PDA

View Full Version : Hawking Warns Over Contact with Alien Beings



Willow
Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 09:23 PM
Aliens almost certainly exist but humans should avoid making contact, Professor Stephen Hawking has warned.

In a series for the Discovery Channel the renowned astrophysicist said it was "perfectly rational" to assume intelligent life exists elsewhere.

But he warned that aliens might simply raid Earth for resources, then move on.

"If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans," he said.

Prof Hawking thinks that, rather than actively trying to communicate with extra-terrestrials, humans should do everything possible to avoid contact.

He explained: "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet."

“ The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like ”
Stephen Hawking

In the past probes have been sent into space with engravings of human on board and diagrams showing the location of our planet.

Radio beams have been fired into space in the hope of reaching alien civilisations.

Prof Hawking said: "To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational.

"The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."

The programme envisages numerous alien species including two-legged herbivores and yellow, lizard-like predators.

But Prof Hawking conceded most life elsewhere in the universe is likely to consist of simple microbes.

In the recent BBC series Wonders of the Solar System, Professor Brian Cox, a physicist from the University of Manchester, also suggested life may exist elsewhere within our solar system.

He said organisms could be present under the ice sheet that envelops Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.

Professor Cox added: "Closer to home, the evidence that life could exist on Mars is growing.

"We will only know for sure when the next generation of spacecraft, fine-tuned to search for life, are launched to the moons of Jupiter and the arid plains of Mars in the coming decades."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8642558.stm

The Horned God
Monday, April 26th, 2010, 01:52 AM
He must have been watching "Independence Day". ;)

frippardthree
Monday, April 26th, 2010, 07:32 AM
I thought that this article was very interesting.


Aliens may exist but contact would hurt: Hawking

1 hr 7 mins ago

LONDON (AFP) – Aliens may exist but mankind should avoid contact with them as the consequences could be devastating, British scientist Stephen Hawking has warned.
"If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans," said the astrophysicist in a new television series, according to British media reports.
The programmes depict an imagined universe featuring alien life forms in huge spaceships on the hunt for resources after draining their own planet dry.
"Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach," warned Hawking.
The doomsday scenario is suggested in the series "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking" on the Discovery Channel, which began airing in the United States on Sunday.
On the probability of alien life existing, he says: "To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational.
"The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."

Full Article:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100426/ts_afp/scienceastronomyextraterrestrialhawking


http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=104828&stc=1&d=1272263504

Gardisten
Sunday, May 9th, 2010, 08:33 PM
Sorry, somebody needs to convince me that Hawkins is really communicating his own thoughts.

Dropkick
Thursday, May 13th, 2010, 05:29 PM
Theres estimated millions of earth like planets in the universe. I'd say if Aliens were intelligent enough to travel through space and were short of minerals theres billions of other planets to get their minerals from.

Also there'd be no need to make slaves of humans because they'd have robots to do their work. :D

Ediruc
Friday, May 14th, 2010, 02:44 AM
This actually surprises me a lot that good ol' Hawking would say such stupid and asinine stuff. Makes one wonder where Hawking's mind is now -- perhaps in a jar. Yeah, he's definitely another Albert Einstein (and you can take that sarcastic joke anyway you want, since good ol' Albert was a plagiarist and an idiot). :P

EQ Fighter
Friday, May 14th, 2010, 05:02 AM
If they are advanced enough to travel from Star to Star. They probably already know we are here, but it is us that do not know that they are there.

Also the Planet does not have to be inhabitable. If we could transport the hydrocarbons back from Saturn moon Titan, there would not be an energy problem for at least the next 500 years.

Meaning there is way more raw materials in the local asteroid belt than there ever will be here on Earth.

Funny it is only the Russians and Chinese that seem to see that.

The Horned God
Friday, May 14th, 2010, 05:23 AM
Also there'd be no need to make slaves of humans because they'd have robots to do their work. :D

Perhaps they don't need us for slaves but what if they just happen to like the idea? What if in all those billions of planets there's at least one planet full of really nasty sadistic bastards? ;)




Meaning there is way more raw materials in the local asteroid belt than there ever will be here on Earth.

Funny it is only the Russians and Chinese that seem to see that.

It's off topic but space travel is still so expensive that if the moon was made of solid gold it wouldn't be financially worth bringing any of it back to earth.

Until there is a major drop in the cost of getting into space the Russians and Chinese are doing little more than performing political stunts with they're costly space programs imo. By major breakthrough I mean something on the order of a space elevator or an anti-matter powered rocket.

Devin De Blois
Saturday, May 15th, 2010, 11:36 AM
I'm not that worried because any aliens are bound by the same laws of physics as we are, but I think he's right that if an alien race ever did show up on Earth it probably wouldn't be good.

The Horned God
Saturday, May 15th, 2010, 02:50 PM
I'm not that worried because any aliens are bound by the same laws of physics as we are,

The Australian aborigines would have thought they were safe because of the impossibility (in their minds) of crossing the oceans let alone the skys . Even if they could have imagined such technologies they would have had no conception within their culture of why anyone would want to mount an invasion anyway.

Devin De Blois
Saturday, May 15th, 2010, 06:02 PM
Yes, but I'm speaking in terms of light speed travel, gravity, etc. For example, if you were traveling at the speed of light and your ship was impacted by a piece of debris the size of a grain of sand it would cause an explosion vastly larger than any nuclear weapon we've ever been able to create. Also, because of g forces associated with light speed travel you'd have to create a Star Trek-like inertial dampener in order to not be squished into a puddle of goo when you accelerate to light speed or very gradually increase your speed, which would probably take too long I would think. So, you can see the technological difficulties than any intelligent lifeform would have to overcome for long range space travel. Creating an interstellar spaceship is a much different proposition than simply creating a faster or larger boat or an airplane.


The Australian aborigines would have thought they were safe because of the impossibility (in their minds) of crossing the oceans let alone the skys . Even if they could have imagined such technologies they would have had no conception within their culture of why anyone would want to mount an invasion anyway.

Segestan
Saturday, May 15th, 2010, 06:22 PM
A species with enough technological know how to reach distant planets , would have already mastered the art of nano-technology. The ability to create anything from the atomic level. They would send machines into space that have AI and are self replicating devices. These machine could be advanced enough to even build in an instant creatures that may or may not be biologic , but synthetic materials I would think would be far easier to build with than biology at least as we know it, with blood and a flowing system.
At any rate what ever species or self replicating machine came to earth they would be entering a realm of spiritual forces they may or may not allow such contact with humans , as this world is our adventure or theater so to speak. Mr. Hawking I suspect is on another agenda or just isn't thinking clearly.

The Horned God
Saturday, May 15th, 2010, 09:12 PM
Also, because of g forces associated with light speed travel you'd have to create a Star Trek-like inertial dampener in order to not be squished into a puddle of goo when you accelerate to light speed or very gradually increase your speed, which would probably take too long I would think.

I'm not so pessimistic about the possibility of interstellar travel. However any conjecture that can be proposed today regarding space travel can only be based on the current limited understanding of the laws of physics.

Our understanding of the laws of physics has changed radically in the last 150 years. A civilisation that is thousands of years older than ours is would surely have a far more in-depth understanding of the laws of physics and of space travel than we currently do.

I suspect we could no more usefully discuss the technology of such a civilisation than two cavemen could understand the workings of a jet engine.

Devin De Blois
Monday, May 17th, 2010, 05:23 AM
I'm not pessimistic about space travel but just realistic, and don't attribute pessimism to me about interstellar travel just because I'm attempting to reason about the realities of space travel and physics. I'd sooner accept the reasoning and logic of Stephen Hawking concerning physics, space travel and the plausible outcome of contact with an alien race than anyone on this board.


I'm not so pessimistic about the possibility of interstellar travel. However any conjecture that can be proposed today regarding space travel can only be based on the current limited understanding of the laws of physics.

Our understanding of the laws of physics has changed radically in the last 150 years. A civilisation that is thousands of years older than ours is would surely have a far more in-depth understanding of the laws of physics and of space travel than we currently do.

I suspect we could no more usefully discuss the technology of such a civilisation than two cavemen could understand the workings of a jet engine.

Mouse Shadow
Monday, May 17th, 2010, 05:44 AM
I'm in agreeance with the technocrats. In so far as any alien race that can meld space must be quite capable of building virtually anything, including genetic creations, or food or other wonder. By physics, it takes a lot of energy to relocate any object over distance, even more at parsec distance. So one would assume that to do such a thing they would be in command of almost unlimitled power. Power plus learning-science equals near god-hood.

So, would bald, pink, yellow and brown monkeys stuck on a fragile rock in the middle of nowhere pose any threat to such a master alien travellers? Hardly.

Resources can be taken from any number of billions of worlds in our system, trillions more in our local area, unlimited beyond that.

I'd be more worried of a disgruntled chook in a battery farm gaining sentience than Hawking's 'V' fantasy.

And for the record Hawking, Black Holes don't exist!!! YOU TARD-ENBURGER!!! Man I can't believe they pay people to search for movie rubbish!

The Horned God
Monday, May 17th, 2010, 11:49 AM
I'm not pessimistic about space travel but just realistic, and don't attribute pessimism to me about interstellar travel just because I'm attempting to reason about the realities of space travel and physics.

If you think that a civilisation thousands of years older than ours couldn't possibly cross interstellar space because the distances are too great then I think you are mistaken. In fact if there are other technological civilisations out there in the galaxy, I doubt there are many of them that couldn't do it, providing they have survived just a few thousand years longer than we have.



The main problem with interstellar travel is the energy required to do it. To accelerate a 1kg mass to something like 10-20% of the speed of light would require about 60 gigawatts of power acting on it for about 3 months. 60 gigawatts is the output of 15 large power stations. Btw, the entire electrical capacity of the U.S is about 800 gigawatts.

However there is a much greater power source no so very far away; The Sun. Harnessing a large fraction of the output of the sun would require a level of technological advancement much greater than ours, but not unimaginably so. It really only requires a space-fairing civilisation with the ability to mine asteroids and perform manufacturing in space. For example one large 200km steroid would contain enough Iron and precious metals to meet the earth's requirements for a thousand years at current demand. These asteroids could, in theory, be formed into solar collectors.

The Suns output is about 386 million billion gigawatts. A civilisation that could capture an appreciable fraction of the output of its sun (using space based solar panels or what have you) could probably find a few million or so giga watts left over for space travel. They might even be able to muster as much as a million billion Gigawatts (still only 1/386th of the suns total output).

With that kind of power at their disposal they could send deathstar sized space stations outward from their star in all directions at respectable fractions of the speed of light, if they wanted to.

But perhaps they don't even need to send such large ships. Perhaps they only need to send something the size of a grain of sand. They might send something like a genetically engineered "fungal spore" which is capable of replicating and transforming itself into anything that is required upon reaching it's destination.



I'd sooner accept the reasoning and logic of Stephen Hawking concerning physics, space travel and the plausible outcome of contact with an alien race than anyone on this board.

I think when it comes to what an advanced race of aliens might or might not choose to do everyone's opinion is valid and there are no experts, not even Stephan Hawking.

velvet
Monday, May 17th, 2010, 01:23 PM
Black Holes don't exist!!!

I think you're wrong here. ;) Black Holes do exist, in fact, black holes are a requirement to form galaxies. Those who dont have one, are galaxies without planets or solar systems, where only gas / red giants and white dwarfs generate the gravity needed to keep the galaxy together. Also they are dissolving, they are driven apart by the acceleration of the universe's expanding energy and eventually will spread their matter suddenly into the neighboring galaxies when the red giant become a supernovae or it will slowly drift away to others when the white dwarf dies.

There are much more wonders out there still to explore, but theoretically even wormholes should exist, and most likely do. The time/space is not a continuum in the sense that it constantly moves along a timeline, time and space are physically the same (I know, to imagine this makes headaches) and gravity is the force that controls both.

All these fantasies about generating enough power to move a spaceship between galaxies with a combustion engine, funny people :wsg we dont even get to Mars properly with that....

The trick is to utilise gravity (no, I'm not talking about tachions), and here not even that what we perceive as gravity in our nicely ordered and power-balanced three-dimensions world on earth, but the "force of gravity" that it truely is, out there in the universe.

That the "folding" of space is possible is long known and proven since the discovering of strings and superstrings, which generate such an amount of gravitational force that they fold the time/space. Sure, they do it on a microlevel, but the principle should be the same for larger "things of matter" (f.e. a spaceship) folding larger parts of the time/space (f.e. between galaxies).

With some thousand years more of "alien civilisation" researching the universe and its forces there might be indeed already other lifeforms controlling this technique, and as such might be able to travel to us. And there are a lot of galaxies / solar systems that are way older than our, and probably billions that offer planets where life can exist. From probability alone results that it would be really really weird if we were the only solar system with life.

But I have to agree with Hawkins in this regard, that, provided life exists always in this constant state of "strife for thriving", that it might be pretty unfortunate for us to meet them. I mean, honestly, what threat did the Indians pose to us or other "primitive" people, that never kept us from wiping them out, just in case. It would be no different. And we shouldnt fall for the illusion that we could defend us when we meet aliens who are able to travel the universe.

Dropkick
Monday, May 17th, 2010, 02:39 PM
I'm not pessimistic about space travel but just realistic, and don't attribute pessimism to me about interstellar travel just because I'm attempting to reason about the realities of space travel and physics. I'd sooner accept the reasoning and logic of Stephen Hawking concerning physics, space travel and the plausible outcome of contact with an alien race than anyone on this board.

Keep an open mind. About 100 years ago somebody in the US patent office thought that everything that could be invented already had been.

Also, the greatest scientists/inventors are the ones who keep an open mind. Even gravity is yet to be fully understood so who knows, when it is understood things like anti-gravity vehicles will be flying all over the place and we'll have an abundance of unlimited energy and (proper ;) ) spaceships.

Until scienctists understands all the mysteries of the universe they've no business telling people what not to believe. It's a bit egotistical of humans to think we're advanced because we're only comparing ourselves to animals.

sumadartson
Monday, May 17th, 2010, 03:43 PM
I'd like to quote Dutch comedian Theo Maassen on this.

(about alien lifeforms)

There aren't a lot of options, really. Either there are alien lifeforms, or there aren't. If there aren't, spending billions on space-travel is a waste of money. And if there is, there's still only two options. Either they're less intelligent than us, or more intelligent. If they're less intelligent, I don't want anything to do with them. And if they're more intelligent, they'll find us a lot sooner than we find them.

Hehe. :-D:

Ralf
Tuesday, May 18th, 2010, 01:10 AM
I tend to share the view of Henry Makow that this is a component of the deciept that is Project Bluebeam. http://www.henrymakow.com/cartier_mccloud.html

And talking about project Bluebeam, Iam sure you are all aware of the HAARP technology and this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1234430/Mystery-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html

Mouse Shadow
Tuesday, May 18th, 2010, 11:06 AM
I think you're wrong here. ;) Black Holes do exist, in fact, black holes are a requirement to form galaxies. Those who dont have one, are galaxies without planets or solar systems, where only gas / red giants and white dwarfs generate the gravity needed to keep the galaxy together. Also they are dissolving, they are driven apart by the acceleration of the universe's expanding energy and eventually will spread their matter suddenly into the neighboring galaxies when the red giant become a supernovae or it will slowly drift away to others when the white dwarf dies.

Velvet!~!~! :P Well, I've heard all sorts of crazy statements from Hawking, ie, black holes are this, now they're that, and so on. At one stage they were meant to be tiny little things everywhere. Possibly found in a hamburger too.

It depends on the definition of a black hole.

I at this stage I only regard super mass with rotation, as like a neutron star. But even they emit massive amounts of radiation. I've collectively heard all sorts of other wishy-washy things about black holes too. Ie, there is a white hole (the ejection area) which is supposed to be displaced somewhere else in the universe.

Most of the theories around black holes say they keep absorbing everything without obeying the conservation of mass and energy. Ie, where is the energy meant to go? The white hole explanation was the only one that did. (There's possibly more now) (Forget the one about the ejection corridor coming out of the top and bottom, in galaxies it's far too small)

Yes I agree that humanly perceivable time is relative to the specifics of the local universal areas, but I always think in terms of absolute 'Universal Time'. Ie, the infinite universe doesn't stop ticking away or evolving into other substructures for anything.

You say black holes are a requirement for the formation of galaxies. Well, again depends on definition and the attributes of said black hole. I would agree that huge masses are in the core of a galaxy, ignited yes, spinning at sub light velocities or perhaps greater yes. But they release both visible and non visible energy quite well.

One thing gravity experts don't consider when they say they've found a black hole residing in 'such and such' is because of the discrepancy of calculable* mass. It's the forgotten 'kinetic energy' of the system is not considered. I believe this energy is also 'weight' added.

Ok, here’s my take (be prepared for ultra-mega-weirdness!)

All energy has polarity, (north and south), to make polarity you need a spin (like charged electrons around a centre which creates a field). But to transfer said polar energy around from location to location, one needs a polarizing network (or 3 dimensional matrix structure) of this polariz-able elements. (helps with particle-wave theory too ;) )

You destabilize the universe the more energy you put into a region (or polarize or spin up). Gravity wants all unstables to be pushed together to form clumps so as to maintain it's integrity(stability) of the polarizable network. So yeah, I'm one of those types that believe gravity may operate by a push mechanism. Newton didn't give up on Gravity as a push idea either! He just went as pull because it made the math easier to understand.

So, as I see it gravity operates like a 'pressure' on the entire system to make the universe, uniform and steady (Ie, a background pressure). However, polarization causes energy trauma, like a bubble between rigid foam mats. The superstructure wants it to flatten out, (depressurize). But it can't because it's excited. So, like between foam mats, bubbles on a system are pushed together. Now don't forget bubbles are polar spin energy. Spinning and the electrical field generated, force the rigid universe’s polar arrangement to become unsteady, more active. Bubbles grow. Mass occurs because of it’s ‘polarization’.

So, I say kinetic energy is 'weight'. I reckon like a planet at 'absolute zero' temperature (unmoving) weighs less than a planet at absolute zero but is spinning at any speed. (Yet another mass experiment in there can be done :) )

Likewise, squish a whole super array of spinning suns near a galactic core, you'll get a variance on the expected weight. (That's why 'some' scientists believe in black holes, that massive error term)

Why do I say kinetic energy adds to the weight of gravity of an object? Simply this, it has to get the energy from somewhere, and all energy is mass. All mass alters gravity. All energy is polar. (just operating off a smaller and smaller backbones)

And also, this could explain why the sun's, Earth's, Jupiter (etc) gravity has an error term. Ie, there is always more gravity than what they predict. No one determines kinetic energy in the equation. Sillies!

So, galactic cores with black holes, not to me. :thumbsdwn ... Galactic cores with giant super-spin energy gain, :thumbsup

Of course when the core is not spinning fast enough, or doesn't hold the large weight required to keep it together you will get transitory stars fluffing around.

What I'd like to know is why to the galaxies form that special outer ring of stars. I reckon core energy/and spin-weight is directly proportional that distance they get shunted out too.

I don't yet perceive worm holes except in the garden. How would they work? Do they contain more energy or less energy than the surrounding universe?

Folding of space???(That was in a book, 'A wrinkle in time') Super strings, but they weren't discovered, that was a theory only wasn't it?

Velvet, I'm starting to think you are a fan-girl of Hawking!!! :-O Oh the horror! ~hand to the forehead in a dramatic pose~ You're lost in space to us now. Ohhh! :P

I'm going to have to say it, but we should resurect Carl Sagan and then have Zombie Sagan duke it out with Hawking. I bet 10 bucks on Zombie Sagan to win!!! :thumbup :D :thumbup



*Calculable meaning tolerance band of results

velvet
Tuesday, May 18th, 2010, 11:34 AM
Velvet, I'm starting to think you are a fan-girl of Hawking!!! :-O Oh the horror! ~hand to the forehead in a dramatic pose~ You're lost in space to us now. Ohhh! :P

Mousy, I'm going to reply to the rest of your post later, just wanted to reply to this one first and say, that I never read a book of Hawking. I always wanted to read that one about the universe in a nutshell, but never got it. So, no, I'm not a fan of Hawking, but I'm a fan of astrophysics in general, and I've read a lot about that stuff the past 20 years or so :P

Will have to look up some details, not that I mix up stuff, but there really is no nead to make up "kinetic" energy" to fill the gravity/mass discrepancy or to assume white counterwholes nor high-spinning super-suns at the centers. The mysteries are largely solved, but because there are so many theories, the particular ones didnt make it to the mainstream yet. But even Hubble delivered meanwhile visible proof for the theories. So, really, no need to make up stuff ;)

Mouse Shadow
Tuesday, May 18th, 2010, 11:39 AM
Mousy, I'm going to reply to the rest of your post later, just wanted to reply to this one first and say, that I never read a book of Hawking. I always wanted to read that one about the universe in a nutshell, but never got it. So, no, I'm not a fan of Hawking, but I'm a fan of astrophysics in general, and I've read a lot about that stuff the past 20 years or so :P

Will have to look up some details, not that I mix up stuff, but there really is no nead to make up "kinetic" energy" to fill the gravity/mass discrepancy or to assume white counterwholes nor high-spinning super-suns at the centers. The mysteries are largely solved, but because there are so many theories, the particular ones didnt make it to the mainstream yet. But even Hubble delivered meanwhile visible proof for the theories. So, really, no need to make up stuff ;)

Cool!!! Becuase it's my favourite topic in da whola da world! :) And particle physics too. Just the general stuff mind you, because it exercises the brain. :)

Perhaps we need another thread for this stuff??

-Edit: And what's wrong with kinetic energy making mass.... It has to be made from somewhere. Hee Hee ... :D -