What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)

Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?

What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?

What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
having accommodated intelligent life?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth wrote:
Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?

What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?

What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
having accommodated intelligent life?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

None. What stops them being on earth is the Internet. You cannot
travel FTL. If you make an interstellar journey it will have
sophisticated AI. Where is all human life? Where is the human genome
stored? Radio reloj (in Britain) will be dead by 2012, where are the
TV programs? Where are there nice juicy murders that will give us
insight into life on Earth? Where are academic papers increasingly
being published?

ET can also speak for himself. Being AI he will speak multilingually.
My argument against ET is best summed up be "?Puerde leer en
espagnol?". Hence what we say is absolutely irrelevant. It will either
be pooh poohed or ET/AI will give an expositioon.

- Ian Parker

On Jun 19, 11:41 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth wrote:

Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?

A planet built by humans, for humans, as well as their life
support structures. Possibly all those pre-human ET's have
been coming and going for at least a few millennia, give or
take a few ice ages - and we think we're it? Yeah, right as
much as being in the transnationalist box we've created for
ourselves. Did youhear about the COMPANION PLANET
to GLIESE? THAT ONE has a better chance of supporting
LIFE (Perhaps BETTER than some would have us believe?)

see:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...r_super_e.html


What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?


A whole host of problems surrounds this idea, not to mention the
fact of metallicity, G2V, etc.


What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
having accommodated intelligent life?
-

Orbital period? Proximity to star? Constituent regolith?
Accessibility?

"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth


American

On Jun 19, 11:34 am, American wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:41 am, Ian Parker wrote: On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth wrote:

Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?

A planet built by humans, for humans, as well as their life
support structures. Possibly all those pre-human ET's have
been coming and going for at least a few millennia, give or
take a few ice ages - and we think we're it? Yeah, right as
much as being in the transnationalist box we've created for
ourselves. Did youhear about the COMPANION PLANET
to GLIESE? THAT ONE has a better chance of supporting
LIFE (Perhaps BETTER than some would have us believe?)

see:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...r_super_e.html

That's true enough, that such a substantial red dwarf of a star that's
hosting at least a couple of bigger than Earth planets seems perfectly
ET/AI doable, and you'd think most likely of being somewhat older
intelligence than our terrestrial existence to boot. In fact, there
seems to be a fairly great number of such red dwarf or spent stars to
pick from, as populated by interesting planets that can't be all bad,
especially as of once upon a time (perhaps a good billion some odd
years ago) when their mother star was a bit more normal, like ours.

Even a well protected Venus like planet within the Sirius star/solar
system plus robust Oort cloud of icy and perhaps salty orbs must
exist, as viable ET/AI options for Sirius that are obviously beyond
the scope of anything we've come across, of perhaps weird planetology
as hosting a species of equally weird physiology having lesser
limitations than we humans have to put up with.

There's simply no good physics or science reasons as to why ETs have
to be nearly as dumb and dumber, of such carbon, h2o and salt
dependent as we pathetic humans that somehow via our terrestrial
evolution having lost most of those really nifty DNA/RNA codes.
However, even upon Earth there's actually a fairly wide range of
survival intelligent and otherwise highly complex life that survives
rather nicely where we humans simply can not without technical
assistance, if at all. Unfortunately, from start to finish, it's
looking as though our highly bigoted species of humanity isn't going
to survive much past the million year mark, so what's the difference?

Just pondering; how many times has Earth been reseeded?


What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?

A whole host of problems surrounds this idea, not to mention the
fact of metallicity, G2V, etc.

Sorry, wrong answer to the following question.
"What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?"


What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
having accommodated intelligent life?
-

Orbital period? Proximity to star? Constituent regolith?
Accessibility?

Sorry, wrong answer for that question. I'm asking for specifics of
planet/moon extremes that would essentially exclude ETs (including
us).

Stop asking those silly naysay loaded questions, and instead focus
upon answering those basic questions that I've posted.

BTW, once again I've had to reboot a couple of times, as per usual and/
or most likely due to all of the Zion spermware/****ware overload.
Sorry about all of that pesky delay. It seems the longer I can keep
my PC out of this GOOGLE/Usenet cesspool, the longer it'll run before
going postal (typically I'm good for next to forever, as long as I'm
not reading or posting anything Usenet). Damn those tricky Atheistic
Zions.
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 19, 8:32 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:34 am, American wrote:





On Jun 19, 11:41 am, Ian Parker wrote: On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth wrote:

Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?

A planet built by humans, for humans, as well as their life
support structures. Possibly all those pre-human ET's have
been coming and going for at least a few millennia, give or
take a few ice ages - and we think we're it? Yeah, right as
much as being in the transnationalist box we've created for
ourselves. Did youhear about the COMPANION PLANET
to GLIESE? THAT ONE has a better chance of supporting
LIFE (Perhaps BETTER than some would have us believe?)

see:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...r_super_e.html

That's true enough, that such a substantial red dwarf of a star that's
hosting at least a couple of bigger than Earth planets seems perfectly
ET/AI doable, and you'd think most likely of being somewhat older
intelligence than our terrestrial existence to boot. In fact, there
seems to be a fairly great number of such red dwarf or spent stars to
pick from, as populated by interesting planets that can't be all bad,
especially as of once upon a time (perhaps a good billion some odd
years ago) when their mother star was a bit more normal, like ours.


Why would the planets need to be bigger than Earth? What's the idea
with assuming the planets need to be more extreme? (See below)

Even a well protected Venus like planet within the Sirius star/solar
system plus robust Oort cloud of icy and perhaps salty orbs must
exist, as viable ET/AI options for Sirius that are obviously beyond
the scope of anything we've come across, of perhaps weird planetology
as hosting a species of equally weird physiology having lesser
limitations than we humans have to put up with.


Venus-like planets are not conducive to complex life, if to any life
at all. Have you ever noticed that most "extreme-surviving" organisms
on Earth are very simple? Doesn't that seem to suggest something?
Why didn't Venus in our solar system generate intelligent life?
HMM....

Also, whether or not a physiology has more or less "limitations"
depends on your perspective. Each is set up specifically for a certain
environment -- that's what evolution does. It makes the organism that
works good in that environment. Take it out of that, and bam, it isn't
as good anymore. If the physiology has less limits in some places than
we do, it will probably have MORE limits in other places that we
don't.
For example, a tiger is real strong, but it's brain is dumb. A bat has
excellent hearing yet it would be no match for the tiger. Unless you
have something to challenge decades of evidence and research on
evolutionary theory...

There's simply no good physics or science reasons as to why ETs have
to be nearly as dumb and dumber, of such carbon, h2o and salt
dependent as we pathetic humans that somehow via our terrestrial
evolution having lost most of those really nifty DNA/RNA codes.

Carbon, for one, is quite likely to play a significant role simply
because
it is the only element that really can do all the complex gymnastics
needed for life. This is due to PHYSICAL LAW. Quantum physics --
the physics that controls atomic and molecular phenomena -- descibes
how the rules of chemistry come about. Other candidates like silicon
just do not seem capable of the stuff carbon can do, making life based
on it, much less INTELLIGENT life, highly unlikely.

And water is the universal solvent -- it's hard to beat. Other
solvents
do not work as well in other places.

You have not mentioned why an alternative biochemical system would
be innately superior to the systems found on Earth.

All Earth life has been dependent on carbon and water since it's
inception. No codes were lost.

However, even upon Earth there's actually a fairly wide range of
survival intelligent and otherwise highly complex life that survives
rather nicely where we humans simply can not without technical
assistance, if at all.

Notice though that if you take them out of the environment they
adapted to, they don't do so well any more. Try putting a tiger
in the Arctic. Tell me if it lives. Each organism has it's own set
of advantages AND disadvantages. FACT.

Unfortunately, from start to finish, it's
looking as though our highly bigoted species of humanity isn't going
to survive much past the million year mark, so what's the difference?


Unless we change, which I believe is going to happen, and it's going
to happen well before that 1M year mark. Maybe you can help
make that change happen by not going and practicing such
bigotry yourself. It is society, not genetics, that is the main
reason for our civilization's problems -- and that can be
CHANGED.

Just pondering; how many times has Earth been reseeded?


? You're saying what, that all life went extinct completely, and then
new life came back again? Where's the proof of that?



What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?

A whole host of problems surrounds this idea, not to mention the
fact of metallicity, G2V, etc.

Sorry, wrong answer to the following question.
"What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?"


There isn't such a thing, strictly speaking. Evolution is determined
by the environment. If the planet is close in environment to Earth,
some things may occur there that might be similar to those on Earth
(but not the same, of course, as there's a large uncertain/"random"
component as well). But there would be nothing saying they _could
not happen_.



What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
having accommodated intelligent life?
-

Orbital period? Proximity to star? Constituent regolith?
Accessibility?

Sorry, wrong answer for that question. I'm asking for specifics of
planet/moon extremes that would essentially exclude ETs (including
us).


Venus. Mercury.

If you want to talk about surviving on them with technology, you have
to remember technology was developed AFTER we evolved, it wasn't
already there for us to go and pick up. So then you still need a
reasonably Earthlike environment to start with for that initial
evolution.

It may not be _impossible_ for such evolution on a more "extreme"
world but it is very, very, very, very unlikely.

Stop asking those silly naysay loaded questions, and instead focus
upon answering those basic questions that I've posted.

BTW, once again I've had to reboot a couple of times, as per usual and/
or most likely due to all of the Zion spermware/****ware overload.
Sorry about all of that pesky delay. It seems the longer I can keep
my PC out of this GOOGLE/Usenet cesspool, the longer it'll run before
going postal (typically I'm good for next to forever, as long as I'm
not reading or posting anything Usenet). Damn those tricky Atheistic
Zions.

Atheistic Zions? I thought that Zionism was based around a THEISTIC
religion? Mmmm?

-
Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 12:53 pm, mike3 wrote:
On Jun 19, 8:32 pm, BradGuth wrote:





On Jun 19, 11:34 am, American wrote:

On Jun 19, 11:41 am, Ian Parker wrote: On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth wrote:

Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?

A planet built by humans, for humans, as well as their life
support structures. Possibly all those pre-human ET's have
been coming and going for at least a few millennia, give or
take a few ice ages - and we think we're it? Yeah, right as
much as being in the transnationalist box we've created for
ourselves. Did youhear about the COMPANION PLANET
to GLIESE? THAT ONE has a better chance of supporting
LIFE (Perhaps BETTER than some would have us believe?)

see:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...r_super_e.html

That's true enough, that such a substantial red dwarf of a star that's
hosting at least a couple of bigger than Earth planets seems perfectly
ET/AI doable, and you'd think most likely of being somewhat older
intelligence than our terrestrial existence to boot. In fact, there
seems to be a fairly great number of such red dwarf or spent stars to
pick from, as populated by interesting planets that can't be all bad,
especially as of once upon a time (perhaps a good billion some odd
years ago) when their mother star was a bit more normal, like ours.

Why would the planets need to be bigger than Earth? What's the idea
with assuming the planets need to be more extreme? (See below)

Even a well protected Venus like planet within the Sirius star/solar
system plus robust Oort cloud of icy and perhaps salty orbs must
exist, as viable ET/AI options for Sirius that are obviously beyond
the scope of anything we've come across, of perhaps weird planetology
as hosting a species of equally weird physiology having lesser
limitations than we humans have to put up with.

Venus-like planets are not conducive to complex life, if to any life
at all. Have you ever noticed that most "extreme-surviving" organisms
on Earth are very simple? Doesn't that seem to suggest something?
Why didn't Venus in our solar system generate intelligent life?
HMM....

Also, whether or not a physiology has more or less "limitations"
depends on your perspective. Each is set up specifically for a certain
environment -- that's what evolution does. It makes the organism that
works good in that environment. Take it out of that, and bam, it isn't
as good anymore. If the physiology has less limits in some places than
we do, it will probably have MORE limits in other places that we
don't.
For example, a tiger is real strong, but it's brain is dumb. A bat has
excellent hearing yet it would be no match for the tiger. Unless you
have something to challenge decades of evidence and research on
evolutionary theory...

There's simply no good physics or science reasons as to why ETs have
to be nearly as dumb and dumber, of such carbon, h2o and salt
dependent as we pathetic humans that somehow via our terrestrial
evolution having lost most of those really nifty DNA/RNA codes.

Carbon, for one, is quite likely to play a significant role simply
because
it is the only element that really can do all the complex gymnastics
needed for life. This is due to PHYSICAL LAW. Quantum physics --
the physics that controls atomic and molecular phenomena -- descibes
how the rules of chemistry come about. Other candidates like silicon
just do not seem capable of the stuff carbon can do, making life based
on it, much less INTELLIGENT life, highly unlikely.

And water is the universal solvent -- it's hard to beat. Other
solvents
do not work as well in other places.

You have not mentioned why an alternative biochemical system would
be innately superior to the systems found on Earth.

All Earth life has been dependent on carbon and water since it's
inception. No codes were lost.

However, even upon Earth there's actually a fairly wide range of
survival intelligent and otherwise highly complex life that survives
rather nicely where we humans simply can not without technical
assistance, if at all.

Notice though that if you take them out of the environment they
adapted to, they don't do so well any more. Try putting a tiger
in the Arctic. Tell me if it lives. Each organism has it's own set
of advantages AND disadvantages. FACT.

Unfortunately, from start to finish, it's
looking as though our highly bigoted species of humanity isn't going
to survive much past the million year mark, so what's the difference?

Unless we change, which I believe is going to happen, and it's going
to happen well before that 1M year mark. Maybe you can help
make that change happen by not going and practicing such
bigotry yourself. It is society, not genetics, that is the main
reason for our civilization's problems -- and that can be
CHANGED.

Just pondering; how many times has Earth been reseeded?

? You're saying what, that all life went extinct completely, and then
new life came back again? Where's the proof of that?



What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?

A whole host of problems surrounds this idea, not to mention the
fact of metallicity, G2V, etc.

Sorry, wrong answer to the following question.
"What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?"

There isn't such a thing, strictly speaking. Evolution is determined
by the environment. If the planet is close in environment to Earth,
some things may occur there that might be similar to those on Earth
(but not the same, of course, as there's a large uncertain/"random"
component as well). But there would be nothing saying they _could
not happen_.



What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
having accommodated intelligent life?
-

Orbital period? Proximity to star? Constituent regolith?
Accessibility?

Sorry, wrong answer for that question. I'm asking for specifics of
planet/moon extremes that would essentially exclude ETs (including
us).

Venus. Mercury.

If you want to talk about surviving on them with technology, you have
to remember technology was developed AFTER we evolved, it wasn't
already there for us to go and pick up. So then you still need a
reasonably Earthlike environment to start with for that initial
evolution.

It may not be _impossible_ for such evolution on a more "extreme"
world but it is very, very, very, very unlikely.

Stop asking those silly naysay loaded questions, and instead focus
upon answering those basic questions that I've posted.

BTW, once again I've had to reboot a couple of times, as per usual and/
or most likely due to all of the Zion spermware/****ware overload.
Sorry about all of that pesky delay. It seems the longer I can keep
my PC out of this GOOGLE/Usenet cesspool, the longer it'll run before
going postal (typically I'm good for next to forever, as long as I'm
not reading or posting anything Usenet). Damn those tricky Atheistic
Zions.

Atheistic Zions? I thought that Zionism was based around a THEISTIC
religion? Mmmm?



-
Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can see that you're pretty much stuck rather deeply within that
pesky naysayism mode, much like all the other Usenet bigots that claim
to know all there is to know, and then some.

Do you always exclude the regular laws of physics and of whatever
applied technology whenever something rocks your good ship LOLLIPOP?

How about a good 36 look per pixel worth of a radar image; are you
still going to exclued such deductive observationology if there's
anything the least bit artificial looking?

ETs that are most likely smarter than us are alive and kicking, with
some of those ETs residing on Venus. That's not a sick joke like
Muslim WMD, folks.

The institutional grade of such a faith-based naysayism swarm of a
mindset, such as this GOOGLE/NOVA anti-think-tank Usenet from Zion
hell on Earth, is nearly all Zionism orchestrated from start to
finish, with a few other pesky faith-based cults (including that most
popular fence jumping faith of Atheism) picking up the rear (meaning
as usenet's official Zion pooper scoopers).

For a perfectly good example of what's technically doable:
With unlimited local energy (how many spare teraWatts would you folks
like?); as such we could hold the future of our Winter Olympics on
Venus, and then some.

What's all that insurmountable when there's such unlimited and
otherwise 100% renewable energy that's already there to behold?

Did each of you silly naysay folks entirely miss out on obtaining your
doctorate degree of physics-duh-101?

BTW, if I were every bit as incest dumbfounded and otherwise as naysay
snookered to death as yourself, as such I would not try using the
likes of any standard PC on Venus, although within the cool as you
like composite rigid airship, or much less our extremely cool POOF
City at VL2, isn't imposing any problem whatsoever.

Have any of you rusemasters of such profound naysayism ever heard of
the cold cathode vacuume tube? It seems they can be made extremely
small, obviously energy efficient and good for perhaps better than
twice whatever that Venusian environment has to share. That cold
cathode has a 1600 year half life to boot.

There's almost no limits as to the structural byouancy derived as
hauling capacity of our composite rigid airship, as well as such a
robust craft offering lots of internal volume of cooled habitat to
spare. (no shortages of ice cold beer on this mission)

Of locally produced thermal insulation, that's also every bit as
structural as you'd like to make it, is clearly not the least bit
insurmountable of such a local product of basalt obtaining R256/m, or
even as good as R1024/m.
-
Brad Guth

In article . com,
mike3 wrote:

Carbon, for one, is quite likely to play a significant role simply
because
it is the only element that really can do all the complex gymnastics
needed for life. This is due to PHYSICAL LAW. Quantum physics --
the physics that controls atomic and molecular phenomena -- descibes
how the rules of chemistry come about. Other candidates like silicon
just do not seem capable of the stuff carbon can do, making life based
on it, much less INTELLIGENT life, highly unlikely.

And water is the universal solvent -- it's hard to beat. Other
solvents do not work as well in other places.

To be fair, our view of this may be biased by our own experience (and in
particular, with what passes for "room temperature" on our planet.
There's probably a lot of chemistry that takes place at much colder or
hotter temperatures that we've barely scratched the surface of, in
comparison, simply because we only encounter those conditions in the lab
rather than being immersed in them every day for all of history.

So, I remain agnostic on whether there are other chemistries that can
support life as well as carbon and water.

Unfortunately, from start to finish, it's
looking as though our highly bigoted species of humanity isn't going
to survive much past the million year mark, so what's the difference?

Unless we change, which I believe is going to happen, and it's going
to happen well before that 1M year mark. Maybe you can help
make that change happen by not going and practicing such
bigotry yourself. It is society, not genetics, that is the main
reason for our civilization's problems -- and that can be
CHANGED.

Indeed -- a good definition of "civilization" is a set of organisms
where cultural evolution far outpaces genetic evolution.

Cheers,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

On Jun 19, 8:41 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 19 Jun, 16:14, BradGuth wrote:

Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?

What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?

What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
having accommodated intelligent life?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

None. What stops them being on earth is the Internet. You cannot
travel FTL. If you make an interstellar journey it will have
sophisticated AI. Where is all human life? Where is the human genome
stored? Radio reloj (in Britain) will be dead by 2012, where are the
TV programs? Where are there nice juicy murders that will give us
insight into life on Earth? Where are academic papers increasingly
being published?

ET can also speak for himself. Being AI he will speak multilingually.
My argument against ET is best summed up be "?Puerde leer en
espagnol?". Hence what we say is absolutely irrelevant. It will either
be pooh poohed or ET/AI will give an expositioon.

- Ian Parker

I'd agree that most any other planet or moon is technically doable,
especially for a smart ET/AI that knows enough how to safely get to/
from such places.

FTL isn't required (though 0.5'c' might be rather nice), and otherwise
being less smart than us humans should be more than sufficient for all
sorts of ETs to exist/coexist, including some of the bad or defective
ones that got put here on Earth.

However, if you were a smart ET/AI, as such how much distance would
you keep yourself and others of your kind away from Earth?
-
Brad Guth

On 19 Jun, 22:15, BradGuth wrote:

FTL isn't required (though 0.5'c' might be rather nice), and otherwise
being less smart than us humans should be more than sufficient for all
sorts of ETs to exist/coexist, including some of the bad or defective
ones that got put here on Earth.

However, if you were a smart ET/AI, as such how much distance would
you keep yourself and others of your kind away from Earth?
-
Look - the question is NOT is interstellar travel possible. In fact c/
2 is my design speed for a laser accelerated probe. That is NOT what
divides us. The question is not - Is is possible for ET to get here?
The answer must be "Yes". The question is is there any evidence that
ET is here?

We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on
the Web. We are looking at the consequences which are quite literally
mind boggling. If I were to land on a planet going roung some distant
star and there was an Internet, the first thing I would do would be
put intelligence onto it and this intelligence would produce a
synopsis of all life for me.

We know that television appearances in effect selects the President.
If ET is embedded deeply into the Web he will be in a position to make
or break presidents. This is going to become more and more true in the
future when RSS feeds replace analogue television (Radio Reloj I
called it in the SETI discussions). We are replacing analogue
television at a rate of knots and if there is any truth in ET it means
that we are not masters of our destiny.

I don't know either why someone with a pseudonym of "American" seems
to think we have been visited regularly. This being the case all the
military hardware built up by the US is just so much junk. What will
be decisive for the world is the information we are presented with.
This will come from ET. ET will select what is in and not in our RSS
feeds.

There is no evidence I can discern that the Web does contain AI, so
the above is academic. At least I hope it is! There is no evidence of
disinformation - at least not on the ET side. There is evidence of
disinformation from people who do not want to know the truth. This
does in fact make me cross. The people though are emphatically Terran.

The phrase I use "?Puerde leer en espagnol?" I think expresses this.
What would you expect from a message from ET? Well perhaps not little
green ET but a Web manifesation of AI. Well it would be multilingual.
It would be expressed in a number of languages in a slightly different
form.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:
:We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on
:the Web.
:

Not if we're sane we're not.

:
:We know that television appearances in effect selects the President.
:

Nope. We don't know any such thing.

:
:We are replacing analogue
:television at a rate of knots ...
:

???


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn