Empire: Total War Heaven

I'd sure love to see some Zygons running around Britain, for sure. I just hope they're not like Blink, though.

There is one way to see aliens. Imagine yourself as one and you discover Earth.

There, imagine you discover Humans, say in:
- 150,000 B.C. or
- 150 B.C.
- 1500 A.D.
- 2010 A.D.
- 2250 A.D.
- 4000 A.D.

[This message has been edited by Tryhard (edited 05-05-2010 @ 05:42 AM).]

In (year) the visiting alien would be considered:

- 150,000 B.C. - maybe food?
- 150 B.C. - a god
- 1500 A.D. a demon or devil
- 2010 A.D. an attacker/invader
- 2250 A.D. someone to be exploited for profit
- 4000 A.D. a fellow star traveler?

(my opinions only)

- 150,000 B.C. : "What is this painting?"
- 150 B.C. : "Who is this Beowulf?"
- 1500 A.D. : "Who is this Jesus?"
- 2010 A.D. : "Who is this Clegg? And what is this Dotkor?"
- 2250 A.D. : "Why are they all implanting technology into themselves to become cyborgs?"
- 4000 A.D. : "Why did they dwindle to so few numbers?"

I watched the episode on Discovery when it premiered. There certainly has been a lot of focus on that one comment from a one hour episode. To stray from the OP a little bit, the series looks like it could be really good. The "Aliens" episode was much better than most of that pseudo-science malarkey they've been playing on Discovery and The History Channel recently, such as the 2012 junk and in essentially the same vein the Ancient Aliens series. At least the Stephen Hawking series took a reasonable physical approach to what aliens would be like, at least anatomically. Commentary about ethics and morality in the episode were kept to a bare minimum. The other two episodes of the series that have been released were about Relativity/Time Travel and the Birth and Formation of the Universe. I think the Aliens episode was really used as a hook to draw in viewers who would not generally be interested in lectures from a theoretical physicist.

BTW, Terikel, I love the viewpoint. Very clever.

And EoJ, if we make it another 2000 years, I suspect we will have survived the danger zone in our ability or likelihood to destroy ourselves. Maybe I'm just an optimist.

When Hawking says that the repercussions of aliens coming here would be like that of Columbus's coming to the Americas, does he mean that they're going to have a good time at first hanging out with a group of pretty cool natives, passing around the women and having a beach party and then a group of total dicks comes over to eat the really cool natives and the aliens? Then the aliens come back with more guys to civilize us for our own good and make us worship the sky-god?

And by sheer luck they give us some nasty STD that makes your junk sentient. Except they also gave us another disease, not unlike the flesh eating virus, and now your privates are screaming day and night in pain, wanting to be cut off and die.

Maybe.

I think Hawking made a mistake guessing about the intentions of potential alien contact. There is no scientific facts or data to back up his scare-mongering, it's simply a wild guess.

He had a few days to think about what he was saying while he programmed it into his voice machine.

I saw the episode the day it appeared as well, and I think Hawking is a lunatic; intelligent, but crazy.

For one, the only type of life we know of is life on Earth. We've looked everywhere in our solar system for signs of life, and the only celestial body with any remote possibility of having the conditions possible for life is Europa, a tiny moon nearly half the size of our moon orbiting the largest planet in our galaxy, Jupiter.

Secondly, the possibility of liquid water underneath Europa is entirely conjectural and is very unsupported. For starters, Earth's crust is 4-7 miles thick. Europa is not even half the size of our moon, and Hawking thinks it has a layer of ice, not even a crust mind you, that is about ten times (50 miles) thicker than Earth's? You have to be kidding me.

And thirdly, scientists, biologists, and physicists have all concurred that the probability for a planet in this universe to have the conditions necessary for life is one out of 10^128. That's 10x10x10x10... and do that about 124 more times. Basically put 128 0's behind the 10. Guess how many ATOMS, not planets are in the universe? 10^70. These are numbers our brain cannot even fathom. Remember, 10^128 divided by 10^70 is 10^58.

I'm sorry, but against these odds, I can tell you in full confidence right now: we ARE alone.

And thirdly, scientists, biologists, and physicists have all concurred that the probability for a planet in this universe to have the conditions necessary for life is one out of 10^128.

I'm not entirely sure where you got that equation. Not only have I never seen it before, I have seen much that runs in direct conflict with it. After all, people like Carl Sagan were arguing long ago that Earth wasn't terrible exceptional, and that was before we saw just how many rocky planets there are (Way more than previously thought).

Actually, it's a recurring number, I've found. While at the moment I can't think of any sources off the top of my head, you could always google it. And of course a number that large is extremely difficult to conceive, so there may be variants to it. However, it is possible to be certain that the ballpark number is very nearly correct. In fact, my sister's astronomy professor told it to his class. Although, that's not my original source.

And thirdly, scientists, biologists, and physicists have all concurred that the probability for a planet in this universe to have the conditions necessary for life is one out of 10^128. That's 10x10x10x10... and do that about 124 more times. Basically put 128 0's behind the 10. Guess how many ATOMS, not planets are in the universe? 10^70. These are numbers our brain cannot even fathom. Remember, 10^128 divided by 10^70 is 10^58.

I'm sorry, but against these odds, I can tell you in full confidence right now: we ARE alone.

Unless you show a source for those numbers it must be assumed you just made them up. I normally don't post on heavengames, but I'm interested in astronomy and I've never seen anything like the numbers you posted. I also searched google and it only came up with this

The Universe is suspected to have around 1 spetillion stars with a conservative estimate of 3 planets per star, which would obviously give us 3 septillion planets with life.

If your saying that the Earth is the only planet with life on it you'd basically be saying that the likelihood of life in the universe is .000,000,000,000,000,000,000,33% (this gives us .99, which is close enough). Another fact that needs to be looked at is, we, as humans, still only have a rudimentary understanding of the size and scope of the universe, which would mean that the number of stars and planets could be much greater then the numbers I've presented (though to be fair, it might be much less then what we currently think).

So honestly unless you can show where you got your numbers your basically saying that life on Earth was just an EXTREMELY unlikely statistical anomaly. And if your going to bring up religion, I just have one question, why would God create such a huge Universe (156 billion light-years wide)? We as humans have almost no hope (probably less then the decimal I posted previously) of ever being able to search just 1% of that space.

So honestly, looking at all these basic numbers and doing some simple math, I would venture to say it's almost impossible for Earth to be the only planet with life (unless you really believe that the likelihood of life in the Universe is just.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,33%)

[This message has been edited by Rizko (edited 05-15-2010 @ 06:16 AM).]

Like I said, I've heard the number from about 3 sources, including a biology professor. While I can't confirm the first two, I can confirm the professor.

Secondly, whether that number is exact or not does not change the fact that the chance of planets habitable by living organisms (i.e., has massive water supply, naturally formed ozone layer to prevent them from frying up, perfectly balanced set of atmospheric gases, the right temperature - between 0°C-100°C - for liquid water, and a stable crust to prevent large-scale and endless earthquakes and volcano eruptions) is extremely, ridiculously minute. Not a single planet in our solar system has any one of those attributes, and as far as we know, most extra-solar planets are gaseous, and those that are rocky more resemble Venus than Earth. Yet we somehow imagine they can sustain life?

And, though I never did bring God into this argument, I believe God made the universe for us to enjoy: to enjoy looking at its beauty, amazing power, and immense vastness. To enjoy learning more and more every day about our tiny speck of dirt's place in this gigantic celestial playground. For early explorers and seafarers to map the skies so they would not lose their way in torrential seas. And for us to one day visit its vast reaches, technology permitting.

I am not about to debate anyone about why I believe in God, but I will put it simply: evolution has no empirical evidence, only preconceived ideas about what fossils should be. Whether you want to believe this or not is your choice and I am not prepared to get into a debate, especially not on this website, because I know from the onset neither of us will renounce our beliefs. Therefore, please remove God from this discussion because I never brought it up and if you don't believe he exists, why even attack Him?

I believe Rizko just brought God up as part of a rhetorical question.

Whether you want to believe this or not is your choice and I am not prepared to get into a debate, especially not on this website, because I know from the onset neither of us will renounce our beliefs.

Past experience suggests that such discussions, while they can be interesting, change no one's mind, regardless of the arguments used.

[This message has been edited by Pitt (edited 05-15-2010 @ 12:18 PM).]

Like I said, I've heard the number from about 3 sources, including a biology professor. While I can't confirm the first two, I can confirm the professor.

what was this professor's name? if you're not going to provide sources that we can confirm, you can at least allow us to evaluate the credentials of your single source.

Secondly, whether that number is exact or not does not change the fact that the chance of planets habitable by living organisms (i.e., has massive water supply, naturally formed ozone layer to prevent them from frying up, perfectly balanced set of atmospheric gases, the right temperature - between 0°C-100°C - for liquid water, and a stable crust to prevent large-scale and endless earthquakes and volcano eruptions) is extremely, ridiculously minute. Not a single planet in our solar system has any one of those attributes,

um, actually one of the eight planets (or nine) has one of those attributes. actually, it has all of them, believe it or not.

i don't know if you're living on a space station or something, but i happen to be living on that planet.

so if you're going to be extrapolating the probability of life existing based on the make-up our solar system (which is exactly what you were trying to do), then that means that, what, one out of every eight planets will support life?

Pitt, that's exactly why I said it. I'm here to make friends and discuss a game, not to debate life's biggest question.

Meteora, I apologize for my poor wording. But to assume that 1/8 planets has all the attributes required to support life is - I'll put it bluntly - a massive extrapolation to be making on such small data. But no planet we have observed (besides Earth), in this solar system or in others, has any one of those attributes necessary for life.

Upon closer examination of Mars, it has been concluded that, though there are traces of liquid water present on Mars, there is not nearly enough, and whether there ever was enough is extremely questionable, to support a population. In addition, most of the water is contaminated with toxic gases deadly to living organisms.

On Europa, it has not been concluded, but it is a generally agreed upon fact that Europa is an icy rock without a core; meaning, no heat source and therefore no liquid water.

Either way, only Earth shows any signs of ever having supported life in the past, and is certainly the only planet that supports life in the present.

Quoted from TK:

only Earth shows any signs of ever having supported life in the past, and is certainly the only planet that supports life in the present.

As far as we know.

There are billions and billions of stars out there. We see many, but there are many more that we do not see. It is not an illogical assumption to think that some of those billions might have planets as does ours, and that of those, some might have what it takes to initiate the production of organic compounds, which in turn can lead to life.

It is rather foolhardy, on the other hand, to assume that all those billions and billions of stars- even the ones we cannot see- are all incapable of having planets that could support life as we know it, or even life that we do not know (not based on carbon).

Is there life out there? It will remain a question until such a time as human eyes have examined every single one of them and answered it, despite what we all write here.

[This message has been edited by Terikel Grayhair (edited 05-16-2010 @ 05:42 AM).]

These numbers are from Wikipedia, and while I can't really be bothered to track them down to a good source from the citations, I personally trust it:

Based on observations from the Hubble Space Telescope, there are at least 125 billion galaxies in the universe. It is estimated that at least ten percent of all sun-like stars have a system of planets, there are 6.25×10^18 stars with planets orbiting them in the universe. If even a billionth of these stars have planets supporting life, there are some 6.25×10^9 (billion) life-supporting planetary systems in the universe.

Pretty nifty.

Like I said, I've heard the number from about 3 sources, including a biology professor.

Well, I certainly trust an unknown, unnamed biology professor over Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagen.

Ha ha! Just kidding, I don't.

The problem is not only because the numbers don't make any sense when we don't have any data even close to what you are implying we have (We have detailed information on one planet in the habitable zone. Guess which one), it isn't only because giving statistical probability of life doesn't make any goddamn sense when we have such little understanding of the original formation of life and what we do know goes rather against the "statistical impossibility" argument you get, and it isn't only because that your post shows little understanding of how statistics work, how they are gotten, and their scientific application. It is simply because I find it very hard to believe that you remember that statistic without a single source to show where you got the number. To sum up, I think you are pulling the number out of your ass, and I will not stop thinking that until you give a reputable scientific source that gives the number you gave or a number very close to it.

[This message has been edited by Legio Yow (edited 05-15-2010 @ 05:14 PM).]

Harry Turtledove wrote a 4 book worldwar series where aliens visit us in 1141, see a knight upon his horse and since their culture/technology advances so much slower and more carefully than ours, this is what they assume they'd have to conquer in 1941, after all, how much could humans have advanced in only 800 years? Well they come back to find us with guns, tanks and airplanes and the northern civs (England, Germany, America,Japan, and the USSR fight them off and their conquest is resigned to the southern hemisphere,

Lab

[This message has been edited by Tittus Labienus (edited 05-16-2010 @ 04:39 AM).]

The reason I have not named the professor is not because he isn't a credible source, but rather because I don't think he would very much enjoy emails from random people criticizing him. On the other hand, he may not mind, but I'd honestly rather not take that chance.

Secondly, to assume that, since our solar system has one planet that has everything necessary for life, all solar systems on average should have one as well, is one heck of a massive assumption.

I do not think anyone here is getting the point that to have these defining characteristics of a planet that can support life is a minutely small chance.

My next point is that most scientists agree the majority of planets are gaseous, and that about 99% of objects orbiting stars are simply rocks of all sizes, including comets. In other words, 99% of everything orbiting a star cannot support life, and the majority of the few planets that can are likely to be gaseous. That leaves ONE, not THREE, rocky planets per star.

With this in mind, look at all our rocky neighbors. Mercury, Venus, and Mars are all extremely deadly to all known forms of life, are they not? Mercury and Mars are not within the area around the Sun required for a planet to have the correct temperature for liquid water to exist. And Venus has poisonous and toxic gases that would kill any living being instantaneously. But Earth is not only habitable for life, it nurtures life. And it has every defining characteristic necessary for life to not only exist, but to multiply.

So, what have we found? Well, let's take this a step further and assume that each star has only one rocky planet orbiting it, and each rocky planet has only one characteristic required for life to exist. This means we could terraform it, but that would require tons and tons of work. In other words, it is still inhabitable.

But let's take our assumption that each star has a rocky planet with one of these life-dependent characteristics. However, there still is no life on the planet.

The bottom line is this: until we find any conclusive evidence that there IS another planet out there that can support life, and there actually even is any life on it, we must assume we are alone. That is not to say anything is conclusive. However, that does not mean aliens are out there either. It simply means we don't know, but we do know it's extremely unlikely wherever we look.

So what have we learned today, kids?

Well, as far as we know, we are still the only planet in the known universe with the remote possibility of supporting life.

We also know that there are billions of other planets out there, however that simply means there are billions of types of planets; not billions of types of life.

It is also possible to conclude that the chances of a planet to be habitable to life at any point in its history is one of the smallest imaginable possibilities.

I'll leave you with this question: If there even is another planet habitable to life out there, will it even contain life?

The reason I have not named the professor is not because he isn't a credible source, but rather because I don't think he would very much enjoy emails from random people criticizing him. On the other hand, he may not mind, but I'd honestly rather not take that chance.

i don't think anyone was interested in emailing him so much as just looking up to see if he's published any articles himself and to see if they're related to the subject at all.

though my suspicion isn't that your source isn't credible, it's that you probably misheard/misinterpreted him (though your comments re evolution cause me to lean toward the first explanation, to be honest).

either way it doesn't really matter; until you can provide a verifiable source for your number, you might as well be making it up. considering that more than one forummer already went looking for verification for you and came up with nothing, my feeling is that you're either talking out your ass or you misheard/misremembered/misinterpreted the number and are making an innocent mistake.

[This message has been edited by Meteora (edited 05-16-2010 @ 05:56 PM).]

Like I said, I've heard the number from about 3 sources, including a biology professor.

I'm going to have to agree with Legio in asking for a credible source which I can check myself, as opposed to "some biology professor I know", particularly since most assesments of the question of alien life that I've seen say that while the chances of life arising on a planet are indeed small, the sheer number of galaxies, stars and planets in the universe means that it has probably occured in a number of places.

Secondly, whether that number is exact or not does not change the fact that the chance of planets habitable by living organisms (i.e., has massive water supply, naturally formed ozone layer to prevent them from frying up, perfectly balanced set of atmospheric gases, the right temperature - between 0°C-100°C - for liquid water, and a stable crust to prevent large-scale and endless earthquakes and volcano eruptions) is extremely, ridiculously minute. Not a single planet in our solar system has any one of those attributes,

I think you underestimate the reiliance of many forms of like and its ability to adapt to various different circumstances. Certainly if you include bacteria in your definition of life, then far more extreme environments can be tolerated. For example, various types of bacteria have been found in unpleasant environments such as Arctic permafrost, deep sea vents, the fuel rods in nuclear reactor core, anoxic, hydrogen sulphide containing waters such as the depths of the Black sea, oil wells and satellites returning from space.
Now granted, complex multicellular life requires a far narrower set of environmental conditions in order to survive, but as I said before, I think that the sheer number of planets mean that this is likely to have occurred in more than one place.

you also have to remember life does not have to be carbon based and could live hypotheticly in a world with liquid methane instead of water life could come in many forms

The question is not whether they can live in harsh environments, but whether there is, or was, an environment in which life could have arose.

There is nowhere on Earth where life could spontaneously arise. The Miller-Urey experiment was falsified, and the most recent experiment to create an environment in which life could have arose ended in disaster; all they produced was fermaldehyde and cyanide. Mind you, they actually used the "correct" conditions which scientists believe were on Earth 4.6 billion years ago.

Therefore, biogenesis of Earth remains yet a mystery, so how can we already jump to conclusions that life could have arisen here, let alone anywhere else? There is no evidence of these claims, it is merely conjecture. Just like punctuated equilibrium. It was invented to account for the lack of physical evidence of evolution, and its basis is that there is no evidence to support it. Look it up, I'm totally serious.

However you want to put it, the only form of life we know of is on Earth, and we are all carbon-based and dependent on water. Therefore, we can only be certain that other planets would have carbon-based water-dependent organisms. To say any other is possible is 100% conjecture. That is not science and does not belong in this discussion.

Quoted from Tk:

There is nowhere on Earth where life could spontaneously arise. The Miller-Urey experiment was falsified, and the most recent experiment to create an environment in which life could have arose ended in disaster; all they produced was fermaldehyde and cyanide. Mind you, they actually used the "correct" conditions which scientists believe were on Earth 4.6 billion years ago.

The fact that we don't know how it was done means we can't possibly predict (let alone predict a negative) where it might happen again, or in what form.

Quoted from Tk:

Therefore, biogenesis of Earth remains yet a mystery, so how can we already jump to conclusions that life could have arisen here, let alone anywhere else? There is no evidence of these claims, it is merely conjecture.

Actually I believe there's plenty of evidence of life on earth.