In your first quote, you state that you deleted it to avoid the accountability of your words (ie: permanent ban)

In your second quote, you express disdain for those that are not held responsible for what they say (ie: calling them cowards).




I have clearly shown that I took each of your statements at face value with no subjective interpretation on intent or meaning.

And in doing so, I clearly show that by your own logic and words, you are a coward for deleting those quotes since you are afraid to face the responsibility of your words. Otherwise, you would have left those quotes alone with no "fear to fight" for what you said.

Please, fastline69 be honest
How many times here in this forum you claimed that other members must listen to you because you are a scientist
I never claimed to be a nuclear engineer even though it was evident that the guy who was arguing with me ,did not even know what he was talking about ( it is not your case , of course)

About the supposed " Alienology " never heard of multi discipline topics ?

Biology , Physics , geology,astronomy and statistics play an equal important role
This does not mean that you can not have a scientific approach to the problem
Obviously it is not that kind of problem where you can expect to have an exhaustive answer
Nevertheless you can cast a light on many aspects of the problem and you can refute , those claims which are absolutly false

Getting back to your "nobody knows who is it" supporter
Not only he has no references but he said also nonsenses

He gave for granted that by doubling the number of probes you can halve the exploration time of the galaxi
This is false
Obviusly the higher the number of probes the shorter the exploration time
but, beyond a certain number, the contribution of additional probes can be negligible

Imagine a region of space with 10 stars
The ideal fleet, if time savings is your main target, is made of 10 ships
A fleet of 20 ships would be of no use
A fleet of 5 ships might be acceptable , if cost saving is your second priority, since a ship can visit two or more stars which are on the same way
The exploration time will be longer but , maybe, not that longer

It depends on the distribution of the stars in the map

In other words you should run again the simulation , with an higher number of probes, to check if you can expect a reasonable time savings

It is very presumptuos of him and of you , to assume that mr Bjork did make so a silly mistake


If you read the article you can see that mr Bjork has implemented a sophisticated "research " algo to optimize the efficiency of the probes

Not to mention that he discuss, in his article, also the possibility of using more probes and even faster

Hmmm... Honestly, I think it's none in the last 3 years. I tried the whole "credentials" thing early in my posting days (5 years ago), but soon found it to be a useless tactic. Since then, I have let my words and reference prove my points, not the pieces of paper hanging in my office.

So I'm going to go with "none". Final answer.



Nor did I imply as such. But your point was that the Artist had no right to comment because he was an Artist and not a scientist. I admit that all these fields above play equally important role in the Alien question. But then why not Art, Religion, Society, Politics? Any of these can equally affect how and when a civilization activates a signal or comes to visit us. So who are we to say that the Artist has a less valid viewpoint than the Scientist on the Alien Question?



Well then I, phemox, and the Artist will presume away...

His claim, and yours by proxy, is (from his paper):

"I seem to be able to conclude based on the results from
my simulations that exploring the Galaxy by sending out
probes to visit the other stars is horribly slow. However,
unless travel methods are invented which gives access to
faster-than-light-travel, there seems to be no alternative
way to proceed than this proposed process. This could offer
a possible explanation to the Fermi paradox."

We are saying that his model can be contrived to change that time in any direction we want -- shorten it by adding more probes, lengthen it by creating less, shorten it by speeding the probe, lengthen it by slowing down, etc. In fact, his paper does mention VNM, blind search techniques, and other variables and thus the real presumption is that this gives any answers at all!

So yes, we presume away and challenge his conclusion that FTL is the only way for Aliens to visit us as well as his assertion that this is a possible solution to the Fermi Paradox.


(PS: Upon careful reading of his paper, I came across this as his answer for the .1c choice. I was real curious as to why such a low number and here is what he has to say about it:

"For all probes a speed of 0.1c is assumed. This velocity
is low enough that effects due to general relativity can
be ignored, yet high enough that the travel time between
stars are on the order of years."

Which is funny because the only reason he wants to ignore relativity is to make the math and programming easier (there is no other reason for it) AND he CONTRIVES it so that the travel time betwen stars is on the orderyears... that's some pretty weak reasonsing for sticking to such a low velocity.)

I dont really understand how you can not grasp this concepts

Do you realize what a simulation is ?

You use a simulation just in case some " inputs " are not perfectly known otherwise you would simply put them in some equations

It is not definitly true that they are completely arbritraty

You dont know the exact value of these inputs but you know for example their upper limits

You assign different values to these uncertain inputs provided they are within the bounds of the above mentioned limiits

Then you run your simulation and you can get different scenarios corresponding to different values of these inputs

If none of these scenarios is realistic than the original claim is false

A simulation is a widly used scientific method to tackle those kind of complex problems containing many parameters with an high degree of uncertainity

Mr Bjork did not use arbitrary inputs he explains his choice

Moreover you continue missing one point

The result of the simulation is so absurd that even using more favourable inputs, within the bound of the physical laws, it would lead in any case to an absurd scenario

This is the reason why he did not repeat the simulation using more probes

Read the article , please read it

I have "some" experience...



That's not how scientists view simulations. From wikipedia:



Key elements are that a simulation is a model of reality mostly used when a closed analytic solution is not possible... no mention of "inputs that aren't known" or "variables with high uncertainty" as a requirement or part of a simulation.




The result is absurd because the inputs are arbitrary and does not cover the entire parameter space. The arbitrary top speed of .1 c alone makes any conclusions from the simulation suspect.



We had this same disagreement over how scientists choose the parameters of the standard model. He does explain them, but there is NO basis for him to have chose 4 or 8 probes or .9c over .1c... THAT is what an arbritrary input is, merely basing your analysis on a set range.

Now consider, HAD Mr. Bjork done a true simulation, he would have done a full sweep between .1 and .9c, he would have done a full sweep of 4, 8, 16, etc probes. Instead, he restricts his parameters. I'm sorry Alberto, but that is not a convincing computer simulation. It just doesn't have the breadth to address all the gaps.



By your own words, you can't claim knowledge of the simulation without running it. So how exactly did Mr. Bjork know NOT to run the "more probes" simulation? After all, he barely covered the parameter space of velocity and admits that there are many areas that weren't covered in his conclusion.

Honestly Alberto, I think you are reading too much into this simulation. We both admit that this simulation needs to be run at other speeds with other search parameters, so why do you keep insisting that this one simulation is THE answer to the paradox?

Due to repeated immature behavior, Why_do_I_die will now take an extended absence from this discussion and from the forum.

SETI received signals but just couldn't find the same signal twice, also SETI has some very interesting protocols when they make contact, if you are a User of SETI @ home and you detected something artificial and call in they will say that it was just a software test. People say they are private funded no one could tell them to keep there discoveries secret, but you have to remember that finding an other intelligent being maybe more advanced than us, would not mean finding a new species which we can put into a schoolbook. It would mean that the uniqueness of humanity as the only “intelligent beings” in the universe would be gone, and you just need to look at religious people they would even kill other people if they insult their believe in god.


So in the end we should give everybody a shot ufologists searching our skies and on the earth to find other intelligent beings, scientists that are asking to universe for answer do their thing to find other intelligent beings. So what is the problem with that, does it really matter who finds other beings first?

Whether the ufologists or the scientists find their groundbreaking evidence we will not get some super technology from other advance civilizations (we have to develop it on our own, we don't give our technology to ants so we can't expect to get any advanced technology), but both types of researchers want just the knowledge and thats what is all about.

Fastline68
you are making just phylosophical speculations, and low level ones, either
No reason for me to continue

Where you see philosophy, I see physics and math.

My core disagreement as to the choice of .1 c vs. .9 c as a probes top speed is well within the realm of physics.

As is my secondary disagreement regarding the limited number of probes, which is purely within the realm of combinatorial mathematics.

But I respect your wish to not address these points and wish you good health until the next.

I am 100% behind this statement as long as we define "find" as something that anyone, anywhere can experience. Single photographs and hearsay do not constitute "finding" in my book.