Gravity attracts at all distances as does charged matter but which both attracts and repels depending on the charge. They both travel, apparently, at the speed of light. Try get electro gravity to work so that, say, all the planets in the solar system attract each other and are attracted by the Sun. You will see that some would be attracting others but repelling some others. Not a very stable solar system. Can't be done at least by the hypothesized methods that I have seen. Electro gravity has been proposed many times and each time has been shot down due to not agreeing with physical reality.

I'll post the quantum experiments when I have time, you will find them interesting...some of them date back many years but the recent one's are very precise.

As for gravity, yes it's an attractive force but very weak...attracting that which is close but electromagnetism is a much stronger force and doesn't seem to wane. I think the understanding is resonance effects multiple bodies in the universe along with an electromagnetic connection.
Have you checked out the EU theory?...seems to explain things more consistently than the gravitational model...it is really making it's way into the mainstream and physics as well.
Our understanding of all of this is evolving daily. Listen to suspicious0bservers.org every morning...Free! and links to NASA and nasa scientists provided.

Thanks for taking the time.
Be well...

"I see, 'meaning' a construct of our minds, as an effort to understand the function of something and developing a "reasoned" relationship to other things.
That is kind of what we do, right?"
You might look at it as minds producing metaphor about objective reality. Data from reality through the senses or by instrumentation enters the brain-mind as percepts which must be interpreted by what is already understood and is no more valid than how well the understanding is integrated non-contradictorily. Back in 1965 I did 5 low dosage LSD experiments and found that the brain chemistry is changed enough that I had to make an effort to interpret the changes in percepts from reality. There does not seem to be any shortcut to consciousness.

"It's like the Electric universe theory which observes that without electricity and magnetism the physical universe could not exist so the Reason Life and the physical universe exist is the function of electromagnetism as causation."

It is an hypothesis and not a theory. The matter in the Universe all contain particles which have electric and magnetic properties. So, yes the physical Universe could not exist with out electric and magnetic properties. Gravitation should be included in the causation premise since the large scale of the Universe depends upon it as you do to function upon the Earth.
Try to look at the EU hypothesis as something that main stream scientist have carefully looked at from a viewpoint of known physical laws and have found the the forces, etc. of the EU hypothesis are lacking in being an understanding of the physical universe. Try to fit the EU explanation for gravitation into a multi body system where it is known that each body attracts all the other bodies. That is not possible with the dipole lineups radially from the centers of mass. Might work somewhat for two bodies, but more bodies could not all attract one another. The polarizations could not be made right.

Sure we create mental realities, but what you get is whether the creation is objective or subjective.
Depends on whether one wants knowledge or to just to pretend to feel better.

"Like the many experiments that show how we change the actions and outcomes of quantum particles moving through two different slits in a barrier by thought alone. We can observe the outcome and it's called an interference pattern."

I have never seen any evidence that mind alone can change any experiment other than deciding to change the human body to do measurements on objective reality. In that case, physical reality has changed and different experimental conditions have change one should not expect the same results. The slit experiments is interesting in that no single particle shows any wave nature. Ensembles of particles have distributions which produce edge diffractions for single or multiple edges and show interference patterns between those diffraction patterns. One cannot expect to add the probabilities from one setup and another, say from one slit and from another slit, and get the probability distribution from a two slit setup.
But there has never been any mind over matter other than change the bodies actions and even that is somewhat questionable since there is some evidence that the brain has already initiated action before the conscious mind knows about it and just adjusts awareness to seem to consciously have decided to act. The free will thing seems, to me, to be just an inhibitory affect on action by the subconscious brain-mind.

I have not had time to edit that so there may be some typing mistakes.

Just gave them proper labeling and pointed out that they may be homo erectus (it gets more metaphorically perverted as we go here), but they sure as hell are not Sapiens.

Got it.

First, Thank you.
I see, "meaning" a construct of our minds, as an effort to understand the function of something and developing a "reasoned" relationship to other things.
That is kind of what we do, right?

It's like the Electric universe theory which observes that without electricity and magnetism the physical universe could not exist so the Reason Life and the physical universe exist is the function of electromagnetism as causation.

I am trying to build a case that refutes the leftest "new age" idea that "We" create our own realities which to them, means it doesn't matter what you do...there are no rights and wrongs, no consequences.
They are wrong, it does matter what one does and we can observe, through the consequences of our own actions that there are right actions and wrong actions. Everything we do and think has an effect on everything else to some degree even if we can't see it.
Like the many experiments that show how we change the actions and outcomes of quantum particles moving through two different slits in a barrier by thought alone. We can observe the outcome and it's called an interference pattern.

I wanted to make it clearer as to where I was coming from. You helped a bit...I think.
This is the most difficult part of my work and I am not sure I can pull it off.
The balance of my new book depends upon it.

So,...what's the difference between what you posted and I posted?

Ancient Vedic texts profess numerous highly intelligent civilizations across the Universe. They also warn that the “Creator” of the Universe does not usually allow interaction of different civilizations in general due to Karmic situations associated with the various planets of occupation. I always wondered why a civilization capable of traveling across the galaxy would then crash upon reaching the Earth. 😉

Other life is possible due to the observation that life exists on the Earth and that the elements of which life is composed exist throughout the Universe and that there is nothing to negate the possibility.
There are more than 10^22 stars in the Universe and here in the milky way there seems to be planets around many to most of them. Say there are 10^22 planets in the Universe. So the probability of life on any of them is 1/ 10^22 since the sample size is just one, so is the best that is known and any other probability is pure mathematical guess work. There is a high possibility of other life forms but there is only an extremely small sample size to find a probability for that possibility.

I know what you are describing. Much of the confusion today comes from trying to reify abstractions, i.e., try to make them real as though they are existents outside of minds. They are kind of a model of objective reality, i.e., that which exists independent of any thoughts, beliefs, feelings, minds, etc. existences. Reason is in the mind, not behind objective reality. It is the means by which one understands objective reality and nothing that exists outside of minds. Many minds believe that their thoughts are objective reality and not just the result of matter acting without some scheme or consciousness directing it, i.e., other than observing and logically directing the mind's thoughts by the mind itself by biochemical means, if a reason must be held by the mind to describe that. There is nothing behind existence. It just exists and matter exists with definite attributes or properties which act without some thinking or reasons behind it. Even life exists without some reason behind it. What is modeled by minds, i.e., brains, exists in objective reality but the reasons exist only in minds. Reasons why, work fine when part of a system such as the Universe but do not work for an existent not part of another existent. Since the Universe is all that exists, there is no outside and thus no reason for being other than made up stuff in minds to pretend that one knows something. Mathematics, e.g., is not reifiable and those who try to reify it live in fantasy worlds.

If we did inherit technology by discovery at such an adolescent stage of evolution...thanks to progressives and other parasitical creatures like them, we would destroy not just ourselves but likely any other civilizations too.

If the books of Enoch are at least partially factual then we have already been visited by evil races...I call them: The Fallen Idiots...besides falling favor to our daughters, they gave birth to the most vial critters in existence...the Nephilim...forefathers of the left, the crony and mentally ill.
I call them...the Great Unwashed Ruleless Delete.

Interesting, but not sure about this. There are many ways to become advanced. One way is inheritance/discovery. What happens if we discovered advanced technology under Antartica... It could catapult us to a very advanced state.

Language is important. Some way to communicate ideas. The inverse of NewSpeak, if you will.

In fact, there was STTNG where Captain Picard had to learn the planets history to communicate because all references were of their past, even to define things as simple as friendship. But they had advanced space travel, and I SCOFFED at this... Because if language requires so much work to express simple ideas... Imagine trying to define something as complex as a wormhole, or nuclear fission...

But I think that mean, cruel and even sadistic creatures could find their way to advanced civilizations. Look no further than Nazi scientists in our own history, later to become part of project Paperclip.

I hope you are right, but I fear you are not! And once an aggressive, conquering species comes out, and gains sufficient power... Look out! (Maybe it is best not to ring their doorbell?)

The rub is between Conscious homo sapiens and parasitical homo's and yes, it's in our nature to take care of self and family first, and also up to us whether to share any left overs with whom we deem worthy.

Conscious Homo Sapiens do not begrudge those that are more successful than ourselves; those that do, have a perversion set aside for the parasitical homo's. ( I can't in all good conscience call Them, sapiens): relating to, or being recent humans (Homo sapiens) as distinguished from various fossil hominids. [read humanoids]...wouldn't insult the great apes.

Well we are certainly ruled by creatures that belong in a penal colony...

Or as big as our home universe!...Yikes

My guess is that any race capable of technological advancement will eventually develop the means to destroy itself completely, and that inevitably this will be used. Even if it takes hundreds of thousands of years, that's an eyeblink compared to the age of the universe. So what are the odds against another race capable of contacting us, near enough to do so, and existing in the same eyeblink we do?

Not being an anthropologist, I can only base things on what I see and experience. Homo Sapiens either will not or cannot be at peace with fellow H.S.'ers because of his very nature. Rather than adopt to a hostile environment he modifies his environment to suit himself. This leads to the aquisition for stuff. The more stuff, the greater the ability to conquor his surroundings for greater luxury. The best is paramount, the best car, the best domicile, and if he doesn't have the best or the most but if anyone else does, theirs too must become his. There's the rub. The step beyond envy. That's where the Collectivist get him by promising no one can have more than him except for those who make sure that things are regulated so that everything is "fair"
."And so, there it is in a nutshell. I have mine and I'll keep it and if I want more I'll create it by labor, invention, or performance. If you want yours, but by taking it from me you'll need to do it by force, and so, we become the ingeneous fools of the universe, just ask any Rod Serling Alien.

Think about this. If you were an advanced civilization and you wanted to visit planets like yours.
You are limited to what you could bring with you.

1) A Way to cut/manipulate rock
2) Portable Energy Devices

And when you left. What would you make sure you took with you?
The same.

And if you did do that, how would you try to leave behind the clues of WHO built it, and WHEN?
Astrology becomes the only feasible answer. Lots of stuff on History Channel and YouTube about this.

We may never know... But I never thought we were alone in the universe. I think there is a far better chance that we are the Penal Colony for this galaxy, LOL. Except we don't have enough different species if that were the case!

So scientist that espouse a degree of probability of other life forms and civilizations are mistaken?

I see your point about possibilities/probabilities and am aware of the difference. Technically, as you state, I guess they are mistaken.

like finding a needle in a haystack as big as earth.

"I cannot understand why a natural Universe without some intrinsic meaning is so hard to accept."

Excellent. ++++++++++++++++s

But those relationships "are" objective reality and do in one form or another govern (so to speak) our existence.
I don't see anything in nature that exists for no reason. My take is: that reason a thing exists is it's function and having a function to fulfill gives it meaning. (Conscious humans would naturally wonder about our function beyond just existing)(so we wonder too, what function does the universe fulfill...seems like a lot of energy and specificity to exist for no reason)

Does that make sense?...I'm having trouble expressing that thought.

Sorry but that is the possibility not probability. Probabilities require samples withing some known sample space. The possibility of living matter is a truth but the possibility of other life can only be guessed at from knowledge about chemistry, physics, and biology. Probabilities can only be found with a known sample size within the universe in question. Like I said, the probability of life in the universe is 1 while the probability of life other than on the Earth is not calculable. Only the possibility of life other than on the Earth is possible but no number can be assigned to it since possibility is a question of existence and no such existence is known for other than for the Earth so no probability can exist for it. .

Meaning implies consciousness, i.e., no meaning without consciousness. Consciousness does not imply meaning, i.e., meaning needs consciousness to create some relationships about objective reality. E.g., there is no Platonic reality of existing forms, but only what relationships that consciousness can create to give it direction for furthering its existence.
Many want to believe in a "great scheme of things" to satisfy their questions, but there is no scheme behind the Universe.
I cannot understand why a natural Universe without some intrinsic meaning is so hard to accept. That does not mean that one's consciousness cannot through thought create a meaning for itself and its creator brain and body.

The probability comes from what we know about the components of living matter in the universe, in the cosmic and solar winds along with the shear size of the cosmos gives it a percentage of probability worth considering.

Like I stated: This is conjecture and theoretical entertainment.