense. 

I am not saying aliens are here, I am saying that we do have the means to detect them if they are. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

This would be the ultimate way to ensure we do not become extinct. 

 

Indeed, but as I said "shit happens".

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

 Improbable you say? An invisible dragon in my basement is improbable the existence of aliens is almost certain. 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but as I said "shit happens".

What is your point here? Are you saying that colonising the galaxy would not be a good way for humans to avoid extinction? 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Moontanman said:

 Improbable you say? An invisible dragon in my basement is improbable the existence of aliens is almost certain. 

Oh, come on moon, what sort of argument is that? 

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

What is your point here? Are you saying that colonising the galaxy would not be a good way for humans to avoid extinction? 

Why would you need to colonise the galaxy of about 300 billion stars? Our own star would support billions of artificial environments for the next four or five billion years. Extinction avoided right here. 

[Moontanman]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If somehow, aliens could evolve with a high intelligence and tiny body on the scale of a virus, then it might be a practical proposition. 

That has nothing to do with what we are discussing. 

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I doubt it though. You have the problem of cosmic rays in empty space. No matter how small and lightweight your aliens, they would need massive shielding on their travels, which would defeat the advantage of a tiny size.

Again not relevant to this conversation. 

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Once size increases, then everything gets harder. Your artificial habitat needs huge energy to get where it's going in a reasonable time. And then it needs to develop a full manufacturing capability, in an unknown environment, to be able to reproduce in a practical way.

The only thing we need to do this with our current technology is controlled fusion. Every habitat would have these capabilities from the very start. Manufacturing capability would be a big part of why and how they spread.    

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You don't say if you are proposing purely robotic "habitats" or occupied ones

Either would work but I am proposing occupied artificial colonies.

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Anyway, who's to say that a rival bunch of aliens don't come across your habitats, and simply adapt them to what they want?

Besides the ethical problems involved in terraforming a planet the time involved would be at best tens of thousands of years and you would have to contend with the possibility that life from that planet would be dangerous or that a planet have life, be very similar to earth but contain trace elements that would interfere with colonising that planet. 

Artificial habitats have no such problems and the equivalent of millions of earth surfaces could be made in relatively short order. 

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Oh, come on moon, what sort of argument is that? 

It's an analogy, one is highly improbable while the other is almost certainly true. 

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Why would you need to colonise the galaxy of about 300 billion stars? Our own star would support billions of artificial environments for the next four or five billion years. Extinction avoided right here. 

 While I agree with you on this its not part of this discussion... My answer is that putting all your eggs in one basket is not a good survival tactic. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

It's an analogy, one is highly improbable while the other is almost certainly true. 

 

Which is which?

[Moontanman]

39 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What you are suggesting isn't supported by anything other than your own thoughts on the matter. Evidence is where this thread sit deadlocked. There is no evidence to support any of your speculations. What's possible in theory and what exists in reality are not equals. 

There is evidence, the quality of this evidence can be debated but not the fact it exists. The idea of civilizations colonising the galaxy in the way a propose in an answer to the rebuttal of aliens visiting us is so unlikely due to the distances and speeds involved. 

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which is which?

 My bad I misread what you were saying, sorry. 

[mistermack]

17 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

That has nothing to do with what we are discussing. 

 

It does, because size affects the timescale over which things can happen dramatically, especially when you are hoping to cross vast distances at high speed. Size also affects timescales of manufacturing and mining materials etc.

I don't get your comment about controlled fusion either. While it might be of use somewhere, it's not much of a requirement in space, anywhere near a star. Energy is not in short supply in space near a star. Fusion would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

On the other hand, if you were thinking of using controlled fusion in a space vehicle, I would forget it. The size and weight would have to be gigantic.

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by mistermack

[Moontanman]

32 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It does, because size affects the timescale over which things can happen dramatically, especially when you are hoping to cross vast distances at high speed. Size also affects timescales of manufacturing and mining materials etc.

I am not proposing traveling at high speed, this would be the main point of my idea. 

Quote

I don't get your comment about controlled fusion either. While it might be of use somewhere, it's not much of a requirement in space, anywhere near a star. Energy is not in short supply in space near a star. Fusion would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

On the other hand, if you were thinking of using controlled fusion in a space vehicle, I would forget it. The size and weight would have to be gigantic.

 

Again am not proposing a fusion powered rocket. 

One more time, I'll try to be more clear.

What I am proposing is that technological civilizations would have little use for planets and be more likely to use material from interstellar space, Oort clouds, and Kuiper belt areas to make artificial habitats and slowly, very slowly, travel as from one small icy body to another, using these resources to replace lost volities and very occasionally build more habitats. 

Far more livable surface area far faster than trying to colonise planets. 

Think of it as living in a RV traveling around the country, speed is no longer a factor, only finding resources to replace volatiles and to build new RVs along the way when your population in the RV gets to a certain point. 

A fusion powerplant would provide energy to run your habitat and to slowly move your habitat. 

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Moontanman