Minds that think alike...(re: Aliens)

[Marduk]

Or maybe it was the tyranny of the English that followed the colonization..

Noooo. it was that chant that did it "no taxation without representation"
hows that working out for you guys now ?

 

[Robo Sapien]

Noooo. it was that chant that did it "no taxation without representation"
hows that working out for you guys now ?

Not so good, our new Tea Party wouldn't know representation if jumped up and bit them in the teabag.

 

[quarky]

In all cases, aliens would have been able to pin point a suitable planet for their intended visit, and I doubt very much they used a super large focal telescope with the stated aim of - "Find a blue planet, does not matter where, how big, just make sure it's blue" and then proceeded to fly to it. Pity the mission that landed on Uranus – anal probe jokes are not applicable here.

It is more than likely that they would use some form of chemical analysis, as we are doing, using spectroscopy or its future development. Therefore, they would have to have knowledge of chemistry and thus would more than likely to be well aware of their own chemical make up.

As for carrying out the same said research from underwater, I can’t even conceive of this.

This shows some anthropomorphic chauvanism, imho.
I suggest that something more akin to a "crap-shoot" could be at work here.
A mature tick, for instance, drops from her host when it is full of their blood.
It lands on the ground, pretty much randomly.
And lays it eggs.
Sometimes, as many as 18,000 of them, which hatch out into larval ticks, tiny nasty things, which can't really do any traveling, so they climb to the top of whatever plant they happen to hatch out next to, and they wait there, to be disturbed by the chance of a passing victim, and to let go of its perch; hope to land on the host; climb up on its body, and perhaps find a safe place to hone in on some blood.

Said strategy would be a total loser in human terms and emotions. The vast majority of these young ticks will never score a meal of blood.
Sheer numbers keep the strategy viable.
Which is contrary to how humans (and probably elephants and whales) are wired.

Our babies are a big deal.
Imagine having 18,000 of them at a crack, even though your lifespan was only going to be 2 or 3 years, at most?

 

[Belgian thought]

This shows some anthropomorphic chauvanism, imho.

Not really, the title of the thread is "Minds that think alike...(re: Aliens)" - the scenario you propose is akin to that of a tick. It is an interesting one though, but how would such a species evolve?

 

[quarky]

Happenstance?

Point being that alien life forms could be introduced through no effort of their own, much less highly evolved technology. Once they, or their spores, ride in on a chunk of asteroid, then their evolution is in response to some new inputs.

But I suppose I did drift from the thread's intent.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not to be paranoid, but you have to be much more than resilient if alien from outer space wants to wipe you out. Above at the top of the gravity well, they just can wait it out, and tow asteroid to throw in the well, shoot the rare stuff coming up (wasn't that they way alien killed most of humanity in the "moon is a harsh mistress" ?). They don't need advanced tech, just energy, tow vehicule, newtonian physic calculation, and patience.

Why would they want to wipe us out? What possible motivation would an intelligent, highly technological alien species have for wanting to wipe us out? Any species aggressive enough to be interested in genocide for genocide's sake would never have made it into space before wiping themselves out first.

 

[Hellbound]

Why would they want to wipe us out? What possible motivation would an intelligent, highly technological alien species have for wanting to wipe us out? Any species aggressive enough to be interested in genocide for genocide's sake would never have made it into space before wiping themselves out first.

Unless that genocide is reserved for other species. Not that I believe it likely, but there are examples of animals that are social among themselves and agressive towards anything not themselves.

But there's some other thought that goes into this.

First, keep in mind that any space flight technology that allows travel between star systems must be able to attain a respectible fraction of the speed of light (excluding some sort of generation ship). At 50% c, there's a HUGE amount of energy in the spacecraft. For any reasonable-sized spacecraft, enough energy to sterilize a planet (or at least the hemisphere it impacts...which will lead to massive destruction on both sides. Of course, two ships impacting one-half rotation period apart will pretty much clear the surface entirely). Second, at those speeds, it's hard to get the location. By the time your light signal, radar signal, gamma emissions, or whatever hit the object and return, it's already moved. Especially when you're talking about the distances in space. This means that trying to intercept is difficult, at best. And even some sort of destruction that is acomplished is likely to create a swarm of debris, which would be worse than a single impact. Third, there's no way to know if it's an attack or a peaceful mission until and unless it starts slowing down, which means (if you want to give peace a chance) you reduce your time to stop it if it isn't peaceful.

Asimov did some thought work on this, and came up with his "three rules of alien behavior": basically, three things you can say about an intelligent alien race without knowing anything else about them (paraphrased):

1) Their survival will be more important than our survival. A species does not become the top of the food chain on its planet by sacrificing it's own members. 2) Wimps don’t become top dogs. It will be intelligent, agressive, and ruthless when necessary. Something had to happen for the species to become dominant, and it doesn't seem logical that this would be by hugging trees and smelling flowers This means they will react to any percieved threat to their species.
3) They will assume that the first two laws apply to us.

Now, putting those three laws into place with the idea that any interstellar craft is also, de facto, an interstellar planetary bombarbment craft...

Sweet dreams

ETA: The book "A Killing Star" goes into some detail on this reasoning, withint hte context of a sci fi story. This particular discussion, however, is pulled from a conference and email chain among some of the scientists discussing it. It's an interesting read, in any case

 

[Marduk]

Why would they want to wipe us out? What possible motivation would an intelligent, highly technological alien species have for wanting to wipe us out?

Hmmm, maybe they watched our movies ?

 

[Robo Sapien]

I am suddenly reminded of the plot to The Day The Earth Stood Still, where the alien intelligence came here to save earth from human beings by preserving other life and exterminating us. Being a needle in a cosmic haystack, the earth is one of the few life-supporting planets in the universe and they could not allow us to destroy it.

Hmm.. maybe Al Gore is actually Klaatu?

 

[SnidelyW]

As a bit of information, it seems Hawking must have made his remarks regarding avoiding aliens in a press conference following his lecture at George Washington University, as the transcript does not show he said anything of the sort.

http://ims.ivv.nasa.gov/pdf/223968main_HAWKING.pdf

Alien content begins at the bottom of page 19.

Hawking totally discounts UFO observation reports, but then states

"DR. HAWKING: If there is a government conspiracy
to suppress the reports and keep for itself the scientific
knowledge the aliens bring, it seems to have been a
singularly ineffective policy so far."

So my question is- if there isn't any significance to any UFO observation reports, then why even bother mentioning the possible existence of suppression of UFO reports?

Seems a bit of a waste of time. So why say it? Hawking is apparently a very smart guy.

Just seems odd to me.

 

[Sledge]

That's some impressive thinking there, Snidely. You've looked at what Hawking said and taken it to prove exactly the opposite of what he said. That's almost admirable.

 

[quarky]

Hawking is obviously an alien.

 

[Sledge]

Is that why he has such an odd voice?

 

[SnidelyW]

That's some impressive thinking there, Snidely. You've looked at what Hawking said and taken it to prove exactly the opposite of what he said. That's almost admirable.

All I did was illustrate that there is more than one way to interpret remarks, and that very fact is why forums like this exist. Perhaps it's the suppressed barrister instinct at work.

Last I heard, debate over differing views was encouraged here, not ridiculed, even in the most delicate of ways.

 

[Sledge]

I'm not disputing that there are alternative ways to interpret remarks, merely pointing out that the interpretation you put forward is laughably wrong. Hell, it's people like you that move Hawking to point out the obvious: that there is no conspiracy. Hilariously, you take his pointing out why the conspiracy idea is ridiculous as possible proof of the conspiracy.

 

[SnidelyW]

I'm not disputing that there are alternative ways to interpret remarks, merely pointing out that the interpretation you put forward is laughably wrong. Hell, it's people like you that move Hawking to point out the obvious: that there is no conspiracy. Hilariously, you take his pointing out why the conspiracy idea is ridiculous as possible proof of the conspiracy.

You can 'point out' all you wish, but here I thought that if a position was taken, proof was offered to substantiate that position. I don't see you offering proof of anything, other than some sort of futile guffaw, which says nothing.

I think you also need to re-read my post, as I never used the word 'conspiracy', nor implied it. I used a current quote from Professor Hawking in a recent address, and he used the word 'conspiracy'.

All I asked was why waste time on the very thought of a 'conspiracy' (note to Sledge: HAWKINGS' word) if reports of UFO sightings can so easily be discounted?

So please, Sledge, offer proof to substantiate your allegation my thinking is, to quote you, 'laughable' and 'hilarious'.

So I'm quoting the foremost astrophysicist in the world, and you're quoting- 'Sledge'? Now that is somewhat hilarious.

 

[Akhenaten]

<nagging doubts snipped>

So I'm quoting the foremost astrophysicist in the world, and you're quoting- 'Sledge'? Now that is somewhat hilarious.

Careful!

 

[Sledge]

This is going to be fun. Just a shame that Snidely will doubtlessly run away from any real debate, popping back in from time to time to JAQ off. Hey ho.

You can 'point out' all you wish, but here I thought that if a position was taken, proof was offered to substantiate that position. I don't see you offering proof of anything, other than some sort of futile guffaw, which says nothing.

What am I saying that requires proof? Hawking quite clearly discounts the possibility of aliens having arrived here already, or even of a technological speciies being within a hundred light years of us. If aliens haven't reached us, how can there possibly be a conspiracy to cover this up?

I think you also need to re-read my post, as I never used the word 'conspiracy', nor implied it. I used a current quote from Professor Hawking in a recent address, and he used the word 'conspiracy'.

Don't be stupid. You are talking about Hawking's views on the possible existence of a conspiracy suppressing knowledge of ETs. If your comment has nothing to do with conspiracies then it also has nothing to do with the quote from Hawking. Why did you post an irrelevant quote?

All I asked was why waste time on the very thought of a 'conspiracy' (note to Sledge: HAWKINGS' word) if reports of UFO sightings can so easily be discounted?

Because people like you keep babbling on about the "conspiracy." This leads to intelligent people having to waste time pointing out that the conspiracy not only doesn't exist but is a batsqueak insane idea.

So please, Sledge, offer proof to substantiate your allegation my thinking is, to quote you, 'laughable' and 'hilarious'.

Your post is that proof. Pretty much everything you've ever posted on this forum is further proof.

So I'm quoting the foremost astrophysicist in the world,

No you're not. You're quoting Professor Stephen Hawking, the noted theoretical physicist. Not only did you post something irrelevant to what you wanted to say, you didn't even bother to do basic research on the person you quoted.

and you're quoting- 'Sledge'? Now that is somewhat hilarious.

I didn't quote me. I quoted you. To try and help you with this, my posts are the ones next to the username "Sledge." Your username is "SnidelyW." Maybe you should practice on a more forgiving forum before trying your brand of tosh here?

 

[SnidelyW]

This is going to be fun. Just a shame that Snidely will doubtlessly run away from any real debate, popping back in from time to time to JAQ off. Hey ho. ...snip...

Okay Sledge, I'll go REAL s l o w for you here, as I now understand your limitations regarding comprehension.

Yes, I called Dr. Hawking an astrophysicist;

from wisgeek.com
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-an-astrophysicist-do.htm

"An astrophysicist is a scientist who researches the principles of light, motion, and natural forces as they pertain to the universe at large. He or she engages in theoretical physics studies in an attempt to learn more about the underlying properties of the cosmos. Many astrophysicists specialize in studying a particular phenomenon or theory, such as black holes, the development and extinction of stars, relativity and motion, or the origin of the universe."


Now, Dr. Hawking wrote a book- one perhaps you've never read, called, A Brief History Of Time, which tries to explain, in adult language, where the universe came from. To quote the amazon.com synopsis- oh wait- that's an adult word for summary;

"...A Brief History of Time to help nonscientists understand the questions being asked by scientists today: Where did the universe come from? How and why did it begin? Will it come to an end, and if so, how? Hawking attempts to reveal these questions (and where we're looking for answers) using a minimum of technical jargon. Among the topics gracefully covered are gravity, black holes, the Big Bang, the nature of time, and physicists' search for a grand unifying theory. This is deep science; these concepts are so vast (or so tiny) as to cause vertigo while reading, and one can't help but marvel at Hawking's ability to synthesize this difficult subject for people not used to thinking about things like alternate dimensions."

Let's play a game- can you spot the phrase 'black holes' in both the definition of 'astrophysics' AND the book review? You DID? Good for you!! THAT would mean Dr. Hawking would be an ASTROPHYSICIST!

The rest of your blather in the post is just some sort of Corpus Callosum disorder not worthy of response.



So, sticking to the topic, the question was asked by me, relating directly to the OP, why, in his address did Hawking even mention the subject of UFO reporting 'conspiracies?'

Any answer for that, other than the usual spittle?

 

[Sledge]

So you're claiming that because Hawking has mentioned black holes, he's an astrophysicist? Now I understand why you post such tosh. Any pillock who's mentioned anything is automatically an expert. Have you considered visiting the 9/11 forum? You'll find some experts (by your criteria) who will prove to you that no aeroplanes hit the towers.

Now, will you respond to what I posted previously, or are you just going to bark out laughably stupid questions?