US Congress is nonpartisan when it comes to ... aliens?

[everything]

there may have been one big bang, it might repeat, one might be happening at all times in different parts of the universe (for "eternal inflation"). scientists don't know and don't seem to agree. they call our universe the "observable universe". is there something past that? nobody knows. it would seem ludicrously arrogant for humans to claim yes or no on other intelligent life, based on how limited our own intelligence is and based on our self-knowledge of how limited it must be. we don't even know how chess AIs' algorithms to beat us actually work, even though we set up the AIs on their learning journeys. it seems a little bit like the goldfish in the bowl trying to describe everything outside the bowl and claiming there are definitive conclusions to be made. or perhaps to insist the bowl itself is the universe. but then again, humans also thought the earth is flat for a long time. it seems safest to start with the assumption we are pretty stupid or at least not too knowledgeable (as in IMA). but i'm sure some smart scientists also like to speculate for fun

[Steve James]

Sure, but let's follow that reasoning. If it took 4 billion years for life here to evolve to the point where we are now technologically, does that mean there must be more civilizations that are at least as technologically advanced as we are. The problem there is that we haven't heard from any of them, or haven't heard from them yet because they are limited by the same physics of time and space that we are.

So, what about the argument that there must be aliens far more advanced than we are? Why must they exist? And why must they be more advanced? For ex., I think it's likely that there is something we'd call life somewhere else in the universe. But, does that mean there must be bees, porcupines, trees, or chimpanzees elsewhere in the universe? There might be. However, there's also the chance that most of the life in the universe might not evolve into technological civilizations.

Otoh, let's say they all do. How long does it take? There has/had to be a first. How long can we predict this civilization will last? If it's as long as the Egyptians, that's still only thousands of years. It's possible that technological civilizations have come and gone or are coming (like us). We might not make it because we are not technologically united; we compete. Lots of people would say that it's more likely we'll destroy ourselves with the technology that would have been used to explore. It's also possible that truly advanced societies turn their planets into Edens, and have no need to explore.

Captain Kirk's pov.

(NewsNation) — Beloved Star Trek legend William Shatner said recent congressional hearings about unidentified aerial phenomena are “ridiculous.”

“You mean, some highly intelligent being goes 10,000 light years with advanced technology, arrives here and hides?” Shatner told NewsNation anchor Elizabeth Vargas. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

Shatner said if extraterrestrial beings could reach Earth, they would make a “big to-do” about it.

“If they’re going to make that journey all the way here, it just beggars the imagination that they would hide and make it, like, ‘Peekaboo, I’m here, no I’m not,’” Shatner said.

[yeniseri]

Captain Kirk's pov.

(NewsNation) — Beloved Star Trek legend William Shatner said recent congressional hearings about unidentified aerial phenomena are “ridiculous.”

“You mean, some highly intelligent being goes 10,000 light years with advanced technology, arrives here and hides?” Shatner told NewsNation anchor Elizabeth Vargas. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

Shatner said if extraterrestrial beings could reach Earth, they would make a “big to-do” about it.

“If they’re going to make that journey all the way here, it just beggars the imagination that they would hide and make it, like, ‘Peekaboo, I’m here, no I’m not,’” Shatner said.

Again we show ourselves when we make statements that have nothing to do with reality despite responding as a reflection of our true self about the event.
WIlliam Shatner is a product of his social milieu and therefore if he were an "alien", he would show himself because of his social status and priviledge as away to
show his 'power' and how mighty p[resence is if we seek to heal, destroy or just observe human nature, and adapt without showing oneself.

Shatner cannot believe that "highly intelligent beings"(I wonder how he figured out that element of knowledge!) making the long trip and hiding out! But if man had an idea about this,
he would realize intelligent people observe, take notes, assess and then act, which Shatner missed or it does not matter. In short, what Shatner says about aliens is more a refloection of self and worldview

[everything]

here's a guy (chair of Board on Physics and Astronomy of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) who says instead of wild math or other speculation about strings and multiverses or building new tech, just use existing instruments and look for things like pollution (only generated by "intelligent" life) instead of things like water and trying to wildly speculate (IOW look for evidence/data above theorizing)

So speculating about string theory and multiverses is bad, but speculating about alien civilizations and their artifacts passing through the solar system is okay? You could say appealing to “aliens” can explain anything, too.

The difference is: you can make predictions and test for the latter, and the speculations come from a conservative position.

If ‘Oumuamua is a member of a population of objects moving on random trajectories, then based on its discovery with the Pan-STARRS telescope, you can estimate that we should very soon begin finding, on average, one of these objects per month after the Vera C. Rubin Observatory comes online. We can also establish a system of instruments—satellites, maybe—that would not only monitor the sky but also be able to react to the approach of such objects so we can get photographs of them as they come in rather than chasing them as they go out, because they move very fast. Not all this work needs to be in space, either: You can imagine meteors of interstellar origin as well, and we can search for those. And if you find any that ended up on Earth’s surface, you might even be able to examine them with your own hands.

People ask why I get this media attention. The only reason is because my colleagues are not using common sense. Contrast string theory and multiverses with what I and many others say, which is that based on the data from NASA’s Kepler mission, roughly half of the galaxy’s sunlike stars have a planet about the size of the Earth, at about the same distance of the Earth from the sun, so that you can have liquid water on the surface and the chemistry of life as we know it. So if you roll the dice on life billions of times in the Milky Way, what is the chance that we are alone? Minuscule, most likely! To say that if you arrange for similar circumstances, you get similar outcomes is, to me, the most conservative statement imaginable. So I would expect most people to endorse that, to hug me and say, “Great, Avi, you’re correct. We should look for these things because they must be very likely.” Instead what I see is a backlash that shows a loss of an intellectual compass—because how else can you explain working on string theory’s extra dimensions or the multiverse when we have no clue for their existence? But that is considered mainstream? That’s crazy.

Allow me to put this in a very specific context. I’m obviously not a rebel outsider; I’m in leadership positions. I chair the Board on Physics and Astronomy of the National Academies [of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine], okay? That board is overseeing the Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, which will set major science priorities for NASA and the [National Science Foundation] when it is released later this year. Now, I see astronomers talking about future telescopes costing billions of dollars, with the main motivation being to find life by looking for oxygen in the atmospheres of exoplanets. That is a noble wish. But if you look at the Earth for its first two billion years or so, the planet did not have much oxygen in its atmosphere even though it had a lot of microbial life. That’s point number one. Point number two is that even if you have oxygen, you can get it from natural processes such as breaking apart water molecules. So even if you if you spend these billions and find oxygen and maybe even find methane along with it, people will still argue about it forever. Look at how much discussion there has been about the potential detection of phosphine on Venus, which is a very unusual molecule, compared with oxygen. Anyway, my point is that with these same instruments—you don’t need any extra investment of funds—you can actually get conclusive evidence for life, intelligence and technology. What would that be? Industrial pollution in the same atmosphere. You could, for instance, look for chlorofluorocarbons, these complex molecules only produced on Earth for refrigeration systems. If you found that on another planet, there is just no way nature would produce these molecules naturally. You would have conclusive evidence that life—and more—existed there.

So what is the problem with saying that looking for industrial pollution is a worthwhile thing to do? What other than some sort of psychological barrier that prevents some scientists from admitting they want the search for technological signatures of alien civilizations to be at the periphery, with very little funding? What I’m saying is that these sorts of things should be prioritized and that they are conservative things to do because they will bring us the most information about the existence of alien life. And yet the opposite is being done right now.

You write about a concept you call “‘Oumuamua’s wager,” after Pascal’s wager, 17th-century mathematician Blaise Pascal’s argument that the benefits of assuming God exists outweigh the drawbacks. Similarly, you say believing ‘Oumuamua is an alien artifact would be a net good because it could catalyze a revolution in space science and technology centered around a more vigorous search for life and intelligence beyond Earth. Even if that hunt finds no aliens, your reasoning goes, we’d still gain a much deeper understanding of our cosmic context. And the investments behind it would enhance our ability to answer other questions about the universe and perhaps even help stave off our own extinction.

But if the stakes are so high, what about the counterargument that going “all in” on promoting ‘Oumuamua’s putative artificial nature is reckless and dangerous? Your critics say you are doing more harm than good. For instance, you mentioned you appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast, one of the most popular in the world. That’s great for selling books. But given Rogan’s reputation for spreading dangerous misinformation on his podcast, is that sort of thing a wise move? Would you also agree to be a speaker at a gathering of UFO “true believers” outside Area 51? Where do you draw the line for public outreach that risks enhancing the so-called giggle factor that has stymied progress in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) for decades?

Okay, here is my point of view. By and large, the public funds science. And the public is extremely interested in the search for alien life. So I must ask: If scientists are supported by the public, how dare they shy away from this question that can be addressed with the technologies they are developing?

There are, of course, science-fiction stories about aliens, and there are many unsubstantiated UFO reports. Now, suppose there was some literature about the magical properties of COVID-19 that had no bearing in reality. Would that mean scientists should never work on finding a vaccine to this pandemic? No! I don’t see the search for technological signatures any differently from the search for the nature of dark matter. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in searching for weakly interacting massive particles, a leading dark matter candidate. And so far those searches have failed. That doesn’t mean they were a waste: going down dark alleys is part of the scientific process.

And in terms of risk, in science, we are supposed to put everything on the table. We cannot just avoid certain ideas because we worry about the consequences of discussing them, because there is great risk in that, too. That would be similar to telling Galileo not to speak about Earth moving around the sun and to avoid looking in his telescope because it was dangerous to the philosophy of the day. We should not want to repeat that experience. We need an open dialogue among scientists where people present different ideas and then allow evidence to dictate which one is right. In the context of ‘Oumuamua, I say the available evidence suggests this particular object is artificial, and the way to test this is to find more [examples] of the same and examine them. It’s as simple as that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -kidding1/

(

Avi Loeb is no stranger to controversy. The prolific Harvard University astrophysicist has produced pioneering and provocative research on black holes, gamma-ray bursts, the early universe and other standard topics of his field. But for more than a decade he has also courted a more contentious subject—namely, space aliens, including how to find them. Until relatively recently, Loeb’s most high-profile work in that regard was his involvement with Breakthrough Starshot, a project funded by Silicon Valley billionaire Yuri Milner to send laser-boosted, gossamer-thin mirrorlike spacecraft called “light sails” on high-speed voyages to nearby stars. All that began to change in late 2017, however, when astronomers around the world scrambled to study an enigmatic interstellar visitor—the first ever seen—that briefly came within range of their telescopes.

The object’s discoverers dubbed it ‘Oumuamua—a Hawaiian term that roughly translates to “scout.” The unavoidably cursory examinations of this celestial passerby showed it had several properties that defied easy natural explanation. ‘Oumuamua’s apparent shape—which was like a 100-meter-long cigar or pancake—did not closely resemble any known asteroid or comet. Neither did its brightness, which revealed ‘Oumuamua was at least 10 times more reflective than one of our solar system’s typical space rocks—shiny enough to suggest the gleam of burnished metal. Most strangely, as it zoomed off after swooping by the sun, the object sped up faster than could be explained by our star’s waning gravitational grip alone. Run-of-the-mill comets can exhibit similar accelerations because of the rocketlike effect of evaporating gases jetting from their sunlight-warmed icy surfaces. But no signs of such jets were seen around ‘Oumuamua.

To Loeb, the most plausible explanation was as obvious as it was sensational: taken together with its possibly pancakelike shape and high reflectivity, ‘Oumuamua’s anomalous acceleration made perfect sense if the object was in fact a light sail—perhaps a derelict from some long-expired galactic culture. Primed by years spent pondering how we might someday find evidence of cosmic civilizations in the sky’s depths, he became increasingly convinced that, with ‘Oumuamua, the evidence had instead found us. In late 2018 Loeb and his co-author Shmuel Bialy, a Harvard postdoctoral fellow, published a paper in the Astrophysical Journal Letters arguing that ‘Oumuamua had been nothing less than humanity’s first contact with an artifact of extraterrestrial intelligence.

The paper has been a smash hit with journalists but has fallen flat with most of Loeb’s astrobiology-focused peers, who insist that, while strange, ‘Oumuamua’s properties still place it well within the realm of natural phenomena. To claim otherwise, Loeb’s critics say, is cavalier at best and destructive at worst for the long struggle to remove the stigma of credulous UFO and alien-abduction reports from what should unquestionably be a legitimate field of scientific inquiry.

Loeb has now taken his case to the public with the book Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life beyond Earth, which is just as much about the author’s life story as it is about ‘Oumuamua’s fundamental mysteries. Scientific American spoke with Loeb about the book, his controversial hypothesis and why he believes science is in crisis.

)

[Steve James]

Absolutely, it's a human pov, but that is all we have. And, we have plenty of evidence about our species based on our short history. Imo, arguing that aliens would be aggressive, peaceful, inquisitive, adventurous, etc are all extrapolations from our ego. I.e., they answer the questions "why" we would explore the universe and what we'd do. From there we get optimists and pessimists.

Where I'd agree with Shatner's point is that -unless there's been some form of actual communication with alien intelligent life- the one thing we know for sure is that are capable or are not willing to communicate with us as a species. Not communicating after traveling the required distances, in Shatner's opinion, would be silly. However, that assumes they traveled to interact with us -like Columbus traveling to the Americas (?), or Vikings viking over to Britain. That's too much like the Predator movies, though.

Anyway, I can't escape my human pov. I think the most advanced technology we've ever created were tested first with relatively expendable non-living machines. A super-advanced civilization would have super-advanced probes that could explore but not have passengers. We need to find another civilization's Voyager in space or on Mars or the Moon. Afa Earth, there are many different uaps. Either that's one civilization sending many of them, or many civilizations with the ability.

As Giles and everything suggest, maybe we're in a zoo and the keepers are trolling us. Then again, that might suggest they were unethical like us.

[everything]

to mix the wildly speculative threads, the most advanced tech we've made (or will soon make) is probably the "intelligence" that will soon be "smarter" than we are. more wild, that "intelligence" will augment our wetware intelligence somehow. nobody is able to say what that "modded" human intelligence will be like. presumably, aliens who mastered interstellar travel may have mastered AI and AI-augmentation first. so... it's not a "human like" intelligence that solved these problems that appear to us, humans, as "unsolvable". we normally assume (in our incredible earth/human centric arrogant way) it's something like humans who would be some other kind of intelligence. it doesn't seem (even based on our limited data so far) that would have to be the case.

regardless, like the avi loeb guy says above, if we "collect data" (even if confined in our fish bowl), it's probably the best we can do with our current know-how.

[Steve James]

So what is the problem with saying that looking for industrial pollution is a worthwhile thing to do?

No problem at all. I was on committees with people working on solar sails around 2010. I hadn't heard the idea that the Oumuamua was a solar sail. Though, there's no evidence that it is anything other than the first interstellar object to enter our solar system. Hey, I like the idea that it was manufactured. Looking for the pollution generated by the civilization that produced it seems reasonable. Afa as it being a solar sail, they travel (ideally) at 1/10th light speed.

Edit: I had to look it up. Oumuamua was traveling at 85,700 mph. The fastest solar sail (afaik) speed achieved practically was around 30K mph in 2019. Traveling 3x faster than what we can achieve now seems feasible for a more advanced civilization. Still, that's very slow for intergalactic travel afa as human lifetimes.

Anyway, Oumuamua is speedily surfing out of our solar system.

[everything]

never really heard much about them. what were your committees' goals with them?

I like the idea of collecting data/evidence that happens to come by here. it does sound far more efficient. but what the heck, sending objects out there sounds fun, too, haha.

[Steve James]

I taught at a school of technology, and was on college committees with colleagues in physics and all the stem disciplines. I didn't work on their projects, but we did discuss what they were working on. Michio Kaku works in the same CUNY college system. The US's first solar sail were launched around 2005. What the goals could be was discussed a lot. One was using them as a practical form of propulsion for long term space missions. Lightsail 2 was orbiting the Earth until last November.

[everything]

sounds very cool (both the committees and the sail).

[Steve James]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Cv7xNiKAgoQ[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Cv7xNiKAgoQ

This will be true for aliens too. Btw, if they move faster than light, they'd see our time going backwards. This is why (iinm) aliens would have to find a way to do it without traveling at light speed. Yeah, there's warping space, but that might take more energy. To be able to do either makes me think aliens wouldn't give a f about us. They could see the entire history of this planet (and solar system), and in one case they've already seen it.

[Dmitri]

This stuff is pure sci-fi... it's certainly fun to think about, but we can't simply take Einstein's (and related) math and "map it back onto reality" somehow. Traveling anywhere even remotely near the speed of light is simply not a thing/has not been observed, outside black holes (i.e. no way to be ever used in practice) and the quantum-level events which, in turn, have nothing to do with the "macro world" (yes, I know they keep finding some correlations, but that is - yet again - just math). Same goes for "folding spacetime", etc.

- signed, Party Pooper

[Steve James]

Russia and India currently have missions on the way to the moon. So, let's agree that wherever and however humans travel outside this planet will require math. In fact, it's the math that makes you, and me too, skeptical about humans achieving light speed, let alone faster than light. It doesn't say one can't, only that it'd need infinite energy to do so (and an equal amount to stop ). Then again, 96% of what the math says must exist is unavailable to us. So, I'm skeptical of saying anything is impossible.

Afa quantum mechanics, it's been demonstrated through experiments, like the famous double-slit experiment and others. It's not pure mathematical theory. Einstein predicted it, but dismissed it. But, no one has disproven it, and it works.

[everything]

think this is why the astronomer guy says just get more data the ways we can with current tech. (but the theories will probably always be fun)

[Dmitri]

think this is why the astronomer guy says just get more data the ways we can with current tech

That's what it (science) is all about, and that's really all we can ever do, in practice. Theories have their place, but it's sometimes too tempting to wishfully conflate them with "would-be reality".