Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Survived? One or two, if you count the one we are currently in.

But not having them would mean a lot less disruption, allowing a dominant species to emerge far quicker.

Also, please consider that all the data we currently have about life, asteroids and things going squish are based largely on our own planets experiences. THere is no guarantee that we have it as easy as another life bearing planet, just as there is no guarantee we have it any worse.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:All depends on the event and how quickly life reasserted itself.

For instance, ice ages. We have those because the Earths orbit around the sun is unstable. Sometimes we're closer, other times further away.

A planet with a more stable orbit would have fewer if any, again allowing life to get on with it without interruptions.

And one theory I can see the merit in is that any other advanced races are more likely to be Lizardlike and Cold Blooded than Mammalian...

You're forgetting the advantages of creative destruction. If an environment is non changing there is no need to advance. The deep trench environment is a good example-specifically the smokers. Life down there is almost unchanged (predating plants) because the environment has not changed since that time. They may be sentient but they also may be really slow to advance, to be swept aside by Earth's more competitive life forms. Go Earth Go!

whatwhat wrote:
It does explain the horizon problem, look it up again.

How? Without presuming that matter in the early universe somehow traveled faster than the speed of light there is no way to account for a measurable distance which is somehow in excess of the boundaries of our light cone.

whatwhat wrote:
What people forget when claiming it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light is to explain the million other laws of physics they have just threw out the window. For example by traveling faster than the speed of light, by rules which are considered in science as solid as the sky is up and earth is down, you would actually be traveling backwards in time. Find me one rule which proves it false i'll give you a million which proves its true.

Which is why its somewhat bothersome that there appear to be instances in some of those well established laws which render their violation necessary.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Survived? One or two, if you count the one we are currently in.

But not having them would mean a lot less disruption, allowing a dominant species to emerge far quicker.

Also, please consider that all the data we currently have about life, asteroids and things going squish are based largely on our own planets experiences. THere is no guarantee that we have it as easy as another life bearing planet, just as there is no guarantee we have it any worse.

Your certainty that another planet would have it as easy as ours seems to be slipping away here.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
It does explain the horizon problem, look it up again.

How? Without presuming that matter in the early universe somehow traveled faster than the speed of light there is no way to account for a measurable distance which is somehow in excess of the boundaries of our light cone.

Read this...http://www.astronomybuff.com/how-can-we-see-galaxies-47-billion-light-years-away-when-the-universe-is-only-13-billion-years-old/

cant be bothered explaining hubbles theory of universe expansion. Just know that the size of the universe isn’t just the time of light travel since the begining of the universe.

And there was me thinking that physics was still largely a theoretical branch of science constantly trying to prove/disprove it's own thoughts.

Very few 'laws' in terms of physics.

whatwhat wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Survived? One or two, if you count the one we are currently in.

But not having them would mean a lot less disruption, allowing a dominant species to emerge far quicker.

Also, please consider that all the data we currently have about life, asteroids and things going squish are based largely on our own planets experiences. THere is no guarantee that we have it as easy as another life bearing planet, just as there is no guarantee we have it any worse.

Your certainty that another planet would have it as easy as ours seems to be slipping away here.

I am absolutley, 100% certain there are planets out there that have never had a major global catastrophe. THey might have had meteor impacts, sure but nothin significant. And any race we meet is likely to have come to us than the other way round, given the short amount of time Human Beings have been knocking around for.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And there was me thinking that physics was still largely a theoretical branch of science constantly trying to prove/disprove it's own thoughts.

Very few 'laws' in terms of physics.

I never said anything different. But you need t explain the other ares which youve just made holes in surely.

I was replying to a different post than your own. Your slipped in between times. Sorrt for the confusion there!

When I was a young teenager, teenage girls could have been aliens. Now I'm in my early thirties I realise that teenage girls are aliens! It's the only way to explain the crap that comes out of their mouths. I think there's some sort of exchange program going on with the aliens because women seem pretty normal once they reach their early twenties.

We might be living in paralell worlds, because I have always found women to be plain old mental, regardless of age!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I am absolutley, 100% certain there are planets out there that have never had a major global catastrophe. THey might have had meteor impacts, sure but nothin significant. And any race we meet is likely to have come to us than the other way round, given the short amount of time Human Beings have been knocking around for.

Im certain of it too, but that's a very young planet, considering the amount of rocks flailing around the universe and the probability of it getting hit.

You can argue that they're more likely to be advanced because humans are a young race sure, I'd agree with that. But that wasn't your point.

It kind of was though. They'd be an older race because they haven't had Ice Age's and Meteors to contend with, which was the crux of the point.

Well if there is life in space, who says its intellegent?
Think of how many species there are on the earth, alot of them are unintellegent. Your saying that were going to find a intellegent advanced species out there? I think there is life in space but most of it is probaly not intellegent.

Define intelligent though. I can instruct a Dog to do something non-instinctual. Surely that is intelligent?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:It kind of was though. They'd be an older race because they haven't had Ice Age's and Meteors to contend with, which was the crux of the point.

In that case I see your point, but disagree with it. As the probability is any planet out there which has been around long enough to give birth to life has suffered meteor strikes (including big ones). I mean the earth is near the edge of the milky way for one and our planet has still had it bad.

I didnt say all other animals apart from humans are not intellegent, just alot.

Space Whales. Remember they ate an entire Ork fleet. You don't jack with space whales.

Unless you can get access to the "nuclear wessles".

I don't see how a Nuclear Weasel is going to help against a Void Whale.

Dude have you ever seen a nucular weasel when its angry?

Fry: Now say 'nuclear wessles'.
Walter: No!

Wolfstan wrote:There was an interesting article awhile back saying that we shouldn't be announcing our presence to the universe. The arguement being that it's crazy to assume that any advance race out there wouldn't come over and stamp all over us. It does kinda make you stop and think "oh yeah, you have a point". Just because they are advanced, don't mean they are peaceful.

No, it doesn't mean that they are peaceful, but they would be really pissed if they came all this way for what? A "hello, would you like a scone" no . They would probably do a better job at looking after the world than us!
They might even see us as pests and ask the Dolphins why they are letting us mess the place up!

Septic wrote:No, it doesn't mean that they are peaceful, but they would be really pissed if they came all this way for what? A "hello, would you like a scone" no . They would probably do a better job at looking after the world than us!
They might even see us as pests and ask the Dolphins why they are letting us mess the place up!

That sounds like a fine reason to exterminate the dolphins, that'll teach 'em for blabbing on us to the aliens.

If you think about it how can it possibly be peacefull? I mean if they are more advanced than us what do they have to gain by a fair relationship which they couldn't just take from us after wiping us out.

Why does everyone assume aliens would care about our "environment?"

They'll probably go "Hmm... these are all some nice planets... ew, except that one. It's like covered in slime and green fuzz... here, let me clean this off, where's my antimatter torpedo..."

whatwhat wrote:If you think about it how can it possibly be peacefull? I mean if they are more advanced than us what do they have to gain by a fair relationship which they couldn't just take from us after wiping us out.

What would they have to gain from us period?

I say kill the dolphins, and monkeys, and those ants look a bit shifty.....
Ah screw it, MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Orkeosaurus wrote:

whatwhat wrote:If you think about it how can it possibly be peacefull? I mean if they are more advanced than us what do they have to gain by a fair relationship which they couldn't just take from us after wiping us out.

What would they have to gain from us period?

Raw materials, slave labour etc. etc.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:But if aliens are visiting us why do they keep taking cows and white trash in the US to experiment on?

Greebynog wrote:there's just no evidence that isn't from crackpots.

That's why. No one would actually believe them. If the president or some other important figure/credible source was abducted, that would lead to more people believing them.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I think there is other life.

Some more advanced, some less.

But if aliens are visiting us why do they keep taking cows and white trash in the US to experiment on?

they take the cows to make hamburgers and the trash to shove up their ***es.

thank you very much

whatwhat wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

whatwhat wrote:If you think about it how can it possibly be peacefull? I mean if they are more advanced than us what do they have to gain by a fair relationship which they couldn't just take from us after wiping us out.

What would they have to gain from us period?

Raw materials, slave labour etc. etc.

Maybe, but those things seem a little unnecessary for a race that already knows space travel.

Raw materials could be synthesized, slaves could be grown or built, if they even had a use for them, etc.

I think we'd more likely get wiped out by aliens for a less tangible reason, like "they're ugly," or "our religion instructs us to kill everyone," or "we need to enslave things to feel good about ourselves," or something along those lines.