First Contact

EarthWolf · 2004-07-22 09:47:17

Hello,

Recently, I've seen a History Channel program that talked about the possible first contact protocols developed by governments and private groups. I'd like to know what you folks think would be a good first contact procedure, assuming that an alien civilization would send an embassy team to Earth in the near future.

Cordially,

EarthWolf

bolbuyk · 2004-08-05 11:57:33

I don't think our procedure will matter, when they are able to come to us, they will also have their procedure. There are yet stories about UFO with capture's and so on, difficult to verify. Yet I don't think our procedure will matter. We have to choose to go to them or to run away. I think it doesn't matter much we do the one or the other.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-05 12:58:12

Something friendly and mildly awestruck, with very subtle hints that we're a real pain in the ass to deal with when pissed off.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 13:15:08

Something friendly and mildly awestruck, with very subtle hints that we're a real pain in the ass to deal with when pissed off.

Good advice for a first date, as well.

Gennaro · 2004-08-05 16:53:38

When we get our infermometers up we will see them. Methane.

(Actually, I should be responding to Morris in the Mars revitalizing Earth thread, but unfortunately, I'm too busy to bother with Roman history right now.)

srmeaney · 2005-07-22 15:56:43

String theory is a natural progression to a certain technological point. Matter is made up of strings.
Strings are possibility branches.
If technology advances to a certain point, we will have the ability to shape possibility.
Twisting a string in a given direction apparently defines matter from antimatter.
If we achieve the advance, we discover a way to change the path we are on.
If we change the path we are on, we create a twist in the strings that make up our existance.
A change in possibility thus becomes a conversion from matter to antimatter.
Suddenly our existance in the possibility we have left behind is nulified by matter changing into antimatter.
The Other us goes boom, taking every one with us...

So Scienetific advancement to a certain stage of technology could essentially wipe intelligent life from from existance.

That means that string theory is the number one anihillator of civilizations-up there with home made Black holes.

reddragon · 2005-08-06 14:52:08

String theory is a natural progression to a certain technological point. Matter is made up of strings.
Strings are possibility branches.
If technology advances to a certain point, we will have the ability to shape possibility.
Twisting a string in a given direction apparently defines matter from antimatter.
If we achieve the advance, we discover a way to change the path we are on.
If we change the path we are on, we create a twist in the strings that make up our existance.
A change in possibility thus becomes a conversion from matter to antimatter.
Suddenly our existance in the possibility we have left behind is nulified by matter changing into antimatter.
The Other us goes boom, taking every one with us...
So Scienetific advancement to a certain stage of technology could essentially wipe intelligent life from from existance.
That means that string theory is the number one anihillator of civilizations-up there with home made Black holes.

To many of the steps of this proof are conjectures for it to be taken as anything more than just one more possibility. In particular it seems to much to assume that there is a technology to turn large quantities of matter easily into antimatter by twisting there strings. Also if you're antimatter, and everyone and everything around you is antimatter, you don't go boom. You don't even notice.

srmeaney · 2005-08-13 05:19:23

having projected my telepathic conciousness across the universe (thats not a trinary system by the way, the big one's a black hole) I have encountered life and have led it back here.

Oh! That reminds me, I traded them Earth for a second-hand quantum interference generator... ta ta my lovlies!

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-18 04:01:08

O.K., Sean. What have you been taking?

srmeaney · 2005-08-18 22:37:36

Based on the way the Fed has annexed NT Uranium, and the delta-V of poop hittin the fan as corporations lept in to plunder our Uranium reserves, I'd say I'm suffering from Uranium contamination in my food chain and Blended Cane Toad in the tap water...

...either that or i'm luling you into a false sense of security...

"Ok Phil, Randomize the Quantum interference generator and dont forget to point it at the Northern Hemisphere this time...we dont want to make that mistake ever again...I just hope you got all of them before they could escape!"
"Yes Warlord!" Phil looked at the John Howard Clones in the pygmie-sized Jars with embarassement only just spotting the empty one.

sdc2 · 2005-12-08 04:33:49

Hello,
Recently, I've seen a History Channel program that talked about the possible first contact protocols developed by governments and private groups. I'd like to know what you folks think would be a good first contact procedure, assuming that an alien civilization would send an embassy team to Earth in the near future.
Cordially,
EarthWolf

We have a very good first contact procedure which has worked very well for a very long time!

It is called "TOP SECRETE" & "EYES ONLY" and tell anyone anything, and your ruined "Besides No One Will Believe You If You Did Tell Someone!" or just one day no one knows where you went?!

Austin Stanley · 2005-12-11 23:52:48

Do you have an alien encounter story you wish to share with us?

SpaceNut · 2005-12-14 13:28:48

I am sure other have seen astronomer Frank Drake's mathematical equation to determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations exist in our galaxy. It read: N = R* Fp Ne Fl Fi Fc FL.

Only intelligent can figure odds of other intelligence

R* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy.
Fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them.
Ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life.
Fl is the fraction of planets in Ne where life evolves.
Fi is the fraction of Fl where intelligent life evolves.
Fc is the fraction of Fi that communicate.

Austin Stanley · 2005-12-18 02:27:00

My problem with the Drake Equation is that many of it's terms are complet guesswork. We have a very good idea how many stars are in our galaxy, and a somewhat poorer understanding of what percentage of these stars could possibly have Earth like planets (F, G, and K primarily. And an even poorer idea as to what percentage of the starts in these classes could actualy have habitabl planets (ie. solitary, population I stars, w/out brown or white dwarfs in close orbit). Our ideas about the percentage of planets on this fraction is based mostly on theory and guesswork, and basicaly all the rest of the variables are just wild guesses.

We have no real idea what the chances of life evolving are, or what the chances are of that life evolving into complex orginisims. Rember life on Earth stayed very primative for billions of years before complex orginisims started to arrive. Guesses as to what fraction devlopes a recognisable intellegance and what fraction actualy attempts to communicate, have no basis in fact.

This combines to make the Drake Equation useless IMO. Without sound estimates for the unknown variables (which we currently lack) life in the Galaxy could varry from millions to just us.

Dook · 2005-12-22 19:26:53

The chance of life evolving is 100%.

If we are it then whats the point in making the universe so gigantic?

You still think this is all a huge accident. What are the chances that matter can create itself and physical laws can magically appear already refined to a millionth of a degree?

Come up with an equation for that.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-22 21:07:18

The easy answer to that is Dook that there are/has been an infinite number of universes, either in serial or parallel, or maybe both. In which case, as long as the probability is nonzero, then it will happen.

Austin Stanley · 2005-12-23 03:49:54

The chance of life evolving is 100%.
If we are it then whats the point in making the universe so gigantic?
You still think this is all a huge accident. What are the chances that matter can create itself and physical laws can magically appear already refined to a millionth of a degree?
Come up with an equation for that.

As one of my professors once told me, one example is poor statistics.

We have only one example of life evolving, one example of star with habitbal planets, one example of complex life, and one example of intellegent life. One example is not enough to derive a good estimation of the status of any of those variables.

Furthermore, we have only a very poor (or non-existant) understanding of the theory behind any of these variables. We know that life evolved on Earth, presumably from the non-living matter that was first present here. But we don't know HOW that happened. And we have no clue as to what the chances of this unknown process happeining again are.

We also have little idea what caused life to jump from simple single-celled orginisims, which it had been for billions of years to more complex orginisims. The only thing we know that on Earth it took a VERY long time. But even that is realy not enough to tell us it's chances one way or the other.

We have a slightly better idea of the chances of intellegent life, but this doesn't speak in favor of it. Of all the billions of diffrent species that have roamed this Earth, we are apparently the only one that has existed that we would deem intellegent. And it took millions of years for it to happen. And even so we don't know if intellegence is an inevitable evolution or just a fluke. Why? Again, one example is poor statistics on this matter.

Heck, I would go so far as to say we can't be certain that even an intellegent species will develop a civilisation capable of interstellar travel/communication. The pre-history "stone age" period of man kind is many time longer than our recoarded history. To me it is not at all certian that it was an inevenitable development.

So thats my issue with the Drake equation. Since we don't have enough examples/evidence/statistics to make anything but a wild guess on several of the variables the product itself becomes nothing but a wild guess. And an equation that cannot predict anything with any degree of certianty is useless. Instead of a fancy equation to plug variables into and get the answer, "we don't know enough yet to really know the answer" We could just look at those variables and come to that conclusion immediatly.

-----

As an aside, the grand size of the universe proves absolutly nothing. If I presented you a big box and told you to guess if there was something in it. The fact that the box was big would not make the chances of your guessing correctly any more or less acurate. It would be a guess.

Dook · 2005-12-23 14:01:29

One example of life evolving? There are millions of species on the planet, how is this one example?

You mean one example of a planet with life, but then, we haven't been to many other planets now have we? Of the trillions of planetary bodies we have been to...what 10? And some of them we can't say for sure that there is no life.

There is no proof that there have been any other universes. Why can't this be the first and only one? It is flat, stable, neither closed nor open.

This is no accident. You want proof, fine. Look at a young child, tell me, does that child have a soul? Really? Prove it with an equation.

-----

But we already know the box is not empty.

Rxke · 2005-12-23 16:49:30

at least two intelligent species. Neanderthals.

Austin Stanley · 2005-12-24 07:47:36

I think you misunderstand my position. It's not that I belive or disbelive in intellegent life on other planets/stars, its that I do not think we have enough information to make an intellegent guess on this issue. Specificly, the drake equation which uses a number of variables to attempt to calculate the number of intellegent species in our galaxy (and alternativly the number that should be communicating with us) is useless because the fudge factor is so great.

One example of life evolving? There are millions of species on the planet, how is this one example?

There are millions of species, yes. But apparently life only arrose once from non-life, and all of these millions of species developed from it. How exactly this happened is still unknown, and we have not been able to duplicate it. Thus we can't realy estimate the probability of it happening.

Although to be fair, we aren't entirely sure if life arose from life one time or multiple times here on Earth. It seems that all current life traces back to a common ancestor, but we realy aren't sure. We simply don't know.

You mean one example of a planet with life, but then, we haven't been to many other planets now have we? Of the trillions of planetary bodies we have been to...what 10? And some of them we can't say for sure that there is no life.

Entirely my point. Without more examples we cannot begin to estimate the probability of this happening. Life could be the norm, or just a fluke. One example is not enough to develop a good picture of the situation.

Also, we only assume that there are trillions of planetary bodies out there. So far the only Earth like ones we know of are the ones circling our sun. The other planets we have discovered have all been massive gas giants. Planetary theory leads us to belive that their SHOULD be material left over for the formation of Earth like planets, but we have only one example to back this theory up. Again, we simply don't know enough.

As for your other points Dook, I again think you have misunderstood my position. I can undestand the philsophical argument that our vast universe should have life to fill it. But there is no conclusive suport for that from a scientific point of view. Just as science has no support for the existance of a soul. These are philsophical/faith based positions, and while there is nothing wrong with that, science does not support them. They are matters of belief or faith.

---------

at least two intelligent species. Neanderthals.

Good point Rxke, but I still think it only strengthened my point. Neanderthals did not survive to create a modern civilisation. So it is not necessarily assured that a semingly intellegent species will do so. They may be driven out before they can acomplish it.

I think intellegence may very well be extreamly rare in evolutionary terms. It's certainly not a common adeptation. Flight has been evolved multiple times (birds, insects, reptiles, bats), as have aquatic adeptations. But intellegence has only apparently been adapted once. Perhapce it is not very common, or maye it does not give a species a very big advantage in survival, but in any case it has proven to be the exception not the rule on Earth.

Rxke · 2005-12-24 08:22:17

I
at least two intelligent species. Neanderthals.
Good point Rxke, but I still think it only strengthened my point. Neanderthals did not survive to create a modern civilisation. So it is not necessarily assured that a semingly intellegent species will do so. They may be driven out before they can acomplish it.

But they died out because of those pesky homo sapiens... They were arguably better adapted to the climate than the sapiens, yet they lost the battle, because they were not the brightest ?

Of course, it can then again be argued... they were homo too... Both descended from A. Afarensis(sp?) (Lucy) which was merely an upright-walking 'ape'...

But intellegence has only apparently been adapted once. Perhapce it is not very common, or maye it does not give a species a very big advantage in survival, but in any case it has proven to be the exception not the rule on Earth.

Oh, it *does* give a species extreme advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now, w/o claws, w/o big teeth, mediocre runners...

Austin Stanley · 2005-12-27 09:09:20

Of course, it can then again be argued... they were homo too... Both descended from A. Afarensis(sp?) (Lucy) which was merely an upright-walking 'ape'...

Since you make my next argument for me, I won't repeate it

But intellegence has only apparently been adapted once. Perhapce it is not very common, or maye it does not give a species a very big advantage in survival, but in any case it has proven to be the exception not the rule on Earth.
Oh, it *does* give a species extreme advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now, w/o claws, w/o big teeth, mediocre runners...

Sure it seems like that now. But what if primative man had evolved in the Mesozoic Era and was contemporary with dinosaurs? Our "extreme advantage" of intellegence wouldn't look so good to primitive man when he was facing multi-ton predators with stone weaponry.

And this still avoids my main point. If intellegence is such an "extreme advantage", then why in the 3 and a half BILLION years of life on Earth has life only been adapted once. As I pointed out earlier, other evolutionary advantages such as flight, aquatic adaptation, ecolocation, bipedelisim, and so on have been seperatly evolved independantly multiple times by radicaly diffrent species, while intellegence has been evolved only once. We don't have the answer to this question, but it would seem if nothing else, that intellegence is not as great an adaptation for a fledgling species as we would like to belive.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-22 09:47:17

Re: First Contact

#2 2004-08-05 11:57:33

Re: First Contact

#3 2004-08-05 12:58:12

Re: First Contact

#4 2004-08-05 13:15:08

Re: First Contact

#5 2004-08-05 16:53:38

Re: First Contact

#6 2005-07-22 15:56:43

Re: First Contact

#7 2005-08-06 14:52:08

Re: First Contact

#8 2005-08-13 05:19:23

Re: First Contact

#9 2005-08-18 04:01:08

Re: First Contact

#10 2005-08-18 22:37:36

Re: First Contact

#11 2005-12-08 04:33:49

Re: First Contact

#12 2005-12-11 23:52:48

Re: First Contact

#13 2005-12-14 13:28:48

Re: First Contact

#14 2005-12-18 02:27:00

Re: First Contact

#15 2005-12-22 19:26:53

Re: First Contact

#16 2005-12-22 21:07:18

Re: First Contact

#17 2005-12-23 03:49:54

Re: First Contact

#18 2005-12-23 14:01:29

Re: First Contact

#19 2005-12-23 16:49:30

Re: First Contact

#20 2005-12-24 07:47:36

Re: First Contact

#21 2005-12-24 08:22:17

Re: First Contact

#22 2005-12-27 09:09:20

Re: First Contact

Board footer