Quote:
Originally Posted by socalkev
There is an obvious flaw in the OP's line of thinking. As an "intelligent civilization" we have only been able to send signals that would travel through space for about a century - which is nothing in terms of light years. And we have not even had a manned space mission to another planet in our own solar system. There could literally be billions of planets out there with comparable civilizations, but our technology is far too limited at this time to even detect them - and I won't even start about how small the budget is for S.E.T.I. and some other factors. In light of our limited abilities, how can we say the fact that we have not been visited is conclusive proof of anything?
Sometimes it helps to visualize a situation, so here is my favorite YouTube video, the Hubble Deep Field video. It helps put some perspective on the amount of other solar systems we are talking about in the entire Universe.
Hubble Deep Field: The Most Imp. Image Ever Taken (Redux) - YouTube |
Exactly,
Universal time/distance is so often trivialized that I wonder if it's done mostly for convenience purposes or just so it's easier for some to digest the magnitude.
We can say "our nearest sun like star is only about 4 light years away" that sounds achievable and very positive. Certainly as opposed to the reality of our current technology "if we travel for 80000 years we can get to our nearest sun like star" that just sounds depressing and pointless.
Even as we improve our own ability to travel faster at what point do you start a mission ?
Currently unachievable example: Reduce travel time to our nearest star from 80000 years to 500
It's still a mission duration that if it arrived today, it would have started at the same time Copernicus first proclaimed "the sun is the center of the solar system" in 1510. So a little pointless to worry about 80000 year missions since if it were arriving today, it would left earth when the first Homo sapiens walked.
And within the 500 years it took us to arrive, progress would surely have produced a quicker way. You could essentially have developed technology that would substantially overtake your original mission while you were waiting.
1)The 500 year mission sets off, 250 years later they've reached the halfway point
2)At the same time they reached halway, some bright spark invents FTL travel reducing the travel time to the original destination to 4 years.
3) FTL mission goes ahead and arrives in 4 years
4) Those poor fucks left on the original mission, still with 250 years travel left. FML ;)
Unless we travel at near to light speed, light speed or faster, travel is going to take an awfully long time. It's going to take a long time even at those speeds.
Observation is really the best we have right now and our nearest potentially habitable planets by recent discovery are still an incredible 12 light years away. If they were inhabited by a species with the ability to search, receive and understand our transmissions and be transmitting in a way we can understand theirs, we'd know....probably. Anything else and we wont know anything.
They could be inhabited by nothing but potential, there could be a developing specie but its still eating it own poop or maybe their first radio went live last week (equivalent anyway). Either way, we'd know nothing today but, in a few decades or more it could be different. As each year goes past, our own transmission drift a little further out and if they exist, others transmission might travel closer to the boonies which is essentially where our planet is. The window for life discovery with what we have is beyond infinitesimal.
Saying "no other life" at this stage to me would be like someone standing at center of the Milky Way sitting next to him an ant. They pick the ant up, look a few feet to their sides and say "sorry bud, it's really just us"