B Will we ever communicate with extraterrestial life in a reasonable time frame?

[sophiecentaur]

AM Radio is more likely

I'd have to disagree there. AM is such an inefficient mode that any species that had only got that far would be of no interest to us and wouldn't be capable of useful comms. We would need to be looking for a signal with very much noise-like characteristics which would carry (amongst other signals) a low data rate 'signature' signal. This signature could be dragged out of a very noisy signal - barely managing to squeeze itself down the antenna feed - and contain information (in comms speak) about how and when to find the meat of their message.

 

[sbrothy]

There was an 80's TV show with this premise - reptilian aliens wanting to steal our water. It starred a young Jane Badler in a tight top, which kind of spoiled the premise: she is unquestionably a mammal. Unquestionably.

You're talking about The 1984 V series I presume.

I've never actually watched it. There even seems to be a 2009 remake. I don't know if the premise is the same.

The water-stealing always struck me as patently ridiculous but we all know that water is a very very limited resource in our universe *cough*.

But of course there miay be more to it than that as I haven't really looked into (or indeed onto) it.

 

[sbrothy]

I am not sure it makes any sense at all to talk about alien intentions in human form, [...]

TV-Tropes: Blue-and-Orange Morality.

 

[sophiecentaur]

water is a very very limited resource in our universe *cough*.

Lol. Two very common elements which react well together. tumteetum.

There's a lot of it in the Oort cloud and the aliens would pass through it on their way to Earth. Oh, and yes - they would have their own Oort cloud around their own star.

 

[PeroK]

There was an 80's TV show with this premise - reptilian aliens wanting to steal our water. It starred a young Jane Badler in a tight top, which kind of spoiled the premise: she is unquestionably a mammal. Unquestionably.

Interstellar travel being technologically more practical than manufacturing water, of course!

 

[sophiecentaur]

more practical than manufacturing water

or even interplanetary,
Thing is that Earth was absolutely bone dry to start with (as was Mars). We both accreted lots of water (comets) but Mars mostly lost it. We think of water as being 'special' to us (blue planet etc,) but it's all over the place. Often much easier to extract than to 'make' or go shopping to another star.
Desalination is achieved by many sea birds and 'lizard people' look as though they could do it as a matter of course. (Is that racist?)

 

[sbrothy]

Lol. Two very common elements which react well together. tumteetum.

There's a lot of it in the Oort cloud and the aliens would pass through it on their way to Earth. Oh, and yes - they would have their own Oort cloud around their own star.

Yes. Let's not talk about hydrogen. One of the rarest elements since the dawn of the universe. :)

 

[BWV]

Outliving your home star appears to me the only economic argument for interstellar travel. A technological civilization capable of expanding to another star system would possess a strong incentive to ensure the survival of their species (assuming they placed a value on that). However, that leads back to the Fermi
Paradox - so where are they?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Outliving your home star appears to me the only economic argument for interstellar travel. A technological civilization capable of expanding to another star system would possess a strong incentive to ensure the survival of their species (assuming they placed a value on that). However, that leads back to the Fermi
Paradox - so where are they?

'Outliving your home star' involves timescales of many hundreds of millions of years. What Earth organisms have had that sort of lifetime and also had high tech? Humans, after just a few hundred years of tech, have been on the brink of self destruction for some while. We'll be hell and gone long before the dear old Sun undergoes any significant changes.

Where would the 'strong incentive' come from? How desperate would the situation need to be before the 'strong incentive' for personal gain and survival would be replaced by an altruistic incentive to propagate the species elsewhere? You assume that tech ability correlates with social maturity. Do you have any evidence to justify this assumption?

The SciFi model is based on a totally Earth based situation of 'go west young man'; take Zane Grey themes and put them in space ships. In the days of colonisation, places that were colonised by westerners had already been occupied by other earlier peoples. Sci Fi is no more real than Fantasy Fiction as so many posts on PF demonstrate. That's fine as long as we avoid planning a future that's based on SciFi.

 

[BWV]

'Outliving your home star' involves timescales of many hundreds of millions of years. What Earth organisms have had that sort of lifetime and also had high tech? Humans, after just a few hundred years of tech, have been on the brink of self destruction for some while. We'll be hell and gone long before the dear old Sun undergoes any significant changes.

Where would the 'strong incentive' come from? How desperate would the situation need to be before the 'strong incentive' for personal gain and survival would be replaced by an altruistic incentive to propagate the species elsewhere? You assume that tech ability correlates with social maturity. Do you have any evidence to justify this assumption?

The SciFi model is based on a totally Earth based situation of 'go west young man'; take Zane Grey themes and put them in space ships. In the days of colonisation, places that were colonised by westerners had already been occupied by other earlier peoples. Sci Fi is no more real than Fantasy Fiction as so many posts on PF demonstrate. That's fine as long as we avoid planning a future that's based on SciFi.

did you read my post? The point was IF a civilization developed the capability of interstellar travel and IF they placed a value on the survival of their species THEN an incentive would exist to expand outside their solar system

 

[sophiecentaur]

The point was IF a civilization

.. . . . . . . .
A chain of 'IF's can soon have limited validity. IF I won the lottery and IF a unicorn landed and IF I were awarded a Nobel prize is hardly a good start to a conversation unless we are discussing a fantasy fiction plot.

PF has a forum dedicated to this stuff for good reason.

 

[sbrothy]

.. . . . . . . .
A chain of 'IF's can soon have limited validity. IF I won the lottery and IF a unicorn landed and IF I were awarded a Nobel prize is hardly a good start to a conversation unless we are discussing a fantasy fiction plot.

PF has a forum dedicated to this stuff for good reason.

My 94 old grandmother had a saying for these situations:

"Hvis og hvis, min r.. var spids, kunne jeg sk... i en parfume-flaske."

It rhymes in Danish but it's literally:

"If and if, my a.. var pointy, I'd be able to defec... in a perfume bottle."

Some old wisdom there. :P

 

[ShadowKraz]

Human hubris at work... we're assuming, with some valid reasons, that extra terrestrial life will be very similar to Earth's. Most are assuming that it will be similar enough to be able to communicate with. As someone pointed out (Vanadium50?), we're working with exactly one data point. This is ONLY enough to find other data points that more or less match ours and is almost useless to find anything that doesn't.

We assume that the development of life must occur within the time frame we know it did here... but, as was pointed out earlier, some of the steps evolved then were wiped out and had to re-evolve before the next step(s) could evolve. Further, it is assumed that they must develop a human-style intelligence, a style which has yet to prove itself to be of a long-term evolutionary advantage (and we may be demonstrating that it isn't even as I type this). N.B., we are a very recent, in both evolutionary and geological terms, species.

It is also assumed that the likelihood of non-carbon-based life is so low as to be near zero. I'll grant that this is probably true, but it might not be.

There may be 100s of intelligent species out there in the Milky Way but with different enough biochemistry, psychology, environmental conditions, or a combination of those factors that prompt them NOT to develop the kinds of technologies we have but others instead that make sense in their environment.

In short, we have no clue what to look for if an intelligent species is sufficiently different from ours. Heck, we have trouble understanding each other here on Earth and we're all the same species. We have even less understanding of other intelligent species on our own planet. How can we assume with any confidence whatsoever that we'll either be able to detect an intelligent extra-terrestrial species or understand it?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Human hubris at work... we're assuming, with some valid reasons, that extra terrestrial life will be very similar to Earth's.

Not at all. But the more 'different' the aliens are, the less likely that they would be interested or capable of passing useful information. That's all on top of the unchanged factors of time and distance scales.

IMO the only aliens that are worth considering are either very simple life forms on nearby planets or fictional characters. It's not as if there were no more useful and interesting directions for real Science to look.

 

[ShadowKraz]

But the more 'different' the aliens are, the less likely that they would be interested or capable of passing useful information.

I fail to see the reasoning behind this statement; it seems to be based upon thin air assumptions. Could you expand on this, please?

 

[BWV]

Human hubris at work... we're assuming, with some valid reasons, that extra terrestrial life will be very similar to Earth's. Most are assuming that it will be similar enough to be able to communicate with. As someone pointed out (Vanadium50?), we're working with exactly one data point. This is ONLY enough to find other data points that more or less match ours and is almost useless to find anything that doesn't.

We assume that the development of life must occur within the time frame we know it did here... but, as was pointed out earlier, some of the steps evolved then were wiped out and had to re-evolve before the next step(s) could evolve. Further, it is assumed that they must develop a human-style intelligence, a style which has yet to prove itself to be of a long-term evolutionary advantage (and we may be demonstrating that it isn't even as I type this). N.B., we are a very recent, in both evolutionary and geological terms, species.

It is also assumed that the likelihood of non-carbon-based life is so low as to be near zero. I'll grant that this is probably true, but it might not be.

There may be 100s of intelligent species out there in the Milky Way but with different enough biochemistry, psychology, environmental conditions, or a combination of those factors that prompt them NOT to develop the kinds of technologies we have but others instead that make sense in their environment.

In short, we have no clue what to look for if an intelligent species is sufficiently different from ours. Heck, we have trouble understanding each other here on Earth and we're all the same species. We have even less understanding of other intelligent species on our own planet. How can we assume with any confidence whatsoever that we'll either be able to detect an intelligent extra-terrestrial species or understand it?

Nope, it’s really simple. We know that human-like intelligence can evolve on a planet under the right conditions because we exist. If we evolved due to some unknown probability of some unspecified chain of events occurring then the Universe is big enough that the odds that something similar has never occurred are zero. The (unanswerable) question is then are those odds high enough that it is likely another civilization with which we could potentially communicate exists close enough in our galaxy at a compatible point in time to make this possible

 

[gmax137]

something similar

Yes, but what are the odds that we run into one of these "similars" rather than one of the "dissimilars" that has come down through any one of the thousands or millions of alternative evolutions that produce something akin to intelligence?

 

[Hyku]

Begging the questions: Is E=MC-squared a universal constant? Can Space Time be folded? If the former is true - could an advanced species possess the intellect to achieve the latter?
Also, could the advanced study of the "instantaneous" exchange of information between entangled particles eventually lead to faster than light communication? Raising the question - are humans currently capable of receiving, recognizing, and understanding such messages?

 

[PeroK]

There may be 100s of intelligent species out there in the Milky Way but with different enough biochemistry, psychology, environmental conditions, or a combination of those factors that prompt them NOT to develop the kinds of technologies we have but others instead that make sense in their environment.

In short, we have no clue what to look for if an intelligent species is sufficiently different from ours.

It's life Jim, but not as we know it!

 

[phinds]

Begging the questions: Is E=MC-squared a universal constant?

It's NOT a constant, it's an equation, but yes it holds throughout the universe.

Can Space Time be folded?

Not it the way I'm sure you are thinking of (worm hole, Alcubierrie Drive, etc.)

If the former is true - could an advanced species possess the intellect to achieve the latter?

Since the former doesn't hold, neither does the latter.

Also, could the advanced study of the "instantaneous" exchange of information between entangled particles eventually lead to faster than light communication?

No

Raising the question - are humans currently capable of receiving, recognizing, and understanding such messages?

Since such messages are impossible, your question is moot.

@Hyku, you CLEARLY have been getting your understanding from pop-sci presentations. I suggest you study some actual physics.

 

[Hyku]

Can you elaborate on your responses?

Whilst my thoughts have probably been influenced by "pop-sci", my curiosity and imagination are governed by critical thinking - the father of most scientific progress.

 

[BWV]

Yes, but what are the odds that we run into one of these "similars" rather than one of the "dissimilars" that has come down through any one of the thousands or millions of alternative evolutions that produce something akin to intelligence?

Who knows? However ‘dissimilars’ have a sample size of zero and therefore are more speculative than ‘similars’

 

[phinds]

my curiosity and imagination are governed by critical thinking

You critical thinking is not helping you because you are basing your questions on misunderstandings of and lack of understanding of actual physics. As I said, study some actual physics. The best place to start would be with textbooks but you would get some good info by simply doing forum searches on the topics you mention.

For example, the idea that entanglement could lead to FTL communication is a common misconception and is debunked regularly here on PF.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, but what are the odds that we run into one of these "similars" rather than one of the "dissimilars" that has come down through any one of the thousands or millions of alternative evolutions that produce something akin to intelligence?

I don't think there's a hidden assumption much less hubris as previously stated. We can only look for what we can look for. Everybody knows this and nobody is denying or overlooking it.

We know even from looking at humans, much less other animals that our level much less type of technology is not a guarantee. Left alone, some indigenous tribes may be stable indefinitely or die out before advancing further.

But when it comes to interstellar communications, physics limits the potential options for communication. It's not a coincidence or weird chance that we use EM radiation to communicate and could have used something else, it's used because it pretty much has to be.

Does this mean we could miss pretty intelligent species (not to mention unintelligent ones) that don't develop that technology? Of course. Everyone knows this and nobody is denying it.

 

[Hyku]

Good advice.

Thanks

 

[sophiecentaur]

it seems to be based upon thin air assumptions

I'm using no assumptions at all. Any candidate self reproducing system would have to have evolved to a level something more than just eating and being eaten. Apart from the timescales of a few billion years that the stars impose we can assume nothing about the lifespans of these aliens. Any life form that could 'think' and communicate through space at frequencies well sub 1 Hz could, even now, be communicating straight past us with a similar life form. Data at that rate would just not be recognised by Seti or others. Likewise for a civilisation that used optical data rates would not be noticed. And the other way round.

Evolution means instability (in our experience) so we could easily assume time spans of very few thousands of. years before a successful organism to burn itself out.

But I really have to ask why is all this so attractive? I can only see it as an alternative to fantasy entertainment and pretty fruitless. The Earth is full of 'other' humans and we have an awful lot in common with them. Yet we spend all our time rejecting them and suspecting them of sinister motives. Why would the 'space aliens' be treated any differently?

 

[sbrothy]

We all deep down want there to be some answers to all the philosophical questions we have but, unless we want to veer into metaphysics, there are no answers forthcoming in our lifetimes. It s…. but thats how it looks.

EDIT: And it annoys me to no end.

 

[russ_watters]

Evolution means instability (in our experience) so we could easily assume time spans of very few thousands of. years before a successful organism to burn itself out.

Most I agree with and is logical (not really assumption), but I don't agree with that one. Yes, evolution creates unpredictable change, but:

a) the timescales can vary greatly.

b) we've been partially controlling evolution for thousands of years and may aquire the ability to control it completely with genetic engineering.

 

[sophiecentaur]

. Left alone, some indigenous tribes may be stable indefinitely

Evidence is that low tech tends to preserve life - or is it low mobility and low populations? But we are where we are; we like our comforts, medicines and anaesthetics so there's no (voluntary) way back for us. A faustian contract, I think.

we've been partially controlling evolution for thousands of years

hm. I don't see much 'control'. We've been on a slippery slope since we left the forests. And thousands of years is not very long.

 

[sophiecentaur]

We all deep down want there to be some answers to all the philosophical questions we have but, unless we want to veer into metaphysics, there are no answers forthcoming in our lifetimes. It s…. but thats how it looks.

EDIT: And it annoys me to no end.

You are making a huge assumption here about ‘people’. Many people are more interested in football results.
Personally, I am a pretty staunch atheist. I look for no answers to (as I see it) irrelevant questions.
I’m afraid you are destined to be annoyed for a long time.

 

[sbrothy]

You are making a huge assumption here about ‘people’. Many people are more interested in football results.
Personally, I am a pretty staunch atheist. I look for no answers to (as I see it) irrelevant questions.
I’m afraid you are destined to be annoyed for a long time.

Possibly. But I’m ready to discount “people” who are only interested in sports. Then again, who says you can’t be a sports-geek and interested in say, astronomy?

(I’m playing a little devil’s advocate here as I’m not interested in sports but experience tells me it’s downright dangerous to assume you’re the smartest person in the room. Or indeed to assume anything about other people at all :). )

But yeah. Thats what i meant with “our lifetimes”.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't see much 'control'

It wasn't until genetic sequencing that we knew what the wild ancestors of the chicken or corn (maize) even were.

 

[russ_watters]

Evidence is that low tech tends to preserve life - or is it low mobility and low populations? But we are where we are; we like our comforts, medicines and anaesthetics so there's no (voluntary) way back for us. A faustian contract, I think.

Many tribes have been uninterested in such things. I'm not talking percentages or drivers, I'm just pointing out that alternatives to endless technological advancement are observed to exist in some cultures.

hm. I don't see much 'control'. We've been on a slippery slope since we left the forests.

As @Vanadium 50 correctly indicated, I'm referring to our history of extreme manipulation of evolution of the plants and animals we cultivate/eat (or are pretty). This has the potential to not only steer evolution, but stop it. All of the bananas we eat are clones, for example, and soon we are likely to be cloning livestock. I'm not sure about how it works for most GM foods though, if the seeds farmers buy are identical every year or not....

We are starting to genetically engineer certain limited human features, and I expect in my lifetime the much more direct editing in sci-fi will become reality. The potential also already exists via IVF and genetic sequencing to actively select traits from a collection of embryos. We don't yet exercise all the control we are already capable of, but the potential level of control appears extreme. There's a species of research mice, for example, that were selectively inbred to essentially all be clones.

And I subscribe to the theory that if something is possible, given enough chances, someone is probably doing it (by which I mean alien civilizations). So it seems quite possible for a species to remain stable or evolve in a directed and beneficial way. So your characterization of evolution as causing species to be unstable is not necessarily true.

Nor, for that matter, would a civilization necessarily end because a species "burned itself out". I guess it's possible, but most evolution is continuous and connected, so you'd have new species supplanting old ones with no loss of continuity. Heck, most evolution including human evolution shows us that. There's a reason it's drawn as a tree. And to put a finer point on it: we know the early species of and precursors to humans coexisted, intermingled and cross-bred. The fact that their branches died off does not negate the fact that ours can be traced back to them, unbroken.

And thousands of years is not very long.

You specified the timeframe, it just happened to match my point too. But we've also seen animals with little or no evolution over periods in excess of a hundred million years, such as some species of sharks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

To be fair, we only know that shark morphology hasn't changed much. Biochemistry might be different - perhaps immunity to the "shark flu".

 

[Frimus]

I see the problem discussed here from a different angle. Instead of asking why the others are not here when we are here, I would ask: Why are we here when the others are not here? Could it be that advanced civilizations in Universe don't last long enough to leave visible traces?

 

[ShadowKraz]

I'm using no assumptions at all. Any candidate self reproducing system would have to have evolved to a level something more than just eating and being eaten. Apart from the timescales of a few billion years that the stars impose we can assume nothing about the lifespans of these aliens. Any life form that could 'think' and communicate through space at frequencies well sub 1 Hz could, even now, be communicating straight past us with a similar life form. Data at that rate would just not be recognised by Seti or others. Likewise for a civilisation that used optical data rates would not be noticed. And the other way round.

Evolution means instability (in our experience) so we could easily assume time spans of very few thousands of. years before a successful organism to burn itself out.

But I really have to ask why is all this so attractive? I can only see it as an alternative to fantasy entertainment and pretty fruitless. The Earth is full of 'other' humans and we have an awful lot in common with them. Yet we spend all our time rejecting them and suspecting them of sinister motives. Why would the 'space aliens' be treated any differently?

I agree that an intelligent extraterrestrial species would most likely be rejected, unless they were definitely much better at applying their technologies to mass violence than we are. But this is due to the fact that our species is not centered around its higher cognitive abilities but around its baser instincts. Which should be expected given that our species is relatively new and has not had time to 'grow up'.

I still disagree that an intelligent extraterrestrial species that is quite different and our own species would have little if anything that could interest the other. While that may be possible, it is not a foregone conclusion because we don't have the knowledge. It is, I think, even more likely that we would have a lot that would interest each other. Analogy time.
One of the major factors guiding my choice of college courses was the ratio of lecture to discussion time. I generally rejected courses with high lecture to low discussion because I was interested in how others thought; I wanted the differing viewpoints as they frequently stimulated my own thinking on lines I had either not considered or rejected due to, well, not considering factors they had picked up on.

Is our species, as a species, so filled with hubris as to reject the possibility we could learn from a very different intelligent species? There is no useless knowledge other than the knowledge you don't possess. They possess knowledge we don't and vice versa. Why throw away the chance?

 

[Davephaelon]

According to the article below in Phys.org, an average of 7 Interstellar Objects (ISO's) pass through our solar system every year, and that we might be ready to intercept and examine one such as Oumuamua the next time such an object transits our neighborhood. Avi Loeb of Harvard even speculated that Oumuamua might have been an artificial craft from another civilization, as he writes in the article linked below.

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-oumuamua-ready-interstellar-explorer.html

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/Loeb_Astrobiology.pdf

 

[pinball1970]

According to the article below in Phys.org, an average of 7 Interstellar Objects (ISO's) pass through our solar system every year, and that we might be ready to intercept and examine one such as Oumuamua the next time such an object transits our neighborhood. Avi Loeb of Harvard even speculated that Oumuamua might have been an artificial craft from another civilization, as he writes in the article linked below.

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-oumuamua-ready-interstellar-explorer.html

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/Loeb_Astrobiology.pdf

Avi Loeb is a little bit out there.

 

[gmax137]

out there

I saw what you did...

 

[sophiecentaur]

But we've also seen animals with little or no evolution over periods in excess of a hundred million years, such as some species of sharks.

This is true but the development of civilisation with technology is a very different matter.

 

[Davephaelon]

Avi Loeb is a little bit out there.

Admittedly that is the public perception. But I like his boldness, tempered by a disciplined scientific approach. In many ways he reminds me of another astronomer - Dr. J. Allen Hynek - who served as the scientific consultant for Project Blue Book, on a subject unfortunately associated with the loony fringe. Dr. Hynek ultimately became very critical of that Air Force project. I wrote to him in the early 70's and was thrilled to receive a letter in response (just wish I could find it!). Another scientist, back in those days, that I greatly admired was Dr. James E. McDonald: "a senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and a professor of meteorology at the University of Arizona in Tuscon" (Wiki page). He favored the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

I remember how discouraged I was back about 1966 when I looked into the incredible difficulties of humanity ever traveling to other solar systems. But when Miguel Alcubierre came up with his warp drive concept in the 90's it seemed like the prospect for humanity traveling to the stars in reasonable time periods was perhaps not entirely impossible. But that fizzled with more rigorous analysis by other scientists - Pfenning, Ford, Broeck, if memory serves.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Is our species, as a species, so filled with hubris as to reject the possibility we could learn from a very different intelligent species? There is no useless knowledge other than the knowledge you don't possess. They possess knowledge we don't and vice versa. Why throw away the chance?

Throw away what chance? You talk as if this sort of project would take up no resources. It's a bit like "you've got to be in it to win it", which is the way Lottery tickets are sold. And we actually know the probability involved in a lottery.( I am totally shocked, btw, at the total amount of money spent in the UK by the national lottery.) You are suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitessimally smaller chance of 'winning'. Who pays???

Avi Loeb of Harvard even speculated that Oumuamua might have been an artificial craft from another civilization

Speculations like that don't impress me. It's along the lines of biblical and koranic statements but with a lot less 'authority' and it shows a huge indication of lack of discipline, imo. That sort of message is blatantly seeking publicity for the article and his book sales and supplies nothing to the real argument.

Remember Eric Von Daniken? He had me fooled when I was 14. He got me believeing that my Physics Master was from Venus!!!!!

 

[Davephaelon]

Speculations like that don't impress me. It's along the lines of biblical and koranic statements but with a lot less 'authority' and it shows a huge indication of lack of discipline, imo. That sort of message is blatantly seeking publicity for the article and his book sales and supplies nothing to the real argument.

Actually, his speculation is based on empirical data. For example the last paragraph on page 2 of the link to his pdf above states:

"These were just the initial anomalies that made `Oumuamua different from all the comets and asteroids that we had seen before in the Solar system. As it tumbled every eight hours(see Figure 4), the brightness of sunlight reflected from it changed by a factor of ten. This meant that it has an extreme shape, which at the ~90% confidence level was disk-like (Mashchenko, 2019). The Spitzer Space Telescope did not detect any carbon-based molecules or dust around `Oumuamua, setting a tight limit on ordinary cometary activity (Trilling et al., 2018). The lack of heat, detectable in the infrared, placed an upper limit of about 200 meters on its size, the scale of a football field. But most remarkably, `Oumuamua exhibited an excess push away from the Sun which would have required it to lose ~10% of its mass if it was caused by the rocket effect from normal cometary evaporation (Micheli et al., 2018). An extensive evaporation of this magnitude was absolutely ruled out by the Spitzer telescope data; moreover, the repulsive force declined smoothly with distance from the Sun, showing no change in spin or sudden kicks as routinely observed from localized jets on the surface of comets (Rafikov, 2018). Finally, there was no apparent cut-off in the push at the distance beyond which evaporation of water ice by the heating of sunlight is expected to stop (see Figure 5)."

His paper is well worth a read. Among many other things he points out that there were similarities between the dynamical behavior of Oumuamua and 2020 SO, a remnant of a NASA spacecraft launched in 1966. This is brought up in the abstract: "`Oumuamua’s anomalies suggest that it might have been a thin craft - with a large area per unit mass - pushed by the reflection of sunlight; sharing qualities with the thin artifact 2020 SO - launched by NASA in 1966 and discovered by Pan STARRS in 2020 to exhibit a push away from the Sun with no cometary tail". He also points out significant problems with various proposed natural origins for Oumuamua.

 

[ShadowKraz]

Throw away what chance? You talk as if this sort of project would take up no resources. It's a bit like "you've got to be in it to win it", which is the way Lottery tickets are sold. And we actually know the probability involved in a lottery.( I am totally shocked, btw, at the total amount of money spent in the UK by the national lottery.) You are suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitessimally smaller chance of 'winning'. Who pays???

That sort of reasoning argues against spending ANY money/resources on ANY scientific research. And don't misrepresent me hoping I'll cave and give you a win; I am NOT suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning simply because I'm not making a thin air assumption that the outlay MUST be massive or that there is an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning. You have exactly zero to back up your assumptions. What I have is the fact that spending on science has ALWAYS paid off; even if it took a long time or produced negative results, it has always paid off. I repeat, the only useless knowledge is the knowledge you don't have.

 

[pinball1970]

That sort of reasoning argues against spending ANY money/resources on ANY scientific research. And don't misrepresent me hoping I'll cave and give you a win; I am NOT suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning simply because I'm not making a thin air assumption that the outlay MUST be massive or that there is an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning. You have exactly zero to back up your assumptions. What I have is the fact that spending on science has ALWAYS paid off; even if it took a long time or produced negative results, it has always paid off. I repeat, the only useless knowledge is the knowledge you don't have.

There is SETI, satellites, ground and orbit telescopes. Ok, only SETI to my knowledge is "looking" specifically but all the other kit could pick up something. Webb for instance cost 10 billion and interesting planets is on the hit list.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I am NOT suggesting a massive outlay

Your average mission costs $1B which may or may not seem massive. What sort of project would you be thinking of? JWST was about $10B. That would correspond to very good value for money because the data it produces is much more than a yes / no answer. However, JWST doesn't look for low entropy signals. It has its feet firmly on the ground (in a manner of speaking) and the returns on investment have been increasing on a daily basis.

You have exactly zero to back up your assumptions.

I have evidence that, so far we have received no signals. You have no evidence of signals - just faith that they are going to arrive some day.

In terms of value for money, how much of your income would you be prepared, personally, to spend on an as-yet unspecified project? Would that amount (scaled up) be representative of other peoples' contributions (taxes) who have basically been paying for Entertainment and the esoteric enjoyment of seeing rich tourists burn up millions of their dollars?

 

[gmax137]

That sort of reasoning argues against spending ANY money/resources on ANY scientific research.

I don't see it that way.

We have finite resources, hence we need to prioritize our choices.

 

[sophiecentaur]

That sort of reasoning argues against spending ANY money/resources on ANY scientific research. And don't misrepresent me hoping I'll cave and give you a win; I am NOT suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning simply because I'm not making a thin air assumption that the outlay MUST be massive or that there is an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning. You have exactly zero to back up your assumptions. What I have is the fact that spending on science has ALWAYS paid off; even if it took a long time or produced negative results, it has always paid off. I repeat, the only useless knowledge is the knowledge you don't have.

Look up “straw man” as a form of argument.

 

[ShadowKraz]

Look up “straw man” as a form of argument.

Tit for tat, I suppose.

 

[ShadowKraz]

Your average mission costs $1B which may or may not seem massive. What sort of project would you be thinking of? JWST was about $10B. That would correspond to very good value for money because the data it produces is much more than a yes / no answer. However, JWST doesn't look for low entropy signals. It has its feet firmly on the ground (in a manner of speaking) and the returns on investment have been increasing on a daily basis.

I have evidence that, so far we have received no signals. You have no evidence of signals - just faith that they are going to arrive some day.

In terms of value for money, how much of your income would you be prepared, personally, to spend on an as-yet unspecified project? Would that amount (scaled up) be representative of other peoples' contributions (taxes) who have basically been paying for Entertainment and the esoteric enjoyment of seeing rich tourists burn up millions of their dollars?

Again, you are misrepresenting my thoughts with your unfounded assumptions. I do not have faith that they are going to arrive some day. None. I do hope that we will receive indication of life elsewhere in this galaxy but I'm not so stupid as to think it MUST exist. As I will not engage with you on this again, you can make another unfounded assumption; you won.