Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.
....

I don't mean to rain on parades here but a lot of this is based upon the most
American myth of a human impulse to explore the unknown. It is a wonderful myth.
It inspires. But there is not a single example of it.

If there were such a thing why, after the Louisiana Purchase, did Jefferson had
to pay people to explore it instead of just interviewing those who had indulged
the exploration impulse to explore it on their own?

The origin of the myth is Columbus while ignoring it was for profit. Everyone
who followed him was for profit. All the exploration of the Americas was for
profit. All the European exploration of the world was for profit.

The space race was not an impulse to explore but in fact a race of national pride.

To bring it all back home, why does S@H exist if the natural impulse of the
human race is to do it without a private project? We should see people buying
computers just to participate in S@H. We should not have seen the US gov search
canceled for lack of interest.

While there is obviously nothing preventing an alien species from embodying a
human myth I suggest it is as likely as embodying any other human myth. There
really may be an alien species plagued with vampires or witches or zombies.
However I doubt it on grounds it does not pass the giggle test. I can accept
rational variations based upon what we know of life but not pre-scientific
imaginings. [Sidebar: The modern idea of zombies is post-scientific so be warned
even if it sounds scientific.]

As to exploring as a kid I was ready to sign up for the first generation ship
to the stars which I was sure I would see. Some time in my twenties I would have
declined more than a one year mission to any place. Reality comes crashing
unless the pay is outstanding. So much for exploration.

--
Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Bush have all
tricked the US into war. Why do people resist the facts?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3844
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

On 6 Aug, 10:20, Matt Giwer wrote:
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.

Every civilization is confronted with identical technological
challenges. If we can build 0.15 micron chips they can be built on
Alpha Centauri, If our technology is moving to molecular memories ET
is sure to have them (bearing in mind existence at all!). Yes we can
make reasonable deductions.

It is clear to me that the Area 51 legends are 1950's SF. They cannot
be anything else. Either ET is flying tiny robotic spacecraft or he is
not flying at all. These are the only two possibilities that remotely
pass logic.

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.

If you travel FTL you must postulate a favored frame of reference. In
terms of General Relativilty solutions to the equations are possible
which are not physical. Let us take a particle. Let it travel FTL, in
onr FOR. In another FOR it is going backwards in time. We thus have a
situation where we are sending a particle and it is arriving back
before it was sent. We can always do this by adjusting FOR. This is
independent of technology, warp drive (warped where?) or wormholes. We
can postulate two wormholes each travelling at a different speed.

Contradictions like this are resolved in Elementary Particle Physics
by the use of Feynmann diagrams. Elemetary Particle Physics is a very
bootstrap like discipline. You have quarks, there are 3 quarks to a
baryon. There are guage particles that quarks exchange. A quark is in
fact more massive than a baryon, but 3 quarks weigh less than 1
because of E = Mc^2. When we construct a Feynmann diagram for an FTL
transaction we find that the mass of a particle becomes infinite.

I tend to believe this would be inflationary. Just as a free quark
will give rise to one or more baryons so this particle would give rise
to many other particles.

To achieve warp/wormholes we need negative mass. Negative mass was
thought (in inflationary theories) to have been present at the big
bang where matter inflated. Either we can't get negative mass or if we
do it would be incredibly unstable. It is after all the stuff of
Inflation.

If we have FTL particles "tachyons", they are possible, whether they
exist is an open question, but if they do they are subject to Cosmic
Censorship. They cannot be used for routine signalling.



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?

Because that sample tells us the technological possibilities.

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.

Interesting but wrong. Katrina (and 9/11 as well) was considered by
the likes of Pat Robertson and Gerry Falwell to be the punishment of
God. One interesting point I am reminded of here. One thing that has
been discussed in this usergroup has been a sunshield to prevent
global warming. If you put it at the Lagrange point it is not
flexable. If hovever you are at MEO you could in fact think in terms
of controlling hurricanes. After all hurricanes are chaos. What is
chaos? It is to do with the eigenvalues of the system. Chaos happens
when we have positive eigenvalues that can grow. Damp them down and
there is no hurricane. Diffiicult, but not impossible.

All civilizations, whatever their religious beliefs have given a high
priority to the advance of medical science. In effect the medical
profession have always told the religious leaders to "go to Hell" if
that isn't too much of a pun.

Rate these 3 things. Sanitation/sewerage, Anathesia or DNA. Which of
those was more important. The general public says "sanitation", the
medical profession says "anathesia" and scientists say DNA. To build a
sewerage system you need industrialisation. Anathesia requires a good
knowlege of chenistry. DNA promises not only a revolution in disease
control, but also better mineral extraction, perhaps even a role in
producing hydrogen from sunlight.

Could a civilization have developed genetic enginnering before it
developed deep mining. Good SF, but I doubt it.

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.

The wars might not have taken place at all.

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.

Why not? This rechnology is perfectly possible to develop.

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.

What I am alluding to is this. ET spaceships of whatever vintage are a
good cover for black flight. In fact when a stealth bomber was seen
over Phoenix the Pentagon pulled out all the stops and produced an ET
mannikin. This is what I am talking about. We need to discuss the
Fermi Paradox without the Pentagon flying steath bombers and blaming
ET.

- Ian Parker

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:38:32 -0400, in a place far, far away, Matt
Giwer made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.
...

I don't mean to rain on parades here but a lot of this is based upon the most
American myth of a human impulse to explore the unknown. It is a wonderful myth.
It inspires. But there is not a single example of it.

If there were such a thing why, after the Louisiana Purchase, did Jefferson had
to pay people to explore it instead of just interviewing those who had indulged
the exploration impulse to explore it on their own?

He didn't have to. He chose to, so that he could get a good report.
Many people were exploring the west on their own at the time and
shortly after. They were called mountain men.

Matt Giwer wrote:
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

Think about it, carbon dioxide has a tendency to react with materials
and form carbonated rock. Oxygen also forms great many combounds with
materials. The resycling which occurs melts old rock and released its
constituent parts back into athmophere, back into nature. This aspect
may be really important.

Cheers, Einar

Matt Giwer 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.

So it has gaseous water. If comets delivered it, what is there to selectively
take it away and not all gases? If earth were that temperature H2O would be
around 99% (a guess) of the atmosphere with the rest as trace gases. A guess
because there is a question if it would be gaseous at the resulting pressure at
Venus temperature.

snip

Remember the Sun has been gradually heating up right since it began
burning. That means it was considerably cooler 3.5 billion years ago,
which means Venus probably had oceans and raincloads like the Earth
today. At some unknown point in the past, the Sun´s gradual and
inexorable heating caused the temperature of Venus' athmospheric
temperatures to exceed some critical threshold. A runaway greenhouse
effect began, the oceans boiled away, the water was lost into space
what remains is immenselly thick mostly carbon dioxide athmosphere and
very, very warm.

Cheers, Einar

Matt Giwer wrote:
Einar wrote:
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.
If Venus had had the same amount of water as earth, and there is little way to
explain a significantly different amount, there should be enough water vapor in
its atmosphere to 9000psi (600 At.) of pressure on the surface. But last I heard
there is negligible water in the atmosphere and clearly no such pressure.

We have no idea if there is a minimum amount of ocean needed to approximate an
ecology like our own however it appears reasonable that all else being equal the
amount of rainfall is proportional to the evaporative surface of the oceans. It
also follows as a reasonable assumption (but which cannot be supported in the
least, that the more life the faster evolution but we are not in a rush so a few
extra billion years does not matter.

However surface area only would be a factor in rainfall. Depth would not be. So
without a moon and nothing lost there is nothing prohibiting large and shallow
seas. The South China Sea with a depth averaging over a few hundred feet has all
the characteristics of any other ocean save it is warming at all depths. This
would speed evolution among the cold bloods.

Tectonic forces would still raise mountains and and volcanoes broad expanses
like the Deccan Plains. As long as the planet is large enough there is no reason
to suggest plates would not form and move. The only different would be the
longevity of the created land above the surface. Given Earth we find old and new
mountains in proximity such as in the US so we can expect there would always be
dry land. So maybe a world with shallow seas needs also have greater tectonic
activity requiring a somewhat more massive planet and the world average being
more like Japan. So maybe the funny thing about ET is if the ground shakes he
curls into a ball.

Am I missing something?

--
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
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

Venus has no plate tectonics. However, it might if it had oceans.

Maybe I missed that too but I thought plates moved because of convection
current in the mantle.

I think it´s believed Venus' oceans evaporated, once the Sun warmed
up, and that the water left the planet altogether being blown away
into space. What remains is possibly the most hostile to life plase in
the solar system.

I see no way for water to preferentially be removed as at that temperature was
is a gas like any other.

--

It´s a mistery actually how plate tectonism began on Earth. As water
is present in great amounts in the crust, it has been suggested that
it sort of acts like a grease on the plater, lowering the threshold
where bounds between rock brake apart.

It´s believed that water left Venus and was blown into space. Look it
up.

Einar

Matt Giwer wrote:
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

Would they wonder at all about the universe if they wouldn´t be able
to observe it from underneath the waves?

Cheers, Einar

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?

Excellent dilemma which was explored in the Matrix trilogy.

If we are part of some sort of a computersimulation and God is about
to unplug the thing


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.

He is extrapolating a bit to far with his idea that aliens would have
recorded themselves into some sort of a data-from. There is really no
way to know, but if recordings of a self are possible, it sounds
logical that aliens would. However that is by no means certain, it may
prove impossible or alternativelly the alien´s religion might have
banned such recordings of a self. For whatever it´s worth, an alien
generation ship would be entirelly possible. It could be, for all what
we know, be mascerading as an asteroid in the asteroid belt.

However, in like manner as the hypotheses about God, the alien
hypotheses remains completelly untestable. That does not necessarilly
make it rubbish, as after all both could be true, even both at the
same time, but they really are completelly untestable.

Cheers, Einar

Ian Parker wrote:
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

Common, it´s far to early to assert anything like that about
spacetravel. For all what we know, it´s possible to develope a
reliable freesing process so that aliens or for that we could travel
for eons frosen to be woken by our computers on arrival in a new
system.

Cheers, Einar

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

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?

If I reply to that one, it might be because they don´t use radio.
Personally I have never quite bought the argument that radio is the
most convenient technological communication method in all of
exchistence.

This is one of those question we probably have to accept to be an
unknown. Aliens might be out there, they might not. Our assumptions on
theyr behavior based on what we would do could all be false.

Cheers, Einar