"Promising hints of life on distant planet"

Talking about intergalactic distances....we all know light speed doesn't cut it, and going faster than light speed is not possible according to physics.

HOWEVER, one thing that physics does allow, is for space itself to go faster than light. According to our current expanding universe theory, this is happening all the time.

So one crazy sci-fi method of FTL travel is to find a way to move and direct space itself. Aka I am on a moving sidewalk, I do a casual walk, but because teh sidewalk can carry me, I go significantly faster. Normally that adage breaks down near light speeds, but if the treadmill is space itself...we might be able to go significantly faster than light.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BUT....if we are talking an advanced civilization such as ours, capable of going to space or at least communicating with it, that also requires access to certain materials. Part of our success in the modern era was access to a HUGE abundance of stored energy in the form of coal and fossil fuels....born out from geologic conditions and the wealth of creatures that came before us. This might actually be the folly of a species that gets intelligence "too early" in a planet's life cycle, there just may not be enough stored energy around to kick off an industrial era.

Likewise take silicon (sand) for example. Without the abundance of that material on earth, we would not have been able to construct the ubiquitous computer networks we have. Though that said, there are other materials computers could be fashioned from, and I mean we did a whole lot with computers (go to the moon) before they were wide spread. So even with a more limited supply of said materials we might have made it to 1960s technology, but resource shortages could have prevented a push toward the modern information age.
Kinda makes you wonder what resources we don't have in abundance that a culture developing elsewhere might consider to be an obvious essential to cultural or technological development. Getting too caught up on what worked for us to the extent of assuming it's what any civilisation would need may be too narrow a view of the subject.
 

Kinda makes you wonder what resources we don't have in abundance that a culture developing elsewhere might consider to be an obvious essential to cultural or technological development. Getting too caught up on what worked for us to the extent of assuming it's what any civilisation would need may be too narrow a view of the subject.
A little story by Harry Turtledove, that's somewhat adjacent to your post.

 

To the question of "Is civilization inevitable?"

If we assume that intelligent life is a given on a world (certainly a bold assumption) than will that intelligent life inevitably form a civilization?

First, you would have to assume a certain form of social structure. A super intelligent alligator would be a badass hunter, but its still a solitary creature that wouldn't really build up anything or coordinate with other fellows. Though perhaps one sign of such intelligence in these creatures is that they force social structures because they recognize its utility, even if their instincts follow a more solitary path. Though imagine the constant infighting such a race might experience, we have enough trouble getting along and we are instinctively born to socialize and form bonds and connections. Imagine a race trying to build structure and coordinating resources when in their hearts they are solitary creatures?.... it just might not be feasible.

Then you would have to assume that species can either consume stationary "plants" like we can, or could find moving creatures that could be penned and cultivated (aka like a cow). Civilization started when humans settled in an area and stopped migrating constantly, if there isn't something stationary for us to live on, civilization is likely out of the question.

But if we assume that, then ultimately the benefits of civilization (better quality food, safety, resistance to predators, etc) would likely win the calculus of evolution, and become a natural consequence.

BUT....if we are talking an advanced civilization such as ours, capable of going to space or at least communicating with it, that also requires access to certain materials. Part of our success in the modern era was access to a HUGE abundance of stored energy in the form of coal and fossil fuels....born out from geologic conditions and the wealth of creatures that came before us. This might actually be the folly of a species that gets intelligence "too early" in a planet's life cycle, there just may not be enough stored energy around to kick off an industrial era.

Likewise take silicon (sand) for example. Without the abundance of that material on earth, we would not have been able to construct the ubiquitous computer networks we have. Though that said, there are other materials computers could be fashioned from, and I mean we did a whole lot with computers (go to the moon) before they were wide spread. So even with a more limited supply of said materials we might have made it to 1960s technology, but resource shortages could have prevented a push toward the modern information age.
Or everything would have taken longer. The steam engine allowed deeper mining because it could pump water in location not suitable to wind power and without the intermittency issues. electricity could also have done it, but we had not really discovered that at the time the early steam engines came online and even if the early properties of electricity were discovered at the same time it would be century before it could be industrially useful.
 

Talking about intergalactic distances....we all know light speed doesn't cut it, and going faster than light speed is not possible according to physics.

HOWEVER, one thing that physics does allow, is for space itself to go faster than light. According to our current expanding universe theory, this is happening all the time.

So one crazy sci-fi method of FTL travel is to find a way to move and direct space itself. Aka I am on a moving sidewalk, I do a casual walk, but because teh sidewalk can carry me, I go significantly faster. Normally that adage breaks down near light speeds, but if the treadmill is space itself...we might be able to go significantly faster than light.
Wormholes allow the crossing of the distances, as they are "non-local" or non-ftl ftl. Space has an interesting structure.
 

Well keep in mind though, time dilation is only relative to an observer. If I send a ship out on a 120 light year mission at 99% the speed of light, to a person on the ship it still takes 120+ years to get there, aka they will all be dead or it will decedents taking over the ship. Its just if that ship makes it back to earth, potentially thousands of years would have passed
No. That is not how it works. that is opposite of how it works, in fact.
 

Civilization, or "having cities" is an anthropomorphic definition; of course the most scientific answer is "we don't know" which is unpopular, except accurate. Part of the issue is that if you read a lot of science papers, sciences such as biology, astronomy, have seen a lot of changes recently, as old theories have turned out to be untrue. I personally hope there are other people out there, and think there probably are. We are the way the universe knows itself, it took billions of years for these moments to arrive, treasure them, and be kind.
 

We cannot build one of those either. We do not what would give it a stable ecology and we do not know enough about biology to know how to keep anything healthy in space long term.
We have the tech to build O’Neal style colonies, capture or move asteroids into LaGrange points, or build a ship with a spin section.

It would be expensive but could be done and mining the asteroid and turning it into a habitat could be lucrative.
 

We have the tech to build O’Neal style colonies, capture or move asteroids into LaGrange points, or build a ship with a spin section.

It would be expensive but could be done and mining the asteroid and turning it into a habitat could be lucrative.
We can probably move an asteroid where we want it. i am not convinced that we have the technological capability to make an asteroid a permanent livable space at this point. Everything we have and do on Earth is based on the idea that opening the door will not instantly kill everyone in the structure. What we have in space that takes that into account is exceedingly small and needs constant resupply from Earth.
 

We can probably move an asteroid where we want it. i am not convinced that we have the technological capability to make an asteroid a permanent livable space at this point. Everything we have and do on Earth is based on the idea that opening the door will not instantly kill everyone in the structure. What we have in space that takes that into account is exceedingly small and needs constant resupply from Earth.
Only because we gave up and never built the needed infrastructure. We could have kept going 50 years ago.
 

Remove ads

Top