1
   

Mining an Asteroid

 
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 06:47 pm
I don't think I can write an equasion/ mathematical model; but suppose the first star faring civilization arose in our galaxy d years ago. If d = 10 billion, they might have sent out s = 100 deep space generation ships, before they lost their advanced technology, e =7 of these establihed colonys that sent out one or more deep space generation ships a total of y = 40 Most of them comunicated so the technology avanced for some. At the end of one million years, there had been 1000 advanced colonys, half of which had sent out one or more generation ships or would some time in the next billion years, u =3 planets sent out 6200 just from the three of them; perhaps 7000 total for the first billion years.
By the present a trillion advanced colonys might have been estblished on ten billion planets including Earth. That is 100 advanced civilizations, average, per planet which seems strange, unless you realize the high tech civilization only lasts about 10,000 years on the average. That means for the planets that had one or more high tech civilizations, they had them for 0.1 % of the time. There may be a thousand times that many planets that did not get one advanced civilization in ten billion years. Many of them just fell though the cracks, had bad luck, did not choose the high tech option= live the simple life.
You can stick in different numbers make different assumptions, consider some different senarios such as solar systems that merge briefly would permit colonization over millions of miles instead of trillions of miles. In many of these I think you will find it is not surprising that we don't know about other high tech civilizations, in fact the present existance of 200,000 of them is quite low probability, even if there have been a trillion high tech civillizations in our galalaxy and 100 trillion low tech civilizations that did not make it to high tech again after they stepped off their space craft. Neil
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 06:21 am
Ive always had problems with Fermis paradox because its circular. Its almost a call for autocorrelation as proof of concept. My problem is that Im too grounded in the applied science .

Evidence for life in other places is the first search. If we even find life on Mars, to me, its end of Fermis entire paradox. All the rest (regarding how high on the evolutionary bush life has reached in one or another quadrant) is mere detail and anatomical architecture.

There are things in the way of significant travel in the Universe

The major systems for propulsion or moving about need to be addressed. We seem stuck in Newtonian physics

We have a little problem with our llifespans

We have little knowledge of our itinerary

we cannot (presaently) optimize{ F/m}1/2 without hitting thheoretical boundaries

If the Universe begins in a series of intersecting membranes rather than a single Big Bang, then Fermis paradox would be modified to consider the fact that galaxies and Universes are being "evented" as much as they are being replaced

Evolution , as we know it, has a demonstrated length of attainment of an ability to control environment thats been subject to constant punctuation by outside events which , consequently takes life in an entirely new direction. In other words, the only working model we have is our own planet and thats our own biological bias. It took 3.8 billion years because thats how long it took, nothing more. We dont have any ideas whether a life system based on Silica , or Sulfur is not impossible..

we havent been sufficiently incentivized to get outta here, because weve been able to dominate most of this planets surface (no major environmental catclysms have occured since Toba's eruption )

We only recently have a sense of a "nearby star" with a planetary system, and that one is 90 light years away. At least thats a goal

So, Im not a fan of Fermis thoughts . I think if we find life on Mars, we esasentially have a compelling answer to Fermi i
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 08:45 am
farmerman wrote:
If we even find life on Mars, to me, its end of Fermis entire paradox.


I think you have it backwards Farmerman. If we find life on Mars, then it only amplifies the paradox. The more common life becomes, the more common technology becomes. All the more reason why we would expect to see evidence of it around us (which we don't: this is the paradox).
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 09:53 am
I don't think we really know whether we should be seeing the aliens or not.

The simple verbal statement of "Fermi's Paradox" is in no way a scientific proof of anything. At a minimum, analysis of this would require some kind of identification of the many factors, and mathematical modelling to know underwhat circumstances we would be visited frequently and under what circumstances we would not.

The statement that not seeing aliens within recorded history is a paradox is not warranted by a sort of coctail party conversational telling of the Fermi idea.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 10:00 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
The simple verbal statement of "Fermi's Paradox" is in no way a scientific proof of anything.


It's true that the paradox does make some assumptions, but those assumptions are well derived.

Which assumptions do you take issue with?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 11:04 am
my first statement , that Fermis paradox is circular , stands as MHO.

Rosborne , lemme think a mo' ....You say, that if life exists and we find it elsewhere beyond earth, therefore the(up till now) non contact with "The Federation" only intensifies Fermi?..

As a complete an unabashed evolutionist, The "top of the evolutionary rung, ie a BIG BRAIN" is the model that you and I are familiar with and I think thats where i separate from Fermi's.
Sentient beings , perfectly adapted (such as bottle nose dolphins , or even orangs and chimps) or squids of amazing cunning can exist as the pinnacle lifeform of a planet. The area that Fermi had no clue was, life doesnt follow a pre engineered model.Life is an "as-built" There may be sentient beings out there and there may be sentient beings with opposable thumbs who can manipulate their environment. Maybe , those models of advanced beings with toolkits shouldnt be assumed to be the goal of life and arent as "taken for granted" as Fermi 's paradox 's input of assumptions.

I say, if we find life in 2 places in our solar system, well find it all over the place , and, in differing forms wherein the morphology will be dictated by that solar system or galaxy's environment and penchant for cataclysmic events in that section of the galaxy.
Anyway, I always liked the prime directive
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 11:21 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The simple verbal statement of "Fermi's Paradox" is in no way a scientific proof of anything.


It's true that the paradox does make some assumptions, but those assumptions are well derived.

Which assumptions do you take issue with?

This is a conversational telling, not a scientific analysis. One does not do real science on the cocktail party conversation level. There may be such analysis in existence, but not that has been posted or linked here. The true model must certainly include many more factors than have been mentioned here.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 11:46 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
This is a conversational telling, not a scientific analysis. One does not do real science on the cocktail party conversation level. There may be such analysis in existence, but not that has been posted or linked here. The true model must certainly include many more factors than have been mentioned here.


I'm sorry, I thought the links above provided a good intro to the subject (especially combined with google searches).

I'll try to find a better link on the subject for you, or I'll write my own summary and place it on the Fermi Paradox thread which Neil started.

Best Regards,
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 12:05 pm
No, this is the kind of thing one might find in "Science Today," and bears little or no relation to an actual scientific paper. Here is the first example I came across doing a Google search of the way real scientists do real science:

http://www.gravity-society.org/ont.htm
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:25 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, this is the kind of thing one might find in "Science Today," and bears little or no relation to an actual scientific paper. Here is the first example I came across doing a Google search of the way real scientists do real science:

http://www.gravity-society.org/ont.htm


I see. You are unconvinced of the logic of the argument because it isn't stated in a mathematical form.

Yet a significant number of astrophysists are willing to engage in the discussion because the paradox is compelling to them. I appreciate the logic of the argument, though I do wish I could find a better summary of it somewhere. I'm still looking. The best summary I ever saw was written by Stephen Baxter in his novel _Manifold Space_. Unfortunately, I no longer have my copy (or I could snip some quotes from it and post here, with due credit to the author of course Smile
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:32 pm
minding a hemorrhoid eh?
nope not done that either
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:40 pm
farmerman wrote:
As a complete an unabashed evolutionist, The "top of the evolutionary rung, ie a BIG BRAIN" is the model that you and I are familiar with and I think thats where i separate from Fermi's.


I understand your point. Fermi's paradox does assume that technological intelligence and capability are a common result of biological evolutionary processes (at least several thousand cases per galaxy).

But the whole conjecture starts from the statement, and the assumption: "If technologically advanced life exists elsewhere in the galaxy (or did exist), then we should see it".

The story goes that, one day back on the 1940's, a group of atomic scientists, including the famous Enrico Fermi, were sitting around talking, when the subject turned to extraterrestrial life. Fermi is supposed to have then asked, "So? Where is everybody?" What he meant was: If there are all these billions of planets in the universe that are capable of supporting life, and millions of intelligent species out there, then how come none has visited earth? This has come to be known as The Fermi Paradox.

Fermi was basically arguing that these conditions do not exist, that there are no other technologically advanced civilizations in our galaxy. If there were, then we would have seen them already. Fermi was challenging those people who made the assumption that there are other technologically advanced civilizations.

And those people have yet to answer that challenge.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:48 pm
Another web site for more background:
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/f/fe/fermi_paradox.html
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 02:35 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, this is the kind of thing one might find in "Science Today," and bears little or no relation to an actual scientific paper. Here is the first example I came across doing a Google search of the way real scientists do real science:

http://www.gravity-society.org/ont.htm


I see. You are unconvinced of the logic of the argument because it isn't stated in a mathematical form.

Yet a significant number of astrophysists are willing to engage in the discussion because the paradox is compelling to them. I appreciate the logic of the argument, though I do wish I could find a better summary of it somewhere. I'm still looking. The best summary I ever saw was written by Stephen Baxter in his novel _Manifold Space_. Unfortunately, I no longer have my copy (or I could snip some quotes from it and post here, with due credit to the author of course Smile

Not only because it isn't stated in mathematical form, but much more importantly, because the problem isn't being modelled in a rigorous scientific, syllogistic manner in these posts or links, and also because I am quite sure that the actual problem is much more complex and includes many more factors than have been stated here. I was once in a scientific field, and the way problems are really aproached and described in science is just not the same as the way a layman might chat about them. What would probably actually occur if this problem were considered scientifically is that a list of probable factors and influences would be made, and then an equation, or series of equations would be created including the factors from the list. To do this would require figuring out exactly how each of the factors influences the result. I feel compelled to also add that novels are not usually reliable sources for legitimate science theory, particularly theory at the fringes of modern science.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 02:54 pm
Im aware Rosborne. im just not convinced that Fermi made the basic assumptions with any credibility.
Its a nice "if" game and, not necessarily based upon a firm handle on biology and chance.

According to Dave Raup, there were 50 Billion species on this planet.. Of these there were about 1 billion terminal species for any particular time period. Of all of those there is only one with the capacity to use a toolkit and create.This is after 3.8 billion years of development of life interrupted by a series of
global catastrophies, that had huge impacts on the forms of subsequent life..So a Huttonian corollary would be , intergalactically stated'If it happened here, it probably is a good model for elsewhere wherein a planet has conditions like ours (molten core, gradually developing atmosphere, water, temperature boundaries, pH boundaries, etc)
The point is, that, any other galaxy system has an almost infinite number of directions that its life can take. Our species is a 1 in 50 billion chance on this planet, so using the numbers that some exobiologists use to show that life statistically , has to exist elsehwere, the chances that theyve evolved into separate toolusers and thinkers, may be a bit optimistic. Fermis paradox has been stomped upon by nimbler minds than mine , but, as I recall, the arguments were mostly against the "if...Then" propositions which is the first hurdle over which Fermi hadnt been very convincing
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 03:14 pm
farmerman wrote:
Fermis paradox has been stomped upon by nimbler minds than mine , but, as I recall, the arguments were mostly against the "if...Then" propositions which is the first hurdle over which Fermi hadnt been very convincing


Then they have not "stomped" on the paradox at all, because Fermi never claimed that the original assumption was correct. As a matter of fact, the whole *point* of his statement was to argue that the original assumption (that the galaxy is full of technically advanced intelligence) probably *isn't* correct.

It's only a paradox if you assume that the original point is correct. If you don't think it's correct, then you are in agreement with Fermi. Right?
0 Replies
 
Tobruk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 05:18 pm
Well I've never met a Mongol in real life. Seen them on TV (as I have aliens) so I guess Mongols there's a good chance they don't exist either.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 05:19 pm
when I say stomped upon. I am, in all respect to the late Dr Fermi, presenting , from my memory, the strong arguments against the hypothesis.It was many years ago and hasnt stopped serious looking for ET . Whenever one presents a hypothesis, one expects to get stomped quite regularly. Its all good fun and done in a spirit of collegial discussions. Remember the Greek root of the word Symposium actually means something like "to hang out together and get hammered".

The Geological Society of America has a series of such conferences one of which is a Penrose conference wherein some of the most respectfully disrespectful language is used. In m y career, Ive only been in 2 because most of them are quite specialized. Loud but fun. Its not serious, we always remind ourselves to hang on to pet hypotheses very lightly lest, tomorrows evidence wastes you.
0 Replies
 
Tobruk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 06:08 pm
Maybe we live inside the boundaries of an alien race that doesn't like to interfere with us........ Star Trek's Federation.

Better than living inside the boundaries of the Klingons. Smile

Then again, maybe if you can get here you also got the tech to cloak.
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 11:19 pm
It is not very difficult to cloak if you are unscupulus and moderately cleaver and powerful. You collect the hard evidence that might expose your presence, substitute with less convincing fake artifacts, generate lots of far out disinformation = propaganda = fiction = lies. If you get caught red handed, you deny and claim you were framed and destroy the credibility of any effective witnesses that would be believed by the intelegencia. You have henchmen make thinly vailed threats and break the knees (or equivalent) of grandchildren to get the rare truth speakers to stop talking and recant. If necessary you kill to silence.
Some claim Bill and Hilary Clinton caused the death of 40 or so, more or less innocent people to reach a position of power, and cover numerous less than brilliant other cover ups. The conspiracy theorists are your friend as they make firm statements based on evidence they have not personally checked. This kind of certainty is obviously flawed in the minds of most of the intelegencia. The bottom line is we can be sure of very little and we are conceited to think we have sure knowledge on most subjects and most details. Neil
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mining an Asteroid
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 11:07:46