Even more fun if they have their own version of Fundies who insist we must be demons . . . and therefore, must be exterminated . . .
So would the people left be able to understand what they were seeing? Great science is all about creativity. Who would go into a field that would consist of working your way through a textbook? Why make a hypothesis when it will be answered in five pages?
Do you think scientists would get to decide what to send without oversight? I will admit that if the aliens are 500 ly away, there may be little political impact. If they are relatively close, I think there would be a lot.
Discovery is not creativity.
That’s true. But do you consider what Einstein did discovery or creation?
Discovery. Creativity is the province of artists.
I suppose we’ll have to disagree. Einstein, IMO, was as creative as Shakespeare or Beethoven.
Certainly Einstein thought creatively to allow him to see past some cherished beliefs in science and make a leap in understanding but what he ultimately did was discover Relativity. Einstein did not create any of it anymore than the first person to stumble on 2+2=4 created that. 2+2=4 has been there since the beginning of time as have the laws of Relativity. These are all things to be discovered.
Let’s suppose we actually get a radio message directed to us from, say, Neptune:
"Greetings, Humanity. We are just passing through and need to restock supplies.
Your world is far too hot, and contains too much toxic water and oxygen. We’ll just tank-up on some ammonia and methane from this here gas giant…izzat OK with you?"
SIR…the Humans have just launched a salvo of thermonuclear warheads at us!
E.T.A.?
Oh, about ten of their years.
:rolleyes:
Unless they were actually in orbit, any efforts on our part would utterly be irrelevant and pointless.
I’m with Voyager on this; the subject of the discovery may not be regarded as a work of creativity, but the process of discovery certainly can be (and in the case of Einstein, was abundantly creative). In fact I’d say that the only kind of discovery that does not require creative thinking is accidental discovery.
And if they came to visit us and saw the effect religion has on us, they would point their fingers (okay, appendages) at us and laugh, much the same way that we do with monkeys in the zoo.
For that matter, our efforts would be futile if they were in orbit. Anyone with interstellar travel is well beyond us.
And we would fling poo at them.
Talking of flinging poo, wasn’t it a surprise to see Clothahump taking the “Oh look, religion’s a complete crock” line? :dubious:
I think Voyager’s point was, if we had a source of scientific information far in advance of our own, original scientific research on Earth would atrophy – the “creativity,” if you can call it that, of our top scientists would wither from lack of use. And I don’t buy it. Science is merely discovery of what’s out there, and there is always more to be done – within limits, and we must accept those limits. For instance, chemistry is finished, and has been since the 1930s. Scientists generally agree that, while there is plenty of work to be done in the details, all the basic laws and principles of chemistry have been discovered; no more paradigm-shattering discoveries remain to be made. Well, some day, we may hope, physics will be finished in the same sense. As a Cheela scientist reminded a human scientist at the end of Robert L. Forward’s novel Dragon’s Egg, “The secrets of the Universe are finite.” Why should we not welcome a chance to leapfrog the remaining steps to get to a unified field theory of physics? Then there will still be challenging work left to do in the field, plenty of it – but on details, not the big picture; just as with chemistry.
Today there is a lot of chemistry in the sense of applications. I kind of want to call it chemical engineering, but that means something different. My PhD chemist friends are employed in finding the right new compound for a particular application, such as pesticides. That’s still creative in a sense. But chemistry isn’t hot any more. And it is an excellent example, thanks.
In the ET scenario, there would still be plenty of physics work, but nothing fundamental, since it would all be in the transmission. It would depend in part on how complete the transmission was. Saying that this is exotic matter, there are 50 new particles, go find them, is different from specifying all the new particles. The former case would be more exciting than the latter.
I’m not saying physics would die - just that I doubt the Feynmans and Wheelers would be interested any more.
I remember something like this—around the time of one of the first extra-solar planets being discovered, IIRC—but a bit different; it was something like a bishop or a priest made the comment that if intelligent life existed there, then their souls would have to be saved. But the Vatican fairly quickly issued a statement that that opinion wasn’t actually official policy, and that it would all depend on if the original sin had happened on that planet.
I think. I might be misremembering. Or I might have heard it on the same show where the guy said “that’s the beauty of it…it doesn’t ‘do’ anything.” Clarification or correction would be gladly accepted.