Eric Korpela discusses alien contact.

Message boards : News : Eric Korpela discusses alien contact.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15681
Credit: 80,772,705
RAC: 27,960
United States
Message 1729432 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 4:47:56 UTC - in response to Message 1729429.  
Last modified: 27 Sep 2015, 4:48:16 UTC

Fun????
This is fun???
I am afraid I disagree.
Unless Eric himself tells me otherwise, this is a very serious scientific project.
If I hear otherwise, I shall disconnect immediately.


Yes, Mr. Sattler, discussions can be fun.

I was discussing the project in general, Mr. Ozz.


And we were discussing the video before you butted in and changed the topic to hijack the thread.
ID: 1729432 · Report as offensive
John D Anthony

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 15
Posts: 175
Credit: 1,183,794
RAC: 558
United States
Message 1729476 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 6:56:57 UTC - in response to Message 1729432.  

Fun????
This is fun???
I am afraid I disagree.
Unless Eric himself tells me otherwise, this is a very serious scientific project.
If I hear otherwise, I shall disconnect immediately.


Yes, Mr. Sattler, discussions can be fun.

I was discussing the project in general, Mr. Ozz.


And we were discussing the video before you butted in and changed the topic to hijack the thread.

Whoa! Let's all stand down, okay?
I was annoyed with Dr. Korpela for going along with the popular view that a universe without FTL is too boring to spend time on, and I get depressed when I hear Hawking say it because to most of the world he's The Man Who Would Know.
I said it early on in this thread - this is something that would hook into the human psyche on a primal level. We still dream with the same imagery and symbolism we used 12,000 years ago and we still fear the same things. Your amygdala doesn't give a damn how scientifically literate you are and it's running the show most of the time. An announcement that has to start out by denying everything that people have come to accept as real is going to have a harder time convincing anyone they're not being lied to.
It is fun to be part of trying to solve a mystery, but I do take it seriously and I try to think in constructive terms about it. Sci-fi doesn't help that process.
ID: 1729476 · Report as offensive
Profile zubr2009
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Mar 13
Posts: 24
Credit: 147,854
RAC: 0
Belarus
Message 1729498 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 10:05:39 UTC - in response to Message 1728403.  
Last modified: 27 Sep 2015, 10:16:19 UTC

excuse me, but what is this nonsense?

And we are ready for any visitors from space ...
I'm so lonely on Earth ...
I want the brothers humanoid hurry to get into the arms of the gentle ...
ha ha ha :))
ID: 1729498 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15681
Credit: 80,772,705
RAC: 27,960
United States
Message 1729552 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 14:43:59 UTC - in response to Message 1729476.  

I was annoyed with Dr. Korpela for going along with the popular view that a universe without FTL is too boring to spend time on, and I get depressed when I hear Hawking say it because to most of the world he's The Man Who Would Know.
I said it early on in this thread - this is something that would hook into the human psyche on a primal level. We still dream with the same imagery and symbolism we used 12,000 years ago and we still fear the same things. Your amygdala doesn't give a damn how scientifically literate you are and it's running the show most of the time. An announcement that has to start out by denying everything that people have come to accept as real is going to have a harder time convincing anyone they're not being lied to.
It is fun to be part of trying to solve a mystery, but I do take it seriously and I try to think in constructive terms about it. Sci-fi doesn't help that process.


Science is not an authority figure here to dictate to people what reality is. Science is a process or method by which we discover the world around us using naturalistic explanations. Science by no means has all the answers, and most discoveries happen when we find something that goes against what we thought we previously knew.

We should not place science up on a pedestal and use it to replace religion as a thing for people to get authoritative answers from. We should engage and encourage more people to get into science to gain a better understanding of how the Universe works.

The only people that are going to feel lied to about science are those that thing science is an absolute, or are otherwise looking to be lead by any Pied Piper that will play to them. These people will be looking for their own confirmation bias and will disregard whatever they don't want to hear anyway. Beyond that, I don't think you give your fellow man enough credit to know the difference.
ID: 1729552 · Report as offensive
John D Anthony

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 15
Posts: 175
Credit: 1,183,794
RAC: 558
United States
Message 1729579 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 17:22:34 UTC - in response to Message 1729552.  

Science is not an authority figure here to dictate to people what reality is. Science is a process or method by which we discover the world around us using naturalistic explanations. Science by no means has all the answers, and most discoveries happen when we find something that goes against what we thought we previously knew.

We should not place science up on a pedestal and use it to replace religion as a thing for people to get authoritative answers from. We should engage and encourage more people to get into science to gain a better understanding of how the Universe works.

The only people that are going to feel lied to about science are those that thing science is an absolute, or are otherwise looking to be lead by any Pied Piper that will play to them. These people will be looking for their own confirmation bias and will disregard whatever they don't want to hear anyway. Beyond that, I don't think you give your fellow man enough credit to know the difference.

You're right - I don't - because the majority of humanity is not only not scientifically literate, it relies on Bronze Age mythologies and supernatural fantasy to define the world and give it meaning. Even here, in a supposedly educated population, 9 out 10 people you ask can't describe what the scientific method is or tell you why it's important, and a good percentage are going to tell you that real Truth is something you get from a book dictated by the creator of the universe.
And you think I should trust people's innate common sense to tell them they have nothing to fear?
ID: 1729579 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15681
Credit: 80,772,705
RAC: 27,960
United States
Message 1729637 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 21:50:57 UTC - in response to Message 1729579.  

And you think I should trust people's innate common sense to tell them they have nothing to fear?


No, I am saying it is not up to you or to science to do it for them. It is up to them to seek the education and to be invested in learning.
ID: 1729637 · Report as offensive
kittyman Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 50377
Credit: 982,436,697
RAC: 49,358
United States
Message 1729640 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 22:01:50 UTC - in response to Message 1729637.  

And you think I should trust people's innate common sense to tell them they have nothing to fear?


No, I am saying it is not up to you or to science to do it for them. It is up to them to seek the education and to be invested in learning.

And some of us endeavor to persevere in that general direction every day.
"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

ID: 1729640 · Report as offensive
Profile edjcox
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 May 99
Posts: 96
Credit: 5,855,091
RAC: 207
United States
Message 1729733 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 7:54:36 UTC

We have instances of Gravitational lensing that show distant galaxies and areas of space in multiple images. What's is even more interesting is that when examined in detail the images of the same far off distant galaxies exhibit time dilation, that is to say the same galaxy appears in the lensed images at different points in time dependent upon the lensing and the distance the light has traveled. In other words (Lightyear of origin will vary) so we have in essence a means of viewing an object in different times.. Not quite time travel but certainly temporal variance...

So if one could exceed the speed of light one would still have to cope with the gravity wells of massive objects as one sped on ones way. Like a rippled billiard table fabric the traveler would encounter swerves dips and bends along the path and guiding ones travels would become most difficult there for choosing a destination also trouble wrought.

As you exceeded light speed and by happenstance directed ones travel towards the event horizon of a black hole, the time dilation there would be most interesting. Much akin to a massive rubber sheet under tension of dark matters stretch, black holes would be places in the tensored sheet that suddenly released its hold on matter and the dark matter field would begin to collapse normal space time into the event horizon... But along comes our FTL vessel and flys through that, time dilation is the only factor that balances out the equation...Losing dark matters grip on Space time, the collapse into singularity still ewrfu]3q swic-d3- sd';a
ID: 1729733 · Report as offensive
John D Anthony

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 15
Posts: 175
Credit: 1,183,794
RAC: 558
United States
Message 1729844 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 17:45:12 UTC - in response to Message 1729733.  

We have instances of Gravitational lensing that show distant galaxies and areas of space in multiple images. What's is even more interesting is that when examined in detail the images of the same far off distant galaxies exhibit time dilation, that is to say the same galaxy appears in the lensed images at different points in time dependent upon the lensing and the distance the light has traveled. In other words (Lightyear of origin will vary) so we have in essence a means of viewing an object in different times.. Not quite time travel but certainly temporal variance...

So if one could exceed the speed of light one would still have to cope with the gravity wells of massive objects as one sped on ones way. Like a rippled billiard table fabric the traveler would encounter swerves dips and bends along the path and guiding ones travels would become most difficult there for choosing a destination also trouble wrought.

As you exceeded light speed and by happenstance directed ones travel towards the event horizon of a black hole, the time dilation there would be most interesting. Much akin to a massive rubber sheet under tension of dark matters stretch, black holes would be places in the tensored sheet that suddenly released its hold on matter and the dark matter field would begin to collapse normal space time into the event horizon... But along comes our FTL vessel and flys through that, time dilation is the only factor that balances out the equation...Losing dark matters grip on Space time, the collapse into singularity still ewrfu]3q swic-d3- sd';a


An experiment like that would investigate what happens when mass approaches lightspeed but exceeding it this way isn't likely.
If you had a ring of stars with planets and you knew their orbits and rotations you could effectively use that ring as an accelerator for an object. It would have to be able to make course corrections by itself in each system.
Not saying it would be easy - just possible. I think.
ID: 1729844 · Report as offensive
John D Anthony

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 15
Posts: 175
Credit: 1,183,794
RAC: 558
United States
Message 1729852 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 18:06:00 UTC - in response to Message 1729844.  

We have instances of Gravitational lensing that show distant galaxies and areas of space in multiple images. What's is even more interesting is that when examined in detail the images of the same far off distant galaxies exhibit time dilation, that is to say the same galaxy appears in the lensed images at different points in time dependent upon the lensing and the distance the light has traveled. In other words (Lightyear of origin will vary) so we have in essence a means of viewing an object in different times.. Not quite time travel but certainly temporal variance...

So if one could exceed the speed of light one would still have to cope with the gravity wells of massive objects as one sped on ones way. Like a rippled billiard table fabric the traveler would encounter swerves dips and bends along the path and guiding ones travels would become most difficult there for choosing a destination also trouble wrought.

As you exceeded light speed and by happenstance directed ones travel towards the event horizon of a black hole, the time dilation there would be most interesting. Much akin to a massive rubber sheet under tension of dark matters stretch, black holes would be places in the tensored sheet that suddenly released its hold on matter and the dark matter field would begin to collapse normal space time into the event horizon... But along comes our FTL vessel and flys through that, time dilation is the only factor that balances out the equation...Losing dark matters grip on Space time, the collapse into singularity still ewrfu]3q swic-d3- sd';a


An experiment like that would investigate what happens when mass approaches lightspeed but exceeding it this way isn't likely.
If you had a ring of stars with planets and you knew their orbits and rotations you could effectively use that ring as an accelerator for an object. It would have to be able to make course corrections by itself in each system.
Not saying it would be easy - just possible. I think.


(Both comment and response here have strayed from other threads, in case anyone is wondering).
ID: 1729852 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 3320
Credit: 1,973,323
RAC: 184
Message 1733061 - Posted: 9 Oct 2015, 3:03:36 UTC
Last modified: 9 Oct 2015, 3:07:30 UTC

Right now watching the video from the Congressional hearing.

Bought a box of salty sticks for the evening.

What catches me is that the first or initial part of this segment is using the word life.

Why not use the word intelligence instead?

This is what we are supposed to be looking for, even in space.

Later, when a woman is taking the chair, this word is being mentioned, but then together with the word life.

As previously mentioned, possible intelligence could be found in a computer chip.

But for now life is rather synonymous with having a brain, which brings us back to the question of neurology.

Perhaps this needs a better explanation.
ID: 1733061 · Report as offensive
Eric Korpela Project Donor
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1344
Credit: 44,199,921
RAC: 61,949
United States
Message 1733217 - Posted: 9 Oct 2015, 17:25:40 UTC - in response to Message 1728321.  
Last modified: 9 Oct 2015, 17:29:52 UTC

That's the problem with a interview that gets cut. Parts of a long discussion can get cut to sound bites.

The main question isn't whether they would be competitive, the question is whether they would find anything at earth that they couldn't find at a closer location. If they are looking for a planet with any type of life, they are going to find at least 3500 of them that are closer than the nearest inhabited planet. If they are looking for a planet with an oxygen atmosphere, they will find at least 500 of them that are closer than the nearest inhabited planet. In either case, to make the biosphere inhabitable, they are either going to have to bioengineer themselves, or eradicate and replace the local life forms. While there's no particular reason for them to avoid inhabited planets (intelligent life forms can be eradicated with the rest of the biosphere), there's also no reason to seek them out. If were were on the border of an empire of 500+ star systems would we have noticed them by now?

With electronic civilizations, the chance of conflict seems even smaller to me. Electronic beings don't need planets and barely need stars. I have a hard time imagining why an electronic civilization would want to consist of more than one individual and why it would feel the need to expand or grow beyond the point having a backup of itself. But if it was expansive and wanted planetary surfaces for some reason, why bother with planets with corrosive atmospheres, rather than benign airless worlds or better yet asteroids where the resources are more accessible?
@SETIEric

ID: 1733217 · Report as offensive
Eric Korpela Project Donor
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1344
Credit: 44,199,921
RAC: 61,949
United States
Message 1733223 - Posted: 9 Oct 2015, 17:43:16 UTC - in response to Message 1733217.  

Yes, I'm still way back in the comments. It's been a busy few weeks. Regarding FTL travel, current physics doesn't give us a short cut to the stars. The structure of physics seems pretty well rigged to prohibit faster than light travel within the universe without unraveling the concept of causality. That doesn't mean that interstellar travel is impossible. It just means that it's effectively one way if the crew has finite (human) life spans. Even if you go back the world you left won't be the one you come back to.
@SETIEric

ID: 1733223 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15681
Credit: 80,772,705
RAC: 27,960
United States
Message 1733235 - Posted: 9 Oct 2015, 19:46:08 UTC - in response to Message 1733223.  

I'm glad you're posting, even a few weeks late. ;-) I enjoy reading your thoughts.
ID: 1733235 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 3320
Credit: 1,973,323
RAC: 184
Message 1733245 - Posted: 9 Oct 2015, 20:53:21 UTC
Last modified: 9 Oct 2015, 20:53:53 UTC

And even watching the video before starting my evening, I actually missed the segment where BSRC Director Andrew Siemion was making his testimony.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=78260

This because I only listened to the audio while doing a couple of other things.

Apologies for that.

Perhaps these two threads should be merged in order to avoid more confusion.
ID: 1733245 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 3320
Credit: 1,973,323
RAC: 184
Message 1733290 - Posted: 9 Oct 2015, 23:52:41 UTC

The evening perhaps.

I will post a couple of things about the Goldilocks zone in my own thread, because this is the word that is being used rather than saying the habitable zone instead.
ID: 1733290 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : News : Eric Korpela discusses alien contact.


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.