whats the chances of alien life form more intelligent than us?

[chuman]

topic.
secondly if there are aliens would they look like humans?

[admiral_ju00]

Very possible(but that may depend on how you define 'Intelligence').
Very unlikely.

[Kbzon59]

Indeed they would be smarter than us, since tehy would be older.
They would not look human, but they would not look all that weird. They would be similar to some animals

[ydoaPs]

they would be bilateral and have aposable thumbs and have gone though cephalization so, they would look similar

[admiral_ju00]

Uhm, to the 2 previous post(ers), where or what are you basing your information on?

[ydoaPs]

my bio book and common sense. they would need thumbs to build a ship. and cephalization for a brain as we know it.

[admiral_ju00]

my bio book

Then I'm sure you've taken into the account things like, Gravity, Atmospheric conditions, distance from the star, pressure, temp, so on and so forth...?

[ydoaPs]

what does gravity and distance form star have to do with thumbs or cephalization?
and every creature with a brain is bilateral so, that makes sense too

[admiral_ju00]

what does gravity and distance form star have to do with thumbs or cephalization?

The problem would be with this bit: they would look similar ;)

and every creature with a brain is bilateral so, that makes sense too

It's a bit of a gross overestimation to compare all possible life forms in the cosmos to that on earth, doncha think?

[ydoaPs]

similar, not congruent.
they would have appendages with thumbs and they would have heads and me at least bipedal (some form of motion, right? maybe they would just be winged. nah that wing thing is stupid)
ok forget bilaterality then. theyw ould still be similar

[5614]

you are assuming that they have a grip, thats why they need thumbs, maybe they could just have two arms, but yes, they would need some kind of grip, so they would need some kind of thumb.... obviously

they would HAVE to have a head, there brain could be located anywhere in the body, as could the eyes ears and wtvr anywhere as well....

they wont have to look like us at all, except the thumbs.....
because they wouldnt necessarily have to be carbon based, new scientific expertiments show it would be possible to have a silicon based life, and who knows, they could be some type of flying bird or something living on a gas planet.....

the fact is that, we cannot know, to us, it seems impossible to imagine a creature looking different from anything we've ever seen, but the fact is that, a few million light years away, anything could have happened!

[JaKiri]

The only evidence we have for extraterrestrial life is of the form of fossilised microbes. It's a bit early to be making baseless speculation, something you appear to be good at.

[J'Dona]

There's no reason why they would have to look like humans at all, to be honest.

Instead of thumbs and hands they could have tentacles (a bit 50's scifi, but anyway) and live underwater. They wouldn't need to have heads as their brains could be anywhere in their bodies, and the main sensory receivers in the human head (eyes, ears, nose, tongue) - if they even had them - don't necessarily have to be in a head if the brain isn't. They could breathe and ingest through holes in their backside for all we know, though it's a frightening thought... :/

But there we have it: an intelligent, non-bipedal squid that eats through its rear and meets all the criteria put forward!

But yes, gravity and distance from star alone have a massive effect on the development of life and possibly even on thumbs. I thought it was the other way around but low gravity actually drawfs plant growth, so a smaller planet has smaller plants (say goodbye to all the 1km tall trees in so many stories) and if a plant is further awat from the sun then it will need to have more efficient leaves to collect sunlight, or some completely different form of photosynthesis. So plants would be short, flat and spread out, and no species would need to be particularly tall, which are qualities that affect animal evolution. Now, if we're on a smaller planet that's further from the sun, the atmosphere will be much thinner and colder, so plants might not be able to photosynthesis at all, in which case nothig would live if we're assuming that photosynthesis is the basis for life. This is an example of how gravity and distance from a star can affect growth of life, and if you want a real-life example, look at Mars. This case doesn't necessarily prevent the rise of opposable thumbs and so forth, but it does affect the chances of them coming about and they way in which they might.


To answer the original question: what are the chances of an alien life form being more intelligent than us? If you're talking about one that we might encounter or detect, then pretty high; they would have to be spacefaring in which case they might be about 50 years behind us or up to millions ahead. In terms of the whole universe, I think the chances are pretty much 100%, considering its size.

[ydoaPs]

JaKiri, there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy billions of galaxies that we can see (don't forget that we can't see most of the universe). almost every star that a has been searched for a planet has had one and we aren't even that good at it yet. of those possibly countless planets, there has to be life. it is a mathematical certianty (i can't remember the formula for it though). and u think that there is no other intelligent life exists in the universe? u might as well label yourself an anthropolater.

[JaKiri]

JaKiri, there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy billions of galaxies that we can see. almost every star that a has been searched for a planet has had one and we aren't even that good at it yet.

They're mostly gas giants though, and I'd like to see humanoid life growing on them.

Anyway, that still leaves us with the assumption that in identical conditions, identical life will grow (or a wishywashy version of this for the matter at hand).

Even ignoring chaos theory, there's still random mutation to get around.

[admiral_ju00]

almost every star that a has been searched for a planet has had one.

Once again, what are you basing your information on?
As you just said, I can pick ANY star in the cosmos, and you can tell me how many planets it has and what size, or if any at all, right??

Or at the very least provide the photographical pictures of these planets.

If yes, then let me know, I'll pick a few stars for you.....

[ydoaPs]

our technology hasn't progressed far enough to see many extrasolar terrestrial planets. no one said the life or conditions would be identical. we don't need identical conditions (even though there will be), because lefe has proven to exist anywhere on our planet. in every extreme where it was thought life couldn't exist, we found it. and the only reason the only proof we have is possibly fossilized microbes is that that we haven't left the syestem. we haven't even checked the most logical place for life to exist other than earth (Europa).

[ydoaPs]

admiral, http://extrasolar.net is a small archive of extrasolar planets. i didn't say any star, i said almost every star that has been searched for planets

[JaKiri]

our technology hasn't progressed far enough to see many extrasolar terrestrial planets. no one said the life or conditions would be identical. we don't need identical conditions (even though there will be), because lefe has proven to exist anywhere on our planet. in every extreme where it was thought life couldn't exist, we found it. and the only reason the only proof we have is possibly fossilized microbes is that that we haven't left the syestem. we haven't even checked the most logical place for life to exist other than earth (Europa).

Well done for completely misinterpreting my post. I'll highlight the word you appear to have missed.

They're mostly gas giants though, and I'd like to see humanoid life growing on them.

Anyway, that still leaves us with the assumption that in identical conditions, identical life will grow (or a wishywashy version of this for the matter at hand).

Even ignoring chaos theory, there's still random mutation to get around.

[admiral_ju00]

I have not checked the linky yet, but as MrL JaKiri said, these planetisimals that they found (Numbering about 122 or so) are the size of Jupiter. By our current understanding, Life can not form on a Gas Giant.

[JaKiri]

I have not yet checked the linky yet, but as MrL JaKiri said, these planetisimals that they found (Numbering about 122 or so) are the size of Jupiter. By our current understanding, Life can not form on a Gas Giant.

Oh, they have found (if memory serves) some earth-like planets. Just not very many; the vast vast vast majority of them are gas giants.

Anyway, I shall refer you to this:

POPULATION: None
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

[ydoaPs]

i already said it wouldn't be identical. there have been terrestrial extrasolar planets detected. who's to say if life can exist on a gas giant? we haven't even looked. and what about the moons of those giants?

[JaKiri]

i already said it wouldn't be identical.

Hey look, so did I. In that very post! (look at the clauses following the highlighted word)

there have been terrestrial extrasolar planets detected. who's to say if life can exist on a gas giant? we haven't even looked. and what about the moons of those giants?

We're dealing with similar life here. There is no way that life in a gas giant could be similar to us.

[ydoaPs]

why? a different set of mutations and selections could have caused similar life in very dissimilar environments

[JaKiri]

why? a different set of mutations and selections could have caused similar life in very dissimilar environments

If we're talking pure speculation, then yes.

But like I said, speculation isn't a good argument.

[ydoaPs]

"There is no way that life on a gas giant could be similar to us" is pure speculation too. It is based on no proof.

[JaKiri]

"There is no way that life on a gas giant could be similar to us" is pure speculation too. It is based on no proof.

We're designed to live on a hard surface, and interact with solid objects. Pretty much everything, from skellington to handies, are 'designed' (as it were) with this in mind.

How you expect hands (for example) to work in a big cloud of gas and nothing else is beyond me.

[ydoaPs]

the core of jupiter is supposed to be liquid H (because of pressure, not temp). maybe it would have started as a fin, then turned into a wing. and that wing got a claw to aid in feeding. or we could skip the flight all togather and go from fin to claw

[admiral_ju00]

That's an interesting proposition. As J'Donna said, considering how many factors are involved in this game, anything is possible.

[JaKiri]

the core of jupiter is supposed to be liquid H (because of pressure, not temp). maybe it would have started as a fin, then turned into a wing. and that wing got a claw to aid in feeding. or we could skip the flight all togather and go from fin to claw

You're just going by 'it's a liquid!' here, rather than forgetting the immense crushing oh my god my spirit pressure.

[ydoaPs]

who said they it has to be at similar pressure to us or life in the ocean?
as i said b4, life has proven to be in every extreme.

[Sayonara³]

my bio book and common sense. they would need thumbs to build a ship. and cephalization for a brain as we know it.
The OP didn't say anything about ships, or meeting aliens.

You lot really need to read the MANY other threads on this in the exobiology forum.

(Thread moved because it has more to do with Evolution than Astronomy.)

[JaKiri]

who said they it has to be at similar pressure to us or life in the ocean?
as i said b4, life has proven to be in every extreme.

The 'extremes' on earth are rather mild compared to the extremes of the rest of the universe in every way.

We can postulate that it's possible that life can exist anywhere, but it's really quite within the realms of possibility that there are some places that life simply can't be.

[ydoaPs]

who is to say where? wat makes you qualified to say tha life can't exist in a gas giant?
even if we did look and didn't find anything, it wouldn't prove that life can't exist there.

[JaKiri]

who is to say where? wat makes you qualified to say tha life can't exist in a gas giant?
even if we did look and didn't find anything, it wouldn't prove that life can't exist there.

No it doesn't. However, all instances of life we've come across have shown no evidence of having the capability of existing in such an environment, so for now it's better to assume that they can't.

Note: This isn't a statement of fact, this is an assumption based on evidence.

[ydoaPs]

thats like if all you see are birds, you assume life can't exist underwater

[Sayonara³]

An analogous situation:

You're trying to find your car keys. You don't remember where you left them, but it's reasonable to assume that they are somewhere in the house, seeing as you had them when you got back from work the night before.

Going down the road to look in the fish pond at number 78 is a big waste of your time.

[ydoaPs]

thats not quite analogous, but I'll admit it's close. still, ruling out something because you've never seen anything like it before is stupid.

say an alien race is looking for life and comes to our system. Every terrestrial planet it has seen has had no life. so it passes Earth and goes to Jupiter. That is what JaKiri we should do exept we haven't even looked for life.

[Sayonara³]

thats not quite analogous, but I'll admit it's close. still, ruling out something because you've never seen anything like it before is stupid.

say an alien race is looking for life and comes to our system. Every terrestrial planet it has seen has had no life. so it passes Earth and goes to Jupiter. That is what JaKiri we should do exept we haven't even looked for life.
Yeah, it's a crude approximation but it's more to illustrate the efficiency of the method rather than the potential for unexpected rewards.

We could just fire off a million probes every which way, but we'd never see a return on the investment. Targetting our efforts in places we know that we have a good chance of success is much more likely to garner a success per mission launched.

In the case of your aliens, you are simplifying the situation slightly. Perhaps every terrestrial planet they have seen had no life, but if they are aware that life can flourish under the conditions that commonly exist on terrestrial planets they would still be looking. I don't think JaKiri intended to suggest that the only chance for success is to look for Earth-like planets, or that doing so would guarantee success.

On a slightly related note, an alien probe landing in the deep desert, or the arctic, might well not send back any evidence of life on Earth. Whether or not the builders considered this planet worthy of further investigation would depend on whether or not they had previously observed life that flourished under the reported conditions.

[ydoaPs]

you just illustrated my point. even if we don't find anything it wouldn't mean its not there. it doesnt even have to be on a planet or moon; it could be on an asteroid or comet.

[J'Dona]

That's an interesting proposition. As J'Donna said, considering how many factors are involved in this game, anything is possible.Whoa, please don't interpret that as me saying life in the liquid hydrogen mantle of a gas giant is possible. :P Boiling hot and high pressure... those conditions might be comparable to a mild version of the surface of the Sun.

It might be possible for life - microbial life - to exist in the very upper layers of atmosphere in a gas giant, but only if the gas giant is very nicely and very improbably suited for it and only if it arrived later via an asteroid or comet (highly unlikely). As far as I know there's no life that can make a living off of raw hydrogen gas, or (if they're lucky) some inert helium every now and then. If there was any oxygen, the chances are it would react with any hydrogen gas to form water which promptly falls down into the mantle. Some gas giants have things like sodium in their atmosphere (the first planet to be "explored" was one passing in front of its star and they detected sodium in it, by infrared spectroscopy I believe), but that still doesn't help life very much. And even if there were the amino acids etc. needed to start off life, they would be too heavy and would fall down into the mantle. Non-carbon-based proteins (e.g. silicon-based) either just can't work peroid or are completely out of the question as they would be too heavy.

I think the conclusion we can draw from this, since all planets seem to be either rocky, gas giants or ice (way too cold for life), that any complex life could really only form on rocky planets. In that case, the Earth seems a reasonable point to draw examples from, and there's no life on Earth that could survive on a gas giant so we can say for now that it cant with some certainty.

[Sayonara³]

you just illustrated my point. even if we don't find anything it wouldn't mean its not there. it doesnt even have to be on a planet or moon; it could be on an asteroid or comet.
We're not talking about whether or not life is 'there'. We're talking about where we should bother looking.

[admiral_ju00]

Whoa, please don't interpret that as me saying life in the liquid hydrogen mantle of a gas giant is possible.....

I was trying to place that into an 'out of context' perspective, so no, you're safe there. :)

I brought up the notion in #7, and you did something I felt lazy to do so myself in # 13, you elaborated on #7.

[ydoaPs]

y look for life that is like us?if we want to learn about life don't you think we should look for other kinds?

u said all amino acids and wat would fall to the mantle. plenty of energy to get life started and all the material in the right place.

and you don't seem to understand that there are microbes lava and permafrost. and other such extremes. there is a multicellular organism that can even live through a nuclear blast.

[Sayonara³]

y look for life that is like us?if we want to learn about life don't you think we should look for other kinds?
I've already answered this.

It's a simple matter of economics. You don't funnel billions of dollars of tax-payers money into looking for something that might not even exist at random locations when you have a much better chance of finding something that you already know does exist, in locations you know it has a chance of developing.

[J'Dona]

Yes, but without light or oxygen it's not going to get very far. It's all very well having a single protein strand but a single celled organism couldn't even respirate in that environment. I don't know which one you're talking about in lava and permafrost, but I'm sure those ones must be dormant in some way as biochemical reactions can't occur in those conditions, as far as I konw. Either way, it's not the same as a gas giant. The original questions were whether extraterrestrial life would be more intelligent than us and whether it would look like humans, which simply isn't possible on a gas giant.

[ydoaPs]

forget about money for now.

lets use an analogy: how much are you gonna learn from 2+x=5 after u did it a few billion times?

[YT2095]

topic.
secondly if there are aliens would they look like humans?
it`s not impossible, afterall, it`s happened once. although I`de consider it VERY unlikely that we`de ever find out one way or another, that really WOULD be stretching the boundaries of possibility! :)

[ydoaPs]

how do you know it isn't possible if you haven't looked. there are OLD programs on the Science Channel that were talking about the life in lava, so take it up with them.

[Sayonara³]

forget about money for now.
No can do.

If we don't consider the cost of the search for life, the discussion has no bearing on reality. Like it or not we do have to factor these things in.


lets use an analogy: how much are you gonna learn from 2+x=5 after u did it a few billion times?
That's an appalling analogy.

Even if we found life off Earth that was so similar to us as to be virtually indistinguishable, it would answer many fundamental questions that have been debated for centuries. It would also raise new questions and challenges. It would still change the face of our society forever.

[ydoaPs]

we aren't going to be roaming accross the universe looking for life any time soon, so lets just foreget about money for now. yes, we would learn if we found identical life, but we would learn vastly more if it were different. wat better way to find different life than to look in a different place?

[Sayonara³]

we aren't going to be roaming accross the universe looking for life any time soon, so lets just foreget about money for now. yes, we would learn if we found identical life, but we would learn vastly more if it were different. wat better way to find different life than to look in a different place?
Because it costs billions with little chance of getting anything out of it.

You don't get to discard that fact just because it is inconvenient to you.

Also, I would dispute that we would learn more. What we learned would be different.

[ydoaPs]

it's not that it's inconvenient, it's that mony will be different by the time we can explore the universe. it might even be like startrek where there is no money (although i seriously doubt it)

u are forgetting, not only would we learn what we would if we found similar life, but we would learn about thier metabolic proccesses and genetic material and all the other stuff we already know about earth life

[Sayonara³]

it's not that it's inconvenient, it's that mony will be different by the time we can explore the universe. it might even be like startrek where there is no money (although i seriously doubt it)
Sorry, I didn't realise the reality we were discussing was the one in your head.


u are forgetting, not only would we learn what we would if we found similar life, but we would learn about thier metabolic proccesses and genetic material and all the other stuff we already know about earth life
No, I am not forgetting that. It's already provided for by my response. "Not more, but different".

[ydoaPs]

the reality we are talking about is hundreds maybe thousands of years away.

yes more

wat we would learn if we found similar life+thier metabolic proccesses and genetic material and all the other stuff we already know about earth life = more than we would learn if we found similar life. 1+1=2, not 1

[J'Dona]

Well, in that case, the Federation would need to divert significant resources and manpower toward the project of investigating gas giant atmospheres for life, whereas they could have spent less resources doing something like colonising Mars and getting the name "United Federation of Planets" to actually apply. Oh, and they find out decades later that there's an underwater civilization on Europa, but they never bothered to check it before. And they're tentacled squids with no heads the eat and breath out of... nevermind.

No, seriously... the point is that there's a vastly greater chance of finding extraterrestrial life on another rocky planet than on a gas giant, and that in terms of overall efficiency it would be better to concentrate on the former. People can only send so many probes out into space, and since we're all very impatient we want to check out those incredibly more likely places first. If money still exists it wont be "different" in such a way that where it cost money to explore before, now it doesn't, so the issue holds.

[superstorm]

It isd very possible that there would be intelligent life somewhere out there.
They wont look exactly LIKE us humans because of evolutionary courses but its possible theyll be humanoid.

[ydoaPs]

you'd rather do the same thing over and over than try something new?

[J'Dona]

If doing it over and over again carried large scientific benefits with a reasonable chance of success every time, as compared to similar benefits for something with hardly any chance at all, then yes.

[Sayonara³]

the reality we are talking about is hundreds maybe thousands of years away.
The future is not observable and does not - insofar as we know - have an impact on the present. Your arguments are void.


yes more
wat we would learn if we found similar life+thier metabolic proccesses and genetic material and all the other stuff we already know about earth life = more than we would learn if we found similar life. 1+1=2, not 1
You have a very simplistic view of biology.

Let all the metabolisms we know of on Earth MG1. Likewise let Earth genetics be GG1.

Assume we find another life system with different metabolisms and genetics. Label them MG2 and GG2.

Finding out about MG2 and GG2 does not mean we know more biology. We already know about metabolisms and genetics because we have MG1 and GG1. What we have found are simply different manifestations of the M-Group and the G-Group.


You ask what we would learn from finding Earth-similar life:

Primarily, we'd be able to answer old questions about life on Earth by testing against life off Earth. The more similar the alien life is to us, the fewer the variables that can interfere with the results.
We'd be closer to understanding how common our life structure is in the galaxy.
We'd have the possibility of establishing whether galactic ecology or panspermia play a role in the population of sterile worlds with life. Completely disimilar life would not afford this opportunity.
There are many other possibilities for study but they are all rather contingent on the circumstances in which we find this life form/ecosystem: you haven't specified any such conditions and I'm not listing them all, because I don't have all day. Well actually I do have all day, but I'm not spending it on that.

[JaKiri]

you'd rather do the same thing over and over than try something new?

Given that we haven't found any extraterrestrial life, you're a bit premature in saying we've done it once, let alone over and over again.

[ydoaPs]

i never said we found it. i said the same thing which refers to carbon-based life

[Sayonara³]

i never said we found it. i said the same thing which refers to carbon-based life
So, to use your algebra analogy from earlier, you are trying to solve 2+x=5 for Y.

[ydoaPs]

no.
i said we should introduce a new problem instead of doin 2+x=5 a few billion times.

[Sayonara³]

no.
i said we should introduce a new problem instead of doin 2+x=5 a few billion times.
What exactly is it that you are proposing?

[ydoaPs]

i have already said it several times. we would learn more from a different kind of life than our own

[Sayonara³]

That's not a proposal, nor is it "introducing a new problem".

Once again, it's a baseless statement that you haven't evidenced or reasoned out.

I've already been through the whole "different biology != more biology" thing.

[ydoaPs]

how isn't it more? it's what re already know about earth life but for them plus what we would learn anyway.

[Sayonara³]

how isn't it more? it's what re already know about earth life but for them plus what we would learn anyway.
See post #60.

Mechanisms of a function do not count as new functions.

Oh, and that's not just for biology. It's for any object-oriented hierarcy.

[ydoaPs]

wat r u talkin bout? thats not wat i said at all. u said that we wouldn't learn more from different life, and i said that we would.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Shouldn't ExtraDense be here arguing too?

I thougt he would be proving how there are sheep on mars that eat berries made of rock.

[ydoaPs]

wat? who is stupid enough to say that? sheep dont eat the berries, the little green men do. lol

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

ExtraDense says there are sheep on mars.
That eat the berries.

[ydoaPs]

ha, lmfao. ok, the berries are mineraldeposits. did u tell him that?

[Sayonara³]

wat r u talkin bout? thats not wat i said at all. u said that we wouldn't learn more from different life, and i said that we would.
I am going to lie down in a darkened room and try not to scream.

If you are looking for ExtraSense, I have blocked him from posting anywhere other than the pseudoscience forum.

[ydoaPs]

u never explained it and it makes no sense. it is like saying 1+1=1. it just doesn't work.

[Sayonara³]

u never explained it and it makes no sense. it is like saying 1+1=1. it just doesn't work.
Metabolism is a function.

The processes involved in our metabolism function are a mechanism.
The mechanism is a property of the function, also called a child node (call it child 1).

The processes involved in a yeast cell's metabolism function are also a mechanism. They are another property of the function: call it child 2.

Child 1 and Child 2 are both properties of the function (the parent node). They are sibling nodes, but they are not identical.


We have not changed the number of functions we know about. We have only ended up with different mechanisms that are properties of that function.

[Martin]

The chances of an alien life form being more intelligent than us is almost a dead certainty.

They just won't be as good-looking.

[Sayonara³]

You know that tag is still a prototype?

To Fireworks with me -->

[ydoaPs]

wat makes u think the metabolism will be the same. metabolism is the sum of all chemical proccesses in an organism

[senexa]

I am confused, but then that isn't new.

The original question was about a life form more intelligent than human beings, correct?

How did the thread get sidetracked into body functions?

If your assumption starts with the supposition that all intelligence must be essentially the same as ours then you would look for similarities in biological structures.

But intelligence is the ability to learn and use what you learn and to reason without physical assistance.

It is not exclusive to human beings, even on this planet.

The assumption should be that we have already been exposed to many forms of intelligence, and that the fault of recognition lies in our limited abilities to think outside the box.

.

[ydoaPs]

there is no proof that nething but humans r intelligent. it is only speculation

[Sayonara³]

there is no proof that nething but humans r intelligent. it is only speculation
There are various intelligent mammals, dolphins and the higher primates for a start.

[ydoaPs]

where is the proof? ne1 give them the SAT?

[Sayonara³]

where is the proof? ne1 give them the SAT?
What you're doing now is crapping on the efforts of a not-inconsiderable number of researchers and pioneers.

[ydoaPs]

there are a not-inconsiderable number of researchers of string theory, yet u guys crap all over them

[JaKiri]

there are a not-inconsiderable number of researchers of string theory, yet u guys crap all over them

Why isn't there an emoticon for 'putting your head into your hands and crying at the failings of your fellow man'?

Sayo, get on this with thinking

[STING]

Well this is nethier here nor there but some thing in life are strange..example most every thing on earth has two of what ever.ie 2 eyes, 2 arms, 2 halfs of a brain, 2 exact sets on teeth on both sides,2 ears, 2 lungs, 2 nuts, 2,kidneys so and so on...same for animals/bugs and all that"right" my point is don't it seem weird we don't see an animal or what ever with one eye or on 3 legs or some shi? like that...it's just funny how so many things come in 2s....oh well just a rant...

[Skye]

That's because many animals are bilaterally symmetrical, they have two sides that are more or less mirror images of each other. Things like trees or bacteria don't have paired features very often.

[ydoaPs]

wat skye said.

bilaterality rules the world

[admiral_ju00]

where is the proof?

I suggest you look up work done by Jane Goodall and other fellow primatologists. :rolleyes:

ne1 give them the SAT?

Let's not take this into the realm of stupidity. But even so, a Chimp can be tought to do a great many things. I'm not going to go into the details, but for a better example, one where you don't have to read anything, when was the last time you've seen a circus?

[bloodhound]

I belive that Aliens would look like this

/\
||
____ _____
| |
| |
| | | |
||||||||
||||||||||||||
||| |||
|| || || ||

[ydoaPs]

you can train any animal to do things. positive reinforcement for when it does good, punishment for whenit does bad. that doesn't mean it is intelligent

[admiral_ju00]

you can train any animal to do things. positive reinforcement for when it does good, punishment for whenit does bad. that doesn't mean it is intelligent

Well, then why don't you try teaching a language to one.
You've ever seen the movie "Congo"? Well, the guerilla using ASL was not science fiction(maybe the device was).

Chimps have been taught a limited version of ASL, and then nature took over. They(chimps) took the ASL language that they were taught and created new and more colourful communication and forms of expression.

But I'm sure you Knew that both before and after your last post, riiiiiiight? :rolleyes:

[Sayonara³]

I wouldn't bother wasting your time - he's stuck in the "if I don't know about it then it doesn't exist" dark ages.

[ydoaPs]

i thought that was u. dont look becuz we couldn't survive there?

[Sayonara³]

i thought that was u. dont look becuz we couldn't survive there?
Why don't you read the other threads on this topic.

[JaKiri]

i thought that was u. dont look becuz we couldn't survive there?

You obviously haven't read anything Sayonara has said.

[ydoaPs]

or u guys haven't read wat i have written.

i think u guys close your minds to anythin gu don't want to hear. u did the same thing on "Dark Energy"

[Sayonara³]

or u guys haven't read wat i have written.
The fact that we told you why it was wrong, and that you just parrotted the same thing over and over, suggests otherwise.

[ydoaPs]

your posts were based on your obsession with money and assumption that all life has the same rules that earth life does. then u start saying 1+1=1

[Sayonara³]

your posts were based on your obsession with money
No, that was the actual answer as to why we don't look for imaginary life now.
Even if money was not an issue, it would be a stupid way to go about things for the non-economic reasons I have already stated, over and over and oh my god my eyes over.


and assumption that all life has the same rules that earth life does
Not once have I ever in my life stated that.


then u start saying 1=1=1
I think you'll find that was you, and that you said it because you have no clue what any f this means.

[JaKiri]

your posts were based on your obsession with money and assumption that all life has the same rules that earth life does. then u start saying 1=1=1

OK, lets do this simply.

1. The 'money/resources' issue was only when searching for life, not contemplating the possible existance of life.

2. The only ruling out of lifeforms that has been done was in the core of a gas giant, because I suspected that no compound would be realistically likely to exist in those conditions, especially not one as complex as life.

3. You were the one who started saying 1+1=1 (Which it does, for small values of 1.) Sayonara gave a list of things where discovering life similar to that on earth would advance our knowledge of many things (evolutionary theory especially) where discovering unrelated life would not. In any experiment, you want to change as few factors as possible from the control, otherwise it's pointless.

I pray for the love of god that your native language isn't English, because such comprehensive mistakes of comprehension (not to mention your poor SPAG) could only be representative of a terrible schooling system.

[ydoaPs]

wat the hell is spag?

[Sayonara³]

Spelling, punctuation and grammar.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I hate people with horrid SPAG.

Face it, I'm with Sayonara and Jakiri.

[ydoaPs]

its called the internet. u dont use formal writing on the internet unless u r writing a scientific paper or running a website or somethin like that

i'll have u know I get all A's in English

[Sayonara³]

its called the internet. u dont use formal writing on the internet unless u r writing a scientific paper or running a website or somethin like that

i'll have u know I get all A's in English

Don't talk crap. People write clearly because they wish to be understood.

Yeah, and you have a bachelor's degree in Astrotastic Benderneering too.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Then prove it to us. It's harder to read things with poor spelling and grammar.
This is a SCIENTIFIC site anyways.


this is all spam, you know.

[JaKiri]

its called the internet. u dont use formal writing on the internet unless u r writing a scientific paper or running a website or somethin like that

It's common courtesy, as it makes a post much easier to read and understand. Something like the preceeding sentence, for example, is much better than u no notin wtf ur fag, you see.

i'll have u know I get all A's in English

God help the education system.

[ydoaPs]

I actually write very well in a formal manner.

[dryan]

I wonder if h4x0r counts as a second language...

[JaKiri]

I wonder if h4x0r counts as a second language...

I doubt it counts as a language in the first place.

[admiral_ju00]

Yeah, and you have a bachelor's degree in Astrotastic Benderneering too.

Hey, I have that too. I used it to half develop a contraption called The Smell-o-scope which I've spent nearly half of my life and it is now half-way complete, which I'm hoping that someone else will spend the next half of their lives to complete my half.

This thread IS getting ridiculously funny.

And unless by some miracle it might chirp out some more useful conversations it should be closed or something.

By the way, did Sayonara used the 'G' word or was that a figment of my imagination?

[Sayonara³]

Depends what the g-word is...?

[JaKiri]

Grammar, I presume.

[ydoaPs]

How did the tangent on my "SPAG" come about?

[JaKiri]

How did the tangent on my "SPAG" come about?

By your continuing ability to completely misunderstand even the most stupid of English constructs.

[ydoaPs]

How do I misunderstand the English constructs?

[JaKiri]

How do I misunderstand the English constructs?

God know, they seem fairly simple to me.


And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we refer to as a pun.

[Rakdos]

No, that was the actual answer as to why we don't look for imaginary life now. How do we know that this " Life " is imaginary ,have we looked in gas giant for life? If we have I would like to know the results of the study.

[jordan]

What was meant was that if you look at data collected, evidence says life will have a better chance on a planet like our own. Since we and many other creatures live here, we know life on these kinds of planets is possible. We haven't found any evidence of life that can live at the core of Jupiter. Until we find reason to believe that could happen, it remains "imaginary" and an inefficient use of time and money.

[Rakdos]

Data not collected does not mean data doesn't exist. Look at SIMALAR enviroments on Earth ocean floor vents for example.

[jordan]

True, but we're talking about the odds of it.

[Rakdos]

In real life odds are useless. NOTHING is impossible just highly improbable

[ydoaPs]

All of you are assuming that all life goes by the same rules as earth. We are made to work on Earth, so we have our own rules. Life in other places will not have the same rules.

[jordan]

Sure, so why should more time and money be spent looking at Jupiter's core for life than elsewhere?

[Rakdos]

We than would be totally ignoring that posibility.

[jordan]

Well in that case, I propose the first place we look for extraterrestrial life is at the center of the sun, you know, just in case...

[Rakdos]

Absolutley nothing cold live at those pressures and Temputures

[Skye]

In real life odds are useless. NOTHING is impossible just highly improbable
Absolutley nothing cold live at those pressures and Temputures
Uh huh.

[admiral_ju00]

Depends what the g-word is...?

Post #102, 1st paragraph.

[admiral_ju00]

Data not collected does not mean data doesn't exist. Look at SIMALAR enviroments on Earth ocean floor vents for example.

And you should read up on some of JaKiri's posts in this thread.
The whole thread is about having an Advanced civilization somewhere in cosmos. That means this civilization is a complex life forms + Intelligence for technological advancement. A mibrobe will not work and at this point in time, a complex on a gas giant is well, incomprehensible by our current understanding of complex -aka. multicellular organism.

Thereby, if all we did was to send numerous probes to various planets without running any tests on these planets before hand to see if they 'might' sustain life, then well, Sayonara is absolutely right where as we will be waisting countless billions of $$$'s and looking for imaginary life.

[Rakdos]

at a temperature of at least 8 million degrees Kelvin* atoms begin to fuse noting cold live



*http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/aboutstars.html

[Rakdos]

All life capiable of Intelligence has to start somewhere



And you should read up on some of JaKiri's posts in this thread.
The whole thread is about having an Advanced civilization somewhere in cosmos. That means this civilization is a complex life forms + Intelligence for technological advancement. A mibrobe will not work and at this point in time, a complex on a gas giant is well, incomprehensible by our current understanding of complex -aka. multicellular organism.

Thereby, if all we did was to send numerous probes to various planets without running any tests on these planets before hand to see if they 'might' sustain life, then well, Sayonara is absolutely right where as we will be waisting countless billions of $$$'s and looking for imaginary life.

[ydoaPs]

Who said anything about microbal life? There are several varieties of multicellular life at ocean vents.

[admiral_ju00]

Who said anything about microbal life? There are several varieties of multicellular life at ocean vents.

No, there's quite a few more than 'several' varieties of multicellular life in the ocen by the geothermal vents. But then again, the conditions near those vents(even considering all the pressure) is insignificant when compared to what a gas giant has. Plus most of the sattelites or probes that were shot into these giants didn't last very long.

[ydoaPs]

They didn't have any protection. Put electromagnets on them or something. Y would the life in the core plummit through the atmosphere in the first place?

[admiral_ju00]

Because the crushing pressures would be much greather towards the core than in it's outmost atmosphere.
As far as the probes/sattelites, I'm sure that they has some kind of protection. But then to provide enough shielding on a satellite that will let it 1) reach the core of such a planet. 2) Survive and 3) To still be able to send data back would be astromonically expensive. Even if NASA got enough funding to make one such probe, they will still be taking a huge chance and may not get any data back that will justify the cost.

[senexa]

:eek: I'm still waiting for someone on Mars to moon the cameras.

[admiral_ju00]

According to ExtraSence, they have been doing that quite often these days ;)

[ydoaPs]

It isn't the pressure that destroys the probes. The probes are destroyed by friction.

[admiral_ju00]

No? Are you absolutely, positively sure of that?

Surely if the deep ocean pressures can crush a Military grade Submersible, and the pressure, temp, etc, is much much greater on say Saturn, it will do the same with a flimsy probe. Right?

Unless the probe entering Saturn simply ceases to abide by the laws of physics as we now know them......Hmm.....

[Sayonara³]

How do we know that this " Life " is imaginary ,have we looked in gas giant for life? If we have I would like to know the results of the study.
Like Jordan said, until it is observed in some way it is "imaginary", no matter how likely it is.


Data not collected does not mean data doesn't exist. Look at SIMALAR enviroments on Earth ocean floor vents for example.
What about them? They aren't imaginary because we observed them. To be honest the life around deep sea vents isn't that alien, and the conditions are not "utterly hostile" despite how the tabloids might interpret the data.


In real life odds are useless. NOTHING is impossible just highly improbable
That's not true.


All of you are assuming that all life goes by the same rules as earth. We are made to work on Earth, so we have our own rules. Life in other places will not have the same rules.
Once again, nobody has ****ing said that. Read the thread again NOW before something bad happens.


Post #102, 1st paragraph.
So?


All life capiable of Intelligence has to start somewhere
That's fairly self-evident and doesn't add anything to the discussion either way.



This thread will get back on topic now.

[jordan]

So what are the chances there is an alien life form more inteligent than us?

I'm going to change this to just within our galaxy for simplicity now. So I would say it is fairly low. We know that the stars on the spiral "arms" of our galaxy have been around long enough for planets to form and give life a chance to form also. We are capable of observing these in the greatest detail (as they are closest to us) and continue to do so. I would say that if life in our galaxy was reasonably more inteligent than us, we would have seen some kind of trace, something that just wasn't right. As far as I know we haven't, so I'll put the odds at a low.

[Sayonara³]

That does assume we are searching with the correct methods.

[jordan]

What could we be doing wrong?

I think by considering ourselves the inteligent life on which we measure the others give us some sort of self-imposed advantage whether we are using the correct methods or not.

[Sayonara³]

As an example, I'd say that the assumption any sufficiently intelligent species will be communicating using radio waves is a pretty big one.

Additionally, our methods for detecting such signals in the first place leave a lot to be desired. It's a big sky.

[Rakdos]

In order to do this correctly we must ask ourselves some questions.

What defines intelligence?

How do we mesure such intelligence ?

Finally, what do we do if such intelligence is found?

[ydoaPs]

You may not have said it, but you implied it. Read your posts again. When did NSA start using heat shields for pressure? Why do you assume that there would be something not just right. Why would they have to use radiowaves? Maybe they started using something else.

[Sayonara³]

You may not have said it, but you implied it. Read your posts again.
Who are you talking to, and what are you talking about?


When did NSA start using heat shields for pressure?
Who are you talking to? If you want to see what happens to probes under extreme pressure, and the steps that are taken to extend the life of such probes, read up on missions to Venus.


Why do you assume that there would be something not just right.
What does that mean, and who are you talking to?


Why would they have to use radiowaves? Maybe they started using something else.
I presume that was directed at me, seeing as I recently mentioned radio waves. If so, you obviously did not (a) read or (b) understand my very simple proposition.

[ydoaPs]

The first one was to Sayonara. The second was to Admiral. The third one was to Jordan. Read post #145.

The last was to help illustrate your point. Not only are we not looking everywhere or on all frequensies, but they may not even be using radio waves.

[Sayonara³]

The first one was to Sayonara.
I am in the habit of saying precisely what I mean to say, and not implying things that I do not believe to be so.

Kindly point out exactly where you think I "implied" that life off Earth goes by the same rules as terrestrial life.

[ydoaPs]

When you talked about how life "COULDN'T" do certain things.

[Sayonara³]

When you talked about how life "COULDN'T" do certain things.
I asked you to point out EXACTLY where I said or implied that - this means you give me the post number or numbers.

Given that all I have been arguing with you is We're not talking about whether or not life is 'there'. We're talking about where we should bother looking.
I don't particularly envy you the task.

I have already said once that this thread has to get back on topic. I don't intend to allow matters to reach a stage where I have to say it again.

[ydoaPs]

It was on topic until you took it off.

[ydoaPs]

We probably won't be able to find exraterrestrial life until we can go there.

[Sayonara³]

It was on topic until you took it off.
Posts #32 and #38 disagree with you.

Regardless, you get told by an admin to get back on topic, then you get back on topic. Whining about who took the thread off-topic to begin with won't get you anywhere.


We probably won't be able to find exraterrestrial life until we can go there.
Given that "there" is likely to be very, very, very far away, and that detection technology is likely to advance considerably faster than interstellar travel, I disagree.

[ydoaPs]

How are we gonign to tell that life is out there if we can barely see the extrasolar planets?

[JaKiri]

How are we gonign to tell that life is out there if we can barely see the extrasolar planets?

So because we currently can't 'see' them you're saying we should abandon attempts to improve detection technology (as mentioned by sayo) and instead make a rocket to take us to places that... oh I give up

[wolfson]

Well said Jakiri.

[jordan]

As an example, I'd say that the assumption any sufficiently intelligent species will be communicating using radio waves is a pretty big one.

Additionally, our methods for detecting such signals in the first place leave a lot to be desired. It's a big sky.
I'm jumping way back because everything in the middle is off topic once again.

I think you said before we look for what would provide the best chance of sucess. There are many ways they can comunicate with us, but with a decent understanding of science, I think any other inteligent beings could very possibly have chosen radio waves as we have done. We have to go by what gives us the best chance of success. What do you think would be a more likely way for them to communicate?

[Sayonara³]

It depends how advanced they are, as well as a great deal of chance.

[Aardvark]

From the example of this planets history i'd guess that intelligent life is going to be very rare.

Over the billions of years life has evolved here before the rise of our species inteligence does not appear to have ever developed, where as other traits and adaptations have reapeatedly reoccured time and again.

Admittedly we dont know how representative our planet is but working from the available data intelligence does not seem to be the automatic outcome of the existence of life. Life may be plentiful, intelligence may be rare and therefore precious.

[Rakdos]

Intelligent life is rare here too.
From the example of this planets history i'd guess that
intelligent life is going to be very rare.

[ydoaPs]

Sayonara said "Given that "there" is likely to be very, very, very far away, and that detection technology is likely to advance considerably faster than interstellar travel, I disagree." Which implies that we should look for life on planets using telescopes. That makes no sensse.

[Sayonara³]

Sayonara said "Given that "there" is likely to be very, very, very far away, and that detection technology is likely to advance considerably faster than interstellar travel, I disagree." Which implies that we should look for life on planets using telescopes. That makes no sensse.
****wit.

Nobody is this stupid - you are trolling.

[ydoaPs]

That is a direct quote from one of your posts. It is in context too.

[Sayonara³]

It's not the quote that is stupid, it's your utterly farcical interpretation of it.
You are clearly trolling.

[Rakdos]

Sayo this is the post that he was talking about in context.

Given that "there" is likely to be very, very, very far away, and that detection technology is likely to advance considerably faster than interstellar travel, I disagree.

[Sayonara³]

Sayo this is the post that he was talking about in context.
I am aware of that.

[aeroguy]

Oh man, this was entertaining!

The universe has existed for a bit more than a dozen billion years.
Our planet has been here for around a third of that.
Life on Earth appeared maybe 3.5-4 billion years ago.
Humans have been around for a few hundred thousand years.

A million years from now, it's possible that human beings, or at least descendants of the human race, still live here, perhaps not a lot unlike how we live today.
But given a another few million years, I really don't think any human civilisation remains. The human race has become extinct.

Ants will still build their mounds and wage their microwars. Birds will still sing when the sun rises in the morning. The cherry tree will still blossom as beautifully as ever every year. But there will be no human beings left to witness it all.

For the moment, we think we're the rulers of the world. And we are, in a sense, but I don't think we have much say in our future destiny. Not on a time scale of hundreds of thousands of years.

In the same sense, civilisations elsewhere in the universe, if any indeed have existed, exist today or will exist in the future, will almost certainly have a limited life span. Be it hundreds of thousands of years, or millions.

In a billion years, we can fit a thousand million-year civilisations. In 10 billion years, we can fit a hundred thousand hundred-thousand-year civilisations.
If we aren't perfectly matched both in evolutionary pace and timing, as well as technologically, neither will ever be aware of the other's existence.

Even if two civilisations happen to be perfectly matched on a sort of absolute time scale, if we're too far apart, the speed of light will make any percieved simultaneity impossible.
Outside a few hundred light years, communication will be pretty much limited to one way.

[Aardvark]

Intelligent life is rare here too.


I hoped that was implied in my post. I hear some dolphins are pretty intelligent.

[Sayonara³]

These threads (seeing as nobody else has linked to them yet) may help:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3503
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3527
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2378
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1406

[admiral_ju00]

When did NSA start using heat shields for pressure?

I don't think NSA has ever used one or will. Perhaps you were thinking of NASA?

[NavajoEverclear]

of coarse there'd be aliens more intelligent than us--- why wouldn't there be? I don't think theres an answer to that question. Their intelligence would probably be a lot different than ours. They would have complex comprehensive abilites for learning and communication. That does not require their skills which define them as intelligent to have any relevancy in relation to our reality of psychology. The only thing i think that is likely similar is being bilateral, its a pretty simple matter of symetry, there aren't that many other options, there aren't any asymetrical animals (by that i don't mean that the symetry is perfect, but basically all organisms have symetry on some level)

I don't know why you say they'd have thumbs. They could evolve adaptation to any number enviroments, with a mechanism other than thumbs. There are many possible ways to work the resources, thumbs just happened to be our way of dealing with our enviroment.

[Sayonara³]

of coarse there'd be aliens more intelligent than us--- why wouldn't there be? I don't think theres an answer to that question. Their intelligence would probably be a lot different than ours. They would have complex comprehensive abilites for learning and communication.
I don't think Irkens count...

[ydoaPs]

Admirl is trying to deny that he said heat shields are used for pressure by pointing out my bad typing skills. Wow, thats mature.

[Sayonara³]

Maybe he doesn't think heat shields are particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

[admiral_ju00]

Maybe he doesn't think heat shields are particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

Thank you, Sayonara.

As for you yourdadonapogos, please take a look at the following post #'s.
133,137,139 & 143

Surely with your *cough*fictitious*cough* BSc in Aeronautical Engineering, you can figure something out, eh?

[DarthDooku]

I would say that, given the size of the universe, its pretty much inevitable that there are other planets that can support life. The chances of one solar system in the whole universe containing life, is unthinkable. Will they be like us and smarter than us. I would say a little bit of everything. Some will be smarter, obviously since they have been here longer. But others may be in the prehistoric age with dinosaurs roaming around.

As for looking like us, again, a little bit of everything. Some may look exactly like us. Some may have green skin that can absorb or reflect different kinds of radiation. And heavy dark eyelids that protect from powerful solar radiation. You cant go around saying its not happening. The universe is too big. And with the 100 and more planets that we have found, I would say we havent even broken the surface.

With the right conditions, life could evolve in many different ways. There is no way to tell what they will look like and what they will breathe and eat. But i like to believe that somewhere there is a blue planet that has life, just like Earth.

There is no way to answer these questions. It is all theory.

I think the best place to start looking is Europa. There is a great possibility that there are deep sea lifeforms under the ice. I would just die to see what they look like. In Astronomy magazine, they said a mission to Europa would likely be in the middle of the next decade, around 2010-2015. By then the station on the moon will be up and running and preparing for space flights, based from the moon.

This is the most exciting thing since the first landing on the moon. Its our first steps towards interstellar travel. Now if we could just get some of those NASA geniuses to develop and spaceship that can travel the speed of light and more.

[Sayonara³]

This article (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/10/0231245&tid=160&tid=14) is somewhat relevant.

It points out that our own radio signal is fading, having lasted about a hundred years, due to the increase in microwave and cable communications which are less "leaky".

[Sev]

Right, simply to throw up some astronomical facts since there appears to be a lot of mis-information going around.

Disclaimer: I only read the first 4 pages and got annoyed with the errors, so this may have already been said :)

Extra-solar planets: There have been around 100 planets found around other stars. However, we have not found a planet around every single one we've searched, but any means, however statistics show the based upon the way we find planets, and the possible positions and sizes for planets, it means that based upon our current models, virtually all solar systems will have planets.

This is due to the fact that, currently, to find a planet it must be a large (jupiter sized) planet in a very close orbit to the star, which considering the range of distances for planet formation would actually be quite rare. It is also possible to find planets through another means, which we can currently use to detect planets of a similar size to neptune, however the chances of a giving star's planets being in the right situation for this is even smaller than with the jupiter sized planets (the orbit has to be pointing directly at us).

Considering the chances of finding a planet around a given star using these methods, we can come to two conclusions: There are planets around almost every planet, and smaller planets are more common than large ones, with increasing frequency as the size goes down.

Astronomers hope to be able to find earth-sized planets by 2012.

Now, point two: If we do ever definitively find life outside of Earth (dubious fossilised martian microbes not counted as definitive evidence), then it is almost a certainty that there will be life far more "intelligent" than us out there, or at least further along the evolutionary path.

[ydoaPs]

first photo of extrasolar planet.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040510.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/09/10/exoplanet.image/

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/11/content_373646.htm

[Ophiolite]

May I commend to you all the following book.
'Rare Earth' by Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee published by Copernicus Books (ISBN 0-387-95289-6)
The sub-title 'Why complex life is uncommon in the Universe' is a nice summary of their thesis. They lay out a suite of well presented evidence and carefully reasoned arguments as to why microbial life is probably common, but multi-cellular life very rare.

[Mokele]

I turn to the ultimate reference:

"And pray that there's inteligent life somewhere out in space
Because there's bugger all down here on Earth."
- The Galaxy Song, Eric Idle, Monty Python's Flying Circus

Mokele

[Brandon]

I had a question! what are the temperutures of each planet during each season? Please reply!!! :-) ;-)

[Gilded]

Mokele, the Galaxy Song owns indeed. :) There's nothing, I mean nothing, not the universe nor the meaning of life that Monty Python songs can't solve.

[jaime]

Hy. I think, first of all, that they are already there, and if they are around traveling, it means they are more advanced than us, they have no intentions of entering into contact with us, unless meeting a civilization that is of comparable inteligence. Any beings traveling through space are way too advanced to want to engage us in any type of comunication. In the same way we want to protect the species in our planet, create reserves, and let them live happy their natural lives in natural enviroments, they (aliens) see us as a species in developement, and , if inteligent, will not want to engage us in any type of communication. I am sure they are observing us. Even beings from our future could be seing us. If we could go back in time and witness under cover(in the confort of our vessels, without disturbing anybody) the dinasaurs, the different ages and times, like the mammals era, the Reptiles, the dinasaurs, etc, if we could witness the sabre tooth tiger roaming around, the neanderthal men doing their things, we would not(at least should not and the educated mind would agree) dare interfere, we would just witness and take notes, enjoy the show. What point would there be in acting and protecting an alticamelus from falling victim to a american cave lion? what would we achieve in helping a neanderthal defeat a sabretooth tiger, changing the natural course of things? ...well, I think we have them all over, but they would not interfere, even if we destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, it would still be the course of things, the natural course of things, they are more inteligent than us, they just observe.
Oh, by trhe way, thay do not have to be humanoid, they probably need hands, and a head, and a body, but different atmospheres and gravities will create a zillion different ways,all perfect in context.
Jaime