[edit] Human civilization is detectable from space pic
"A composite picture of Earth at night. Human civilization is detectable from space." this is the words under the Earthlights dmsp.jpg picture but says in Earth it says this "The Earth at night, a composite of DMSP/OLS ground illumination data on a simulated night-time image of the world. This image is not photographic and many features are brighter than they would appear to a direct observer." so the pictrues are not "real".i think something shold be done with this image in this article.Confront (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the assumption is that any observing civilization that made it all the way over here would likely have the technology to produce at least a similar image. Equazcion (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Source for "other unique factors"
There may also be other unique factors on which our civilization is dependent.[citation needed]
Who seriously believes this requires a citation? "You need some kind of proof to establish that something we do not know about could have an effect on this extremely complex issue in a way we have not noticed."
That's kind of the basis of science, isn't it? The idea that, on any given day, something you believe can be proven wrong with the right evidence? If this needs a 'citation,' that 'citation' needs to point to an article on the scientific principle... 12.19.84.33 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I just came in to say, radio technology is a relatively new technological achievement for humanity; I quickly checked wiki/radio and it was only developed only just over 100 years ago, which means (according to earth history) humans have been in their present form for about 200,000 years yet we only developed this radio technology in the last 100 (±50?) So there could be plenty of extraterrestrials who simply haven't spent 200,000 years evolving, no? And there are plenty of sources of 'unintelligent life' here on earth... but seriously, there could be anything that technically qualifies as life (bacteria) through aquatic life up to all the non-sentient life forms we have on earth, or even primitive hominids who just hasn't developed radio technology yet.
My one concern is, are there any naturally occurring radio waves? Maybe as a result of supernovae, pulsars, etc?
ps: just wanted to say i'm following, er 'watching' this per the checkbox above the 'save/show preview/show changes' buttons, I assume that will send me an email notification when someone else edits this discussion page?
And also I put my comment here because I wasn't sure if it should go in a new topic or not so I just put it here. Dave 01:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Dave 02:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC) autosine bot keeps adding stuff even tho i'm entering the 4 tildes.... Dave 02:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] A NEW (pair of) fact(s)
The following facts impinge upon the theism/atheism debate and this article and are simple arithmetical observations. A) (365+1/4)^2=3^7*61+9/16 and B) (365+1/4)^4= 17797577732+7^2/2^8. See the (currently last) section on verifiability of the Talk:Numerology page for a small tutorial on a simple procedure to get a calculator to demonstrate B, and the recent history there for, among other things, my handling of a dispute on whether this constitutes (disallowed) original research. My interpretation of these results (and extensions not dealt with because they do constitute research) is akin to an Old-Earth Creationism, though backed by natural processes from the scientific perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julzes (talk • contribs) 13:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- What does the behavior of the decimal representation of some numbers have to do with Theism/Deism? You could just as well claim that the astounding fact that the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter is exactly pi as a sign of design. And you are aware of the fact that the length of the day has changed significantly over time, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of the fact that the window of time in which 365+1/4 is and will continue to be (based upon an extrapolation) a fairly good approximation to our tropical year is three to four orders of magnitude smaller than the age of the Earth/Solar System/Universe, the same order of magnitude as the origin of homo sapiens, and two orders of magnitude greater than the origination of historical civilization (or the agricultural revolution). I can't accept your sentence regarding pi as having been given thoughtful consideration, though perhaps your knowledge is limited. I should point out that I personally am working from a non-traditional definition of God, and the Fermi Paradox article is where I would send you for a broad overview of the QUESTION.Julzes (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Oops! Forgot where I was, but it works. Keep up with the article.Julzes (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- My data source that forms the basis of the extrapolation just mentioned is the following sentence from "time: Lengths of years and months" in Britannica 2001: "Because the Earth's motion is perturbed by the gravitational attraction of other planets and because of an acceleration in precession, the tropical year decreases slowly, as shown by comparing its length at the end of the 19th century (365.242196 d) with that at the end of the 20th (365.242190 d)." A linear extrapolation allows one to conclude (making a key assumption and observingsignificant figures (the difference is between 0.000005 and 0.000007)) that the precise time that the value was precisely 365.25 days was something like a hundred thousand years ago, and a little look at the nearby fractional parts 2/7 and 2/9 and when those would be better chosen as small fraction approximants reveals a window of something like one million years, past to future. The key assumption is that things have not changed too much, allowing a linear extrapolation.Julzes (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- As for the specifics of the decimal representation--ignoring your pi comment--what if we were deliberately selected first to have ten fingers and then to run into these identities at the beginning of the space age?Julzes (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- A little more justification short of full notability (this is new): A is a nice symmetrical expression formed from the first six digits in a simple way (my unchecked result is that there are 2408 possible ways of properly forming a mixed fraction raised to an exponent using the six digits once each), B is connected as the square of A and has the nice obvious property regarding seven 7s and (I report) others. Anybody who wants to do advanced research and provide a source for me is encouraged to assess the year 1779 C.E. for RELATIVE importance. It can be done, but it will be tricky. I have enough to go with already, but a real study would be nice. And my working hypothesis strangely involves a foundational argument on American Exceptionalism involving the Yellowstone Caldera (the fact that it is reportedly near due to disrupt the Earth's climate and could cause a great deal of destruction and death immediately (when it does) if precautions are not taken).Julzes (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but now you are down to pink unicornism. Logically (as in strict logic) we cannot rule out anything. But your "result" is extremely brittle. It does not hold up if we consider a different number of significant digits (but the unicorn gave us two arms, two legs, and a head, so 5 digits it is!). It only works for a limited time (but the unicorn made sure that humans live in that time to deduce its existence). It only works in the decimal system (but then the unicorn gave us 20 fingers and toes so we would use a base-20 system ... ooops). And of course, given that there is an infinite number of mathematical expressions, and a very large number of small mathematical expressions, mining this vast store for coincidences will always yield a large crop. I think this is sheer nonsense. You may differ. But Wikipedia requires coverage in multiple reliable sources to include it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'm done fighting over your last sentence, and everyone including you has the right to his or her own opinion (for what I think of the rest of it). If you want more detail, click my contributions above and replace your name with mine in the web address line, as the best shortcut.Julzes (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- If you can tell me the number of hits in Britannica 2001 to a search of "Baha'i", then I will show you that that is my zip code (It doesn't know what to do with the apostrophe, and so "i" is registered). You are losing.Julzes (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Is this a reply to me and if yes, can you clarify? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes. I suppose I would have to buy you dinner near where I live and show you that the answer coincides with what is on my state ID, or else simply scan a copy of it with a lot of stuff blacked out. It just adds to the flexibility of my "result".Julzes (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have been treating a Britannica 2001 CD as a providential data source for some strange related research that I won't go into.Julzes (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I still fail to see your point. To restate mine more clearly: Yes, there are coincidences. In fact, there are so many that few of them are notable or significant. But notice how many things do not coincide. My birthday, squared, is not 12345! Or, looking at your data source, I'm quite ready to bet that the term "Buddha" does not appear exactly 666 times. If you have a nearly arbitrarily large statistical population, and filter it for somewhat rare events, you will get a nearly arbitrarily large set of rare events. If you do not have a clear a-priory definition of what constitutes a rare event, you cannot validly draw the conclusion that the coincidences you find are anything more than plain accidents. If you have such a definition, you can compare the number of events with the expected number, and then you may - or may not - be able to find something interesting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I was trying to add something. Nothing you are saying is particularly new to me, as I was an ASA with very high test scores, among other things. Now, what I was adding was a taste of my research because I found that you had an interest in holocaust denial. As a providential data source the source I mentioned prominently (as the sole response to query on a tenth item in sequence) produced the result "Profiat Duran". He was a Jewish guy long ago noted for his work critical of Christianity--he had been forced to convert, but continued his birth-religion in secret--which was published, burned, and then re-published posthumously (pseodonym Efod/Efodi, some longish birth name I don't recall). Please stop reacting so dogmatically with your statistics-related criticism. I am working on the issues you raise already.Julzes (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I omitted the fact that "Baha'i" was raised in a way related to this work that I am so vaguely referring to. It was not a mining expedition.Julzes (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- You are as important as I am, but your birthday does not seem to be as important as mine, according to my research.Julzes (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- 1052, a commonly assumed date for the beginning of the current era of Buddhism, comes up along with 2009 on the eighth item of the sequence; and 666 came a couple of times rapid-fire at another point in my research. The latter simply meant to me that I should quit the tobacco, and that is the last thing new about my research that anyone will hear from me first here.Julzes (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Statement removed
I've taken out the following from the section "They choose not to interact with us":
"Humans can hardly communicate with species living on earth who sharing similar genetics."
I was going to correct the grammar (because I'm fussy like that), figuring that it wasn't an unreasonable point; but the more I looked at it the more I wasn't convinced it belonged where it had been put. I couldn't find anywhere else to put it, though, so I took it out for the time being. - Mithvetr (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "too alien"
I think that Donald Davidson's work on Radical Interpretation [1] may be relevant to the question of a civilization that is 'too alien.' It's from philosophy of mind, rather than astronomy, but makes a compelling argument that any two intelligent species should, in principle, be capable of communication. Unfortunately, the wiki on Radical Interpretation is itself not very coherent or compelling... ~Kawphy
[edit] Removing "critiques" of depletion argument
I don't see the point of debating peak oil issues on this page. It seems to be too far away from the topic of the Fermi paradox to debate peak oil on this page. Request to remove this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by
Critics of the resource depletion argument point out that an energy-consuming civilization is not dependent solely on fossil fuels. Alternate energy sources exist, such as solar power which is renewable and has enormous potential relative to technical barriers.[55] For depletion of fossil fuels to end the "technological phase" of a civilization, some form of technological regression would have to invariably occur, preventing the exploitation of renewable energy sources.
99.254.216.48 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree this is too specific. But the general argument that renewable resources might run out, and the counter argument that renewable resources exist, seem OK. I reworded to make this a little clearer, but more work might still be done. LouScheffer (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Definitely off topic. The idea is that civilizations might run out of resources. It's spoken of theoretically, there is no need to bother with an assessment of the likelihood of it happening. The point of the proposal is that perhaps civilizations run out of resources not that we on Earth will or won't or the likelihood of it happening. It's a fair point that the likelihood of it happening on Earth rolls up to the likelihood of it being the reason why we don't observe aliens but in my opinion, an involved discussion of this is distracting. I'll work on it too. BobKawanaka (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
