Does this give you more or less confidence in "science" . . . ???

[defendandprotect]

Primitive Alien Life May Exist, Stephen Hawking Says Tariq Malik
Senior Editor
SPACE.com

Alien life may well exist in a primitive form somewhere in our corner of the galaxy, famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Monday.

Given the size of the universe, it is unlikely that Earth is the only planet to develop some sort of life, Hawking told an audience at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He added that humanity must embrace space exploration, if only to ensure its long-term survival.


"While there may be primitive life in our region of the galaxy, there don't seem to be any advanced intelligent beings," said Hawking during a lecture as part of a series commemorating NASA's 50th anniversary this year.


The lack of success by the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project to discover signals from an alien civilization suggests that none exist within several 100 light-years of Earth, Hawking said, though he offered three theories on the dearth of interplanetary communications.


The probability of primitive life developing on a suitable planet may be extremely low, or it may be high, but aliens intelligent enough to beam signals into space may also be smart enough to build civilization-destroying weapons like nuclear bombs, he said. More likely, he added, is that primitive life is likely to develop, but intelligent life as we know it is exceedingly rare.


"We don't appear to have been visited by aliens," Hawking said, adding that he discounts reports of UFOs. "Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdoes?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/primitivealienlifemayexiststephenhawkingsays


***********************************************


EXPLAINING MY QUESTION . . .

Evidently, some don't see a question here . . .

To me, science is merely and only observation of nature ---

What I see in Hawking's words is a presumption about the billions and billions of other planets about which he has no knowledge. So to suggest that there is probably life would simply be an understatement.

On the other hand, to suggest that any life that exists out there would be "primitive" would be, IMO, arrogant and thoughtless.

Nor do we know anything really about our "corner of the galaxy" -- in fact, some say that we are
"isolated" and "on the outskirts of the universe."

Tackling this from another direction, why would we want to spread our disease and destruction out further into the universe? Isn't destroying one planet enough?
Hawking added that humanity must embrace space exploration, if only to ensure its long-term survival.

Here also I see blinding arrogance . . .
The lack of success by the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project to discover signals from an alien civilization suggests that none exist within several 100 light-years of Earth, Hawking said, though he offered three theories on the dearth of interplanetary communications.

First, we have had conflicting reports on what was developed --
Secondly, because we have not identified signals does not argue that there is no intelligent life trying to communicate with us. It may simply argue that we are too dumb to understand the communications.

THIS also seems so inane as to be laughable . . .

The probability of primitive life developing on a suitable planet may be extremely low, or it may be high, but aliens intelligent enough to beam signals into space may also be smart enough to build civilization-destroying weapons like nuclear bombs, he said. More likely, he added, is that primitive life is likely to develop, but intelligent life as we know it is exceedingly rare.

Notice that his was about NASA's 50th anniversary and, of course, the militarizing of our skies.
Again -- other truly intelligent life in the universe may have already discovered the idiocy of developing nuclear weapons. And, to suggest further that WE are "intelligent" life is sadly comical!!!

THIS also seems suspicious . . .
"We don't appear to have been visited by aliens," Hawking said, adding that he discounts reports of UFOs. "Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdoes?"
and I wonder if he had one of the dummies on his lap as he was speaking --- !!!

I didn't yet finish reading the entire article ---
but so far . . . I think either Hawking has been asked to render these assurances, or
he's an idiot.

[frogcycle]

1. Your question makes no sense

[Richard Steele]

2. I agree. There's nothing there that has any bearing upon my "confidence in science". nm

[defendandprotect]

16. EXPLAINING MY QUESTION . . . !!!

Evidently, some don't see a question here . . .

To me, science is merely and only observation of nature ---

What I see in Hawking's words is a presumption about the billions and billions of other planets about which he has no knowledge. So to suggest that there is probably life would simply be an understatement.

On the other hand, to suggest that any life that exists out there would be "primitive" would be, IMO, arrogant and thoughtless.

Nor do we know anything really about our "corner of the galaxy" -- in fact, some say that we are
"isolated" and "on the outskirts of the universe."

Tackling this from another direction, why would we want to spread our disease and destruction out further into the universe? Isn't destroying one planet enough?
Hawking added that humanity must embrace space exploration, if only to ensure its long-term survival.

Here also I see blinding arrogance . . .
The lack of success by the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project to discover signals from an alien civilization suggests that none exist within several 100 light-years of Earth, Hawking said, though he offered three theories on the dearth of interplanetary communications.

First, we have had conflicting reports on what was developed --
Secondly, because we have not identified signals does not argue that there is no intelligent life trying to communicate with us. It may simply argue that we are too dumb to understand the communications.

THIS also seems so inane as to be laughable . . .

The probability of primitive life developing on a suitable planet may be extremely low, or it may be high, but aliens intelligent enough to beam signals into space may also be smart enough to build civilization-destroying weapons like nuclear bombs, he said. More likely, he added, is that primitive life is likely to develop, but intelligent life as we know it is exceedingly rare.

Notice that his was about NASA's 50th anniversary and, of course, the militarizing of our skies.
Again -- other truly intelligent life in the universe may have already discovered the idiocy of developing nuclear weapons. And, to suggest further that WE are "intelligent" life is sadly comical!!!

THIS also seems suspicious . . .
"We don't appear to have been visited by aliens," Hawking said, adding that he discounts reports of UFOs. "Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdoes?"
and I wonder if he had one of the dummies on his lap as he was speaking --- !!!

I didn't yet finish reading the entire article ---
but so far . . . I think either Hawking has been asked to render these assurances, or
he's an idiot.

[alfredo]

23. I think you are reading too much into what he's saying.

[Iggo]

52. Actually, he's reading too much into...

...his extremely narrow definition of science.

If I agree that science is only and merely observation of nature, then Prof. Hawking's educated guess at the probability of advanced life near us is not science. But I don't agree with that definition.

And, either way, I still don't see how it would impact my confidence in science.

[alfredo]

57. Hawking is all about thinking outside the bounds of what we can

observe at this time.

[defendandprotect]

61. How are the presumptions that Hawking is making "thinking outside of the

bounds that we can observe at this time"?

This is amateurish guesswork --- not science.

[alfredo]

69. He's only human. Censoring himself because it might seem somehow

incorrect speech would bleed over into areas that should not be censored. Such pronouncements mean little to us in the real world. When our political and religious leader speak in demeaning terms, then we should be concerned.

I want our scientists and philosophers the freedom of thought and speech. So if they make fools of themselves, fine. It makes little difference to our society.

[bluedawg12]

192. I want our scinetists not to be philosophers

Here ask a philosopher to comment on this:

The Drake equation states that:


where:

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate;
and

R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
The number of stars in the galaxy now, N*, is related to the star formation rate R* by

,
where Tg is the age of the galaxy. Assuming for simplicity that R* is constant, then N* = R* Tg and the Drake equation can be rewritten into an alternate form phrased in terms of the more easily observable value, N*.<1>




where Tg is the age of the galaxy. Assuming for simplicity that R* is constant, then N* = R* Tg and the Drake equation can be rewritten into an alternate form phrased in terms of the more easily observable value, N*.<1>




-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

.............

Before we get dissapointed in Hawking, rewrite the equation yourself!

[alfredo]

219. I'm not against a scientist also being a philosopher as long as the science

informs the philosophy.

[Johonny]

127. Not really

There's a pretty good book on the subject. Rare Earth by Peter Ward. I don't think Hawkings is saying anything amazing here. We know as far as the observable universe goes that the rest of the Universe obeys the same natural laws as we experience on Earth. Observational data has taught us that much. On Earth we know the conditions that were meet to have life. We know what conditions on Earth are likely to reoccur and what are not so likely. So it's not impossible hypothesis based on what we know to guess what is likely. For record most science hypothesis are based on what will likely be observed base on what we already know. If it wasn't for hypothesis scientist would never know what experiments would be worth doing. Making scientific hypothesis based on the known science of the day is not usual nor amateurish

[defendandprotect]

129. No ..... we don't know anything of the kind . .

and "guesses" aren't science ---

[GaYellowDawg]

140. You're correct in that guesses are not science. However, inferences are.

Taking what is known and applying it to situations as yet unverified is inference, and it's a valuable tool in science. There are plenty of instances of inference becoming verified. For instance, black holes were inferred long before they were observed. The presence of a molecular mode of transmission of genetic traits was inferred before the structure of DNA was actually elucidated. Predictions are a part of science; in fact, making predictions is a hallmark of any sound scientific theory.

I'm telling you, you really need to do some reading about how science actually works. Not knowing the difference between inference and guesswork very clearly demonstrates that.

[defendandprotect]

152. Let's see . . . this administration inferred that Iraq had WMD et al . ..

and Hawking is suggesting that if there are aliens out there they are likely armed with nuclear

weapons and therefore we have to put more money into Star Wars . . .

Is that what you mean . . . ?

:)

Or, you could look at Einstein's Parallel Universes and consider other dimensions on this planet.

Something Hawking evidently is also dismissing ... because I have to presume that he is aware of it.

[GaYellowDawg]

179. Once again, a shocking depth of misunderstanding.

Some of Hawking's comments were based on inferences. Some were pure speculation. The idea that intelligent life is probably rare is an inference. The idea that such intelligent life might have blown itself up is speculation.

Putting false words into Hawking's mouth - that he made claims that aliens are likely armed with nuclear weapons and therefore we have to put money into Star Wars - is lying. Each reply of yours is more contemptible than the last.

The idea of parallel universes is not based on Einstein. It is based on Everett and DeWitt's work. Additionally, dimensions and parallel universes are entirely different things. Parallel universes might be an explanation for an alternate "you" - perhaps even an alternate "you" that has a rudimentary understanding of science - but is not considered a likely explanation for alien intelligence. As for dimensions, I think you're using the word in the "Twilight Zone" sense, which is not how science uses the word. Again, you need to do some more reading.

[Johonny]

149. We sure do

You apparently don't understand science. I suggest you read the book I recommended to you. I also suggest you read a little more reading on astrobiology and astronomy. We know a lot more about the universe than you apparently are aware. For instance we certainly know that the natural laws on Earth are the natural laws in all the visible Universe. I suggest if you don't believe me you look into what spectroscopy tells us about the visible universe. Do your homework and then come back and criticize Hawkins all you want.

[defendandprotect]

153. So you're stating emphatically that there are no Parallel Universes . . . ?

See Einstein on that ---

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

162. Einstein never had anything to say on the subject.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

168. The shortest distance between two points is ....

not a straight line --

Parallel Universes
Parallel universes would seem to be the most unlikely prediction of ... Einstein's theory, but Einstein actually speculated and believed in parallel universes. ...
library.thinkquest.org/2890/para.htm - 4k - Cached

How did the speculation of parallel universe came about?
Mathematically. Einstein, I think.
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070518211134AAFeyi4

Parallel Universes
... parellel dimensions, as Einstein said, our dimensional universe is on parellel ... At best, it might be a speculation worth pursuing, though in this case probably ...
lofi.forum.physorg.com/Parallel-Universes_18264.html - 105k - Cached

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rcsWJ8NywSk

[slowry]

172. "Created by Nick and Julie." Good reference? Seriously now,

I wonder whether you understand the basics of even classical physics. You're getting a bit Deepak Chopra, here.

[defendandprotect]

195. Or Univ. of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Physics --for anyone interested . . .

Parallel Universes(PDF)
... ensemble of parallel universes is and ... thesis, Princeton student Hugh Everett ... the Level III parallel universes in Hilbert space and de- limits them ...
www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/multiverse.pdf - 1417k - View as html

Here are some other interesting comments on the subject . . .

Theory of the Parallel Universe was simply wild speculation all the way up until the 1930's. Newtonian physics still ruled the universe until that point and only when Einstein developed General Relativity did mathematicians and physicists start finding that some things didn't make sense with General Relativity. Special Relativity took care of a lot of things, but Stephen Hawking stirred the pot a little more with his developments in astronomical physics.

More recently, string theory (which denotes between 6 and 13 dimensions depending on the incarnation) has tied us to the idea that space and time are simply the only four dimensions we can perceive, bringing on the possibility of multiple and possibly infinite universes with even more infinite timelines and structures.

In pop culture, I think George Orwell and the like poineered science fiction and used parallel universes in their works for entertainment purposes. More recently, movies like Stargate, and shows like Star Trek and Sliders host the idea that there is more than one universe.

It's yet to be proven, as we have barely scratched the surface of the universe we live in, but the math and physics behind how our universe we made and where it'll end up point to other dimensions and universes we will never live to see.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

226. Einstein didn't go to U. Penn.

And Newtonian physics was overriden in 1900, not the 1930's, so whoever wrote that doesn't even understand simply history, let alone physics.

"More recently, movies like Stargate, and shows like Star Trek and Sliders host the idea that there is more than one universe."

I saw a movie awhile back about how we're all living inside computer programs, and fighting government agents using Kung Fu.

That doesn't mean Einstein knew Kung Fu.


















Einstein packed iron.

[northzax]

177. einstein?

you mean the guy who spent fifty years trying to disprove quantum mechanics and failing? Or, I guess, you would sat succeeding, since there is little observational basis for such things. Einstein was one of the most brilliant humans of the past 500 years, no doubt, up in the pantheon with isaac newton, but remember, even they can be wrong. Einstein spent his life trying to void quantum machanics, newton was a closet alchemist. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[defendandprotect]

196. Evidently, it is not so much Einstein as the inevitable . . .

parallel lines meeting --- math --

It seems that there are other notable thinkers along these lines including George Orwell?
Hugh Everett -- ?

[northzax]

212. parallel lines cannot meet

if they can, they aren't parallel anymore. basic Euclidean Geometry (Euclid's fifth) to expand to speherical geometry, you use Playfair's Axiom. Show me a place where parallel lines meet, and I will show you a place where geometry no longer functions the way we understand it to. you might as well call a triangle a square and vice versa, it doesn't make sense, using the nomenclature we use.

[defendandprotect]

222. That should say universes . . .

parallel lines only meet in art ---

[northzax]

176. no, that is theoretical physics

physics moved past what can be observed 50 years ago, 75 if you count heisenberg or schroedinger. It's all probability and insane math at this point. We've seen everything we can actually see at this point, in physics and astronomy, now we are using what we know about the laws of physics to make educated guesses about what happens on the edge. Think about it. Do you believe black holes exist? No one has ever seen one, in fact you can't see one, by definition. What about the big bang? All math. It's all made up in people's minds, and backed up by math only a couple of hundred people actually understand at this point.

So think for a second. If there is a one in a million chance that an earth-like planet will culture life, and there are a billion earth like planets, that means that there are a thousand planets out there with life we would recognize. Half, say, were wiped out by comets to be generous. So we have 500 identical planets that created life at roughly the same time ours did. Say ten were on the same evolutionary plane as ours, give or take ten thousand years, which is nothing, galactically. Say even a thousand years, less than the blink of an eye. Imagine how technologically advanced we are over a thousand years ago, now add another thousand. What are the odds we are at the top of the evolutionary pile? Not good.

[defendandprotect]

199. Interesting post . . .

However --- isn't most of the math at this point done by computers and no one can come close to
vouching for the results which are wholly trusted?

However . . . and not that I've studied this . . . but my understanding of the "Big Bang" was that
they could trace the real estate backwards --- the reverse of the fanning out?

In other words, while the universe keeps expanding, the real estate doesn't . . .

Re your second paragraph, nothing there I disagree with . . .
however, our behavior suggests to me that we will be the least advanced --- :)

Many have noted that it was during WWII that the new waves of UFO/foo foo fighters, whatever
were seen by pilots and ships -- and they certainly still seem to be monitoring what we are pushing
up into space via our rockets --- plus they are also appearing usually near military bases where
there are nuclear weapons. Some say they can turn them off.

So -- I think our violence is a concern not only to us . . .

PLUS, there seems to me a probability that we are hybrids and that there may be a missing step in our evolution due to "alien" interference.

Some say the various 57 Heinz varieties -- mostly humanoid --- may be more than a billion years
in existence.

It's late --- good night !

[GaYellowDawg]

205. ...but a nonsensical reply.

However --- isn't most of the math at this point done by computers and no one can come close to
vouching for the results which are wholly trusted?

Computers don't do a thing that humans don't program them to do. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

However . . . and not that I've studied this . . . but my understanding of the "Big Bang" was that
they could trace the real estate backwards --- the reverse of the fanning out?

In other words, while the universe keeps expanding, the real estate doesn't . . .

This makes no sense. The universe keeps expanding, along with everything in it.

Many have noted that it was during WWII that the new waves of UFO/foo foo fighters, whatever
were seen by pilots and ships -- and they certainly still seem to be monitoring what we are pushing
up into space via our rockets --- plus they are also appearing usually near military bases where
there are nuclear weapons. Some say they can turn them off.

Too bad for Hiroshima that they didn't turn them off, hmm? Or do the aliens just not like Japanese people? Unidentified objects in the sky have been seen all throughout history. There's no actual evidence to suggest that any of it is due to aliens. None.

PLUS, there seems to me a probability that we are hybrids and that there may be a missing step in our evolution due to "alien" interference.

Nope. We share 97% genetic commonality with chimpanzees. There's no evidence to suggest any interference, either by putative aliens or by some sort of designer, in evolution leading to us. And hybrids with aliens? That's absolutely laughable. Don't you realize that squirrels would be more closely related to us than any alien? Carrots? Slime molds? Algae? Archaebacteria? It'd be easier to produce a hybrid with a potato or E. coli than with an alien. Sorry, but there are no Mr. Spocks out there, or here.

Some say the various 57 Heinz varieties -- mostly humanoid --- may be more than a billion years
in existence.

No one with a scrap of knowledge says it. Heinz 57? Where the hell do you get this? Anyhow, molecular clocks put a chimp-human split at a little over 7 million years ago. Sahelanthropus tchadensis is the earliest hominid fossil found, dating back close to 7 million years ago. A billion years ago predates not only hominids, but also predates reptiles, fish, vertebrates, cnidarians, and even sponges.

[ProfessorGAC]

214. The Math Is Not Insane!

Just those of us who spent years studying it are insane! Don't hate the math, hate the mathematician! LOL!
The Professor

[northzax]

216. c'mon now, Prof

I'm an American, I was born and bred to hate things I can't understand!

[ProfessorGAC]

218. Sorry, I Forgot!

What was i thinking?!?!? I did say you could hate me, though. You don't know me!
The Professor

[defendandprotect]

60. No . . . the comment about science being . . .

"merely and only observation of nature" is mine . . . not Hawking's ---

Apologies if you were misled by that ---

For me, seeing the thinking of someone like Hawking up close like this is depressing --- overall.

A shallow and thoughtless individual, or someone doing the dirty work of government?

[Wizard777]

90. SETI has picked up something unexplainable. They call it the" WOW signal."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. Hardly unexplainable.

Even Ahmen, the guy who scrawled the "wow" comment doesn't think it's of extraterrestrial origin.

[Wizard777]

106. Unique may be a better word. But it hasn't been explained away.

But until they are entirely sure of what it is. They can't be entirely sure that it's not. That's why he says he "thinks" it's not. As opposed to saying he knows it not and he can prove it. I see him forming the skeptical con side of the arguments that will arise from it. But it is a fluke. To the best of my knowledge the WOW signal hasn't duplicated.

[bluedawg12]

189. Science is NOT only and merely observing nature

theoretical physics observes nothing yet theories abound.

Mathematical theories.

Einstein did not observe nature with relativity- it was a mathematical concept.

[JI7]

3. what does your question have to do with the article ?

[evlbstrd]

4. Nope.

[HeresyLives]

5. Less, in Hawking

If he means in our solar system, probably not. Anything outside that is quite another matter.

As to aliens, how does he know only cranks and weirdoes see them? Would a well-respected PhD announce such a thing if that's the kind of reception he's likely to get?

Hawking did this a few years ago about time travel as well. I believe he finally had to admit there is no way of knowing if time travellers are already here.

[Solon]

9. A general rule of thumb is that anywhere there is liquid water, there is life...

Now this is general, it doesn't necessarily mean there IS life, but its a good indicator.

So far we have found liquid water sources under the Surfaces of Mars, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Enceladus, and possibly Titan. So its certainly possible we may find at least primitive life in other places within our Solar System, its possible, and there is nothing we know in life sciences that would make the evolution of such life impossible.

[HeresyLives]

20. There is Life everywhere

I just think it's a tad arrogant of Hawking to say, at this stage in our development, that it's ALL primitive.

If he had only been discussing our solar system, I could at least understand it, but to discuss the universe in the same manner is going overboard

[Solon]

35. The biggest problem is the Fermi Paradox...

The Galaxy is about 100,000 light years at its widest with about 250 billion stars, and is approximately about 12 billion or so years old, perhaps older, as old as the Universe itself. Given this information, if life, especially intelligent life, evolved anywhere else in the Galaxy, even if it evolved on only one out of every billion stars, then it would have spread throughout the Galaxy in well under a million years, an eyeblink in cosmological time. This is the Fermi Paradox, the Galaxy, if not the Universe, would already have at least one, and maybe several hundred if not thousands of interstellar civilizations that have already spread throughout the Galaxy, yet we see little evidence of this.

Now, there are ways in which the Fermi paradox could be resolved, many of which I won't repeat here. I'm not saying I agree with Hawking, just that he has good reason to make such a statement at this time. You can look at the Fermi Paradox here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Zoo hypothesis or "they are too advanced/alien to detect" hypothesis are the correct assumptions to make. Probably the most likely thing is that aliens may not take an interest in us, we're too primitive.

[Subdivisions]

45. My guess would be that the Fermi Paradox is not

paradoxical at all. After all, in order for any civilization to spread interstellarly, they would have to overcome the Laws of Physics. Physics in the limiting factor no mater how smart you are. You simply cannot go fast enough for long enough to get a group of "people" to another star.

And before you give me the Star Trek lecture about warp speed, just know that physical things and beings cannot approach the speed of light and remain alive. The only way to survive such an interstellar journey would be via a sub-light craft targeting a suitable planet which has the capability of lasting several thousand years. Aboard the craft would be automated systems to conceive, birth, nurture, and educate the expeditioners. This process could begin on final approach to the target planet or it could first land and then begin the process of "creating" the crew.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. It wouldn't have to be thousands of years

There's nothing stopping you accelerating a spacecraft to speeds very near light, to the point where things like time dilation would start helping the occupants 'live longer' (ie shorten the time of the journey, from their point of view). It would just take a huge amount of energy. Accelerate at 1g for a year, and you're at relativistic speeds. So you could reach the nearest star within 10 years - if you had the energy.

[defendandprotect]

68. Wait . . .

consider "A Wrinkle in Time" ... consider that there may be time travel.
We have no way of knowing what other more intelligent life is capable of doing.

What we do know is that we humans are the least likely to be able to travel in space unless there is time travel. We are ill-equipped to withstand the pressures of true outer space.

[GaYellowDawg]

138. So now Madeleine L'Engle is more of an authority than Stephen Hawking?

Pathetic, contemptible, and hysterical all at the same time.

[LeftishBrit]

169. "A Wrinkle of Time" is a great book...

but it's a FANTASY, and doesn't pretend to be anything else.

[bluedawg12]

187. Who say's you have to go from one planet to another?

The question is colonizing a galaxy?

We could colonize the moon, then Mars then leap frog to another site, and so on.

All with out violating the laws of physics.

[Solon]

204. You don't need warp speed to spread throughout the Galaxy, just time...

Give it 5 million years, and assuming Humanity doesn't encounter any hostile, more advanced, civilizations, and we will spread throughout the Galaxy in that amount of time. 5 million years, to travel about 100,000 light years is well within the realm of known physics today, and the technological levels needed for such a venture are maybe a century off, most likely sooner.

[defendandprotect]

67. I am rather shocked that we have a "scientist" who is not considering . . .

other dimensions on our planet --- for just one other hypothesis.

And in regard to this quote . . .

yet we see little evidence of this.

Hawking has joined himself here with government/NASA --
Yet we have many reports by civilians and military --- professionals, doctors, lawyers, presidents,
astronauts that craft intelligently directed have been sighted over long, long periods of time on
this planet.

In fact, Europe has a long history of these sightings ---
The native Indian here, as well --- with a long history of communication.
It was one of the first questions the NA asked of Columbus when he came here.

I'm also kind of shocked that many here as they think about this issue seem to think it's ABC - horse and cart ---

No . . . we may be hybrids --- reread the Bibical accounts of "angels/aliens" ---

Considering other dimensions we may only be sharing this planet with other intelligent life ---

[slowry]

81. Yeah ok, but I have one simple question:

WHAT?!

[defendandprotect]

131. You don't understand that there could be other dimensions

that we are unaware of where we could be co-existing with alien life on this planet and
not be aware of it --- ??? !!!

[GaYellowDawg]

139. Other nondetectable dimensions? Load of crap. That's just a type of appeal to the supernatural

And it has nothing to do with science.

[defendandprotect]

151. Really...? See Einstein's Parallel Universes . ..

or start here . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

[GaYellowDawg]

181. Dimensions and parallel universes are two different things

And it wasn't Einstein who came up with the concept of parallel universes. You clearly didn't even read the link you attached, because it actually says:

It is sometimes argued that the observed universe is the unique possible universe, so that talk of "other" universes is ipso facto meaningless. Einstein raised this possibility when he wondered whether the universe could have been otherwise, or non-existent altogether. This possibility is also expressed in theories such as determinism and chaos theory. The hope is sometimes expressed that once a grand unified theory of everything is achieved, it will turn out to have a unique "solution" corresponding to the observed universe.

In other words, Einstein raised the possibility of parallel universes not existing.

So, let's sum. You don't know the difference between dimensions and alternate universes. You don't know who came up with the idea and falsely attributed it to Einstein in an appeal to authority. And perhaps worst of all, you paid so little attention to the source that you linked that you didn't even know it refuted one of your contentions (e.g., "Einstein's" parallel universes").

Pathetic. Why don't you just give up? Each time I think you can't be any less credible, you find a way. Just step away from the keyboard.

[bluedawg12]

221. I'm hoping this thread is a prank-

The old saying, it's so far off the mark: it's not right- it's not even wrong.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. I'm mad at Stephen Hawking for not considering invisible purple dragons.

Some "scientist" he is, the big jerk.

[dysfunctional press]

143. you watch too much star trek or smoke too much dope...

or both.

[GaYellowDawg]

182. My vote goes for "both"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JuniperLea]

104. Oh, I believe they are out there all right... they are just smart enough

Not to be bothered with violent, stupid beings like ourselves. They have probably already experienced trying to help other like civilizations... and got screwed.

Just because we don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

[bluedawg12]

188. The other problem is mentioned in the Drake equation

advanced life forms sufficiently sophisticated to make devices to send signals out into space such as a radio telescope are also capable for technology with which to destroy themselves- and they might already have done so. That's one of the reasons we haven't heard from them. This is one possibility. One of many.

[baby_mouse]

231. The one thing no-one seems to bring up about the Fermi paradox is...

... that it assumes that engineering projects large or energetic enough to be observable from several light years away are the only reliable indicators of a long-lived advanced technological civilisation.

To me, this is a bit weird.

[defendandprotect]

66. Right . . .

and I'm not at all sure that he could speak even for our solar system --

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. Cripes, you're criticizing a scientist for insufficient flights of fancy?

There is no evidence of life anywhere but here. Muse all you want but that's the reality.

I love SF. I want to be wrong as much as anyone. So far, I'm not. Build a telescope which can detect an oxygen atmosphere on an extrasolar planet and we'll talk again.

You aren't the creation of an intelligent designer, you may very well be the intelligent creator that the universe created. Perhaps we should behave in a way more consistent with that role.

[Subdivisions]

47. I believe that wherever the basic building blocks of life,

like amino acids, and water exist on a planet within it's star's "life zone" (which is base on our experience) or "Goldilocks Zone", life is abundant. Whether it reaches the level of radio wave -emitting intelligence is a whole other matter.

For instance, there have been MILLIONS of living species on this planet yet only humans have gained the intelligence to send radio signals into space. There are literally trillions of species throughout the universe, but probably only thousands of radio intelligences.

I rather like the idea that intelligence is indeed rare. After all, look where it's gotten us. My dog is happier than 5 billion people on this planet.

[defendandprotect]

70. Love your comments . . .

but what leads you to believe that because there may or may not be "radio signals" there is not
intelligent life beyond ours in the universe?

And, how would Hawking know this?

[defendandprotect]

62. Of course there is going to be life in the universe . . . that isn't the question . . .

the question is why would any "scientist" presume that it will be PRIMITIVE life ---
and why would any scientist consider our species "intelligent" life????

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. It's a rule of thumb that works well here.

So there's no reason to believe that there's less life in Europa's slushy seas than in the pond in the backyard, right?

... well, except one. Everywhere that there is life as we know it, there is free oxygen in the atmosphere.

Supposition of life elsewhere is premised entirely on wishful thinking.

[Solon]

202. You are wrong in your assumptions about life, just flat out wrong...

If it were correct, then the Earth would NEVER have evolved life in the first place, Oxygen doesn't exist freely in atmosphere's because it combines with so many other elements to form molecules of other gasses and liquids, water, CO2, etc. Having free oxygen in an atmosphere is EVIDENCE that life, specifically photosynthesizing life, exists on the surface of the planet, its not necessary for the oxygen to be there in the first place for life to evolve. The Earth, in the early years, had a CO2 atmosphere, not one with free oxygen, for over a billion years, AFTER life evolved here, this was true.

The problem you are having is called "observational bias" I believe, you live in an environment on the surface of the Earth, and see plants and animals that are dependent on free oxygen and each other to survive and thrive in this environment. So you assume, incorrectly, I might add, that all life must exist in the same conditions to survive. That simply isn't the case, even not looking at other planets or moons, we can look to other ecosystems on Earth that aren't dependent on either the Sun or free oxygen in the atmosphere to survive. A classic example would be hot smokers on the ocean floors of the Earth, all of them have ecosystems of their own, animals and bacteria that adapted to conditions that are more like Europa's ocean than the surface of the Earth.

They rely on the Earth's own geological processes to survive, heat from the mantle powers bacteria that uses chemosynthesis to dissolved organic molecules into dissolved free oxygen in the water to power other animals surrounding them. This has been observed and studied for over 20 years now. No flights of fancy are needed, its certainly possible that similar conditions exist below Europa's icy crust, and that of other moons and planets within the Solar System.

Not to mention that now scientists think there may be more biomass below our feet, kilometers beneath the surface, than all life that sits atop it, organisms, mostly bacteria, that exist in environments that would kill any surface organism in a second.

[defendandprotect]

65. Agree . . . and . .

does it not disturb you that Hawking immediately connects "space" with the militarization of it?

[Solon]

6. Science is a process, one that is self correcting...

relying on facts and observation while minimizing bias and human error as much as possible, and of all thought processes every attempted by man, it is, far and away, the most successful of them.

[MilesColtrane]

7. "Larry Flynt is right! You guys stink!"

[magellan]

8. Neither in relation to science, but I just lost a lot of respect for Hawking

...on this subject.

[Orrex]

12. Why? nt

[frogcycle]

13. Why?

He made the same point as Carl Sagan and many others. Statistically, it is highly probable there is alien life. The fact we have not observed evidence of advanced forms via SETI suggests a lack of advanced forms nearby, but does not in any way contradict the probability of lesser forms, not necessarily primitive. After all, the dinosaurs did not invent radio, and the ancient Egyptians didn't either.

[magellan]

14. Because he discounts UFOs as things seen only by cranks & weirdos

There are plenty of level-headed people from ALL walks of life who've seen unidentified flying objects that neither they nor anyone else can explain, my husband and me included. Do I think they were alien? Shit if I know. But I know what I saw, and I resent the insult.

[Amonester]

25. Me too. n/t

[ToeBot]

59. It's one thing to see something not easily explained, another to assume it's a probulating alien. nt

[defendandprotect]

72. Well . . .

I think you have to understand that many observers have seen not only the spacecraft but
in many instances the "aliens" as well ---

[magellan]

110. Did you read my entire post? I said I don't know

...if the UFOs we saw were alien or not, I just know what I saw. Hawking made a blanket statement regarding people who have seen UFOs, regardless of whether they believe they're piloted by aliens.

edited typo and for clarity

[northzax]

213. there is a clear implication

in modern times that when one is talking about "UFOs", one is referring to extraterrestrial craft.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. "There are plenty of level-headed people"

And none of them happen to snap a photo.

What rotten luck.

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

73. Except when they do snap a photo --

One of the more interesting let it all hang out/cover it up stories was in the NY Times ON THE FRONT PAGE about ten years ago and concerned the huge wave of sightings in China ---

The sub-title commented on all the PHOTOS and VIDEOS that the Chinese had taken --
however, the small photo on the front page was of a woman pointing to where she had seen a UFO
previously in the sky ---

There were absolutely NO photos printed -- and no videos that I'm aware of since here since then.

In the two page story, no further mention of the photos or videos was made.

[Richard D]

18. that is based on the assumption . . .

. . . that the communications such a civilization would be using are based on what signal we are looking for. The universe is old enough that civilizations could exist that are millions of years older than ours. Would a monkey know it was in the midst of radio waves? Would it have any idea what they are? That's where I see the arrogance in that idea.

As far as why haven't they contacted us yet? Um, well, maybe we're too friggin insane for more advanced civilizations to want anything to do with us until we grow up a bit and stop wanting to destroy anything that is different from us.

[Amonester]

26. "...maybe we're too friggin insane..."

"...maybe we're too friggin insane for more advanced civilizations to want anything to do with us until we grow up a bit and stop wanting to destroy anything that is different from us."

Well said. Thank you.

[defendandprotect]

75. Oh, wonderful reply . . . !!!

Thanks --


PS: I don't know if you're at all familiar with Bob Dean - or at all interested -- but he has an interesting background in government work ...
http://www.projectcamelot.net/bob_dean_interview_transcript_3.html#

At any rate he is suggesting to us that the "intelligent" life in the universe which Hawking is talking about here as being definitely "primitive" would be as much as one billion years ahead of us.
That WE are the idiots of the universe ... though he puts it more more nicely . . .
and that we are on the outskirts of the universe/isolated and they are trying to quite soon more us
into a more connected era with the rest of the universe.


:)

[defendandprotect]

71. For the same reasons . . .

Carl Sagan's comments about alien life are also questionable.

Who hasn't observed? Many have said that we have gotten radio signals.
Many professionals have said over half a century and more that they have experienced and observed
intelligent life from other planets.

In fact, Europeans have long records of such communication and observation.
The Native Indian, as well.

The Bible speaks about angels/aliens ---
The Vatican has issued a statement suggesting that they have no problem with alien involvement
in human life --- i.e., we may be hybrids.

You post is an interesting and thoughtful reply ---

[slowry]

193. oh em gee. just noticed you're bashing Sagan, too. You know he helped get SETI going?

Where do you get off questioning Hawking/Sagan, when you're using the bible as a reference? TELL ME YOU'RE JOKING OR I'LL TYPE IN CAPS QUITE A LOT

[Richard Steele]

15. Why is that? nm

[bluedawg12]

190. I'm sure he is crushed. n/t

[scarletwoman]

10. Non sequitur.

[tomtomtom]

11. Maybe Hawking is the alien

and he's just trying to trick us into the stewpot

[defendandprotect]

76. Ah . . .

there is always that to be considered -- !!!

:)

[Beregond2]

17. This is just idle speculation,

not science. There is no reason to get all excited about it.

[AlCzervik]

19. i don't think the question is valid and i don't know but i think it's arrogant of us

to just think we are the only things "Out there". Who knows what will or won't be found in the future? No i haven't seen anything and i don't believe people when they claim they've seen a ufo but that doesn't mean we're alone.

[Phoonzang]

21. I was kinda with you until...

all the human-suicidalist stuff about us destroying other planets and the tiresome NASA is a militarist puppet agency stuff. First of all, when we colonize other planets in this solar system we'll be living on planets with no life (maybe very primitive life). How do you destroy or ruin a dead rock? Secondly, why hate on humanity? We've do a lot of awful things but we've done a lot of good things as well.

But the initial point is valid....how do you make informed speculations when you only have one sample? There's a thousand other scientists who have the exact opposite view as Hawking (that the galaxy is teeming with intelligent life). Him having ALS and living so long doesn't make him an unquestionable authority. He's been wrong before, as he himself admits.

[riverdeep]

46. Well, the race for the militarization of space is real.

That's a fact. It's been happening in our government for a long time (Reagan's star-wars missile defense an early example), and the governments of other nations are reaching in the same direction. A response to us-I don't know.

[defendandprotect]

78. If we persist with Star Wars, it will force other nations to either join

us for one reason or another --- and will be a great threat to those who don't ---
But, as far as I can see the plans and $$$$, it's basically in our control --

This has been going on since at least pre-WWII --- Werner Van Braun ---
and later with NASA and PNAC, of course.

As we can see from Hawking's comments, there is the immediate FEAR offered that life out there
will be armed with nuclear weapons --- i.e., "the aliens are coming, the aliens are coming" while
he is basically arguing against their existence ...



:)

[defendandprotect]

77. This is the same gene pool which . . .

gave us genocide vs the native Indian, enslavement of Africans in America -
Crusades and today's TORTURE ---
A 50,000 year war on women ---
Pollution and Global Warming severe enough to destroy our species and the planet ---

How many years of exploding nuclear bombs for testing and destruction of other people?
Depleted uranium flung all over Iraq for more than 20 years ---

A species at constant war for the profit of warmongerers and the MIIC ---

PNAC has also been pushing militarization of the skies --- and this is not something new --
it's been planned probably before the Eisenhower administration ---

As for Hawking . . .
He's been wrong before, as he himself admits.

and I think that pretty much sums it up ---

[slowry]

22. I've lost 100% respect

for pink erasers. The white rubbery ones actually erase things; the pink ones just smudge everything everywhere -- WHAT'S THE POINT OF THAT?! HM?!

on edit:

Why do you have "science" in scare quotes?

[Codeine]

55. 'Cause science is all scary and stuff. ;-) nt

[defendandprotect]

79. "Science" because there are ....

claims to science and "scientists" whom I disagree with as deserving that designation or title.

[slowry]

116. Does Stephen Hawking deserve to be called a "scientist"? n/t

[defendandprotect]

130. Based on what he's saying and guessing at here . . .

No . . .

And, of course, I'm also suggesting political corruption and collusion with MIIC/government . . .

[slowry]

160. Wow. n/t

[bluedawg12]

208. Yes, but his writing is misunderstood by some who aren't. n/t

[slowry]

217. Just wanted to hear him say it :P n/t

[El Pinko]

24. There almost certainly *IS* intelligent life somewhere in the universe.

There are billions of stars in our galaxy and untold numbers of galaxies in the the region of the universe that we can observe - that region of the universe may very well only be a tiny part of an infinite universe with infinite numbers of galaxies.

Of course, barrring theoretical constructs like wormholes, etc, the segment of the universe that we could concievabley explore within the next few centuries is basically only our solar system, and the only life we will find, if any, in the solar system is going to be primitive - probably microscopic.

But while the presence of carbon, liquid water, oxygen and the right minerals for life may not be the norm on most planets, the incomprehensible number of stars and planets throughout the universe means that life existing SOMEWHERE (far beyond where we could ever travel) is almost a certainty, and I think intelligent life is almost a certainty as well.

But that life would be limited by the same constraints we are - the near-impossibility of faster-than-light travel. Also, if they had developed technologically at the same time we had, any radio signals they might be sending would take millions of years to reach us.

I don't think Hawking is being arrogant - my guess is that what he's talking about is the relatively near universe, not the universe as a whole.

I also agree with him that we have almost certainly NOT been visited by aliens. It's a nice fantasy, but I don't buy into any of the reports.

But I would disagree strongly that space exploration is the best use of our resources. The payoffs from even something as ambitious as Mars exploration and terraforming would be too modest, too far-off and too uncertain to be worth the enormous expense. We would be much wiser to invest HEAVILY in alternative energy, finding ways to recycle at least 95% of all consumer products and manufacturing waste, and a massive effort to curb population growth, which is utlimately the greatest strain on the planet's resources.

We will NEVER have another green planet to escape to. This is it, and we have a LOT of house-cleaning to do. Luckily, there are a lot of out-of-work people who could be enlisted to do it.

[Amonester]

29. While I agree with most of your words, and also with the fact...

that the human race MUST find a realistic plan in order to secure the survival of ALL life forms on this planet, once THAT "task" will be done (if ever...), THEN it will be necessary to start "looking" for "another" place, and then "another"

And the reason is, because one day or another, whether "the human race" likes it or not... the "star in the near center" will become... a... S U P E R N O V A ...

Thus, the "need" to "survive" such a "catastrophe" will prevail... shall "the human race" ever succeed at "first thing's first."

Which Is A Long Way Home.


Ed.: typo

[El Pinko]

30. No species lasts forever, and that includes humanity.

I seriously doubt that the human race will last nearly as long as our sun, anyway. No other species on earth has survived that long.

If humanity did survive another billion years, they would probably be evolved to the point of being unrecognizable to us...

[Amonester]

31. Both you and I won't be there to tell...

but I think if the "first thing's first" plan (if there ever is one...) is implemented succesfully (and "science" will have to be a big part of it... like everything that starts with the three "bio" letters), then I have no doubt the next plan could pretty well be that one... But we'll only see it if reincarnation theories are for real.

[Fumesucker]

44. Sol will not go supernova

Eventually our sun will expand into a red giant, it does not have sufficient mass though to undergo the processes that lead to a supernova..

Only stars above a certain mass become supernova and Sol is well under that limit.

[girl gone mad]

37. Possible, but not "almost certain".

Yes, there are billions and billions of galaxies. Yes, there could be millions of life sustaining planets.

However, as to the question of intelligent life, there is good reason to believe that most extra-terrestrial life would be non-intelligent over most spans of time, just like life on earth. Evolving to human levels of intelligence simply isn't necessary for survival. We also know that intelligent civilizations peak and then collapse. When you talk about a universe that is billions of years old, the likelihood of intelligent life trying to communicate with us during the span of our ability to receive and understand said communication is very slim.

There probably have been or will be other intelligent life forms somewhere in the universe at some point in the past or in the future, but it's not a certainty they are out there right now.

And contrary to what the OP says, we do know a lot about our part of the galaxy and we even know a fair amount about other planets.

[defendandprotect]

83. Like the "green" comments. . .

However . . .

But that life would be limited by the same constraints we are - the near-impossibility of faster-than-light travel.

Why would you presume that they are limited as we are?
Another species may be capable of time travel ---
Our problems have to do with our total unsuitability for space travel ---
Obviously, another species may be capable of travel that we are incapable of even being able to
understand --- !!

Also, if they had developed technologically at the same time we had, any radio signals they might be sending would take millions of years to reach us.

Actually, they may be billions of years more intelligent than we are --
and as someone else said it, "how would a mule know that he was surrounded by intelligent radio signals" . . . ???


I also agree with him that we have almost certainly NOT been visited by aliens. It's a nice fantasy, but I don't buy into any of the reports.

Why do you say that "it's a nice fantasy" ---
Are you not aware that that there are approximately 1,500 people a year -- probably going back to the 1960's --- claiming to have been abducted and I don't seem to recall that they are reciting anything but unpleasantness and horror!

Additionally, pilots and other professions --- including military -- recognize that reporting these events bring them nothing but problems.

Others, of course, like Hawking are concentrated on the THREAT/FEARS connected to intelligent life in the unvierse which may be ARMED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

[uppityperson]

27. I was kind of with you until "science is merely and only observation of nature"

I was with Hawking until "While there may be primitive life in our region of the galaxy, there don't seem to be any advanced intelligent beings," as maybe they and we have not gotten the ability (distance, ability to receive or interpret, etc) to contact each other.

I am amused by his statement "Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdoes?" since the question is the answer. If anyone who reports any such thing is a crank or weirdo, who is left to report?

[defendandprotect]

84. Interesting comments on Hawking's ....

"cranks and weirdoes" . . .

Yes, they are still using the "tin foil hat" approach to discourage discussion and debate about
these events --- but I don't see them working as well as they used to.

Again --- re "contact" --- seemingly many here don't consider that we may actually be sharing the planet with other intelligent life --- that there may be other dimensions to life on this planet.

Meanwhile, my interpretation of science as "merely and only observation of nature" stands.



:)

[Canuckistanian]

28. I have confidence in my lucky astrology mood watch

To Hell with science.

[eShirl]

53. Steve Martin!

heh

(from his album "A Wild and Crazy Guy" according to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Steve_Martin )
"It's so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it's like, religion, you really can't take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary...but, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn't believe in anything anymore if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch."

[LeftishBrit]

32. Science is not 'merely and only observation of nature'

It involves forming and testing hypotheses; e.g. "There is intelligent life in our galaxy"; making predictions as to what would be expected to happen if this were the case; and then finding out whether the predictions are confirmed. If they aren't, then the scientist may conclude that the hypothesis is unlikely to be true. In an ideal situation, the scientist will not merely predict and observe, but will test his/ her hypotheses through controlled experiments - but this would be a bit difficult to do with this particular hypothesis.

Hawking *may* turn out to be wrong; but that doesn't mean that he is an idiot (lots of evidence against that!) or has been told to render these conclusions.

[defendandprotect]

86. And what do you do after "forming and testing hypotheses" . .

provided you are dealing with natural substances --- ?
Do you observe?

There is no way for Hawking to be able to predict anything about the universe and what life may
exist there unless he has a crystal ball --- or, if he were paying attention to what witnesses
are saying --- witnesses including many professions, military pilots and civilian, et al.

I continue to suspect that he was doing NASA and the government a favor here ---
especially with creating the FEAR/THREAT of armed aliens!

[bluedawg12]

223. Probability not prediction

he is stating the probability of something.

[muryan]

33. The sad truth is that Intelligence life exists

But has already wiped itself out, or is too far away for any communication to reach. Even the radio waves we have sent out for the past 100 years denigrate into white noise after a few light years. As a space nut, I think NASA is way underfunded and that colonization of other planets is key to the continued survival of the human race. I also believe that our planet is not expendable in that line of reasoning.

[defendandprotect]

87. Why would you want the "human race" as we know it to continue on?

What have we done but brought destruction . . . ?

[bluedawg12]

191. Isn't that an entirely different question and in fact topic? n/t

[GaYellowDawg]

203. What have we done but brought destruction? Well, let's see.

I could put up a million more images of art, music, and literature from many different cultures and not even scratch the surface of the beauty that humans have created. Your shallow, despairing nihilism is sad - but one thing I've noticed is that people who think that the universe would be better off without humans never offer to start making the universe better by sacrificing themselves.

[and-justice-for-all]

34. It is naive to think that this planet is the only one with life..

The size universe and number of galaxies which have millions/billions of stars works in favor of life (on several levels) to exist not only in the Milky Way, but else where in the Universe.

Unequivocally, Extraterrestrial-life(primitive and intelligent) does exist in the universe. Why have we not found it? Because the universe is infinitely large. You really have to grasp the size of the universe and wrap your head around that to understand why we have not heard from anyone else or found any primitive life yet. And we are a new born as far as the Universe is concerned, not even able to hold our own head up yet and maybe in about 100 years we might be crawling, if we don't eradicate ourselves first.

[readmoreoften]

36. Primitive life means cells and algae, not sentient beings and Star Trek.

I think it's a reasonable speculation.

[alarimer]

38. He's right in that extraterrestrial life is likely to be quite small.

Think bacterial. Bacteria and microscopic life far outnumber everything else on Earth, so it is much more likely that any life elsewhere is also quite small, not intelligent and primitive in that sense.

He's also right about aliens. There is ZERO evidence for them. All sightings can be explained rationally without resorting to "little green men".

[GaYellowDawg]

39. It gives me a lot less confidence in you.

To me, science is merely and only observation of nature ---

Science also involves inference, experimentation, and theory generation (e.g., explanation).

What I see in Hawking's words is a presumption about the billions and billions of other planets about which he has no knowledge. So to suggest that there is probably life would simply be an understatement.

In the absence of knowledge, isn't objecting to Hawking's comments equally presumptuous?

On the other hand, to suggest that any life that exists out there would be "primitive" would be, IMO, arrogant and thoughtless.

Unfortunately for you, Hawking's got the evidence on his side. Right now, we have no evidence whatsoever for other intelligent life. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it still means that scientists must necessarily remain conservative in their comments.

Nor do we know anything really about our "corner of the galaxy" -- in fact, some say that we are
"isolated" and "on the outskirts of the universe."

Knowledge about our "corner of the universe" increases daily. I suggest you pick up an astronomy book. You'd be astounded at how much we do know.

Tackling this from another direction, why would we want to spread our disease and destruction out further into the universe? Isn't destroying one planet enough?

Ohhhh. You're one of those. We could also spread the many beautiful things that have resulted from human intelligence: art, literature, music, etc.

Here also I see blinding arrogance . . .
The lack of success by the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project to discover signals from an alien civilization suggests that none exist within several 100 light-years of Earth, Hawking said, though he offered three theories on the dearth of interplanetary communications.

First, we have had conflicting reports on what was developed --
Secondly, because we have not identified signals does not argue that there is no intelligent life trying to communicate with us. It may simply argue that we are too dumb to understand the communications.

I actually find this pretty funny. Blinding arrogance to say that lack of success in finding something suggests that what you're searching for isn't there? Now, if Hawking was saying, "No intelligent life. Period. Impossible for it to exist," that could be considered arrogant.

Conflicting reports? Is that anything like the "controversy" about evolution that creationists love to talk about?

And finally: we're too dumb to understand the communications? Oh, aliens are trying so hard to communicate with us, but we grunting cavemen cannot understand their advanced technology. Consider this: Earth emits massive, unnatural amounts of radio signals. Any advanced alien civilization out there could measure that and note it as unnatural. Therefore, the smart thing to do would be to reply in kind, using radio signals, not hyper-advanced communications that we'd have no chance to receive. Your presumptive "advanced" aliens sound like dumbasses to me.

THIS also seems so inane as to be laughable . . .

The probability of primitive life developing on a suitable planet may be extremely low, or it may be high, but aliens intelligent enough to beam signals into space may also be smart enough to build civilization-destroying weapons like nuclear bombs, he said. More likely, he added, is that primitive life is likely to develop, but intelligent life as we know it is exceedingly rare.

What's so inane about that? So far as we know, there's been one species to attain technology in 4 billion years of evolution. That's a great definition of exceedingly rare. Given the one example that we have - Earth - it is much more likely for nontechnological life to be out there. Any other conclusion is wildly presumptive.

Notice that his was about NASA's 50th anniversary and, of course, the militarizing of our skies.
Again -- other truly intelligent life in the universe may have already discovered the idiocy of developing nuclear weapons. And, to suggest further that WE are "intelligent" life is sadly comical!!!

We are intelligent life. It's not comical; it's fact. We're the most widespread species on the planet because we're damn good at problem-solving. Unfortunately, we also have a very strong set of instincts that overwhelms the intelligence much of the time. There may very well be species out there that have considered and discarded the idea of nuclear weapons. There may be hundreds of planets out there riddled with craters from nuclear weapons. Either would be the result of a very intelligent species, but the latter would be the result of too much aggression. Assuming that the former exists, but not the latter, is arrogant presumption.

THIS also seems suspicious . . .
"We don't appear to have been visited by aliens," Hawking said, adding that he discounts reports of UFOs. "Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdoes?"

What's suspicious about that? Why wouldn't aliens visit MIT? Why wouldn't UFOs appear right above the White House? Why wouldn't they intercept the CNN satellites to send a message? Why only appear in Nowhere, Alabama? It's here that "UFOlogists" have to come up with labyrinthine rationales for aliens wanting to see what's going on but not wanting contact. The simplest answer is that alien craft don't exist and people see something they don't understand and assign it to UFOs.

and I wonder if he had one of the dummies on his lap as he was speaking --- !!!

Stupidest comment of the post thus far, and that's really an accomplishment.

I didn't yet finish reading the entire article ---
but so far . . . I think either Hawking has been asked to render these assurances, or
he's an idiot.

It is absolutely stunning that you can talk about arrogance and/or presumption earlier in your post and call one of the most brilliant men on the planet an idiot because he doesn't conform to your particular set of beliefs.

Your post indicates a regrettable lack of understanding as to what science is. Your sense of indignation also indicates that your set of beliefs takes primacy over what science has to offer. While it must be nice to walk around in this fog of beliefs about super-intelligent, super-peaceful aliens out there who live on a utopian planet that bears no resemblance to the squalor of Earth and us nasty, primitive humans, that fog has no grounding in science. The entire gist of your post is that you lose confidence in science because it conflicts with some warm and fuzzy beliefs. Take solace, however; it does give you something in common with the nice people on RaptureReady.com.

[trotsky]

43. Very nice response.

:thumbsup:

[riverdeep]

49. I generally agree except about communication.

It took us a long time to figure out that insects communicate by scent and chemical markers (among other ways). If you look at insects, they may seem like they're not communicating at all. Being so much more advanced, we should have recognized this right away, but we didn't. It's possible that an alien species could be focused on some other method of communication that what seems obvious to us, wouldn't be to them, or vice versa.

Of course, they could very well be receiving our communications and understanding them and just simply ignoring them as well.

[Harry Monroe]

156. And if they are receiving our "communications", then it would be understandable...

...that they are "ignoring" us. Consider all the dreck we have spewed out into the galaxy since the 1920's with the advent of radio and the 1940's with the advent of television. All of our recent history in addition to the horrible television we produce has been speeding out from this planet at the speed of light for almost 80 years. If there are any intelligent civilizations within 80 light years from us, is it any wonder that they consider that we are not to be bothered with?? On the other hand, they may determine that we are too much a danger to this galaxy to be left alive. I don't see very much evidence of intelligent life on this planet, much less out there in the galaxy!!

We may also consider that most civilizations either destroy themselves or band together for the common good when they reach a state of development as we are currently at. They reach a crossroads when and if they reach the point that they develop weapons that can destroy their planet. It may be that when civilizations reach the point that we have, a great percentage of them self destruct. Alas, we seem to be on that same path!!

[Codeine]

56. An absolutely fantastic reply, GaYellowDawg

:applause: :applause: :woohoo:

[defendandprotect]

89. And, after you "infer" something . . . what do you do?

Science also involves inference, experimentation, and theory generation (e.g., explanation).

After you develop an "experiment" what do you do?

After you develop a "theory" what do you do?

You observe ---

[GaYellowDawg]

113. No!

You obviously don't know what a theory is. A scientific theory is an explanation that establishes and delineates relationships between many different facts, observations, inferences, and experiments. You don't just yank a theory out of your butt and then observe to see if it's legitimate. That's completely backwards.

Science is not confined to observation. That's an absolutely ridiculous notion, and it's one of the more common creationist arguments. In your model of science, something must have been directly observed to be scientific knowledge. It's the old Ken Hamm "were you there?" argument, and it's completely fallacious.

An experiment generally comes after an observation, and is used to clarify it. A theory comes after observations, and explains them. Both build upon and expand the knowledge gained through mere observation.

If you had a better understanding of how science works, then you might not put up posts like these. A good place to start would be by obtaining and reading a copy of The Nature of Science And the Study of Biological Evolution. That way, you'd actually know how science works, instead of having and broadcasting half-formed and inaccurate opinions about science that put ignorance on display.

[defendandprotect]

120. Nothing can be established nor relationships delineated without observation . . .

I understand quite well what a scientific theory is ---
only fairly recently we discovered a higher form of math/geometry, I believe . . .
so theory has to be open-ended ---
Good observation and open-mindedness are what propel good science.

Nothing can be established nor relationships delineated without observation.

I had no idea that this was a "Creationist" argument . . .
how do they make that argument and how does it serve their religous purposes?

And who said something has to be "directly observed" . . .
I recall the story of a woman who child's had a hand that had been damaged and at some point
she began to report to the physician that it she could see that it was healing.
She explained that when the boy was in his nightly bath she had observed that the hand did not
wrinkle up/prune in the damaged area -- but that it was now doing so again.

Keep in mind that what I'm saying is that "Science is merely and only observation of NATURE."

Amd. yes . . . at some point there is an observation which creates a query, a basis for a test/
experiment --- and then the changes and outcome are observed and/or noted.

[GaYellowDawg]

132. It does not mean that science is confined to observation.

I understand quite well what a scientific theory is ---

No, you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't claim that science is limited to mere observation, and you wouldn't have said many of the things you've said in this thread.

only fairly recently we discovered a higher form of math/geometry, I believe . . .
so theory has to be open-ended ---

"Higher forms" of math/geometry have nothing to do with what a scientific theory is. They are two entirely different disciplines.

Good observation and open-mindedness are what propel good science.

Your idea of "open mindedness" clearly means wild speculation about alien life forms. That is not good science. Good observation and repeatability drive good science. If you observe something and it can't be observed by someone else, it doesn't mean shit in science. Observations, data, and experimentation - either on their own or in support of theory - all have to be independently verifiable before being acceptable.

Nothing can be established nor relationships delineated without observation.

Well, duh. That does not, however, mean that science is confined to observation.

I had no idea that this was a "Creationist" argument . . .
how do they make that argument and how does it serve their religous purposes?

The idea that science is confined to what you can directly observe is a creationist argument, and it serves their religious purposes because it allows them to deny events that are prehistory.

And who said something has to be "directly observed" . . .

Well, would you like to tell me how something can be indirectly observed?

I recall the story of a woman who child's had a hand that had been damaged and at some point
she began to report to the physician that it she could see that it was healing.
She explained that when the boy was in his nightly bath she had observed that the hand did not
wrinkle up/prune in the damaged area -- but that it was now doing so again.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you're positing that as an example of science, bear in mind that the observation was confined to the hand was wrinkling. The inference was that it was healing. Sounds you don't know the difference between observation and inference, either.

Keep in mind that what I'm saying is that "Science is merely and only observation of NATURE."

No, science also involves theory formation and inferences about nature. Let me try to make this simple. Looking at fossil characteristics is observing. One can even observe that they change over time. Proposing a mechanism by which they change over time is theory formation, not an observation. Experimentation is not observation. It is a plan by which one artificially controls the phenomena that may be observed. It is an active process, as opposed to observation, which is a passive process. Observation is a part of experimentation, but not even close to the sum of it. Inference is not observation. Inference expands on observation by applying properties of an observation to other instances. It is also an active, not a passive, process.

Without theory formation, without inference, and without experimentation, science would not and could not proceed. Therefore, science is more than mere observation. Your contention that science is mere observation is like saying that an automobile is anything that has four wheels. It is an oversimplification. If you are unwilling to understand this then you are among the uncounted millions of Americans who are wilfully and intentionally ignorant about science.

[coriolis]

40. Get a grip.

:eyes:

[mwb970]

41. Hawking seems spot-on to me.

You, I'm not so sure about!

[Snarkturian Clone]

42. When the smartest dude on Earth talks,

I listen.

According to what you're saying I should lose faith in scientists, people much smarter than I. Well, I guess there's no Global Warming then. What a relief. :woohoo:

[defendandprotect]

93. No . .. I'm saying that we have to recognize within science that there are

those who aren't as clever or intelligent or as non-political as we might wish them to be . . .

*********************************************************************************************

And, as for the political angle --- let's remember the oil industry and the government's very
active attempts to cover up Global Warming --- and that their propaganda has succeeded for almost 50 years in keeping the public in the dark as to its severity.

The "either or" argument doesn't work -- again.

[riverdeep]

48. For what it's worth, UFO's on earth are real.

As long as you take the acronym literally, Unidentified Flying Object. Our military has been using the ruse of aliens from space, as a cover for their own military technologies. In the fifties, it developed a secret spy plane that flew over the Soviet Union- while observers on the ground said they saw a UFO, which the US military encouraged. Eventually, one crashed and that particular ruse was up as far as the Soviet's were concerned. But it's still a useful ruse here. The SR-71 Blackbird was called a UFO. The Stealth bomber with it's triangle shape, was called a UFO. Most of the sightings that aren't natural phenomena misidentified, are actually our own tech.

Now, did we get this tech from aliens? That I can't answer as certainly, but probably not.

[bluedawg12]

194. Akien UFO's any proven? citation? n/y

[Juche]

51. You hold humanity to too high of a standard

You are neglecting all of the advances we have made on this planet. Global poverty has been cut in half in the last few decades. We have more medicine. Far more countries are liberal democracies. The internet and cell phones are leading to a new explosion in human and political rights. Global GDP is growing. More people are in school. Many parts of the world have had a green revolution which has cut famine. Maternal death in childbirth is down.

Point being is it isn't all bad. There is alot of evil here on earth, but the good outweighs it.


http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

"Why SETI Will Fail (and why we are alone in the Universe)

The law of accelerating returns implies that by 2099, the intelligence that will have emerged from human-machine civilization will be trillions of trillions of times more powerful than it is today, dominated of course by its nonbiological form.

So what does this have to do with SETI (the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence)? The naïve view, going back to pre-Copernican days, was that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, and human intelligence its greatest gift (next to God). The more informed recent view is that even if the likelihood of a star having a planet with a technology creating species is very low (e.g., one in a million), there are so many stars (i.e., billions of trillions of them), that there are bound to be many with advanced technology.

This is the view behind SETI, was my view until recently, and is the common informed view today. Although SETI has not yet looked everywhere, it has already covered a substantial portion of the Universe................"


Basically what Kurzweil is saying is this. If according to the Drake Equation there is intelligent life, there is only about a 300 year window between the beginnings of technology and technology becoming so advanced it is hard to ignore it. The industrial revolution (1800s) until the beginning of the 22nd century is only about 300 years. So if there is intelligent life either it is too primitive to send or recieve signals or it is too advanced to go unnoticed, unless it desires to be unnoticed. But if that were true and there are more than 2 or 3 species, then one of them would make themselves known. He talks about the subject more in depth in his book the singularity is near, I think an entire chapter devoted to ET.

As far as signals being to complex to understand, signals sent into space can be fairly simple. Sending the first few prime numbers (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13) into space is a simple signal. Any species with basic math will know what that means and that it was designed by intelligent life as no naturally occuring phenonema causes a spurt of prime numbers to be sent out. So the signals wouldn't necessarily be uber complex.

Here are some interesting links about UFOs though:

Kerala's red rain

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/mar/05/spaceexploration.theobserver

Surgeon removes an intelligently designed device that isn't made from elements found on earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ8wTq3HcDk

[defendandprotect]

95. What "advances" .... ?????

and could they possibly be worth the loss of our species and the planet --- ???

Perhaps you are thinking of large screen TVs . . . ????

We have a gene pool which continues to produce violence on the planet -
continues to produce deadly POLLUTION of the planet -
and which has produced Global Warming which will like end our existence on this planet
and which may destroy the planet, itself.

Why poverty at all -- ?
It is great wealth which creates the impoverished ---
Capitalism is responsible for that problem --

More medicine?
We have more diseases and less care --- an inane system built on "cures."
We are way behind most other nations in care and control of diseases --
including our rate of infant mortality.

You're advocating continuing a system based on collecting dollar bills as a road to happiness?

Less people are in school than would like to go ---

We have a dumbed down nation ---

PS: From what I've heard, Congress and the astronauts have long referred to the "alien" life
around us and from other planets as the 57 Heinz varieties --- so there are at least that many,
evidently!


Haven't looked at these yet, but think we're aware of the same info --
Will follow them later --- Thanks

Here are some interesting links about UFOs though:

Kerala's red rain

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/mar/05/spaceexpl...

Surgeon removes an intelligently designed device that isn't made from elements found on earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ8wTq3HcDk

[Juche]

112. There are alot of advances, but you aren't seeing them

Nobody said advances that destroy our species are good. But we aren't going to die from global warming. Even if the worst predictions are true and we are totally unable to cope, some people will still survive. But we already know ways to temporarily engineer the atmosphere to deal with severe global warming. Creating clouds over the pacific or putting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere can act as an emergency solution to global warming while we fix the atmosphere. Right now people are working on carbon capture technology which will pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. I think right now it costs $50/ton but with innovation the cost can go down to $20/ton or less.

The violence is going down. Read up on the democratic peace theory and the works of RJ Rummel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

Then look at the rate of liberal democracies vs. partly free or not free countries. The trend leveled off in the 90s, but will start again soon with cell phones and the internet.



Without capitalism and wealth, even the dirt poor would be worse off. Even people who make a dollar a day benefit from advances in agriculture, basic medicine, sanitation (if they have any) and other fields. People living on $1/day live longer, healthier lives than people who were alive before the advent of civilization. I think life expectancy in ancient Rome was about 18-25. Now global life expectancy is about 65. If you don't get AIDS or die in childhood a person in Africa can live to be 60+. In the developing world 13 million die a year from cardiovascular disease, 8 million die from poverty. That is an advance. Doesn't mean we need to stop working on it, but the fact that more people die in the developing world from an old age disease than poverty is an advance.

At this point a handful of chronic diseases that affect the western world and are growing in the developing world eat up 75% of our healthcare dollars. When we cure those we will advance heavily in healthcare. Type II diabetes, mental illness, alzheimers, cancer, cardiovascular disease and stroke, asthma, osteoperosis, parkinsons and probably a few others. The reality is it is a handful of diseases that eat up 75% of our medical costs. If we can invest enough to cure these diseases we will for the most part be a species with reasonable healthcare costs.

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/overview.htm

We do have more medicine. Most (not all) medical issues are preventable or curable at this point. It is just not obvious because we are used to not seeing those diseases anymore. Not many people die of smallpox, polio, the plague, childbirth or non-MRSA infections anymore. Even with our slightly higher infant mortality rate of 0.6% is far lower than it was a few hundred years ago.



"""You're advocating continuing a system based on collecting dollar bills as a road to happiness?"""

Yes, if those dollar bills are spent properly. If worker productivity goes up, innovation goes up and it is spread among the world then yes. I would love to see a world where nobody died of poverty or chronic illnesses, where chronic illnesses were curable, everyone had access to secondary school, everyone was connected online, and most of us lived in liberal democracies. It is attainable, but will take alot of wealth and innovation to make it happen.


If we work at it we can live in a world by 2050 where 80% of the governments are liberal democracies, nobody dies of famine or poverty, most chronic diseases are curable, the environment is clean

[defendandprotect]

118. Evidently, you don't understand the severity of Global Warming . . . !!!

Yes . . . Global Warming has the power to destroy our ability to survive on this planet ---
and not 25 or 50 years from now. We are in it NOW . . . !!!!
And since there is a 50 year delay in GW, you are only feeling the effects of our activities up to 1958 . . .

Yes -- presumably some people will survive, but not necessarily on this planet.
There are some questions, indeed, as to whether and how this planet may survive the coming onslaught. It is not taken for granted that the planet may go on turning; there is some possibility
that this will be the end of this planet.

Rather than the nonsense of trying to extract pollutants from the atmosphere, how about nationalizing our oil industry and getting electric cars on the roads to replace our gas-guzzlers?
Do you also understand that our trees --- the lungs of the planet --- are saturated with CO2 --
and that when they fall they release it?

If you reread what you have written here re man's ability to defy nature, keep in mind that it is man's age long war on nature which has created this destruction! Men are going to "create clouds over the Pacific" ... ??? Men have repeatedly tried to defy or run nature --- sadly so!!
Meanwhile, scientists who know what is going on with GW and the planet have already told you that
this is all nonsense.

The violence is going down? We have a war on two fronts -- Afghanistan and Iraq ---
and for all we know we'll have a third front in Iran before Bush departs office!!!???
You are living on earth, aren't you?

PS: Capitalism is a ridiculous King-of-the-Hill system intended to move wealth/assets from the many to the few. It is a successor to feudalism and was invented by the Vatican to run their Papal states.
It is the desire for wealth which creates poverty; usually accompanied by intimidation and violence.
As in "predatory Capitalism" . . . !!!

The Bible talks about people living to be 200 and even longer . . . ??? !!!

How many are going to die from GW? How many have already been displaced because of it?

The Western European has always been riddled with diseases --- they brought them to this new world, if you recall.
Shortly four out of every five Americans will have cancer? I believe that's the rate currently?
We are not "curing" anything --- we are simply create new diseases, one after the other!
Do you realize that the diseases you are listing are connected to animal/dairy eating?
What we need is a universal health care system based on PREVENTION . . .
We currently rank 37th in the world in health care!!!

Ae you asking yourself why the richest nation in the world has such a high rate of infant mortality???

We have created a new plague in HIV/AIDS . . . that's quite clear.
Are you aware of Mad Cow and its relationship to Alzheimer's and CJD--?


Worker productivity has done nothing but gone up for decades now . . . as labor's wages have shrunk. And considering the renewed inflation to do the oil industry/war activities, we'll be
lucky if we aren't in a depression soon even more severe than 1929!!

If you want a world of less poverty and less disease, let me recommend to you that you take a hard look at Capitalism and understand what it is and what it is designed to do.

LOL --

[GaYellowDawg]

133. Good lord, there's some stupid stuff in here.

Yes -- presumably some people will survive, but not necessarily on this planet.

Where else would they survive? Or are you counting on alien rescue? :rofl: That's the only alternative, because we're sure as hell not making it off the planet before the consequences of global warming strike. Do you have your boarding pass for the mothership ready? What criteria will your alien rescuers use for selecting survivors? You'd better hope it's not an understanding of science. :rofl:

There are some questions, indeed, as to whether and how this planet may survive the coming onslaught. It is not taken for granted that the planet may go on turning; there is some possibility
that this will be the end of this planet.

Wrong again. There are questions about whether the human species will survive. There aren't a lot of scientists who think it will kill off the entire biosphere. I don't think you'll find a single scientist, however, who thinks that global warming will actually destroy the entire planet.

Do you also understand that our trees --- the lungs of the planet --- are saturated with CO2 --
and that when they fall they release it?

Wrong yet again. Phytoplankton are responsible for more CO2 uptake than trees. Trees also do not release CO2 when they fall. Bacteria might release CO2 during the decomposition process, but the trees don't. The CO2 that trees take up is formed into... wait for it... wood.

The violence is going down? We have a war on two fronts -- Afghanistan and Iraq ---
and for all we know we'll have a third front in Iran before Bush departs office!!!???
You are living on earth, aren't you?

Worldwide, the planet's population is undergoing much less conflict than it did during, say, WWII or WWI. Looks like you're as inept in history as you are science.

The Bible talks about people living to be 200 and even longer . . . ??? !!!

Do you actually believe that's literal truth?

The Western European has always been riddled with diseases --- they brought them to this new world, if you recall.

Aaah, so you're going to throw in a little Western Europeah diatribe here. Hate to tell you this, but new diseases form around population centers with domesticated animals serving as reservoirs. This means that there's plenty of disease in India and China, too. Midieval Chinese used to use smallpox-riddled blankets as biological weapons. And what's so "new" about North America? That's a Eurocentric term if I ever saw one.

Are you aware of Mad Cow and its relationship to Alzheimer's and CJD--?

Of course Mad Cow Disease has a relationship to CJD. It's the bovine version of it. Alzheimer's, however, is not CJD. They are both caused by prions, but that does not make them the same disease, nor does it imply an interrelationship.

Wow. You desperately need to drink deeper from the Pieran spring.

[Phoonzang]

54. SETI is flawed

This article by the administrator of SETI itself gives some reasons why:
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/080228-seti-finding-them.html

I suspect that if SETI ever gets its act together and builds larger (much larger) antenna arrays, starts looking for spread-spectrum signals, infared lasers, and gravity waves (maybe)alien life pessimists will be in for a big surprise.

[defendandprotect]

96. Thanks for the info re SETI ---

will try to look at it later --

However, there is much controversy about the program/results itself as I'm sure you are aware.

[mainegreen]

58. The probability of life elsewhere in the universe is somewhere between 0 and 100% inclusive.

Without additional evidence, any other stance is unsupportable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. It doesn't give me much confidence in science education...

when I read comments from people like you.

[GaYellowDawg]

206. Boy, you aren't kidding.

Look at his responses, though. You can't teach anyone who's not willing to give up fairy tales and fanciful misconceptions.

[kestrel91316]

74. Are you picking on Hawking??

[Skinner]

80. Yeah, that Stephen Hawking guy...

What an idiot.

[Wizard777]

101. Everybody has their moments.

:rofl:

[sammythecat]

111. While I have the utmost respect for him,

and have to struggle, and most times not even attempt, to understand a lot his work, I do think here he was dabbling in speculation and we have no evidence for or against what he was saying.

I am arrogant enough to disagree with his speculation though. I really think he might be underestimating the possibilities here. Down in #108, I think, I disagreed and gave what I think is at least as likely, and maybe more so, than the scenario he presented.

I'm strictly an armchair cosmologist and work in a factory, but I was a little surprised by his gloomy outlook. I could very well be wrong, but I would have guessed most astronomers and cosmologists would have been more positive, and not just for the sake of being optimistic, it just seems more likely that we're not so special or unique.

I have no evidence and neither does he really, but I'd be shocked if we wound up being the most advanced life in the universe. Whew! Now that would be depressing.

[walldude]

82. Gee let me think about this for a minute...

Stephen Hawking... Idiot or genius? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[sammythecat]

141. Here's another one to ponder:

Stephen Hawking... infallible, or fallible.

I don't know for sure, but I'd bet he's in the minority among astronomers, cosmologists, and probably astrobiologists as well. I think just using statistics, the odds of Earth having the most advanced (or only) life in the entire universe would be astoundingly large.

[slowry]

85. Can someone explain post #67 to me? Didn't think so! This thread has gone through The Scary Door:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rwUdL9qXjk

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. It's called logorrhea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea

[0rganism]

92. doesn't affect my view of science, but I'm losing some confidence in DUers

Look, this isn't some grand unification theory he's talking about, it's just guesswork mixed with idle speculation by a guy who has some really amazing ideas from time to time.

I think it's open to critique, sure. For instance, his categorization of various rationale for a lack of intelligent life beaming signals into space leaves a lot to be desired. He misses the obvious objection that we've only been listening for 50 years or so, and EM signals could take thousands to cross the galaxy. Furthermore, there may only be a relatively small window of time where intelligent races broadcast EM. If only a handful of life forms on other planets achieve a civilization capable of telecommunication, and those that do only use that method for, say, five hundred terran years, we may well have missed any signals from civilizations that discontinued such emissions 100 years ago.

Hawking's calling out of civilization's capacity for self-destructive invention is laudable, and reminds me of one of the more poignant parts of that long-forgotten sci-fi series "Lexx" where Earth is described as a "type 13 planet" in which the dominant civilization utterly destroys the planet through scientific discovery. Even now, we have some researchers at CERN trying to make and contain small black holes -- a bit on the risky side if they all pulled together... His point appears to be that even if advanced civilizations were universally common, the vast majority could be short-lived and self-terminating flirtations with energy weapons.

Note that Hawking says "intelligent life as we know it", rather than making any absolute claims about the quality of human intelligence.

Overall, I think his comments are reasonable and well within the bounds of common sense based on human experience. I don't think they're science, per se, but not everything has to be.

[jobendorfer]

94. Apples & Oranges?

Nothing Hawking says ( or doesn't say ) would shake my confidence in the scientific method.
It isn't about whether we trust person A or person B.
That's the whole bloody point.
I don't care who you are, or how much Nobel goldwork you've got slung around your neck,
Show me your methods, show me your data, show me your analysis, can others repeatably get your results?

J.

[defendandprotect]

97. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link . . .

in science we have to stop being naive and recognize the corruption ---
the stupidity --- the human error --- and the fact that when we educate a fool,
we only gain an educated fool.

Nature is NATURAL substance --- we are over the moon in synthetics in medicine and
false observation by those, perhaps, seeking to be patriots -- those trying to bolster
the inane arguments of a MIC for Star Wars.

The Aliens are coming and they are armed with nuclear weapons -- ????

No -- it is WE who are firing on UFO's --- from the first sightings during WWII ---

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. "No -- it is WE who are firing on UFO's --- from the first sightings during WWII ---"

I'm pretty sure Star Wars was about shooting down Soviet ICBMs, but I thought you just said the pre-Columbian native americans saw UFOs.

Which is it?

[defendandprotect]

117. No -- Star Wars --- seems to be about ....

protecting against "aliens" armed with nuclear weapons.

Is Hawking referring to any other enemy out there?

I didn't note his mentioning Russia nor Iran ....

Outer space/the moon are the "highest hill" in military terms so yes, in that sense, we are
going to be militarizing the skies not only as a threat to any other intelligent life from another
planet, but as a threat to world domination by any other nation. Granted, it is multi-purpose,
and goes back at least to Ike's term. But in 1957, LBJ was making speeches about the importance of
capuring this "highest hill."

I don't know what your confusion is re "Which is it?" . . .
which do you mean?

During WWII, UFO's were prominent in the skies --- many of our pilots saw them ---
Needless to say, they tried to fire on them --- evidently, pilots will continue still to try to
fire on them. We have NASA film which seems to suggest that "out there" we are firing on them.

THAT doesn't mean that the UFO's were first noted by humans during WWII . . . it just means that
a new generation was seeing them --- from the skies.

Europeans have a long tradition of spacecraft sightings --- they appear in many of the oldest paintings. Cave paintings in France from 20,000 years ago suggest alien contact/spaceships.

And the Native Indian has a long tradition of observation of UFO's and in some cases communication
and interaction with them.

Evidently, we also came to realize that Germany might have had some kind of interaction, as well,
with UFO's -- perhaps capturing one?
They were long studying rockets and whatever information they had, we certainly seemed to be interested in transferring here to America. See: Operation Paperclip

[Wizard777]

99. More! We have what is believed to be a fossilized microbe from Mars.

A microbe is a "primitive" form of life. Before that microbe could become a fossil. It had to have a life of some kind. Other life in the universe used to be a hypothetical science. Being formed entirely of hypothesis. A hypothesis is basically a wild claim. Like the earth revolving around the sun was in it's day.

But now we are starting to gather evidence like the SETI "WOW signal" and the Mar's Microbe to base theories upon. So it's now becoming a theoretical science. But to say that there is no evidence for Steven Hawking to base his theories upon is not true. That is where you may need to reexamine your hypothesis on the non existence of evidence.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. Nah, that was debunked.

Very interesting rock, but formed abiotically nonetheless.

[Wizard777]

107. That's possible. The same with the mars face.

Here in America we have "Grandfather Mountain." It looks (or looked)exactly like the profile of a man with a long beard. I haven't been there in ages. The last time I was there they were concerned about erosion wearing away the facial features. But the Mars face could be nothing more than it's "Grandfather Mountain."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. It's considerably less than the Old Man in the Mountain.

Which fell apart five or six years ago.

[Wizard777]

115. I could be matrixing. But the eye is erie.

I can accept what appears to be a nostril as an impact crater from an asteroid that came in at a 90 degree angle.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

163. Why would you accept that?

Looks like any random mountain ridge.

[Wizard777]

175. That's why I said, I could be matrixing.

matrixing is the minds tendency to apply more simple patterns it recognizes to more complex patterns it doesn't recognize. Such as the mind seeing a complex pattern of mountain ridges more simply as a face.

[defendandprotect]

121. Actually, taken alone it could be . . .

but there are other indications in that area that it may be something more meaningful ---

If you're interested, you can probably easily locate the additional information ---

[GaYellowDawg]

137. No, it couldn't.

there are other indications in that area that it may be something more meaningful ---

Like what? What indications? What area? What information?

Let me give you real information. It's a wind sculpture, and the "face" is an optical illusion. Here's a newer overhead shot:



and 3D perspective view of the landform produced by Jim Garvin (NASA) and Jim Frawley (Herring Bay Geophysics) from the latest MOC image (April 8, 2001) and all of the available laser altimeter elevation measurements by MOLA.



See? Nothing meaningful. Just another mesa on Mars. This is why observations must be repeatable and verifiable.

[defendandprotect]

161. Here's a bit more info . . .

for anyone actually interested ...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060921_mars_images.html

http://www.geocities.com/jjl11999/Pyramids.html

[JuniperLea]

103. I think there are beings close by...

But they are more advanced than we are, and they have the brains to stay the hell away from assholes like us.

[defendandprotect]

122. As they say, a lot of truth in humor --- !!!

[GaYellowDawg]

136. As who says? There's also a lot of bullshit in humor, too.

Too bad you can't distinguish between the two.

[On the Road]

105. I Didn't See Any Science Being Practiced in Those Comments

Hawking was giving his opinion on some questions that have have no scientific answers now, and may remain beyond the grasp of science.

As far as the alien abduction issue, multiple reports do not constitute scientific confirmaiton. Otherwise, we would all have to believe in vast movements of witches and Satanists during the last 3-500 years.

[defendandprotect]

123. When science tries to dismiss the testimony of witnesses . . .

witnesses from every nation on the planet --- then it's not science it is fraud ...

When we begin to try to say that eye witnesses have no place in science, then we are trying to
discard observation of nature as a primary tool of science ---

Have all of these millions of people been hallucinating?

Have our military pilots, airline pilots -- doctors, lawyers, presidents --- been hallucinating?
Astronauts as well?

As for the abductions, of course there is also physical evidence which accompanies these incidents --
implants being only one of them.

Keep in mind that it is patriarchy which delivered witchhunts and "Satan" . . .
NONE of the old religions based on nature had hell nor Devil --
These are inventions of patriarchal religions ---

The Women's Holocaust -- "Hammer of Witches" -- presented by patriarchy was not only a final
onslaught against females, taking away even their rights to their children and property, inheritance -- basically any legal standing as citizens --- and a threat to their sanity with
forced confinement -- but it was also the overturning of women's wisdom --- female science of
natural medicine and midwifery.

[GaYellowDawg]

134. ROTFLOL... misunderstanding again...

When it comes to observation, science is only concerned with those observations that are repeatable and verifiable. None of the eyewitness accounts that you so breathlessly subscribe to meet this standard. In fact, science does not rely on mere eyewitness testimony because it is inherently unreliable. It never has. The fact that science does not rely on eyewitness testimony does not make it fraud. It does not make science less legitimate. In fact, it makes science more legitimate. Now I know why you're so insistent that science is "mere observation." That allows you to think of your wild speculations about aliens as scientific. Sorry. They're not.

Which implants are you referring to? Which scientific laboratory has tested "implants" and declared that they are of extraterrestrial origin? Which scientific journal can I find those reports in? I've heard of "implants" being various shards of metal and glass - and in one case, simply collagen - but there hasn't been a single "abductee" to produce a single implant that has been verified by science as alien technology. Not. One. And the rest of the "evidence" always ends up with similar holes in it.

[defendandprotect]

157. You mean like our system of "slash and burn" medicine . . . ?

A scientist is an eye-witness to nature and its character/features/changes ---

If you were actually interested in the subject of "implants" you would have already researched them.
However, the implants are not simply benign objects.

[GaYellowDawg]

178. I am not referring to medicine. I am referring to science. Different disciplines.

Once again, and read this slowly so you'll understand: eyewitness accounts are irrelevant to science unless they are repeatable and verifiable. Period.

The "implants" that I've seen mentioned were not necessarily benign objects. Shards of metal and glass are not benign objects; that's why the body generally expels them. None of these shards, however, have been demonstrated to be alien technology - or any sort of technology, for that matter.

Burden of proof still lies on you.

[defendandprotect]

200. Look . . . .

let me make clear to you that your manner isn't overlooked ---
I take pity on it and you ---

Now, pay attention --- thousands of military pilots, commercial pilots --- doctors, lawyers,
people who have claimed to have been abducted, people with strange implants, the entire town
of Roswell are REPEATING and VERIFIABLE witnesses. This also includes astronauts both American
and Russian.

UFO's appeared over DC and a Truman aide
appeared on TV and told the public they weren't ours and they weren't Russia's.

Now if you want to try again as an adult, go ahead.
If you want to continue on in this disingenuous way, you go on "ignore."
It's up to you ---

[GaYellowDawg]

201. Manner?

You might as well put me on ignore. You've apparently put every single science teacher you've had your entire life on ignore, too. Go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and repeat after me: LALALALALALALALALA. You don't understand science, and when someone takes the time to tell you that you don't understand it and how you're wrong, you want to ignore it because you'd rather keep on fooling yourself. You are in denial, and are an intellectual coward. If you continue to put up misinformation about science, I will continue to refute it, and everyone else who reads the post can see that you're misinformed. You? You're a lost cause, apparently.

I am not being and have not been disingenuous. I have been telling you how science works. It's not my fault that your response has been to tug your tinfoil hat over your ears.

You also don't what repeatable and verifiable mean in science. "Repeatable" means that you must be able to recreate the conditions of the observation, something that not one UFO true believer has been able to do. "Verifiable" means that, given the repeatable conditions, you must be able to collect a highly similar data set, another thing that has never happened to any UFO true believer.

None of your eyewitnesses has ever been able to produce a single scrap of evidence for alien visitation or technology that could be verified by a skeptical audience. Not one alien body, not one piece of alien technology (and not a single "implant" ever examined has been demonstrated to be technology of any sort), nothing.

You refer to "thousands" of pilots. Doubtful. Given your posting, I feel pretty confident calling that a wild exaggeration. How many of those pilots have been able to produce evidence? None. How many of those doctors? None. How many of those lawyers? None. And Roswell? Well, it's a great way to bring tourists into a little town that no one would otherwise visit. It's pretty much the modern version of towns that had relics of saints that tourists would visit to get healed.

You've demonstrated a misunderstanding of the terms theory, inference, observation, repeatable, and verifiable as used in science. You've conflated the concepts of alternate universes with dimensions. You've misattributed alternate universes to Einstein repeatedly, despite multiple corrections by me and other posters. You've put up references that refuted your claims without even knowing it. You've misrepresented and lied about what Hawking said. Honestly, you've got no business opining about science or any other kind of rigorous intellectual discipline. The entire board ought to put you on "ignore" any time you start talking about science.

[defendandprotect]

220. You got it . . . !!

[On the Road]

145. Not Believing in Personal Testimony is Not the Same as "Dismissing" It

Look at all the things you would be required to believe if you accepted personal testimony.

-The Dalai Lama claims to have seem Buddhist monks flying.
-St. Augustine traveled in Africa and claimed to have seen men with no heads, but having facial features on their chests.
-Thousands of Europeans gave personal testimony of having direct contact with the devil, sometimes involving sex and childbearing.
-People too numerous to name have given direct personal testimony of being healed by faith, including serious injuries like spinal cord deformities.

You could multiply examples like this ad infinitum and get progressively weirder.

Why do people say these things? Do they believe them? I don't know. I just know personal testimony is worthless without proof.

And I suspect that what was wrong with science before the modern era is that scientists by and large DID believe unsupported accounts, and it prevented real investigation.

[defendandprotect]

158. When you refer to eye-witnesses as ...

"cranks and weirdos" . . . I'd say that's being "dismissive" ---

Hey, patriarchal religions invented Hell and the Devil . . .
so I'm with you on most of what you're saying about religious hallucinations ---

Are you suggesting that our commercial pilots and military pilots are hallucinating?
Are you suggesting that doctors and lawyers and presidents and astronauts who describe these
events are hallucinating?

Was all of Roswell hallucinating or involved in a town-wide conspiracy -- ?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

164. What if they really are cranks and weirdos?

Should we believe in bigfoot and the lochness monster too?

No. If they make a claim, they need to have evidence, they can't just give their word and expecting to be seriously.

"Are you suggesting that our commercial pilots and military pilots are hallucinating?
Are you suggesting that doctors and lawyers and presidents and astronauts who describe these
events are hallucinating?"

This called "argument from authority." Just because they have a fancy job, it doesn't mean they're not full of shit.

"Was all of Roswell hallucinating or involved in a town-wide conspiracy -- ?"

The town of Roswell is involved in a conspiracy to get tourist money from cranks and weirdos.

[defendandprotect]

166. What if Hawking is a crank and weirdo on this question . . .

what if Hawking is just providing FEAR and impetus for more weapons to militarize the skies?

Did the White House have evidence of WMD and biological weapons --- ?
Nonetheless, we are at war on two fronts now ---

And, let's presume that many of our citizens are out there conspiring to create rumors of spacecraft
guided by intelligent aliens ... what should we do about them?
Should we leave these conspiratorial liars in their positions?
Should they lose their licenses?

Should we believe in any new claims of Iran's aggression?

What evidence do we have that 19 Arab hijackers took the entire US by suprise . . .
including NORAD --- ???

I think a Lock Ness Monster is more believable than that one . . !!!

[On the Road]

224. This is Why You are Not a Scientist

and do not subscribe to the scientific method. Hawking, however, is and does. It would be more neutral for him to have said that the claims of alien abduction are unverified and unrepeatable, but it amounts to the same thing.

You may follow your own system of understanding the world. Hawking is following his. Whose represents the world better is up to any individual to judge.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

227. Hawking is not making a wild and extraordinary claim.

:shrug:

[slowry]

228. Loch. It's Loch. n/t

[sammythecat]

108. Well I'm in agreement with you.

I think Hawking was a bit unreasonably confident in his statements, which after all, were merely supposition and speculation. I would be willing to bet there are other scientists as capable and knowledgeable as Hawking who would disagree with what he said.

We're pretty sure the universe has existed for about 14 billion years and our planet is about 4-5 billion years old. Our modern history is what, something like 5-10 thousand years? A minuscule amount of time really, and we've only been capable of receiving any other-worldly transmissions for maybe 50 years or so. That is an incredibly tiny window of time. To say there's nothing there because we haven't heard anything in yet years strikes me as ridiculously arrogant and dumb.

Think how far our civilization has progressed since the beginning of history and think how, technologically, this past hundred years we have been progressing at an almost exponential rate. It's really beyond our imagination to speculate what we'll be coming up with in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand years. So, keeping that in mind, we have to realize that, since the universe is ~14 billion years old, there could very well be civilizations out there that are millions of years older. They could easily be BILLIONS of years older, and to quote Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". If we don't kill ourselves, that's the technology we will have millions or billions of years from now, and could very be technology that exists right now out there somewhere. They may not have used radio technology for the past 1,500 million years. Radio transmission might be as quaint and primitive to them as smoke signals are to us.

I think that, just as it is possible we are alone in the universe, it is just as possible, even more likely in fact, that the universe is full of life. Much of that life could be so technologically advanced that they would seem godlike to us. We may have been under constant observation our entire history by many "explorers" and "researchers" who've left no clue. They can learn all they want to know without contact or revealing themselves to us. And there's really no reason to think that we would necessarily be that unique or interesting that any contact would be warranted. We may yet be in such a savage and primitive state, both culturally as well as genetically, that contact would be counter-productive in their thinking.

I'm not aware of any evidence at all to suggest this speculation has any truth, but I'm not aware of any evidence at all to the contrary either.

[defendandprotect]

124. Nice bit of writing --- interesting observations . . . !!!

[GaYellowDawg]

135. Not a bit of observation to it. It's all speculation.

With all your harping about "observation," you can't even use that word correctly. In the absence of evidence, the thesis that there is no intelligent life "out there" is just as legitimate as the thesis that there is. No more, no less.

I'm sorry that this puts a dent in the old tinfoil hat, but that's just the way it is. You got a burr in your ass about Hawking's statements, but they're just skepticism. When you're making an assumption or claim in the absence of evidence, as you are with aliens, the burden of proof is on you. The fact that you're willing to dispense with that proof makes you a sucker for anyone selling speculative stories. I'll bet you're absolutely sure that Bigfoot exists, too.

[sammythecat]

142. Look at it this way.

I forget exactly when, but it's only been within the past few years that astronomers have had the ability to physically observe Jupiter-sized planets elsewhere in our galaxy. That's as small as we can go right now. I also don't remember how many we've found, but the number changes almost daily. It's beginning to seem apparent that planets are not at all unusual, and many astronomers expect we'll find that suns surrounded by planets is quite the norm.

Just to keep the arithmetic simple, let's say there are a trillion suns in the Milky Way galaxy. I'm going to use very conservative numbers here. Let's say only 1% of the suns have planets. That leaves 10 billion solar systems. I'll get extra conservative and say only 1 in a thousand of those solar systems has a planet with the approximate size and orbit that could conceivably support some kind of carbon-based life. That leaves us with 10,000,000 solar systems that could be home for life. How many actually have life? Let's say only 1 in 10,000 will have life. I think my numbers have been pretty conservative here, but that still leaves us with 1,000 planets suitable for our specific kind of life, and there's no law that says we have the only possible kind of life. Continuing further we can say that out of the remaining 1,000 planets, Earth is the only one having any form of advanced life. The entire galaxy is completely devoid of life except right here where we are over in the corner. We're completely alone in this galaxy of a trillion suns. But I doubt that and I think Las Vegas odds makers would doubt that as well.

Even at just one per galaxy that means the universe is likely teeming with life. There are trillions more galaxies in the universe. Trillions of earth-like planets that likely have life and, at one per second, it would take you over 31,000 years just to count even one of those trillions. I think it's far, far more likely there is lots of life out there, and very, very unlikely that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. And don't forget that the universe is ~14 billion years old and our planet has been on the scene for only 4 1/2 billion years. That suggests to me that it's also very likely that most life out there is much older and much smarter than we are.

Stephen Hawking is not infallible and it's very possible he's making a bad guess here. All of us here, and Hawking himself, are just speculating here. Nobody has any evidence, but it sure seems the odds are pretty much pro-life.

[GaYellowDawg]

144. A few things:

First, your 1 in 1000 may or may not be conservative. For all you know, planets in the habitable zone are one in a million, not one in a thousand. In the absence of data, you just don't know, and that throws all of your other calculations off.

Second, there aren't 1 trillion stars in our galaxy. You're off by an order of magnitude; the figure is ~100 billion stars. Third, the estimated number of galaxies is 125 billion, not trillions.

The way you'd have to calculate the probability of technologically advanced life out there is like this:

1.25x10²² x p^{planet in habitable zone} x p^{proper mass for atmosphere} x p^{sufficient water} x p^{formation of life} x p^{multicellular life} x p^{technology-creating intelligence and creativity}

Now, we can't even speculate on the first four probabilities because we don't have any data. But I'll go along with your idea of conservative. Let's say there is indeed a one in 1,000 chance that a planet will be in a habitable zone around any given type of star. Not every one of those planet is necessarily going to have an Oort cloud that conveniently crashes enough water into the planet for life... but let's go ahead and use your 1 in 1,000 number. Given a habitable zone and water, what's the probability of life? Unknown, but again, I can handle using your 1 in 1,000 number.

Oh, what the hell. To be generous, I'll just use your 1 in 1,000 number. 1 in 1,000 systems has some sort of life.

Now, we're down to 1.25x10¹⁹ systems that could have some kind of analogue to prokaryotic life. Still a huge number, right? Then you've got to put in the odds of multicellular life arising. Well, the only numbers we've got are the ones from our own planet. Considering that a) this took approximately 2.7 billion years to happen one time, b) generational time of bacteria ranges from ~30 minutes to 1 hour, and c) the earth as it is sustains 5x10³⁰ bacteria, obviously the odds of multicellular life arising are vanishingly small. If you wanted to say that in pre-eukaryotic times, there were a trillion times less bacteria, that would still leave the Earth supporting 5x10¹⁸ bacteria at any given time. Given the possibility of 2.37x10¹³ cell divisions (having been conservative and used 1 hour per division) during that time, if you assume an average population of 5x10¹⁸ bacteria, you get a total number of 1.18x10²⁶ divisions to get one multicellular organism; in other words, your odds are 1 in 1.18x10²⁶ of having multicellular life - and that's probably a conservative estimate. So now, dividing the potential systems by the odds of multicellular life, you get a 1x10^-7 probability of multicellular life elsewhere in the universe.

Out of these multicellular life forms, how many develop technology? On our planet, it's not known how many multicellular species have arisen. Current estimates of extant species range between 5 and 30 million. Let's split it down the middle and call it 17.5 million. If you just use current species, there's a 1 in 17.5 million chance that a multicellular life will develop technology. That takes your probability of other technology-using species down to 6x10^-15.

Now, you've said that there could be other forms of life. OK, I'll grant you that. So perhaps my numbers are off. Let's say that it's a quadrillion times - in other words, 1,000,000,000,000 times - more likely for technology-using species to exist than my estimate. That still leaves odds of 6 in 1,000 that intelligent, technology-using life exists elsewhere in the universe. Those are fairly improbable odds, and given the size of the universe, makes the odds that we will ever contact them, or they, us, very small indeed.

[sammythecat]

174. Stay tuned ! I'm working on a response.

I'm working on a response, but I'll be busy for an hour or so.

I hope not, but I fear this might be like the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

I wish I could get Skeldar to explain all this to you, but he's on the mothership in another dimension right now and won't be back till the 29th. In the meantime I'll do my best to change your mind.

[sammythecat]

185. Some concessions but the same answer

I will concede that my estimates of a trillion stars in each of a trillion galaxies is not a conservative estimate, but I don't think they should be discounted. As time goes by those numbers increase almost daily. They never go backward and they never will. They only increase until the time comes when we can physically count every one. It looks to me, that out of all the various estimates, a reasonable average would be half a trillion suns in half a trillion galaxies. I think the estimates you used ( 100 billion suns in 125 billion galaxies) are the lowest to be found. I've looked and I've seen none lower.

I'm going to use your bottom line estimates on number of stars and galaxies and I'm going the increase the odds against earth-like planets to the point that our own existence in this galaxy is doubtful. I'll be as concise as I can.

You say there's 100 billion stars in the Milky way. Pretty low I think, but we'll use that number.

I previously said 1 in a hundred stars have planets. I'll increase that by four orders of magnitude and say only 1 in 10,000 suns have planets. I'll bet everything I own that there isn't a single living astronomer anywhere who will not find that to be a laughably low estimate, but 1 in 10,000 it is.

That leaves us with 10 million solar systems in our galaxy.

Now let's say the odds are 1 in 10, 000 solar systems before we find a single planet of appropriate
configuration, size, and distance from the sun. That will leave us with just 1,000 planets in our galaxy that could conceivably support earth-like life. I really think I'm being generously conservative so far.

OK, now we have a thousand candidates in our galaxy, but even though each one has air, water, land,
weather, and sunlight every single one is utterly sterile for some reason. In fact we have to look at 999,999 earth-like planets before we find just one with evolving life. Only one in a million of these peaches is ripe. Well, I should say they're all ripe, but only one in a million is not poisonous.

Since we have only a thousand of these "peaches" in our galaxy, and the odds are one in a million for a good one, this means we have to search through one thousand (small) galaxies till we find a planet with life. That's 100,000,000,000,000 suns to produce a single good planet! Taking the lowest estimate for number of galaxies, 125 billion, and dividing by a million, we wind up with 125 million earth-like planets that can, and probably do, support life.

The question now is, how many of these 125 million edens contain "intelligent" life? I'll stop with the hypothetical calculations here. Take 1 out of (whatever number you like) and see how many of the 125 million have intelligent life. If your number is at all reasonable I think we'll be left with the conclusion there is abundant life scattered far and wide through the universe.

Also consider this: The universe is 14 billion yrs. old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That says to me that the large majority of these planets with intelligent life have been stewing for billions of years longer than we have. Our civilization is something like 10,000 years old, give or take a few millennia, while most alien civilizations, if they avoided suicide, will have been advancing past us for billions of years!

Salvador Dali in his most manic moment couldn't begin to imagine what they might be up to. Speculation on what we ourselves will be like, technologically or culturally, in a billion years would be futile. Whatever we imagine would almost certainly be wrong and not even close to the truth.

I really don't understand the resistance to the possibility, let alone likelihood, of other advanced life in the universe. Of course no one knows, but it seems to me the argument for ET's is more logical than the argument against. God bless Stephen Hawking, but I just think he's flat out wrong in his guesswork here. I haven't done a survey, but I'd be willing to bet money that the majority of astronomers and cosmologists working today would disagree with him also.

So, that's the best I can do. I didn't address the second half of your last argument. I work in a donut factory. I don't know fer shit about the number of systems that could have some kind of analogue to prokaryotic life, and even less about bacteria in pre-eukaryotic times.

Honestly, if you're knowledgeable enough to rattle off esoteric stuff like that, I'm surprised it
didn't occur to you that most readers here probably aren't. We may or may not have the ability, but I think few would have the background to make use of that kind of information. If you disagree, I'll readily concede. Although, if we consider DU has 1.06x10 to the 5th power members here, and we estimate the number of science majors as 1x10 to the.... I'm sure you don't want to hear the rest.

[GaYellowDawg]

186. It's not really that complicated.

Prokaryotic organisms are universally single-celled, and lack membrane-bound organelles. Multicellular life is eukaryotic, or having a "true" or membrane-bound nucleus. One of those organelles, mitochondria (OK, chloroplasts as well), resembles a bacterium itself; in fact, it has its own DNA.

Because of bacteria-like characteristics, the endosymbiotic theory was proposed suggesting that these organelles originated as separate prokaryotic organisms which were taken inside the cell as endosymbionts. Endosymbiosis is an exceedingly rare event in evolution, but it appears necessary for formation of complex multicellular organisms.

One addition: I really, really lowballed the technology using species number. So far as we know, we're the only species in the planet's history that has developed technology. There have been considerably more species that have gone extinct than exist now, so the 17.5 million species number was terribly underestimated. That would probably add at least another order of magnitude to my numbers.

To me, the real key is the development of multicellular/complex organisms. Going from single-celled to multi-celled is probably the least likely event in my "formula." As unlikely as events such as endosymbiosis and technology-level intelligence are, if you have 125 million "Edens" we could very easily be the only one with multicellular, technology-using life.

Honestly, if you're knowledgeable enough to rattle off esoteric stuff like that, I'm surprised it
didn't occur to you that most readers here probably aren't. We may or may not have the ability, but I think few would have the background to make use of that kind of information.

Endosymbiosis gets covered in high school biology, and there's a phenomenal book called Sex, Power, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life. I think it's more a matter of interest; are people motivated to remember what they learned in HS biology and also to read a book with that title? Probably not. What's aggravating is when someone like the original poster, who clearly doesn't know much about science, thinks he does, and continues to put forth a defense of those naive views in the face of people who clearly know better, up to and including dishonesty. I would expect to see that kind of thing on a fundamentalist website. Here, it's that much more galling because I don't expect it.

[defendandprotect]

154. It is also dismissive of Einstein's Parallel Universes . . . . .

which I'm sure Hawking must have heard about at some time or other ---

:)

[GaYellowDawg]

183. I'm sure Hawking hasn't heard of it...

...because Einstein didn't propose it.

[defendandprotect]

155. No --

In the theory that "any intelligent individual recognizes that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god" . . . we understand that is quite clear, save the few who see various
religious figures on tacos.

Re "intelligent" life in the universe, or considering parallel universes, the only answer is "we don't know."

However, we do have eye witnesses and other evidence of spacecraft intelligently controlled visiting
our planet -- and that seems to have been going on for at least 20,000 years according to cave drawings and oral history.

Yes, you may decide that all of these people have been hallucinating ---
but then again many of us will think that you're the one with the problem.

[defendandprotect]

125. Nice bit of writing --- interesting observations . . . !!!

:)

[nashville_brook]

170. this is exactly what I think too. life abounds on earth. we have no experience of lifelessness.

so, on a very basic level, i find the claim that there's nothing out there to be absurd.

[CANDO]

114. I've always wondered why we humans on Earth assume alien life to be intelligent.

Sort of fits into a Hollywood script better if we can be scared to death of alien life forms. I always thought to myself we are giving them too much credit. Alien life forms may not be anything beyond plant life.

[defendandprotect]

126. Or they may be . . .

mostly humanoid in appearance --- though some not ---
they may come in 57 Heinz varieties as many "in the know" have referred to them ---
and they may be as much as billion years ahead of us ---

WE may be isolated in our part of the universe --- on the outskirts ---
and about to be brought in???

WE may be sharing this planet with other intelligent life --- though they may exist in another
dimension which we are unaware of --- ???

[cynatnite]

119. Hawking is such a tool...

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

128. The aliens are coming, the aliens are coming ---

quick ... more money for Star Wars ---

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. Less confidence.

There's no evidence of life outside earth - intelligent or otherwise. Absent any evidence, it's a flight of fancy to speculate about it.

It isn't a hypothesis - it's musing out loud.

Once we realize that we may very well be "it", the only intelligent designers in the universe, we may take our responsibilities seriously.

I recommend the book "rare earth".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

[Iggo]

165. "Hypothesis", eh?

That sounds suspiciously like a word used in....SCIENCE!!!!

B-)

[Occulus]

167. You aren't saying we should stop trying to find life elsewhere, are you?

I only ask because your argument sounds suspiciously like a foundation for the argument that space exploration and a search for life is a worthless expenditure.

[lumberjack_jeff]

171. Absolutely not. Consider it a dare.

But until you've proven me wrong, we need to clean up this place.

[bluedawg12]

210. It is a hypothesis.

The first aspect of the paradox, "the argument by scale", is a function of the raw numbers involved: there are an estimated 250 billion (2.5 x 1011) stars in the Milky Way and 70 sextillion (7 x 1022) in the visible universe.<6> Even if intelligent life occurs on only a minuscule percentage of planets around these stars, there should still be a great number of civilizations extant in the Milky Way galaxy alone. wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

150. "there don't seem to be any advanced intelligent beings"

in our region of the galaxy.

I wonder if he's including Earth in his failed search for intelligence.

After watching CNN & FOX last night, I might agree with him.

[defendandprotect]

159. Basically, what I think everyone should see in this is the

desire to put into the minds of the public that if there is other "intelligent" life in the
universe that it is probably armed with nuclear weapons and dangerous ...

i.e., more money for Star Wars.

[TheWraith]

173. I think that YOU are the idiot in this equation.

You're reading a lot of crap into Hawking's remarks that just isn't there, not to mention starting from a position that humanity is inherently evil and contemptible.

[bluedawg12]

211. Seems like repug- anti-science disinformation

a lot of that going around these days: global climate change and evolution science.

[Rex]

180. Seems like Stephen may be talking out of his ass

Just give up and form a belief because we don't 'hear' anything in a few hundred light years? Series. Sad.

[slowry]

184. He said it doesn't seem like there's intelligent life in our immediate vicinity. Hardly a definitive

statement. Also, where does he say we should give up? This wasn't even the point he was making.

And... Stephen? Really? First-name basis?

This thread should probably be moved to :tinfoilhat:land...

[bluedawg12]

197. Stephen Hawking is smarter than everyone on this board.

>>Alien life may well exist in a primitive form somewhere in our corner of the galaxy, famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Monday.<<

So what’ so shocking about that? It well may.

>>Given the size of the universe, it is unlikely that Earth is the only planet to develop some sort of life, <<

This is the seconds time he states that alien life may exist.

What’s the problem?

>>He added that humanity must embrace space exploration, if only to ensure its long-term survival.<<

Man has always explored, and moved on to new frontiers. So what?

>>"While there may be primitive life in our region of the galaxy, there don't seem to be any advanced intelligent beings,"<<

For a third time he reaffirms his belief in life in our region of the galaxy, so, problem?


>>The lack of success by the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project to discover signals from an alien civilization suggests that none exist within several 100 light-years of Earth, <<

>>The current data throug SETI and the radiotelescope suggests “suggests” that intelligent life does not exist within several 100 light-years of Earth, <<

He’s telling us what the present data says. We are looking far and wide and find nothing. within several 100 light-years of Earth. That doesn’t mean there is nothing further out.

Also, he say that data suggests–does not rule out- merely suggests, from the (SETI) project to discover signals from an alien civilization suggests that none exist within several 100 light-years of Earth,

>>Hawking said, though he offered three theories on the dearth of interplanetary communications.<<


>>The probability of primitive life developing on a suitable planet may be extremely low, or it may be high, but aliens intelligent enough to beam signals into space may also be smart enough to build civilization-destroying weapons like nuclear bombs, he said.<<

And they destroyed themselves, that’s why no more signal.

>>More likely, he added, is that primitive life is likely to develop, but intelligent life as we know it is exceedingly rare.<<

Or, rather than the self destruction notion, life just hasn’t gotten technically sophisticated to contact us, Very rational,.

>>"We don't appear to have been visited by aliens," Hawking said, adding that he discounts reports of UFOs. "Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdos?"<<

Well, they are not coming to the Senate, our leaders, our scientists, they seem to come to odd people in Arizona living alone with 15 beagles, who don’t ever seem to able to get pictures, or some evidence- Goober in Phoenix.

Stephen Hawking is smarter than everyone on this board. Guaranteed.

[slowry]

198. You're forgetting the parallel lines! Hawking is a MOSSAD disinfo agent! n/t

[bluedawg12]

207. Or simply an example of: The Age of American Unreason

http://www.susanjacoby.com/

"junk thought"

[Echo In Light]

209. ...

[nolabels]

215. Ah ha, he must not of thought that one out too much

Everyone knows that the best person to spread rumor and misinformation is to give the task to cranks and weirdoes:freak:

[Spike89]

225. Nonsense cubed

First point: Hawking wasn't engaging in science, he was giving a speech. Sure, he's a scientist and conversing on a scientific topic, but even if he'd speculated something totally unlikely, it would not affect my faith in science. This is as absurd as saying that you heard a plumber say something stupid so now you can't trust toilets.

Second point: Hawking never said anything or even suggesting interstellar war--that is you putting your spin. The nukes were obviously the reason that hypothetical civilization is not broadcasting to us. You, in your other messages obviously understand that a race could easily kill itself off, why dismiss Hawking for saying the same thing?

Third point: You're making a huge, totally unsupported leap in defining UFOs as alien ships. As others have pointed out, it is not scientific to use eye witness accounts as hard proof, but even if you were to do so, how many of your pilots and other authoritative non-cranks claim to know the origin of the object they saw? I saw a bright blur in the sky one night, it was of course a meteor, but it was unidentified, flying, and an object...so obviously it was a little green man burning up?

Anyway, enough with that. The odds of life game is a bit more interesting. One variable that I think certainly can't be assumed as conservative is the evolution of multicell creatures and the rise of intelligence. It can be postulated that life will fill niches. It may be that everywhere a single cell creature exists, multicell organisms will inevitably follow. The same for intelligence. The fact that there is only a single "thinking" species on earth doesn't mean that thinking is rare. It is just as rational to pose that every complex biosphere will have that particular niche filled by a single species. Doesn't really affect the numbers a ton, but it does make intelligent life a bit more likely.

[josephinemolix]

229. Hawkins is too pessimistic

how could we be sure there is no intelligent life within 100 light years? How would we know there isn't?

[slowry]

230. K&R

Kick & Run... :popcorn:

[Freedom Train]

232. Hmm, let's see...

Hawking, an idiot...

or

YOU, an idiot...

Tough call... But you know, I'm probably gonna have to go with Hawking NOT being the idiot. Don't think I've ever heard him being referred to as one before. Well, outside of that one time at the right-wing fundie retreat I happened to find myself in after taking a wrong turn down some back road looking for a gas station.