Log in

View Full Version : “ET life inevitably exists due to universal laws, and we’ll soon discover it”



The Vegan Marxist
7th July 2011, 22:49
ET life inevitably exists due to universal laws, and well soon discover it
July 7, 2011

RT spoke with Andrey Finkelstein, Director of the Institute of Applied Astronomy about the scientific reasoning behind his controversial statement that in 20 years humanity will discover aliens and they are likely to look much like humans.

RT: Mr. Finkelstein, thank you for being with us tonight. You have promised that in twenty years time you will have discovered life on other planets. Are we actually talking about aliens, or merely some bacteria?

Andrey Finkelstein: We are talking life forms, of course. What particular form such life could be is a separate question. Where there is life, intelligence and civilization are a possibility. But discovering life is of primary importance.

RT: In what form?

AF: What Im going to tell you is a paradox. The form will definitely be well-known to us. In my opinion, and I believe experts generally agree on this, life and intelligence, should they exist elsewhere at all, should be highly human-like.

You see, essentially, the origins of life follow the same pattern, just as it is with atoms, molecules or macromolecules. There are fundamental laws of physics that apply invariably in each case. These laws have been thoroughly researched and explained. Now all you need is the right environment that would enable a process like that to start.

For example, an atom of hydrogen that originates in a galaxy located millions of parsecs away from us that is hundreds of millions of light years away is absolutely identical to a hydrogen atom that originates in our Solar System. Because fundamental laws are universal.

And its the same with the fundamental laws that govern the origins of life, including the fundamental laws of evolution. These are universal, so all living things should have the same composition, and living organisms should look like the ones we encounter on Earth.

RT: Could these life forms youre talking about develop into a civilization?

AF: Primarily, they can develop intelligence. I think it is possible, because, apparently, there is some regular pattern that life inevitably develops intelligence, if only there is enough time, and intelligence leads to civilization.

However, this is a very long process. Mind you, the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. Four billion years ago, it was already suitable for life forms, and in fact, that is how long ago initial indications of life date back to.

But evolution takes a long time. Homo sapiens originated 200,000 years ago, but it was only 40,000 years ago that modern humans came about, the culture-bearing humans that you and I belong to.

By the way, their genesis was a paradox, too, as they emerged on Earth very quietly, and then they immediately spread all over the vast area from the Cape of Good Hope to China. Apparently, there are some laws that we still dont know in detail.

RT: As a scientist, would you guarantee one hundred per cent that we will discover life?

AF: Yes. And I will explain why. You see, there is this rational, if not purely scientific, outlook on the universe: a process can either be unique, or, if there is at least one similar occurrence, then it is a regular phenomenon.

For some time, scientists believed that the Solar System is something unique, but nowadays we find that most stars have planets. Furthermore, the formation of planets is an inevitable process which occurs when a giant molecular cloud forms into a star. About a thousand planets located around different stars have been discovered to this date. Over 500 stars are known to have planets. A million planets are projected to be discovered within the next ten years.

Moreover, some of the recently discovered planets not only resemble the Earth by composition, but also seem to have oxygen. And oxygen necessarily indicates the presence of life. So, planets are a regular phenomenon.

Meanwhile, the universe consists of about a hundred billion galaxies, and each of them has roughly a hundred billion stars. These are immense multitudes. Almost all stars might have their planets weve already discovered a thousand of them and some of those planets, be it 10 per cent or even one per cent, might be suitable for the origin of life.

RT: By the time the Earth runs out of its resources and they definitely will be depleted some day, perhaps in a few billion years do you think there is a chance that humankind will be able to inhabit other planets?

AF: I see what you are talking about. Im not an expert on this, although I do have a feeling that life is generally organized in such a way that any species exists for a certain limited period of time. It is highly possible that humans are no exception.

Environmental conditions on Earth changed at least five times in the 250 million years that we are able to trace back, with up to 90 per cent of all living organisms becoming extinct, and earthly flora and fauna changing completely. Some hypotheses maintain that it was caused by an asteroid or a comet hitting the Earth. But Im more inclined to think that the Earth and the Solar System, or even the universe in general is something of a chemistry lab, a giant factory with its own workings, and certain species may only be designed to exist for a limited period of time. And that may also be the case with humans.

I find it rather difficult to envisage that humans will be travelling to other stars and migrating to other planets on a massive scale. In terms of our immediate prospects, the primary destination for human colonization will be the Moon. I might not live long enough to see this, but you definitely will, as it will happen within the next 20 to 25 years.

Three global powers the United States, the European Union and China are already competing to set up the first lunar observatory and hence the first colony on the Moon. Later on, people might colonize Mars. Chinas ideas of populating Mars with millions of people and giving them land seem nave to me, although the Chinese are capable of a lot. In any case, I doubt we will be travelling to other stars.

RT: How will locating conscious life forms on other planets help us?

AF: I do not know. For some time I stuck with the idea that we were alone in the universe, that we were unique. It seemed like the desire to discover extraterrestrial life forms was essentially a desire to answer some of the questions that troubled us all: questions related to health, technology and survival.

If we do indeed discover a civilization outside of Earth, a highly advanced civilization, we may gain some technology from them. This technology would be fantastic. Look at how the world has changed over the past 40 to 50 years. The changes were radical. People who remember the first airplanes taking off and the first televisions are still alive, and on the other hand, we have the internet. It has only been 50 years.

Now imagine meeting a civilization that is ahead of us by 100 or 200 years. The discoveries they must have made are unimaginable. This is especially relevant considering that technologies can be transmitted to us via signals.

RT: What sort of signals would those be?

AF: The area of science that searches for extra-terrestrial civilizations is divided into three parts. We have the SETI the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, the CETI communication with extra-terrestrials, and METI the message for extra-terrestrial intelligence. The best way to do it, I think, is by radio waves. It is the most powerful transmitter we have. Moreover, it has been tested. Astronomers are looking into this; they are looking for signals from extraterrestrials and using capacities we have here on Earth to send signals to outer space.

RT: Do you believe in aliens?

AF: In what sense? Do I believe they have visited us?

RT: That, and their existence.

AF: If there is intelligence and a civilization outside Earth, then we would call that civilization extra-terrestrial. But the term is used quite differently by the public, to refer to phenomena that we supposedly observed here on Earth. That, I do not believe in. I know for a fact that it didnt happen.

The thing is and the public might find this interesting the USSR was the only country in its day to host a grand experiment. The General Staff had issued an order to various units under the Defence Ministrys command to report any unidentified flying objects, they were called unidentified atmosphere phenomena back then.

The program was called the net. It was divided into two parts, the Defence Ministrys net looked for what might be traces of new types of weaponry, the other net, the so-called AN Net looked for phenomena previously unknown to humankind. For more than 20 years, people across one sixth of the Earths territory even more than that because we had military units stationed outside the USSR at certain points all those people monitored the skies for UFOs every single day.

They detected approximately 1,000 unusual phenomena, only two of which remain unexplained to this day. The rest were either man-made or natural. Some of them were amazing. You would not believe me if I told you about some of the things that were found. People didnt know such things could happen. Airplanes, abandoned by pilots, flew on for days, a missile was once detected that bypassed a passenger jet by a mere two meters. We saw something of the sort later on, in Ukraine.

I believe it has been proven quite convincingly that extraterrestrials never visited us. It makes sense, too. The way the public is thinking I am sure that if we were using horses to get around rather than planes, they would think aliens were visiting us on horseback. Certain phenomena are interpreted into a myth this way.

RT: We recently spoke to Jill Tarter who works with SETI. She told us that if aliens do indeed exist, their civilization should be much older and more advanced than ours. She said aliens would not contact us.

AF: There is a joke we have: the fact that extra-terrestrials are not contacting us proves that they exist and they are smart. But seriously, we know that there is no speed faster than the speed of light. It takes light from the star closest to Earth four years to reach us. It would take us centuries to devise a means of transportation that would allow us to travel this distance.

We know for a fact now that the star closest to us is devoid of life. The next star, the Gliese, is 20 light years away. It would take us millennia to think of a way to get there. Physical star travel is impossible. That is my belief. We would have to revise the whole science of physics. Miracles do not happen in science. They do happen, but are a different sort of miracle to what we are used to.

RT: An asteroid passed very close to Earth several days ago it was only 12,000 kilometers away. Today everyone is talking about the risk of the Earth colliding with another asteroid, the Apophis. Do you think this is a real threat?

AF: It is risky. First of all, I want to tell you that asteroids and comets played a very important role in the birth of life. Remember, the solar system is essentially a giant chemistry lab. Comets and asteroids transport matter across this lab, including, some suspect, organic matter. They have often collided with Earth. The Earth is dotted with asteroid craters. We call them space wounds.

Some scientists believe that the disappearance of entire species of plants and animals has to do with asteroids. It happened 250 million, 50 million and 25 million years ago.

Now, the Apophis asteroid is not anything out of the ordinary. Whats more, you and I may have seen something of the sort happen twice: we saw Jupiter collide with an asteroid. Jupiter is Earths lucky star. It is our defender: if it were not for Jupiter, all those asteroids would hit us. The moon has a lot of asteroid imprints and a comet recently flew into the sun, so there are some examples for you.

The science that studies asteroids on a collision trajectory with Earth, which is approximately 10% of all asteroids, states that they do represent a threat. But back to the Apophis: I think we do not have to worry about it. It will come as close to Earth as a geostationary satellite does in 2029. It will be the brightest object in our sky.

Then, in 2032, it will return but it will not pass as close. It is quite a large asteroid, about 0.5 kilometers in diameter. There is a chance of it striking Earth, that is, if it hits the so-called keyhole. The Earth has two of these keyholes in its gravitational field, each one approximately the size of the asteroid. But I do not think the Apophis will hit one. We will be able to affect its trajectory after all.

RT: How? Can we destroy it?

AF: Experiments conducted on Earth have demonstrated that asteroids are destructible. We will need a stronger force than what we used in the experiment to destroy it, however. Then again, we have been warned in advance which is very important.

We could affect its trajectory gradually, pushing it into the gravity field of another planet. Then, after making several revolutions, it will no longer be on a collision trajectory. These ideas have never been implemented but I think they are plausible. We shouldnt have a problem doing it, even at our technological level.

http://rt.com/news/inevitably-laws-soon-discover/

Salyut
8th July 2011, 03:08
I'm a hardline skeptic but damned if I don't love me some forteana for entertainment...


The thing is – and the public might find this interesting – the USSR was the only country in its day to host a grand experiment. The General Staff had issued an order to various units under the Defence Ministry’s command to report any unidentified flying objects, they were called unidentified atmosphere phenomena back then.

The program was called “the net”. It was divided into two parts, the Defence Ministry’s net looked for what might be traces of new types of weaponry, the other net, the so-called “AN Net” looked for phenomena previously unknown to humankind. For more than 20 years, people across one sixth of the Earth’s territory – even more than that because we had military units stationed outside the USSR at certain points – all those people monitored the skies for UFOs every single day.

They detected approximately 1,000 unusual phenomena, only two of which remain unexplained to this day. The rest were either man-made or natural. Some of them were amazing. You would not believe me if I told you about some of the things that were found. People didn’t know such things could happen. Airplanes, abandoned by pilots, flew on for days, a missile was once detected that bypassed a passenger jet by a mere two meters. We saw something of the sort later on, in Ukraine.

I believe it has been proven quite convincingly that extraterrestrials never visited us. It makes sense, too. The way the public is thinking… I am sure that if we were using horses to get around rather than planes, they would think aliens were visiting us on horseback. Certain phenomena are interpreted into a myth this way.


That's some creepypasta shit right there.

I know an Israeli* who makes his living, while working on grad school, translating Russian stuff to Hebrew/English (lots of hysterically bad scifi novels and published fan fiction - Russia apparently has odd copyright laws or something. I'll see if I can't dig up some more information on this AN-net thing.

ÑóẊîöʼn
10th July 2011, 13:36
AF: What Im going to tell you is a paradox. The form will definitely be well-known to us. In my opinion, and I believe experts generally agree on this, life and intelligence, should they exist elsewhere at all, should be highly human-like.

You see, essentially, the origins of life follow the same pattern, just as it is with atoms, molecules or macromolecules. There are fundamental laws of physics that apply invariably in each case. These laws have been thoroughly researched and explained. Now all you need is the right environment that would enable a process like that to start.

For example, an atom of hydrogen that originates in a galaxy located millions of parsecs away from us that is hundreds of millions of light years away is absolutely identical to a hydrogen atom that originates in our Solar System. Because fundamental laws are universal.

And its the same with the fundamental laws that govern the origins of life, including the fundamental laws of evolution. These are universal, so all living things should have the same composition, and living organisms should look like the ones we encounter on Earth.

This is a pathetic argument for humanoid aliens. Doesn't he realise it's the same "fundamental laws of evolution" that means there is an explosive amount of diversity on this planet alone? It's the height of anthropocentric arrogance to assume that just because intelligence is an evolutionary asset, that intellligence will necessarily come to resemble us.

Sure, hydrogen atoms are the same everywhere. But hydrogen atoms don't evolve.

Dr Mindbender
10th July 2011, 16:11
His statement might not be as far fetched as it seems. Even though the hope of life on Mars is all but gone, its been long believed that there lies liquid water oceans under the icy crust of the moon Europa. Its possible that down near the worlds core volcanic activity may make the oceans warm enough to sustain complex marine life.

Obviously I'm referring less to intelligent life, and more to life in principle. Either way, if we conclude that life is on more than 1 world in the same stellar system, the obvious follow on conclusion is that the galaxy, let alone the universe must be absolutely teeming with life.

With Europa though, problem is getting a probe there to get through the ice and find it...

Kiev Communard
10th July 2011, 16:20
For some time, scientists believed that the Solar System is something unique, but nowadays we find that most stars have planets.

Except that the majority of these planet systems are totally different from that of us, and it is therefore naive to assume that the possible life forms that might reside on some of these planets (for instance, on one of 3 apparently terrestrial planets situated in the Goldilocks zones of their stars which were recently discovered by the Kepler Mission) should necessarily be similar to the living beings of the Earth. I am not even speaking about possible sentients (that is fairly different question), I am talking about even plausible alien microbes that might be completely different from their Terran cousins.

Salyut
11th July 2011, 01:50
His statement might not be as far fetched as it seems. Even though the hope of life on Mars is all but gone, its been long believed that there lies liquid water oceans under the icy crust of the moon Europa. Its possible that down near the worlds core volcanic activity may make the oceans warm enough to sustain complex marine life.


Lots of the moons of the outer solar system are thought to have internal oceans - Ganymede, Titan, Enceladus, etc. I'd say the possibility of stuff being in them is pretty good.

ÑóẊîöʼn
16th July 2011, 00:44
Lots of the moons of the outer solar system are thought to have internal oceans - Ganymede, Titan, Enceladus, etc. I'd say the possibility of stuff being in them is pretty good.

An important consideration is that any life-bearing icy moon will need a substantial rocky core with sufficient radiogenic or tidal heating to support the vulcanology needed for the potentially life-bearing "black smoker"-type geological formations necessary.

This becomes less likely the further out of the Solar system one goes, due to the heavier silicate and metallic particles falling further inward during the Solar system's formation.

Dr Mindbender
16th July 2011, 14:45
An important consideration is that any life-bearing icy moon will need a substantial rocky core with sufficient radiogenic or tidal heating to support the vulcanology needed for the potentially life-bearing "black smoker"-type geological formations necessary.

This becomes less likely the further out of the Solar system one goes, due to the heavier silicate and metallic particles falling further inward during the Solar system's formation.

Jupiter on the other hand is regarded as the solar system's 'vacuum cleaner' due to its immense gravity. Its likely a lot of the metal particles you speak of would have gravitated towards there.

Forward Union
16th July 2011, 15:05
This is a pathetic argument for humanoid aliens. Doesn't he realise it's the same "fundamental laws of evolution" that means there is an explosive amount of diversity on this planet alone? It's the height of anthropocentric arrogance to assume that just because intelligence is an evolutionary asset, that intellligence will necessarily come to resemble us.

Sure, hydrogen atoms are the same everywhere. But hydrogen atoms don't evolve.

I've read better arguments though.

And it depends largely on what you consider "resemblance" to mean. It's highly probable for example, that evolved life will have many of the same attributes as intelligent mammals, a few legs (quite possibly two), as well as eyes, something resembling the head - torso - limbs formation, likely hair, fur or feathers to protect the skin from the cold and hot. A mouth to intake nutrients, etc. I think that a creature with these things could be said to "resemble" a human. On some level. Whether it would look human, or ape like, who knows.

Intelligent life could come in the form of a hive species as well, whose individual members are relatively non-sentient, but collectively capable of building advanced structures and technologies to protect themselves. I don't think such organisms would look humanoid.

Dr Mindbender
16th July 2011, 15:22
It also largely depends what you class as 'life'. Its been suggested that our first encounter of aliens could be electronic or synthetic AI beings. If sentience and autonomy are all that is required for a being to be classed as intelligent i see no reason to restrict the definition of life to flesh beings. For that matter I wouldn't rule out AI programs either. Maybe contrary to our preconceptions first contact will come through cyberspace, rather than actual space.

ÑóẊîöʼn
16th July 2011, 17:48
I've read better arguments though.

And it depends largely on what you consider "resemblance" to mean. It's highly probable for example, that evolved life will have many of the same attributes as intelligent mammals, a few legs (quite possibly two), as well as eyes, something resembling the head - torso - limbs formation, likely hair, fur or feathers to protect the skin from the cold and hot. A mouth to intake nutrients, etc. I think that a creature with these things could be said to "resemble" a human. On some level. Whether it would look human, or ape like, who knows.

Those attributes you mentioned can be found on a lot of things besides "intelligent mammals". Indeed stuff like legs, eyes and heads can be found on animals as diverse as fruit flies, octopi and reptiles.

The person I quoted considered "resemblance" in this case to mean, and I quote, "highly human-like". Since stuff like mouths, eyes and so on aren't exactly unique to humans, I took his statement to mean that aliens have a high chance of being anthropoid.

Manic Impressive
16th July 2011, 18:05
If the universe is infinite then intelligent life definitely exists by the simple fact that there are a finite number of different atoms. So in infinity these atoms would come together in a limited amount of ways and eventually you would not only find other life forms but also nearly exact replicas of earth and humans and maybe even me and you maybe even Revleft. That all supposes that the universe is infinite though.

Ose
16th July 2011, 18:53
[...] That all supposes that the universe is infinite though.

I think we should stick to the observable universe for now, which is finite. As far as we know, nothing outside it can exist in a way that is meaningful to us. I think.

My issue here is with the whole 'highly human-like' thing. Even if there are some kind of universal laws of evolution, any extra-terrestrial life would have had to adapt to different conditions (if perhaps only slightly) from those on earth. The application of these laws to different conditions will necessarily yield a different result.

I'm not sure that 10^22-ish stars in the universe is a sufficient number to make it probable that ET humanoids exist.

Revy
17th July 2011, 06:48
This is a pathetic argument for humanoid aliens. Doesn't he realise it's the same "fundamental laws of evolution" that means there is an explosive amount of diversity on this planet alone? It's the height of anthropocentric arrogance to assume that just because intelligence is an evolutionary asset, that intellligence will necessarily come to resemble us.

Sure, hydrogen atoms are the same everywhere. But hydrogen atoms don't evolve.

Nobody ever says aliens look human. It's the height of anthropocentric arrogance to think that simply being bipedal, having arms and legs, and having a head makes you "humanoid". Do the "Greys" look like us? Absolutely not. If you actually saw one you would not be thinking it looked like a human. But "humanoid" apparently is often used in the sense of body type. Humans are bipedal for a reason (it is advantageous in several ways), and thinking about that will show you the reason why aliens could often also take a similar form.

Seems like this whole idea "aliens MUST look very different and have a very different body type" is just now a dogmatic idea. Instead of respecting both possibilities (aliens with different and similar appearances) we're supposed to discount the idea of bipedal aliens based only on conjecture. The subject of extraterrestrials doesn't come with much definitive proof, so discussing it as if there were absolute truths is ridiculous.

Jimmie Higgins
17th July 2011, 08:16
People have been seeing "ghosts" "spirits" "wild animalistic mountain-men" "angels" and now "aliens" as far back as there is recorded history. This to me, suggests it is much much more likely that humans just tend to interpret unexplained things in certain ways. We are more sensitive to recognizing the human face and form than other objects and this is why humans can see a (sideways) face in shapes like this : )

It is also why when it is dark and you are a little on edge, you might see a coat on a hanger and jump, thinking that someone is standing there.

I'll grant that there are many things that we do not know about in this world and can not explain, but I think given the scope of the universe, and the brief amount of time we are on the planet, and the fraction of a fraction of time that we have been able to actually send and revive signals or even look that far into space... really the idea that there is another conscious life out there that not only can find us but has been secretly visiting... is just too much of a stretch of logic.

We don't have any evidence of alien life (no radio signals no nothing) but we have plenty of evidence that people throughout history have seen amazing hallucinations (and functioning, "normal" people, not just crazies or people under stress or under the influence of something) that were totally convincing and seemed real to the people experiencing them. Alien life is possible but I don't know how probable it is... that we could contact it if it exists outside of out solar system, that we would exist at the same time, that other life could become intelligent in a way that w have the means to read and decipher remote communications or that they or us could physically reach the other from a different solar system is even less probable.

black magick hustla
17th July 2011, 10:35
-snip

ÑóẊîöʼn
17th July 2011, 14:40
Nobody ever says aliens look human. It's the height of anthropocentric arrogance to think that simply being bipedal, having arms and legs, and having a head makes you "humanoid". Do the "Greys" look like us? Absolutely not. If you actually saw one you would not be thinking it looked like a human. But "humanoid" apparently is often used in the sense of body type. Humans are bipedal for a reason (it is advantageous in several ways), and thinking about that will show you the reason why aliens could often also take a similar form.

The problem with that is even within bipedalism, there are lots of different ways of going about it, all contingent on the evolutionary history of the animal concerned. Let me show you a slide from a talk that the developmental biologist PZ Myers gave (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/a_skeptical_look_at_aliens.php) on the very subject:

http://1.2.3.11/bmi/scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2011/07/TAM2011_pzm.005-002.jpg

Those animals are all bipeds, except the mantis, which was the closest thing in the arthropod world that PZ could find to a bipedal stance. Note the diversity, and also the enormous potential for even more of it. As PZ says, you wouldn't mistake any for the other even in a dark room.

Even compared to Earthly life, "Greys" (what a an incredibly fucking boring concept for an alien species, by the way) are startlingly humanoid.


Seems like this whole idea "aliens MUST look very different and have a very different body type" is just now a dogmatic idea. Instead of respecting both possibilities (aliens with different and similar appearances) we're supposed to discount the idea of bipedal aliens based only on conjecture. The subject of extraterrestrials doesn't come with much definitive proof, so discussing it as if there were absolute truths is ridiculous.

If you'd actually read my arguments, you would see that I make reference to the wild variety of life on Earth in order to support my arguments. The diversity of terrestrial life is not a conjecture, and it's ludicrous to assume that alien life would resemble Earthly life by simple virtue of the fact that the alien life will have evolved in a different environment and will have had a completely different evolutionary history.

The arguments in favour of non-humanoid aliens are based on the palpable diversity of life on Earth. The arguments in favour of humanoid aliens are based on a combination of hasty generalisations, wishful thinking, and a misunderstanding of evolution, which is a contingent process - it has no "target" of humanoid or even intelligent life.


People have been seeing "ghosts" "spirits" "wild animalistic mountain-men" "angels" and now "aliens" as far back as there is recorded history. This to me, suggests it is much much more likely that humans just tend to interpret unexplained things in certain ways. We are more sensitive to recognizing the human face and form than other objects and this is why humans can see a (sideways) face in shapes like this : )

It is also why when it is dark and you are a little on edge, you might see a coat on a hanger and jump, thinking that someone is standing there.

I'll grant that there are many things that we do not know about in this world and can not explain, but I think given the scope of the universe, and the brief amount of time we are on the planet, and the fraction of a fraction of time that we have been able to actually send and revive signals or even look that far into space... really the idea that there is another conscious life out there that not only can find us but has been secretly visiting... is just too much of a stretch of logic.

I don't think anyone was talking about the aliens actually visiting us.


We don't have any evidence of alien life (no radio signals no nothing) but we have plenty of evidence that people throughout history have seen amazing hallucinations (and functioning, "normal" people, not just crazies or people under stress or under the influence of something) that were totally convincing and seemed real to the people experiencing them. Alien life is possible but I don't know how probable it is... that we could contact it if it exists outside of out solar system, that we would exist at the same time, that other life could become intelligent in a way that w have the means to read and decipher remote communications or that they or us could physically reach the other from a different solar system is even less probable.

The fact that we haven't detected signals is not conclusive. It does not necessarily mean that aliens do not exist, in fact due to something called the inverse-square law its entirely possible that there are signals out there, but they are just too weak for us to pick up (yet). Or maybe the aliens in question are simply more discriminatory about sending out their signals, and use wires and/or lasers rather than omnidirectional radio to communicate.


-snip

Uh, thanks?