ALONE? + OCCURENCE + TIME + WHAT IF?

ALONE?

There has been talk, for an extended period of time, and there have been articles and motion pictures as well, regarding the possibility of life on other planets. The prospects have intrigued nearly everyone and have fueled many imaginative projections of possible, although generally improbable, encounters with intelligent beings alien to earth. These beings are generally characterized as superior, rather reasonably based on the aliens' ability to reach us first, and thus be able to initiate the encounter.

It is considered inconceivable, to most who consider the possibilities, that we would be the only intelligent life in the Universe, given a substantially infinite number of worlds, many of them expectedly sharing earth conditions of development. It is reasoned that earth conditions would, at some stage, result in an earth-like development of a carbon-based life form.

However, there is DNA/RNA evidence that is contraindicative of any appreciable probability in the consideration of such an expected abiogenesis.

All forms of earth-life exhibit a substantial commonality in DNA and RNA structures, far more than enough to indicate a common beginning for all life on earth. This indication that there was a singularity of origin is further supported by the lack of any continuing origination of life under present earth conditions. Attempts to recreate earlier earth conditions, that might have been more conducive to an abiogenesis, have also failed. We can synthesize organic molecules rather easily, but creation of a simple life form continues to escape us and there is little indication that we will even achieve a promising approach. Less supported conjecture aside, the origin of life on earth may have been an extremely rare, perhaps unique occurrence. Once initiated, other quite possibly rare conditions would be needed to nurture existence and be stable for a sufficient length of time to allow life to multiply in numbers and to generate the variations within its numbers that might assist continuance under changing conditions. Geological history has revealed several close calls in which most life forms on earth appeared to have been nearly eradicated in cataclysms.

Life on earth has been fortunate enough to prevail over a succession of hazardous occurrences and may yet be challenged by others. If, somewhere in space, orbiting a similar sol-like star, there is another world in which the relatively unique origin of life has occurred, it may be that it has died in infancy. It may have not been favored with enough in a sequence of conditions to continue an existence and become so notably developed. If it did enjoy the favorable influence of conditions that did not cause it to expire or even to suffer our penalties and reversals, it may have reached an advanced stage of development equal to that which we prefer to visualize in our considerations of otherworld creatures. Of course, this development might or might not include the adaptability provided by our level of intelligence that makes so much use of other creatures and created structures. The ant is a highly developed creature, admirably equipped to adapt, socially cooperative and able to survive harsh conditions but totally lacking in the remarkably human ability to continually alter its means of survival within a lifetime and thereby exceed any rate of evolutionary adaptation.

There are many things we should keep in mind. Our present state regarding human attributes as well as that of the environment, is the result of an infinitely complex chain of events in which small differences in the past would have caused a much different present. To assume a similar course with similar effect, even if life on other worlds can be accepted as a probability, is assuming far too much, to be reasonably entertained.

When we consider the matter of alien encounters, we should remember that space is mostly space and is sparsely populated with matter. Astronomical distances are likely to be mathematical abstractions, even to most who continuously deal with them, since they cannot be tangibly related to anything terrestrial. What we see in the night sky is a panorama of accumulated stellar light source images that have no visually concurrent relationship. Some represent the position of a star as it was many millions of years ago, while others we see at the same time represent the position of a star as it was hundreds of years ago. As we have verified, in our probes of our neighboring planets, even the images of relatively near bodies we see in our sky represent positions the bodies occupied long before before the instant of viewing. The larger and more distant stellar images, we view in our telescopes, can also have distorted shapes, since the far and near sectors may have emitted their part of the imagery at greatly different times.

Traversing the spatial separation between our star and the nearest would require many years with presently conceived or realistically envisioned equipment. If life forms are as rare as I have suggested, they may exist or may have existed on a planet that is buried in a far distant sector of space. Even If we could identify them, or they be capable of identifying us, and respective locations could be pinpointed, we would need a hitherto unsuspected level of technology to permit any form of communication.

An interesting prospect is the reception of intelligible signals from a life form, sent thousands or even millions of years ago, signals we might continue to receive far into the future without achieving the means of knowing if its originating life form still existed.

If you are fascinated by the prospect of encountering a humanoid form that is physically and even mentally alien to your conventional contact experiences, why not increase your acquaintanceship with the variance in intelligent life that occurs on our own planet. We do not differ so greatly as the dogs that have resulted from our guided evolution, since we typically tend to be rather mongrel in our heritage. However, there are enough differences to be of interest to those who seek adventures in diversity.

When you look up toward the stars, consider that you are observing the history of the Universe. Rather than feeling minimized by such a vast array, you should know that we are beyond any realm of reasonable comparison with the things we see, since they are merely large and hot. Our tiny physical form possesses an intelligence and self-awareness that results from far more complex mechanisms than we would find in any star. However, we do share with the Universe the quality of being infinite, the universe in its existence, we humans in our potential. We think, we can express our thoughts, and we do what such thoughts enable us to do.

Perhaps we will soon venture starward into the distances that separate us from all the rest of existence. If we succeed in learning more in every moment, we will still be on the ignorant side of the knowledge potential, just beginning to know a bit of what there is to know. We have a finite past of which we know little and are looking forward to an infinite future we cannot predict but can hope to share. We are not alone in the Universe. We have each other.

ADDENDUM

I feel inspired, perhaps obligated, to make this addendum to my essay "ALONE?". While I have championed the singularity of a life origin event, I have not fully addressed the matter of an abiogenic locale.

Envision a planet, perhaps our earth, with lakes and seas that are filled with a variety of DNA related life forms. It would not need to depend upon the ingenuity of a developing intelligence for its more elementary life forms to traverse space and be transported to other planets. A simple spatial collision of sufficient magnitude, which is more common than we wish to recognize, could splash water into space where it and its content would be flash-frozen. Higher forms would be likely to perish but simpler forms would be expected to achieve a cryostasis, survive indefinitely, and be capable of restoration to an active state.

Eventually, a few of these explosively projected ice fragments, with their organic payloads, might be expected to eventually find their way into the atmosphere of a planet with nurturing potential and infect it with a simple life that could then evolve into more complex forms. This does not necessarily infer that our more popular expectations will be met and that any pattern of evolutionary progress would tend to resemble that of earth. Human mentality differs greatly from that of our closest relatives. Perhaps this giant step for mankind is almost as unique as the life-force itself. Evolutionary adaptability that affords survival may not inevitably come to include a creative form of intelligence that enables a species to alter capability relative to need within a lifetime and thus exceed the rate of evolutionary adaptation.

We are frequently bombarded by meteor showers and while ice meteors are fairly common, they are not readily collectible, since most vaporize completely in the atmosphere. Those large enough to reach the surface last very little longer. If we were to find and preserve such an durable sample and determine that it does contain simple life forms, we might never suspect their extraterrestrial origin if the DNA signatures relate them to earth forms. Even if such ice contained organic detritus, we would be most likely to misidentify it as frozen refuse from an aircraft.

Perhaps we were and are being seeded in this manner and are a life form that evolved from microorganisms orphaned by an ancient cataclysm. Alternatively, perhaps earth is the honored abiogenetic progenitor of life. If the latter is true, perhaps earth-life will be spread through more than our interplanetary efforts of exploration and colonization. Perhaps it has already happened and in a fortuitously far-distant future, it may happen again or perhaps it may then happen for the first time . Earth-life may be more widely spread by the frozen fragments of our lakes and seas, when they mount scattered, high velocity trajectories into interstellar regions and go where mankind has only dreamed of going.

Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr.

OCCURENCE

This is an attempt, based on a few of my prior notes, to clarify the fact that the so called "Laws of Probability" do not affect occurrence, but merely constitute a learned advisement of what may be reasonable to expect, failing anything that is better. It should be remembered that any knowledge of probability has been gained from our observation of multiple occurrences and should therefore be employed with extreme caution in any thoughtful consideration of a singular occurrence, with the object of predicting it.

We have somehow misconstrued our findings of probability to mean that they indicate the existence of a law of behavior that governs occurrence. While there are natural physical laws which govern all occurrence, by determining interactions, the work on probability only attempts to establish a summation of their extended effect, and results in a mathematical tool that we employ to limited advantage as an advisement in our expectations.

A simple trick, to provide some degree of demonstration as to our attitude in this matter, involves flipping a coin, or rolling dice and concealing the result.

Before the coin in tossed, or the dice rolled, the question is asked as to the probability of the result. After the toss or the roll, the same question is asked, and the answer is typically the same. It is then pointed out that there is no probability factor applicable to the result, after the toss or roll, since the result is now fixed.

What remains constant, in the above-described situation, is our lack of knowledge regarding the result both before and after its occurrence. This makes it more apparent that the probability is not so much a factor in the occurrence, but in the learned expectation regarding it. Unfortunately, in our application of probability, we often forget that a single occurrence is one of those many that make up the quantity required for any reasonable determination of probability and can therefore be any one of the contributing occurrences. If something is known to occur approximately one out of ten times in a study involving thousands of trials, it may occur many times in sequence within that study of thousands and therefore seem to indicate a much different probability within a smaller sampling of the larger study.

Perhaps it would be most accurate to state that probabilities are applicable only in the large sampling from which they are derived. Our desire to know the future tempts us to misapply them in guiding our expectations regarding singular occurrences and authoritatively stated findings may be made which make us overly optimistic or pessimistic. Reason dictates that we are prudently justified in applying evidence of probability only when its indications are overwhelming. Major indications should be heeded, moderate ones employed with considerable caution and all minor indications disregarded as well within the margin of our errors.

We may not be sufficiently prepared for such an observation, but since we can accurately predict a result when we know all affecting factors, including that of interaction, we can logically extrapolate this to mean that all occurrences are equally the unequivocal result of all affecting factors, that "random" occurrence appears random only when there is an unknowable complexity of affecting factors.

Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr.

TIME

We seem to have a problem in considering occurrences in time, a characteristic of reality which has been theoretically assigned a rather mysterious identity as a dimension, when it is no more than a perception. Time is our expressed recognition of comparative change in which comparisons of occurrence have been made by intelligent observation and in which relatively constant and inconstant qualities are recognized, defined, categorized, indexed and eventually labeled as time. Like yards and meters, hours and minutes, days, weeks and years are simply names of convenience we use to measure one change by another, terms we apply to observed changes that occur in nature or in those unnatural contrivances we have created to provide a consistent consensus of comparison.

If we exclude the metaphysical imaginings, travel in time would necessarily require a reversal or advancement of all change, and moreover, a reversal or advancement that excluded the time-traveler. Of course, if we could reverse all change and recreate the past it would take time to do and would therefore occur in the future.

I feel compelled to comment that we have a strong tendency to embellish and complicate our understandings of simple matters and to view complex matters in a simplistic way. Mankind typically prefers a middle range of complexity and will not hesitate to force-fit an understanding.

Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr.

WHAT IF?: DUAL IMAGERY OF ULTRA-SPEED BODIES

At extreme distances in the visible Universe, stellar bodies have been observed to have Doppler, Red-Shift indications of a relative or radial departure velocity approaching the speed of light. Unless the travel path of these bodies is already along our line of sight, a velocity observed from a vantage point in the travel path would be greater than the Doppler has indicated.

If such interstellar bodies should actually have exceeded the speed of light, their approach would not have become gradually visible. The bodies would have made their initial appearance at a point in their travel paths that preceded, and was at a determinable distance from, the point of a perpendicular intersection with a line of sight.

If the perpendicular line of sight, to the travel path of such an Ultra-Speed Body, is given a length "P", the velocity of the body, as if observed from its travel path, is designated "V", and the speed of light is made "c", the distance of the point of image origin "IO" from the point of perpendicular intersection of the line of sight and travel path, can be calculated.

                                                                            Pc

                             IO    =        _____________________________________

                                               Square root of: V squared - c squared

At this point of Image Origin or IO, a division of imagery would occur. A Follower Image "F" would continue in the travel path and exhibit relatively normal properties, while a Retrace Image "R" might become increasingly distorted as it appeared to move very rapidly, backward in the travel path. The excessive velocity of the body would simply have caused it to outrun the propagation of light in its approach. This light from its approach would then arrive in reverse order to create the Retrace image. The rate of R image proper motion would be the greatest for the least excesses in body speed, making the life of many R images very brief.

An attempt could be made to explain observed astrophysical phenomena in light of this speculation. The several instances of mirror-image, point-symmetric planetary nebula, such as the "Cat's-Eye Nebula" NGC 6543, could possibly be an Ultra-Speed Body image, at an image origin position 10, in the process of division. Instances of dual imagery, soon after separation. might resemble those paired stellar objects believed to be the optical result of a "gravitational lens effect" caused by the Abell cluster. (See note below)

Any truly distant body displaying an unusual rate of proper motion, which is typically characterized as "relatavistic", could be considered a candidate for identification as a Retrace Image R. The Retrace Image R might become increasingly differentiated in appearance from the Follower image F as their separation increases, with both distance and character making R and F images less relatable.

Including the Ultra-Speed perspective in considerations, when seeking explanations for unusual phenomena, might be an interesting game with the prospect of providing circumstantial evidence of greater than light-speed velocity in the Universe. Somewhere, at some time, some will eventually fail to immediately reject this bit of conjecture as a possibility. They may then keep it in mind long enough to recognize observational support, perhaps enough to make it a suspected reality.

I published more elaborate information on this subject in 1971-72, in a paper entitled "Dual Imagery of Ultra-Speed Bodies", which also included a few observations regarding basic physical phenomena. I have more recently updated some of this material. However, I am attempting brevity in these website offerings, especially in regard to subjects that may be of less than general interest.

NOTE! The "gravitational lens effect of the Abell cluster is said to create a double image of a more distant body as light rays pass the cluster's periphery. This type of observation, that apparently supports the theory of a gravitational effect on light, was first made in 1919 when a solar eclipse revealed a displacement in the position of star images close to the sun's image. While the possibility of a gravitational effect on light passing such a body is popularly accepted, such claims to evidence appear to lack a reasonable consideration of an equally possible refractive effect caused by the passage of light through gradually diminishing densities of transparent material enveloping the same body or bodies.

Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr.