Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

Einar wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Matt Giwer wrote:

Somehow I am missing the connection to the paradox. It appears to lie solely
in the assumption that if there is no moon event the planet will be all ocean.
That does not compute unless we can explain the disappearance of the moon of
Venus.
We can; Venus is too hot to have liquid water.

But the case for the Moon being responsible for continents is made
pretty convincingly in the book Rare Earth. IIRC, it basically goes
like this: without the impact event that blasted much of the Earth's
crust into orbit (forming the Moon), our crust would be too thick to
support plate tectonics (just like Venus, I think). So they would end
up a very uniform thickness, and the only mountains that would form
would be from volcanoes, and these would quickly be eroded back down,
leaving a uniform planet-spanning ocean. It's only because our crust is
so thin that we can have tectonics and enough variation to produce
continents and oceans.

Hm. I'm not explaining this very well, but check out the book, it
spends a chapter or two on this topic.

Best,
- Joe

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

Hmm, plate tectonics does perform a pretty effective recycling of
materials. That means theyr availabilty is maintained for processes
abow ground. I have also heard speculations about effects of water
being present in the crust, about the precense of life and what
effects it may have on the crust.

It appears though certain that plate tectonics help the Earth staying
livable. Our planet really looks like an extremelly far out outlyer
variable.

The more unique characteristics of a planet you consider the more of an outlier
it appears to be. But none of those apply to life on land which we assume is a
prerequisite to visiting us.

Recycling sounds like something interesting but since the issue is life on land
how much dry land has been recycled since then? And I know of no variation in
land biomass based upon who long since the last "recycle." In other words, no
connection.

--
Republicans are more interested in protecting the president than the troops.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3839
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7

On 4 Aug, 06:37, Matt Giwer wrote:

A joke because once you introduce intelligent intervention anything is
possible. But this might be the general answer. As there is no credible natural
answer for the paradox then it has to be intelligent intervention.

I would be thinking in terms of s simulation.

The other explanation is much simpler. If 1/10th of 1% of UFO sightings are
really aliens then earth is a quite popular destination as there are so many
sightings.

ET in the form of UFO sightings is completely impossible. The sort of
ET spaceship we saw was in fact 1950's SF. real ET spaceships would be
very small and the exploration would be done by nanotech.
--

- Ian Parker

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:34:59 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On 4 Aug, 06:37, Matt Giwer wrote:

A joke because once you introduce intelligent intervention anything is
possible. But this might be the general answer. As there is no credible natural
answer for the paradox then it has to be intelligent intervention.

I would be thinking in terms of s simulation.

The other explanation is much simpler. If 1/10th of 1% of UFO sightings are
really aliens then earth is a quite popular destination as there are so many
sightings.

ET in the form of UFO sightings is completely impossible. The sort of
ET spaceship we saw was in fact 1950's SF. real ET spaceships would be
very small and the exploration would be done by nanotech.

Yes, because Ian says so...

Ian Parker wrote:

:
:ET in the form of UFO sightings is completely impossible. The sort of
:ET spaceship we saw was in fact 1950's SF. real ET spaceships would be
:very small and the exploration would be done by nanotech.
:

Why? Just because you say so?


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

In article ,
Matt Giwer wrote:

The more unique characteristics of a planet you consider the more of an
outlier it appears to be. But none of those apply to life on land which
we assume is a prerequisite to visiting us.

You don't know that. To take the point in this thread: without plate
tectonics, you get no land at all. Makes it a bit hard to get life on
land.

Best,
- Joe

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

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Matt Giwer wrote:
The more unique characteristics of a planet you consider the more of an
outlier it appears to be. But none of those apply to life on land which
we assume is a prerequisite to visiting us.

You don't know that. To take the point in this thread: without plate
tectonics, you get no land at all. Makes it a bit hard to get life on
land.

Of course we cannot know that. With a sample size of one we can't know anything.

The problem is simply no one has come up with a way to start a technological
culture in the sea. And short of teleportation by will alone we have no idea how
to leave a planet. Of course if anything is possible then in a universe this
size everything does happen and we have worse than Fermi's paradox.

--
The Iraqi government has not prosecuted a single Iraqi for killing American
troops. At least the government supports its citizens.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3832
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

Ian Parker wrote:
On 4 Aug, 06:37, Matt Giwer wrote:
A joke because once you introduce intelligent intervention anything is
possible. But this might be the general answer. As there is no credible natural
answer for the paradox then it has to be intelligent intervention.

I would be thinking in terms of s simulation.

If a simulation is complete enough what separates a simulation from real?

The other explanation is much simpler. If 1/10th of 1% of UFO sightings are
really aliens then earth is a quite popular destination as there are so many
sightings.

ET in the form of UFO sightings is completely impossible. The sort of
ET spaceship we saw was in fact 1950's SF. real ET spaceships would be
very small and the exploration would be done by nanotech.

There we go with that impossible thing again.

But taking it to its logical conclusion the exploration is done by things that
are never seen and therefore we cannot distinguish between their presence and
absence. Therefore we cannot know if there is a paradox at all; the paradox of
Fermi's paradox.

But as for being seen, I agree it is strange to not be able to keep from being
observed even if bigger than an aircraft carrier. However the teenagers can't be
stopped from using the family saucer to terrorize the natives. You know how kids
are.

On the third claw, why bother not being seen when there are a thousand
sightings of natural phenomena for each real sighting? It won't matter and will
just add to the confusion.

--
The Great Wall of Palestine soon to be a world wonder.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3835
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org

On 5 Aug, 05:33, Matt Giwer wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
On 4 Aug, 06:37, Matt Giwer wrote:
A joke because once you introduce intelligent intervention anything is
possible. But this might be the general answer. As there is no credible natural
answer for the paradox then it has to be intelligent intervention.
I would be thinking in terms of s simulation.

If a simulation is complete enough what separates a simulation from real?

The other explanation is much simpler. If 1/10th of 1% of UFO sightings are
really aliens then earth is a quite popular destination as there are so many
sightings.
ET in the form of UFO sightings is completely impossible. The sort of
ET spaceship we saw was in fact 1950's SF. real ET spaceships would be
very small and the exploration would be done by nanotech.

There we go with that impossible thing again.

But taking it to its logical conclusion the exploration is done by things that
are never seen and therefore we cannot distinguish between their presence and
absence. Therefore we cannot know if there is a paradox at all; the paradox of
Fermi's paradox.

But as for being seen, I agree it is strange to not be able to keep from being
observed even if bigger than an aircraft carrier. However the teenagers can't be
stopped from using the family saucer to terrorize the natives. You know how kids
are.

On the third claw, why bother not being seen when there are a thousand
sightings of natural phenomena for each real sighting? It won't matter and will
just add to the confusion.

I suppose it is possible, just, that ET has vistited us and is in fact
hiding. That some of the dragonflies we say are in fact ET or more
accurately a part of ET. Just possible - but I do not think so. You
see ET would have come here for some sort of reason, and I think if ET
had really been here we would know about it. Anyway Occam's razor
explanation is simply no ET.

Rand Simberg and Fred Mc Call simply refuse to think rationally.
Intersellar travel can be effected using a Von Neumann probe. It
cannot be done any other way. FTL is impossible.

I don't just say things, I look at the way human technology is moving.
ET technology will have traversed a similar route to the one we are
traversing. This is my central assumption. To me it is the only
assumption worth making. If technology on ET planet has moved any
other way an explanation of why terrestrial technology has taken the
route it has is clearly called for.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/a...ml?printable=1

If ET has developed molecular memories. DNA (400 MB on a sperm or ova)
this would give an initial weight of a gram of less for a VN probe.
This is a matter of pure maths. I am not just saying it. It would seem
inconceivable to me that an interstellar flight would begin without
such technology.

About Fred and Rand - I wonder one thing. Are they professional
disinformers? Is there a reason why we should believe in UFOs in the
1950s sense. Are real UFOs black aircraft for which ET is a cover? It
would all fit. I can't of course prove it. I can only prove that ET
based UFOs cannot exist. I can't say what else does.

Rand & fred. The Fermi paradox is far too serious a scirentific
question for the likes of you to muddy the water.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:
:Rand Simberg and Fred Mc Call simply refuse to think rationally.
:

This is quite funny, coming from the guy who insists that ONLY an AI
probe is possible.

:
:Intersellar travel can be effected using a Von Neumann probe.
:

Perhaps, if your alien wants to go that way. But why would they
bother if they're not eventually going themselves?

:
:It cannot be done any other way.
:

Horse manure. Speaking of "think rationally", I keep asking you WHY
you claim "it cannot be done any other way" and all that ever comes
back is silly assertion and insult.

:
:FTL is impossible.
:

Even if true, so what?

:
:I don't just say things, I look at the way human technology is moving.
:

No, you look at the way you fantasize that human technology would be
moving if it matched your delusions.

:
:ET technology will have traversed a similar route to the one we are
:traversing. This is my central assumption. To me it is the only
:assumption worth making. If technology on ET planet has moved any
ther way an explanation of why terrestrial technology has taken the
:route it has is clearly called for.
:

This only works if you assume that your hypothetical alien is pretty
much identical to us in environment, intellect, and character.

:
:http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/a...ml?printable=1
:

I'm not sure what your point is with this cite.

:
:If ET has developed molecular memories. DNA (400 MB on a sperm or ova)
:this would give an initial weight of a gram of less for a VN probe.
:This is a matter of pure maths. I am not just saying it. It would seem
:inconceivable to me that an interstellar flight would begin without
:such technology.
:

Why?

:
:About Fred and Rand - I wonder one thing. Are they professional
:disinformers? Is there a reason why we should believe in UFOs in the
:1950s sense. Are real UFOs black aircraft for which ET is a cover? It
:would all fit.
:

But that would mean that Rand and I must be ETs trying to cover up,
which would sort of explode your silly myth that only AI toasters
could make the trip.

:
:I can't of course prove it. I can only prove that ET
:based UFOs cannot exist. I can't say what else does.
:

No, you cannot prove that ET based UFOs cannot exist. All you do is
assert it without proof.

Do you understand what 'proof' means, Ian?

:
:Rand & fred. The Fermi paradox is far too serious a scirentific
:question for the likes of you to muddy the water.
:

The Fermi Paradox has nothing to do with all the blather that comes
before.

If you want to discuss the Fermi Paradox, let me ask you a question
that is germane to that issue. If ETs exist, why haven't we already
detected them via radio?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Ian Parker wrote:
....
I suppose it is possible, just, that ET has vistited us and is in fact
hiding. That some of the dragonflies we say are in fact ET or more
accurately a part of ET. Just possible - but I do not think so. You
see ET would have come here for some sort of reason, and I think if ET
had really been here we would know about it. Anyway Occam's razor
explanation is simply no ET.

With a sample size of one we can know nothing. With a sample size of one we
have zero idea of probabilities or possibilities. As the vulgar say, we don't
know jack.

Rand Simberg and Fred Mc Call simply refuse to think rationally.
Intersellar travel can be effected using a Von Neumann probe. It
cannot be done any other way. FTL is impossible.

I do not speak for anyone else. As to FTL being impossible, who told you that
and why did you believe them? Within special relativity there are several ideas
on how to do it which are merely grossly impractical to test at the moment. And
then who said SR is right? And as there is no general solution to the
formulations of General Relativity it might be already discovered simply not
solved as yet.

I don't just say things, I look at the way human technology is moving.
ET technology will have traversed a similar route to the one we are
traversing. This is my central assumption. To me it is the only
assumption worth making. If technology on ET planet has moved any
other way an explanation of why terrestrial technology has taken the
route it has is clearly called for.

Why would you require an explanation for a sample size of one?

As to how human technology is moving, I can see one line of thought in that but
without disease being the punishment of god the biological revolution could have
easily preceded the industrial revolution and that would put us in a much
different place than we are today.

If you want might have beens, assuming all else being equal a shift in gun
technology by a mere twenty years faster or slower would change the entire
character of the American Civil War as well as WWI and thus WWII. There is
nothing inherently preventing such a minor shift.

If ET has developed molecular memories. DNA (400 MB on a sperm or ova)
this would give an initial weight of a gram of less for a VN probe.
This is a matter of pure maths. I am not just saying it. It would seem
inconceivable to me that an interstellar flight would begin without
such technology.

Which is the paradox of the paradox. If we assume that we cannot say there is a
Fermi paradox.

About Fred and Rand - I wonder one thing. Are they professional
disinformers? Is there a reason why we should believe in UFOs in the
1950s sense. Are real UFOs black aircraft for which ET is a cover? It
would all fit. I can't of course prove it. I can only prove that ET
based UFOs cannot exist. I can't say what else does.

I am not aware anyone who has seriously considered the possibility of ET
visiting who is stuck in the 1950s which were little different from War of the
Worlds. There are still kids around but we don't take them seriously. I have
considered it from the mid-50s before I heard of puberty and I haven't thought
so simply since then.

Rand & fred. The Fermi paradox is far too serious a scirentific
question for the likes of you to muddy the water.

If by that you mean it do not leave it in the simplest and earliest form and
likely not the way Fermi meant it in the first place, remember it is only
someone saying what he remembers Fermi saying, then I admit to muddying the water.

However there is no water to muddy as this is a discussion of the idea not of a
particular formulation of the idea. If you want to discuss what someone remember
Fermi saying that is worthy of a separate thread that everyone taking this
seriously can ignore.

--
An entire cool summer is trumped by a warm day in January if you are a
global melter.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3836
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4