Bush invests in the future of mankind
 

NASA might not be perfect, but it still has a warm spot in my heart when it comes to a government agency. Bush promised this last year, and he has dilivered. Now the question is how to spin this as a bad thing :D

Now I can already read some minds here, as the only real negative spin will be money of course, but we need to look forward, and as a % this is but a small amount of the budget, if you want to cut, I'd recomend our many welfare programs ;)

Let's not pretend here ustwo, you posted this in the politics forum with a confrontational tone because you wanted an argument. If one starts, you can't blame anyone but yourself, because you essentially created a post ripe for combustion. Remember, if you want to claim the moral high ground, you first have to climb the hill.
I won't take your bait. All irrelevant things remaining irrelevant, i'm all for space exploration and i would even support a tax increase to help fund it.

I think I see troll bait, but I'm not sure. ;)

If the plan goes ahead, I could honestly say I thought bush did something right, but time will tell.

I'm all for space exploration, and before the current situation I'd have been all for this (and more - why stop at Mars?) but we're in debt way past our eyeballs, we've just raised the debt ceiling, the economy is crap, and he wants to play with rockets? He has no concept of the fact that things cost money.

What's the point? they're just going to blow their budget on investigations of why they blew up the other half of their budget...

NASA has more failed missions than completed ones, I think space exploration should be way down on our list of things to do.

I personally am very very pleased to see that NASA is getting some funding. This money will go directly into research, construction, and hiring additional scientists. Many of the technologies we take for granted today are the result of our space program, and I can only imagine the advances necessary for getting to Mars. Improved radiation shielding, probably ergonomics and power supplies... Plus, it can help to eventually solve overpopulation and supply the Earth with more raw materials.

Now if only we'd build a space elevator, we'd be set.

i'm all for space and would love to be a part of it, but i just can't say that i see much of a use for a moon base other than to launch ships to other parts of the solar system. i wish i could go but i think it would be better to start building an orbiting infrastructure before we build on the moon it seems like we are skiping a step. i guess this is all pretty far down the road. mars and more importantly the resource rich asteroid field beyond mars but i just can't see that as economical for the here and now. hey who knows maybe if we build this setup now we will have a major advantage in the futeur, as you can see i am a little conflicted on this issue.

Nasa is welfare for smart people... seriously.

It's a sacrifical lamb...Bush resurrected it & put it on the budget so it can get comfortably cut, and congress can say they "cut the budget"...

Says who?

......

I used to be entirely supportive of Space Exploration (capital S, capital E). But the older I get, the more cynical I become.

We're never going to get realistic inter-stellar travel in any case. The timelines are simply unrealistic. This solar system, and therefore humanity, are doomed to a firey death in about five or six billion years. That's if humanity lasts that long anyway, which I personally doubt.

It's kinda soul destroying to think this way, but unfortunately realistic in my opinion.

I think this has a great potential as a thread idea, if we abandon the cheap political slant and maybe move to a different forum. Would love to discuss this more.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto - that sort of thinking would have kept us from inventing pretty much anything, ever. I know that Einstein pretty much slammed the door on getting anywhere beyond our solar system, but we never imagined we'd make it into space five hundred years ago. You have to keep trying.

"‘Cause it’s next. For we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill, and we saw fire. And we crossed the ocean, and we pioneered the West, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on the timeline of exploration, and this is what’s next." -- The West Wing

You don't think that we could get far enough off this rock in five BILLION years to survive?

Man, and I think I'm too apathetic when I don't want to get out of bed because I'll end up back there that night anyway.

If a Democrat proposed this, I wonder how many Republican's would be screaming bloody murder at the wasteful use of tax payers money?

The future of mankind is corporate space exploration. Nasa is for the dinosaurs and, as someone already mentioned, excess fat that can be trimmed to support a claim of budget cuts.

I knew that comment would stir up some feelings! :-)

Interstellar travel is an entirely different kettle of fish to reaching the moon.

It's simply impossible to travel faster than the speed of light assuming we agree that the laws of physics as currently defined are correct. Please do not talk to me about quantum teleportation or refutations of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosenberg (EPR) paradox. The laws of physics are different at the quantum level, but we exist at the macroscopic level. Any arguments to the contrary are just like me saying I could disappear in a poof of quantum smoke. Theoretically possible, but not really.

So...

We are left with the limitations presented by the speed of light. That precludes the concept of interstellar travel. To argue otherwise shows either a lack of understanding of the distances involved, or an alarming (self-delusional?) sense of optimism.

Sure, let's invest in space exploration within the solar system. Why not? But I don't think we're gonna get out of this small, inconsequential little star system in a backward corner of the Milky Way. Why not just accept it?

:)

BTW, I also refute the idea that we won't get off this planet in 5 billion years. I don't think the human species will last beyond a couple of million at the outside.


Mr Mephisto

I actually agree with you 100%. But let's stay away from politics on this thread. :)


Mr Mephisto

This is one of the only things I think Bush has done right. Any type of actual funding for NASA has been long over due, and giving them a clear goal and vision is just what they needed.

We haven't skipped the orbital step, We currently have a permanent space presense on the International Space Station and have had other stations before that. Granted I think we're still constructing the station (the russians are slacking on parts), but humans have been in space without interruption for 4 strait years now on the ISS. Not the same human(s) but humans in general, and humans of many different nations.

A moon "base" is currently being discussed in India by a large number of countries (there's another thread on the TFP someplace about this) that will start out as a type of robotic villiage. An army of orbital probes, surface probes, and various other robotic devices exploring for things like ice sources and resources, and exploring the moons history and make-up etc. This will pave the way for an eventual permanent presense there by humans, and the moon will also be used as a launching pad for other missions, like ones to mars and beyond. (Thus the goal's name of "Moon, Mars and Beyond".)

The ONLY problem i have with Bush's space policy is that it has been said that he wishes to change the rules we agreed to some time ago that said we would not put weapons in space, or any type of nuclear devices. It has been said that he wants to miliarize space. Of course things like nuclear reactors would possibly be needed later on to power any large craft or base, but not yet. Until that time comes we shouldn't screw with that stuff in space. It isn't needed yet on any scale and could cause complications that are not needed.

As for commercial/corporate space travel, yes they're good. More companies should step up and take some initiative in the area. But NASA is also vitally impotant to any future in space and without it we wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as far as we have now space wise, and tech wise here on earth. The things they have created and the things that are currently in development are astounding, and i encourage people to look into some of the stuff they've contributed to and have invented/are inventing and developing.

I can't believe you're pre-emptively complaining about spin when you title the thread "Bush invests in the future of mankind" which couldn't possibly be a cheesier line that smacks of one-sidedness. Yes, most people think space exploration is a great idea... but must you try to turn EVERYTHING into some sort of anti-leftist piece?

I'm all gung ho for increasing our exploration of our terresterial neighbors. I just wish we had a president who understood that things like this cost money and it should be budgeted appropriately. Not become another lien against this nations solvency.

honestly, i think it's a good idea.

yes, there are pressing needs. but there were back in the day, and we've reaped a lot from that investment. i wish it wasn't on top of other financial obligations (the cost of Iraq, etc..), but it's a worthy cause.

and if it makes ustwo happy to see flaming, i still think bush is a twit. :)

This is one of the worst things that Bush could do. Here's why.
Bush's "let's go to mars" plan costs 11 billion dollars. It's sure to grow.
Bush has increased NASA's budget by 1 billion dollars.
How is NASA going to pay the extra 10 billion, you ask?
Well, apparently it has to canabalize itself. In case you didn't know, NASA does more than just run the space shuttles. It gives funding to many astrophysics and areonautics research, as well as conducting lots of research internally. What do you think is going to happen to all that research, when 10 billion dollars has to be cut from the research funding to shift over to Mars funding?

That's just the problem. NASA already does research. They do a ton of it. Just because it's not flashy, and it doesn't make the six o'clock news doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and isn't important. Because of this whole stupid Mars thing, NASA has to put on hold plans to replace many of our aging space based telescopes (Chandra, for example).
I realize that for many people this will be exciting. But what many people don't realize, is that no one has Increased NASA's budget by any SIGNIFICANT amount. The funding restructuring that has to be done is going to kill off some damn good science.

The Only problem I have with Bush's space policy, is that he talks big, but in the end, it's all just fucking hot air.

Oh, by the way, did anyone notice the NSF budget allotment? Guess what, they decreased it. Brilliant job, congress. Seems like all the talk about technological progress was just that, talk.

EDIT: forgot to add. If they really wanted to go to Mars, all they have to do is triple NASA's budget, and they'll be there in five years. This isn't about science folks. It's not about exploration. It's all a fucking dog-and-pony show. No one in congress understands what science is. They spend hundreds of billions on the fucking millitary, and expect NASA to go to Mars with a fucking 1 billion dollar budget increase. God Damn, what a bunch of fucking no good assholes.

Sorry. Had to rant a bit.

Ah I knew someone would find something to complain about. I do find it funny how people poo-poo NASA when its one of the few government agencies which has had a good deal of success and been a good investment. If only they were so critical about welfare programs and the like and the lack of success they have had.

2.7 Billion, NOT 10, and now that, that bit of unpleasantness is out of the way…

Mr. Mephisto, while I agree that by Newtonian physics, we aren’t going anywhere fast, that assumes the only way to travel is by said laws.

Now perhaps that’s all there is and we are stuck here, but perhaps not as well, our understanding is still at its infancy. It would be foolish to give up before we even know all the rules.

Stephen Hawking disagrees with you. I think I'm gonna trust him over you in this instance ;)

Agreed. To simply parrot a single piece of scientific theory as a reason we should give up on an entire realm of scientific discovery shows either a lack of sophistication or a deliberate disinterest in learning anything new. The reason I can say this is I used to hold this exact same view until about three years ago, when I started reading Hawking and realized that Einstein was not the be-all and end-all of advanced physics.

Also, I find myself shocked to agree with Ustwo, but I can console myself with the fact that I think NASA should be funded by heavily taxing the wealthy. :)

True. Good science costs money. Look what happened to Beagle II when corners were cut on the airbags...

Cutting costs endangers lives. Good science can avoid that, but the funding has to come from somewhere. How about less corporate tax loopholes for a start?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/
from Jan 2004
Sorry, that's the info I was going on

So now I'm confused. The budget request for 16 billion is in addition to NASA's current budget? Is all of that going to Mars? or is it still only 1 billion marked for Mars?

Yeah, and that's the disgusting part. We had a thread on this months ago. We brought up things like the Hubble (Who had servicing mission 4 cancelled because of it). The mission would have added a Wide Field Camera that is 3 times more powerful than the infared that it alread had and a Cosmic Origins Spectrograph for high resolution sudying of distant interstellar gasses. Plus other essential things like new gyroscopes, batteries and boosting the scope into farther orbit to prevent decay.

Wouldn't spending all the money we don't have so that the future generations will be bankrupt be the opposite of investing in their future? Parden me if i'm wrong but I thought if I went and took out a bunch of loans that wouldn't be called investing. I thought investing was putting money aside for the future. Am I wrong here?

I am for doing research and space exploration, however I don't think humans should leave this earth, this is our home and we don't need to bring our endless amounts of problems into outer space. Thats just my opinion though and i know you guys don't agree with it.

Humans will have to leave the Earth eventually if they wish to survive. It's best to start work on that as soon as possible. However, a trip to Mars is somewhat pointless.

Instead of spending $12B on a trip that will amount to a few days on Mars we should be spending it on making self-sustaining life possible in space. We need to facilitate gravity to avoid detrimental effects of space life first. Next we need a way to cultivate food in space. After that we need to work on fast propulsion, getting us as close to light speed as possible. As we approach that barrier, we can work on going past that barrier because that is what will make interstellar travel possible.

None of that is accomplished by going to Mars for a field trip.

On that I'm with Ustwo. We HAVE to go to Mars - it's the test bed for all the technologies we'll use to have a permanent residence in space. We have to figure out how to get them there (months) keep them there (more months) and get them back (months) without starving them or causing them to degenerate into decalcified, muscleless masses. Baby steps. You have to start small (space station, moon, mars) before you can get big.


Where Ustwo and I disagree is the timing. Now is NOT the time to be spending billions of dollars on something that won't benefit us immediately. We have to wait until we're financially sound (read: the trickledown dinks are out of office and someone that has a sense of economics has had a chance to turn things around) until we start worrying about deep space exploration. Once that happens, I'm all for as much space exploration as we can possibly afford.

It is possible you will never see the benefits of Space Exploration personally. Even likely.

I don't see why not. The distances are large, but if you aren't in a rush, you can manage them.

Lets say you can launch colony probes at 1% of the speed of light. And lets say it takes 100,000 years to bootstrap a solar system from empty to being able to generate a colony probe. And lets say it takes 1,000 years to produce a single colony probe. And, finally, lets say that after 10,000 years of making colony probes (each system makes 10), the systems stops, on average. And finally, half of the colony probes fail.

Every 110,000 years the number of colony probes increases by a factor of 5.

Then, going from a single system to colonizing, say, 1 billion stars, would take about 1.5 million years. It might take longer than this -- the actual limitation on the speed of colonization eventually becomes the speed of expansion of disk of colonized planets, which can't expand faster than 1% of light speed.

1.5 million years is otherwise known as a blink of an eye.

And I think we can do better than 1% of lightspeed. I think that successful intelligent beings is phenomina that will spread at near relativistic speeds. By this logic, there isn't much point in SETI because the time between the arrival of the EM signals of intelligence, and intelligence itself, is obscenely short on a universal time scale.

Peronally, I'm less worried about humanity, than I am about intelligence.

As demonstrated above, it doesn't take all that long for an intelligent "species" to colonize a galaxy. If 'humanity as we know it' isn't recognizeable by the time we (intelligence) spread over the galaxy, I'm not all that worried.

You only need to travel fast if you are in a hurry.

There are a few things that can make you not in a hurry.

The first is, increased life span. This can be by some kind of cold sleep or by the simple matter of making more durable humans or by extending your definition of human beyond the biological.

The second is, not sending yourself. Send instructions to make humans, not humans, to other stars.

Lastly, you could send a generation ship.

Or, not being in a rush.

Even just playing around in our solar system is pretty damn profitable.

There is a dissassambled small planet we can use for resources (right next door!), and a hell of alot of space where we can 'pollute' to our hearts content without worrying about ruining people's quality of life. When robotics and/or nanotechnology starts getting good, the raw materials up there will be extremely useful.

Please explain. I'm unaware of any proof that FTL travel can occur, except on a quantum level.

I'm interested.


Mr Mephisto

That's nice.

I'm "parroting", but eveyone else here is progressive in their embrace of the new fronntier, eh?

Labeling someone a "parrot" because they refer to the proven laws of physics, and not current unproven theoretical hypotheses is a bit shortsighted.

If you disagree with me, and have factual reasons rather than an emotional attachment to the "idea" of interstellar travel, then please provide them; or simply be polite in said disagreement.

I never said he was. Indeed, I simply made passing reference to the EPR Paradox, which I stated was refuted.

Funny.

Especially rich Doctors, eh? :)

Just kidding Ustwo!


Mr Mephisto

In "A Brief History of Time" Hawking discusses that while it is impossible to travel in normal space faster than light, it may be possible to use wormholes, or to warp the fabric of space and time to achieve the same result.


i.e. if I go 10 miles in 10 minutes, you can say I was going 60mph, no matter how I got there. If I drove, then my real velocity was 60mph.

If I somehow managed to fold the road so that the start and the finish line were only 1 foot apart for the time I was travelling, at which point the road unfolds to its previous state, then I could get there in the same amount of time by going 6mph. But the time/distance equation still works out to 60mph from my perspective.

And yes, I know this sounds astonishingly close to the way Star Trek says its ships fly. But then the book that explains how they fly (Star Trek TNG Technical Manual) was published AFTER Hawking's books, so where do you suppose they got it? ;)

Interesting footnote. Hawking appeared on an episode of Star Trek several years ago. As he was getting a tour of the set, they went by the engineering set. He looked at the warp engine and said "I'm working on that."

Personally I believe that looking to Mars on the exploration side is a bit...ahead of ourselves. We must first find a way to cheaply send craft into orbit. If they were serious about this, the first major project would be a space elevator (no joke) recent advances carbon-nanotube-composite ribbons it is very possible to build in the next 10-15 years. This would allow cheap voyage into orbit without all messing with rockets (whenever you strap yourself to a rocket, trouble can follow)

This would help immensly with several things. Trips for satalite repair will be cheaper and safer. Satalites can be put into orbit cheaply, and safer human transport vehicles can be made..(less fuel needed)

That would be a stepping stone for more and better exploration and as a nice side affect, cheaper.

what we need to do (I think I said this in another thread) is to encourage the commercialization of space. Throughout history, stuff has gotten cheaper and safer when private enterprise has been able to take over. It'll be the same with space. Get space tourism up and running and consumers will demand cheaper prices to go there. That will require cheaper and faster methods to get there. That will lead to more reliable space travel for everyone.

First let me thank Yakk for the first reasonable, thoughtful and constructive response to my dissenting opinion.

Rather that label me a parrot or simply say "Hawking disagrees with you", without truly understanding the underlying physics (I doubt any of us here do), you've actually discussed the only PROVEN method we can consider for interstellar travel; sub-lightspeed craft.

I refer those to who maintain that FTL transportation is possible to the following web-site: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...Light/FTL.html

The theoretical existence of FTL particles called tachyons is addressed by this short article in the journal Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_quest...B7809EC588F2D7

It should also be noted that all the current theories that propose FTL travel do not, in fact, result in FTL events; Special Relavitity is preserved and causality maintained. In other words, everyone here "parroting" the possibility of FTL travel or the refutation of Special Relativity are not really accurate.

The two most common theories revolve around the use of "wormholes" and the use of "gravity engines".

Wormholes are theoretical rips in space caused by massive gravitational fields. Craft could conceivably travel through these holes,, and pop out at the other side, but they don't travel faster than light. They just disappear and reappear somewhere else. Conceivably the distance traveled through the wormhole would be "shorter" than the distance between those two points in normal space. By the way, something often overlooked by many people is the equal likelihood that the distance be longer! You disappear and then dont' reappear. At least for quite some time.
Anyway, I degress...

Another theory is the use of something I can only describe as a "gravity engine". This compresses space in front of the craft whilst "expanding" it behind. Once again, the appearance is of FTL (from faraway observers) but the actual laws of physics are maintained. The craft still travels at speed below the speed of light, but because space is compressed in front of it, and expanded behind it (in a localized manner), it appears to faraway observers that the craft is moving at FTL speeds.

Actually, the whole issue of what faraway observers would actually observe complicates things even further, simply because information (ie, observation) cannot travel faster than light itself... but this gets complicated so let's ignore that for the moment.

Details on these theories can be found in a paper published by Ian Crawford, an astronomer at University College London. REF: "Some thoughts on the implications of faster-than-light interstellar space travel,'', Q. J. R. Astr. Soc., 36, 205-218, (1995).

"Gravity engines" (the popular term is "warp drive" but I don't use that for obvious reasons) was first discussed by the Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre, of the University of Wales, in 1994.

Therefore, I continue to maintain that FTL travel is impossible, and most physicists agree. Pedantics maybe, but better than the generalizations posted on this thread heretofore.

So, to repeat, I never stated that it was impossible for theoretical FTL "events" to occur. They may be possible. Having said that, FTL events could and would contravene causality (as mentioned in several articles) with the resulting wierdness; wierdness that we don't see at the moment.

Undoubtedly. As it is in most things. But what's that got to do with it?


That depends. I agree that it's rash to say that it's impossible. I simply feel it is unlikely. Postulations on theoretical events are very different from actual implementation of said theories. As I mentioned somewhere before, it's theoretically possible for me to disappear in a poof of quantum wierdness or to leap through a solid wall via quantum tunnelling... but it's not really going to happen.



Indeed. And this was the hypothesis formulated by Hart, M.("An Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrials on Earth," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society," Vol. 16, 1975, pp. 128-35), Jones, E. M.("Colonization of the Galaxy," Icarus, Vol. 28, 1976, pp. 421-22) and Papagiannis, M. D.("Could we be The Only Advanced Technological Civilization in Our galaxy?," in: Origin of Life, Japan Scientific Societies Press, 1978.)

Furthermore Gerard O'Neill postulated huge space colonies in his groundbreaking paper "The Colonization of Space" (O'Neill, G. K., "The Colonization of Space," Physics Today, Vol. 27, September, 1974, pp. 32-40.); later built upon in his book The High Frontier (http://www.ssi.org/body_high-frontier.html). See also O'Neill, G. K.: Space Colonies and Energy Supply to the Earth, Science, vol. 10, 5 Dec. 1975, pp. 943-947.

Much of what you propose is detailed in the NASA Ames Space Settlement Design Contest (1975) "Space Settlements: A Design Study" (published on the web at http://www.belmont.k12.ca.us/ralston...Contents1.html
Additional information can be found at NASA's Space Settlements site (http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Educat...aceSettlement/)

And well and good.

But what about the Fermi Paradox? See http://www.space.com/searchforlife/s...ox_011024.html and the first half of the page http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.html and especially http://www.faughnan.com/setifail.html

Fermi's conversational paradox was "If they exist, why aren't they here?" when referring to extraterestial intelligence (and therefore by implication, interstellar travel). The famous Drake Equation is an expanded mathematical model based upon the same fundamental questions. See http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm, http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/listening/drake.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation and http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious..._equation.html.

Based upon the age of the galaxy, and assuming extraterestrial life exists, then ET life should already be here. The fact that it is not can only be for one of the following reasons

1) Humanity is the only intelligent life in the Universe
2) Interstellar travel, though theoretically possible, is realistically impossible
3) They're here already but "hiding"

Whilst this is not a debate on ET life, option 2 above seems to refute your suggestion that interstellar travel is possible. Either that, or humanity is alone.

So, in other words, we're the only life in the Universe, or interstellar travel is a lot more difficult (ie impossible) than many people believe.

Or you don't have the technology or resources to maintain life in interstellar space. No water, no hydrogen, very little light for energy...

All great in science fiction novels, but quite unlikely.

Agreed, and this is what I support. But researching interstellar travel? I just don't believe it's likely. Certainly FTL is impossible. The only likely possibility is slower than light travel, and I think the chances of that are also very low.


Mr Mephisto

I was writing my lengthy response when you posted this.

See it above.

Wormholes or gravity drives do NOT "work" by faster than light travel. They "work" by bending/ripping space.

Quite different.

And they're only theories. Do you really want your tax dollars spent on some NASA scientists researching warp drives? Come on! :)

Mr Mephisto

I stated before the election that if I were a 1 issue voter the fact Bush was going to bring alive NASA and S.E. he would have gotten my vote. It is nice to see he didn't lie about this.

Let us not forget it was JFK that truly got NASA started. Carter who helped, Reagan did a little (using NASA to develop "Star Wars") and then it was cut and left to die.

To be honest there is a lot to gain with a true NASA that develops and creates new tech. If Nasa spends R and D money on US companies, we could see a nice bump to the economy.

However, if we do not improve our schools we may not have the educated people from the US running NASA.

I have no problem with this as long as the true purpose is SE and not military.

And if cuts are truly needed let's cut the military payouts to Halliburton who overcharges for gas, takes money and then doesn't supply trrops with the items we paid for. That's the true crime, a NASA SE budget used for true SE and that's it, is a good thing, best thing Bush has done yet, maybe the only thing he'll ever do that has the potential to better us.

Yes, absolutely. Space has such amazing potential for the human race. Sure, we won't live to see most of the benefits of it, but it's important for us to start getting on with it so later generations can.

The only problem is that I want my tax dollars going toward it when we can AFFORD it. We can't afford it now.



As for the FTL debate, this is pretty much semantics. I'm saying there's a way to get somewhere faster than you could if you travelled there at light speed in normal space. It's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

I would only want any experimentation on the warping/tearing of any significant portions of space-time to be done FAR from earth, possibly even outside our solar system, i dont want the earth to collapse or the gravity in our solar system messed up.

And personally I think i'd go with option #3 when it comes to the Fermi paradox. Call me an optimist if you must, but there has been so much "documentation" about things like angels, abductions, UFOs, andcient drawings etc, to support atleast SOME arguement toward that position.

http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/art/hieroplanes.jpg

http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/art/saqqaraet2.jpg

http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/...astronauts.jpg

Now I know what the X in your name means ObieX.

:)

Watch the skies!
I want to believe...


Heh


Mr Mephisto

Not really.

I was attacked for stating that you can't go faster than the speed of light. You can't. You can bend space, but that's completely different.

Besides, these are just theories in any case. I still maintain that you won't see it happen.

You might see slower than light probes that are sent to distant stars. But colony ships? I doubt it. Very very much.


Mr Mephisto

Call me crazy, but when you see stuff like ancient batteries and light bulbs it makes you stop to consider :)

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chaptera/

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...yptlight05.jpg

A link to the video of the Light bulb remade by scientists using the ancient instructions, and it actually working! > http://therev67.tripod.com/capture.mpg

Edit: Bah! i cant direct link the video, but you can get it clicking the first link, or going here: http://therev67.tripod.com/tripodlight.htm

Please replace 1) with "Humanity is the only intelligent life in the Galaxy", or even in the local cluster of Galaxies.

The Universe is BIG, and the Milky Way is small. We are near the edge, and 30,000 light years out. We have neigbours on the order of 4 light years away.

The 2nd nearest spiral Galaxy is 12 million light years away.

Here to the nearest star is 3 million times closer than such a hop, skip and jump.

We can currently send ships to Pluto, which is about 34 thousand light seconds away. Alpha Centauri is about 5 million light seconds away.

Distance to Alpha C/Distance to Pluto = 160.
Distance to 2nd nearest Galaxy/Distance to Alpha C = 3,000,000

I guess you could argue that a Galaxy colonized by intelligent life would be easy to see. But, the claim that "intergalaxy" or "inter galactic cluster" colonization is difficult is easier to swallow than "we can't make it next door".

All we need is the ability to make a ship capable of surviving in vacuum for a few centuries. Pushing it isn't that hard. And if we really needed help braking, send 5 or 50 ships, 4 or 49 of which fire lazers back and help the first ship slow down.

A society capable of both controling the energy required for interstellar travel, which doesn't destroy itself through use of such levels of energy, is another problem.

Angels, Abductions and UFO's can all be explained. Someone made a machine recently that gives you the feeling of a familiar, disembodied presence, by shoving E-M fields into your brain.

Either the aliens are damn good at hiding right under our noses, or it's a matter of brain farts.

*nod*, that is tricky. So, if you can't support life, don't send life.

Why is it unlikely? Alpha-C is only 160 times further away than Pluto. We can send probes to Pluto without mechanical breakdown.

Now, all we need to send is a Van Neumann machine (in one piece or in many), going a bit faster, with some means of braking, and capable of landing on an asteroid.

Now, by 'all we need' I am describig an endevour that makes the Apollo mission look like a walk in the park. The only 'hard' part is building a 'small' self-contained Van Neumann machine (ie, one much smaller than the industrial civilization and supporting ecosystem Van Neumann machine we have).

While a 300 to 3000 year journey seems reasonable (1% or 0.1% of lightspeed trip to a nearby star), a 100,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 year journey (same speed trip between Galaxies) is less so.

In some ways, it isn't more wonkey than heavier-than-air flight, or faster-than-sound flight. Only in some ways.

My biggest objection to them is all forms of FTL-travel seem to give you time travel and causality violation. It doesn't matter if you take shortcuts -- if you take 2 trips involving 2 shortcuts, you can arrive before you leave.

You have to invent physics to avoid causality violations (either reality-splitting or some kind of background reference frame that only applies to FTL travel).

Oh, and you can also rely on the weak anthropomophic principle. If intellgence beating you to a planet makes it basically impossible for intelligence to evolve and develop, it shouldn't be surprising that as a developing intelligence we don't see other intelligences around. In other words, someone had to be first -- and if the first guy prevents the later guys, then everyone is first.

Why would aliens that can travel space and would be far far superior to us try to make contact?

I mean to believe we are significant enough to make contact with is a tad egotistical. To be honest, if I were an alien, I might observe you but I wouldn't contact you until war was a thing of the past. Why would I want to contact you only to have you use my technology to not just kill each other off but quite possibly to kill me off?

Just an Argument against those saying there is no intelligently superior life out there because we haven't been contacted.

Your out of hand dismissal of quantum teleportation is unwarranted. Yes, the phenomena are based upon physics at the quantum level, but that does not mean they can be manipulated into appearing at the macroscopic level as well. It seems right now that quantum entanglement makes instantaneous communication (and therefore instantaneous travel) possible.

It's not an out of hand dismissal.

I also assume you mean "that does not mean they can NOT be manipulated into appearing at the macroscopic level as well."

Well, I think it does. As do every single physicist I've heard or book I've read. The Heisenberg Principle requires the "energy borrowed" (for such things as quantum tunnelling or virtual particles) to be repaid within an almost infintesimal amount of time. We're talking about actions and periods at the Planck level here.

Very small.

So, to recap, I didn't dismiss them. I just said that they're so statistically unlikely at the macroscopic level as to be effectively impossible.


Mr Mephisto

That's my whole point.

I contend that FTL travel, or even pseudo-FTL travel, is not realistic. Your suggestion, shared by the vast majority of serious commentators and theorists, that sub-lightspeed travel is workable, is much more reasonable. Indeed, we know it's conceptually possible.

However, theoretically possible and actually possible to implement are two different things.

Just because something is possible within the laws of physics, does not mean it can be done. This seems to be a subtle difference a lot of people here are ignoring.

One would assume that if interstellar travel was possible (or "implementable" if you prefer), then we would have been visited by now.

It's just as easy to hypothesize that civilizations destroy themselves (or are destroyed) before they reach the technological level required for sub-lightspeed interstellar travel.

Well, that's my point. I said I could envisage interstellar probes. At least, some far time into the future. But not interstellar colony ships. As Hobes said, humans are "nasty, brutish and short", and we're doomed to extinction on this rock. I don't think we'll even last the 5-6 billion years before it's swallowed by the sun.

I'm also sceptical of the possibility of true artificial intelligence. Then there's the whole concept of embuing replicants of human intelligence in said machines. Two huge leaps that are even further away than interstellar travel itself. We don't even know what consciousness is, how it is defined, how it is created or develops... how can we even begin to think about creating it by design.

I shall have to check this. I'm surprised if that's the figure.

Then you and I agree on this.

I'm not a fan of the anthropomorphic principle. It seems to be a trite cyclical and self-sustaining argument.

It's kinda like saying that Australia exists, and was created for my existence, because I exist in it. Bah...


Mr Mephisto

Yes, that "can" was supposed to be a "can't".

We are talking about two different things here. You are talking about quantum tunnelling past potential energy barriers, I'm talking about quantum entanglement producing instantaneous communication. Quantum tunneling obviously can't be used for FTL travel. Particles can't tunnel outside of their light cone anyway. Quantum entanglement, however, does appear to allow instantaneous communication over any distance. How this is possible in light of relativity hasn't been fully worked out just yet.

I apologize for my tone. It was completely unwarranted.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity can hardly be considered a proven law of physics. It's not as if I'm arguing against gravity here. No one knows anything about the fundamental nature of the universe -- it's all unproven hypotheses. I am not attached to the idea of interstellar travel; I don't give a crap about leaving the planet. I think not funding NASA because you don't think we can reach another solar system is pretty crazy, if only because space exploration has helped advance other fields -- how many products designed for space travel have been made part of our everyday lives?

OK, it appears we are talking about two different things.

Quantum entanglement is indeed one of those manisfestations of "quantum wierdness" that we don't really understand. Perhaps it does provide slim chances for FTL communication; who knows? But not FTL travel, and that was the original contention of this argument. :)

Mr Mephisto

Don't worry about it. I was a bit pompous in my response anyway! :)


Well, I think it can. It was proven. At least, its predications shown as accurate. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was proven as accurate in 1919 when British Astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington measured light "bending" around an eclipse off the coast of Africa. Check out http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp

Further proofs were offered in 1998 (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/.../m27-031.shtml), 2003 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2639043.stm) and just very recently in October of 2004 (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-9-2004-51444.asp)


Not so.

Unless we descend into philosophical debate on the nature of "proof" "reality" and "science"... But that would get us nowhere. :)

Well, there's the pen that can write upside down. And then there's the... erm... Hmmm

:D

Mr Mephisto

Or, we could become the first in the local area to figure it out.

It makes just as much sense to think that intelligent life, once it expands over the galaxy, will prevent intelligent life from appearing spontaniously like we did.

We send non-life. It arrives, and builds stuff. Mines asteroids and shit. Builds solar panels, seals a rock up. It then starts doing biochemistry, and builds an ecosystem.

Eventually it makes humans.

To pull this off successfully, we'd have to do some simply monsterous experiments -- raise humans without human interaction, experiment with what makes successful human-type beings, within the solar system, until we learn how to bootstrap human intelligence.

Pluto is about 72 AU out.
1 AU = 8 light minutes.
A-C is about 4 light years away.

4 * 365 * 24 * 60 = 2102400 light minutes
8 * 72 = 576 light minutes

AC/Pluto = 3650

Oops, you are right. I forgot to multiply by 24. =(

That's the strong anthropomorphic principle.

The weak one says "we are in the time and place in the universe where life can exist, because otherwise we wouldn't be here to see it".

Most planets aren't suitable to life. Most starts aren't suitable to planets with life. Most periods of the universe aren't suitable to life. (by life, I mean 'life as we know it')

It is shocking how well designed Earth is to life -- far less shocking when you realize that if Earth wasn't good for life, we wouldn't be shocked by it.

Someone has to be first.

Actually, it seems as if instantanious communication can't be exploited. There is either FTL information transfer that can't be exploited for any reason other than generating the proper quantum probabilities, or the many-universe explanation of Q-M is by far the simplest explanation.

Now, the many-universe interpritation makes it really clear that no FTL-communication is possible via those mechanisms. Both the FTL-info-transfer and many-universe interpritation have the same mathematical models -- they both explain the exact same phenomina -- thus, the FTL-info-transfer you are putting your hopes on won't let you send a postcard.

Because technology and energy manipulation is loud.

I believe that we are significant enough to bother hiding from is a tad egotistical.

Now, it could be that the galaxy-occupying intelligence allows intelligent life to develop within fallow areas for whatever reason. But it would be a matter of doing it on purpose.

Actually, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is one of the most proven laws of physics out there. It matches more of reality he hadn't had experience with than pretty much anything else I can think of.

Newton described how things fell, and wrote it up quite well. Einstein predicted that light would be bent by gravity, that frame-dragging would occur. The equations describe and explain red-shift, model the existance of black holes, and have lasted through more scientific testing than was done in all the centuries before he was born.

CCDs. Hubble CCD technology is used in breast cancer screening.
Various and sundery Semiconductor technologies.
Baby food (two essential fatty acids added, part of NASA long-term space ration research)
Water purificationsystems (Regeneratble Biocide Deliery Unit, uses Iodine instead of Cholrine)
Pool Purification
Ribbed Swimsuits, Better Golf Balls, Sports Training, Shoes, Flat Panel TV, Better Batteries, Trash compactors, freeze-dried foot, sports bras, smoke detectors
Solar power
Continuous Baroroator
Forest management
Fire-resistant material
Aluminized polymer film (thin, high-insulation, material, for homes)
Laser Angioplasty with 'cool' lasers
Child Ocular Screening
Magnetic Liquids (used in semiconductor manufacture)
Robotics (ex: welding sensor system)
Microlasers (mmm, fibreoptics)
Magnetic Bearing System (power generation, gas tranportation, oil refining, etc)
Computer training
High-pressure waterstripping
Variable Polarity Plasma Arc (advanced welding torch)
Personal Alarm System (used by prison guards, amoung other things)
Jaws of Life
Fireman's Air Tanks (20 lbs for 30 minutes of air -- double pressure, 33% of weight)
Doppler radar
Firefighter's radios
Better brakes
Toolbooth air purification
Lighter helicopters, better aircraft engines
Better wings on corperate jets
Better school buses

A good chunck of NASA is a bunch of extremely smart people solving problems and working on something they truely believe in. This means they do good work, and the solutions to the problems they run into tend to have other uses.

Why is that? What makes you think that intelligent life would "prevent" additional intelligent life from appearing? Certainly, that goes against the grain of current humanist thinking.

I also disagree that it is (equally) likely that human life is the "first" to appear. If the circumstances for its appearance are agreed, then statistically it should have appeared already. It's not as if 14 billion years have needed to pass before these environmental factors came about. This is not a smooth, incremental process that takes that long throughout the galaxy. It just so happens that life arose on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. There's no reason why it could not have arose before that somewhere else.

Unless we believe, as I suspect, that life is so statistically uncommon as to be almost impossible; but for ourselves. In other words, as Gould suggested, there is absolutely no gurantee that is if we "reran" the historical clock that life would appear again. It was a statistical anomaly in the first place and highly unusual. The fact that we haven't come across it anywhere else supports that hypothesis.

Hmmm... I don't think that's likely or really useful apart from as a "thougth experiment".


We can't create a single self-replicating construct at all, let alone "life". Now you suggest that we simply build a "human making machine"?!

I doubt that's possible. And even if it is possible, the technology is so far away that we won't last long enough to develop it. Most of your hyptotheses seem to be based upon an unwritten (and in my mind, unsafe) supposition. That is, that human life will last long enough to develop said technology that will ensure its perpuity. I think we will become extinct long before that happens. And I'm not even sure if it's possible in the first place.


Yes, but I find the weak anthropomorphic principle kind of useless also. It's akin to saying "You exist because I see you".

It's kinda stating the obvious. We exist because if we didn't, we wouldn't be here. Erm... so what? What does that prove?


I wouldn't say shocking. I really can't understand that hypothesis. Anthropomophism really bugs me. I just don't get it.

I could easily, and equally, say that "It's shocking that in the vast emptiness of the universe that something as beautiful as Mozart's Requiem came into existence. Therefore the universe must have been created for that to happen." Rather silly if you ask me.

We're here. We exist. That doesn't mean the universe was created for our existence. Was the universe created for the existence of pretty clouds? Nope. They just happen. Same way that life on Earth "just happened".

It was very unlikely. So what? So is getting a royal flush in poker.


Sounds too much like "space opera" science fiction to me. This kind of suggestion lies with 1950's style Hollywood movies (or Star Trek).

Agreed. See my links above.


You think the only reason we have "better school buses" is because of NASA? LOL

Well, first I was being satirical; at least in part. But your contention that improved technology will only occur if NASA is funded is simply incorrect. That is supposing that technological advances only happen

a) In the US
b) As part of NASA's programs
c) Won't occur anyway

I disagree with all three suppositions.

Yes they do and yes it does. I never suggested otherwise.


Mr Mephisto


PS - Really enjoying this thread. Great contributions so far. It's nice playing the Devil's Advocate now and again... :)

btw I would like to remind you guys that right now many people are desperately trying to save the Hubble Telescope from certain demise.

This is the stuff that needs to be continued in the space program. This telescope has been a great tool in scientific discovery. Also, no replacement is schedualed for the telescope for some time.
http://www.space.com/news/hubble_reaction_041209.html

This is agree with.

Fund the Hubble telescope. Let's concentrate on learning to walk before we try to fly...


Mr Mephisto

The Hubble is a lot of fun, I have a hubble image as my walpaper on my computer, but its not really learning to walk, its just peaking into the keyhole.

To me learning to walk is having sustained space exploration and exploitation. Can't expect to get out of the solar system until we have mastered it.

Holy hell its Deception Point all over again!

How very true Ustwo. And how nicely put.


Mr Mephisto

yeah, they need to find a new planet for the foreseeable future when they finally destroy this one. Most of us are not invited.

Because the speed of evolutionary 'progress' isn't fast on the size of beings large enough to become alive. At the same time, the speed of intelligent design is alot faster.

I'd expect any intelligence that appears after the first would be designed by the first. At best, the new intelligence would evolve in the cracks and crannies. Look at humanity -- we are spread over basically the entire planet, and we just got started a few thousand years ago.

First of all, you do need a population 3 star with relatively few stellar neighbours (ie, no supernovas too near, etc), and a solar system pretty free of trash, and a wet, rocky planet in the biosphere.

It took life on earth 3.8 billion years to develop intelligence. As far as we can tell, we are the first technological civilization on the planet earth. This means, we don't know how common technological civilizations are -- they could be far rarer.

It isn't life I'm talking about. It is technological civilizations. Life is neat and all, but it doesn't pay the bills.

A technological civilization like ours either burns out quickly, or swallows the galaxy (possibly both). There are good signs that no technological civilizations have swallowed the galaxy before us (we'd expect them to leave some litter, be it E-M or physical, around here).

Machines that can build themselves and build other things are not all that far fetched. Every life form on the planet Earth is such a machine, a biological one.

I just want to add an antenna, a CPU, and teach it to eat asteroids.

We have built the DNA for a single celled organism using non-life. A fertilized egg is a human-building machine (it does need a womb to help itself out). So, you start with an artificial womb and a carefully thawed human egg.

These aren't easy problems, but they don't seem impossible.

Yes, these are long-term strategies. If humanity wipes itself out shortly, they won't work.

We look at the galaxy, and notice that most of the stars aren't fit for human life. The WAP explains this. We look at the galaxy, and notice there isn't any sign of other intelligent life. If a galaxtic civilization actually takes up resources that prevents other intelligent life from existing in some quiet corner, the WAP also explains this.

Yes, that is silly. You are attributing motivation.

Um, so, why do you think this is contradicting anything I'm saying?

I'm not talking about anthropomorphism. I'm talking about the 'weak anthropomorphic principle' (WAP). You seem to be hung up on the 'strong anthropomorphic principle', which claims that the universe's purpose is us (well, that is one view of the SAP). The WAP makes no such claim. It doesn't explain why.

A WAP-based reason why there isn't intelligent life that we can see is that intelligent life spreads nearly as quickly as light, and once it arrives other intelligent life doesn't independantly evolve.

A WAP-based reason why our star is stable, and we are at the right distance, is that if our star wasn't stable or we where too close/far we wouldn't have managed to evolve.

Same arguement. The 'universe is quiet' one is weaker, because it is concievable that intelligent life would play 'caretaker' and hide from new life... But that assumes a more benevolent life form than any humanity has ever seen.

No, I'm saying that NASA spin-off technology was used directly in improving school bus design.

This is not my contention. I was simply explaining that the money put into NASA generates not only future, long-term benefits, but also short-term spinoffs. The fact that, much like the video game industry, very capable people are willing to put forth effort at below market rates, because they want to work at NASA/on a video game, gives it another advantage.

Agreed. But, a galaxy-wide intelligence would have to do this, effectively on purpose, for humanity to evolve at all like we did. Can you imagine an intelligence evolving on Earth right now, and it barely noticing humanity -- it's only evidence of humanity being legends, and the occasional anal probe?

We'd have to hide ourselves on purpose.

I was under the impression that extremely large ground-based telescope technology was a sufficient replacement for Hubble? Not a strong impression, just something I heard.

What I want to see is using multiple orbting telescopes as one large telescope (go go QM!). We could create telescopes with the resolving power to see a planet the size of Earth as a real disk. (now, getting a large enough apature to gather the light, that's another problem! Long exposure times would make taking pictures of rapidly moving things like planets hellish)

How about we master inner space, before we try space travel.

Approve of this post? YES YES (circle one)

i like to relate stuff to lyrics i hear like this song by the drive by truckers:

PUTTIN' PEOPLE ON THE MOON
Mary Alice had a baby and he looked just like I did
We got married on a Monday and I been working ever since
Every week down at the Ford Plant but now they say they're shutting down
Goddamned Reagan in the White House and no one there gives a damn

Double Digit unemployment, TVA be shutting soon
While over there in Huntsville, They puttin' people on the moon

So I took to runnin' numbers for this man I used to know
And I sell a few narcotics and I sell a little blow
I ain't getting rich now but I'm gettin' more than by
It's really tough to make a living but a man just got to try

If I died in Colbert County, Would it make the evening news?
They too busy blowin' rockets, Puttin' people on the moon

Mary Alice quit askin' why I do the things I do
I ain't sayin' that she likes it, but what else I'm gonna do?
If I could solve the world's problems I'd probably start with hers and mine
But they can put a man on the moon
And I'm stuck in Muscle Shoals just barely scraping by

Mary Alice got cancer just like everybody here
Seems everyone I know is gettin' cancer every year
And we can't afford no insurance, I been 10 years unemployed
So she didn't get no chemo so our lives was destroyed
And nothin' ever changes, the cemetery gets more full
And now over there in Huntsville, even NASA's shut down too

Another Joker in the White House, said a change was comin' round
But I'm still workin' at The Wal Mart and Mary Alice, in the ground
And all them politicians, they all lyin' sacks of shit
They say better days upon us but I'm sucking left hind tit
And the preacher on the TV says it ain't too late for me
But I bet he drives a Cadillac and I'm broke with some hungry mouths to feed

I wish I'z still an outlaw, was a better way of life
I could clothe and feed my family still have time to love my pretty wife
And if you say I'm being punished. Ain't he got better things to do?
Turnin' mountains into oceans Puttin' people on the moon

Turnin' mountains into oceans Puttin' people on the moon

Patterson Hood / Drive-By Truckers (I-24E and I-75S Nashville to Atlanta - 11/19/2003) © Soul Dump Music (BMI)
Piano - David Barbe

mrb

I don't really understand your contention here. I still don't see why intelligent life evolving once precludes its evolution somewhere else.


Only if you want "Earth-like" life. As we don't understand the Universe enough, what's there to say that life could not evolve in gas giants, in interplanetary dust, in comets?

Of course, I personally don't think it can, or is likely to have evolved anywhere, but as long as we're postulating... :)


I disagree. Life arose on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. Quite different.

Far rarer than what? Rarer than one?


How do you know? You state the two possibilities as if they were verified and verifiable fact.

Agreed 100%. Hence the reason I believe there is no other life out there. And that life on Earth was (for want of any other term) an "aberration".

Oh, but I think they are. :)

And we haven't even begun to understand the most simple manifestations of 'self replicating' biological objects (ie, virii); let alone complex cellular or multi-cellular life.

Like I said, "people making machines" are a way off. Off with the fairies in my mind... :)


We have? Where and when?

I should have expected to have heard more about such a momentous scientific advance. Artificially created DNA?

It should be noted, by the way, that despite all the media frenzy over genetics and DNA sequencing and the Human Genome Project etc, we still don't properly understand the fundamentals of life. The role or RNA, for example, is still not properly understood (see latest New Scientist magazine for an interesting article on this).

OK, I still don't get this.

So what does the WAP provide other than useful cyclical reasoning? I'm at a loss as to what value it brings to any discussion or analysis. So much so that I can't understand why it was even formulated and given a name. Until now, I never heard or any "Weak" Anthropomorphic Principle (vis a vis the "Strong").

Please explain further or provide references to reading material. I simply can't get my head around this. WAP can reason that intelligent life spreads at nearly the speed of life? Huh?

Great discussion.


Mr Mephisto

Although I didnt research who funds Worldnetdaily (I consider sources and who funds them important); I felt the article was just good food for thought.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33079

I agree with Mr.Mephisto in the thought that our current method of travel, wont propel humanity to where it needs to be. Thats why its my opinion that nations can hopefully someday pull there minds and resources together and focus on wormhole manipulation and similar technology.

Lets say some basic amino acids got together on the planet Earth, and discovered they could reproduce. What would happen?

They would get smooshed by the highly evolved and efficient life already here. The new 'life' wouldn't stand a chance.

Mankind is ubiquitous. There isn't room on the planet earth for a new intelligent species to evolve while we are here.

It seems reasonable that this pattern would continue: if one intelligence spread over the galaxy, there wouldn't be room for an independant one to grow up. Intelligent life could design new intelligent life on purpose, but probably natural evolution wouldn't be fast enough to pull it off without the older intelligence getting involved actively.

Yes, it might be possible that it could evolve elsewhere. We have no reason to believe it could, while we do know it could appear given 'earth like' conditions (with ourselves as an example).

If, as it happens, the only reasonably metobolically fast and stable life at this stage of the universe occurs on wet, tepid, rock-balls with medium-thick atmospheres, it could be that all the requirements are less common than might be naively expected.

And, we have a pretty large amount of evidence that there hasn't been intelligent life here before us. Thus it took 3.8 billions years for life to get to intelligence. I'm not saying it had a direction, I'm just noting how long it took.

3.8 billion years is a non-trivial fraction of the universe's life span. If it took that long on Earth, possibly Earth was extremely quick at it -- if it took 10 times longer elsewhere, they wouldn't have time to develop intelligence.

If only one intelligent species gets to evolve in a galaxy, then only the fastest one would get to do it.

If it took 500 million years to go from life forming to intelligence, in a 500 billion year old, uniform-along-time, galaxy, believing that we where the first in a race would be less believeable.

But we are orbitting a 3rd generation star, and it took a good portion of the galaxy's total history for us to evolve. Assuming we are at the head of the race is far less unreasonable.

Heard the recent information that the Milky Way periodically turns into a Starburst Galaxy? This means that stars near the core of the Galaxy are not suited to life: you'd be periodically sterilized in waves of supernovas and other disruptive events.

Technological civilizations could be rarer than life or intelligent life by large factors. Maybe Earth got really lucky with plate techtonics, and thus has access to lots of metals, which are quite useful in order to get to a real technological civillization.

I don't, I was just putting forward two possible states.

But, it isn't that hard to expand between stars, at least if you aren't sending warm life. And, as I have noted, we know how to build warm life from scratch.

This implies that technological civilizations either burn out or engulf the universe. Admittedly, Sawyer put forward the position that all technological civilizations turn inward and exist inside a computer-simulated utopia.

I think it might be an aberration. But an aberration of speed.

Robot factories that can build the robots in the factory with minimal supervision exist, I think.

There are plans for robots that do 3-D printing of buildings.

Automation of factories and production is proceeding apace. There are tricky parts, but large (like, factory sized) van neumann machines, that require pre-processed materials, aren't that far fetched. Once the mining, processing and manufacturing is automated, you have a full-scale Van Neumann machine. Then you have to add in automated repair (read: replacement) mechanisms.

A Van Neumann machine isn't hard. A small one is.

Or human cloning?


DNA is just chemicals.

Here is one story along this path:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4104483.stm
I believe cell walls have been made out of non-living material, so the use of an egg wasn't needed. There is a bunch of machinery they stole here, but all I claimed was the DNA.

DNA computing builds DNA, then mixes it in a test tube, in order to solve computational problems.

I think this was the organism I was thinking of: (via google)
SO1, or Synthetic Organism 1.

I thought I read a stronger claim than this somewhere.

Nope, we don't understand it. We can still use it.

We have managed to clone species, without understanding how their DNA works. We don't need to understand how cellular life works, we only need to build a copy of a cell.

Because the Strong made claims that where too strong for the evidence. Possibly the WAP provides nothing more than useful cyclical reasoning: but it points out how that reasoning is useful, and doesn't carry it far beyond what is justified like the SAP does.

Bah, I worded that too finely.

Start with 'intelligent life spreads nearly as quickly as light' and 'intelligent life prevents intelligent life from evolving where it is'.

Then, the fact we can't see intelligent life isn't surprising. Being able to see other life, as an intelligent species, would be extremely unexpected.