Aliens? (the ones that aren't from Earth)

[brainpan]

There comes a point in time when you should accept the consequencies of certain physical laws and not waste your time trying to disprove them. FTL is now at this state.

Judging from the context of this discussion, I assume FTL="faster than light." What does the possibility of FTL tell us about extra terrestrial life?

 

[Perfection]

Judging from the context of this discussion, I assume FTL="faster than light." What does the possibility of FTL tell us about extra terrestrial life?

Nothing really, it was a digression that started in this post.

 

[brainpan]

There are plenty of apparent limitations to travel across vast distances, but C is not one of them. A race of aliens ten light-years distant would not be limited by C from traveling to our planet in less than ten years. Not from their perspective.

 

[Perfection]

Yes it's a limitation. It's not a limitation to how long it takes inside the spaceship, but to the outside observer at rest with respect to the galaxy (which is well approximated on an alien world or our planet) it most certainly is.

If someone goes to alpha centauri and back from our perspective it must take at least 8.some years.

 

[brainpan]

So C itself does not present a limitation according to my explanation. Not at all.

 

[Perfection]

Sure it does because the maximum speed achievable to this outside observer is C.

 

[Babbler]

I doubt there much advanced, intelligent life like us; but microorganisms may be quite abundant, especially if it is possible for different biochemistry to exist (I suspect that carbon biochemistry might be the most optimal).

 

[brainpan]

Not at all. That information does not refute my argument.

 

[Perfection]

Quite at all. That information does refute your argument.

 

[brainpan]

If aliens, in less than a year from their own perspective, can travel further than an light-year from our perspective, how is that logically countered by stating that the passage of time is relative to an observer?

 

[Souron]

I doubt there much advanced, intelligent life like us; but microorganisms may be quite abundant, especially if it is possible for different biochemistry to exist (I suspect that carbon biochemistry might be the most optimal).

I'd say its more likely the other way around. If there is life, then it is likely to evolve to develop intelligence. Self replicating structures will invariably be subject to evolution, and intelligence is a highly beneficial evolutionary trait.

 

[Babbler]

I'd say its more likely the other way around. If there is life, then it is likely to evolve to develop intelligence. Self replicating structures will invariably be subject to evolution, and intelligence is a highly beneficial evolutionary trait.

I doubt it. Self-replication doesn't necessarily lead to intelligence: Earth has had multi-cellular animals for ~560 Ma yeas and we've only evolved around 1-2 Ma, IIRC.

 

[Perfection]

If aliens, in less than a year from their own perspective, can travel further than an light-year from our perspective, how is that logically countered by stating that the passage of time is relative to an observer?

I never was talking about how the peeps on the bloody spaceship.

You have alien planet A and our planet E (which are pretty close to at rest with one another), the aliens send a spaceship at almost C to our planet. From the perspective of both planets A and E and pretty much every other planet in the galaxy the limit to the spaceships arrival time is distance/C.

 

[Souron]

I doubt it. Self-replication doesn't necessarily lead to intelligence: Earth has had multi-cellular animals for ~560 Ma yeas and we've only evolved around 1-2 Ma, IIRC.

I agree with the bolded statement, but not the premises. Comparing how long intelligence evolved from primitive life to how long that intelligence has been around to date is not a meaningful statistic. It's like comparing the Gestation period of cats, to the age of a randomly chosen cat.

 

[Perfection]

I agree with the bolded statement, but not the premises. Comparing how long intelligence evolved from primitive life to how long that intelligence has been around to date is not a meaningful statistic. It's like comparing the Gestation period of cats, to the age of a randomly chosen cat.

That analogy demonstrates a fundamental flaw in your thinking about evolution. Natural selection does not fundamentally drift toward greater intelligence.

 

[Souron]

Natural selection does not fundamentally drift toward greater intelligence.

Not unless it is given the right environment. If such an environment forms, then the evolution of intelligence likely.

(Some) Scientists attribute the development of higher intelligence in apes, to the complex thought processes needed to swing through trees. So it follows that if life develops into a complex tree-branch-like maze, and some species develop the ability to swing through it, then that species is likely to evolve to develop intelligence.

Admittedly, my statement depends on a few very shaky suppositions. It's almost as useless as guessing if ET life exist in the first place.

 

[Perfection]

Well souron, having a reason to be intelligent is only half the battle, the ability to become intelligent is also quite important. Human intelligence is actually pretty damn pricey. Our huge brains force us to be born relatively prematurely (or else we'd kill our mothers with our huge heads, and even still we do that a fair bit) and thus require extreme care by our parents. Plus we need a crap ton of calories to feed our noggin'.

We can't say that aliens will even have the ability to become intelligent.

 

[brainpan]

I never was talking about how the peeps on the bloody spaceship.

Wait a minute! It was my argument we were discussing, not yours! Simply stating that the passage of time is relative to an observer does not serve to counter it.

From the perspective of both planets A and E and pretty much every other planet in the galaxy the limit to the spaceships arrival time is distance/C.

Who said anything about limiting this discussion to our galaxy?

 

[Perfection]

Wait a minute! It was my argument we were discussing, not yours! Simply stating that the passage of time is relative to an observer does not serve to counter it.

Nobody cares about your argument except you. I'm only discussing mine.

Who said anything about limiting this discussion to our galaxy?

It's easier to discuss within a galaxy because then we don't have to deal with messy comsic inflation but a similar result would come out with it.

 

[brainpan]

Nobody cares about your argument except you. I'm only discussing mine.

Except for four of your previous posts which dealt directly with my argument.

It's easier to discuss within a galaxy because then we don't have to deal with messy comsic inflation but a similar result would come out with it.

If a similar result would come from either scenerio--it definitely would not, by the way--then why avoid discussing either one?