(PhysOrg.com) -- If you were part of a team sent to explore an unknown planet; and that planet had a natural orbiting moon, wouldn’t it make sense to use that moon as a base camp or remote observation post? Especially if you didn’t want those being observed to know you were there? Professor Paul Davis and research technician Robert Wagner think so, and that’s why they’ve published a paper in Acta Astronautica that suggests we humans begin taking a little closer look at our own moon to see if any alien life forms might have left behind some evidence of their visit.
Though some might see it as farfetched, or heaven forbid, lunacy, Davis and Wagner are convinced that it’s worth the small amount of investment such a search would entail. What if, they suggest, close-up photographs of the moon that are already being made available to the masses (from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) via the Internet, were to be presented with a request that anyone that would like to participate, study whichever photos they find interesting, looking for anything that appears of unnatural origin, then report back. Interesting “finds” could then be studied by many others, and those that seem promising could be studied further by professionals. It all seems so easy, after all, other group projects are underway, and by most accounts, appear to meet with relative success.
Another possibility, the team suggests, is using image or shape recognizing software to scan photos of the moon to help narrow down search areas and to alert humans when it finds something interesting.
The idea of putting resources towards searching for the existence of intelligent alien life wouldn’t be new of course, the SETI project exists for that sole purpose. Looking for evidence that we’ve been visited by an extraterrestrial is of course a little different, but in this case, it seems to make sense. After all as Davis and Wagner point out, because the moon is so barren, has no atmosphere and because it is so seldom hit with meteorites, things that go on there are preserved for tens or even millions of years. If any aliens visited the moon during that time span, it should be possible to find traces of their activity, or their equipment, offering proof for the very first time, that there really is someone else out there.
Explore further:
New calculations suggest Jupiter's core may be liquefying
More information: Searching for alien artifacts on the moon, Acta Astronautica, In Press. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2011.10.022
Abstract
The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has a low probability of success, but it would have a high impact if successful. Therefore it makes sense to widen the search as much as possible within the confines of the modest budget and limited resources currently available. To date, SETI has been dominated by the paradigm of seeking deliberately beamed radio messages. However, indirect evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence could come from any incontrovertible signatures of non-human technology. Existing searchable databases from astronomy, biology, earth and planetary sciences all offer low-cost opportunities to seek a footprint of extraterrestrial technology. In this paper we take as a case study one particular new and rapidly-expanding database: the photographic mapping of the Moon's surface by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) to 0.5 m resolution. Although there is only a tiny probability that alien technology would have left traces on the moon in the form of an artifact or surface modification of lunar features, this location has the virtue of being close, and of preserving traces for an immense duration. Systematic scrutiny of the LRO photographic images is being routinely conducted anyway for planetary science purposes, and this program could readily be expanded and outsourced at little extra cost to accommodate SETI goals, after the fashion of the SETI@home and Galaxy Zoo
via The Guardian
Rute
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2011JIMBO
2 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2011dogbert
1.7 / 5 (32) Dec 26, 2011If there were any -- repeat any -- indication that life existed anywhere but on this planet and this solar system, such efforts as SETI and this scheme might have some basis, but there is not a shred of evidence that simple bacteria exist anywhere but here, much less intelligent, space faring life.
Pirouette
2.2 / 5 (26) Dec 26, 2011As I recall, at least one Apollo astronaut has revealed that there are artifacts on the Moon. His account may have been taken into consideration and will be looked into further. I would say it's high time, as long as the technology exists for real Moon exploration. And it's a lot better than spending taxpayer money on negative projects like aggression. i.e., war.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (22) Dec 26, 2011Sooo...you're saying that we shouldn't look because if we DID look we would find nothing because since we haven't looked we have found nothing? (head explodes)
That is the shortest amount of time anyone has ever taken to contradict himself.
While I agree that SETI (and the scheme suggested in the article) are looking in entirely the wrong way I do think that we should keep our eyes open.
baudrunner
2.6 / 5 (23) Dec 26, 2011The ancient alien visitors (Egyptian hieroglyphs say "gods") managed to crash one of their "ships of millions of years" into a crater on the far side of the moon. Apollo 15 command module pilot photographed it. It can be seen in the archives here http://www.lpi.us...5-P-9625
NASA will not deny the photo. Yeah, I'll say there's an interest in going back to do some more investigation.
dbsi
2 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2011Callippo
1 / 5 (11) Dec 26, 2011dogbert
1.8 / 5 (22) Dec 26, 2011Not at all. I'm saying we should use our efforts wisely, looking for signs of life on other systems first. If we should discover that life is abundant, then we should expand out search to seeking intelligent life. But first, we should seek to find life -- any life at all -- elsewhere.
Planets in the so called habitable zone of other stars, with liquid surface water and oxygen, carbon, nitrogen atmospheres would be a strong indicator of life. Nothing we have discovered so far gives any indication of life.
Vienna
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 26, 2011Pirouette
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2011Images of the Moon are the next best thing to explore when the real thing is not available. But, the explorers must let go of their biases and skepticism in order to render an accurate observation. I suspect a few terminal skeptics will join the pack, pretending to be true explorers of the images, but in reality will be eager to further their skeptical admonishments in the possible face of true alien artifacts. But, in the long run, it will be up to those authorized to make the determination, who will tell either the truth, or adhere to their own skepticism if something is found.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (19) Dec 26, 2011How can you use your efforts more wisely than by doing something that costs next to nothing on data you already have?
Because, and let me repat this: we haven't yet looked anywhere to any degree that would be able to discover life.
MorituriMax
2.2 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 20118 )
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (19) Dec 26, 2011There are a few very broad algorithsm that can catch such things as edges, differences in density distributions, deviations from expected spectrum and the like. But there is no algorithm that you can run - like in the movies - that will give you an "anomaly detected" signal for anything more complex than a basic geometric form.
To design a good pattern recognition algorithm you have to know pretty much what you are looking for. Then you fit the algorithm to that class and let it run. Here we don't have that prior knowledge.
I'm also not sure the data we have here is good enough to catch anything but large, regular structures. The data has a resolution of 0.5 meters. So anything that is below 1 meters squared or so will not show up on any algorithm. Probably even bigger if there is any noise in the images.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2011My point exactly.
Pirouette
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 26, 2011Pirouette
3.2 / 5 (21) Dec 26, 2011@dogbert. . .the obvious fact that science and technology are advancing daily gives us hope that, whatever is out there will be detected and, hopefully, will help to advance our knowledge of the Universe even further. Now I know that you are a religious man and that you believe in your God. But have you ever considered the possibility that your God did NOT limit his creations to just the Earth, but to other Earths? By you assuming that there is no life, intelligent or not, elsewhere in the Universe just because we haven't found evidence of it yet, is negating the POWER of your God and limiting him to the creation of only Earth and its creatures
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (20) Dec 26, 2011www.volkskrant.nl...de.dhtml
http://translate....de.dhtml
Pirouette
3.1 / 5 (19) Dec 26, 2011You and other skeptics, religious or not, ASSUME too much of the workings of the Natural forces. There may very well be alien artifacts on the Moon. That is something we won't know until potential evidence is collated, examined and a valid determination has been brought forth. Perhaps it would be helpful to stop thinking like a carbon-based human while digging into the science. It's fine to have your own private beliefs, but the rational mind also puts aside those beliefs, even temporarily, to examine other potentialities and possibilities. Without that ability, we might as well be in the "dark ages" with nothing but our superstitions.
Hari_Seldon
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2011Is there any evidence that points to that currently? I'm not aware of any. So what do we need to do to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no artifacts on the moon?
The people who support such a search should lay out their terms for failure in advance. Otherwise I think they seem like conspiracy theorists that will try to bend all and opposing evidence to fit their pet theories.
Say under what circumstances you would conclude such a search to be a failure, otherwise you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Newbeak
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2011You know,I worry about things like this.Our civilization is comparable to an electronic house of cards,and one CME could get lucky and kill power plants for months/years.I sure hope the engineers at our power plants are monitoring reports of solar storms,and are ready to shut everything down if a major solar event is on the way.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2011Dogbert used the word "Wisely". Ahahahahahahah....
Generally nothing could be less wise than what Dogbert recommends.
Newbeak
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2011Maybe 2001 was unintentionally more than a sci-fi novel.It would make sense to leave something akin to the Monolith on the moon,and when humans discovered it,it would broadcast a signal to the visitors.Depending on their motives,they could then send a fleet to wipe out the upstarts before they became a space-faring nuisance,or sit down and chew the fat with us.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (75) Dec 26, 2011There has already been significant progress in investigation of that photo. For example, in the following close up, though difficult to make out clearly there is ample evidence that even the most skeptical would have trouble explaining...
http://i859.photo...lien.jpg
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2011Newbeak
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2011NASA isn't all over it because even SETI is still highly controversial among many scientists,who consider it a waste of time and money.So,NASA planetary scientists stick with safe basic research,and study lunar geology and such.
blawo
2.9 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2011But, there is one thing they can want from us: Not to spread further. Not to be concurrent for them. Not to colonize space which they consider belonging them.
This said, the most striking evidence of an alien influence upon a less advanced civilization, is abrupt decrease in willingness of this civilization to spread into the outer space. This may be injected as propaganda against manned space exploration, as political incapability, confusions in goals, or as popular orientation into virtual domains like internet, movies and games, which are much cheaper, much less demanding, and very addictive.
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (67) Dec 26, 2011dogbert
2.2 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2011I have made no such assumptions as you want to attribute to me, but are really your own ideas.
I only commented that we should use our efforts to try and locate evidence of life elsewhere instead of blindly hoping that some intelligent civilization has visited us in the past.
It makes sense to look for life elsewhere in the universe. It makes no sense to expect that intelligent life would cross the vast distances at tremendous expense to visit our planet only to leave after they arrived here.
Continued...
camshaft
Dec 26, 2011dogbert
2.4 / 5 (19) Dec 26, 2011Would we cross such distances at tremendous expense only to abandon a world such as this one? Why should we expect alien life to do what we would not do?
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 26, 2011No, neither of us are capable of guessing what any alien life form might think whether carbon based or otherwise. But we are postulating intelligent life. The horrible expense of interstellar travel followed by the abandonment of a world such as ours does not seem intelligent.
Newbeak
4.4 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2011A true scientist wouldn't speak like that.They would come here to study exobiology,and earth would be an ideal location to study.You are right,we couldn't offer them anything related to technology,except maybe tabletop fusion,lol,but we have produced some fine literature which is timeless.
We wouldn't be a threat to them,as by the time we were advanced enough to travel to other star systems,we would be a far more peaceful civilization,otherwise we would destroy ourselves first.
The concept of aliens influencing us to abandon space travel is not realistic,IMHO.It would involve understanding our civilization and motives,and being fluent in the world's languages.We can't even communicate with other intelligences on earth (ie.dolphins,for example). How on earth could a completely alien life form learn to communicate with us on the sly?
Pirouette
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 26, 2011Nou. . .I'm afraid I have to agree with your and blawo's estimation of these possibilities. If E.T.s are so far advanced in science and technology and also understands that mankind tends to be an aggressive and irrational being, as is evidenced in this and other threads by at least one of the comments, in the Physorg microcosm, and in the world at large, it stands to reason that they may be keep us from their midst. It's hard to blame them, if that's the case.
That would mean that our so-called "civilization" is meaningless from their standpoint. They may have isolated us in whatever ways possible. That might mean a drop in our own advancement in science and techynology except for what is important to our own existence.
nononoplease
4 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2011You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Pirouette
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 26, 2011@dogbert. . . .I apologize for my assumptions. . .as to WHY E.T. would travel such long distances to come to our SS, perhaps their home world is being consumed by a black hole or some other deathly threat which made it impossible for them to remain there. With their advanced tech and science, they may have colonized many other planets that are similar to their own, but which are in safe zones. Perhaps generations upon generations have colonized, then their offspring have colonized other planets and, in so doing, the descendants have come closer to Earth as a result. Our own telescopes may not be as powerful as theirs and they may have used much different methods of detecting us. It may be possible that some of the mythology is correct and they have been here already. It is folly to rule out any possibility.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2011Space is big. And likely they have originated on a totally different ecosystem (gravity, radiation level, atmosphere, light spectrum, etc, etc. ). So there is no competition. Do we kill fish because we fear they could one day take over our land? No, because the two ecosystems aren't the same
See above. What is a perfect world for us is most certainly toxic for them in one respect or another.
gwrede
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2011However, I don't think a civilization that has traveled tens or hundreds of light years needs to leave behind descent stages (like the Apollo missions). It might even be policy to not leave anything laying around.
Of course, there might be the inadvertently forgotten tricorder or wrench (lol), and that's why I suggest we wait till we have pictures with inch-resolution.
I think the chances of finding anything are slim, but when we have good photos, it couldn't hurt to do it anyway.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 26, 2011http://www.youtub...X22lrWxA
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 26, 2011http://www.eosnap...-do-sul/
LowIQ
4.4 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2011I'm going to paint a big target on my back but, the Catholic church held a week long conference on exo-biology, admitted that extra terrestrial life is possible, mainstream scientist openly talking about searching for ET artificats on the moon - not a big conspiracy theorist but you've got to wonder !!
Newbeak
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2011LOL! That nails it for me!
Pirouette
2.7 / 5 (15) Dec 26, 2011@gwrede. . . .I doubt that they would have any need for a descent stage. Their spacecraft would need to be complete and compact enough that nothing from it can be left behind inadvertently.
Yes. . .the Moon images need to be studied by many viewers due to the sheer volume coming back from the LRO. . .just as with the HiRise aboard the MRO. It was a very good idea to do this.
Humpty
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 26, 2011baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2011Pirouette
3 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2011Pirouette
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2011NeptuneAD
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2011gwrede
1 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2011This is obvious proof of an alien civilization, but could it be that they are just on a holiday trip? Or maybe they are on a pilgrimage to the Face Monument. Sad that they bought their travel guide at a clearance sale, or they would have known that the monument is on Mars.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2011Yeah just back up a little farther... thats it, keep backing up... just a little more...
Pirouette
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2011Newbeak
4 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2011Is the area you are talking about what I have pointed to with the arrow? If you zoom in,it isn't really that interesting.Just looks like the spray of matter from an meteorite strike: http://img42.imag...onlp.jpg
baudrunner
Dec 26, 2011SleepTech
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2011Eric_B
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2011ubavontuba
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2011I see it. You're talking about that cigar shape just to the right of the largest crater on the image, right?
This just looks like an optical illusion to me. The angle of the light, high contrast, and your own mind are conspiring to fool you into defining shapes that aren't really so defined.
This is why lunar craters often appear to "pop out" (like an outie belly button) rather than appear dish shaped. Stereo images resolve this problem.
In this case, we see not a misplaced object, but rather the valley floor and a small rise (in this image "north" facing slopes and flat areas are gray, and "south" facing slopes are in shadow). Essentially, it's a small "crinkle" in the surface rising from the base of a southward facing slope.
But that large crater to the left is suspicious. It sort of looks like an image of Jabba the hut. LOL!
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2011The lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Further, suggesting that because we haven't found anything is a good reason not to look is at best circular and at worst idiotic.
Pirouette
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 27, 2011baudrunner. . .honestly, I don't see anything but geology and something that looks like a sprocket but may be geology also. Newbeak has a red arrow pointing directly at it. It looks like it might be on a slightly higher elevation.
dan42day
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2011If so, then it won't be long before we show up at their home planet demanding a piece of their action!
dan42day
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2011scidog
not rated yet Dec 27, 2011xNico
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2011First of all, humans are anything but intelligent (I know many ignorant people will disagree with me right now). Also, I find it sad that you are clearly not an idiot (judging by your PhD), but yet are convinced that Water, Oxygen, and so on is needed in order for life to occur. How would we know? Maybe there are life forms out there who need gases (poisonous to us) in order to survive. Why do we assume that nothing is out there because our pathetic radio wave messages don't receive a response? Why do humans (who are apparently all knowing and all mighty) deny anything just because they can not comprehend anything about the world we live in?
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2011WTF? Mate, hate to break it to you but North is North EVERYWHERE on Earth. As an Australian I can assure you compasses work the same here as in the Northerm Hemisphere.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (67) Dec 27, 2011I believe in the southern hemisphere maps are printed where the southern hemisphere is on top, so South IS up.
Also, though I don't know through personal experience, I'm fairly certain compasses behave quite differently in different hemispheres. A compass in the southern hemisphere points south, does it not? Crikey.
OZGuy
4.8 / 5 (16) Dec 27, 2011If ignorance is bliss you pair must be bloody delirious on a daily basis.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2011http://en.wikiped...mblances
MarkyMark
1 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2011Oh dear !
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2011Erm. No.
Compasses point ALWAYS north-south (there is, as yet, no indication that magnetic monopoles exist. Though that is still an ongoing search).
Compasses don't magically spin on their axis when you hop over the equator. (The blue color on one half of the needle is just convention for the part that points to the magnetic north pole - i.e. the magnetic 'south' of the magnetized needle)
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2011I have made no such assumption. I merely point out that seeking evidence of life elsewhere is more likely to be fruitful if we look for something we are familiar with and which has a much higher probability of existing (since we know of at least one instance of it).
The probability of an alien space ship on the moon vanishingly small.
Do you honestly think that searching for chlorine based life forms has a probability of success comparable to searching for oxygen based life forms?
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2011I haven't suggested any such thing. I suggest we spend our resources wisely. Look where there is a slim probability of success. The probability of an alien space ship on the moon (or any alien artifact) is vanishingly small.
Searching for planets with liquid water on the surface and oxygen, carbon and nitrogen atmospheres may actually yield results.
I propose only that we search where there is some likelihood of success rather than wasting our time chasing rainbows.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2011as with any project (business or scientific) you have to look at the combination of three things:
- cost
- time
- benefit
Time can be neglected here, so it boils down to a cost/benefit analysis.
If the probability of benefit is vanishingly small but the cost is also very low then that might be preferrable to having some high cost alternative with a slightly higher success probability.
False dichotomy. It's not like we aren't searching for such planets also. This is just an additional thing we can do on the side for next to nothing. This stuff could even be done with a SETI@home kind of setup.
And on the off chance we find something: Wouldn't we look stupid if we travelled to the far reaches of the galaxy only to overlook something so close to home?
AWaB
3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2011You don't find evidence if you don't look!
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2011And we should look.
If people on this forum looked half as hard for evidence of God as they look for evidence for alien life, they would doubtless have become Christians long ago.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2011How so? If even the people who believe in him can't find him (at least to the point where they can present any evidence).
To paraphrase your good self:
"If there were any -- repeat any -- indication that god existed anywhere... this scheme might have some basis, but there is not a shred of evidence that god exists anywhere"
Strange how you term lack of evidence as: "It's not there" in onecase and as "It's definitely there" in another.
Double standard, much?
mrlewish
5 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2011stripeless_zebra
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2011The whole scientific world is looking for evidence of God my dear! Haven't you heard of the God Particle? :)
CHollman82
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2011They would get thousands of false reports from armchair astronauts with untrained eyes. You really need to understand the geology of the moon to recognize something as "unnatural".
stripeless_zebra
1 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2011That is pointless. Believers can produce this evidence from basically NOTHING. It is sort of like the Big Bang Theory.:)
Pirouette
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2011dogbert. . . .the premise is nice, having a supposedly beneficial entity watching over us and ready to forgive our sins as long as we believe. But the reality is that your God is transparent and therefore, the hard evidence is not there. If people in these threads reject and will not accept the possibility of silicon-based and semi-translucent E.T.s on another planet, then how do you expect them to accept your God as being real? They most likely want your God to be flesh and blood, but even then, they wouldn't accept him because he would be only a man and they would call him a "false prophet" or something like that. I have opened myself to ridicule over life forms on Mars and you do the same over your God. It doesn't matter to me what others think
CHollman82
2 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2011Uhh... it was precisely because of this that I left Christianity long ago.
Pirouette
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 27, 2011Pirouette
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 27, 2011Isaacsname
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2011For any race or civilization to be advanced enough to posses the know-how to traverse space in search of life, they would be more than capable of remaining hidden here.
There's absolutely no reason to " hide " anything on the moon.
Pirouette
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2011Isaacsname
3 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2011Don't you think they'd have the means to assemble materials atom by atom ?
Pirouette
2.5 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2011Pirouette
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2011Since our Moon has a tenuous atmosphere at best, they would also need their own "air" tanks and protective suits if they're planning to mine.
http://www.lpi.us...ts/lace/
Pirouette
Dec 27, 2011Isaacsname
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2011I could imagine what would happen to a vehicle in space traveling anywhere from ~ 10k mph to ridiculous speeds like 3/4 c, when it suddenly moves through an area full of dust and debris.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (55) Dec 27, 2011That still doesn't explain your ignorance of which way a compass points. Also, many maps in the southern hemisphere are printed with the southern hemisphere on top, though because Australia is culturally part of the West maybe you use our mapping conventions. Now shoo off you crikey dingo.
Fionn_MacTool
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2011CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2011...and you know this how, or are you making a baseless assumption?
Fionn_MacTool
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2011Fionn_MacTool
3.7 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2011Pirouette
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 27, 2011Isaacs, if our hypothetical E.T.s are so advanced that they can travel planet to planet, I'm sure they would account for any possible contingency. Their ship might be able to stop on a dime, so to speak. If they exist, we don't know what their capabilities and technology are, but if some people have been to the Moon and came back with a story about alien cities, or mines, whatever, who are WE to say they've got it wrong. I'VE never been there so I can't say if someone is there or not. But it's an intriguing possibility. And the LRO images MIGHT reveal something to verify the stories.
Pirouette
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2011Fionn. . . .good one. . .(pat on back for Fionn) LOL we all deserved a good laugh
Fionn_MacTool
3 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2011Isaacsname
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2011If we suddenly acquired the means to detect the light from a civilization located across the universe from us, in a " Goldilocks zone ", how would we know whether they still existed ?
CHollman82
2 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2011CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2011You wouldn't, your point is valid. Civilizations are, on Earth at least, extremely short lived. Not only are you looking for a needle in a haystack, you're looking for one that only exists there for a fraction of a second.
paulo
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2011ODesign
3.3 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 20111) life that advanced wouldn't leave something like that to chance. Notice we humans already work to minimize the observer affect when we explore lake vostok, culture DNA, and sterilizing probes before sending them into space.
2) The likely reason for a visit isn't resources but information gathering. Probably there are fundamental truths that can be learned by studying a civilization at it's first steps. Likely a sufficiently advanced computer simulation could get close, but at some point a reference model or example such as humanity helps find out what's missing from the model.
3) We would probably not recognize the artifacts caused by alien observations and visits. Although, if your premis is that they are studying our development any actions they take to engineer a situation should be detectable with an equally high fidelity model of our own.
Pirouette
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2011When they first started out, they would have been advanced well enough to build ships that could accommodate generation after generation of descendants. . .possibly recycling everything including bodies of ancestors.. . .they would have to live their life cycles aboard the ship until they arrived at their next destination, only to start the whole process again. A race like that could be likened to nomads except that their life aboard ship would be limited
Pirouette
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 27, 2011Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2011Mahal_Kita
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2011Answer: Too little Trekkies in NASA. Or another logical explanation, like; Duh.. What's another drone to us. Because it's most likely that Earth would be visited by drones first. Mechanical or biological.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2011We know what part of the main sequence the star is on - so we can calculate how long it's going to be around. Whether they'd still be there when we arrive is another matter. But my guess is any race that can travel interstellar distances won't be planetbound, anyhow.
Certainly they're not after resources hidden in the top few hundred meters of our planet. If you can fly through interstellar space you can probably dig deep. Once you can do that resources are practically limitless.
But apart from being 'birdwatchers' there's no real point for an advanced species to stop by and have a look. And even if they did - just like birdwatchers on Earth: you can bet that they know how to hide their "telescope lenses" from the likes of us.
typicalguy
2.7 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2011stripeless_zebra
2.2 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2011So, you can imagine those aliens traveling intergalactic highways, imagine them invisible. Imagine them capable of doing miracles like atom by atom assembly but you can't imagine their vehicles capable of surviving micrometeorite impact.
Furthermore, you can't imagine them working with simple technology like mining! But you can imagine aliens using alien technology. Do you really know what technology they have or you are just writing another sci-fi novel?
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2011Thought I said that in my first post.
English much ?
Eric_B
3 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2011some of the ships allegedly create gravitational/spacial bias. debris would be "blown" around them: around the energy bubble they would be creating.
assuming they exist, of course.
stripeless_zebra
1 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2011Oh, common my friend!
You can imagine nice alien tourists who assemble their space ships atom by atom, visiting our Solar System and leaving no trash behind but then you can imagine what could happen to those ships when they hit clouds of debris. Do you think they would ever try that dangerous journey in those crappy vehicles?
I think you have to work on your ideas a little bit longer...:)
stripeless_zebra
2 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2011Star Trek Science...
stripeless_zebra
1 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2011Really? Can't you imagine a different scenario. Transporting biological intelligent life over light years distances is simply impractical! Let's imagine this scenario:
A swarm of millions of intelligent machines wake up from their lasting millions of years hibernation when they arrive in our Solar System. These highly intelligent instruments quickly discover our system is reach in resources and energy they need to multiply. They start collecting them and creating millions or billions of new machines to send them on their own journeys. They admire the beauty of our Earth, like hundreds they've seen so far, take a few pictures and leave.
But... they did not care about hiding any evidence of their visit, leaving behind mines, tools and used machinery.
Why is this scenario impossible?
stripeless_zebra
1.4 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2011Because NASA stinks :-)
stripeless_zebra
2.8 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2011Why everybody here thinks that aliens capable of traveling light years are mortal biological organism?
Biological intelligent creatures might be even gone on this planet in the future and replaced by much more intelligent machines with immortal personalities.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2011Miracle? We already can do that. (Not to a great volume, but we can move selected atoms to any pattern we choose)
The two things are vastly different. Moving atoms need a delicate touch, but micrometeorite impacts at that speed are like atom bombs. Even hydrogen atoms are like head-on car collisions. And at that speed and the density of atoms in interstellar space it's like 100 car crashes a second second (much more so for interplanetary space)
Alcubierre drive. Yeah, that would be neat (would also sidestep that nasty light speed limit issue)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2011Well, if they mine then that mining process should show up (not by mining tools, though):
- unnatural depletion of certain elements
- unnatural features
Isaacsname
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2011~ Pink Pony
..I think you need to work on reading comprehension, bubba.
The things I list are reasons why I think they_have not_been here .
NamVet666
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2011IMHO any race of AI might not have to leave their home planet except if their home planet's resources are depleted and in order to repair or replace the AI mechanisms, a search on other worlds and/or their moons to find the resources needed would necessitate a long journey to mine those resources. Either way, mechanical or organic, E.T. may have to embark on space travel. This is a great thread.
Newbeak
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2011I don't know.About the only thing in Star Trek that is likely impossible is the transporter,which was a plot device to save money in the special effects department-it's a lot easier to depict Kirk and company appearing on the planet's surface than to show the Enterprise gliding in for a landing.
Newbeak
4 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2011That's what Paul Davies said we should look for.Unnatural levels of certain isotopes,among other things, in asteroids in the asteroid belt,as well as on the earth and moon.
Newbeak
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2011The two things are vastly different. Moving atoms need a delicate touch, but micrometeorite impacts at that speed are like atom bombs. Even hydrogen atoms are like head-on car collisions. And at that speed and the density of atoms in interstellar space it's like 100 car crashes a second second (much more so for interplanetary space)
I imagine they could travel behind a massive dense shield that would absorb micrometeorites.Of course,we can only speculate what a species a hundred thousand years ahead of us would have for technology
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2011This was proposed by Carl Sagan or Asimov in some ScuFi book IIRC (he uses a large shield of water ice which is used to supply the craft with water while shielding it from meteorites)
Massive shields would require enormously large energy to accelerate. Of course we never can know how good they are at moving or
what kind of energy generators they have. But having something that withstands that kind of bombardment for an extended priod of time seems incredible.
Shootist
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2011Isaacsname
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2011Newbeak
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2011Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2011Newbeak
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2011Yes,I agree,and maybe the technology in 10,000 years will not need shielding.It is pretty useless to speculate what will be possible thousands of years hence.
Moebius
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2011Sure, if you conveniently ignore some facts. ET visitors would have had no need to hide from us until relatively recently. If the theory holds any water they are there now because only in the last 100 years would they have need to hide. And maybe not even now. Waste of time looking.
Skepticus
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2011Isaacsname
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2011Lot of ifs there, I know.
IF, I were an ET exo-astro-biologist (?)I could hide a "relic" that would only be accessible to you when you have reached a sufficient level of technological prowess. It would be an interesting window to observe how trans-naturelism happens in the universe, iow, the merging of biology and technology, which will logically be a ubiquitous evolutionary step for any life existing long enough in the cosmos.
seb
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2011I guess you missed out on real sci-fi movies on the subject, as opposed to that cgi trash that calls itself transformers.
A classic you should watch, since you obviously haven't, is 2001, a space odyssey - http://en.wikiped...8film%29
Moebius
1.3 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2011The human form however (close in BEM terms) would be very likely to evolve in an intelligent species. Probably close enough that if intelligent life were abundant there would be alien females we would want to and could have sex with (not necessarily saying much since most men would screw a tree with a knothole).
Isaacsname
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2011I agree it's highly improbable that they'd be_exact_copies of humans here on Earth, more likely similar humanoids.
But still, there'd be technological epochs and eras or ages of development, just we've had here.
If we suddenly discovered primitive life somewhere, it would be an opportunity to study sociological, technological, etc evolutions unlike no other, even if they were only similar to us.
We definitely would be very careful about interacting with them.
..I would hope.
NamVet666
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2011Isn't it a waste of time even considering aliens when there is no evidence that they exist? People here may as well be discussing the Wizard of Oz and if Dorothy is still in Kansas. LOL
Most people here would refuse to believe in anyone's story that they saw a UFO or were abducted, but they will flock to a thread to discuss ET aliens from another world.
This does not make much sense.
Is it the possibilities that are so interesting?
Newbeak
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2011Exactly.People have a deep desire to know if they are alone in the universe.You are quite right this is speculative science.Projects like SETI are not considered real science by many scientists.Looking at the recent discovery of extra-solar earth-like planets does,however,suggest that the conditions for carbon based life elsewhere are quite common.At the end of the day,it boils down to whether or not life tends to spontaneously arise given the right conditions.
NamVet666
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2011In my line of work I deal only with evidence, nothing less. Without absolute and unambiguous evidence, it's unlikely a case can be solved and someone will walk. The possibilities are only a means to get at the truth so we narrow possibilities down before coming to any conclusion. There's no room for error or conjecture. Just the facts. While I like the concept of us not being alone, I think it's a waste of time since nobody really believes in it anyway. I have to go back to work next week and, for some reason, I can only post once every 60 minutes in any thread and I'm wasting my time waiting to post again. Is this happening to everyone or only me?
Nice talking with you guys. Happy New Year
Isaacsname
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2011---
As far as " evidence " of other life in the universe......something I hear oft repeated in cosmology lectures, is that the universe is_at the minimum_1000 times the size of what we can see inside the " sphere " created by the " horizon of last scattering. "
That premise alone should give one great pause for thought.
----
Happy New Year to you guys too !!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2011Newbeak
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2011NamVet666: I too like evidence based investigation,and really squirm when I read some of the postings here that go off the deep end discussing aliens in detail(as if they have first hand evidence of them), and non-existent government conspiracies(get the book "UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities" by John B. Alexander PhD from your library). I also think SETI,for example,is a case of faith based investigation,not traditional evidence based science.
Our evidence for extra-terrestrial life is,admittedly, non-existent at present.All I am hypothesizing in my previous post was that life might exist elsewhere,given the right conditions.This hypothesis can be tested by looking for life on the moons of solar system gas giants.If life is found to have arisen there,it could arise elsewhere in the universe.
Isaacsname
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2011I thought looking for evidence was part of science, the first part specifically.
Now that I think about it, in what context to you attach " faith " to SETI ?
Newbeak
3.5 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2011SETI is faith based in the sense it a priori assumes intelligent life exists elsewhere and two,that that life has developed technology and is broadcasting radio signals that we might be able to pick up.
Traditional hard sciences start with observed/measured data,and construct and test hypotheses to account for said data.
Zenmaster
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2011Aren't they merely 'asking a question' in the form of an experiment?
From http://www.scienc...od.shtml :
The steps of the scientific method are to:
o Ask a Question
o Do Background Research
o Construct a Hypothesis
o Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
o Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
o Communicate Your Results
NamVet666
1.7 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2011@Newbeak
Being that I've just become a new member of Physorg, I hate to tread on anyone's toes, but "faith" in SETI and radio signals from ET is just too much to swallow. I think that if there were such a thing as other intelligent life in the universe or in the solar system, they would only regard us as a curiosity, if even that. IF they're sending out a signal of some sort, it maybe by a whole different method that SETI will never pick up and might even be in a different part of the sky.
Isaacsname
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2011Well....yes, data pertaining to things predicted to exist, then looked for, found and measured, from the measurements you derive the data, no ?
At some point, we couldn't observe cellular mechanics.
Why bother looking in the first place ?
Newbeak
4 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2011Yes,step one is ask a question,but that is based on an observation of something that is not understood.As an example,it was believed 150 years ago that mice,rats and flies were spontaneously generated from sweaty rags,garbage,etc.Louis Pasteur tested this belief and proved it false.See:http://www.allabo...life.htm
Newbeak
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2011Well,if you were to observe a beaker of broth becoming cloudy when left uncovered for a few days,you might form a hypothesis that perhaps something in the air was causing the cloudiness.To test this,you would cover the container with something,and see if the broth still got cloudy.If it didn't you could safely conclude that something airborne was the culprit.
Newbeak
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2011NamVet666: I am not sure what you mean.I meant that the SETI program is based on the wholly unsupported notion that ET exists,and the goal of SETI is to spend big bucks to intercept signals from outer space.THAT is what sticks in the craws of mainstream science,and why a lot of them don't support it.
jsn3604
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2011Isaacsname
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2011Right, but aren't a theory and a hypothesis two entirely different things though ? A hypothesis is usually put forth as pure conjecture, and a theory is formed by multiple hypothesis that have been found to confirm each other through experimentation, measurement, analyzing data, leading to a model.
But not the other way around, right ? I mean, you have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is often a guess or prediction.
packrat
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2011The human race has advanced tech more in the last 100 years than in the last 5000 simply because we found a way to send messages to each other faster than could be done on horseback. We are beginners in EVERYTHING when it comes to what is and isn't actually possible and it's complete arrogance to think we know what or who is or isn't really out there.
Newbeak
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2011They wouldn't get a dime of my money.Apparently,they now survive on university slush funds,donations, and private corporate funding.
SITI to me is absurd for two reasons: One,we don't know if life arose on any other planet but earth-maybe one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn have life,but we haven't checked them out yet,and two,what are the odds of us receiving RADIO signals from another civilization? I mean,THINK about it for a minute.IF other tool using beings are out there,they would be either running around naked swinging sticks,or on the other hand,they would be hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us in technology.Their radio using period would have passed 10 or 100 thousand years ago,and any signals they broadcast would have swept past this planet a long,long time ago.
Newbeak
2.8 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2011Just because the universe is big,doesn't ensure that life exists on other planets.On the other hand,if our probes found life on the moons of another planet in this solar system,that in itself says that life can arise spontaneously in any suitable environment,and automatically raises the likelihood of life,intelligent or otherwise,on planets circling other stars.Mars doesn't count,because it has traded matter with earth over the eons-we might be Martians,as Mars once had life friendly conditions.
Newbeak
4 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2011I think you are right,a hypothesis comes first,and can be thought of as an educated guess to explain observations.A theory is an explanation of some phenomenon that has passed all the tests thrown at it.Of course,theories are often revised or tossed out because someone can demonstrate conditions that it fails to explain.
Sonhouse
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2011Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2012Imho, your premises are flawed. Considering the number of stars in the Milky Way, let alone the universe's, somewhere, sometimes there would be alien civilizations, and lots of them. As the Drake Equation shows, all you need are the laws of probability in dealing with multiple variables, with an astronomical (pun not quite intended) data set. And they won't be conveniently sorted by your "either-or" assumption. There could be a whole spectrum of aliens out there who are using anything from smoke signals to inter-universe communication technologies, radio included. Open your mind to possibilities...and probabilities, please.
Newbeak
3 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2012"Imho, your premises are flawed. Considering the number of stars in the Milky Way, let alone the universe's, somewhere, sometimes there would be alien civilizations, and lots of them."
No,I believe your premise is an example of specious reasoning-just because there are countless stars and planets doesn't translate into countless civilizations.The Drake equation has many variables that are guesstimates,which makes it worthless for drawing firm conclusions.As Michael Crichton said in a lecture at Caltech: "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless..."
Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2012Michael Crichton's opinion is also a guesstimate. From logic, one can not be precise about the value of not-yet-proved probable possibilities: meaningless <-> zero). But the main point of my post is that I believe your view of "either cave-man or super-advanced" possible aliens to be a false dichotomy.
Newbeak
3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2012Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference-it was not meant to be a definitive answer to the number of alien cultures out there.If you don't believe me,see: http://en.wikiped...equation
The reason I said that IF alien civilizations DO indeed exist,they would be at a different stage of development from us for the simple reason that said civilization(s) would not have advanced technologically in lockstep with mankind-the odds are vanishingly small for that .Therefore,the other civilization(s)are either in the stone age,or they have had a technological civilization for thousands of years
NamVet666
1 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2012@Newbeak, I agree with that. ETs are most likely in ALL stages of development IF they exist. Personally, I doubt there are carbon-based ETs anywhere else. No aliens anywhere in the luniverse. We've got enough looney aliens right here on earth who believe that ET exists. They just don't know where to find them without spending a fortune looking on the moon, and looking for earthlike planets. As though we could get to those planets within the next thousand years. :)
Let's face it. We're all going to be dead before they ever find anything.
Newbeak
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2012Glad to hear you survived New Year's festivities,NamVet666!
I still believe in space research,I just think people should get more education in skepticism in schools.There is far to much ignorance of science in America these days,and the only way we can compete in the modern world is to churn out world class researchers in all the sciences,and build a second high tech industrial revolution.
NamVet666
1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2012I guess not everyone was meant to graduate from college with a "summa cum laude". It'll take a special kind of kid to make the grade and go on to become a real scientist. They have to start early and they have to have parents that take the time to 'push' the kids to excel and not get lazy. A lot of parents are both out working and don't take the time to make sure the kid does homework. A lot of it is the fault of the parents, but they most often are too naive to know that.
NamVet666
1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2012Isaacsname
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2012http://www.livele...25480807
I could imagine it now
ET's : "....um.....let's come back in 500 years,...they're not quite ready yet..."
Newbeak
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2012Better wait 1000 years,just to be safe,lol!