Possible SETI candidate

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I wouldn't presume to make any assumptions about whether a
civilization requires goals.

Goals have been natural to the development of civilization and have been
centered on survival prehistorically. Historically, it has been geared
toward protection and convenience (some sleep while others watch, trade,
free time, etc.)

Given an advanced civilization that has no need of protection and little
need of trade, most members would have nothing to do if there were no
unifying goal to keep them together and would likely self-destruct.

I'd call that anthropomorphizing.

But I doubt that any such civilization would be beyond our understanding,
or would think in a substantially different way.

They would have to think differently than the rabble-rousers of our planet.
We have kooks that would throw out the baby with the bathwater. True,
some of our people in an advanced way. Not many, though.

Certainly, if they ever had aggressive or even competitive instincts,
they would have lost them. But it's easy enough for us to understand
that kind of thinking, even if we can't do it ourselves. I don't think
it's possible that they could have a goal that we couldn't readily
understand.

I think there will be many surprises. But they will be along the lines
of "there's a bird on that branch!" and not "that's not even a tree!".

How about confirmation that mirror matter (also called shadow matter or
Alice matter) exists? Or confirmation of adjacent branes?

Assuming such things end up being testable, of course. But no, not
such a big leap in understanding. They are already proposed, and their
consequences understood to some extent. None of these things would
overturn our existing understanding, or break existing theory. They
would simply extend it.

On Thursday, 1 September 2016 18:50:11 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I wouldn't presume to make any assumptions about whether a
civilization requires goals.

Goals have been natural to the development of civilization and have been
centered on survival prehistorically. Historically, it has been geared
toward protection and convenience (some sleep while others watch, trade,
free time, etc.)

Given an advanced civilization that has no need of protection and little
need of trade, most members would have nothing to do if there were no
unifying goal to keep them together and would likely self-destruct.

Agreed. Long term survival of any civilization would require a finely balanced bouquet of aggression v willing cooperation v empathy for others. Most forms of human political [top down] control of the masses have proved fragile in the face of external stimuli. Top down leadership is the direct opposite of empathy.

Benign Scandinavian socialism came close but the leadership inevitably, far too corrupted. Too obsessed with their rigid rule making and tax fleecing. They were too busy holding meetings to spot the coming tsunamis of consumerism and open immigration. Consumerism does not build empathy. Not even in the queues outside an iRottenApple store on a major release of some "new" and "thinner" piece of tat.

Terrorism is all too common an answer to a dislike of the status quo. In reality it is a smaller group using the open license to expose their sickening, predatory sociopathy. There is practically no atrocity against the general population of any country which has not been tried.

Meanwhile, The world's "leadership" for want of a better word, remains unmoved. How can it possibly be otherwise? To capitulate to the latest horror would be to give license to global chaos. Thus the terrorists have been handed the perfect excuse to go on committing atrocities for as long as they can get away with it. There is no end game because there cannot be one in a mutually agreed stalemate. The terrorists rarely go after the real decision makers. Not even in Hollywood fantasies. So, soft targets [innocent people] are the done thing.

How "Us and them" is handled is the key to any society's success or failure.. Some countries have permanently fractured into countless casts and tribes and unions or cultures or language groups. This is horribly inefficient and has no ability to unite a people to improve their combined lot. There are always crossed wires, prejudice, favoritism, corruption, genuine daily misunderstanding and burning mistrust. So the USA cannot possibly last much longer.

"Us and them" is strongly reinforced and endlessly rehearsed in the school playground. Bullying and teasing ensure clear demarcation between fat and thin, ginger and blond, tall and short, rich and poor, fawn and peaches and cream.

Home reinforced prejudices are carried outside the family unit and practiced endlessly throughout society. Sport and religion further divide the masses. Consumerism's pretence at exclusivity further divides and undermines all social cohesion.

How can a foreigner or [real] alien possibly cope with this surging froth of well-honed prejudice and discomfort in the presence of the newly unfiltered? How does the "home team" cope with the foreigner or alien? They have been given no clear rules of identification. The newcomer cannot be neatly and automatically sorted into the correct series of boxes. Teddy bears do not belong in the Barbie dolls container. Lego blocks does not fit well with the wooden bricks. They don't even speak the "local" dialect! Fight or flight? Do we fancy the alien or do you fancy your chances in a fight?

I was just reading about "Arrival" and watching the trailers. The Hollywood, infantile fantasy machine churns out yet another baffling case of misappropriation of funds. The inscrutable aliens are weird enough to frighten the children. Correct. Communication? Get real! Smoke signals in unfathomable glyphs? Is that a nod to native North American Indian culture?

Surely it behooves the visitors to have done their own homework? They can build vast machines, defy gravity and time to cross interstellar space... But can't manage a simple "Take me to your Trump III!" in local, pidgin human speech? Oh dear, oh deary me! It's surely curtains for humanity as Hollywood knows it. Send in them noocleeer missiles!

Well not yet! We'all had better get us a tame [but slightly damaged to give the character substance] linguist in to save the situation. [And, quite possibly, the entire world and 7 billion needy consumers!]

She "does" Farsi so there's a high probability of immediate rapport with the uninvited visitors. She even has prior security clearance but little or no booby-trapped, nuclear weapons disarmament or even stealth jet, pilot training. Can she walk in stiletto heels in low gravity and still chew gum decoratively? Huh? Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. ;-)

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 10:50:11 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Goals have been natural to the development of civilization and have been
centered on survival prehistorically. Historically, it has been geared
toward protection and convenience (some sleep while others watch, trade,
free time, etc.)

Given an advanced civilization that has no need of protection and little
need of trade, most members would have nothing to do if there were no
unifying goal to keep them together and would likely self-destruct.

I'd call that anthropomorphizing.

Perhaps, or it may be a universal condition of intelligence.
(Initially, I wrote "creatures" instead of "intelligence" but animals seem
to be better at this than we are :-)

But I doubt that any such civilization would be beyond our understanding,
or would think in a substantially different way.

They would have to think differently than the rabble-rousers of our planet.
We have kooks that would throw out the baby with the bathwater. True,
some of our people in an advanced way. Not many, though.

Certainly, if they ever had aggressive or even competitive instincts,
they would have lost them. But it's easy enough for us to understand
that kind of thinking, even if we can't do it ourselves. I don't think
it's possible that they could have a goal that we couldn't readily
understand.

Perhaps so.

I think there will be many surprises. But they will be along the lines
of "there's a bird on that branch!" and not "that's not even a tree!".

How about confirmation that mirror matter (also called shadow matter or
Alice matter) exists? Or confirmation of adjacent branes?

Assuming such things end up being testable, of course. But no, not
such a big leap in understanding. They are already proposed, and their
consequences understood to some extent. None of these things would
overturn our existing understanding, or break existing theory. They
would simply extend it.

Hmmm, have you looked at Paul Steinhardt's ekpyrotic universe theory? That
represents an extension in one sense, but it also sweeps away our present
concept of the Big Bang. And it is only an intermediate idea of what it
portends which Steinhardt seems unaware of.

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 4:24:26 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=36248

We now know where the signal really came from:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09...d_seti_search/

John Savard

Quadibloc:
We now know where the signal really came from:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09...d_seti_search/

I didn't believe for a femtosecond, nay, a yoctosecond, that it came
from ET.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Saturday, 3 September 2016 04:57:55 UTC+2, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
We now know where the signal really came from:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09...d_seti_search/

I didn't believe for a femtosecond, nay, a yoctosecond, that it came
from ET.

A very sensible approach. The scientific principle at work.
No pictures? It didn't happen.

Thank goodness nobody claimed it was a message from god.
We'd all be in serious trouble by now!
The hypocrites would be falling like a pandemic
The wildfires would be totally out of control.
Well, one out of two isn't a bad result.
If only we knew whether the genocide was down to a "loving" god.
Or his satanical step-brothers in Rome. ;-)

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 10:57:55 PM UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
We now know where the signal really came from:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09...d_seti_search/

I didn't believe for a femtosecond, nay, a yoctosecond, that it came
from ET.

Well now, aren't we the special little snowflake!

Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
We now know where the signal really came from:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09...d_seti_search/

I didn't believe for a femtosecond, nay, a yoctosecond, that it came
from ET.


However it was an extraterrestrial signal produced by intelligent life. OK
that life was Russian but strictly speaking the signal was
extraterrestrial.

Quadibloc:
We now know where the signal really came from:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09...led_seti_searc
h/

Davoud:
I didn't believe for a femtosecond, nay, a yoctosecond, that it came
from ET.

Mike Collins:
However it was an extraterrestrial signal produced by intelligent life. OK
that life was Russian but strictly speaking the signal was
extraterrestrial.

Hard to argue with that, I suppose, though "strictly speaking," the
ultimate origin of the emitter was terrestrial. As a normal,
off-the-shelf person, however, I rarely speak strictly.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Thursday, 1 September 2016 01:19:44 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:51:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Wednesday, 31 August 2016 19:27:14 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:00:04 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 28 August 2016 18:24:26 UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=36248

Never trust Russians. Born liars and cheats. They claimed to have achieved temperatures in a lab on the order of 3 billion degrees. LIE!

Particle physics labs routinely achieve temperatures of billions of
kelvins (in some cases, trillions). Depending on the details of their
claim, there's nothing about 3 billion kelvins that strains belief at
all.

They claimed they did it in 1975 using "OGRA Injection mirror equipment." The claim was never proved.

The Ogra device was a magnetic mirror plasma trap. Such devices are
capable of energy densities that can be standardized to billions of
kelvins. And have been for decades. So I don't know what you find so
unlikely.

In any case, scientific claims are not, and cannot be "proved".

To anyone outside Russia that is.