Talk:1377: Fish - Revision history

The Cat Lady at 10:42, 26 October 2021

2021-10-26T10:42:48Z

The Cat Lady at 10:42, 26 October 2021

2021-10-26T10:42:23Z

108.162.221.250: We're not the first ones to think of these exact issues.

2017-08-20T09:44:48Z

We're not the first ones to think of these exact issues.

162.158.92.172 at 11:38, 27 March 2017

2017-03-27T11:38:26Z

Jorgbrown: Jaws theme music is missing

2015-01-28T23:33:34Z

Jaws theme music is missing

103.22.201.225 at 06:29, 7 June 2014

2014-06-07T06:29:01Z

Quadibloc: Why aliens might really fear us.

2014-06-06T17:35:28Z

Why aliens might really fear us.

Hkmaly at 10:21, 6 June 2014

2014-06-06T10:21:30Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Compare life with {{w|Cantor Dust}}.

2014-06-06T10:17:53Z

Compare life with {{w|Cantor Dust}}.

MGitsfullofsheep at 10:12, 6 June 2014

2014-06-06T10:12:38Z

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it.  Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}.  Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery.  Or, err.  Well, I have not said "never", right ?  But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small.  Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough gain enough statistical density to be easily noticed.  Compare life with {{w|Cantor Dust}}. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
-:Good explanation that I 100% agree with. Humans simply can't grasp the vast amounts of time the galaxy has existed. For two technological civilisations to exist at exactly the same time in exactly the same region of space are vanishingly small.
+:Good explanation that I 100% agree with. Humans simply can't grasp the vast amounts of time the galaxy has existed. For two technological civilisations to exist at exactly the same time in exactly the same region of space are vanishingly small.[[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 10:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 But the Jaws theme is missing!  I've tried turning the volume way up, reinstalling my sound card, making sure my MIDI drivers are working... [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 23:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:42, 26 October 2021
Line 39:		Line 39:

	The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough gain enough statistical density to be easily noticed. Compare life with {{w\|Cantor Dust}}. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep\|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep\|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)		The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough gain enough statistical density to be easily noticed. Compare life with {{w\|Cantor Dust}}. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep\|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep\|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Good explanation that I 100% agree with. Humans simply can't grasp the vast amounts of time the galaxy has existed. For two technological civilisations to exist at exactly the same time in exactly the same region of space are vanishingly small.

	But the Jaws theme is missing! I've tried turning the volume way up, reinstalling my sound card, making sure my MIDI drivers are working... [[User:Jorgbrown\|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown\|talk]]) 23:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)		But the Jaws theme is missing! I've tried turning the volume way up, reinstalling my sound card, making sure my MIDI drivers are working... [[User:Jorgbrown\|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown\|talk]]) 23:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:44, 20 August 2017
Line 28:		Line 28:

	I think the problem is that traditional SETI methods are of dubious effectiveness at actually detecting radio transmissions from other civilizations due to the low initial power of said transmissions which then only get weaker as they propagate. Switch to our new optical methods of planet detection which have detected scores of planets in just a few years and the "paradox" might need to be reevaluated. Optical detection also makes it doubtful that any civilization would be able to effectively hide. [[User:Sturmovik\|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik\|talk]]) 12:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)		I think the problem is that traditional SETI methods are of dubious effectiveness at actually detecting radio transmissions from other civilizations due to the low initial power of said transmissions which then only get weaker as they propagate. Switch to our new optical methods of planet detection which have detected scores of planets in just a few years and the "paradox" might need to be reevaluated. Optical detection also makes it doubtful that any civilization would be able to effectively hide. [[User:Sturmovik\|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik\|talk]]) 12:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::A lot of these issues have been the fodder for many a sci-fi book or show; The Prime Directive from Star Trek means advanced civilizations agree to not communicate with worlds that haven't developed FTL space travel. As far as reasons for destroying emerging technological worlds, who says a higher technologically-advanced species needs one? Whether it be an ID4 swarm of locusts swarming down for a temporary home, or a Borg thinning of the herd of weaker planets, a Death Star operator just showing their power, or the need for an hyperspace bypass. And with our search methods limited to light-speed measurements, be they radio or optical, even if we do get confirmation of life, it only means they used to exist, relativisticly, not that they continue to exist these many (thousands?) of years after those transmissions we received were sent. Not to mention that any non-directed signals such as our media are unlikely to make it out of our local planethood let alone our solar system without being severely degraded by the all the other naturally occurring radio sources out there.
		+	And yes, us sending out 'Hey! Here we are!' transmissions willy-nilly into the galactic unknown would seem very much like a untrained CBer keying the mike and talking over the channel without so much as a 'Break-one-nine?' to the other out there that may be talking to one another. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.250\|108.162.221.250]] 09:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

	:If we would use our methods of planet detection on our solar system, we would notice Jupiter, Saturn ... and unknown source of radio emission stronger that Sun itself. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 10:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)		:If we would use our methods of planet detection on our solar system, we would notice Jupiter, Saturn ... and unknown source of radio emission stronger that Sun itself. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 10:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:38, 27 March 2017
Line 20:		Line 20:

	:: Maybe they do know about us, but they want us (as a species) to first grow out of our weird adolescent years and crazy ideas before they interact with us. You don't go around inviting random rebellious teenagers to your house for no reason, do you? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.225\|103.22.201.225]] 06:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)		:: Maybe they do know about us, but they want us (as a species) to first grow out of our weird adolescent years and crazy ideas before they interact with us. You don't go around inviting random rebellious teenagers to your house for no reason, do you? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.225\|103.22.201.225]] 06:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	::That would be the better reaction for us. The worse reaction, to quote Doctor Who "...There's a horror movie called Alien? That's really offensive! No wonder everyone keeps invading you...". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.172\|162.158.92.172]] 11:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

	::They won't have complete annotated list. They will have pieces. They will have hard time understanding our language - or the method we encoded the images with. They don't need to have more advanced technology than we have to spy on us (well ... maybe little). The task of UNDERSTANDING what they received would be the hard one. With the percentage of broadcast occupied with real and fictional wars, it IS possible that only things they decode will make them conclude contacting us might be dangerous. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 10:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)		::They won't have complete annotated list. They will have pieces. They will have hard time understanding our language - or the method we encoded the images with. They don't need to have more advanced technology than we have to spy on us (well ... maybe little). The task of UNDERSTANDING what they received would be the hard one. With the percentage of broadcast occupied with real and fictional wars, it IS possible that only things they decode will make them conclude contacting us might be dangerous. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 10:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 28 January 2015
Line 34:		Line 34:

	The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough gain enough statistical density to be easily noticed. Compare life with {{w\|Cantor Dust}}. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep\|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep\|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)		The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough gain enough statistical density to be easily noticed. Compare life with {{w\|Cantor Dust}}. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep\|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep\|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	But the Jaws theme is missing! I've tried turning the volume way up, reinstalling my sound card, making sure my MIDI drivers are working... [[User:Jorgbrown\|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown\|talk]]) 23:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 :I've always found this to be terrible logic.  In addition to sci-fi, we also broadcast news and documentaries.  In addition to fictional triumphs, we also have real-life failures.  We've broadcast that funding to NASA has been cut, and how he haven't been farther than the moon in what, 50 years?  We have Mythbusters which is constantly debunking stupid stuff that humans believe, and also showing off the limits of our technology in a practical manner.  We broadcast war, so they would be able to see just how deadly we actually are.  Worst of all, we broadcast Fox News.  I don't see aliens fearing us (if they're technologically advanced enough to spy on us without us seeing them), I see them wondering just what the Hell is going on here.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 ::This all assumes that they didn't go through their own cultural phases similar to our own.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 ::They won't have complete annotated list. They will have pieces. They will have hard time understanding our language - or the method we encoded the images with. They don't need to have more advanced technology than we have to spy on us (well ... maybe little). The task of UNDERSTANDING what they received would be the hard one. With the percentage of broadcast occupied with real and fictional wars, it IS possible that only things they decode will make them conclude contacting us might be dangerous. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 6 June 2014
Line 20:		Line 20:

	::They won't have complete annotated list. They will have pieces. They will have hard time understanding our language - or the method we encoded the images with. They don't need to have more advanced technology than we have to spy on us (well ... maybe little). The task of UNDERSTANDING what they received would be the hard one. With the percentage of broadcast occupied with real and fictional wars, it IS possible that only things they decode will make them conclude contacting us might be dangerous. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 10:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)		::They won't have complete annotated list. They will have pieces. They will have hard time understanding our language - or the method we encoded the images with. They don't need to have more advanced technology than we have to spy on us (well ... maybe little). The task of UNDERSTANDING what they received would be the hard one. With the percentage of broadcast occupied with real and fictional wars, it IS possible that only things they decode will make them conclude contacting us might be dangerous. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 10:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I think that while they would know we are weak, they could fear us because we might someday develop enough technology to become a threat to them. That a civilization might be so paranoid as to attempt to destroy all other instances of intelligent life in the Universe when it finds tham does not seem so far-fetched to me. Of course, such a civilization only needs to fail once to be wiped out, so it's not the greatest survival strategy. -- [[User:Quadibloc\|Quadibloc]] ([[User talk:Quadibloc\|talk]]) 17:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

	I think the problem is that traditional SETI methods are of dubious effectiveness at actually detecting radio transmissions from other civilizations due to the low initial power of said transmissions which then only get weaker as they propagate. Switch to our new optical methods of planet detection which have detected scores of planets in just a few years and the "paradox" might need to be reevaluated. Optical detection also makes it doubtful that any civilization would be able to effectively hide. [[User:Sturmovik\|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik\|talk]]) 12:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)		I think the problem is that traditional SETI methods are of dubious effectiveness at actually detecting radio transmissions from other civilizations due to the low initial power of said transmissions which then only get weaker as they propagate. Switch to our new optical methods of planet detection which have detected scores of planets in just a few years and the "paradox" might need to be reevaluated. Optical detection also makes it doubtful that any civilization would be able to effectively hide. [[User:Sturmovik\|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik\|talk]]) 12:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ::We do have pet ferrets. They are cute, It is unlikely that there is another source of pet ferrets in the galaxy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.77|108.162.219.77]] 13:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 :I've always found this to be terrible logic.  In addition to sci-fi, we also broadcast news and documentaries.  In addition to fictional triumphs, we also have real-life failures.  We've broadcast that funding to NASA has been cut, and how he haven't been farther than the moon in what, 50 years?  We have Mythbusters which is constantly debunking stupid stuff that humans believe, and also showing off the limits of our technology in a practical manner.  We broadcast war, so they would be able to see just how deadly we actually are.  Worst of all, we broadcast Fox News.  I don't see aliens fearing us (if they're technologically advanced enough to spy on us without us seeing them), I see them wondering just what the Hell is going on here.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 ::This all assumes that they didn't go through their own cultural phases similar to our own.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 I think the problem is that traditional SETI methods are of dubious effectiveness at actually detecting radio transmissions from other civilizations due to the low initial power of said transmissions which then only get weaker as they propagate.  Switch to our new optical methods of planet detection which have detected scores of planets in just a few years and the "paradox" might need to be reevaluated.  Optical detection also makes it doubtful that any civilization would be able to effectively hide. [[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 12:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 By the way, the Chinese sci-fi writer {{w|Liu Cixin}} has published a {{w|Three Body (science_fiction)|trilogy}} called "Three Body", focusing on this idea (he called it "dark forest"): what if all the visible civilizations have been destroyed? What if revealing your neighbor's location to the universe is similar to the MAD ({{w|Mutual assured destruction}}) situation? The English version should hit the market this year. --[[User:Ent|Ent]] ([[User talk:Ent|talk]]) 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:17, 6 June 2014
Line 23:		Line 23:
	This is very similar to a lot of SF out there. Pellegrino's "The Killing Star" is one good example (with R-bombing and the problems associated with it), but it's certainly not the only one. Listing some of these might be good. Listing the "Central Park at night" example from "The Killing Star" might be a reasonable addition. [[User:Brdavis\|Brdavis]] ([[User talk:Brdavis\|talk]]) 16:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)		This is very similar to a lot of SF out there. Pellegrino's "The Killing Star" is one good example (with R-bombing and the problems associated with it), but it's certainly not the only one. Listing some of these might be good. Listing the "Central Park at night" example from "The Killing Star" might be a reasonable addition. [[User:Brdavis\|Brdavis]] ([[User talk:Brdavis\|talk]]) 16:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

−	The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough to be easily noticed. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep\|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep\|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)	+	The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough gain enough statistical density to be easily noticed. Compare life with {{w\|Cantor Dust}}. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep\|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep\|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:12, 6 June 2014
Line 23:		Line 23:
	This is very similar to a lot of SF out there. Pellegrino's "The Killing Star" is one good example (with R-bombing and the problems associated with it), but it's certainly not the only one. Listing some of these might be good. Listing the "Central Park at night" example from "The Killing Star" might be a reasonable addition. [[User:Brdavis\|Brdavis]] ([[User talk:Brdavis\|talk]]) 16:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)		This is very similar to a lot of SF out there. Pellegrino's "The Killing Star" is one good example (with R-bombing and the problems associated with it), but it's certainly not the only one. Listing some of these might be good. Listing the "Central Park at night" example from "The Killing Star" might be a reasonable addition. [[User:Brdavis\|Brdavis]] ([[User talk:Brdavis\|talk]]) 16:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

−	The real reason seems clear to me: existence of ~~life on~~ other life forms is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough to be easily noticed. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep\|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep\|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)	+	The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough to be easily noticed. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep\|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep\|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)