Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Estimate Milky Way May Have 100 Billion Alien Worlds

astroengine writes "Last year, using the exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope as a guide, astronomers took a statistical stab at estimating the number of exoplanets that exist in our galaxy. They came up with at least 50 billion alien worlds. Today, astronomers from the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, Md., and the PLANET (Probing Lensing Anomalies NETwork) collaboration have taken their own stab at the 'galactic exo-planetary estimate' and think there are at least 100 billion worlds knocking around the Milky Way."

294 comments

  1. Sweet by jhoegl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Then statistically tell me which planet has Amazonian Women, hot green chicks, and Galactic Girls Gone Wild.
    No tentacle monsters though, they will take all our womens!

    1. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No tentacle monsters though, they will take all our womens!

      Only the Japanese ones.

    2. Re:Sweet by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You just want death by snu snu

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Sweet by tenaciousj · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately, the probability of you finding one of those just went from 1:50 billion to 1:100 billion.

    4. Re:Sweet by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately, the probability of you finding one of those just went from 1:50 billion to 1:100 billion.

      That is assuming that a planet with Amazonian Women, hot green chicks, and Galactic Girls Gone Wild is unique. If it is the sort of planet that comes up once in every ten billion, his chances of finding such a planet just doubled.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you're saying there's a chance. Sweet!

    6. Re:Sweet by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny

      You just want death by snu snu

      Do you blame him? Without a partner, he's just having snu.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Sweet by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny

      No tentacle monsters though, they will take all our womens!

      Only the Japanese ones.

      I experience an alien world ever time I return from vacation, sushi or no.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planet Burning Man.

    9. Re:Sweet by Larryish · · Score: 0

      In related news, 87.94% of all statistics are fabricated as needed.

    10. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then statistically tell me which planet has Amazonian Women...!

      www.amazon.com

    11. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be pedantic, the chances actually didn't change at all.

    12. Re:Sweet by vuke69 · · Score: 2

      So still zero?

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
    13. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it comes up once in every ten billion, his odds of finding such a planet without searching all of them just stayed exactly the same.

    14. Re:Sweet by smi.james.th · · Score: 0

      Even if such a planet existed it'd be unlikely to be close enough to be reachable within several lifetimes, much less yours. Sorry to be a party pooper.

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    15. Re:Sweet by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      No data is yet available, but they did say at least 80% of the worlds are "spooky".

      So, there's that.

    16. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up.. it's funny.. laugh!

    17. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like a quest for my brave dwarven party.
      Better bring a lot of booze. That is one hell of a long journey.

    18. Re:Sweet by CSMoran · · Score: 0

      Even if such a planet existed it'd be unlikely to be close enough to be reachable within several lifetimes, much less yours. Sorry to be a party pooper.

      Stasis chamber.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    19. Re:Sweet by evanism · · Score: 1

      There is a trifecta, AND there are 10 of them!

      Love those odds :)

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    20. Re:Sweet by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, had sex.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:Sweet by geekoid · · Score: 1

      False, but 87% of all people have no idea what statistics actually are.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:Sweet by rojomojobojo · · Score: 1

      And my Axe.

    23. Re:Sweet by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Cloning and a way to transfer memory from one human to the next. Sort of like how memory was transferred in the movie The Sixth Day.Then someone could go there. Well their clone anyway.

    24. Re:Sweet by smi.james.th · · Score: 1

      Even that is kind of impractical.

      Based on some quick and dirty calculations, it'd take about 74000 years to get even to the nearest star. That'd be a lot of clones.

      >

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    25. Re:Sweet by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know you're joking, but you're not going to find any alien species that look anything like human. There are no Romulans, Klingons, nor especially Betazoids. You're probably unlikely to find anything that more than remotely resembles any species from Earth -- look how diverse life here is. We may find intelligent life and not even realise it's alive, let alone intelligent.

      Required reading: Isaac Asimov's What is This Thing Called Love? (originally titled Playboy and the Slime God). I've read a lot of Asimov stories, and I don't think the good doctor (a biochemist) had a single alien that looked human-like, and the story I mentioned gives a clue why.

      Terry Bison's They're Made Out Of Meat (online at Baen Books) is another good one.

      And a thank you to slashdot for waking the muse with this topic!

  2. redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    aren't all worlds, not our own, alien?

    1. Re:redundant by ThePeices · · Score: 2

      aren't all worlds, not our own, alien?

      Yes, that's why we call them alien worlds....

    2. Re:redundant by suso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think he's trying to say that its not necessary to say alien worlds, just say worlds. He does kinda have a point, saying alien worlds makes it sound like we're not one of the 100 billion, which we are.

    3. Re:redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      We are the 0.0000001%...

    4. Re:redundant by Tsingi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think he's trying to say that its not necessary to say alien worlds, just say worlds.

      If you just say worlds you have to say a billion and one. That's two extra words.

    5. Re:redundant by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      aren't all worlds, not our own, alien?

      Yea, so 100,000,000,001 is total.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah well, *I'm* estimating the number of worlds at a billion billion and one.

      So ha!

    7. Re:redundant by Antibozo · · Score: 1

      aren't all worlds, not our own, alien?

      Yes, that's why we call them alien worlds....

      I would argue that calling them "alien worlds" actually implies that they are inhabited by alien life forms, if you consider what "alien" actually means, and the other ways it may be used. For example, if you pick up a radio signal from a pulsar, would you be comfortable calling it an "alien signal"?

    8. Re:redundant by Saintwolf · · Score: 0

      By definition, it would be correct to call it an "alien signal." Heck, even people from other countries are referred to as "aliens."

    9. Re:redundant by Antibozo · · Score: 1

      By definition, it would be correct to call it an "alien signal." Heck, even people from other countries are referred to as "aliens."

      By what precise definition of "alien" do you think it would be correct? Yes, people from other countries are called "aliens"--that's exactly my point--it's because they are living beings that they are "aliens". Nonliving things from other countries are not "alien", but "foreign".

    10. Re:redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait for the Galactic Occupy Earth movement! They want us, the wealthy 0,0000001% to behave better in our world. I think they did a movie about that at least once..

    11. Re:redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why use the word "worlds" for what is (presumably) not human?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World

    12. Re:redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these 100 billion worlds are yours, except a smallish Jovian moon. Don't try to land there. Sorry.

    13. Re:redundant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What other word would you use when you want to exclude are world from the set of all worlds?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:redundant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      But you are wrong. There are different definitions for different context.

      Alien or Aliens may refer to:
      Alien (law), a non-citizen inhabitant of a country
      Extraterrestrial life, defined as life that does not originate from Earth
      List of alleged alien beings (ufology)
      Any introduced species, a species living outside its native distributional range

      Also you can have alien objects, like meteorites and..say.. planets.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:redundant by Antibozo · · Score: 1

      But you are wrong. There are different definitions for different context.

      Alien or Aliens may refer to:
      Alien (law), a non-citizen inhabitant of a country
      Extraterrestrial life, defined as life that does not originate from Earth
      List of alleged alien beings (ufology)
      Any introduced species, a species living outside its native distributional range

      Also you can have alien objects, like meteorites and..say.. planets.

      I think it's on the last item that you go wrong. I'm curious which of the definitions you cited you have in mind for those two examples.

      First, "alien meteorite": if we accept that "alien" meant "not from Earth" (which it doesn't), what would the distinction be between a "foreign meteorite", an "alien meteorite", or just a "meteorite"? I would say all would be objects disintegrating while deorbiting--meteorites--but a "foreign meteorite" would be an object not from Earth, an "alien meteorite" would be an artifact of extraterrestrial life, and a "meteorite" would be any object, including one that originated on Earth, e.g. a fragment of an artificial satellite.

      Second, "alien planet": usage (in which the attribute of being alien is always conferred to a living thing, or an instrument or artifact of a living thing) aside, the essential concept of alienness is that something is colocated within a domain in which it did not originate. It is similar to the concept of xenos in Greek, and is why the title of the film "Alien" is a pun--it refers both to the life form and to its way of inhabiting another during gestation. A planet could only be "alien" in that sense if it were colocated outside its native range. This loose sense could work if applied to a planet that orbits a star around which it was not formed, or orbits another planet from which it was once independent. One could then distinguish between a "native planet" and an "alien planet".

      But in the usage here, attempting to mean "extrasolar", it's just plain wrong, and it implies something that the author does not intend.

    16. Re:redundant by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Considering that 4/5ths oof our own is under water, ours is alien, as well. Most of it, anyway.

    17. Re:redundant by schlachter · · Score: 1

      join the OCCUPY EARTH movement.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    18. Re:redundant by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      "other"

  3. This Universe Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why couldn't I be born to a universe with a less restrictive set of physical laws?!

    1. Re:This Universe Sucks by symbolset · · Score: 5, Funny

      You were. You just don't know it yet.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:This Universe Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      *You were, humanity is just too stupid to look past their own interpretations of physical law and accept that things aren't limited to how they see them.

      FTFY

    3. Re:This Universe Sucks by mug+funky · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      all aboard the GodBus!

      man, i wish the universe were so simple we could just ask God for interstallar travel :)

    4. Re:This Universe Sucks by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Well we can ask God for just that. And Her mode of granting the prayer is likely to be Her commonest way: letting us figure it out.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:This Universe Sucks by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 0, Funny

      This sort of LSD-laden bullshit is why the hippies accomplished a three-day music festival, new lows in hygiene, and nothing else.

    6. Re:This Universe Sucks by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Funny

      the 1%-ers don't have to follows those laws. you should have been born with money, that's all.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:This Universe Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the 3 day journey teaches you what is real, and worth your focus.

      Or how to dig a hole...

      Both worth it BTW!

    8. Re:This Universe Sucks by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      Drop 'til Ya Dance!

    9. Re:This Universe Sucks by Skapare · · Score: 3, Funny

      Those who figure out how to avoid the physical laws are the 0.0001%-ers that don't need money.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    10. Re:This Universe Sucks by bronney · · Score: 2

      God is a man, you insensitive clod!

    11. Re:This Universe Sucks by Yev000 · · Score: 1

      You mean to tell me there are roughly 70 000 people on Earth who have figured out how to avoid the physical laws?

      What is this cult called and how can I join?

    12. Re:This Universe Sucks by sourcerror · · Score: 2

      Follow the white rabbit.

    13. Re:This Universe Sucks by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      You mean to tell me there are roughly 70 000 people on Earth who have figured out how to avoid the physical laws? What is this cult called and how can I join?

      Actually, it';s 144,000 if you read those "Rapture/Left Behind" books that seem to seem so well in the US.

    14. Re:This Universe Sucks by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      the 1%-ers don't have to follows those laws. you should have been born with money, that's all.

      To get down to brass tacks, everyone is stuck following the laws of physics - you don't have a choice, and money doesn't help.

      Much of the rest of the 99% are getting tired of hearing about the "1%" in every topic under any slim pretext. Don't you have any other axes to grind? Elves that are too tall? Beer with no fizz? Fake Japanese products? Navel lint? Hot grits? I mean really.....

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    15. Re:This Universe Sucks by imikem · · Score: 1

      So God is an old, bearded lady? That explains a lot about this world.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    16. Re:This Universe Sucks by Toonol · · Score: 1

      And also, those people constantly spouting off about the "1%" seem to not really understand statistics. When they claim that one out of a hundred people are members of some hyper-rich cabal running the world and crushing the rest of us under their feet... they don't seem to grasp how common 1%'ers are. There's 3,000,000 of them in the US; thousands in any decent sized town. They're not the Illuminati.

    17. Re:This Universe Sucks by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Now you've insulted everybody on Earth except the Subgenii.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    18. Re:This Universe Sucks by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      is praying for a scientific breakthrough the spiritual equivalent of dividing by zero?

  4. I'll jump in by viperidaenz · · Score: 0

    I put my estimate in at 150 billion. What's the prize if I guess the closest?

    1. Re:I'll jump in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 Internets. But you have to be closest without going over. So I guess 150 billion and one.

    2. Re:I'll jump in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got 150 billion and 1

    3. Re:I'll jump in by harperska · · Score: 1

      The satisfaction of knowing you were correct.

    4. Re:I'll jump in by partiklehead · · Score: 1

      I'll see your 150 billion and raise you 200 billion.

      --
      disclaimer: I am a you row pee'n
    5. Re:I'll jump in by syousef · · Score: 1

      I put my estimate in at 150 billion. What's the prize if I guess the closest?

      Please wait approximately 150 billion years while our galactic survey is completed. Meanwhile, you'll have to clear off, we're building a highway.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    6. Re:I'll jump in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take 150 billion minus 1 then, and we should be good.

    7. Re:I'll jump in by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Sorry, string bet.

    8. Re:I'll jump in by Surt · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't matter, you lose, by a long shot.
      (Which you learn when you read the details and learn that this only applies to worlds about 5x as big as earth. Everything smaller is left out of the estimate, and may result in the final number being as much as 5-10x higher).

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:I'll jump in by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      But I beat the scientists since my estimate is closer than theirs

    10. Re:I'll jump in by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Remember that you have to be closest--without going over--in order to win the galaxy.

      Thus, since I think you're all over, I say that there is only 1 planet.

    11. Re:I'll jump in by dwater · · Score: 1

      what? "closest" isn't good enough? you have to be correct now?

      --
      Max.
    12. Re:I'll jump in by Skapare · · Score: 1

      I say there are 2.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    13. Re:I'll jump in by Surt · · Score: 1

      Well that's certainly true. You are the price-is-right champ if we let no one else but you and the scientists play. :-)

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    14. Re:I'll jump in by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I thought the price is right was a 3 person game

    15. Re:I'll jump in by Surt · · Score: 1

      Well then you might be in trouble, because the third player is definitely going to play 150 billion +1. :-)

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    16. Re:I'll jump in by vuke69 · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean a hyperspace bypass?

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
    17. Re:I'll jump in by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I'm the third player. Player one guessed 50 billion, player two guessed 100 billion.

    18. Re:I'll jump in by Surt · · Score: 2

      Then you've won the showcase showdown! Vanna, tell him what he's won ...

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    19. Re:I'll jump in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is the logic in guessing less than 8?

    20. Re:I'll jump in by Jappus · · Score: 3, Informative

      And I would say that I happen to know for a fact, that there are at least 8.

    21. Re:I'll jump in by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      What was Neptune like? I always wanted to go there.

    22. Re:I'll jump in by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No you didn't, because you are using numbers outside the parameters of the estimation. So, you fail to understand what the question was about.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:I'll jump in by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I put my estimate in at 150 billion. What's the prize if I guess the closest?

      Don't forget the cockroach corollary, if you find one (ours), you are bound to find others. And like cockroaches, when found, they hide. This could explain why they have not publicly announced themselves, oh, and the fact that we kill what we don't understand, look different from us, want, want to control, want to control and make a profit, yada yada yada.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  5. 100 billion likely way too low by DumbSwede · · Score: 5, Interesting

    100 Billion is likely too low. Based on a survey of close suns using Doppler shift indicated at least 50% had planetary systems of some sort. I think the future will boost this percentage to 90% or better, probably virtually all suns have some kind of orbiting object that could be termed a planet. Depending on where you draw the line on size this makes for probably more than 2 Trillion alien worlds in the Milky Way alone (which is estimated to have 200-400 billion suns).

    As for examining Kepler Objects of Interest (KOIs) more closely it seems there is little point to single them out. So what if we know they have planets -- everywhere you could point a radio dish there are planets. I am a big supporter of SETI and this is all good news for SETI, but it doesn't do anything to narrow the search.

    1. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It will narrow our search by telling us the properties of some of these planets. For instance, it would be nice to know where all the earth-like planets around sun-like stars are. That would certainly narrow the search, wouldn't it?

    2. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to increase the odds, point SETI at distant galaxies and listen for very obvious "we are here" signals.

      Once you figure out what the obvious "we are here" signals are, search for nearby stars that appear to be responding to those signals. Repeat until you find one close enough to talk to in our lifetimes.

    3. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fortunately, most of the Earth-like planets in the Milky Way seem to have stargates on them, so exploring those would be relatively easy.

    4. Re:100 billion likely way too low by andydread · · Score: 1

      You cannot increase the odds by pointing to 'distant galaxies' as the speed of light and therefore radio waves get in the way just a bit.

    5. Re:100 billion likely way too low by DumbSwede · · Score: 2

      So we find one or two possibly Earth like planets. Likely the other KOIs also had many near Earths that we missed. Eventually we might get some bound on the percentage of systems with Earth like planets, but listening at these few KOIs is like like looking under a street lamp for the keys you lost half a block away because the light is better.

      With 200-400 Billion suns to survey and most having Planets and probably 10-50% have some planets in its equivalent of the Goldie-Locks zone, then you are far better of getting on with a broad general survey of thousands or millions (or ideally billions) of suns. I fear concentrating on these particular KOIs will dilute more productive SETI searches. I fear the general public is under the assumption that we were lucky to find these near-Earths because they are rare when the opposite is almost certainly true.

    6. Re:100 billion likely way too low by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      neither radio nor light signals would not be detectable at such distances, not even at the distance of Andromeda which is the nearest spiral galaxy

    7. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem. Speed of light is only a problem for 2-way communication, and RF interference is just noise.

      The entire point is to look for unmistakable signals. In other words, point at a random galaxy and see what RF spikes you find. Then check each of those spikes for a coherent signal. If there's no obvious +k dB s/n ratio, move on to another random galaxy.

      If life is out there, and it wants to be found, you'll find it a dozen orders of magnitude faster by looking at galaxies rather than individual stars.

    8. Re:100 billion likely way too low by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is that unless said aliens are pulling the strings on a galactic core super massive black hole and manipulating the plasma jet to serve as a "fucking huge" high gain antenna, the attenuation of the rf signal by interaction with cosmic dust will turn even a real whopper of a broadcast into white noise before it reaches us.

      Basically, they would have to be broadcasting a massively powerful signal capable of killing off lifeforms from the raw energy in the wave before we could detect it at our distance.

    9. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Surt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's acknowledged in the article that this is only for 'worlds' about 5x as big as earth and higher.
      The real number, counting everything that would count as a planet in our solar system, may be 5-10X as high.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:100 billion likely way too low by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Funny

      It doesn't matter, in your lifetime.

      To make a car analogy, for the Slashdot crowd; It is like a bunch of hot chicks driving cool cars, you know they exist, but you will never touch them. Just try to keep your basement tidy, since that is where you have to live. If a '61 'vette drives thru the storm doors, you might get lucky.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    11. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't mean anything to SETI. The fundamental problem with SETI is all around you, even inside you. We live on a planet teeming with hundreds of thousands of species, which are only a fraction of all those that have ever lived here. But out of all these billions and trillions of living things, only one species has ever invented radio and even then only because it has this primal, if not tribal, need to tell stories to other members of its kind and communicate.

      Every other species on our world has not invented radio.

      This means the galaxy could be completely full of life but SETI will never find it unless those planets happen to have creatures which use radio, a lot. Exactly like we do. In a way, SETI is not looking for alien signals. It's looking for another Us.

      Life is surely out there. Intelligent life, surely. But another Us? Within signal range? At the same place in the time scale of the universe? It's a ludicrous, almost delusional search.

      Do I know a better way? No. I wish them well. I run SETI@home. Maybe they will get lucky. But nobody should be surprised if they never get a signal, nor should anything about life in the universe be implied from the silence.

    12. Re:100 billion likely way too low by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2

      Well, it turns out that our own radio and TV signals don't actually get out into our own galaxy as much as we once thought. They make it barely beyond the influence of our sun and then fade.

      So aliens next system over are not actually watching our old TV shows.

      Another galaxy would be much farther away and even less likely to hear any signals. Space is big. Really big.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    13. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Best car analogy ever.

    14. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but we're looking at stars way out here in the boondocks with us. Most stars are in the arms or core. Planets that would develop far from the star way out here would likely be ejected from orbit by interactions with the gravity fields of nearby stars. Plus the intense radiation from the density of stars would likely fry anything close to life as we know it.

    15. Re:100 billion likely way too low by PyroMosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I like your point, but I think you're missing out on something.

      Radio isn't just used to tell stories. It's used to communicate. Nobody is telling stories in the cockpit of an aircraft, for instance. It's just communicating messages. Information back and forth.

      There are lots of examples where this is true. And to extend your analogy with other species, there are plenty of other species that communicate on our own planet (even microbes!). It just so happens that the complexity of that communication seems to scale to a degree with the complexity of the organism. And it also so happens that we're the only species thus far that's developed the reasoning level and had the ability to develop tools to extend communication like radio.

      Further, any other species that wishes to communicate over great distances on another world, regardless of whether or not they are culturally story tellers or not, will likely face similar problems to us, in terms of the physical limitations of passing messages across space within the universe (whether that space is a light year or a mile).

      It stands to reason that similar solutions (radiation) will be sought. You could argue that they'd use different bands. Perhaps. We use the bands we use because they work best in our environment. For instance, most of our environment is opaque on the visual and IR bands, so that doesn't work. That's why we don't use those bands for much. Radio, on the other hand is easy to generate, can give you good range, is not very bad for you (like x-ray or gamma), and much of the world is transparent to it, so you don't need to worry about line of sight so much.

      Now that said, we have no idea what they would transmit. Sound? Visuals? Digital representations of something? What are the odds that another intelligent civilization uses sound to communicate in the first place? I have no idea. If not sound, what? If a civilization is transmitting say, smell, or some abstraction of a sense we do not posses, how would we interpret this if we detected it? If we realized that it was intelligent, how would we decode it?

    16. Re:100 billion likely way too low by RicktheBrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would guess that Voyager is one of two of our satellites that are close to getting out of our solar system. Has Voyager been detecting tv and radio signals from Earth? Has there been a recent steep decline in the signal? I would not think so since we are still communicating with it so it can detect orders sent to it and we can still detect signals from it. I do not know how much power it has to transmit or receive but I would bet that it is less than some of our radio and television stations. I was just wondering where your source of declining signal strength came from.

    17. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2

      You may have missed the "I" bit of SETI. They're not looking for just life - they're looking for intelligent life. Intelligence (including animal intelligence) has this way of using physical principles and resources around it to solve problem. Of such tools developed, radio has proven to be an extremely effective and useful tool.

      It stands to reason that any sentient and even mildly industrious intelligence is going to stumble on it and put it to use. Yes, we only have a few data points for tool use, but the rationale behind the development of radio is very strong. The big factor is that there may be better forms of long-range communication out there that we haven't discovered yet because their physical principles are as-yet hidden to us. However, until we stumble on them, radio is what we have to work with.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    18. Re:100 billion likely way too low by vuke69 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but besides THAT, it sounds like a good idea!

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
    19. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother trying to decode it? Find the alien, then kill it, grill it, and call it a day on Tau Ceti Prime.

    20. Re:100 billion likely way too low by khallow · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is that unless said aliens are pulling the strings on a galactic core super massive black hole and manipulating the plasma jet to serve as a "fucking huge" high gain antenna

      They could always just build a big antenna with some power and decent cooling. And we could do the same. No need to sterilize a galactic core any more than it already has been. Cosmic dust is not that effective an attenuator or we wouldn't be able to see objects billions of light years away.

    21. Re:100 billion likely way too low by XrayJunkie · · Score: 1

      Well, it turns out that our own radio and TV signals don't actually get out into our own galaxy as much as we once thought. They make it barely beyond the influence of our sun and then fade.

      So aliens next system over are not actually watching our old TV shows.

      Another galaxy would be much farther away and even less likely to hear any signals. Space is big. Really big.

      THANK GOD! That commercials and stupid afternoon shows ...

    22. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "Basically, they would have to be broadcasting a massively powerful signal capable of killing off lifeforms from the raw energy in the wave before we could detect it at our distance."

      True, but do not discount the use of a remote "repeater" that essentially sends the message from a distant, but safe, location. I am sure (at least I hope) that SETI took this into account, otherwise, without some sort of repeater, we'd not only be getting a message from a civilization far, far in the past, but also from a civilization that was extinct. Boo.

      Perhaps we humans could do something similar right now. We have the technology--nuclear weapons. We could set a bunch of them up on the far side of the moon, or a distant orbit far out in the solar system, then set them off timed to send a message--a sort of Morse code in radiation bursts of megaton energy levels. I propose we name the resulting mess the "Anachragnome Radiation Belt".

    23. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Course they could. If it was big enough, that is.

      Like Anachragnome suggested, a huge enough explosion of energy would be detectable several hundred galaxies away.
      Although you would be wasting an absolutely huge amount of material and energy producing such messages.
      A civilization at this stage would likely be mining the solar system.
      Huge-scale particle colliders could produce large amounts of anti matter which would be much more useful for explosive messages.
      Then in a huge container, fire anti-matter at matter in pulses of some basic "universal language" that uses physics as definitions. (like we done with the voyager plate)

      Or as that other method suggested by someone a while back on some site, if a species was near a pulsar, use it.
      Or if smart enough, try build one with a nearby star.
      The latter would be better because it means they could attempt to make the star rotate in 3 dimensions in such a way that it covers all angles around it.
      Of course, such a species would have to have the knowledge of how mass is given to objects in order to try force a controlled collapse. (and be on the scale of solar system builders, essentially, to prevent damage to their own)

      Or just put a huge dome around their star to allow / disallow certain frequencies.
      That'd probably be the easier of the 3. Including the nukes. (since no sane race would detonate explosions constantly, and we won't be watching constantly)

    24. Re:100 billion likely way too low by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Signals to / from Voyager are directional, and more than likely very high power.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    25. Re:100 billion likely way too low by dkf · · Score: 1

      Signals to / from Voyager are directional, and more than likely very high power.

      Directional, yes, but the power of the signal from the Voyagers is very low as they don't have much energy to work with. (The nuclear battery just doesn't produce enough power for anything more than that, and that's the only power option anyway.) The signal going in the other direction could be high power but there isn't an awful lot to send that way in the first place now: we're essentially just grabbing as much data now as we can from around the heliopause and sending it back here. It's a tough area to study as it's very difficult to get instruments to.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    26. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Patchw0rk+F0g · · Score: 1

      Basically, they would have to be broadcasting a massively powerful signal capable of killing off lifeforms from the raw energy in the wave before we could detect it at our distance.

      At SETI:

      "Hurgle, did you hear that?"

      [thump-thump-thump-thump-THUMP] "What? WHAT? You heard something?"

      "I don't know... sounded like... bacon?"

      "Bacon?"

      "Yeah, you know... just when it hits the pan... all poppy and bubbly and spitting and stuff."

      "That's background radiation, you dolt. We went over that in the orientation!"

      "No, listen: this is diff--"

      --
      When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
    27. Re:100 billion likely way too low by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Yes, sorry; I meant powerful compared to identical transmission power from an omnidirectional antenna. Inverse square law, and all that.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    28. Re:100 billion likely way too low by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Sorry to be hard mate but ... "I think the future will boost this to 90%".

      You think? Based on what evidence? You fantasy and desire to meet exotic aliens do not count.

      Science is about using evidence to make predictions.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    29. Re:100 billion likely way too low by tigersha · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, the Voyager probes transmit at 23 Watts, which is basically nothing. The entire power system on the craft can generate about 250 Watts, which is used for all the systems. The fact that Nasa can track an object transmitting half the power of a lightbulb 11 billion km away to very fine precision is absolutely the most amazing thing they ever did in the space program IMHO.

      http://science.howstuffworks.com/question431.htm

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    30. Re:100 billion likely way too low by tigersha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here is a very fine example of an supernova in another galaxy that is visible from earth, but modulating this to carry information would be somewhat challenging.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/SN1994D.jpg/600px-SN1994D.jpg

      That is one beautiful pic though.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    31. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Yep, our TV and radio signals are practically omnidirectional since we want lots of people to receive them. Also, we haven't used more power than we strictly need so the sum of those factors is that it'd be practically undetectable outside Earth. That said, we have sent much stronger signals than that, we've run SETI experiments that was supposed to detect any transmitter about as powerful as an airport radar within 200 light-years. So a somewhat powerful, directed beam should be plenty.

      The more practical issue with us accidentally intercepting any broadcast is that we've pretty quickly moved to complex compression algorithms that resemble pure noise. And while we're now using a lot more mobile equipment, for the long haul more and more goes via cable and fiber, not broadcasts. In short, neither side is likely to discover each other by accident. Most likely we will need to "ping" planets, set up some powerful array, send a simple sequence like for example the primes they can detect and some message after that. Or try finding someone that's pinged us.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    32. Re:100 billion likely way too low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could invent a FTL spacecraft and find one in one trillion planets to hide away from, and still the in-laws would find a way to visit.

    33. Re:100 billion likely way too low by delt0r · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well lets run the numbers shall we.

      Lets listen to Andromeda which is 2.5 million light years away or about 24x10^21 meters away. Lets assume that that the intelligent life in Andromeda only transmit to the closest galaxy, us. Lets also assume we have a perfect quantum efficiency detector at the 1.420GHz "water hole" and that we have zero noise and hence only a photon per second can be considered enough data to rule out anything but ETs. Finally we assume that we have built a 100m radius antenna to capture these photons.

      Ignoring diffraction and the relative orientation of the milky way to Andromeda, we assume they only need the energy to stream that many photons through the milky way disk. The diameter of the milky way is about 100,000 lty so the area is 703x10^39 m^2. We want one photon per second per 100m radius antenna or per 31x10^3. The total number of photons per sec is 22.7x10^36. Each photon has energy E=hv or 937x10^-27J and the total power required is *only* 21x10^12W.

      Obviously there are other losses and diffraction, but the real limit is the noise floor at 1.420GHz. I have no idea what that is, but once we consider shot noise etc we start to see that we need a bit more power than 21TW. However this is not an impossible power level, and is not "life sterilizing" really. But then again its only 2.5 million light years away. In terms of galactic distance, that is just over the fence. Also the guys over at Andromeda have to really want to let others know they are around. Which with the distance involved seems less likely than local civilizations.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    34. Re:100 billion likely way too low by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      The peoblem is in the wavelength. We see visible light because the wavelenth is small.

      We can see through the gaps in a faraday cage, for instance. Yet inside the cage, rf drops to near zero.

      The reason is because the wavelength of radio waves is often measured in centimeters to meters. A diffuse cloud of cosmic dust (of sufficient volume, of which there are plenty just in our own galaxy...) would be capable of seriously attenuating these signals.

    35. Re:100 billion likely way too low by khallow · · Score: 1

      The reason is because the wavelength of radio waves is often measured in centimeters to meters. A diffuse cloud of cosmic dust (of sufficient volume, of which there are plenty just in our own galaxy...) would be capable of seriously attenuating these signals.

      And yet, radio frequencies are often a better choice for seeing through cosmic dust than visible light frequencies.

      And the spaces between galaxies don't have a lot of dust or gas. For example, there are dust clouds within a couple thousand lightyears (the Orion nebula in particular) that throw more material in our way than the light coming from galaxies millions of lightyears away and similar things.

      I don't think you've properly thought this through.

    36. Re:100 billion likely way too low by schlachter · · Score: 1

      ...and the intelligent alient race continued to wonder why no one ever responded to their super powerful galaxy penetrating communication attempts!

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    37. Re:100 billion likely way too low by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      ... but listening at these few KOIs is like like looking under a street lamp for the keys you lost half a block away because the light is better.

      I see this analogy a lot, but it is not particularly apt since you KNOW your particular keys aren't under the street lamp and thus the search has a chance of success of zero. It is more like looking under the street lamp for any set of car keys, that anyone might of lost. There may be a set somewhere where the light reaches, although the odds will be low they are not zero.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    38. Re:100 billion likely way too low by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Well, it turns out that our own radio and TV signals don't actually get out into our own galaxy as much as we once thought. They make it barely beyond the influence of our sun and then fade.

      So aliens next system over are not actually watching our old TV shows.

      Another galaxy would be much farther away and even less likely to hear any signals. Space is big. Really big.

      The Earth signals that reach the farthest are from ballistic missile early warning radars (BMEWS) which are extremely intense narrow band pulses. These could actually be detected by (very) nearby stars.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    39. Re:100 billion likely way too low by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      It is well to remember that a negative result is as important as a positive result, and in science it is a lot more common - even if no one wins a Nobel for it (or gets many publications). Physicists do for example look for deviations from physical laws every time technical advances permit more sensitive tests, even though they have little expectation that they will find any.

      Understanding with increasing the stringency the absence of intelligent life signals tells us important things about the Universe and about the development of intelligent life on Earth.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  6. Your prize is... by syousef · · Score: 2

    I put my estimate in at 150 billion. What's the prize if I guess the closest?

    Alien invasion!!! Blerg! We come in pieces, shoot to kill! Take me to your ladder!

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Your prize is... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Blerg?
      I was expecting Lrrr

  7. Alien life would be quite different from Star Trek by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Alien life in the universe that we could encounter, depending on the climactic conditions, gravity and atmosphere would be very different from humans to say the least. They would not be all humanoid races that speak english and can walk and act just like humans, they might be boneless creatures like an octopus or evolved dolphins that pilot ships full of water, or something that we have not even encountered yet. Dolphins show amazing intelligence so it is easy to imagine, that if they evolved over the course of millions of years on a remote planet and developed mathematics and science, they could invent space flight. Star Trek had humanoid aliens as standard, but the science fiction of Larry Niven envisaged quite different creatures such as the puppeteers.

    Not to forget the even stranger aliens in the book Sundiver by David Brin. Discovery channel one time showed a Jupiter sized Earth like planet that had small creatures crawling along its surface that had to eat continually in order to have enough energy to move in the massive gravity. I am not sure if it is possible for such a large planet to form, most large planets that have been discovered are gas giants. But any alien planet we visited could have alien bacteria that we would not have a immunity to and it could be very dangerous if we brought it back to Earth. So any future space exploration would still require caution.

    --
    liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
  8. And one planet has been identified by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2

    as having no intelligent life.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  9. Other life in the universe is likely... by ratguy · · Score: 1

    But the real question is how likely is it to happen during our time in this universe. The chances of it occuring are likely very high, but when it might happen or have already happened could be spans of billions of years. Then there's the question of whether we'd even be able to reach it or communicate with it, given the vast distances.

    And as Calvin once said: "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that it hasn't contacted us yet."

    1. Re:Other life in the universe is likely... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Since we've recently become primates who can do long distance communication (essentially now) till the time our Sun expands enough to make Earth unliveable for us (about 300 million years), that's 0.3 / 13.75 = 2% of the universe's existence. Let's estimate the odds of any present or past ET with long range comm to overlap our long range comm existence as 2% squared then, or 0.0004

      The question then, is how many ET within say 5,000 light years (600 million stars). 5% (30 million) are sun-like, 2% of those (600,000) have earth-like planet in habitable zone, some 1% (6,000) of those have life (I made that up), some 10% of those (600) intelligent life (yup, right out of my ass).....and then your 0.0004 window of that, odds are one in five of ET within 5,000 light years that either we see their laser or they see ours and we start long term communication project.

  10. Just a factor of 2? by chrism238 · · Score: 4, Funny

    50 billion here, 100 billion there. Pretty soon you're talking big numbers.

  11. Star Control was right! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Now where are the ruby worlds?

    1. Re:Star Control was right! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Now where are the ruby worlds?

      Alpha Centauri is the closest, but we need to trade the locations of at least three rainbow worlds to afford the lander upgrades before I'll even consider landing on those worlds.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Star Control was right! by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Please don't be so *frumple*.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  12. Fermi Paradox by Avarist · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one wanting to scream 'Fermi Paradox!' at the top of my lungs whenever the probability of extraterrestrial life is discussed?

    --
    In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
    1. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the claim is about the number of planets, not the likelihood of alien life on those planets

    2. Re:Fermi Paradox by DumbSwede · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure why you want to shout Fermi Paradox, it is not an answer but a question.

      20 years or more ago we could have speculated that planetary systems were rare, thus life had few places to evolve on and that could have been a possible solution to the Fermi Paradox -- finding so many worlds deepens the Fermi Paradox.

      Let us hope Fred Saberhagen doesn't have the correct answer to the question with his Berserker series of novels.

    3. Re:Fermi Paradox by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one wanting to scream 'Fermi Paradox!' at the top of my lungs whenever the probability of extraterrestrial life is discussed?

      Seems like a good guess.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    4. Re:Fermi Paradox by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      there is no Fermi Paradox yet, we've only learned how to use radio and light waves for comm in the last century and a half (discounting smoke signals and mirrors in the sun). Thus far, we've been searching mostly microwave frequencies for ET signals, but the smart thing for them would be to use light or even higher frequency waves (gain, effective radiated power). It's a bit early in the game to say there are no signs of any ET around us

    5. Re:Fermi Paradox by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      1. Takeaway all the planets that are orbiting inside the equivalent of Mercury's orbit. That's a lot.
      2. Takeaway all the gas giants (a lot) but include the moons (not known).
      3. Takeaway the ones without a proper magnetic field (and therefore pummeled with cosmic rays and solar particles).
      4. Takeaway the ones that are not protected from asteroids by outer gas giants.
      5. Takeaway the ones with environments that are too static for life to evolve beyond micro-organisms
      6. Takeaway the ones with basic life forms only
      7. Takeaway the ones where they're still inventing fire.
      8. Takeaway the ones that are simply too far away.

    6. Re:Fermi Paradox by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one wanting to scream 'Fermi Paradox!' at the top of my lungs whenever the probability of extraterrestrial life is discussed?

      I suspect there are lots of people signalling "Fermi Paradox' all over with smoke signals, but I use the Internet now, so I never notice.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Fermi Paradox by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      we could be awash in ETI signals and not know it yet. there is no reason to even think we have a Fermi Paradox, we're too new at long distance communication.

    8. Re:Fermi Paradox by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or even some clever use of entangled particle pairs. (Simply because we haven't figured out how to use them for comm doesn't mean others haven't.)

      Personally though, I think seti is looking for the wrong things.

      Instead of trying to eavesdrop on the grey aliens ordering space pizza from planet foodcourtia, they should be looking for localized light displacements from known stellar markers, as caused by the huge gravitational eddies that several hypotherical FTL systems would make. Interstellar highways would show up on a sufficiently detailed map of the CBR because of the regular disruptions.

      (This assumes something like an albucare (however you spell his name...) warp drive though, which create a wave of negative spacial curvature behind the vessel, and a synthetic gravity well in front.)

      Our current CBR maps are pretty coarse, since we are dealing with single measurement devices with very wide frequency emmisions, so a highway search would require interferometry to be fruitful. We need to launch about 50 more COBE sats up.

    9. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technological civilizations may usually or invariably destroy themselves before or shortly after developing radio or space flight technology. Possible means of annihilation include nuclear war, biological warfare or accidental contamination, nanotechnological catastrophe, ill-advised physics experiments,[Note 4] a badly programmed super-intelligence, or a Malthusian catastrophe after the deterioration of a planet's ecosphere. This general theme is explored both in fiction and in mainstream scientific theorizing.[46] Indeed, there are probabilistic arguments which suggest that human extinction may occur sooner rather than later. In 1966 Sagan and Shklovskii suggested that technological civilizations will either tend to destroy themselves within a century of developing interstellar communicative capability or master their self-destructive tendencies and survive for billion-year timescales.[47] Self-annihilation may also be viewed in terms of thermodynamics: insofar as life is an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, the "external transmission" or interstellar communicative phase may be the point at which the system becomes unstable and self-destructs.[48]

    10. Re:Fermi Paradox by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      If technologically advanced civilizations only exist on a small fraction of those worlds, me may just not have run into evidence of one yet: the galaxy is large even at even at the speed of light.

      If technologically advanced civilizations are common, maybe they have watched and learned by experience that attracting attention is a *BAD IDEA*. There is a school of thought that says that the first thing you should do when you detect an alien intelligence is to try to exterminate it.

      BTW: don't forget that there are also about 10^11 GALAXIES presumably each with on the order of 10^11 planets............ 10^22 is a BIG number.

    11. Re:Fermi Paradox by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      the truth is much more boring. instead cultures invent an internet, and become self-absorbed watching entertainment and marketing and posting/friending/liking on Sensory-Pod-Book.com, and lose all interest in science and education. civilisation collapses or stagnates

    12. Re:Fermi Paradox by digitallife · · Score: 2

      It strikes me that the likelihood of other life out there somewhere is probably very, very high. In fact I'd be surprised if the galaxy isn't teeming with simple life. The question is more one of technological life (not 'intelligent', as some think, or even tool users - they have to be progressive tool users getting more advanced with time). It's really hard to make any useful estimates about the chances of technological life developing somewhere, but I think it is clear that it is not inevitable from any given life pool. Here on earth it took hundreds of millions of years after anything more complex than bacteria for a technological species to come about - and we've only been technological for 10,000 years... Who knows how long we'll stick around for. It seems obvious then that only a very low percent of life bearing planets will develop technological life.

      If we assert that 1% of planets have life, and 1% of those have technological life (optimistic estimates to be sure), and we have 100B planets in the galaxy (10M tech civs), and 300B stars in the galaxy, then we would have a density of 1 technological civilization per 3000 stars. We can estimate that there are 3000 stars within 4000 ly. Therefore the next technological civilizations (aliens) would be around 8000ly away.

      Right away one important thing pops out about that number - they would be looking at us building pyramids, and have a long time to wait to see our tv and radio signals. Furthermore, considering the inverse square nature of radio waves, those tv and radio signals are not going to be of much use at 8000ly (in fact they will be weaker than background noise after only a few light years).

      Think about that, and then ask yourself why an alien civilization would be any different from ours in this regard? Basically the only way we could detect them is if we are pointing SETI telescopes at them at the exact same time they are focusing an intense signal at us, in a frequency we can detect... Not very likely. No, it's always struck me as a hopeless search, looking for alien signals, as even in the most alien rich universe I can imagine there is basically no chance of detecting them. There really isn't a Fermi Paradox.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Count_of_stars_by_distance_from_sun.jpg

    13. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diatribe conversion echo: "We're looking for the wrong stuff. We need more different kinds of satellites."

    14. Re:Fermi Paradox by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Kepler is not good for detecting Earth-like planets, so on this current estimate just none of them fit all of your criteria.

    15. Re:Fermi Paradox by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      If inteligent life was common, the ETs should have been here even before we appeared. We shouldn't even exist.

    16. Re:Fermi Paradox by delt0r · · Score: 1

      But if there are so many cultures out there, then why is there not just a few that doesn't retreat inwards and rather expands outwards.. It would only take one.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    17. Re:Fermi Paradox by geekoid · · Score: 1

      In fact, it is; however because the planet is so much smaller, it can take up to 3 years* to get the proper data point.

      *three revelations around the star at approximately are distance from the sun.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:Fermi Paradox by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Fermi Paradox is not just about communicating, one of the original wordings was simply traveling. Even at .01c you can colonize a galaxy in a few million years. An eye blink on the galactic scale. Now if there are many such intelligent life forms out there.....

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    19. Re:Fermi Paradox by digitallife · · Score: 2

      This is just baseless speculation. I think it is fairly obvious that it probably isn't likely.

      First of all, even if ET's were common, the galaxy (let alone the universe) is an enormous place. We're talking like all the matter put together in the galaxy is a couple grains of sand in a stadium. Even if you disregard problems like the speed of light, there is simply no reason to think an ET would have been anywhere near our planet.

      Second, even if our solar system was a freaking interstellar highway, we probably wouldn't notice unless they started taking pit stops in Hawaii or something. We can hardly spot asteroids whipping around the planet - a little spaceship millions of km's away would be invisible. Even the communications would be tough to spot... Due to inverse square nature of light, radio waves drop off in power very fast... I doubt they would be focusing a signal straight at us.

      And then you have the problem of travel: we don't even know if FTL travel is possible, or what form it would take. Maybe it's not possible, or very expensive, or simply impractical. Beyond that, maybe an ET civ simply has no need of spreading to every possible planet... I mean 100B planets in our galaxy is a lot of planets...

      To summarize, not only did you base your speculation on nothing, there are numerous reasons why it's unlikely to be true. I doubt I've covered half of them.

    20. Re:Fermi Paradox by flirno · · Score: 1

      Too many unknowns for such a blanket statement.

    21. Re:Fermi Paradox by flirno · · Score: 2

      If they do what we did then it is going to be hard to spot broadcasted alien communication. Eventually they may learn how to encode data and then to encrypt it to the point it looks like noise/garbage. On the planetary level their emissions may be relatively brief and easy to miss if the normal trend is towards using cables or some such medium instead of broadcasting bare outward. Or maybe better knowledge of physics opens some other avenues of communication we have no idea about yet. SETI and all such efforts are just shots in the dark. We just don't know.

    22. Re:Fermi Paradox by flirno · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Plus a lot of civs probably miss each other due to separation in time.

    23. Re:Fermi Paradox by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      No Fermi Paradox for travel either. humans can't keep at a project for ten thousand years, why expect another species to have millions-years one? will humans as a species even last that long, 3 million years ago there were bipedal apes like we see at zoos, 3 million years from now we might be animals again. We don't have the means to go 0.01C, and it would take almost 500 years to get to nearest star which is NOT suitable for colonization. We can't make life support system or computer systems that last even 100 years. Interstellar travel is extremely difficult if possible at all, might be too much trouble and expense for most ETI

    24. Re:Fermi Paradox by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume that they are like us. If life out there is ubiquitous, then there must be very strange species out there... Just because you think we won't does not make a case for anything else. Also you assume technology must somehow preclude methods of permitting such trips. Hibernation may be possible, especially on some alien species. Then if they are a space faring civilization, why do they need habitable planets? The need merely the raw materials to make habitats or even better are quite capable of a level of technology where many places are effectively habitable. Also note that its well within physical plausibility to go a bit faster than .01c.

      The pub i was at last week was older than 500 years. My favorite wine cellar is about 700 years old. Its just not that long in the scheme of things.

      Also Von Newman probes are typically suggested at the same time as my .01c example. Again i believe in the original discussion.

      Sure that thousands of civilizations just can't be bothered to go anywhere may be the answer to the Fermi Paradox, one that was even suggested by Fermi IIRC. Since we have no data other than we have not observed anything, its nothing more than a assertion of course. Equally valid speculation is that intelligent life is exceptionally rare. Or that civilizations wipe themselves out etc.

      Also just saying something like "no one is going to do that!" is not in fact a answer to the general plausibility of it. There are 7 billion of us, you are not like us all. I think we would find more than a few volunteers for a one way 500 year trip in deep freeze. Hell if we can pull of cryo sleep, people will probably pay money to be frozen for some centuries to get to the future.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    25. Re:Fermi Paradox by Raenex · · Score: 1

      This is just baseless speculation. I think it is fairly obvious that it probably isn't likely.

      And Fermi thought it was probable enough that he posed the question, and it's still debated to this day. I'll just quote from Wikipedia, as it has citations:

      First of all, even if ET's were common, the galaxy (let alone the universe) is an enormous place.

      "If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."

      Second, even if our solar system was a freaking interstellar highway, we probably wouldn't notice unless they started taking pit stops in Hawaii or something.

      "This argument also assumes the mediocrity principle, which states that Earth is not special, but merely a typical planet, subject to the same laws, effects, and likely outcomes as any other world."

      If Earth is a typical planet that life might arise on and can utilize, it would stand to reason that they'd be here making use of it.

      Beyond that, maybe an ET civ simply has no need of spreading to every possible planet.

      The question is, what would stop it? "given intelligent life's ability to overcome scarcity, and its tendency to colonize new habitats, it seems likely that at least some civilizations would be technologically advanced, seek out new resources in space and then colonize first their own star system and subsequently the surrounding star systems."

      there are numerous reasons why it's unlikely to be true. I doubt I've covered half of them.

      There are plenty of arguments to attempt to explain Fermi's Paradox, lots of them covered on the Wikipedia page, but it's definitely an interesting question and by no means settled.

    26. Re:Fermi Paradox by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      A centuries old building is a very different matter than 500 year old computers, pumps, fans, transducers, sensors, optics, propulsion, or enclosed ecology....we don't have the means, materials or knowledge to make such things. We don't have means to go 0.01C, though we might if fusion is mastered. As scientist and engineer, I can readily see why most intelligent species may not travel between the stars. Perhaps none of them ever will.

    27. Re:Fermi Paradox by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Just because you can't do it now does not mean we won't be able to do it some time in the future. Not sure what kind of engineer you are, but clearly a pretty bad one if you think the only things we will build in the future is only what we can build today.

      Once upon a time we didn't have the means to build heaver than air craft. We didn't have the means to make 4GHz transistors, or turbofans or whatever.

      Seriously "we can't (don't) do that now... so it can't be done" is really lame.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    28. Re:Fermi Paradox by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      they might expand all over their star system, but interstellar travel is very difficult. Estimating from Kepler's preliminary data, there is probably NOT another ETI civilization within 5,000 light years. Even if we mastered fusion propulsion and so were able to make a ship go 0.12 light speed, that's tens of thousands of years for a trip, we can't make machinery, computers and sensors last that long. we don't have the knowledge, ability, or materials.

    29. Re:Fermi Paradox by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Now. We don't have the machinery, computers and sensors now. There is no law of nature that says it can't be done. None... Don't limit your thinking to just today!

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    30. Re:Fermi Paradox by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      ... they should be looking for localized light displacements from known stellar markers

      Perhaps you may be able to divine such instances from this dataset.

      http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/01/13/2140236/astronomers-release-enormous-database-of-variable-luminosity-celestial-objects

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
  13. Like Pluto? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... probably virtually all suns have some kind of orbiting object that could be termed a planet.

    Yeah, whatever. That's what they called Pluto at one time.

    And they had the nerve to name it after Mickey Mouse's dog!

    1. Re:Like Pluto? by cas2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Disney sued them for copyright infringement. That's why they had to stop calling Pluto a planet.

    2. Re:Like Pluto? by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      I get the joke, but Disney's Pluto was named after the "planet" Pluto, which itself was named after the god of the underworld who was around a long time before Disney. :)

    3. Re:Like Pluto? by yndrd1984 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since when has prior use stopped them from suing someone?

    4. Re:Like Pluto? by rlseaman · · Score: 0

      Pluto (the dog) was named after Pluto (the planet), not the other way around.

    5. Re:Like Pluto? by MLease · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Disney could afford better lawyers.

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
    6. Re:Like Pluto? by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      it sucks when you have to explain a joke, but yes, that's part of what makes it funny.

  14. Oblig. Arthur C Clarke quote by Kittenman · · Score: 5, Interesting
    “Behind every man now alive stand thirty ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the dead outnumber the living. Since the dawn of time, roughly a hundred billion human beings have walked the planet Earth.

    Now this is an interesting number, for by a curious coincidence there are approximately a hundred billion stars in our local universe, the Milky Way. So for every man who has ever lived, in this Universe there shines a star.

    But every one of those stars is a sun, often far more brilliant and glorious than the small, nearby star we call the Sun. And many--perhaps most--of those alien suns have planets circling them. So almost certainly there is enough land in the sky to give every member of the human species, back to the first ape-man, his own private, world-sized heaven--or hell.

    How many of those potential heavens and hells are now inhabited, and by what manner of creatures, we have no way of guessing; the very nearest is a million times farther away than Mars or Venus, those still remote goals of the next generation. But the barriers of distance are crumbling; one day we shall meet our equals, or our masters, among the stars. "

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Oblig. Arthur C Clarke quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a bit more than a hundred billion stars.

    2. Re:Oblig. Arthur C Clarke quote by dhavleak · · Score: 1

      So for every man who has ever lived, in this Universe there shines a star.

      Not universe.. galaxy..

    3. Re:Oblig. Arthur C Clarke quote by Opyros · · Score: 1

      I imagine that was what Clarke did mean; galaxies used to be called "island universes", and in the preceding sentence he called the Milky Way our "local universe".

    4. Re:Oblig. Arthur C Clarke quote by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      "Round numbers are always false." -- Samuel Johnson

    5. Re:Oblig. Arthur C Clarke quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read his post carefully? He said:

      a hundred billion stars in our local universe, the Milky Way

      "local universe" == "Milky Way"....

  15. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by c0lo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Alien life in the universe that we could encounter, depending on the climactic conditions, gravity and atmosphere would be very different from humans to say the least. They would not be all humanoid races that speak english and can walk and act just like humans, they might be boneless creatures like an octopus or evolved dolphins that pilot ships full of water, or [...].

    Ships full of water - multiply the difficulties to escape the gravity well by about 1000.
    Imagine developing metallurgy and special ceramics (I reckon these would be needed for at least propulsion) in/under water...

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  16. "alien worlds" count not so interesting by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In a couple years kepler will have sufficient data so we can estimate the number of rocky worlds in habitable zones, that's what is most interesting to me. Once we find such worlds, we'd need to fund the type of probe that can analyze atmosphere, life as we know it does a very detectable transformation. Then step up our optical SETI efforts in those world's directions (they won't use radio waves, sorry microwave SETI dudes....)

    1. Re:"alien worlds" count not so interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only if it's still alive. Kepler funding is at risk, *again*, and it does need software support from the ground to continue operations. Also, with the Shuttle offline and no sign of NASA getting its bureaucracy burdened assets out of the way of private spacecraft, any mechanical failures are irreparable.

      A "probe to detect atmosphere" can be done relatively cheaply: launching several more Kepler grade telescopes with good distances among them will permit a much larger baseline for certain types of observation, and improve Kepler's data tremendously.

    2. Re:"alien worlds" count not so interesting by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      funding runs out November 2012. The cost is $20 million per additional year, and NASA would like four more years to have 7.5 year mission, that will allow them to get more transits from earth sized worlds that are hiding in noise currently (stars are more variable on average than was thought, a discovery in itself) http://www.space.com/13857-nasa-kepler-mission-extension-alien-planets.html

  17. TPIR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 planet Bob.

    1. Re:TPIR by wierd_w · · Score: 0

      But with alien slave girls, amazons, and the like, wouldn't it be more aptly named "planet 'boobs'" instead?

    2. Re:TPIR by Tsingi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But with alien slave girls, amazons, and the like, wouldn't it be more aptly named "planet 'boobs'" instead?

      Amazons? Then that would be planet "Boob".

    3. Re:TPIR by Darfeld · · Score: 1

      Not if they had three boobs to begin with...

      --
      (\__/) This is Lapinator
      (='.'=) copy it in your sig
      (")_(") so it can take over the world
    4. Re:TPIR by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe we'll find a world of catgirls. If they're like our planet's Carnivora, each of them would have 8 boobs. Of course, if they're furry Amazons, they'd probably amputate 2 of them.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  18. Drake equation++ by FuturePerson · · Score: 2, Funny

    I recently had the misfortune of meeting some extraterrestrial aliens from outer space right here on earth.

    I have not much time now, but I'll jot down what I can.

    They were very enthusiastic. They explained how wonderful it was to find a planet with the temperature and the water and the magnetic field and the life and the intelligence and the technology and ... advertising(!?) .

    They we're an ancient species, homeless since eons. They had been scouring space, looking for intelligent life that could scratch their itch.

    Their itch is having control. They get off on manipulation. They crave displays of advertising and propaganda, whatever moves masses to act against their own self-interest, or something.

    They have evolved telepathy. It is the result of a million years of marketing, the art of lying, the pinnacle of manipulation.

    I would describe them as psychopathic and sadistic. I think they want to enslave people for the joy of seeing a living, feeling life form manipulated.

    They had me devising marketing campaigns. I escaped. Other ET:s helped me. I'll tell about it later. I'm too upset now to be very coherent, maybe.

    I have to go now. I do not want to be anywhere near these creatures. Watch out for the mindfuckers!

    --
    (Or did I dream it?)
    1. Re:Drake equation++ by giorgist · · Score: 5, Funny

      So you went out on your first date, don't be so dramatic.

  19. I'll make it easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is at least one rocky body (planet or moon) with liquid water and equal or lesser mass than 1.5 Earths in the habitable zone around over 80% of all the stars currently within 10,000 lightyears of Sol.

    Now what are you going to do about it?

    -D'all rth p'targh

  20. Re:Plus minus 50 billion by mug+funky · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    you're really upset at being downmod for a two word post?

    something tells me you need to reinforce your ego somehow - it's looking a bit fragile.

  21. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by mjwx · · Score: 2

    Ships full of water - multiply the difficulties to escape the gravity well by about 1000.
    Imagine developing metallurgy and special ceramics (I reckon these would be needed for at least propulsion) in/under water...

    Who said the ship needs to be full of water. given many of the oceanic creatures on earth only the breathing apparatus needs to meet the creatures environmental requirements. Isn't it entirely possible to create a space suite for an aquatic organism in the same way we have pressure suits for humans?

    Your second point is much more interesting. I the best guesses I can come up with are either do it on land using machines (in the same way we use submersibles to work under the sea) or have an entirely different method of smelting and fabrication that we've never considered.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  22. Stating the obvious or not so obvious by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this already covered by Arthur C Clarke, Carl Sagan and a myriad of other great astronomers? This is not surprising. What I want is to have them find an Earth Like planet. I want the existence of Alien humanoid life to be confirmed.

    1. Re:Stating the obvious or not so obvious by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      Wasn't this already covered by Arthur C Clarke, Carl Sagan and a myriad of other great astronomers? This is not surprising. What I want is to have them find an Earth Like planet. I want the existence of Alien humanoid life to be confirmed.

      Do you also want "her" to be tall, skinny, blue, with beautiful eyes and living inside a gigantic ancient tree?

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    2. Re:Stating the obvious or not so obvious by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nope. These estimates are more accurate because we have more data.

      The universe and science don't give a shit what you want. They only care about what is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Stating the obvious or not so obvious by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I want to be the guy in charge of taking the tree down, cause I would do it from 61000 feet. Fly up here you mother fuckers.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Stating the obvious or not so obvious by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      Still, fuck her first, right?

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
  23. Wider implications by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    That's just the number of possible planets in our galaxy. If you take a rough estimate of galaxies we can see as 500 billion, in other words a galaxy for every star in the Milky Way, and those are just the ones we can see.

    Okay, 500 billion galaxies, 100 billion exoplanets per galaxy, which is probably conservative. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there's at least one other earth-like planet out there.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Wider implications by geekoid · · Score: 1

      number of planets 5 tines the size of earth.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  24. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by danlip · · Score: 1

    Plus the difficulty of developing technology if you don't have hands

  25. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Alien life in the universe that we could encounter, depending on the climactic conditions, gravity and atmosphere would be very different from humans to say the least.

    Not proven until we meet one.

    They would not be all humanoid races that speak english....

    Star Trek did not portray this.

    Dolphins show amazing intelligence so it is easy to imagine..

    No, it is not easy to imagine. Dolphins lack the dexterity to build a space ship. We may find out that any given species rarely (if ever) reach space unless they meet certain other criteria like opposable thumbs and originate from a planet where it's easy to start a fire. We don't know what all is involved in inspiring a species to leave the planet, just that it likely requires a complex series of events.

    It's easy to jump to the conclusion that every planet that sports life will create a random space faring civilization species. However, to put things into a more realistic perspective, consider that this planet has created over a hundred million species of life and only one has intentionally gone into orbit.

    Star Trek had humanoid aliens as standard...

    No, they did not. The 'humanoid' races were explained by one species that seeded our area of the galaxy with similar genetic material. Elsewhere in the series, the Federation was accused of really only allowing humanoids to join.

    We just don't know.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  26. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    And with fins instead of fingers

  27. BS! There are exactly 42 alien worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EOM

  28. whatever by milkmage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    everyone knows they'll ignore us until we have warp capability.

    2 weeks to the Moon?
    9 months to Mars? lol.

    1. Re:whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What?

      It took Apollo 11 four days to get to the Moon and with current rocket technology it could take as little as three or four months to get to Mars

    2. Re:whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Douglas Adams quote: "What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? For heaven’s sake mankind, it’s only four light years away you know."

    3. Re:whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only two warps to Uranus, however

    4. Re:whatever by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      What if alien races are using time dilation/space compression to travel? If they were able to move their planet fast enough to travel near the speed of light, they would be able to visit the entire galaxy in, to them, practically zero time. The thousands and/or millions of years that would pass for nearly stationary objects would be a buffer that would prevent contact between primitive races and advanced ones.

      All the advanced alien races would then be able to contact each other, just far off in the future.

    5. Re:whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Apollo missions took 3 days and a few hours to get to the moon, not sure where 2 weeks comes from... although your specious point is still valid :)

  29. too many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in other words, one for every star...

  30. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    I think the issue is how does this water creature develop fire and metal smelting in the first place (you know bronze and iron age level) - once they have technology working around it is easy, the tricky bit would be developing that technology in the first place.

  31. Junk Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Probably no life on other planets. Extra terrestrial life is a concept that became popular in the 60's and 70's pseudo-science new age period. During this time there were many crazy theories ranging from dolphin cities to crystal healing. The Drake equation came from this era.
    The calculus of events that came to form life and then intelligence is unique. Our egos are more evolved then our intelligence. Recent theories are intelligence evolved from the part of the brain that controls speech. It is easy to forget that everything came from somewhere. I have noticed an "adam and eve" view of intelligence in that intelligence "popped" into existence.
    Also, the belief in extra terrestrial life is too closely related to common religions ideas. The passionate belief in something that has never had a single shred of evidence is called faith. Theoretical physics, evolution, and paleontology all exist on theory as well but are based on observable evidence; they are examples of "soft science"; ideas that are constantly and purposely making past ideas obsolete. The search for extra terrestrial life does not fall into this category.

    1. Re:Junk Science by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      The calculus of events that came to form life and then intelligence is unique.

      You have absolutely no evidence to back up this assertion; your argument, then, fails utterly.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Junk Science by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Of course we don't have evidence to the contrary either. In summary... we need more data.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    3. Re:Junk Science by chewie2010 · · Score: 1

      We do have an idea of how life evolved and the billions of genetic changes in a unique environment that have occurred to make us what we are today. Belief in alien life = a lack of basic scientific understanding. I blame religion in our society, basically saying "if there is no proof just make up something to fit what you want to believe" Listen to the candidates talk about science. It always turns into religious pseudo science.

    4. Re:Junk Science by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Belief in alien life = a lack of basic scientific understanding.

      Rejection of the possibility of alien life == lack of basic scientific understanding.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  32. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the issue is how does this water creature develop fire and metal smelting in the first place (you know bronze and iron age level) - once they have technology working around it is easy, the tricky bit would be developing that technology in the first place.

    You can create fire underwater, it's a different chemical process to on land.

    Besides, you dont need fire for smelting, you simply need heat and there are plenty of active underwater volcano's on earth as well as other heat sources.

    Needless to say, an aquatic civilisation would develop things in radically different ways to the way we have.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  33. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Ships full of water - multiply the difficulties to escape the gravity well by about 1000.

    Who said the ship needs to be full of water.

    The GP post did - straight copy/paste citation: ... they might be boneless creatures like an octopus or evolved dolphins that pilot ships full of water, or something that we have not even encountered yet

    given many of the oceanic creatures on earth only the breathing apparatus needs to meet the creatures environmental requirements.

    I really doubt it (the only part of it). E.g. reverse the situation and imagine yourself travelling for years in a complete suit that wouldn't allow you to clean you skin.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  34. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't matter that much you if have tentacles.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  35. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by c0lo · · Score: 1

    what about tentacles?

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  36. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2

    Man, that episode sucked, but it was some brilliant meta-humor lampooning the anticlimactic ending of the episode.

    Basically, a guy dies, leaving clues to a big mystery. Piccard, as well as a Klingon crew and Cardassian crew are all in competition to independently solve this mystery, hoping for gold or secret mega-weapons.

    They all solve the mystery at once and meet at the same place where the secret is finally activated: It is a hologram of a proto-humanoid, describing(in English) how their race seeded their genetic material across the galaxy and that they are the common ancestor of all humanoid races.

    Afterward, perfect comedic silence before the Cardassian says, "That's it?!" The Klingon captain responds with, "If she were not dead, I would kill her myself!"

  37. Galactic Explanetary Estimate? by Chas · · Score: 2

    Jeeze.

    Why not just call it what it is?

    An ass-pull number.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Galactic Explanetary Estimate? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because it isn't. They've done some very careful estimating here. This works off a combination of modelig and empirical data. We know how many stars Kepler has looked at and what approximate fraction of the total set of stars in the galaxy that represents. For those stars, we have a pretty good idea of lower bounds of how many planets they have, and we know what sorts of planets are the sort that Kepler would have trouble detecting. We can look at that distribution and use it to get a rough estimate. No one is claiming that this number is precise. But the true number is likely not more than an order of magnitude or two off. This isn't an asspull. This is scientists working very carefully very difficult stuff on the cutting edge and doing their best with hard work and rigorous thinking to produce an estimate. This is what real science looks like.

    2. Re:Galactic Explanetary Estimate? by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      no, not totally ass-pulled. kepler now lets us know that planets are common, and there is not even the pattern of rocky-inner gassy-outer like we have in the solar system, they can be mixed up. planets can be in habitable zone, but they are often the wrong size/type. there are now some hard real numbers to make estimates. We long have had have rough idea of sun like star percentage (5%), we have rough idea of earth-like planets in habitable zone percent of those (about 2%). Soon (a couple decades or I hope less) we'll even know percentage of those that have similar atmosphere to earth, either pre or post oxygen breathing creature modified. Things are heating up in the search for life elsewhere, all science geeks should be getting some serious wood from Kepler!

  38. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Alien life in the universe that we could encounter, depending on the climactic conditions, gravity and atmosphere would be very different from humans to say the least.

    My favourite example at the moment is Solaris (the book by Lem, not the new movie I've never seen or the old one I can't remember). In that example humanity has spent a lot of resources over a century trying to understand WTF is some connection between themselves and the alien/s and at that point even the human experts have trouble communicating to each other about the subject. Meanwhile the aliens seem to be trying to communicate as well but despite Godlike powers and the ability to create human shaped avatars with human thoughts about all they can do is confuse people and their own avatars.
    I think the theme was that aliens are not going to be some guy with a weird accent and a funny hat, but instead something we can't understand without vast amounts of time and effort.

  39. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by netsavior · · Score: 2

    The final season of Enterprise dealt primarily with the Xindi, one of the Xindi races (5 different sentient species on one planet) were spacefaring water creatures that weren't humanoid, and flew in ships filled with water, this fact was not particularly shocking or foreign to the captain of Enterprise, nor his highly experienced Vulcan crewmate. But also the Federation are a bunch of bigots who only let humanoids in anyway.

  40. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by james.mcarthur · · Score: 2, Funny

    And if you had tentacles your technology would only need to reach the stage where you can trap helpless human females.

  41. Re:Plus minus 50 billion by formfeed · · Score: 1

    you're really upset at being downmod for a two word post?

    concise wisdom?

  42. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

    You do realize that only the humans in Star Trek spoke English, right? Everyone used universal translators to reduce communications problems. They just didn't portray it the way some other sci-fi has; for instance, in the movie Dune, in the first scene, when the Guild Navigator meets with the Emperor, his helpers speak first using a mechanical device that translates their language, and you can hear both. Star Trek just eliminates that for budget reasons and to avoid distracting viewers.

    Besides, 300+ years in the future it's quite possible we won't be speaking English at all, or it might be very different from what we speak now. With any sci-fi that's in English and set in the future, you might as well assume that all the dialog has been translated into modern English for the benefit of the reader. I believe the Dune series (set 10,000 years in the future) even explicitly says they use a different language, or several in fact, but the characters' dialog is still in modern English so that the author didn't have to invent a new language like Tolkein's Sindarin.

  43. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

    Ships full of water - multiply the difficulties to escape the gravity well by about 1000.

    Perhaps these hypothetical aliens captured a comet, send their ships into orbit unmanned, and then thaw the comet's water, adding it to their ships in an environment of minimal gravity.

    Or perhaps they're massively technologically advanced, and they have technology to defy gravity, so getting tons of water into orbit is trivial.

  44. bfd...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even with so many alien worlds.. the chance of intelligent life coexisting in multiple star systems is virtually zero.... and even if that were to beat those odds.. the chance those interstellar societies find each other and communicate with each other is even smaller yet.

    1. Re:bfd...... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      even so, it's like the lottery. You don't play, you definitely won't win. Mankind, with Kepler and SETI and Mars rover missions, has decided to be a player. we're looking.

    2. Re:bfd...... by flirno · · Score: 1

      It is probably an even smaller odds if you throw in the distrubtion in time. Civs have to be specially close enough to each other to detect (and one has to be sufficiently broadcasting and another has to be sufficiently looking) and their existince in time must also overlap or they will just miss each other. Time is another big dimension that effects the search.

    3. Re:bfd...... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      let's say we don't destroy ourselves with war or disaster. So from when we became technologically advanced (essentially now on cosmic time scale) until the Sun cooks the earth is about 300 million years. That's 2% of the lifetime of the universe to now, actually a big chunk of time.

  45. I'm going to guess.... by ArcadeNut · · Score: 2

    100,000,000,001.

    Hope I win!

    --
    Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
  46. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Speaking of gas giants, it's relatively easy to imagine an ecosystem of blimp-like creatures floating around on one in a way similar to how plankton do in Earth's ocean.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  47. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Belial6 · · Score: 2
  48. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

    You do realize that only the humans in Star Trek spoke English, right?

    Well... humans and really nerdy Klingons.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  49. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    You can create fire underwater, it's a different chemical process to on land.

    Is it a process a dolphin would be able to do, without using anything directly or indirectly made on land?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  50. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    You do realize that only the humans in Star Trek spoke English, right? Everyone used universal translators to reduce communications problems.

    Except they didn't work 100%. Gakkamok, when his car wouldn't start. Turdnik, cursing his wifi card. Or something.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  51. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

    I feel like there must be something to your comment, and I wish I'd seen that movie recently enough to remember anything about it.

    [Note: This post is utterly sincere. I have seen that movie, but probably not within the last 20 years, so I have no idea what the context is.]

  52. know they *used to* exist, no? by dwater · · Score: 1

    I don't quite get this. Isn't it true that what they are detecting is evidence that the planets/etc *used to* exist? ... and quite a long time ago too.

    What's to say that they still exist now? ...and how long would it take us to get there? I guess there's no chance we can get there at all.

    --
    Max.
    1. Re:know they *used to* exist, no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the exosolar planets which have been discovered are relatively nearby within the galaxy -- hundreds to perhaps a few thousand light years distant. On cosmological time scales, that's an insignificant interval. Think about it. What has changed within our own solar system in the past 10,000 years? The number of planets? The orbits of the planets? The Sun? Or, except for civilization, nothing at all.

  53. And even at a discovery rate of 1 every second... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ...it would still take over 3000 years to find them all.

    What is the point of even trying to quantify it?

  54. 100 billion in just 5000 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100 billion in just 5000 years! That is two worlds every three seconds. God must be working very hard to create them.

  55. 640 Billion by flyingfsck · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, 640 billion should be enough for anybody...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  56. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I read lips and can tell you that, indeed, everyone spoke English in Star Trek.

  57. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2

    The DS9 episode Little Green Men, shows Quark and Roms' universal translators fail, so we see them picking through each others' ears trying to "reset" them talking in Ferengi while USAF personnel look on in amusement.

    DS9 was really good at bringing back that old-skool camp, especially in this scene.

  58. 100 Billion Worlds... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    And I'm stuck on THIS one. *sigh*

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:100 Billion Worlds... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      what? you want to be stuck on Mars?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:100 Billion Worlds... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      I'd rather be stuck on Eroticon 6. If I had to be stuck somewhere. Why trade in one gravity well for another one, though?

      Mars... well if someone were offering one-way tickets, I'd be pretty tempted. I can't think of anything more interesting to do in the last two or three decades of my life than explore an alien planet, even if it is a crappy airless red one.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  59. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    The cat was an alien. Without possible thumbs, instead of developing manual tools that require hands, they developed other technologies that avoided the need for hands. Primarily, telekinesis devices, and thus defying gravity. The movie wasn't terribly deep, but there it was.

  60. Uncomfortable, but true facts: by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 0

    1. We're not going. 2. They're not coming. 3. This is it - so please do a better job of taking care of the place.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  61. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

    Oooooooh.

    Yes, now I remember. Thanks. I wish I hadn't required the explanation.

  62. Please don't start using Drake's equation by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    We have some data points on exoplanets... that's great and you can probably start estimating the numbers in the galaxy from that.

    Right now someone is trying to come up with a way to estimate life or even intelligent life or even star spanning civilizations. Don't do that until we have actual data... please... Drake's equation has done enough damage.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Please don't start using Drake's equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drakes equation works for its specific parameters. HOWEVER, there is no data for it. So they 'narrowed' down one of the numbers... That is how this particular type of equation will work for a long time.

      That is like saying 'dont use hammers they have done enough damage in the world'. It is a tool and nothing more. Like a hammer it can be used for things it shouldn't be like caving in someones skull.

    2. Re:Please don't start using Drake's equation by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      drake's equation is less a tool then pseudo-science to make pure guess work look like some kind of scientific evaluation.

      I've never seen it used anywhere to advance science.

      It was used to predict that the galaxy is full of alien civilizations based on a single data point. And it then went on to predict how many species had gone extinct even though there was almost no data.

      That is how drake's equation is used... it was never supposed to be seriously used and idiots and statistical con men keep using it to make unsupportable predictions.

      It's bad. Don't use it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  63. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    I have eyes, and I can tell you that what the show claimed to be starships flying in space and firing phasers were in fact actually models, with late 80s-quality special effects added on top in crappy NTSC resolution.

  64. and yet.... by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

    We are not putting a serious effort to get man out there!
    Yeah, some probes etc. but lunar landing was over 40 years ago ffs!

    Space exploration budgets are quite miniscule compared to war effort. Thanks for us being so aggressive with each other, we are not getting ahead as a race and going exploring the vast riches available in the galaxy.

    Where would we be now if NASA budget would have remained at the 60s level?
    What if all countries in the world would put in even some kind of effort in to it? I'd bet the cost to get to orbit would be really small compared to what it is now.

  65. And guess what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no life out there on any of them, the billions here in this galaxy or on any of the others in the billions of other galaxies. Now go back to work and pay your taxes.

  66. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    were in fact actually models, with late 80s-quality special effects added on top in crappy NTSC resolution.

    They purposely made it look like that, because they knew 20th century humans would panic if they realized it was real.

    What you call late-80's crappy effects are in fact high-tech hologram projections purposely made to look fake.

  67. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    I read lips and can tell you that, indeed, everyone spoke English in Star Trek.

    Wrong. If you actually watched the show, you'd know why.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  68. For we laymen by dmomo · · Score: 1

    How many Libraries of Congress is that?

  69. Re:Plus minus 50 billion by bobamu · · Score: 1

    Well, you could become Supreme Overlord of the Amazonian Women, hot green chicks, and Galactic Girls Gone Wild Planet

  70. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    Try Robert Forward's Camelot 30K: A species with a nuclear-powered metabolism at near absolute zero on a Kuiper belt object.

  71. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Bongo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There's also an argument that nature seems to "copy". Once it has done something, it seems to do it again more quickly. Now Star Trek was written to not be so alien looking that the audience couldn't relate to it. And I do get bored with endless forehead-ridge variations. Trek was like that for reasons of TV writing. But humanoids, or things that are sorta upright with four limbs, might be quite common anyway, simply because nature seems to repeat stuff. We might imagine some small change early on in evolution that would have made a very different outcome millions of years later, but life seems also pretty stable, in that, it sorta keeps to a pattern for a long time, then suddenly something changes and the new pattern spreads rapidly, but then it stays the same for a long time, and so on. I don't know if people know why and how patterns in nature spread rapidly. Like, suddenly there is a new species. (I'm not being creationist *spit* *spit* and there is this photocopier-like behaviour which suggests some additional blind and automatic mechanisms which we don't know about, or that we're somehow overestimating how many paths are actually available in the system). It is the "stays the same" and "copies" part that might suggest that alien worlds are similar to Earth. Why? Because Earth isn't special and because nature made it happen here, so we know it can happen, and therefore it is probably happening in a similar way elsewhere. (Of course I wouldn't bet on what aliens look like, but seeing as they're out there across the vast expanse of space, expecting them to be completely different, following a different path, is one view, but expecting them to be very similar, because nature and the universe "likes" to copy stuff, is another.)

  72. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, you just reminded me of that creature that can create explosions powerful enough to generate plasmas. Under water.

    It might not be too far fetched at all.
    The right conditions and right mutations, bam, a race that develops in the water, a place that is almost impossibly hard to externally develop as a species.

    That is essentially the main reason species don't develop far underwater. It is anti external development for the most part.
    The water limits the things a species can do with tools, with materials.
    No vision also hinders hugely. Even if they have echo-location. What happens when they get to the surface? Space?
    It could very well be that all of the species that eventually went to land were the ones that did become externally intelligent to their surroundings.
    We know humans are capable of echolocation for a start. We should test completely unrelated species to see if they are.

    Not impossible. But extremely hard to imagine happening. Same with life evolving using things different than something like DNA, it is highly stable. And with the recent thoughts on that TNA, it makes life even easier to come about due to the lower energies needed.

  73. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Patchw0rk+F0g · · Score: 1

    Besides, 300+ years in the future it's quite possible we won't be speaking English at all, or it might be very different from what we speak now.

    No wa, dood. Well be speekn just t sam as we alwys did... jst shortr cuz were all usin wee wee kbds.

    --
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
  74. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Besides, you dont need fire for smelting, you simply need heat and there are plenty of active underwater volcano's on earth as well as other heat sources.

    I say good luck to stone age water dwelling alien dolphinoids when it comes to getting to the bronze and iron age, since the heat transfer properties of water are going to be a real bitch to work around when it comes to smelting in those volcanic vents. It's not like working near a hot fire in air, which in some cases is already problem enough.

    Maybe with a long enough stick with something on the end they might be able to smelt, but some of those forging processes in metal tool-making aren't going to be that obvious nor easy to work out.

  75. Changes the Drake equation by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    I know it's an estimate but as we know, estimates have this way of being very conservative. So it means there's probably life elsewhere in just the Milky Way.

    Granted, it might be single celled life, but it's life!

  76. Man I could have predicted that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah obviously the milky way has something like 100000000000 planets. I mean how hard is that to guess? It's just 1 followed by a load of zeroes.

  77. Network? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will we run out of IP addresses again when all those worlds are connected to the same network?

  78. Re:Plus minus 50 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No i'm happy with SlashDot

  79. I can't say this enough times... by otaku244 · · Score: 1

    "I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
    -Calvin & Hobbes

    --
    Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
  80. Re:And even at a discovery rate of 1 every second. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

    It's called "Mapping".

    And if that's too slow for you, discover them at a faster rate.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  81. Re:Plus minus 50 billion by geekoid · · Score: 1

    haha, someone is angry for being modded down because of their 2 word troll.

    GTFU

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  82. the hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "100 Billion Alien Worlds" - Yay! Sounds much more optimistic than "100 Billion Lifeless Rocks"...

  83. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    And if you had tentacles your technology would only need to reach the stage where you can trap helpless human females.

    In which case you would need technology to travel to Earth. Problem solved, alien tentacle creatures must be able to produce advanced technology.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  84. Re:Plus minus 50 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STFU

  85. Fermi-paradox is correct!!! by chewie2010 · · Score: 1

    Probably no life on other planets. Extra terrestrial life is a concept that became popular in the 60's and 70's pseudo-science new age period. During this time there were many crazy theories ranging from dolphin cities to crystal healing. The Drake equation came from this era. The calculus of events that came to form life and then intelligence is unique. Our egos are more evolved then our intelligence. Recent theories are intelligence evolved from the part of the brain that controls speech. It is easy to forget that everything came from somewhere. I have noticed an "adam and eve" view of intelligence in that intelligence "popped" into existence. Also, the belief in extra terrestrial life is too closely related to common religions ideas. The passionate belief in something that has never had a single shred of evidence is called faith. Theoretical physics, evolution, and paleontology all exist on theory as well but are based on observable evidence; they are examples of "soft science"; ideas that are constantly and purposely making past ideas obsolete. The search for extra terrestrial life does not fall into this category.

  86. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by caywen · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, they might be physically 100 times smaller on a planet with less gravity, be far more durable to the effects of radiation, and have a more efficient means of sustenance. It's possible they don't have to haul as much into space to stay alive. All that would add up to their trip to space being actually far *easier* than ours.

  87. The best explanation of why SETI is a failure by Shompol · · Score: 1
  88. Duh by gamanimatron · · Score: 1

    Not as odoriferous as Uranus.

    --
    cogito ergo dubito
  89. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

    [...] but the characters' dialog is still in modern English so that the author didn't have to invent a new language like Tolkein's Sindarin.

    That, and requiring potential readers to learn an entirely new language just to understand all character dialog would guarantee limited success...

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  90. Re:Alien life would be quite different from Star T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [...] We don't know what all is involved in inspiring a species to leave the planet, [...]

    Yes we do: Amazonian Women, hot green chicks, Galactic Girls Gone Wild and snu snu.

    Have you not been paying attention?