You may e_mail your remarks to mr Bjork,the address is on the web site, even though
I doubt that you will ever get answer
By the way you can understand that our galaxi is made of bilions stars just looking at the sky ?
I would like to have your sight

The problem is that aliens showed themselves only to "those people"
Why not to everybody ?
They should not be scared of us thanks to their technology

I think you are grossly mistaken on this point but await the evidence.

Evidence for this assertion please? A published article or nature article to this effect will do.






But that is the catch-22: is the universe truly uniform or is it uniform because that is how WE interpret it?

Not absurd, merely contrived.

Bjork's simulation stated that it took 10bn years at 10% the speed of light sending out 4 probes. Let's play with just these assumptions (since they are the ones you quoted).

Now then Alberto, how does that result change if we go at 20% the speed of light (from 10bn to 5bn years?). Is there any physics that prevents this?

Or how about if we go at 90% the speed of light (from 10bn years to 1bn year). Is there any physics that prevents this?

Now let's assume we send 8 probes each time at 90% speed of light (500 million years). Is there any physics that prevents this?

Now let's assume we send 16 probes each time at 90% speed of light (250 million years). Is there any physics that prevents this?

And if we send 160 probes each time at 90% speed of light, then it would take 2.5 million years to do the same exploration. Is there any physics that prevents this?

So it's not an absurd conclusion since the assumptions were contrived to lead to a large result and I have shown that if you modify the assumptions still within the realm of physics, you can arrive at 2.5 million years to explore what before took 10 billion years.



Which again neither proves nor disproves anything since there HAVE been millions of years past and thus there MIGHT have been enough time even by this simulation for a civilization to reach us.

Neat computer simulation of the Drake Equation but like the equation itself, it adds nothing to the discussion one way or another.

Other opinions on the simulation are similar to mine:

http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2007/01/bjorks-colonization-simulation-does-not.html



Only 72 probes in 10 billion years... not the smartest of aliens...

It was one of the most amazing evidences of the theory of relativity
I think you can find it in any text talking about this theory

of course you are aware of the red shift due to the doppler effect
The lines are shifted towards the red because of speed
Well if the speed is much higher than you must take into account also the relativity

I dont really know what you mean for interpretation

If you mean a sort of scientific prejudice the answer is , in my opinion, negative
Scientists took into consideration that unknown elements may exist but all the evidences are against this hyphotesis

If you mean that also the "observer "is an integral part of the measuring, in other words if you mean that there is not one only interpretation of the universe regardless of the observer
Well ,I dont really know
I know that this is one of the interpretation of quantum physics
In my opinion it is false but it is just a gut feeling

Read again the article
Mr Bjork choosed 10 % because this is the best compromise
It is a very high speed but the effects of the relativity are still negligible
If speed further increases than also the mass of probe increases exponentially





Again read again the article
Mr Bjork said that if the probes can find the earth in a reasonable period of time ( assuming that milions years are reasonable ), maybe using many more probes, even so the distance of the earth from their native planet would be some thousand light years

How can they reach their new colony ?
By an exotic teletransport ,of course
as simple as that
In my simulation I took into account this issue assuming that their life span, thanks to their advanced tehchnology , is 1000 years

Last
"Other opinions on the simulation are similar to mine: "

May be someone wonder who is that guy who agrees with fastline but disagrees with an article written by a scientists of the "Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark"
accepted by the "International Journal of Astrobiology " and published by "Cambridge University Press 20 Apr 2007"

Here are his credentials :

" more than 10 years' experience in media, arts and communications "

No, but it's totally easy to understand how there must be huge distances involved, even between any random pair of two stars you can see.

In fact, calculating distances between stars doesn't require seeing all stars and you don't need to have a good eyesight as long as you can see the stars you are tracking on their different locations within one (or more) year(s).

It's basically how the Egyptians, Mayans and so on calculated how celestial bodies move.



Well, maybe that's because not every person, regardless of their excellent credentials, can be right all the time... Remember all the guys with so called good credentials and credible psychological records that report having seen Ufos? Same story... they may or may not have seen what they think they have seen, but in the end it doesn't prove anything.

It is ABSURD to believe our technology could be the most advanced in the universe ,we have only had it for like 100 years. LOL . You all seem to forget that we are the new generation that has computers and dvd players , just as your father and mother if they had dvd players and computers and video games when they were kids. We barely have had cars for arounnd 100 years give or take , same with electricity. All of our technology IS NEW , it's baby technology , to think that people cannot imagine another more advanced race being able to travel through space and get here is purely insane. I imagine a couple hundred years ago when we were still riding horses , people still could not imagine a civilization advanced enough to move arounnd in giant machines (cars) to reach great distances in a relatively short amount of time , much less could they imagine humans flying in airplanes to get from one city to another , and much less us going to the moon in a rocket ship. If you would have told them that there was a race in another planet who had this technology , they would have laughed at you , and thought u were purely insane, yet , a couple of hundred years later , we ourselves have this technology , in just a couple of hundred years we have gone from riding horses to driving vehicles with comodities comparable to a house , have planes , space ships , satelites arounndu the planet , send vehicles to other planets to explore them , have cellular phones , we can now talk to anyone from anywhere anytime , tvs , computers , you name it .

Of course , we were born to this technology , so we see it normal , but a couple of hundred years ago , a person would not have been able to fit the picture of the life we live now in their head , there was no way they would accept this could be , but here we are , and it is . And of course , because we cannot travel at the speed of light , or haven't discovered faster speeds , we have people like fastlane (relative of the people who refused to believe the earth was round) , who cannot imagine any other lifeforce having enough technology to travel here , I see he is the type of person that has to be born with this already existing for him to believe in them, he just cannot grasp the possibility of things existing which he hasnt seen since he was a child.

But never the less , the possibility of Alien beings coming here is very very very very likely. If we were to develop the technology to travel faster than light , the first thing we would do is go visit our closes star to see if there is anything there. And if there would be , we would undoubtedly fly around seeing what it is , and if they were intelligent and advanced, we would be cautions , but if they were primitive , then we would tech them , doesnt that sounndu very similar the our own history as intelligent humans ?


"But that is the catch-22: is the universe truly uniform or is it uniform because that is how WE interpret it?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
This is your scientific and proper coherent reasoning you use that you speak of ? LMFAO
Get the fuck out of here with that shit.
So then the stars , they arent stars , they are only stars because we interpret them as stars ?
So if I count 10 pennies in a row , they arent really in a row , i'm only interpreting them that way ?
It is uniform because we can see it and anylize it , and can conclude it's patterns.

Well , it looks like I had lucked out and a MOD hadnt seen my post , so I'll delete my statements before I get banned , LMAO.

Yeah I agree, that basically was my point. I mean, you hear a lot of scientists make claims about alien life and they try their best to not make themselves look ridiculous within the scientific community by looking at it from the perspective of our own technology, our knowledge of physics and so on. All because they 'have to go with what they know'.

I know why they do this, but I don't see why people think such assumptions or claims can ever be accurate when you're dealing with all these unknowns.

Looking at these questions from the perspective of our own technology only makes sense if you assume that those aliens are not capable of long interstellar travel, just like us and have solved certain problems in more or less exactly the same way as we did.

But then from a practical point of view the whole thing becomes rather pointless, because a.) those alien civilizations on about the same technological level as us, are pretty unlikely to be able to visit us anytime soon and b.) it's unlikely we would find their planet and civilization without traveling around ourselves... because as was stated here quite a few times, the galaxy is huge and what are the odds of finding this planet even if we would know in which 5% of the galaxy we would have to look? Mankind could go extinct without ever finding anything, eventhough the whole galaxy might be crawling with life.



I don't see how it is extremely likely that aliens would or could visit us. I mean, it's difficult to say whether in reality it's likely or not likely if there are civilizations out there with much much much more advanced technology than we have. After all, scientists do agree that solving all our (or perhaps it's universal enough to be called 'the problems'?) technological problems isn't exactly easy.

I tend to agree with the technology part of how we would immediately look around on other planets and stars for life.



We could. It's a possibility for us to do something like that and it would even make sense, but I don't think it happened on our planet in the past (as you seem to suggest). The Von Däniken theories and the like are pretty much all based on a tad of fantasy and pretty far-fetched interpretations, even though it's somewhat of a possibility (that means I don't disagree with the idea per say, I disagree with 'his evidence' for it).

And again though and this is the same for alien species, even when traveling at light speed, what are the chances of actually finding life even when the galaxy is crawling with it? We are pretty young as a species too, compared to the estimated age of our universe, let alone our say 100 years of useful technology in this respect.

I think that when it comes to interstellar travel and so on our species can still be categorized as 'very primitive'.



That's where human psychology (philosophy, language, symbolism, definitions and all that) meets and influences science's objectivity. That's all there is to it. In fact, in a philosophical sense I could argue that those pennies are only pennies by their definition we gave to it and that we could have defined rows as columns instead making the interpretation very arbitrary and in a way 'fake'. I've said it many times before, but there's no such thing as absolute truths, especially when it comes to things we have defined ourselves.



Lol and then they say I am the psychopath. Where's the rage coming from anyway? Fear in that your own ideas might be wrong? Lol.

Ahhh... you are using elements in the "elements of a list" sense, not elements in the "hydrogen, helium, earth wind and fire sense". Gotcha. I thought maybe you meant that scientists observed different laws of nature at the edge of the univese which so far, has not been the case.