OT: Galactic sterilisation
 

I just watched a very interesting documentary on black holes that proposed a fascinating theory as to why we haven't been visited by alien life forms yet.

If we take into account the scales of the galaxy and the number of planets there ought to be at least some alien civilisations. And these would most likely be millions if not billions of years ahead of us in terms of technological development. And on that time scale they should have been able to develop some sort of faster than light travel. (and even if they didn't...just by jumping from one star to the next slower then light one could colonize the entire galaxy in a few million years). So why haven't we seen any evidence of aliens comming to visit?

Well recent calculations on the development of black holes have revealed that just before their formation as the star starts to collapse into themselves a HUGE SCHOCKWAVE or Gamma radiation is shot out into space. And the intestity of this radiation is such that it equals 10^9*10ˇ9*10^9 = 10^27 the ammount released in the most powerful hydrogen bomb we have.

So these guys went on to calculate that if such a black hole were to appear up to several hundred light years away from our solar system it would practicaly STERILISE all advanced life on our planet. (perhaps those bacteria deep inside the earth mantle would survive). quote: "It would be the equivalent of Hiroshima type bombs going off all over the planet."

As they can track these Gamma ray "explosions" via a sattelite in orbit (only with a delay of the time it takes for the light to come to us) they began to calculate the probability of something like this happening in our "backyard".
And the recent results (not very accurate yet) say that is possible that these events are frequent enough to sterilise entire regions of the galaxy in short enough time scales to really make it improbable for advanced lifeforms to develop often. ... so I guess we're pretty lucky http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 06, 2004, 11:20: Message edited by: JurijD ]

Re: OT: Galactic sterilisation
 

Seems a bit flawed to me. There are enought backyards in our galaxy to have a few aliens somewhere.

But we haven't seen any martians yet...
May be they are waiting that our specie don't produce anymore the Saddam/Hitler type anymore to consider us as sentient ?

Re: OT: Galactic sterilisation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your surely mean Bush/Blair right?

Re: OT: Galactic sterilisation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Even if these calculationa are correct, you underestimate the effect of 100 LY. Simple calculation reveals 10^30 attenuation factor. At worst it will be like radiation 1000 km away from the bomb. Extensive hydrogen bomb tests in 50s and 60s proved that there is nothing to fear http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Besides, the time duration odf star collapes is surely much longer than H-bomb explosion and the _intensity_ of the radiation will be very small indeed.

Re: OT: Galactic sterilisation
 

Maybe these events are not enough to sterlize every habitable planet but it sounds like they'd do a good job of screwing up attempts to make interstellar journeys and colonize new worlds. This might be a good explanation for why there aren't space-faring civilizations everywhere.

Re: OT: Galactic sterilisation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your surely mean Bush/Blair right? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is ridiculous, and partisan politics at its finest. Waging one small scale war (relative to the size/power of the country waging it) is NOTHING compared to what Saddam and Hitler did. What they did is not good, but certainly there is no valid basis of comparison with Saddam or Hitler.

Re: OT: Galactic sterilisation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why do I get the sinking sensation that a black-hole has just formed nearby?

Re: OT: Galactic sterilisation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I beg to differ. Are 50.000 Iraqi lives less a value compared to 6.000.000 jews or 50.000 Kurds?
Either one is commited to peace or one isn't. How many people a stupid leader (like Hitler or Bush or Saddam) kills really isn't up to him/her but is decided by other influences at the time.

Re: OT: Galactic sterilisation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I beg to differ. Are 50.000 Iraqi lives less a value compared to 6.000.000 jews or 50.000 Kurds?
Either one is commited to peace or one isn't. How many people a stupid leader (like Hitler or Bush or Saddam) kills really isn't up to him/her but is decided by other influences at the time. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So we should give France back to the Germans with profuse apologies and reparations for that day/night strategic bombing campaign?

I mean they were rude to use an army to take it over, but to your logic we had no right to use an army to take it back and instead should have "committed to peace" and simply used stern language to reprove Hitler for his deeds...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: OT: Galactic sterilisation
 

JurijD... the loss of life in this war is nothing compared to the amount of blood on Saddam's hands, or to the amount of blood that would have been added in the future. Stern words with Saddam have failed for 8 years. Stern words with Hitler failed. Appeasement to tyrants is proven to be a BAD (strike that, horrendous) idea, by the events leading up to WWII and the war itself. We should learn from history so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Regardless of whether the war was "right" or not, you can not argue with the fact that with Saddam out of power, Iraq will become a better place. War is sometimes a necessary evil so that greater peace may be possible. You also can not argue with the fact that every nation that the US has knocked down and then rebuilt has become a rather successful, peaceful nation. Japan? Germany? Our worst enemies in WWII, yet allies and trading partners nowadays? It is only when nations are "rebuilt" by the UN that they have failed (not in all cases, but in some). Or when the Soviets or European colonial powers got involved... East Germany? Nearly every nation in Africa? Many in southern Asia? India? Well, India is (slowly) progressing, but it is still on the whole a very impoverished nation. Now, why does the US do this? Is it because we are nice and want to help people? Probably not. More likely it is because it is more profitable (and much safer) to build them up as friends and trade with them than it is to subjugate them. I'll take US imperialism over European imperialism any day. Iraq will (hopefully) be no exception.