Do you believe in extraterrestrials?

[Grenartia]

That life exists beyond Earth.

How? Nothing you have ever said in your entire life has proven this.

Statistical certainty.

Its like saying that sometime between my posting of this post, and my posting of my next post, somebody will have died, and somebody will have been born.

[Strykla]

I think that there are too many variables and too many coincidences that life needs in a planet to make life readily findable in the universe; if there is life outside earth, in all likelihood it is simple single-felled organisms.

However, if life is recognizable as such(provided they are not extradimensional or ridiculously alien, like living rocks or something) then they are going to be mean. If we came in contact with them, it would probably end bad for one of us. I think that provided they have the capability to cross endless distances, they are going to be significantly more advanced than us; inevitably, we would go "USE TEH NOOKZ" and probably defeat them considering the tens of thousands of high-yield warheads still in storage. Yay humanity!

[Abatael]

How? Nothing you have ever said in your entire life has proven this.

Statistical certainty.

Its like saying that sometime between my posting of this post, and my posting of my next post, somebody will have died, and somebody will have been born.

It suggests that they exist, but it does not prove it.

[Breadknife]

That would still prove nothing.

So each side of the argument needs to better define their terms, and not suggest (or require) 'proof' as forthcoming until the actual moment we get an actual tête-á-braincase moment between us and Them.

(The title is "do you believe...", although I think most people also have given their reasonings behind their opinion. Counter-skewed as they sometimes have been, myself probably included.)

[Northwest Slobovia]

we're also getting to where we can discover planets circling other suns that have the proper conditions and ingredients for what we think we know of life. although we're still limited to finding somewhat over large ones.

1. earth has a big sign hanging over it, that can only be seen from other solar systems, that says "danger, keep out, infested area". not in a literal physical sense of course, but in a form recognizable as a signal to that effect, by the advanced worlds in the rest of our galaxy.

2. so they come deeply stealthed, when they come at all. sometimes the stealthing fails. and then there are relationships with some of the more powerful earth nations. though i personally suspect it is the minority of rogue worlds that have done the latter, and not for the best of reasons.

1. Nah. Studies suggest that our radio signals become indistinguishable from background before even Alpha Centauri.

I think you mentioned this in another thread i saw. You got a citation for that?

[Northwest Slobovia]

Dunno. There's only three designs that I know of, however: simple, lensed eyes like ours; compound, lensed eyes like insects have, and pinhole eyes, which as far as I know are restricted to Nautiloids.

I meant "however many designs, independentantly arrived at (one design or another) <foo> times." (I've seen figures as high as 12 mentioned for the 'arrivals at' figure, and sometimes eight or more 'eye types' to which they have arrived, though this latter figure definitely includes closely-related developmental variants rather than full paradigm shifts.)

It is said that octopus eyes are very similar to ours (except better!?), but seem to have arisen (or at least done most of their development away from the original "light sensitive patch" on whatever Latest Common Ancester we have) independently from our own.

That's why I'm surprised by a large number: I'd thought vetebrate eyes all descend from some fishy ancestor, and we're a big clade.

Perhaps with so few destinations being reached by so many more 'wandering drunkards' this means we have most (or all?) of the possible solutions randomly arrived at. At least for visual-spectra (and near-visual, relative to our own particular baseline).

Yup. As I see it, there are two possibilities given what we see here:

1) Convergent evolutionary forces are very strong -- probably physical laws for light between 400 and 800nm -- and so we'll find similar eyes where-ever critters have similar vision.

2) Somewhere, long ago, we got locked into a narrow set of possible eye forms because some sort of proto-eye developed only once, and we're all descendents of that LCA.

I'm betting on 1)... though as a scientist, I'd be please to be wrong. To quote Asimov, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka' (I found it) but 'That's funny ...'".

[Breadknife]

That's why I'm surprised by a large number: I'd thought vetebrate eyes all descend from some fishy ancestor, and we're a big clade.

I imagine that all vertebrate eyes are descended from a fishy (or even pre-fishy) ancestor. But as big a clade as we are, the octopus (again, as a useful example) arrives from an ancestry split far further back than that, and then there's insects (which also outnumber us vertebrates, I'm pretty sure, in both species and total members) with their compound eye which may share the "light detecting spot on the skin" ancestor with ours but seems it went a different route from there on 'up'...

2) Somewhere, long ago, we got locked into a narrow set of possible eye forms because some sort of proto-eye developed only once, and we're all descendents of that LCA.

I've heard that there's a single genetic expression essentially common to all light-responsive cells. Although I don't see that as evidence that a different light-sensitive cell might not arise with different genetics (or, of course, with the posited completely alien biology that doesn't even recognise ACGT sequences sitting on sugar-strands).

But once you have that (or, from among several, one is just so much better that it outcompetes the others in getting circadian rhythms tuned together) the rest of the development isn't so much about the 'sensor' as the 'box' (or boxes) that you put it in, just like photosensitive plates were used in all kinds of designs of early camera from pinhole to lensed, and were direct or had mirrors in the Box Brownie, etc, and the same style of substances were used on everything up to 35mm (and APS) films, even though the substrate changed and the rest of the camera tech was morphed (SLRs, etc). So generally I classify these different 'box' engineering solutions as "different types of eye", even if they still have the same detector within theire depths (or on their surface, for the more 'primitive' forms).

If we find life that (as a very loose analogy!) has developed the equivalent to CCD (and electronic sampling) to our silver-compounds (and chemical processing) version, or vice-versa, that'd also be interesting. As it would be if they've done that bit all differently and yet still settled upon the same SLR-like style and configuration of camera body...

[Onyx II]

I think that there are too many variables and too many coincidences that life needs in a planet to make life readily findable in the universe; if there is life outside earth, in all likelihood it is simple single-felled organisms.

However, if life is recognizable as such(provided they are not extradimensional or ridiculously alien, like living rocks or something) then they are going to be mean. If we came in contact with them, it would probably end bad for one of us. I think that provided they have the capability to cross endless distances, they are going to be significantly more advanced than us; inevitably, we would go "USE TEH NOOKZ" and probably defeat them considering the tens of thousands of high-yield warheads still in storage. Yay humanity!

Assuming the alien terrace can cross these vast distances, our nukes would be relatively useless. When traveling at sublight speeds you'd assume them to have (or, if they're like star wars and they don't use some sort of warp/slipspace drive, translight speeds) They would require extremely advanced shields and/or armor. Strong enough to take a few hundred megatons or even a few gigatons. Also, if they were hostile, I'd like to assume they have the sense to bring an invasion fleet. If they don't, it most likely means they have studied us and are confident that their one ship can take us out. So unless the U.S.A is further ahead In railgun research then they're letting on, we'd be screwed if a hostile alien ship/fleet invaded

[Onyx II]

*race

[Grenartia]

Statistical certainty.

Its like saying that sometime between my posting of this post, and my posting of my next post, somebody will have died, and somebody will have been born.

It suggests that they exist, but it does not prove it.

You don't need direct observation to prove something exists. See: discovery of Neptune.

1. Nah. Studies suggest that our radio signals become indistinguishable from background before even Alpha Centauri.

I think you mentioned this in another thread i saw. You got a citation for that?

Only a What If? that has a citation of its own.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Yes, I do. I'm certain that there are many other sentient species across the galaxies.

[Valkalan]

Yes, I do. I'm certain that there are many other sentient species across the galaxies.

The Drake Equation?

[Hydronium]

I think that there are too many variables and too many coincidences that life needs in a planet to make life readily findable in the universe; if there is life outside earth, in all likelihood it is simple single-felled organisms.

However, if life is recognizable as such(provided they are not extradimensional or ridiculously alien, like living rocks or something) then they are going to be mean. If we came in contact with them, it would probably end bad for one of us. I think that provided they have the capability to cross endless distances, they are going to be significantly more advanced than us; inevitably, we would go "USE TEH NOOKZ" and probably defeat them considering the tens of thousands of high-yield warheads still in storage. Yay humanity!

Another interesting thought: If humanity were to go extinct, it would be hard for another species to develop tech, since we would have used a lot of the resources, and they would end up finding our nukes one day, and they might not have the same ideas as we do about what to do with them.

[Lillitania]

I believe there are extraterrestrials yes, but I don't think they're as advanced as the human race. Call it a little bit of homeland pride and lack of evidence, but if there were truly space-faring aliens out there we'd have met them by now. Therefore, I believe that the majority of extraterrestrials are primitive life-forms.

Lack of evidence doesn't prove the contrary, but I'd need evidence before I start believing in intelligent life on other planets.

[Grave_n_idle]

I do think this is out of question as Drake's equation proved extra terrestrial life.

Drake's equation 'proved' nothing. And that wasn't even it's purpose.

We really just don't have any clue about most of the numbers we'd actually need to plug into Drake to even get a good approximation - because we have such a limited data set. We're not even sure what all the factors are that contributed to why 'life' DOES happen, here - and this is our only example of an environment where everything conspired to make it just right.

[Arcturus Novus]

I'm sure we'll encounter life like bacteria and algae across the galaxy, and that in some planets, we'll have ecosystems a la Wayne Barlowe's Expedition, complete with primitive sapient lifeforms.

[Vatican XIII]

On the question: Do you believe in extraterrestrials?

I would say yes, but I prefer to call them as "another race" not "extraterrestrials"

[Valkalan]

I do think this is out of question as Drake's equation proved extra terrestrial life.

Drake's equation 'proved' nothing. And that wasn't even it's purpose.

We really just don't have any clue about most of the numbers we'd actually need to plug into Drake to even get a good approximation - because we have such a limited data set. We're not even sure what all the factors are that contributed to why 'life' DOES happen, here - and this is our only example of an environment where everything conspired to make it just right.

True, we don't know enough to find an accurate approximation for the probability of life let alone intelligent life, but again given the sheer size of the universe and the adaptations of certain organisms that inhabit extreme environments, we can say at least that there is a reasonable probability that extraterrestrial life exists, albeit mainly in the form of microorganisms.

[Grave_n_idle]

Drake's equation 'proved' nothing. And that wasn't even it's purpose.

We really just don't have any clue about most of the numbers we'd actually need to plug into Drake to even get a good approximation - because we have such a limited data set. We're not even sure what all the factors are that contributed to why 'life' DOES happen, here - and this is our only example of an environment where everything conspired to make it just right.

True, we don't know enough to find an accurate approximation for the probability of life let alone intelligent life, but again given the sheer size of the universe and the adaptations of certain organisms that inhabit extreme environments, we can say at least that there is a reasonable probability that extraterrestrial life exists, albeit mainly in the form of microorganisms.

Possibly.

That's the thing - given our limited stock of data, we just honestly don't know.

What if you need a specific density of Oort cloud for life to occur, for example? We just don't know.

[Grenartia]

I think that there are too many variables and too many coincidences that life needs in a planet to make life readily findable in the universe; if there is life outside earth, in all likelihood it is simple single-felled organisms.

However, if life is recognizable as such(provided they are not extradimensional or ridiculously alien, like living rocks or something) then they are going to be mean. If we came in contact with them, it would probably end bad for one of us. I think that provided they have the capability to cross endless distances, they are going to be significantly more advanced than us; inevitably, we would go "USE TEH NOOKZ" and probably defeat them considering the tens of thousands of high-yield warheads still in storage. Yay humanity!

Another interesting thought: If humanity were to go extinct, it would be hard for another species to develop tech, since we would have used a lot of the resources, and they would end up finding our nukes one day, and they might not have the same ideas as we do about what to do with them.

Actually, it would be rather easy, seeing as how we've done the hard work for them, and those resources are closer to the surface. Not to mention that we've designed our nukes in such a way that its nearly impossible for them to be detonated except on purpose, and to do that, you need to have either very intimate knowledge of the weapon and its failsafes, or the code to activate it.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I think you mentioned this in another thread i saw. You got a citation for that?

Only a What If? that has a citation of its own.

Thanks.

Chasing links said what I thought I could: early-warning radars could be picked up by folks on other stars with existing technology, and stuff we'd like to build could -- at least according to some people's math -- pick up more of our signals from much further away:

Whereas our interference is an obstacle for SETI, extraterrestrial radio interference may provide an opportunity. The SKA’s promotional literature has frequently talked about being able to eavesdrop on ET’s own terrestrial radio signals, neatly sidestepping the issue of whether ET would spend the resources on deliberately beaming a signal to us. Certainly our own rogue radio signals have been permeating space for almost a century, but they’re weak, dropping off with distance following the inverse square law; the SETI Institute’s Seth Shostak has previously pointed out that we couldn’t even detect our radio signals with our current equipment at the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, 4.2 light years away. What hope then do we have of detecting ET’s version of tacky reality television and soap operas?

It depends on whom we ask. “For phase one of the SKA, we can detect an airport radar at 50 to 60 light years,” says van Haarlam.

Professor Abraham Loeb, Chair of the Astronomy Department at Harvard University, goes even further. In 2006 he wrote a paper with his Harvard colleague Matias Zaldarriaga that was published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, describing how upcoming radio observatories such as the SKA could eavesdrop on radio broadcasts.

“Military radars in the form of ballistic missile early warning systems during the Cold War were the brightest,” he tells Astrobiology Magazine. “We showed that these are detectable with an SKA-type telescope out to a distance of hundreds of light years, although TV and radio broadcasting is much fainter and can be seen to shorter distances.”

http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/4847/seti-on-the-ska

SKA is being built now, so it's not entirely insane to believe other civs may have wanted to do fancy radio astronomy and built their own equivalents...

[Northwest Slobovia]

How? Nothing you have ever said in your entire life has proven this.

Statistical certainty.

Its like saying that sometime between my posting of this post, and my posting of my next post, somebody will have died, and somebody will have been born.

The easiest way to demonstrate it is to take the Drake equation, drop in the terms we know -- low estimate for number of stars in the galaxy, current fraction of stars found to have planets -- and show that all the other terms between that and "there's at least one other life-bearing planet in the galaxy" require setting everything to zero.

Hell of an assumption, given that we exist, and therefore all the fractions can't be zero...

[Grenartia]

Only a What If? that has a citation of its own.

Thanks.

Chasing links said what I thought I could: early-warning radars could be picked up by folks on other stars with existing technology, and stuff we'd like to build could -- at least according to some people's math -- pick up more of our signals from much further away:

Whereas our interference is an obstacle for SETI, extraterrestrial radio interference may provide an opportunity. The SKA’s promotional literature has frequently talked about being able to eavesdrop on ET’s own terrestrial radio signals, neatly sidestepping the issue of whether ET would spend the resources on deliberately beaming a signal to us. Certainly our own rogue radio signals have been permeating space for almost a century, but they’re weak, dropping off with distance following the inverse square law; the SETI Institute’s Seth Shostak has previously pointed out that we couldn’t even detect our radio signals with our current equipment at the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, 4.2 light years away. What hope then do we have of detecting ET’s version of tacky reality television and soap operas?

It depends on whom we ask. “For phase one of the SKA, we can detect an airport radar at 50 to 60 light years,” says van Haarlam.

Professor Abraham Loeb, Chair of the Astronomy Department at Harvard University, goes even further. In 2006 he wrote a paper with his Harvard colleague Matias Zaldarriaga that was published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, describing how upcoming radio observatories such as the SKA could eavesdrop on radio broadcasts.

“Military radars in the form of ballistic missile early warning systems during the Cold War were the brightest,” he tells Astrobiology Magazine. “We showed that these are detectable with an SKA-type telescope out to a distance of hundreds of light years, although TV and radio broadcasting is much fainter and can be seen to shorter distances.”

http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/4847/seti-on-the-ska

SKA is being built now, so it's not entirely insane to believe other civs may have wanted to do fancy radio astronomy and built their own equivalents...

Interesting.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Thanks.

Chasing links said what I thought I could: early-warning radars could be picked up by folks on other stars with existing technology, and stuff we'd like to build could -- at least according to some people's math -- pick up more of our signals from much further away:



http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/4847/seti-on-the-ska

SKA is being built now, so it's not entirely insane to believe other civs may have wanted to do fancy radio astronomy and built their own equivalents...

Interesting.

Yup. The one signal the xkcd piece didn't mention was the Deep Space Network. I think transmissions to Voyager 1 are made with Arecibo -- I'll have to check, and I know who to ask to know who to ask -- and that pretty much points in the same direction all the time. So it's not a "Wow! Signal" for somebody lying along the "cone of sight" (what with parallax and such) from us to Voyager 1, but an erratically repeating simple signal with a whole lot of power behind it.

It's a simple signal because all we ever send to Voyager 1 is "Hello, Voyager, this is Earth. Please send data set X... OK, thanks! Please send data set X + 1..." It might be a little more complicated -- I'll need to look at the specs again -- if we're sending "Hello Voyager, this Earth, coming at you on a 14 hr delay on 2.583 Ghz exactly, with a fancy phase... please lock on our phase in 3...2...1...*beeeeeeeep*! Thanks. Please send..."

[Grenartia]

Interesting.

Yup. The one signal the xkcd piece didn't mention was the Deep Space Network. I think transmissions to Voyager 1 are made with Arecibo -- I'll have to check, and I know who to ask to know who to ask -- and that pretty much points in the same direction all the time. So it's not a "Wow! Signal" for somebody lying along the "cone of sight" (what with parallax and such) from us to Voyager 1, but an erratically repeating simple signal with a whole lot of power behind it.

It's a simple signal because all we ever send to Voyager 1 is "Hello, Voyager, this is Earth. Please send data set X... OK, thanks! Please send data set X + 1..." It might be a little more complicated -- I'll need to look at the specs again -- if we're sending "Hello Voyager, this Earth, coming at you on a 14 hr delay on 2.583 Ghz exactly, with a fancy phase... please lock on our phase in 3...2...1...*beeeeeeeep*! Thanks. Please send..."

Sounds about right. I actually figured the same when I first read that What If?.

EDIT: Actually, something I'd thought about, after reading the article that mentioned the Oh My God Particle, is devising a method to send out similar particles to communicate technological advancement.