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

Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.
Arthur C. Clarke

uncommitted

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?

Nope. How do you figure. He's saying that it's impossible for an alien civilization to have visited earth based on the age of the Universe. That's Dogma without benefit of looking at data. I'm saying that it is possible for an advanced alien civilization to have visited earth based on the age of the Universe. How is that using belief without fact as a religion?

reply to post by gortex


Links:
New Technique Finds Water in Exo Planet Atmospheres

Hubble Finds Clear Signal of Water in 5 Exoplanet Atmospheres

For the First Time, Astronomers Read Exo Planet's Color

One in Five Stars has Earth Sized Planet in Habitable Zone

Kepler Discovers First Earth Sized Planets Inside Habitable Zone 2011

Nasa Discovers Three Earth Sized Planets Right in the Habitable Zone 2013

Scientists Home in on Earth Sized Exoplanet 2014

First Possible Exomoon Spotted

Starshade Alien Earth Exoplanets Incredible Tech

Scientist discover a Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics

ATS Thread on Quantum Jewel Discovery

JadeStar
This could have implications for a form of interstellar propulsion as envisioned by NASA's Alan C. Holt. See his Field Resonance Propulsion papers from the 1980s. He describes something that would need exactly this type of discovery in order to work.

Incidentally, his work was the subject of a cover story in Science Digest in May of 1982.

edit on 16-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

Some excerpts from the paper:

The relevant conclusion which this latest discovery now helps with (since Field Resonance Propulsion was based on the assumption that what was found in the original post, would be found)

edit on 16-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

PDF-Space Testing of Electromagnetically Sensitive Materials for Breakthrough Propulsion Physics

Field Resonance Propulsion Concept

CIA.gov CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90

FOIA - Project Blue Book

The New Hunt for Alien Worlds

Scientist to Congress: We have the Technology to Find Alien Life

Top 10 Places to Find Alien Life

Will We Really Find Alien Life in 20 Years?

Nasa's Kepler Mission Announces a Planet Bonanza, 715 New Worlds

Extreme Life on Earth; 8 Bizarre Creatures

How Earth's Extremophiles Could Aide Alien LIfe Search

The OP says Skeptic as though it were a dirty word. In no fashion is being a skeptic a BAD thing inherently, Now if one remains a skeptic in the face of insurmountable data (that is actual HARD DATA, not opinions or theories or presumptions of any kind) then they are just a curmudgeon like what the OP seems to blanket all skeptics as being.

These 'skeptics' however are the causality behind why we are no longer burning 'outsiders' at the stake, and why most of the rationally minded people around no longer believe in fanciful superstitious causality for diseases and meteorological/astronomical events. Skepticism is an inherently GOOD thing, not the inverse.

immoralist
The OP says Skeptic as though it were a dirty word. In no fashion is being a skeptic a BAD thing inherently, Now if one remains a skeptic in the face of insurmountable data (that is actual HARD DATA, not opinions or theories or presumptions of any kind) then they are just a curmudgeon like what the OP seems to blanket all skeptics as being.

These 'skeptics' however are the causality behind why we are no longer burning 'outsiders' at the stake, and why most of the rationally minded people around no longer believe in fanciful superstitious causality for diseases and meteorological/astronomical events. Skepticism is an inherently GOOD thing, not the inverse.

I must disagree with your premise here. Yes, skepticism is an inherently GOOD thing and not the inverse, however. As we've seen in this thread already, one who claims to be a Skeptic is one who disbelieves something before even looking at the evidence and then dogmatically sticking to his disbelief in spite of all evidence that he is presented with. A Skeptic is the same as a believer blindly allowing his belief/disbelief to stop him from actually looking at data/evidence. The way to change that is to say that you are open minded and that you are "skeptical of a claim" with your reasons laid out. That's the difference. Skeptic as a noun is a dirty word.

Sorry OP. But the question " Do you want to be alone in the Universe? "
comes off as emotive and religious.

What you "want" does not come into it. You cant wish a God into existence or a UFO. It is not like " do you want to be lonely etc... ?"

More Links:

ESA Plato Hunting Mission

Search for Dyson Spheres

Nasa Terestrial Planet Finder

Newly Discovered Big Bang Signal

Meteorites Reveal Amino Acids

Ultimate Prebiotic Molecule Found in Interstellar Space

Mathematical Universe

Edit: My personal stance on the debate:

1. Our planet is perfectly capable of being visited

2. I believe we have most likely always been visited and continue to be visited by ET

3. We have detected flying craft of unknown origin

4. We do not know the occupants of UFOs

5. Almost all UFO and abduction stories are not authentic

6. There is a possibility of past human-alien contact on earth

7. Our history is filled with unknowns

8. I believe it is possible we currently have military in space

9. I believe it is possible humans have top secret advanced technology

10. I believe physical evidence of ET visitation can be easily covered up

11. I believe there may be other terrestrial life more advanced than humans

12. I believe a parallel Universe theory to be possible

13. I respect mythology and would never tell a native person, "Sorry your God is just a rock."

14. I do not jump, but rather lean to conclusions based upon all the available information.

15. I agree we do not have any evidence of ET visitation, however this does not change my instinct, which is swayed by the above links and other closely related subject material.

Mamatus
While it is mathematically not possible to be alone in the Universe it is also mathematically likely that we will never meet anyone else living in it. The picture below shows just how far out into the universe our radio signals have moved (200 light years).

That's a great graphic!

However, it only tells half the story (or infinitesimally less). That graphic is a very "Earth Human" centric graph, like we here on Earth would be the only ones to emit radio signals.

The basic laws of physics as we understand them (and we do pretty much understand them) suggest that all intelligent life will eventually understand...the basic laws of physics. Sounds repetitive, huh? Well...

Unless we take the self-centric view that "Earth Humans" were FIRST we have to assume there are gobs of intelligent species considerably more advanced than humans, and gobs equally less advanced. (Note: "gobs" is a highly scientific term). Following this, we then must ask where we Earth Humans fit on that scale of 'advanced' versus 'less advanced'. In order to do that we have to take into account the total set of data (the universe) we are dealing with.

For all practicable purposes (in this discussion) the Universe is infinite. The math geeks can wig out on how many decimals behind the zero we need to go, but again for all practical purposes us earthlings reside somewhere near the middle of the intelligence scale. (Note: having done some math in this area in college it turns out we're a little right of center, meaning more advanced than exactly middle, but still...near the middle).

So, when we look at your graph we see how far Earthlings with radio signals (which is an excellent measure incidentally) has "reached out to touch someone" (in the spirit of AT&T or one of those long distance companies). However, what that graph doesn't tell us is how far someone else might have reached out to touch us Earthlings. Going back to the probabilities, that someone 'else' is actually a whole bunch of far more intelligent species who have been around for a lot longer than we have...a whole lot longer (like billions of years)! When you plot those radius envelopes on the same graphic you get a much different picture. What you see is intelligent life radius that overlap Earth...IF they existed.

Then we have to consider that the early signals from an intelligent race are the ones we will receive first (simple physics), but what we would see is numerous overlapping circles, some more intelligent than others. The reason for noting this is because many debunkers (people who say ET DOES exist) suggest that any signal we would receive would likely be far beyond our comprehension. Simply put, this isn't true. We would be receiving signals from both more advanced, AND less advanced civilizations. Again, you just have to do the math.

In the graphic shown we are only dealing with one galaxy, but as we know the universe is made up of millions of galaxies. In the example above, the likelihood that ET exists anywhere near "us" (i.e within a couple thousand galaxy radius) is extremely unlikely.

Sorry, but it's true.

So, am I suggesting ET doesn't exist? No, far from it. Out near the fringes of the known universe there are some very odd phenomenon which we can't even begin to pretend to understand. Things out in this region don't really seem to follow the same rules. If intelligent life exists, it's probably there. If intelligent life exists inside of that region, but OUTSIDE the radius described above...the human race here on earth will never know of it in its existence on this planet. It's just too far away, and not even travel at the speed of light will change that. That is...unless the laws of physics as we understand them are completely wrong.

Are we alone?

Yeah, pretty much.

Sorry, ET...maybe next time.

reply to post by draknoir2

rage against the skeptic

That is the name of my new band. Thanks

reply to post by game over man

game over man
The skeptical side of the alien debate represents "there is no evidence"

game over man
Is there really no evidence?

game over man
15. I agree we do not have any evidence [...]

...

And you wonder why Skeptics are so skeptic...

reply to post by amazing


I don't think you are actually disagreeing with what I was saying my good sir. I don't think that the traditional definition/role of skepticism is disbelieving something inherently without regard for its claims. The entire point and benefit of skepticism is that it is a position of a pathos of distance so that you can have the default stance of not giving credence to a claim just because it sounds logical or its something you emotionally/intellectually have a confirmation bias toward.

I do agree with you though that someone claiming to be a skeptic and yet disregarding evidence is a pretty terrible thing, probably worse than someone with no skepticism at all, its a GRAND inhibition toward learning anything new, the whole point of the scientific process which is usually married to ACTUAL skepticism is to filter new data through the lenses of skepticism, the focus being on actually filtering said data and considering the claims in the light of known axioms which have already been put through the rigorous process of the scientific method/skeptical position.

game over man




Edit: My personal stance on the debate:

1. Our planet is perfectly capable of being visited

Lets look at our nearest large galaxy Andromeda which is 2.5 million light years from Earth so we see it as it was 2.5 million years ago had any itelligent life evolved there they could be long gone by now , even a race at the other side of our galaxy the Milky Way is 75,000 light years from us so if we could see their star it was as it looked 75,000 years ago that and any race could be gone now.

Its the vast scale of distance and time that is the real problem with this.

And further more even if there WERE direct incontrovertible evidence that there is visitation by UFO' to earth (I believe this to be true, not that there is incontrovertible evidence but that we are being visited by UFO's btw) that doesn't necessarily indicate that they are ALIENS or are from a different solar system inherently. There is always the possibility that these craft/beings are actually inter-dimensional in nature or are some sort of time traveler from a distant future.

wmd_2008

game over man




Edit: My personal stance on the debate:

1. Our planet is perfectly capable of being visited

Lets look at our nearest large galaxy Andromeda which is 2.5 million light years from Earth so we see it as it was 2.5 million years ago had any itelligent life evolved there they could be long gone by now , even a race at the other side of our galaxy the Milky Way is 75,000 light years from us so if we could see their star it was as it looked 75,000 years ago that and any race could be gone now.

Its the vast scale of distance and time that is the real problem with this.

IMO you are absolutely right, that this is the real pressing issue with any claims of interstellar visitation.

reply to post by thedeadtruth


I gave you a star because I agree with you. Yes it's a deep question. Skeptical debate with aliens comes across as, "hey maybe with their minds made up, they like an empty universe."

I just find it interesting so many minds have been made up, and those people are skeptical to the point that we will never evolve. Or there answer is very pessimistic about our future.

reply to post by ColCurious


My point 15. Is that we have no evidence based upon a skeptical opinion. I guess in my OP I should have said do we have any leads? I think there are lots of leads.

reply to post by game over man


Do i want to be alone in the universe?

It depends upon the company. I would like their to be benevolent, friendly aliens. I would even take primitive aliens on other worlds (where we were at say 100'000 years ago).

However, if the aliens turn out to be of the Galactic conquest and anal probing side then not so much, no - i would rather be alone in those circumstances.

reply to post by immoralist


A big "could"....

You're not giving it much thought.... just give up huh? We should stop digging for dinosaurs too right? We should stop exploring the ocean and ancient sites, language, art, and literature?

Edit to add: Skeptical/pessimistic alien debaters have already come to the conclusion based on their observation of the universe:

1. We will never travel the stars

2. We will never be visited by ET

3. We will never be able to communicate with ET

4. We will never be able to detect their presence

IMO you observe the universe the way you "want" to perceive it. You feel more comfortable alone in the universe and that we will never evolve. This opinion has some religious influence and is a pretty simple way of thinking too. "Oh you believe in aliens? Well it's simply understood they pretty much don't exist because we will never make contact. Simple."

reply to post by game over man


"Evidence based upon a skeptical opinion??"
What!? Evidence is evidence... either you have it, or you don't.
Everything else is only speculation, aka believe, aka not good enough.

Again, give me your best shot... 4 pages in and no reason to quit being skeptic.

reply to post by game over man


I dont understand where you got any of this from anything I wrote honestly...