Aliens haven't contacted Earth because there's no sign of intelligence here, new answer to the Fermi paradox suggests

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Mar 4, 2020
694
88
1,980
I believe that the gain in mass comes in those quantum steps. And that if we stop the acceleration before that step is reached, the mass will return to it's starting value with constant velocity. Then hit it again until it reaches that step again. We should be able to set the particle's mass with intermittent acceleration. In some cases we might want a higher mass for a higher momentum. This also might allow near c speeds for normal particle mass.

But no faster. We know of nothing faster than c, to accelerate with.

Intermittent acceleration might be much more efficient in other fields too. We use the same idea for precise efficient motor control......and precise and efficient power supply control. With digital electronics. This might apply to propulsion also. I think they use it for satellite killer drones now.
 
Dec 23, 2022
6
0
30
Unless it's the prioritization of technological advancement that's what indicates our lack of advancement as a species. Of course any civilization that is so far superior in technology would not benefit from our stone age equivalent, so what might anyone really care about, if they had technology "light years" ahead of ours? Maybe they'd care about what was left of the beings on the planet when technology was removed from the equation. Maybe they'd care that we can't even manage to be friendly to each other, so what kinds of friends would we make for anyone else? Maybe an advanced civilization would find so silly and banal all of our treaties and arguments and lies and vying for some imagined pole position that nothing but pain and difficulty would arise from being involved with us.

What, as individuals or as a world would we have to offer anyone? Aside from experimentation, what interest would WE have in going to a planet of angry, bitter, lying, blind, traitorous apes that were just figuring out how to make sharp weapons to use against the apes living next to them? Right, we would laugh and say "yeah, maybe in another ten million years, if they're still around. Total waste of resources and time". Of course maybe it's that same attitude that is the real lack of evolution our planet. Now watch, someone will yell at me because they will assume I'm religious nut, a science-denier, a fascist, a trump supporter, a democrat, a dumb american, uncredentialled, spreading fake news, or some other unjust and hateful thing. But how illogical to think we would draw in anyone so technologically superior because we had finally reached where they were a million years ago (or whatever). Maybe they don't need our dumb tech, maybe they are smart enough to just want some friends. I know, the concept almost sounds alien to us, huh?

Heck, anywhere that is so bad most people have to hold onto the idea that something better is somewhere else, or after this, sounds like a place I'd only go out of mercy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 4, 2020
694
88
1,980
If there were any IL out there, they would not be interested in us, our tech would not draw them. They would be after our resources. Probably our oceans. Possibly our atmosphere.

Or like all other lifeforms.........food. Life needs to consume life.

edit;

Our first alien contact probably wouldn't be with a lifeform.......it would be with a very old machine.
 
Dec 23, 2022
6
0
30
There are about 8 billion people on this planet, some of whom I'd like to be friends with, some of whom I've tried repeatedly to make plans with, but they haven't ever called me back. How absurd would I be to take that as a sign they don't exist, instead of just realizing they probably don't have any interest in hanging out? Yes, very unscientific, very simplistic, but possibly everyone alive on this planet has empirical proof that if one doesn't feel like seeing someone, they sometimes don't. Maybe it's just that no one likes us. Not that I could possibly come up with like 80 billion reasons why that might be true. Most likely they just didn't get our radio signal saying "please, pay attention to us because we want to feel special and chosen, though if you came here and were vulnerable we would cut you open to dissect you and break anything cool you had so we could steal it for ourselves in order to kill all of you whether out of fear or out of wanting something you won't give us". Yeah, maybe we just can't believe someone wouldn't like us. You mean we're not the popular crowd?

If one lives in need, which rhymes with greed, then every gesture is done in order to get something (yes, even giving or being kind) - that's not really attractive to anyone who doesn't also 'need' something from us. If there were others out there who were evolved enough to travel to us (when we aren't anywhere close to being able to travel to them), I think the only reason anyone would want to, would be if we simply seemed like nice, cool people to know, which would enrich both sides. That doesn't take evolution or technology, as we're all just a choice away, or an infinite amount of half-measures. Take your pick I guess?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 23, 2022
6
0
30
If there were any IL out there, they would not be interested in us, our tech would not draw them. They would be after our resources. Probably our oceans. Possibly our atmosphere.

Or like all other lifeforms.........food. Life needs to consume life.

edit;

Our first alien contact probably wouldn't be with a lifeform.......it would be with a very old machine.
I'm just thinking that we have a bad habit of projecting our current situation onto completely unrelated scenarios. Meaning, regardless if another civilization has been around millions of years more or thousands of years less, if they are able to pay us a visit, then either their technological evolution was incredibly accelerated compared to ours, or they have advanced at exactly the same rate as us, which means they have been around for quite a bit longer. In either case, applying what we would be drawn in by, or what we would be after, to a theoretical civilization of beings that for all we know don't need to consume life any more than a solar panel does, seems like giving an answer without knowing the question.

It's like when people say without the threat of punishment there would be nothing to deter criminal activity, but they don't think that maybe people who grew up in a world without punishment might be very different than we are today and might not need that deterrent.

Since this is all theoretical, and we are talking about a scientifically advanced civilization, why are we putting our limitations on them? Since they would have to know things we don't, maybe one of them is that speed has nothing to do with how fast one gets somewhere. It's not supposed to make sense, that's my point.
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
694
88
1,980
We assume these restrictions because we observe them. ALL of the non living matter in this cosmos is restricted to certain locations, certain velocities...and only certain alignments and interactions. LAWS and restrictions of physicality.....all matter is subject to these laws, even living matter. We have never seen or measured lawless events. We see the same physics everywhere.

And life or the living matter are even more restrictive....to the environment and the resources in it.

To assume other laws in this cosmos from what we have found.......is denying science, not participated in it.

To assume that alien life has different physics.....is pure fiction, not science.

If we don't use our observations and measurements for a basis for understanding, then all the past work is useless, and if the past work is not used, why do any future work?

Why do science and then throw it away? For a fairy tale? A Hobbit creature? With magical powers?

The whole idea of science was to restrict speculation.......but today's science says anything goes.

Even though we still see and still measure all of those restrictions.

Today's science is the most contradictory subject one can study.
 
Dec 23, 2022
6
0
30
We assume these restrictions because we observe them. ALL of the non living matter in this cosmos is restricted to certain locations, certain velocities...and only certain alignments and interactions. LAWS and restrictions of physicality.....all matter is subject to these laws, even living matter. We have never seen or measured lawless events. We see the same physics everywhere.

And life or the living matter are even more restrictive....to the environment and the resources in it.

To assume other laws in this cosmos from what we have found.......is denying science, not participated in it.

To assume that alien life has different physics.....is pure fiction, not science.

If we don't use our observations and measurements for a basis for understanding, then all the past work is useless, and if the past work is not used, why do any future work?

Why do science and then throw it away? For a fairy tale? A Hobbit creature? With magical powers?

The whole idea of science was to restrict speculation.......but today's science says anything goes.

Even though we still see and still measure all of those restrictions.

Today's science is the most contradictory subject one can study.
With no ill will meant, and hoping if the discussion continues it can be friendly and not contentious - I wanted to start by saying I expressed myself poorly and I didn't mean to say or imply that I was assuming or giving any credibility to the fictions I wrote - they were specifically things I didn't have any reason for believing - which is why I used them...

I think if there were a civilization that had technology far more advanced than us, then the only thing we could be sure of is they must know something we don't (not saying any exist, just giving a different perspective than article author). So, whatever they know could be additive and validate core principles, or it could take our most foundational certainties and turn them upside down. Because so long as there is something more to understand, I think we don't have to discard our current understanding, but we have to discard the absolutism we feel about it. Does that seem logical?

Also, I agree science is about finding the truth, the answer, the way something works, how something happened, etc.. And so I think that honest science encourages speculation because when the quest is for Truth, then nothing else can have our allegiance. So if science is to be about answers, then it's the questions, speculations, and challenges/doubts we should Love, as they pave the path from where we stand, to everything we want.

If you disagree, I'm really open to hearing your thoughts (my wife says when I write that, it makes people think I am not at all open to hearing their thoughts, but I like these kinds of discussions). Of course maybe that sounds boring as heck (my wife says that too ;) ). Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 4, 2020
694
88
1,980
Not at all, not at all...friend808, it's a shame text doesn't have tone and texture, like speech does. Hearing my words and you would have discerned the spirit behind them. No problem and ditto for me too.

I am of the classical way of looking at and explaining physicality. And I usually only concern my understanding to non living matter. Live is super nature for me.

The only reason I commented on this thread was because of the evidence against alien life is so strong......and with absolutely no evidence other wise. For reasons in my earlier posts.

I don't believe that this cosmos permits man's concepts of probability, randomness and chaos. These concepts are just substitute terms for the unknown and un-diserned.

If an alien spaceship landed tomorrow, I would suspect it of coming from inside the earth, before believing it came from another star system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: friend808
Dec 23, 2022
6
0
30
Not at all, not at all...friend808, it's a shame text doesn't have tone and texture, like speech does. Hearing my words and you would have discerned the spirit behind them. No problem and ditto for me too.

I am of the classical way of looking at and explaining physicality. And I usually only concern my understanding to non living matter. Live is super nature for me.

The only reason I commented on this thread was because of the evidence against alien life is so strong......and with absolutely no evidence other wise. For reasons in my earlier posts.

I don't believe that this cosmos permits man's concepts of probability, randomness and chaos. These concepts are just substitute terms for the unknown and un-diserned.

If an alien spaceship landed tomorrow, I would suspect it of coming from inside the earth, before believing it came from another star system.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that we seem to be of similar thought, when we also seem to be of similar desire for constructive, honest, and fair discourse.

I appreciate the Greek meaning of 'chaos' from antiquity - that it was (for lack of a better word), the void before there was anything - because I feel that anything - even if that thing was somehow not based on any cause and effect and was truly random - would still have order - it's order being that it is completely unpredictable. But that's just an aside...and I've yet to understand any reason how such a thing as the random thing I describe could ever actually exist.

I think (but please correct where I am misunderstanding), that we both believe "odds" or "probability" is just a human-made concept born from our inability to know or calculate all the variables that would show with certainty who would, say, win the super bowl 20 years from now.

I ask people 'if you traveled to the future and found out the winner of the next super bowl, then traveled back to your original time - when you went to bet on the super bowl, would you bet on the team you saw win in the future or would you bet on the team you saw lost?'. Everyone always says, of course, the one that they saw win. But then I ask them, once a horse race is finished and the winner decided, doesn't that means the horse was always going to win the race? That even before it was born it was already certain to one day run this race and win? And once the race is over, we learn the real odds had been 100% that all other horses would lose? But they argue that and will die on the sword demanding that it didn't have to win. So then I ask them, isn't seeing the winner of the horse race the same thing as going to the future and seeing the winner of the super bowl? Once the horse race is over, we are in the future compared to where we were before the race, so if they now could go back in time before the race would they bet on any other horse?

And when that is also dismissed I try my last resort (possibly because I'm not smart enough to have any better argument), 'Look, once something has happened, there is no argument to be made that it could have ever happened differently, because it didn't happen differently. Nor is there any argument to be made anything leading up to that moment could have happened differently, because again, it already happened and it wasn't different. So there are zero examples to support the idea that it didn't have to happen, and there is everything that's ever happened to support that once something's happened, it's happened, which means it always was going to happen, because it did happen'.

I must either have poor ideas or be the worst at explaining myself, because the only person who I've ever managed to get to see it that way is my wife, and it only took 15 years...and I'm not positive how much she really believes it ;).

Here is a theory that maybe others have - but I don't read what other's write very often unless to attempt to gather any possible facts (or things that seem like they may be facts), so I don't know if this has been said by thousands: To me, it's not 'Free Will' OR 'Determinism / pre-determined' - it's 'Determinism' BECAUSE of 'Free Will'. Meaning, it's only because we can make choices, and because we choose based on the near infinite inputs from our life that cause us to choose or do what we do, that everything that will ever happen for the rest of time could be predicted, if we only had the right model, data, etc. Because if it was just 'determinism' then stuff wouldn't make any sense - like you'd go over to your best friend's house and even though he was always super nice he would knock you unconscious and torture you to death for literally no reason at all. Or people would just shout out "CHICKEN PARTS!" for no reason when walking down the street - and it would confuse them too. But because everything we do, how we act, if we get nervous catching the winning touchdown pass in the super bowl - everything - is based on (lets just say a huge amount of things, possibly down to the way the wind blew on our face when we were 2) all that went into creating that exact moment and everything in it, then while we get to make a choice, what we are going to choose is what we were always going to choose, and of course once we choose it, how can one logically argue they could have chosen something else, since they didn't and that moment will never come again.

Sorry, for a belief system I'm only guessing at I sure am sounding very sure of myself and I apologize - I just get excited. Please disagree liberally, all honest disagreement will be met with pleasure (though agreement will too lol). Anyway, off the topic of aliens, but, I guess it was "meant to be". ;)

BTW - funny how we say "don't want to tempt fate" - when fate, were there such a creature, would be the only thing that couldn't be tempted to change. Otherwise it wouldn't have been fate, unless it was fate that it would be tempted, in which case screwed no matter what I guess? Sorry, being silly and maybe a wise-a** now. Hope I haven't turned the stomach or yet another person with my verbosity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jan 8, 2023
1
0
10
Perhaps that’s another reason, because you clearly don’t realize that, unless aliens see with something faster than light, earth is still a ball of magma. Perhaps, like us, the aliens are not going to bother sending messages to a void. Unless there’re any aliens on planets or moons within the ≈15000 lightyear mark, (and there more than likely aren’t because of the MASSIVE room for failure in “evolution,” the only way aliens would exist,) we would be of no interest to them.

@Dav_Daddy, you’re the one with superstitious beliefs, anything in the past with no written records is just a belief, no matter how good the evidence is. Especially if you have bad evidence.
On a separate note, how do you disprove God? Supernatural laws don’t follow natural ones? That’s just stupidity.
Also, if God can’t spontaneously start existing, then why is the universe able to? Did it invent thermodynamics later?
Statistically, it is more likely that God made everything. Plus you have the undeniable (by almost every reliable historian) existence of Jesus, whether or not he was God (and he probably was something like that, given the points exposed in this book: Cold Case Christianity | By J. Warner Wallace)

I do have to support you with the putting down the science fiction though, every “similar thread” here has alien in the title.
 
Dec 16, 2022
3
1
10
Our limited imagination is the problem here. Who says technologically advanced alien lifeforms would use types of transportation we presume to be advanced? Travel methods that require current propellants are highly unlikely to make the cut, so are machines that operate in sub lightspeed. In other words, we haven't invented the tools and methods required to make us viable galactic citizens yet. We're generally stuck on Earth's surfaces, and most of us won't ever see the surface of the Moon or Mars. We're in the infancy of space travel, let alone time travel, which would be a requirement to overcome intergalactic distances. One intriguing theory is, what if the glut of UFO's some of us witnessed are from our own future? That would explain many details, like knowing where we can be found. What if our descendants are doing research on their ancestry? Or test their time travel abilities? The possibilities are endless. A highly advanced civilization would also know how to hide in our presence. All they need to master is how to use light outside of our detectable spectrum. A superior civilization surely knows how to cloak themselves from low tech people like us. Best is not to worry about advanced alien lifeforms, and keep plugging away at our own technological abilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: friend808
Dec 23, 2022
6
0
30
Perhaps that’s another reason, because you clearly don’t realize that, unless aliens see with something faster than light, earth is still a ball of magma. Perhaps, like us, the aliens are not going to bother sending messages to a void. Unless there’re any aliens on planets or moons within the ≈15000 lightyear mark, (and there more than likely aren’t because of the MASSIVE room for failure in “evolution,” the only way aliens would exist,) we would be of no interest to them.

@Dav_Daddy, you’re the one with superstitious beliefs, anything in the past with no written records is just a belief, no matter how good the evidence is. Especially if you have bad evidence.
On a separate note, how do you disprove God? Supernatural laws don’t follow natural ones? That’s just stupidity.
Also, if God can’t spontaneously start existing, then why is the universe able to? Did it invent thermodynamics later?
Statistically, it is more likely that God made everything. Plus you have the undeniable (by almost every reliable historian) existence of Jesus, whether or not he was God (and he probably was something like that, given the points exposed in this book: Cold Case Christianity | By J. Warner Wallace)

I do have to support you with the putting down the science fiction though, every “similar thread” here has alien in the title.
@G+S_is_no_contradiction - FWIW I'm not claiming anything about aliens existing or not, I just wanted to point out the logic flaw in the idea that IF there were beings (which could be a completely ridiculous and baseless idea) and IF they happened to be advanced enough to do things which we don't know how to do yet (like travel to our planet, which is the premise of the article being discussed), then the only certainty in that scenario is they know something we don't. What this possibly fictitious lifeform might know, we of course couldn't know, since that would contradict the premise of us not knowing it.

The flaw in the author's logic is the same flaw in almost all other similar discussions, where we use our beliefs to limit what is possible, when discussing a civilization that knows at least something we don't. It's logically flawed is all I'm saying, but then again, I may be logically flawed and not as smart as I think, which means I might think I'm saying something smart, when really I'm being an idiot. No joke, I think the most misleading thing about being an idiot, I think I've realized, is that everyone else seems to not be getting it. But that's the b*tch of the brain, to me, is that it naturally thinks what it thinks is right, otherwise it wouldn't think it. So regardless of my certainty, I would probably think the person 1,000 times more insightful than me was dumb, because I wouldn't think they made any sense - and I'd feel the same about the person 1,000 times less insightful than me. Flip I coin I guess ;). Sorry, I'm most likely crazy and too much in love with myself. Really, sorry. Either way, you wrote a lot of stuff I liked as well.

@7%solution - very cool thoughts, and I thought what you wrote was very nicely said.
 
Last edited:
Dec 4, 2019
27
7
4,555
If there were any IL out there, they would not be interested in us, our tech would not draw them. They would be after our resources. Probably our oceans. Possibly our atmosphere.

Or like all other lifeforms.........food. Life needs to consume life.

edit;

Our first alien contact probably wouldn't be with a lifeform.......it would be with a very old machine.
Yes, more likely to see aliens advancing on earth if they thought nobody was home. This is an extremely valuable property being just right in so many ways. If nobody home, little cost to take the planet for their own use, to expand their empire so to speak.

As far as humans are concerned I would not be looking to communicate with aliens, rather to hide. They might have a similar mindset to Putin.

I personally don't believe there is life elsewhere, of any kind.
 
Jan 17, 2023
1
0
10
Those purported extraterrestrial aliens might be monitoring our electromagnetic TV and Radio signals. As a consequence, those aliens may have come to the conclusion that Evolution has by sheer random luck isolated Homo Sapiens in some backwater of the Milky Way Galaxy. ...... Sort of like a Zoo.

If they're detecting TV Broadcasting they probably view Earth as the universe's asylum.
 
Jan 24, 2023
2
0
10
The probable answer which is mentioned only obliquely here is that based on current physics nothing can go faster then light. That means that at best it takes 4 years at light speed to reach our closest neighbor star. No matter how advanced the civilization and there is no high probability of life on any given star system.. Then you start to need longer and longer lengths of time to reach us. If your counting on worm holes to speed the process,, dont hold your breath
You don't need to travel faster than light to reduce your travelling time. The special theory of relativity that deals with this matter is clear in this. From the point of view of the travellers in the space vehicle you can arrive at the centre of the galaxy in time for Christmas just by continuing to accelerate as required. From the point of view of observers back on earth we will see you slowly approaching the speed of light relative to us but never breaching it. What we also see is that your time is slowing massively at the same time as your velocity increases, so we observe that your journey will take nearly as long as it would for light itself, thousands of years in our time. Meanwhile, back in the spaceship, we look back at earth and see that time has almost come to a standstill there, according to us. More bizarrely than any of this is that the distance to our destination has shrunken massively too, so we can get to the centre of the galaxy in almost no time whatsoever, in our own piece of the space-time continuum. The apparent paradox will be resolved when we turn around and return to the earth. What we will find is that on earth as much time has passed as it would have taken for the light to travel to our destination and back, plus a bit for our lack of quite that velocity. So we will be 6 months older and the entire human civilisation will most probably have disappeared if the régressives in the GOP have won out as they want, since 20,000 years will have passed here. Such is the beauty of the space-time nature of the universe. The two are inextricably bound together and make a natural barrier to any sensible travel to other worlds. PS. I have said nothing here about how much power would be required, but that raises an equally impenetrable but different reason for the difficulty of interstellar travel.
 
Jan 24, 2023
2
0
10
Just wanting ftl travel to be so, does not make it eventually possible. Dream on.
You are right here. FTL is not possible since it breaks causality. You can experience something happening before the cause has occurred. It isn't necessary anyway since special relativity allows you to arrive in as short a time as your ability to power your flight allows.
 
Dec 11, 2021
8
0
530
We really have not done any extraordinary scientific achievements even though we exist much amount of time
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY