Life on other planets?

[Kildare Lad]

Just wondering what are people opinions/thoughts about there being life on other planets or aliens? In all the movies they seem to be bad but if they do exsist would they be bad or just another race like humans?

Think it could be interesting to see everyones opinions on it.

[paul_oshea]

what have you been watching?!

or maybe smoking :D

[Stevo Da Gull]

Considering our knowledge of space and other planets etc, the possibilities are endless. How things would evolve in another environment capable supporting life, who knows ... It'd be a good bet that things would evolve differently from earth anyway.

[Bondvillain]

I'm with Stephen Hawking on this one. Sending messages saying "Here's where we are, here's what we look like, we aren't very advanced technologically or defensively, but here's some Chuck Berry..." probably isn't the cleverest message we could shout out to potential colonialists...

Anyway, I'd settle for finding intelligent life on THIS planet first.

[superfrank]

It's impossible to conceive (personally) how life would appear on another planet.

Most people are stuck with the Hollywood image of aliens but I think there's no way to accurately guess at how other life forms would be.

Even the slightest difference in their planet's atmosphere would change the conditions for life. Add in formation of their planet factors and possible disturbances to their planet (asteroids, etc.) and the planet's environment and atmosphere would be totally different to Earth's. So obviously life wouldn't form in the same way.

On a side, if I may go back to the disturbances factor, what would life be like if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out? Would animals have evolved differently? Would the world's overrace be like humans or something completely different?

[Student Mullet]

If we ever find aliens I think that they'll look just like humans but with a bit of morla stuck on their nose. That's how it works in Star Trek anyway.

[strangeirish]

Just wondering what are people opinions/thoughts about there being life on other planets or aliens? In all the movies they seem to be bad but if they do exist would they be bad or just another race like humans?
Think it could be interesting to see everyones opinions on it.
Dude, just ask Green Tribe. We're all trying to figure out which one she's from...:D

[Lionel Ritchie]

I'm with Stephen Hawking on this one. Sending messages saying "Here's where we are, here's what we look like, we aren't very advanced technologically or defensively, but here's some Chuck Berry..." probably isn't the cleverest message we could shout out to potential colonialists...

Anyway, I'd settle for finding intelligent life on THIS planet first.

It's a valid point and also made very well by Max Von Sydow playing Ming the Merciless in the ..um ...timeless 1980 remake of Flash Gordon.
"Pathetic Earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void - without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe - anything at all - you would have hidden from it in terror".

Considering the wide range of temperatures and conditions in which life will "take" or find a way to get on I'd say it's highly improbable that there aren't many, many other planets out there where suffiecient ingredients have coalesced to get the primordial stew started.

I would prefer it was us found another life supportive planet rather than anyone from it finding us. A highly evolved, technologically advanced race who arrived in our sky might think to themselves "nice planet, pity about the shoe-wearing infestation ...oh well let's give it a tick bath".

[pete]

The Universe is a big place. We can only see a fraction of it.

If you believe in a supreme being creating life on Earth then you would not believe in aliens. If you believe in evolution the odds are the same conditions could create life on a different planet.

[stann]

Good point from Ming but a better point would be (I think Carl Sagan was one who has made it) that a civilization that had those sort of warlike tendencies would evolve the technology to wipe themselves out far sooner than evolving the technology to come here and sort us out. In other words that level of technological advance has a built-in filter that would weed out the real-life Klingons and their ilk. :D

To my mind, there's no doubt that there are a multitude of inhabited planets among the mind-numbing number of stars in our galaxy, and among the even more mind-numbing number of galaxies in the universe, but whether any will ever overcome the vast voids between them remains to be seen. I don't believe it has happened to us yet, despite what the nutjobs of the world would have us believe.
There's a lot of things that can reasonably be speculated about potential aliens too. There's good chemical reasons for thinking they would be likely to be carbon-based like ourselves (from the peculiar chemical affinities of the carbon atom), that they would have prehensile limbs with opposable digits, symmetrical body plans, large brains, and so on...

The Drake equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) is a mathematical attempt to address the question of how many alien civilisations there are 'on our doorstep', though obviously it's little more than a best guess.
Sagan and Drake were advocates of the principle of mediocrity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_mediocrity) which argues that there is nothing all that special about our circumstances, and that a consequence of this is that the universe is teeming with life, while the opposing view is the rare Earth hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis) which argues that our circumstances are actually very rare indeed.

And if it ever does happen, I'd bet the first contact will take place pretty much in the way it does in the book / film of that name. That chap of the Sagans was a bloody visionary I tell ya!

[anto1208]

Well we came from outer space so there is a very very good chance that there are other life forms.

It would depend on the atmosphere on the planets but id say looking at the weird crap on earth (like those fish at the bottom of the sea with lights on there heads and all the teeth) that we probibly have weirder stuff here.

[stann]

No we didn't. Don't go down that Panspermia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia) road, there only lies derision and ridicule, and the inevitable fall into the clutches of the Scientologists. :D
There's no need for it anyway, it's not like we can't explain things simply enough without recourse to extra-terrestrial origins.

By the by there would be a lot more factors than the planet's atmosphere involved. The local gravity would decide the general size and shape of the organisms for example, the type of light chucked out by the parent star would determine the manner in which they saw the world, and so on. A fascinating subject, really.

[pineapple stu]

the opposing view is the rare Earth hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis) which argues that our circumstances are actually very rare indeed.
I always thought the Rare Earth hypothesis had far too many holes in it to be take seriously. The Fermi paradox at the start of that wikipedia article ""If extraterrestrial aliens are common, why aren't they obvious?" isn't answered by "The conclusion...that complex life is not common, it is rare", it's answered by "Where are we?"

I think I also saw somewhere (could have been a book called "Life out There" by Michael White which I read many years ago) the argument that Earth has needed millions of attempts to generate intelligent life (insert standard joke about Americans here), so the odds on life on another earth-like planet are small. This of course ignores the point that earth managed to have millions of attempts at generating intelligent life, so the odds of a million-to-one shot happening after a million chances greatly approach 1, which means the whole argument was based on some dcfcsteve branch of logical maths.


If you believe in a supreme being creating life on Earth then you would not believe in aliens.
Or dinosaurs, or cavemen, or Newgrange or many other things. But without wanting to open up the is there/isn't there a God argument again, I don't think a belief in aliens is a barrier to a belief in a God. It just means we aren't as special as we thought we were.

[Wolfie]

If you believe in a supreme being creating life on Earth then you would not believe in aliens.

Once again, Science will have to bow to the overwhelming Religious evidence to support this.

[Student Mullet]

I always thought the Rare Earth hypothesis had far too many holes in it to be take seriously. The Fermi paradox at the start of that wikipedia article ""If extraterrestrial aliens are common, why aren't they obvious?" isn't answered by "The conclusion...that complex life is not common, it is rare", it's answered by "Where are we?"This is statistics abuse. You can't use the earth itself as evidence for or against a rare earth hypothesis since we were always going to live in the planet we live in. To gather evidence you need a measure of how similar other planets are to earth.

[John83]

This is statistics abuse. You can't use the earth itself as evidence for or against a rare earth hypothesis since we were always going to live in the planet we live in. To gather evidence you need a measure of how similar other planets are to earth.
That reminds me of the funniest quote I read in ages:
"We know that at least one star system (our own) within the Milky Way Galaxy has developed intelligent life . . . that suggests statistics of at least one civilisation per galaxy . . . So, there should be billions of star systems with intelligent civilisations." It's quoted here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/27/sixth_column_recycle/), from this book (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Planetary-Defense-Extra-Terrestrial-Invasion/dp/1581124473/ref=sr_1_1/103-7012553-1875823?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177664178&sr=8-1).

If you don't find it funny, don't worry, you're normal.

If you don't get it, ask yourself what lets them take the galaxy as their unit of space instead of, say, solar system, or universe.

[pineapple stu]

This is statistics abuse. You can't use the earth itself as evidence for or against a rare earth hypothesis since we were always going to live in the planet we live in. To gather evidence you need a measure of how similar other planets are to earth.
I'm comparing life forms, not planets?:confused:

If we define intelligent life as being of our own intellectual capabilities (or above), we can't very well complain that intellectual life forms haven't been in touch with us when we haven't been in touch with them.

[John83]

I'm comparing life forms, not planets?:confused:

If we define intelligent life as being of our own intellectual capabilities (or above), we can't very well complain that intellectual life forms haven't been in touch with us when we haven't been in touch with them.
Fine, I'll bite.

Assume there are absolutely loads of civilisations in the galaxy. Further assume that the state of development of these civilisations varies a lot. Statistically, there should be someone else miles ahead of us, far enough ahead to be here already.

Now, assume that there is sweet f-all other life in the galaxy. The chances of anyone else being here are very small.

Earth doesn't come into it.

[Lionel Ritchie]

they might have a prime directive about not interferring with pre-warp cabable worlds.

jaysis wasn't star trek great though?

[pineapple stu]

Fine, I'll bite.

Assume there are absolutely loads of civilisations in the galaxy. Further assume that the state of development of these civilisations varies a lot. Statistically, there should be someone else miles ahead of us, far enough ahead to be here already.

Now, assume that there is sweet f-all other life in the galaxy. The chances of anyone else being here are very small.

Earth doesn't come into it.
Hmmm...touche. Never actually thought of it that way... :o Suppose I'm happy to believe that interstellar distances are such that it's quite possible it's practically impossible (as in, impossible in a practical sense) to cover them, which would also explain where they are.

[osarusan]

Of course there are aliens. Does nobody remember Alf? Not only that, while he managed to travel from another planet, he probably wasn't as intelligent as the humans he lived with.

Kind of blows all your theories out of the water, huh?

[Wolfie]

..... we can't very well complain that intellectual life forms haven't been in touch with us when we haven't been in touch with them.

That sums up Irelands current "search" for a manager.

[stann]

Fine, I'll bite.

Assume there are absolutely loads of civilisations in the galaxy. Further assume that the state of development of these civilisations varies a lot. Statistically, there should be someone else miles ahead of us, far enough ahead to be here already.

Well you can't make that last assumption anyway, since it's quite probable that they cannot practically cover those distances no matter how advanced they are, and by one of our best and most successful current theories it's an incontrovertible fact that this is the case.

[John83]

Well you can't make that last assumption anyway, since it's quite probable that they cannot practically cover those distances no matter how advanced they are, and by one of our best and most successful current theories it's an incontrovertible fact that this is the case.
Not in a short time, no. The Fermi paradox is about colonisation though, which just requires the ability to get a smallish population a few light years. We're unlikely to be more than a couple of centuries off being able to do that reliably ourselves. From there, any mathematical model with positive expansion fills the galaxy in a pretty short time by galactic standards.

[pineapple stu]

Course, you have to bear in mind too the theory which says that any intelligent life is far more likely to blow itself up than master interstellar travel. I like that theory. Gives me hope for the future. :)

[Tony_Montana]

Course, you have to bear in mind too the theory which says that any intelligent life is far more likely to blow itself up than master interstellar travel. I like that theory. Gives me hope for the future. :)

Yes that is a good theory and one that rings true every time you pick up a paper or turn on a news channel.

[pineapple stu]

The Fermi paradox is about colonisation though, which just requires the ability to get a smallish population a few light years. We're unlikely to be more than a couple of centuries off being able to do that reliably ourselves.
Just thinking - how true is this?

40 years ago, we could put a man on the moon. Today, we can...put a man on the moon. Progress - zero.

Why? Money. It simply isn't economical to fly men to the moon. Even back in the late 60s/early 70s, it was done purely to gain Cold War bragging rights. Space travel, by its very nature, simply isn't economical - there's no-one to trade with, no way of making money, no nothing. That's why, in the past 40 years -

..o The land speed record has gone up from 600mph to 750mph
..o Production car record up from 175 to 256mph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_production_car#Record_Holders) (SSC Aero)
..o Train speed record up from 159 to 357mph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record_for_railed_vehicles)

And I'm sure there's more. The journey from Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead, for example, now takes 99 minutes with the SeaCat, compared to three hours with its predecessor, which still does the route too. Flight times have dropped too.

By contrast, all I can find by way of a space speed record is the space shuttle, at 17500mph, from 1981 to present (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record). We're just lumping the last 25 years in together.

The reason for this, obviously, is that faster cars, planes, boats, etc are economical - people will want them, can use them to trade more, to get places they want to go to quicker. There isn't the demand to go faster and faster in space.

This has obvious connotations for space travel. At 17500mph, it'll take 165000 years to reach the next star over, 4.3 light years away. I think the next star again is 10 light years away. So if we double the space speed record, we're still 80000 years away. The payback on that project isn't particulary good. If that project doesn't go ahead, how are we going to double the speed again, to bring us a mere 40000 years away?

It'd require massive, massive investment to cover this distance in a reasonable time (say, a human lifetime), and it'd have pretty much zero return (bar maybe a prize like the Ansari X prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize)). Conclusion - not going to happen in the next couple of centuries, like you suggest. There simply isn't any reason for it to.

NASA's budget is $16bn - pretty damn large, but only 60% of its time-adjusted peak - 40 years ago. There'd be political uproar if the budget started doubling to increase the space speed record while poverty, global warming, etc, etc were still issues - and rightly so. With a falling budget, we won't be making Mars anytime soon, let alone Alpha Centauri.

Let's now look at another intelligent life form on another planet around another star. Let's assume (as we obviously must) that this life form has evolved a system of money and economy - capitalism, socialism, dictatorship, planetary monarchy - doesn't really matter. Let's assume that it's more advanced than us, which means it must at one stage have passed through our current position. Why would it leave its planet to go to another one, many light years away? Why would it overcome the obvious budget constraints we've looked at to make the jump? Answer - it quite possibly wouldn't. Conclusion - where are the aliens? Probably the same place we are - looking out into space, wondering if there's anyone out there, realising that they possibly can never afford to travel such distances to find out, doing the best research they can by studying chemical compsitions in atmospheric wavelengths.

[gilberto_eire]

what have you been watching?!

or maybe smoking :D

..or both ;)

[Student Mullet]

Is anyone else picturing a medieval Pineapple Stu making a similar argument?


Modern breeding methods have allowed the horse speed record to rise from 4 to 5 miles per hour this century. At this rate of progress it will take us thousands of years to breed a horse that can reach China in any reasonable time. I therefore conclude that we will never know whether China even exists or not.

[pineapple stu]

Except I think -

(a) horse speeds were always known to be higher than 5mph
(b) there was an economical incentive to breed faster horses in stages, building to a goal (i.e. getting quicker to the next village over, then the village, then the next country over, etc),
(c) Ireland to China isn't a valid comparison with Earth to Alpha centauri. It'd equate more to Earth to Mars. You want to run a horse from here to the moon to compare to interstellar travel and
(c) they didn't have pineapples in medieval Ireland.

[anto1208]

Just thinking - how true is this?

40 years ago, we could put a man on the moon. Today, we can...put a man on the moon. Progress - zero.

.

Well 40 years ago we could put machines on the moon now we have them on mars . Progress ? We (i say we i had little little to do with it:D ) have space crafts reaching out to the edge of our universe.

It is possible anothe rlife form has evolved to our stage hundreds of millions of years ago imagine how advanced they could be ! or there could be just microbes wiggling around its still life

[pineapple stu]

Well 40 years ago we could put machines on the moon now we have them on mars .
We had machines on Mars 40 years ago too - Mariner 4 reached Mars in 1965, and the Soviets landed in '71. Venera 3 landed on Venus in '66 - the same year we first landed something on the moon.

What was that you were saying about progress?

[anto1208]

We had machines on Mars 40 years ago too - Mariner 4 reached Mars in 1965, and the Soviets landed in '71. Venera 3 landed on Venus in '66 - the same year we first landed something on the moon.

What was that you were saying about progress?

its slow :D

[Schumi]

By contrast, all I can find by way of a space speed record is the space shuttle, at 17500mph, from 1981 to present (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record).
Good news, the 'space speed record' has more than doubled in the last 5 minutes to 36,800 mph


the two Voyager spacecraft... having been launched in August (Voyager 2) and September (Voyager 1), 1977... As of July 2007, Voyager 1 was at a distance of 15.4 Billion Kilometers (103 AU) from the sun
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/interstellar.html

At this rate of increase, we'll soon be able to make it to nearby stars in no time.

[osarusan]

Assume there are absolutely loads of civilisations in the galaxy. Further assume that the state of development of these civilisations varies a lot. Statistically, there should be someone else miles ahead of us, far enough ahead to be here already.

It is likely that civilisations develop at varied rates, agreed.

But it is just as likely, statistically, that the Earth be the most developed civilisation as any other civilisation.

The fact that nobody has reached us could indicate that Earth has the most developed civilisation just as validly as that Earth is the only civilisation.



Unless I've totally misunderstood the post, which is always likely on scientific matters.

[pineapple stu]

Good news, the 'space speed record' has more than doubled in the last 5 minutes to 36,800 mph


http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/interstellar.html

At this rate of increase, we'll soon be able to make it to nearby stars in no time.
You mean - Wikipedia LIED to me?!:eek:

Substitute in this new speed into my theory, and the answer ends up the same. Unless we can stumble on teleportation, I don't think we're "unlikely to be more than a couple of centuries off being able to do that reliably ourselves", as John said.


But it is just as likely, statistically, that the Earth be the most developed civilisation as any other civilisation.
Not the point. If there are x civilisations in the universe, it's a 1 in x chance that we're the most developed. Which is either 1, or very small, depending on x. There's a one in three chance we're in the middle third of civilisations, for example (given our present knowledge of the subject, and assuming a sample greater than 2). This is far more likely than the 1/x above, and also carries with it a far higher chance that someone's miles ahead of us.

How they get to be miles ahead of us though, is my question.

[osarusan]

Not the point. If there are x civilisations in the universe, it's a 1 in x chance that we're the most developed. Which is either 1, or very small, depending on x. There's a one in three chance we're in the middle third of civilisations, for example (given our present knowledge of the subject, and assuming a sample greater than 2). This is far more likely than the 1/x above, and also carries with it a far higher chance that someone's miles ahead of us.


If I understand you correctly (and I very well may not), you're saying there is a smaller chance of us being number 1 than there is of us being in the middle third? I'd agree, but you're comparing a section (the middle third) with one position (no 1) so obviously it is statistically more likely, unless the middle section comprises of only one unit.

Do you think it is equally likely that Earth is in the top third, middle third, and bottom third?

[GavinZac]

when dealing with infinity space and matter, any possibility has occurred somewhere in the dimension of space-time.

[osarusan]

when dealing with infinity space and matter, any possibility has occurred somewhere in the dimension of space-time.
You sound a bit like that new poster Tony Montana, except your posts actually make sense.:D

Have you ever read "Slaughterhouse Five"?

[GavinZac]

Have you ever read "Slaughterhouse Five"?I havent. *heads off to amazon*

[Bald Student]

You mean - Wikipedia LIED to me?!:eek:

Substitute in this new speed into my theory, and the answer ends up the same. Unless we can stumble on teleportation, I don't think we're "unlikely to be more than a couple of centuries off being able to do that reliably ourselves", as John said.


Mealwhile in Medieval Europe:


Even if horses can travel at 10 miles per hour, substitute this new speed into my theory, and the answer ends up the same. Unless we can stumble on some type of mechanical horse, I don't think we're "unlikely to be more than a couple of centuries off being able to get to China reliably ourselves", as Medieval John said.

[GavinZac]

Mealwhile in Medieval Europe:

Mechanical horses are at least within the limits of physical possibility. Teleportation would only be a useful solution if travelling at the speed of light was too slow.

However, because teleportation would work by creating an exact matter replica of the person at the other side, then destroying the existing "original", you would need to get the information for reconstructing the person from Point A to Point B. Here is where the problems would arise as this information cannot travel faster than light anyway, and you'd be just as well off travelling by light-speed carrier.

Of course, using the Douglas Adams theory, we could travel faster than light if we could somehow achieve travel by the supra-photon power of bad news.

[Bald Student]

Mechanical horses are at least within the limits of physical possibility. Teleportation would only be a useful solution if travelling at the speed of light was too slow.

However, because teleportation would work by creating an exact matter replica of the person at the other side, then destroying the existing "original", you would need to get the information for reconstructing the person from Point A to Point B. Here is where the problems would arise as this information cannot travel faster than light anyway, and you'd be just as well off travelling by light-speed carrier.

Of course, using the Douglas Adams theory, we could travel faster than light if we could somehow achieve travel by the supra-photon power of bad news.Firstly, kudos on describing a teleportation machine. I didn't know they made them yet.

Also, this brings us back to John's original argument. Your teleportation machine is capable of getting people to our neighbouring planets, which was the only element missing from his theory.

[GavinZac]

Firstly, kudos on describing a teleportation machine. I didn't know they made them yet.the dont make them yet as we havent perfected the art of subatomic restructuring.

the alternative is some sort of particle accelerator to shoot your existing matter to the other point at extreme speeds. they do make these ones already but they'd have to do it one at a time and if something gets in the way of a few of your particles, you'd be in bits!


Also, this brings us back to John's original argument. Your teleportation machine is capable of getting people to our neighbouring planets, which was the only element missing from his theory. capable of getting to our closest neighbours, yes, but then we know that they are not suitable for life (as we know it, Jim). Our closest neighbouring solar systems are light years away and we dont know if our hypothetical teleporter would work because we dont know if its possible to send information at the speed of light without darkened glass guiding it eg fiber optics. Regardless, due to the vagaries of statistics, while the probability of there being life in the universe is 1, the probability of there being life in Alpha Centauri is 0.

[stann]

..o The land speed record has gone up from 600mph to 750mph
...
And I'm sure there's more.
...
This has obvious connotations for space travel. At 17500mph, it'll take 165000 years to reach the next star over, 4.3 light years away. I think the next star again is 10 light years away. So if we double the space speed record, we're still 80000 years away. The payback on that project isn't particulary good. If that project doesn't go ahead, how are we going to double the speed again, to bring us a mere 40000 years away?

These increases in land speed are due to improvements in existing technologies though.
Any practically useful improvements in the speed of space flight will require one or more huge leaps in technology, akin to when we strapped propellors and wings to that horse ye were talking about. :D



Let's now look at another intelligent life form on another planet around another star.
...
Why would it leave its planet to go to another one, many light years away? Why would it overcome the obvious budget constraints we've looked at to make the jump? Answer - it quite possibly wouldn't.

In all likelihood they wouldn't, but two reasons why they might:
Firstly simply because they could, if it was the case that technologically they could, if you follow me. Why do people insist on climbing mountains? :D
Secondly because they had to. Not trying to be a Gloomy Gus but that Sun of ours won't stay as our benevolent provider forever. Assuming we don't kill ourselves off in the meantime, in few billion years it will, unless we work out a way to get the feck out of here!

Oh, and just as an aside, that teleportation device for getting to other planets wouldn't be of much use unless and until we send someone there first with the other half of the machine. ;)

[GavinZac]

Oh, and just as an aside, that teleportation device for getting to other planets wouldn't be of much use unless and until we send someone there first with the other half of the machine. ;)The replicator would, but assuming we're at the point where we can construct atoms from subatomics, we might be at the point where we can shoot those particles just the right speed and distance to line up. You know, like bowls. :D

[stann]

Now that I will happily give any amount of iridium credits to see!

Your very being in this man's hands. (http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.booksonbowls.co.uk/images/bowlwithbryant.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.booksonbowls.co.uk/bowlwithbryant.html&h=459&w=331&sz=24&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=567-bM1k6eQ8QM:&tbnh=128&tbnw=92&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbowl%2Bwith%2Bbryant%26gbv%3D2%26svnu m%3D10%26hl%3Den) :D

[Sligo Hornet]

Now that I will happily give any amount of iridium credits to see!

Your very being in this man's hands. (http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.booksonbowls.co.uk/images/bowlwithbryant.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.booksonbowls.co.uk/bowlwithbryant.html&h=459&w=331&sz=24&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=567-bM1k6eQ8QM:&tbnh=128&tbnw=92&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbowl%2Bwith%2Bbryant%26gbv%3D2%26svnu m%3D10%26hl%3Den) :D

Could be dangerous being "beamed up".....him having a biased view and all:eek:

[John83]

But it is just as likely, statistically, that the Earth be the most developed civilisation as any other civilisation.
That statement is equivalent to saying that there's a 50:50 chance I'm the tallest man on earth.
...we dont know if our hypothetical teleporter would work because we dont know if its possible to send information at the speed of light without darkened glass guiding it eg fiber optics...
As an electronic engineer who's done research on free space optical communication and has a working knowledge of fiber optics, I can confidently say that that sentence is very silly.

[pineapple stu]

Mealwhile in Medieval Europe:
See, the problem with your medieval analogy is that it doesn't actually address the point I'm making.

I'm not suggesting that it's technologically impossible to get to distant stars. I'm theorising that it may be economically impossible. Big difference. You're thinking like an engineer, whereas I'm thinking like an accountant.

To put it in language you may understand, imagine you invent a new spaceship which can get to Alpha Centauri in 5000 years. It's still useless for practical interstellar travel, but it's also a vast improvement on what we currently have. What happens next?

Bald Student - "I've just invented a fabulous new spaceship. I just need £100bn to build it and..." *Scene missing* *Scene missing* "...and it's built."

Imagine putting yourself on Dragons' Den asking for funding for a project with absolutely no payback, and you'll begin to see the problems I'm raising. Which have nothing to do with the problems you were countering.