PB666

Her species? parthenogenic? thats the problem, recombination breeds diversity, without 3-letter word you don't get oddballs or Einsteins.

If he isn't budging it probably means his futurama team is still working on some aspects of the plan. You do know that sometimes the earth and mars are on in solar opposition. Its not like you can get on a Harley and take a joy ride to Mars. If it were the case theses missions would need far less planning. If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Well, before we go claiming how optimal earth is, consider for a moment that all life on earth descended from one type of cell. This is interesting because some posit that after the great bombardment Earth woukd have been cold and the best place for life would have been isolated upwellings and volcanic pools. If this were the case why don't we several versions, each evolved from independent bioneogenesis. The current timing now is between 3.5 and 4.2 billion years ago, which means the interval between the first archae and first complex is on the order 2.5 to 3.6 billion years. What this either tells us is that life did not evolve easily or that most life was low level junk, possibly as life on other planets, and only one life form had the qualities to proceed onward as earths conditions became more favorable. And yet as we observe the keplar data we find nothing even close to being as optimal as earth, and primarily planets that orbit non-sun like stars. What is worse, we are not even clearly aware how much atmosphere the inner planets had at formation, or how magnetically active our own sun was. And yet we continue to call planets earth-like when they orbit stars that are nowhere near sunlike. Here is a metric, most of the stars so far picked as candiates are not visible tonthe naked eye, in fact no red dwarf is visible to the naked eye. The overwhelming majority of stars we see are without telescopes are two shortlived to support complex life. The overwhelming majority of stars we cannot see locally because of faintness are too red to support life. A large hanful stars within 100 light years of earth fit the longevity and emmisive characteristics of our sun. At what point does searching for ETs become futile, 1000 ly? This is not to argue that we could not travel to other stars, but in the end it might require a very tenacious and conservative population that waits 100s of thousands of years for a star to come close enough we can jump to it, and then establish colonies or do terriforming, so that we are expanding say a light year outward every 500,000. How long would it take us to create a SOI of 2000 light years in radius? A billion years, but the galaxy is 100 light years across, and we could fit hundreds of these bubbles into it and still never encounter another alien species. And so sun like stars have a certain metal content thus a certain age bracket in our galaxy, there are not alot of time in the milky way for Earth like planets around sun-like stars to have enough time to spread. I don't think you are going to find gnat-like sentients that have 'brine shrimp egg'-like cysts. Something that could be placed on a hawkings flyer and lasered to the next world as a seed ship. Given IS travel appears to be a hinge point in the mobility of humans, its probably an equal hinge point for other species as well. When we factor in that all of the more curious and inventive animals on earth tend to have EQs on the high side, its going to be some species with both mass and higher EQ needing a ship at least the size of a space capsule just to survive in IS space, not to mention accelerate or decelerate. its not surprising at all that as more data cimes in why we we have not been visited, what is increadingly surprising to me is people are hyping up the earth-like world and Fermi paradox explanations 'proper' when the observation and need for explanations doesn't seem to exist.. Where is the life? Show me something even remotely capable of supporting life, not some hype -piece that is pulled off of MSNBC. Sunlike stars are not hard to see in any good telescope. If not, the bubble is moved so far away from earth the paradox inevitably voids itself. It is of no importance, and we would be left looking for traces of pre-archae like cells in the atmospheres of very far off worlds, shaking our heads and pondering whether the world would be worth colonizing or just use the star as a way point.

Not in the lab, its stricky metric, never imperial, its just not done.

banned for using the prefix ban 4 times.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7605/full/nature18289.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7605/full/nature18016.html I wonder why NASA allows this publically funded research to be published in one of the most difficult journals to get access rights?

http://futurism.com/new-evidence-that-black-holes-may-actually-be-2d-holograms/

Its probably a good idea not to use ISP once outside of LEO, unless you are going to express accelerations in g-forces. But then what do i know they expressed the growth of BEAM in inches.

Banned for creating newborn feedback loop.

bag intercepted by an ole lady and placed in a shopping cart wandering hopelessly around Kerbol syatem. Mission, put a mech jeb unit on the shopping cart.

Banned for not making any sense.

Pointing at #2 without pointing out #1 is cheating.

Its not the point, its the point that people are speculating on what it is, where it might be and why it has not reached earth, contacted earth or sent out signals in our direction without a smeg of evidence that it exists in a vicinity reasonable enough to do any of these things. It not an argument against ET life, its an argument against completely useless guessing, guessing which is not scientific, and arguing for observation in order to get that one unit of evidence whereby we ca say, this is not a sol bound outlyer.. otherwise our current statistcs include a confidence range that does not include any other sentient life in our visible universe. ( which i do not believe, but belief is a wonspderfulnand myth filled thing). Read what a confidence interval, if you can understand this you can understand my POV, and if you cant, then have fun with your guessing game.

Are they acting out of character, certainly not.

That's unfortunately the problem of typing on an IPAD, the fingertip recognition is awful. It also has a problem saving edits, and sometimes spontaneously submits posts. To get rid of both outlyers if Mars life-exists results in a probability of selecting both, either first or second at the 2 * 1/2400 * 1/2400 which then creates a probability of P<1E-6, this assumes that the sun itself is not an outlyer star. We can argue that the near infinitely low rate of life would never exceed a probability of 1E-5. This pushes the chance closer to 1 in 2400. I don't think the question is that profound, because saying its profound leads the argument with data that simply does not exist. Should we look for life, certainly. As to one other point, when SETI was up and running many people participated, including myself, I had 2 T1 connected PCs that ran almost continually after hours SETI, a massive amount of PC power was applied for the search of ET signals, none were found. We may not have searched enough, but I would argue that unless the technology increases by 10s of magnitudes in both detection capability and resolution, the claim we just stopped trying is invalid, we stopped because there was, after years of trying no evidence of success. My point is simple and irrefutable, with a complete dearth of information about alien sentients, speculating on why we never see aliens is fluffy speculative guessy science at best. I doubt my lower limit rate estimates are correct, but by the same token everyone higher limits are probably not correct. Them being wrong does not make me right, it makes the argument useless.

Never. Never saw one meteor fall or hit a roof, I assume that the activity of the animals on the property pushed them out of the ground.

Sayings extraterrestrials do not exist is a leading argument, saying they don't is also leading. If we don't get to stuck in superfluous details. Paradoxes always exist until you have an answers. As i pointed out to have visitors you must have life on other worlds, that's a logical requirement. Since we can't even detect life, let alone space traveling capable life, it means the visitors paradox remains valid, it just defers to the next level. Why is there so much observed life in Earth and little or no observed life elsewhere. The Fermi paradox quietens, but the underlying paradox broadens as more world examples flow in, and no examples of living worlds flow forth. The problem with the "Fermi paradox" is that its is impossible to condition the argument, to many guesses. For the why no other living worlds argument you can, at least, craft a confidence range, if Mars comes up positive then the range shrinks. But as it stands at the moment the range is huge.

Your name is now Z_carp.......resistence is useless, (unless you have the empathy gun, of course)

It turned out to be a Ford probe was found on the road dead. Sent a tow truck out to pick up the probe.

When i was a kid i had collected meteroites when mowing grass in my neighborhood. I collected couple mayonaise jars full of them. Some areas there was a meteorite every square foot or so, they tended to pop up after severe storms. They were particularly common on soil that had never been turned. I used to use them as shot for my wrist rocket, lol. what an intelligent use of uncommon items.

I had my misgivings about the program, namely i did not think it was going to work, it was too dreamy eyed. And from congresses point of view and distrust of government, what if they screwed up and safe asteroid hits earth. That would be the end of space exploration. As for funding next cycle, forget that the HoR will not change.

The way we look at them tells us that they are kargely dead worlds, but having said that alot of living world potentials are over looked. I apply the scientest should stop guessing rule howver, If you have to increase the pCO2 to 4.5 atmospheres to get your world to work, chances are it doesn't and you should stop guessing.

Did you read what I applied to the confidence range? read again you will find it. But to be technically accurate the paradox begs the question why have we not yet experienced extraterrestrials, either remotely or locally, since there would likely be older worlds, my answer is if you read that the sampling is poor, and the confidence range is broad enough to include all possibilities. The qustion is not silly, only the answers are silly.

We have yet to build the machjnce capable of giving "42" as the answer.

So doing alot of reading about space-time lately and ran across this very appropriate quote yesterday. http://www.householdgigs.com/2016/05/05/fermi-paradox/ So the above is just coincidentally in my reddit stream this AM and I was reading down the list wondering why it was new science and I am reminded of the Ravolli quote, and I though if this is not an example of guessing then I don't know what is. How would I solve the problem. Before I got a few paragraphs down I realized that it was a dirty laundry list of guesses, many of them rather uninformed. So here is it, we have 1 example of sentient life. And we have been looking all over the cosmos and not seeing any other examples of life, and have not even found examples comparable to earth after studying 2400 exoplanets. So we have a data set of 1 and a possibility of less than 1:2400 or more. So lets look and see what the density might be. So if life on planets is X below the probability of observing 1 in 2400 is y (remembering that our observation of ourselves has an acute observers bias) The problem is there are no statistical tests that allow this. While most qualitative testing does not allow me to do this (to do it accurately I really need a >>32 bit computer), I can trick the fisher exact test into doing it by setting ratios like the actual is say billion over a million is roughly equal to 1000:1 odds. So lets see were this takes us. lets start by saying there are for every 1000 planets we have 999 with sentient life and 1 without. and we will step this ratio down by 10 each time. SL:Not 999 :1 P = 0 to the calculation limit of a 32 bit computer. 99:1 P = 0 " " 9:1 P = 0 1:1 P = 0 1:9 P < 1E-107 1:99 P < 1E-9 1:999 P < 0.4 1:9999 P < 0.3 1:99999 P < 1E-3 1:999999 P < 1E-5 Note: the estimates below are not really accurate because they test the computational limits of the computer, I could reduce these, but . . . . . . 1:9999999 P < 1E-7 1:9999999 P < 1E-9 1:9999999 P < 1E-11 As we can see the probabilities drop more slowly into the microscopic ranges on the low estimates relative to the high estimates of extraterrestrial life. What this means that if we have to entertaine a broad confidence interval, its going to stretch more quickly into the very low estimates of sentiency. Do we have to entertain such estimates? A historical analysis of the science suggests yes,the curve has been shifting down. First we examined ourselves and concluded it was 100%, then we discovered our 9 planets and it dropped to 1:9, then 100s of planets, now thousands of planets and the probability is falling each time, the reason it is falling is because of our bias. Where does observers bias come from and what is it? Our observations suffer from both observation and confirmation bias. The problem is only living sentients can be/create the observers can count sentient life, and there always has to be 1 observer an any observation of sentient life. In very crude sampling (such as 2400 planets out of galaxy that has a trillion planets), very low estimates can never exist because there would be no observer to observe a region that is devoid of life or sentient life. So lets say our observation limit is 100,000 light years, and the field of view has a 10,000,000 stars with transects and we pick up 3 planets with stars. If we do not see signs of life in 1:30,000,000 planets can never allow a statistic say 1000 times lower, even if that is the life's (or sentient life's) rate in the entire galaxy So the base assumption of science is that a potential something is nothing until something. We can flip that to the opposite if we observe a strict pattern, such as all flying birds have wings, if want to test a new set of flying birds then the null hypothesis is that they should have wings. Having one earth and no observations of planets, we assume that all planets should have life. Moving to the next higher level of observation, having studied the moon and many planets, we have yet to observe life elsewhere (though predict that one or two have life). In observing the planets and all the moons of our solar system we do not see evidence of sentient life. The mistakes that are made here in the argument is that we assume the current knowledge suffices to create the appropriate argument, and the revelation of new technique reveals that it is not. Its historic ignorance, the question is whether we are above historic ignorance on not in our answers. From this perspective we should argue that the naive state of a planet is not to have life or sentient life, that is our null hypothesis that needs to be disproven. Some may argue the point but if they do we then have all kinds of subjective qualifiers. Do we count moons, do we count large asteroids, what should be counted in the assessment of life. So lets say we only count planets that have atmospheres. How many planets have we observed that have atmospheres, . . .very few. What is the probability that life exists outside of earth, in this argument we can exclude earth, lets say we believe to be transplanted here by beings from another galaxy, an omniscient creature about intergalactic sentients and we know we are the only species in this galaxy from the next galaxy, we ask the question how many planets have evolved life in this galaxy. To improve information of the low estimate statistics, there is another statistical method which is to remove 1 and then re-analyze, this is often done with data presents with a few outliers. Lets suppose we remove the earth from the analysis, because the observer creates the bias, what happens. Assuming no evidence of life or sentient life on 2400 worlds how can we estimate? 1:9 P < 1E-109 1:99 P < 1E-10 1:999 P < 0.2 1:9999 P < 1.00 1:99999 P < 1.00 since now earth is one of 2400, the lost estimates can of very rare life can never go below 1:2400 (0.0042) which means that our probability slow on the low estimate side and essentially stops at 0.0042 This is because although the probability is high at the low end, of the 2400 observations we have a 1:2400 chance of removing the one earth, removing any of the other planets does not matter much, they are pretty much the same statistic. So this then gets into a qualitative sphere, how far could we observe life on other worlds if we could observer sentient life on other planets. Or to ask the basic question, do some of the observed planets have life and we simply cannot observe it, do some have sentient life and we are missing it? If another world has life did it evolve or did it commute? Asking these questions we can then ask how biased is the observations? Planet hunters are looking for earth like planets, not at all planets, what about moons around gas giants, don't they qualify, should not the total number of planets be more? And we cannot see all planets, only those that transect our Earth - star sight, many go unobserved. There is a size bias to the observation, certain stars cannot be observed because of solar flares during the observation window, etc. What have I done, I have improvised a confidence range containing 99.7 percent of estimate where there was none it runs from about 1:20 satellites (1:300 for sentients) to 1:1E23 for the observable universe. The number is sufficiently small to not require adjustment for the entire universe. There is some hideousness to the argument, because space-time obviates any considerations beyond about 2 billion light years. And in fact the observations constraint is limited to a pool about 1000 galaxies in our vicinity. This statistical observation therefore epitomizes the problem that the data used to describe the Fermi paradox is a guess, it has a huge confidence range that is created by an observation bias and no other positive observations. The argument exists but the quantification does not. Some here might argue, why have such a wide and useless confidence range. A nice reason is that the Fermi paradox has bred a plethora of guesses that have each a very low probability of being correct. The confidence range therefore contains data for all of them and does not interfere greatly with the likelihood that any given one is wrong or right. So for example how could you know if there are species wiping out upstart civilizations if, in fact, that sentients are so rare, such species would only have a space-time SOI of a few 100 million light years and you are outside of that range, they might exist, but you could never detect them. The correct answer to the Fermi paradox is that it (the argument) exists. This may seem like a denigration of the paradox, its not meant to be, its meant to be a denigration of the solutions. Whenever we have an object where it can be inserted into an 'it exists' class, but the supporting data is minimal, we have to be wary of the answers/solutions. Who told us this? About 1000 years of theological philosophy went unresolved until Occam's razor. The simplest answer here is that life is rare and sentient life is even rarer, but we do not know what degree or why because our sampling is too poor. The sampling maybe poor because there is roughly nothing to sample......only statistics, however poor, are permissible at this point, nothing else has relevance.