The Fermi Paradox

[Mr. Jelly]

Originally Posted by RP

In my mind, there's no contradiction. The less evidence that refutes the claim, the greater possibility that the claim is true.

How do you prove a negative? It makes me wonder about the many things that humans have never conceptualized.

[Aimelie]

But what about the barrier of the speed of light (theoretically, the closer one approaches the speed of light, the energy required to accelerate increases exponentially)…which is to say that faster than light travel could well be forever out of reach.

This then leaves us to imagine incredible new telescopes that might be able to see farther than ever before (as the only means of detecting life far beyond our planet). The problem is still the speed of light—whatever we are seeing is images from the past. Millions of light years of distance/in the past is not out of the question, so anyone looking in at us from far away is seeing our past, not our present—so what do they see? A planet prior to the birth of life? What will we see when looking farther than ever before? The past and one in which life may not have yet arisen.

Another fun thing to think about is how advanced would we be now if destiny hadn’t burned down the library of Alexandria, or brought the doom of the Dark Ages on our civilization ? Where would we be now? Is that where an extraterrestrial civilization is now? Or did they already get too far and self-destruct? Is that where we are headed, too?

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by RP

In my mind, there's no contradiction. The less evidence that refutes the claim, the greater possibility that the claim is true.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Lack of evidence refuting a claim cannot make a claim more likely to be true, it simply means one should remain open to the possibility the claim is true while withholding actual belief in the claim. Maybe a fine distinction but I think an important one.

[Dru Edwards]

Here's an interesting fact. The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri, 4.2 light years away. If Voyager were heading in that direction it would take it 73,000 years to get there. We have a long way to go in developing interstellar travel. I don't think we'll ever get there, at least not with a person onboard.

[robj144]

Originally Posted by Dru Edwards

Here's an interesting fact. The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri, 4.2 light years away. If Voyager were heading in that direction it would take it 73,000 years to get there. We have a long way to go in developing interstellar travel. I don't think we'll ever get there, at least not with a person onboard.

The good thing about spacetime is that it's "malleable" according to General Relativity. Hypothetically, if our species survives another few hundred years, I'm fairly certain we'll have the energy and resources to bend spacetime and there is no need for faster than light or even close to light travel.

[rokdog49]

I have it on very good authority there is no intelligent life anywhere beyond this planet.

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by Aimelie

Another fun thing to think about is how advanced would we be now if destiny hadn’t burned down the library of Alexandria, or brought the doom of the Dark Ages on our civilization ? Where would we be now? Is that where an extraterrestrial civilization is now? Or did they already get too far and self-destruct? Is that where we are headed, too?

Without the so called Dark Ages we could very well be less advanced than we are now.

Bear in mind that over hundreds of years Roman civilisation and the ancient world in general had very little technological or social innovation.

Far from being a hindrance to advancement the Dark Ages were a "disruptor", getting rid of the old and stale and providing a platform for new forms of organisation that resulted in the modern world as we know it.

[Gitfiddlemann]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

I have it on very good authority there is no intelligent life anywhere beyond this planet.

And even that is a stretch.....

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by Silurian

Without the so called Dark Ages we could very well be less advanced than we are now.

Bear in mind that over hundreds of years Roman civilisation and the ancient world in general had very little technological or social innovation.

Far from being a hindrance to advancement the Dark Ages were a "disruptor", getting rid of the old and stale and providing a platform for new forms of organisation that resulted in the modern world as we know it.

Yeah, who needs aqueducts and paved roads and a system of political organization that operated smoothly from Gibraltar to the Nile when you can have dark ages advances like . . . like, uh . . . um.

The "so-called" dark ages were actually the "aptly-named" dark ages.

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Yeah, who needs aqueducts and paved roads and a system of political organization that operated smoothly from Gibraltar to the Nile when you can have dark ages advances like . . . like, uh . . . um.

The "so-called" dark ages were actually the "aptly-named" dark ages.

The term "dark ages" has become increasingly unpopular with historians and archaeologists. The current evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they were far from "dark" as was previously supposed.

I also didn't say the Dark Ages provided any great advances. I said "disruptor". A transitionary era if you prefer, from which eventually arose the modern nation state.

"... System of political organisation that operated smoothly..."

The empire fell apart from both internal and external pressures, so by definition it wasn't operating "smoothly".

Rome contributed virtually nothing to the advancement of philosophy (early Church fathers aside, who were often in opposition to Roman authority) and science.

Paved roads, aqueducts and triumphal arches are great but there isn't much evidence that the empire could innovate or adapt. All empires eventually wither and die.

If Rome hadn't collapsed we could still be using those same paved roads...



... With the same horse pulled carts.

[M19]

Originally Posted by roberts

I have nothing to add, just jumped on this thread to get smarter....

How's that working out for you?

[Dru Edwards]

Originally Posted by Aimelie

But what about the barrier of the speed of light (theoretically, the closer one approaches the speed of light, the energy required to accelerate increases exponentially)…which is to say that faster than light travel could well be forever out of reach.

This then leaves us to imagine incredible new telescopes that might be able to see farther than ever before (as the only means of detecting life far beyond our planet). The problem is still the speed of light—whatever we are seeing is images from the past. Millions of light years of distance/in the past is not out of the question, so anyone looking in at us from far away is seeing our past, not our present—so what do they see? A planet prior to the birth of life? What will we see when looking farther than ever before? The past and one in which life may not have yet arisen.

Another fun thing to think about is how advanced would we be now if destiny hadn’t burned down the library of Alexandria, or brought the doom of the Dark Ages on our civilization ? Where would we be now? Is that where an extraterrestrial civilization is now? Or did they already get too far and self-destruct? Is that where we are headed, too?

Hi Aimelie, interesting comment about the Dark Ages. Sometimes I think that if science wasn't suppressed during that period that we would have split the atom a couple of centuries earlier. But, possibly by now, we would have already self-destructed. That's one possible theory for "the great filter" that prevents civilizations from interstellar exploration. It's a bleak take on humankind (and alien civilizations) for sure.

[Aimelie]

Originally Posted by Dru Edwards

Hi Aimelie, interesting comment about the Dark Ages. Sometimes I think that if science wasn't suppressed during that period that we would have split the atom a couple of centuries earlier. But, possibly by now, we would have already self-destructed. That's one possible theory for "the great filter" that prevents civilizations from interstellar exploration. It's a bleak take on humankind (and alien civilizations) for sure.

Hi Dru!

And I’m pretty sure you know a lot more about this subject than you initially let on. Cool cat that you are…

[rllink]

I've been to Roswell, I know things you can't imagine. And I have a tee shirt.

rlink;

OH YEH? Well I live close to area 51 and I'm close to harmonic convergence. Hard to beat all that.