Skeptics: Do you want to be alone in the Universe?

sheepslayer247
A true skeptic would be in the middle on this topic......life may exist else where in the universe, it may not. Until evidence is presented, why would I state that I believe in one or the other?

That's sort of where I am.

I believe the universe most likely has life (I'm 99.9999% sure), but I won't go so far as to say it is a definite, because believing something to be 100% true without hard evidence would be close-minded. My mind should be open to the alternate possibility that we are alone (no matter how small that possibility) until proven otherwise.

FlyersFan
The math says we are not alone in the multiverse.
The Drake Equation pretty much puts any question to rest - IMHO.

Gawd!! Another bunch of eye-rollers proclaiming we can't be alone in the Universe and "those who say so" are nuts. Excuse me, but there's only one person in the Universe who says so, and his name is Straw Man. You guys trot out Mr. Straw Man every time you think you need to make the point that we aren't alone in the Universe AS IF you are being profound and enlightened. Except for some hypnotized and delusional fundamentalists of no consequence my guess is you cannot find anyone in the Universe who is the least bit educated who maintains that we are alone in the Universe.

The only real mystery here is why you feel compelled to insist that there are.

The real issue is, "Are "they" here," which is a much different question. For those of you who claim to have talked to, been abducted by, or have some sort of personal relationship with The Aliens(tm), then, of course, they are here for you. But for most of us, they are not, and the question of whether we WANT to be alone in the Universe is some sort of appeal to our not wanting to be lonely. IMO the question is insipid.

But in real terms, if they are not interacting with us, then it makes no practical difference to our lives whether or not they are or are not. In other words, our lives are not going to be practically different whether or not we are alone in the Universe.

It doesn't matter.

Last two posts on page 2 are great, star for you both. Keep up the conversation everyone. I'll add a post later with links that I would enjoy some debunking or skepticism towards them.

ATS has taught me how to be a great skeptic and debunker FYI...kinda of why I gave up on ufology. However that doesn't mean to quit believing and looking. Again links to come later.

reply to post by amazing


The science is the Universe had to expand enough to cool for all the stars to form and produce elements stable enough that life could evolve from them without rapidly reacting (see Carbon on Earth for example) or for the supernovae to explode to create elements heavier than iron.

There simply hasn't been enough time for life to be in significant a number and progression in the Universe for it to have visited Earth. From the vast majority of the Universe Earth doesn't even exist yet as light since its formation hasn't reached there, let alone cooled down enough to look as if it could support life and prompt a visit.

In terms of how habitable to life Earth is, there are billions of far more habitable planets in the Milky Way alone. If alien life was searching within it they'd be checking those first which would likely take trillions of years before moving onto Earthlike ones.

Sitting back and eating popcorn now.....

bastion
reply to post by amazing

 

The science is the Universe had to expand enough to cool for all the stars to form and produce elements stable enough that life could evolve from them without rapidly reacting (see Carbon on Earth for example) or for the supernovae to explode to create elements heavier than iron.

There simply hasn't been enough time for life to be in significant a number and progression in the Universe for it to have visited Earth. From the vast majority of the Universe Earth doesn't even exist yet as light since its formation hasn't reached there, let alone cooled down enough to look as if it could support life and prompt a visit.

edit on 25-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

Not sure how you can say that. How long is long enough? Are you saying that every planet is exactly the same age as earth when it comes to how long they've been cooled down enough to support life. Are you saying that no planet in the universe could be million or billions of years older than earth?

Nobody really knows the answers to these questions. Again, using science and math, it is very possible that some planets could have cooled down hundreds of millions if not billions of years earlier than earth did and it also is very possible that life evolved in completely different ways and on a completely different timescale than that of earth. You must keep your mind open to the possibilities.

reply to post by game over man

Again links to come later

You keep teasing these "links" , how about you stop playing games and put up ?

Yeah. How is it different than things are now?

reply to post by gortex


Haha that actually made me lol. I'd rather wait til I have peace and quiet and can focus. Basically satellite and advanced craft proposals.

I think we will discover alien life and advanced ET in our lifetime. I'll post those links later.

But regardless, even with improvements in our space research, it will never happen?

I understand skeptics being skeptical looking at things case by case, however I think skeptics sometimes hold an absolute no/never.

game over man
I think we will discover alien life and advanced ET in our lifetime. I'll post those links later.

As do I. Within the next few decades, I think we will have the capability to do very detailed spectral analysis of an exoplanet's atmosphere, and potentially find signs of life processes in that atmospheric analysis. The techniques and hardware to do so are being developed as we sit here today.

I understand skeptics being skeptical looking at things case by case, however I think skeptics sometimes hold an absolute no/never.

Nah. That's not a skeptic, but a blind believer. A blind believer is someone who has pre-conceived notion in their heads (whether that pre-conceived notion be that we are alone in the universe, or it be that aliens walk among us), and they can't be swayed to believe anything else but that pre-conceived notion, no matter what evidence is presented.

FlyersFan
It's not a matter of what a person wants. It's a matter of FACTS. What we want is irrelevant.
The math says we are not alone in the multiverse.
The Drake Equation pretty much puts any question to rest - IMHO.

Now personally .. I wouldn't mind living all by myself on a nice planet somewhere.
I'd be fine with that. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Let's just think about the Drake equation for a moment...

I have two dogs, they are twins, brother and sister - I won't say the breed. In the town I live in are very roughly 20,000 other households. Using the Drake equation, there should be dozens if not hundreds of households in this town with twins - brother and sister - of the same breed. That's fairly much the logic the equation uses, and no, I have no evidence there are twins of the same breed within the town that I live.

You think that's a stupid analogy? Why? The Drake equation is based on the fact that sentient life that gives any thought whatsoever exists on one planet (out of many millions of species which to the best of our knowledge have never expressed an opinion on the subject), namely Earth, and extrapolates based upon that. And that puts the question to rest for you? Ok.

Remember, there are literally millions of species on Earth, we live in a truly diverse place. Out of those millions of species, which has attempted or shown an interest in leaving our atmosphere? Why are we projecting our dreams onto any species out there that are happy enough (for example) swimming around and eating?

amazing

bastion
reply to post by amazing

 

The science is the Universe had to expand enough to cool for all the stars to form and produce elements stable enough that life could evolve from them without rapidly reacting (see Carbon on Earth for example) or for the supernovae to explode to create elements heavier than iron.

There simply hasn't been enough time for life to be in significant a number and progression in the Universe for it to have visited Earth. From the vast majority of the Universe Earth doesn't even exist yet as light since its formation hasn't reached there, let alone cooled down enough to look as if it could support life and prompt a visit.

edit on 25-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

Not sure how you can say that. How long is long enough? Are you saying that every planet is exactly the same age as earth when it comes to how long they've been cooled down enough to support life. Are you saying that no planet in the universe could be million or billions of years older than earth?

Nobody really knows the answers to these questions. Again, using science and math, it is very possible that some planets could have cooled down hundreds of millions if not billions of years earlier than earth did and it also is very possible that life evolved in completely different ways and on a completely different timescale than that of earth. You must keep your mind open to the possibilities.

No there's certainly ones out there older than Earth. The problem comes from the way various elements are created, there simply aren't many elements until supernovae start exploding so there's a cut off point before there are enough stable elements and a large variety if different elements before intelligent life can exist. The available time frame and minuscule size of the Earth in relation to the Universe and planets more suitable for life pretty much rule out it having visited here.

bastion
No there's certainly ones out there older than Earth. The problem comes from the way various elements are created, there simply aren't many elements until supernovae start exploding so there's a cut off point before there are enough stable elements and a large variety if different elements before intelligent life can exist. The available time frame and minuscule size of the Earth in relation to the Universe and planets more suitable for life pretty much rule out it having visited here.

I don't know about that.

There are plenty of generation 3 stars out there, and there are plenty that have been out there longer than our sun has been. Generation 3 stars and solar systems are those that contain materials from at least 2 prior generations of stars that have gone supernova. Our Sun and our solar system are 3rd generation; there were probably at least 2 generations of dead stars that have contributed materials to us. It is those long-ago supernovas that provide the metals and other heavy elements a technological civilization (such as ours) uses. Heck, even the carbon in our bodies and the oxygen we breathe was created in a long-dead star of at least the 1st generation variety.

There has been enough time for other generation 3 stars and solar systems (similar to the Sun and our solar system) to have had planets for billions of years, giving life on those planets a head start ahead of life on Earth. Even on our own planet, complex life (for whatever reason) may have gotten a late start; complex life on Earth is less than 1 billion years old, even though life itself is 4 billion years old. Perhaps there are other planets that are the same age as Earth where life complex started 1 billion (or even 500 million) years earlier.

Considering that modern humans have only been around 250,000 years, and our family tree of early primates for maybe 5 million years, I think there may be a good chance that complex life with a 500 million-year head start may be all over the universe. Heck, even life with as little as a 5 or 10 million-year head start could be out there -- but 5 or 10 million years could make for a HUGE difference in the advancement of that life.

reply to post by AzureSky

It's mathematically impossible to be alone in the universe, visitation is another thing entirely.
But purely in math we are not alone. It would be impossible.

I am not suggesting we are alone in the universe but saying it is mathematically impossible is wrong.

Also the drake equation proves nothing at all because we cant fill in all of the variables that make up the equation.


R* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[8]

fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
Countering this argument is that there is no evidence for abiogenesis occurring more than once on the Earth —that is, all terrestrial life stems from a common origin. If abiogenesis were more common it would be speculated to have occurred more than once on the Earth. Scientists have searched for this by looking for bacteria that are unrelated to other life on Earth, but none have been found yet.[40] It is also possible that life arose more than once, but that other branches were out-competed, or died in mass extinctions, or were lost in other ways. Biochemists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel laid special emphasis on this uncertainty: "At the moment we have no means at all of knowing" whether we are "likely to be alone in the galaxy (Universe)" or whether "the galaxy may be pullulating with life of many different forms.

In fact the only variables we can even take an educated guess at are the first three , fl , fi , fc & L can not even be guessed as there is nothing to base any estimates on. There may be life out there but it is not a mathematical certainty.

PhoenixOD
I am suggesting we are alone in the universe but saying it is mathematically impossible is wrong.

Phoenix -

Correct me if I'm wrong, but going by the context of the rest of your post, I think you mean to write:

"I am suggesting we are not alone in the universe but saying it is mathematically impossible is wrong"


...But I agree with you. I personally feel that it is mathematically improbable (highly, highly improbable) that we are alone in the universe, but it is not a mathematical impossibility. For someone to claim something like that is impossible claim that it is would not be good science.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


lol yeah , thanks for that

bastion

amazing

bastion
reply to post by amazing

 

The science is the Universe had to expand enough to cool for all the stars to form and produce elements stable enough that life could evolve from them without rapidly reacting (see Carbon on Earth for example) or for the supernovae to explode to create elements heavier than iron.

There simply hasn't been enough time for life to be in significant a number and progression in the Universe for it to have visited Earth. From the vast majority of the Universe Earth doesn't even exist yet as light since its formation hasn't reached there, let alone cooled down enough to look as if it could support life and prompt a visit.

edit on 25-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

Not sure how you can say that. How long is long enough? Are you saying that every planet is exactly the same age as earth when it comes to how long they've been cooled down enough to support life. Are you saying that no planet in the universe could be million or billions of years older than earth?

Nobody really knows the answers to these questions. Again, using science and math, it is very possible that some planets could have cooled down hundreds of millions if not billions of years earlier than earth did and it also is very possible that life evolved in completely different ways and on a completely different timescale than that of earth. You must keep your mind open to the possibilities.

No there's certainly ones out there older than Earth. The problem comes from the way various elements are created, there simply aren't many elements until supernovae start exploding so there's a cut off point before there are enough stable elements and a large variety if different elements before intelligent life can exist. The available time frame and minuscule size of the Earth in relation to the Universe and planets more suitable for life pretty much rule out it having visited here.

edit on 25-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

We can't be certain of that though. Therefore you can't say that you are ruling out other life forms visiting earth based on just an opinion. That's the furthest thing from science. You're not using science. You're using skepticism as a religion. eh?

amazing

bastion

amazing

bastion
reply to post by amazing

 

The science is the Universe had to expand enough to cool for all the stars to form and produce elements stable enough that life could evolve from them without rapidly reacting (see Carbon on Earth for example) or for the supernovae to explode to create elements heavier than iron.

There simply hasn't been enough time for life to be in significant a number and progression in the Universe for it to have visited Earth. From the vast majority of the Universe Earth doesn't even exist yet as light since its formation hasn't reached there, let alone cooled down enough to look as if it could support life and prompt a visit.

edit on 25-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

Not sure how you can say that. How long is long enough? Are you saying that every planet is exactly the same age as earth when it comes to how long they've been cooled down enough to support life. Are you saying that no planet in the universe could be million or billions of years older than earth?

Nobody really knows the answers to these questions. Again, using science and math, it is very possible that some planets could have cooled down hundreds of millions if not billions of years earlier than earth did and it also is very possible that life evolved in completely different ways and on a completely different timescale than that of earth. You must keep your mind open to the possibilities.

No there's certainly ones out there older than Earth. The problem comes from the way various elements are created, there simply aren't many elements until supernovae start exploding so there's a cut off point before there are enough stable elements and a large variety if different elements before intelligent life can exist. The available time frame and minuscule size of the Earth in relation to the Universe and planets more suitable for life pretty much rule out it having visited here.

edit on 25-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

We can't be certain of that though. Therefore you can't say that you are ruling out other life forms visiting earth based on just an opinion. That's the furthest thing from science. You're not using science. You're using skepticism as a religion. eh?

No, you apparently are using belief without fact as a religion are you not? Is that really enough for you?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I know all that, I studied physics for years. :p The distribution of all that matter would not reach significant levels without significant numbers of supernovae, meaning it could only happen quite recently (relative to the age of the universe).

A 10 million year headstart is in the reasonable range, however it'd take far longer than that to search the milky way alone, even when traveling at the speed of light.

reply to post by amazing


Nope it's a simple equation really. Given the short time a civilization capable of space travel could have been around mixed with the incredible vastness of space and billions of more interesting planets to search and the time it takes to travel between them and search them (as light is the past over significant distances) the probability tends to 0.

Reread my posts, I've been saying it's nigh on/pretty impossible, based on the incredibly low probability, not that it's a fact they haven't been.