Rant about Aliens...

its about statistics. Most , almost all are uninhabitable. But their number is huge. I mean if 1 in 100.000 is habitable, but their are trillions of them.
For me we are not alone. But they are SO FAR. That communication is not possible. Even at speed of light. Add to it ever increasing expansions of universe, not only increasing but also increasing speed. For me we go into a dark night.
 
That sounds exaggerated. I see catalogues with 500,000,000+ stars
So billions might not be out of the question.
The dimension that is so often ignored in making these kinds of estimates of the number of habitable planets is time. Consider the 4.5 billion year old age of the earth. For most of that time, the planet has not had an ecosystem that could support human agricultural production as we know it, which is the foundation of our modern civilisation. If you landed your spaceship on the earth any time before the last 5 million years, would humans have been able to settle it? Perhaps one could argue we would be able to establish agriculture in the cenozoic, but is it realistic to think we could do so earlier than that? If we limit it to the cenozoic, that's 100 million out of the 4.5 billion year age of the earth when humans could conceivably settle here, which is only the last 2% of the earth's lifespan. If we take a more realistic estimate and say that we might conceivably be able to establish agriculture if we landed on earth some time within the last 10 million years, that is a window that is just 0.2% of the earth's lifespan.

This means that if we did develop a technology that made it possible for us to travel to other star systems, we would have to arrive there at just the right small period of time in those planets lifetimes (if their evolution followed a similar pattern to earth), to be able to settle them to establish a viable human culture. Landing on earth as it was, 1 billion or more years ago, ie during 3/4 of it's history, likely wouldn't have helped you very much; especially in the first approx. 2 billion years when was no oxygen in the atmosphere.
1781278451249.png
e
 
The Drake equation states:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

1781279408460.png


Each of the terms in the equation become progressively smaller as we read towards the right. While fp and ne may be relatively large numbers, and perhaps even fi, if we then consider the appearance of Homo Sapiens, perhaps 300000 years ago, as the fraction of the lifespan of the earth that has sustained intelligent life, we are talking about a time window that is 0.006% of the earth's 4.5 billion year lifespan. So I think at any one point in time, the value of fi is likely to be small. Similarly if we consider the time since the development of radio astronomy, which is less than the last 100 years, then we are talking about a truly tiny time window as a proportion of the age of the earth. Of course we don't know if a technological civilisation elsewhere might survive for 1000 or 100000 or 10 million years, but the evidence we have from earth is that a mass extinction is currently underway and hence the lifespan of technological civilisations may be rather small before they self-destruct, if our experience here on earth is representative of other planets. So the solution value of N may turn out to be a rather small number, at any given point in time.

There may well have been hundreds or even thousands of technological civilisations in existence in the milky way galaxy during the last 14 billlion years of its existence, but the numbers of them co-existing at any one point in time may be rather small. Once a technological civilisation appears, it's central problem becomes survival over anything more than a short period of time, if earth is at all representative.
 
Reminds me of the Kirok episode of Star Trek, "The Paradise Sydrome."
That's a good episode, but I was thinking about something different.

What happens to birds after they manage to migrate to an island where there isn't any predators? Eventually some of them give up on flying, because it they don't have to do so anymore, and they can then use the calories they would have spent on flying towards something else, like reproducing. Maybe the same thing might happen to people forced to spend thousands of generations in a slower than light star ship. The human brain consumes roughly one forth of all the calories a person eats, so maybe having smaller brains and being less intelligent might be a good survival strategy under such circumstances.
 
i see it every day, my labrador dog is the result of 1.300 years of selectioned breeding. It has flat ears why ? The absence of aggression leads at the same time to flat ears. It barks , why in order to communicate with humans. It even looks into your eyes.
Grey wolves , the grant parents of all dogs, don't do these things...
 
The vast majority of all planets is uninhabitable just because of the very narrow conditions needed to become inhabitable:
Also, maybe there needs to be mineral ore near the surface of the crust for the inhabitants of said planet to experience first a bronze age, and then later on an iron age. Earth has a lot of metallic deposits near its surface, most likely due to the big whack which formed our Moon. However, if that big whack never happened, then their might not be enough easily available minerals for us to escape the agricultural age. Maybe the galaxy is full of intelligent species, but they are stuck at farming with stone plows, because they cannot manage to make a plow out of bronze or iron. Also, what if someone is stuck on a planet without much coal, that would also make it difficult to produce steel.
 
The idea that you'll be able to jump in a little x-wing fighter and fly off to the dagoba system is pure fantasy
I agree, very highly improbable, but yet not absolutely impossible. My guess is that faster than light travel is probably impossible, but if we can someday reach 99.9% the speed of light, then we might be able to reach a few stars within the span of a human lifetime. However, most likely we won't reach ninety nine percent within the next century.
 
I think I read somewhere that dogs with floppy ears are that way for two reasons. Firstly, wolf pups have floppy ears and it's a sign of keeping themselves immature, a sign on neotony, the retaining of infantile character traits.
I also think I've read that with water dogs it aids in keeping water out of their ears. I might be wrong about both of these. Wolves also bark though it is something that gets developed more in many dogs--such as the ones that bark when following a scent. But barking does seem to be something that comes from wolves and/or jackels. I've not been into dogs for many years, but I believe that they're broadly divided--not, as Lorenz said, into wolf and jacket but into different types of wolves. But all this is from stuff I read in the 80's so i could be wrong and there is almost certainly more recent information.
 
I agree, very highly improbable, but yet not absolutely impossible. My guess is that faster than light travel is probably impossible, but if we can someday reach 99.9% the speed of light, then we might be able to reach a few stars within the span of a human lifetime. However, most likely we won't reach ninety nine percent within the next century.
Not exactly. "Nothing can travel faster than light" is a famous scientific slogan, but it is often interpreted wrongly. If we discover some incredible powerful and efficient propulsion method, we can reach (in theory) a star at 100 light-years also in one year of our life. We can accelerate indefinitely and we can perceive the travel as one year long.

The problem is that at relativistic speeds, from an external observer, we are still travelling only at the speed of light, and according them we are spending 100 years for reaching the star. They will notice that inside the spaceship we are moving at slow motion. We will perceive the travel as one year long, but all the rest of the universe will evolve at an increased ratio. In case of extremely far stars, we risk to reach them when they are already transformed in a super-nova.
 
Also, maybe there needs to be mineral ore near the surface of the crust for the inhabitants of said planet to experience first a bronze age, and then later on an iron age. Earth has a lot of metallic deposits near its surface, most likely due to the big whack which formed our Moon. However, if that big whack never happened, then their might not be enough easily available minerals for us to escape the agricultural age. Maybe the galaxy is full of intelligent species, but they are stuck at farming with stone plows, because they cannot manage to make a plow out of bronze or iron. Also, what if someone is stuck on a planet without much coal, that would also make it difficult to produce steel.
meteoric iron might be a possibility and was used by early humans to make tools, agriculture might also look incredibly different with strange biologies and ecosystems.

though perhaps they would also struggle to leave their gravity well with chemical rockets if their home world was a super earth.
 
But then there is alot of stuff outside our measurable range ...
Absolutely and the universe is still expanding?

I used to think AI was a godsend to finding anomalies in the sky. Not so much anymore.
Can you imagine the work it took to make individual lens masks just to capture one particular target for telescopes.
Now they use electronic masks and filters. Gravitational lensing of invisible objects..
 
Aliens are getting worried we are closing in on their secrets...
Yeah, and https://phys.org/news/2025-09-physicists-kind-crystal-humans.html and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium
... although the moscovium has a half-life of just 0.65 secs, so it's not going to power your saucer for very long...

"Over a hundred atoms of moscovium have been observed to date, all of which have been shown to have mass numbers from 286 to 290." They're going to need a bit more than that... presumably!
 
Also, maybe there needs to be mineral ore near the surface of the crust
Iron is pretty frequent. A planet without iron is rather seldom. App. 1/3 of Earth is iron (most is in the inside.)

All elements heavier than helium are produced within the last phase of a star's life. Among the most synthesized elements are carbon, oxygen, silicon, nitrogen and iron.
See Wikipedia: Overview of consecutive fusion processes in massive stars
You can roughly estimate, the lighter an element the more frequent it is, and the more protons a nucleus has the more seldom. Point is, most of that stuff ain't native but bond into molecules, especially the highly reactive elements like flourine, sodium, calcium, lithium, oxygen et al.
Everytime a star dies, a lot of that stuff is hurled into space.
And there is a lot of stars. Many are really giant ones. Our own "huge" sun is just a tiny yellow dwarf. See Wikipedia: Size comparison of known stars
And there has been a lot of time for many stars to be born, lived and died. That's why there is so much stuff besides hydrogen and helium out there.
I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the universe there were gold nuggets the size of a small town.
I can imagine with some the greed set in. Right? 😁
But before you build spacecrafts and start another gold rush:
" Rincewind had a feeling that some sort of trap was being set.
'Yes?' he ventured.
[the Patrician,] 'And if every man [...] had a mountain of gold of his own? Would that be a good thing? What would happen? Think carefully.'
Rincewind's brow furrowed. He thought. 'We'd all be rich?'
The way the temperature fell at his remark told him that it was not the correct one. "
[Terry Pratchett, The Colour Of Magic, Corgi 1983]

Hydrogen is anyway by far the most element in the universe. 76% of all mass and 93% of all atoms in the universe are hydrogen. So, when you have oxygen it's very probable to get water.
Silicon is the element stone mostly consists of. And since there is also a lot of nitrogen, carbon and oxygen, the elements needed for life, so for an inhabitable planet are not so very rare.
Water is in fact not that very rare in universe. Liquid water is.
Point is, most of the universe is very cold, pretty near to absolute zero of -273.15°C. While stars are feakishly scalding, at least 40M°C up to 4T°C. If you imagine a linear scale that shows the temperature range the universe offers, and then look at the span from 0°C to 50°C - that's roughly at where proteins start to denaturize; that's why you need to cook some food to make it harmless, for example the poison in uncooked legumes - that's just a very tiny narrow span very left on that huge scale where life is possible. And exclusively rare.

But before you can even think of something like farming, creating tools, civilisation, industrial revolution, capitalism, decandence, climate change, war ... - long before humans developed mining they used metal from meteors. This already is native. Instead of ore for which metallurgy needs to be developed to get iron from it. It was rare and not seldom preserved for something special. And not seldom high quality. Because not seldom besides iron it also contains nickel. As almost likewise modern steel in iron age it was high tech from a far away future - there has to be life at all in the first place.
Can a planet without life be inhabitable?
No.
For higher life forms oxygen is needed to breath. But oxygen is highly reactive (That's why it delivers animals the energy to live.) Without the invention of photosynthesis, which produces permanently new oxygen again, all oxygen would be bond.
Additionally first you need autotrophs, organisms that can produce organic material from mineral material.
Or in a single word: plants.

Imagine Earth had never developed life at all. There would be the continents almost like we have them today. There was a little less land. Some land would a bit lower, because of the lack of layers of coal, oil and gas. And some land, also mountains, would be absent or a lot smaller. Because of the lack of lime stone - no molluscs, no lime. So Hawaii would exist, 'cause it's volcanic origin, but the Bahamas not so much, 'cause their origin is from corals.
There would be wind, clouds, rain, fresh water in rivers and lakes, salt water in oceans, waves, beaches and tides, snow and glaciers... I don't know which color the sky would have, since without the great oxidation event, the atmosphere contained no oxygen, and had another composition. A physician can answer that question, which color the sky had.
But anyway Earth was sterile.
This means, you also cannot plant any seeds you brought with you in your spaceship. Well, you can, and they will germ, but shortly die again. There is no humus and no microorganisms which are needed by a plant's roots to get nurishment from the soil.
No oxygen to breath, and no food to eat if there is no life at all in the first place. Such a planet is uninhabitable, even if it was in the habitable zone and posses all the needed elements and is cooled down enough.
Here we have the classic paradox of booting again:
You need life to get life.
Well, of course you could bring some basic life forms with you as kind of a boot medium. But by the experience with our planet the booting may take a while until the system reached a boot level you can start some jobs.
....🌱🌿🎄🌲🌲🌴🌴🌳🌳🌲🌳🌴🌴🌲🌴🎄🌳 🦕
 
Here we have the classic paradox of booting again:
You need life to get life.
Well, of course you could bring some basic life forms with you as kind of a boot medium. But by the experience with our planet the booting may take a while until the system reached a boot level you can start some jobs.
....🌱🌿🎄🌲🌲🌴🌴🌳🌳🌲🌳🌴🌴🌲🌴🎄🌳 🦕
No one knows. Did DNA and cellular life evolve independently on earth? Was the early earth seeded with life brought by comets? The panspermia theory suggests that life is widespread in the universe, and did not arise independently on earth, but we have no answer to the question "where did life first evolve?". Is the universe constructed in such a way that life is inevitable?
There have been arguments for and against panspermia, going on for decades... :-)
 
For higher life forms oxygen is needed to breath. But oxygen is highly reactive (That's why it delivers animals the energy to live.) Without the invention of photosynthesis, which produces permanently new oxygen again, all oxygen would be bond.
Additionally first you need autotrophs, organisms that can produce organic material from mineral material.
Or in a single word: plants.

🦕
You also need the decomposers, the invertebrates,fungi and single-celled decomposers; I am sure that even viruses have their role to play. Anyone who wants to go and establish a human colony on another planet, needs to either take an ecosystem with them and establish that on the new planet... or needs to find a planet that has an existing ecosystem that is compatible with human life. Which is why I think a self-sustaining Mars colony is a pipe-dream, certainly with our present technological level. Perhaps it could survive for a little whlle, so long as there is an umbilical supply line from the Earth. But I think it would be very difficult to survive there long-term without such a link back to the home planet.

Consider this: would we even be able to settle Antarctica in the present day, which is a much more benign environment than Mars (you can breathe the air, for a start); without a constant flow of ships to the colony from elsewhere on Earth, bringing all the essentials of life? I think that would be a difficult task. Perhaps if we had a new, near-limitless energy source like fusion; but even then, I think it would be a difficult proposition to make such a colony self-sustaining. And Antarctica has the huge advantage of being only a boat trip away, not 140 million miles by spaceship.

There have been various attempts to replicate the earth's biosphere in a self-contained system: https://biosphere2.org/
 
The skies are pretty clear where I live. Few years ago while looking at Perseids, lying down in an olive orchard looking straight up, I was fixed for 20-30 seconds at a point I could not explain. There were two dots up there, both were of size and luminance of a star from my POV, in a circular motion. I cannot recall if one went clockwise, other counter, or they were in same direction, it looked like two independent things to me doing a thing together. So after turning my head to tell what I saw I couldn't fix back on the same point in sky again, I lost them.

There wasn't possibility of anything between me and open skies, like a net, or some bugs up there. We went for perfect observation position during perfect conditions to look at meteor shower.
 
The skies are pretty clear where I live. Few years ago while looking at Perseids, lying down in an olive orchard looking straight up, I was fixed for 20-30 seconds at a point I could not explain. There were two dots up there, both were of size and luminance of a star from my POV, in a circular motion. I cannot recall if one went clockwise, other counter, or they were in same direction, it looked like two independent things to me doing a thing together. So after turning my head to tell what I saw I couldn't fix back on the same point in sky again, I lost them.

There wasn't possibility of anything between me and open skies, like a net, or some bugs up there. We went for perfect observation position during perfect conditions to look at meteor shower.
Probably satellites. Some of them can get moved around in the sky by the operators. Depends how good your eyes are, you might see two points of light where in reality there is a single source, according to the resolving power of your eyesight. I have seen them going over in the new forest here, away from the town, very low magnitute points of light travelling in a straight line, very high up. Unless they are high altitude recon planes, that's another possibility. Or it could be a couple of weather balloons being swept around by the wind. I would say more likely to be something artificial. Of course, you never know!

The Nimitz tic-tac story is interesting. The two pilot witnesses who spoke out publically are highly credible, IMHO. They both saw undersea and flying objects, up close. I still think its much more likely that whatever they saw originated from somewhere on Earth, rather than came here from another star system, but it's certainly a mystery. I don't doubt the credibility of the witnesses, unless this is some kind of complicated, deliberate misinformation exercise by the government, for purposes unknown, I can't really imagine why they would do something like that. But the two fighter jet pilots who described their sightings, both appear to me to be reliable, highly trained observers, not the type of people who are likely to misidentify something. If you're a jet fighter pilot, your life literally depends on your observation skills, obviously, and these two were not rookies; Dietrich was a Lt. Commander and Fravor was a full Commander, so they were/are both highly experienced, with many flying hours. Their accounts need to be taken as a higher grade of evidence, than if someone like me saw something in the sky while out for a walk, for example. Of course none of this implies that whatever they saw came here from another planet.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygB4EZ7ggig
 
Back
Top