If Alien Life Is Visiting Earth What Could Be Their Reasons For Not Making Contact?

[Trajanus]

That is not an absolute truth, but a question of probabilities. Saturn's moons are tidaly locked, but still have oceans that are not totally frozen. That's simply because liquids are much better in conducting heat, from hot to cold side, than gaseous atmospheres.

But enough heat ("not totally frozen")? Life here likely evolved in the very hot conditions of early Earth. Just because water is in liquid form doesn't mean prebiotic evolution is certain.

Yeah, obviously you can pick and choose calling this or that "deception". He was grown up man, professional scientist, who spent his life diving. What solid proof you have that it was a "deception". Exactly none ;-)

I wasn't suggesting the guy lied but that the phenomenon put on a spectacle for him. There have been reports of all kinds of bizarre beings, many of which I doubt could ever evolve naturally. It's hard to believe fishlike ETs, adapted to an oceanic environment, traversed interstellar distances and then entered the ocean.

 

[marduk]

Interesting point.



Well I dunnoo...assuming limits to the complexity of matter or the Universe, progress may reach an asymptotic limit, as some have suggested.

There are fundamental limits to computation. This leads to their being fundamental limits on intelligence.

In other words, there's probably a point where something can get smart and then no smarter.

 

[marduk]

I have a pet theory ;-)

Red Dwarfs can still be the best place for developing intelligent life.

The reason is because we are ignoring the fact that just in Solar system there are possibly up to SEVEN oceans. From dwarf planet Ceres and a number of outer solar system moons, including Jupiter's Europa and Ganimede, Saturn's Enceladus, and Neptune's Triton. Some even suspect a subsurface ocean on Pluto.

In UFO lore abductees and contacties in about 50% of cases describe Grays as having big eyes, without iris. Exactly as deep ocean fish.

Probably not.

If red dwarfs were the best place for intelligent life, we'd probably have evolved there instead of here. Odds being what they are. We are most likely very average.

Anthropic principle.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Probably not.

Life on Earth started in the dark depths of oceans, while Solar winds and volcanic activity was raging outside. Probably the second most intelligent spices on the planet Earth are dolphins, the sea creatures.

If red dwarfs were the best place for intelligent life, we'd probably have evolved there instead of here. Odds being what they are. We are most likely very average.

We don't have a clue what are prevalent conditions outside of our small neighborhood. 10 years ago we didn't even know that there is such a thing as exoplanet. 50 years ago we thought that there are canals on Mars built by civilized people. At a beginning of 20th century, before large telescopes were built, it was thought that Milky Way was the whole universe.

On the cosmic scale we are not even a reference point, just upstarts with about paltry 200 years of technological development. Anthropocentric principle failed each time it was challenged.

Anthropic principle.

Anthropic principle is not a scientific theory. Its just a catchy phylosophical opinion proposed by scientists in order to entertain general public.

Roughly speaking, planets with submerged oceans have at least 24 to 1 statistical advantage over the Earths. They outnumber Earths by at least 4 to 1 and they outlive vertebra age by 6 to 1. 4 x 6 = 24.

 

[marduk]

Life on Earth started in the dark depths of oceans, while Solar winds and volcanic activity was raging outside. Probably the second most intelligent spices on the planet Earth are dolphins, the sea creatures.

I'm not following. I don't think I said intelligent life couldn't evolve in water.

EDIT:
I just got realized I wasn't being clear, my apologies.

I was referring to the commentary about life evolving around red dwarfs.

We don't have a clue what are prevalent conditions outside of our small neighborhood. 10 years ago we didn't even know that there is such a thing as exoplanet. 50 years ago we thought that there are canals on Mars built by civilized people. At a beginning of 20th century, before large telescopes were built, it was thought that Milky Way was the whole universe.

On the cosmic scale we are not even a reference point, just upstarts with about paltry 200 years of technological development. Anthropocentric principle failed each time it was challenged.

Um, no.

The anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1][2] The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler states that this is all the case because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. Some critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon fine tuning. Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only this universe, compatible with our life) could occur.

The point is simply this: if the universe couldn't make us, we wouldn't be there to observe it. Therefore, it's obvious that the universe is tuned for life.

And this does not mean at all that it was designed.

Anisothropic principle is not a scientific theory. Its just a catchy opinion proposed by scientists in order to entertain general public.

It's not a scientific theory. It's a philosophical argument.

Try some math instead:

In mathematics, a Gaussian function, often simply referred to as a Gaussian, is a function of the form:

f(x)=ae−(x−b)22c2

for arbitrary real constants a, b and c. It is named after the mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss.

The graph of a Gaussian is a characteristic symmetric "bell curve" shape. The parameter a is the height of the curve's peak, b is the position of the center of the peak and c (the standard deviation, sometimes called the Gaussian RMS width) controls the width of the "bell".

Gaussian functions are widely used in statistics to describe the normal distributions, in signal processingto define Gaussian filters, in image processing where two-dimensional Gaussians are used for Gaussian blurs, and in mathematics to solve heat equations and diffusion equations and to define the Weierstrass transform.

and

In probability theory, the normal (or Gaussian) distribution is a very common continuous probability distribution. Normal distributions are important in statistics and are often used in the natural and social sciencesto represent real-valued random variables whose distributions are not known.[1][2]

The normal distribution is useful because of the central limit theorem. In its most general form, under some conditions (which include finite variance), it states that averages of random variables independently drawn from independent distributions converge in distribution to the normal, that is, become normally distributed when the number of random variables is sufficiently large. Physical quantities that are expected to be the sum of many independent processes (such as measurement errors) often have distributions that are nearly normal.[3]Moreover, many results and methods (such as propagation of uncertainty and least squares parameter fitting) can be derived analytically in explicit form when the relevant variables are normally distributed.

That's a very fancy way of saying that in the absence of other information, it is most likely that whatever it is you are looking at is an average example of whatever it is.

Because odds are it fits within one SD of average.

And that means that the odds are that we are average.

Roughly speaking, planets with submerged oceans have at least 24 to 1 statistical advantage over the Earths. They outnumber Earths by at least 4 to 1 and they outlive vertebra age by 6 to 1. 4 x 6 = 24.

How do you know planets with submerged oceans outnumber terrestrial worlds 4 to 1?

And what does that have to do with anything?

 

[DROBNJAK]

>> How do you know planets with submerged oceans outnumber terrestrial worlds 4 to 1?

1. In the Solar system submerged ocean (Egg like) planets/moons probably outnumber Earh about 6:1. So I am conservative with 4:1.
   
2. Earhs require lots of special conditions, Goldilock zones, moving tectonic plates etc. Egg like planets require almost nothing special. Outer ice crust protects life from most of the harm.
   
3. So far we only checked planets with relatively quick orbits. Most of the Solar system's Egg like planets are further out, in a very slow orbits.
4. Its easier to check Earth like planet. For Egg like planets one needs to go there and drill a hole.

Although we barely started counting planets, premises 1) to 4) clearly show that Egg like planets are one order of magnitude more frequent. Simply put, it is much easier for dust clouds to hatch Egg like planets, than Earths.

>> And that means that the odds are that we are average.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that one can't start using statistics when one's sample size is just 1. We would need to find at least 30 Earths and 30 Egg planets with life, before we can start using statistical tools.

 

[marduk]

>>
>> And that means that the odds are that we are average.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that one can't start using statistics when one's sample size is just 1. We would need to find at least 30 Earths and 30 Egg planets with life, before we can start using statistical tools.

What I'm saying is logically we kind of have to assume we're average until we have data that assumes otherwise.

We're probably not the smartest species in the block, but probably not the stupidest either.

 

[Trajanus]

There are fundamental limits to computation. This leads to their being fundamental limits on intelligence.

In other words, there's probably a point where something can get smart and then no smarter.

And also limits to progress in terms of fundamental knowledge. But progress can still continue e.g. a civilization can continue to expand into space, even if its means of doing so stop improving.
Btw I think in terms of intelligence or potential we're essentially second to none as our exponential progress suggests we can someday match just about anything or anybody.
DROBNJAK, the Martian canal notion fell out of favor long before 1967--50 years ago. Even before then, Mariner 4 photos suggested Mars was as desolate as the moon. Essentially the canal notion hasn't been taken seriously for a century.

 

[marduk]

I forgot my main point.

If we're totally average, and there's bazillions of civilizations, we'd be boring as hell to talk to.

It would be like playing 'No Man's Sky.' There's a crapload of different planets out there, there's just nothing interesting to see after you've seen a handful of them.

 

[Trajanus]

If we're totally average, and there's bazillions of civilizations, we'd be boring as hell to talk to.

I doubt civilizations are common relative to the total # of planetary systems; there may be 100 or so in the whole Galaxy. ETs almost certainly aren't here to talk to us. They can't learn anything from us. But they may be interested in our planet as habitable ones are rare.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Yeah, I completely agree with that. It is practical point and have nothing to gain here. They are here either as scientists at a best, or as tourists at a worst. I get goose pimps when people start talking how 'spiritual' aliens are. Most likely they just think about their next paycheck.

 

[Trajanus]

Many appear to be acting as scientists or researchers. The data gained, however, may not be purely academic. Some say they want our planet for themselves, but have adopted a subtle approach to get it.

 

[Burnt State]

What I'm saying is logically we kind of have to assume we're average until we have data that assumes otherwise.

We're probably not the smartest species in the block, but probably not the stupidest either.

So far brilliance and stupidity in spades. We are a borderline personality planet as far as history tells me.

 

[Burnt State]

I can go with that.

Well let's hear more from guests who can speak to that piece as it seems to me all this talk of spaceships from other planets keeps running into the same walls with the same tired ideas.

 

[Burnt State]

I don't think ants communicating with humans is a good comparison. Ants can't form concepts that shrink concrete entities into a compact form making it possible to understand the universe. If aliens can form concepts and since we know we can form concepts, we would have much more in common with them than we do with ants. I'm not saying it would be easy, but I reject the notion that it would be impossible, as we all live in the same universe with the same physical laws. Now if we're talking about beings from another universe with different physical laws, then you may be onto something...

The reason why I make the ant comparison is that if in fact it's aliens from another planet who repeatedly appear to be defying our laws of physics then it seems that they do have other physical laws. And if we are talking about species who are significantly older than us then yes we are ants to them. If there was a method of communication then why have we received none? Perhaps the methods are already there along with the answers. They or It can't speak to us and so all we have are our interpretations of what we see in the sky. Bishop posits this as a Cosmic Art piece and perhaps that's the most we will ever get are these symbolic images in the sky. And if we go with aliens from space then the most it seems we can get from them are these images of transport, inklings into how our physical laws are not all there is and all we have is their visual image to contemplate and nothing more.

 

[Burnt State]

To automatically dismiss contactee communication and assume only unintelligible sounds can be real is to underestimate what an advanced system can do. I'd take a lot of what UFO entities say with a grain of salt, but that's beside the point. ET languages may be very different but it wouldn't be surprising if a far advanced species has deciphered ours.



Frankly I think that's absurd. The lesson of our solar system is that Earthlike conditions are a prerequisite for life, or advanced life. Since the conditions under which ETs evolved are likely to have been very similar, essentially the same evolutionary--including cultural evolutionary--outcome seems reasonable. Very likely, we have a great deal in common with ETs.



Unlike ants I think we have the same longterm potential, or inherent brainpower so the comparison is invalid.



It's objectively real, as physical evidence indicates.



But the spaceships rely on a mode of travel beyond our current understanding and are obviously more capable than ours. If the phenomenon is just a cultural construct why don't UFOs rely on rockets and reaction mass? Even sci fi like the "starship Enterprise" relied on that.



Much of what ETs do may be intended to just confuse or mislead us.

Contactee relays can not be used in any reasonable way to interpret anything. These are human generated stories, sociological myth making and nothing more. Perhaps there really are visitors but it's a human being that is the medium and the originator for such things and there is no reasonable way to prove that anything that they have ever said has any basis in reality at all.

To make assumptions that any lifeform's evolution is similar to ours and will have similar cultures is absurd frankly.

To give agency to the phenomenon is still something to be established. Physical evidence is scant at best and very difficult to make sense of. I often think that it is merely the human witness that ascribes agency and intentionality to anything that they see that is strange. How they see these events may merely be a function of our evolutionary instincts and nothing more. Does ball lightening have agency? No, and neither do dreams or the northern lights, and yet we have always made up stories about these and told the other members of the tribe about the sky gods communicating to us. I'm not sure how much stock we can put in these stories, and then how can we even begin to develop theories about aliens visiting us from afar let alone their intentions.

What we think we know about these strange lights in the sky is probably no more than a reflection of our own cultural biases and limitations.

 

[marduk]

So far brilliance and stupidity in spades. We are a borderline personality planet as far as history tells me.

We may find in fact that our individual variability may be greater than the variability between us and them on average.

Just like the variability between individuals is far larger than the variability between the sexes on average.

In other words, the only logical assumption you could make if they're biological is that they are just as complex, brilliant, ignorant, short sighted and biased as we are.

And that's pretty cool if you think about it.

 

[technomage]

The reason why I make the ant comparison is that if in fact it's aliens from another planet who repeatedly appear to be defying our laws of physics then it seems that they do have other physical laws. And if we are talking about species who are significantly older than us then yes we are ants to them. If there was a method of communication then why have we received none? Perhaps the methods are already there along with the answers. They or It can't speak to us and so all we have are our interpretations of what we see in the sky. Bishop posits this as a Cosmic Art piece and perhaps that's the most we will ever get are these symbolic images in the sky. And if we go with aliens from space then the most it seems we can get from them are these images of transport, inklings into how our physical laws are not all there is and all we have is their visual image to contemplate and nothing more.

It's possible they want to communicate with us in the exact manner they're communicating with us for whatever reason. They may be appearing to defy our laws because our understanding of physical laws is incomplete, just like tribes that haven't seen a plane before think it's magic.

Unfortunately, we can speculate forever about this but there just is insufficient data at this time to even come up with a theory. There are a lot of possibilities and I see the ETH at the top of the list, but I don't discount other possibilities at all. If we take the totality of paranormal phenomena, it may be "all of the above" or "some of the above". That's why I'd like to see Chris get his project started so we start getting more data. Then we can start analyzing any anonymous data via the scientific process.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Problem is in the sources of information, weather it is Discovery Chanel or ThirdPhaseOfTheMoon. There is good info there, but they are first entertainment, and serious study second.

You need to move to more technical sources like papers and books published by scientifically and technically educated investigators: Paul Hill, Peter Sturrock, Bruce Maccabee, Leonard Cramp, Ray Stamford, Mark Rodeghier etc. This is terse prose and not easy to read, but you'll end up much better informed. Check out this list that I prepared for everybody to read:

List of Technical Papers Related to UFOs and Electro Magnetism

 

[Trajanus]

Contactee relays can not be used in any reasonable way to interpret anything. These are human generated stories, sociological myth making and nothing more.

Your opinion, nothing more....

Perhaps there really are visitors but it's a human being that is the medium and the originator for such things and there is no reasonable way to prove that anything that they have ever said has any basis in reality at all.

It's interesting that contactee stories often have similar messages or claims, despite the vast geographical and temporal separation of many of these people. Of course the messages are often dubious but that could be deception on the part of the phenomenon, of which other examples can be cited.

To make assumptions that any lifeform's evolution is similar to ours and will have similar cultures is absurd frankly.

No, based on what is known, it's perfectly reasonable. Note that whenever a new exoplanet is found, exobiologists evaluate its potential habitability based on the degree to which it resembles Earth, or has similar conditions. And that is based on the experience of our own solar system, which has a variety of planetary environments, only one conducive to known life.
Since a planet must be Earthlike to be habitable, or capable of harboring advanced life, the latter would most likely evolve in similar ways.

I'm not sure how much stock we can put in these stories, and then how can we even begin to develop theories about aliens visiting us from afar let alone their intentions.

There are ample indications of an advanced technological intelligence coming here, and some evidence with which to try to ascertain its intentions.