It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There Might Be 100 Million Planets In Our Galaxy With Complex Life

page: 4
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
The way our species searches for habitable planets, is mapping DNA and storing seeds is to me the surest sign that other civilizations are/have been doing the same thing for-mostly-ever.

The only thing we lack is a means of getting around to do the same.




posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar
Excellent work.

Since you are helping to expand the universe of folks accepting this concept, multi-habitable worlds, I thought I would throw this into the mix.
While we are familiar with terrestrial life, (we be one!) consider if lives based on different chemistries, extreme environments are tossed in. Considering us to be THE prime examples of what is possible negates Evolution as a concept.

I proffer this idea, used frequently in Science Fiction, life exists wherever energy can be made to alter matter. Any system that is stable long enough, with an energy differential, will eventually evolve something that will propagate itself. How could it not?

This leads to plasma protoplasm!



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People


If we came across a planet without intelligent life, but with a shark-like creature who had roamed that planet for 250 million years basically unchanged, then I'd say evolution was pretty darn successful in the case of those shark-like creatures.



I agree 100 %, we could just be a flash in the pan and intelligence might end up being a bad evolutionary trait that expedites extinction.

I'll put my bet down on the primitive shark over humans any day of the week.

This is why I'm not too optimistic when someone feels that intelligent life is flying around to different planets.

Wouldn't it be funny if we were that prime race and in a million years it is us that starts to seed the universe with intelligent life.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I find the suspicion that intelligent life is rare in the universe unconvincing. It seems mainly to be based upon the number of contingencies that stand between relatively simple, non-living matter, and mind.
While acknowledging these contingencies, we should recall that a very good case is being made for the existence of a huge number of planets suitable for life, within the confines of our galaxy. Further, a modern understanding shows us the immense periods of time involved in the cosmic scheme of things.
We know that intelligent life is possible, because we have gone down that road ourselves. Even if a convergence of all the factors necessary to bring this about is very improbable we must acknowledge that even very improbable things can happen. Given a large number of coin tosses, occupying a long period of time, that coin will, upon occasion, land on its edge. Multiply the tosses into the billions. Those edge landings will begin to count up.
There has been a tendency in human history for some to fancy that we are unique in all the universe. First we imagined that our planet was the only one, and that the rest of the universe was a sort of stage set, placed there for our benefit. Next, some proposed that systems of planets were very uncommon, created by rare near-collisions of stars. Still later it was thought that we resided at the center of our galaxy, and that it was the only one in all of space.
All of these instances of assuming a 'uniqueness of viewpoint', as it's called, have been proven wrong, in time. Shall we then repeat this error yet again, supposing ourselves very rare, or even the only, or the most intelligent form of life in our galaxy?



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
It is a big place out there... Why should we have all the fun and be the only ones.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

I think the conventional argument is no technology can bridge the gaps between stars instantly and the length of time needed to develop the necessary technology to make the jumps in a lifetime is so great most civilizations never reach it. What happens to them? Maybe they go extinct. Maybe they revert to more primitive conditions. Maybe an asteroid strikes their planet and prevents them from advancing quickly enough. In any case, very few if any attain the technology to travel between stars in any sort of time frame that's reasonable. So what we're left with is potentially a cosmic sea of dead drifting space probes/ships that're no longer transmitting or operational, and they're probably hard to distinguish from the background.

This is what underlies the Fermi Paradox. It's theoretically possible a civilization could colonize the entire galaxy within 10 to 100 million years via self-replicating machines that travel between the stars. Since it's plausible intelligent life could have existed a billion years ago then it's very likely a civilization -should- have colonized our galaxy and be presently detectable. Since it isn't detectable yet we have to assume no civilization has reached the stage where it's able to create self-replicating machines that can travel between the stars. Or we have to assume they've banned such activities and ruthlessly stop such actions from taking place.

It's possible there's a sort of Prime Directive or other law(s) wherein they've banned self-replicating machines and/or protect planets such as Earth from outside invasion or abuse. But if that's so why have they not contacted us more openly? It'd be like if the UN banned developing countries from cutting down trees where natives live, but failed to contact the natives. For that matter, the natives are completely unaware anyone else even exists. Somehow the natives are protected without their awareness. The seeming lack of any evidence of life elsewhere indicates there's not anyone trying to abuse us or protect us. It doesn't prove, just indicates.

Something has prevented us from detecting signs of intelligent life elsewhere. Is it because most of them never attain the technologies to travel easily between the stars or something else? Are we alone? It seems less likely we're alone. What I think the science community has arrived at is the conclusion intelligent life is rare and usually does not attain the technology to travel between the stars in an effective way. Maybe they attain it, but then lose it? Somehow, it or they don't stick around.
edit on 2-6-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ausernamenope. i already own a couple of them. real estate, baby! it's where it's at!



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Ross 54

We're the most capable life on Earth, are we not? Where else in the solar system is there more intelligent life? Nowhere, right? So there's a good case to be made we're rare. And you know how the stars and planets and the moon revolve around us at night, creating the impression we're the center of everything? Come on, don't be so hard on us. We have a limited array of sensory data and our theoretical understanding is restricted by the data we can gain access to. Our data says life is only on Earth and we're not even certain how life started on Earth or even if it did at all. We're being cautiously optimistic when we say life is rare elsewhere.

We really just don't know yet. We're being practical with our estimates. If we said none, it doesn't jive with the numbers. Where there's one there's usually another. How improbable is it we're the only one? If we said it's extremely common: on what basis? We know we're rare in our solar system, so... extrapolate that to the galaxy and play it safe.
edit on 2-6-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rainbowresidue
a reply to: MysterX

Star for you!
How right you are!
We could achieve so much more even today if we weren't limited by rules etc. by TPTB. They have a reason for holding us back,I just haven't figured out yet completely what it is ... control perhaps? They already know of aliens visiting earth, and are gaining knowledge/ technology from them...

Anyways,one way or another we will be traveling/inspecting other stars and their planets in the future.
( Whatever will happen in history to cause TPBT to fall.)

That''s the next step,and it's inevitable.It's our destiny.
We've been building up to this for many decades.

To infinity and beyond!!!


I think everything in technology has been going as fast as it can. When I started in the computer industry back in the 1980's, having a basic computer system that could do 3D graphics cost around $120,000. Getting development kits with software manuals, compilers, API libraries each cost another $5000. First generation PC's couldn't even display true-color images let alone video:

www.youtube.com...

Now, a single smartphone that costs $500 does texture-mapping and can be connected by HDMI to a high-definition TV. And the software development kits are free. Plus that little mobile phone can connect to the Internet, play games than ran on 1990's console systems.

www.youtube.com...

Gaming PC's have become so powerful that they would be classed as supercomputers only a decade ago.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ross 54

We know that intelligent life is possible, because we have gone down that road ourselves. Even if a convergence of all the factors necessary to bring this about is very improbable we must acknowledge that even very improbable things can happen. Given a large number of coin tosses, occupying a long period of time, that coin will, upon occasion, land on its edge. Multiply the tosses into the billions. Those edge landings will begin to count up.


Given that there has been roughly 9 billion years of the higher elements to make planets, life etc and earth has been able to make one in 4.5 billion years how many flips are we talking here that land on the edge.... I personally do not see them adding up to a lot.




There has been a tendency in human history for some to fancy that we are unique in all the universe. First we imagined that our planet was the only one, and that the rest of the universe was a sort of stage set, placed there for our benefit. Next, some proposed that systems of planets were very uncommon, created by rare near-collisions of stars. Still later it was thought that we resided at the center of our galaxy, and that it was the only one in all of space.
All of these instances of assuming a 'uniqueness of viewpoint', as it's called, have been proven wrong, in time. Shall we then repeat this error yet again, supposing ourselves very rare, or even the only, or the most intelligent form of life in our galaxy?


There is life throughout the universe, and it is most likely a common event when conditions allow for it, but when you start to add discriminators to what that life would be then that is where we tend error on the likelihood it may exist.

As example if I said simple life forms then that is basically a given. Now if I said a 600 pound flying hippo with 6 eyes and a blue tail that starts to add a lot is discriminators as to what that life will be and would most likely make it extremely rare chance that it is out there.

So if we say life in general and we think that 100 million planets could have it in some form than that is reasonable, but when we then say extremely intelligent, able to communicate, able to build, able to go into space, able to travel great distances, wants to do it etc. We create something that is narrowly defined, but still assume it can be a common chance to happen.




edit on 2-6-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

I agree 100%. Life is hard to kill once it takes hold. Earth has tried a number of times to kill off life just to see it spring back with complex life once again. Just going back 400 million years on earth and we had snowball earth where there wasn't much in the form of complex life left on the planet, but that quickly allowed extremely complex life to flourish just to see it disappear, to once again be replace by different complex life forms.

When we talk about species we start to see that most species have a very limited time on earth and the more advance they get the more fragile they are and the more acceptable to extinction they become. Because of all this I only see self reciprocating machines as the more likelihood to handle the whole time thing, and since we do not have proof of any then they most likely have never been created to that stage just yet.

I truly do not believe in a prime directive, and I do not think even we would follow that rule.


edit on 2-6-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: Ross 54

We're the most capable life on Earth, are we not? Where else in the solar system is there more intelligent life? Nowhere, right? So there's a good case to be made we're rare. And you know how the stars and planets and the moon revolve around us at night, creating the impression we're the center of everything? Come on, don't be so hard on us. We have a limited array of sensory data and our theoretical understanding is restricted by the data we can gain access to. Our data says life is only on Earth and we're not even certain how life started on Earth or even if it did at all. We're being cautiously optimistic when we say life is rare elsewhere.

We really just don't know yet. We're being practical with our estimates. If we said none, it doesn't jive with the numbers. Where there's one there's usually another. How improbable is it we're the only one? If we said it's extremely common: on what basis? We know we're rare in our solar system, so... extrapolate that to the galaxy and play it safe.
The fact that there is only one civilization-building intelligent species (us) in our solar system is scarcely an argument against other intelligent life in the galaxy. One solar system is simply too small a sample, against the huge number of such systems that can be expected to exist in our galaxy. If only a tiny fraction of these harbor intelligent life, the number of such civilizations in the galaxy will still be huge.
edit on 2-6-2014 by Ross 54 because: added qualifying phrase



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ross 54

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: Ross 54

We're the most capable life on Earth, are we not? Where else in the solar system is there more intelligent life? Nowhere, right? So there's a good case to be made we're rare. And you know how the stars and planets and the moon revolve around us at night, creating the impression we're the center of everything? Come on, don't be so hard on us. We have a limited array of sensory data and our theoretical understanding is restricted by the data we can gain access to. Our data says life is only on Earth and we're not even certain how life started on Earth or even if it did at all. We're being cautiously optimistic when we say life is rare elsewhere.

We really just don't know yet. We're being practical with our estimates. If we said none, it doesn't jive with the numbers. Where there's one there's usually another. How improbable is it we're the only one? If we said it's extremely common: on what basis? We know we're rare in our solar system, so... extrapolate that to the galaxy and play it safe.
The fact that there is only one intelligent species (us) in our solar system is scarcely an argument against other intelligent life in the galaxy. One solar system is simply too small a sample, against the huge number of such systems that can be expected to exist in our galaxy. If only a tiny fraction of these harbor intelligent life, the number of such civilizations in the galaxy will still be huge.

i dunno if our place as the only intelligent species on the planet is really that secure. various animals have different intelligence but not necessarily inferior intelligence. Octopi for example are frighteningly intelligent. it's probably only the fact that they live on average for three years that prevents them from running the place because they learn incredibly quickly, they are great problem solvers and are crafty enough to escape the most secure tank and go on covert missions across rooms and return to their own tanks. they can open jars. they have an astonishing level of control over every individual chromatophore in their skin and along with other relatives like squid and cuttle fish they use that ability to communicate. they have the anatomical means to manipulate their environment too. they could use tools. they have a decentralized brain with neurons distributed throughout their bodies. evidently they are massively parallel processors. intelligence is not necessarily related to brain volume either as there are very bright birds with a brain the size of a marble. but there are mammals with bigger brains than ours. elephants, whales, dolphins. and so forth.
edit on 2-6-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: typos and additional thoughts.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite
The fact that we have not be overtly contacted by extraterrestrials doesn't seem an especially convincing argument against the possibility of our planet being a protected preserve.
The sort of obvious presence such contact implies could be deemed undesirable and disruptive to our cultures, which they would, in this scenario, seek to protect.

We may have been shown or even accidently seen signs of an otherwise elusive tutelary civilization. We may not have realized what we were seeing, and/or not agreed on the meaning of what was seen.



edit on 2-6-2014 by Ross 54 because: improved paragraph structure

edit on 2-6-2014 by Ross 54 because: improved paragraph structure

edit on 2-6-2014 by Ross 54 because: added qualifying phrase



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Arguments about the difficulty of rapid star travel are really beside the point. The Fermi paradox considered the case in which travel speeds remained well below that of light. The colonization of the entire galaxy was still considered possible in a time span very much shorter than it has existed. Given the age of the galaxy, relative to that of our planet, such colonization would already have been accomplished long, long ago.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ross 54
Arguments about the difficulty of rapid star travel are really beside the point. The Fermi paradox considered the case in which travel speeds remained well below that of light. The colonization of the entire galaxy was still considered possible in a time span very much shorter than it has existed. Given the age of the galaxy, relative to that of our planet, such colonization would already have been accomplished long, long ago.


Fermi was full of Cr r r r r ap! < Rolled 'R's.

there are too many unknown variables to simplify the question of intelligent life like that. at least drake tried to list the variables that were known in his own speculation.
edit on 2-6-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: missing text i think it thought i was using code symbols



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero
We have not only to consider the length of time that intelligent life has had to develop, but the huge number of worlds where this might have occurred. In any case, the factors contributing to the existence of intelligence appear to be assembled gradually by a variety of life forms, and to persist because they offer a selective advantage.
Given an environment where intelligence proves especially advantageous it appears likely to flourish, as it has during the last few million years on this planet. This occurred again and again in a number of primate and hominid species.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Dr. Enrico Fermi was a very able scientist. He considered a number of variables in posing his quite valid question about the lack of the obvious presence at Earth of a highly advanced galactic civilization.
Any of these variables might act against the chances of a number of prospective colonizing civilizations carrying out this aim. He held that it was very unlikely that these variables would prevent all galactic colonizers. He noted that even one or a few such civilizations could fill the galaxy in a astronomically trivial length of time.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I am not questioning Fermi's credentials. i am well aware of the caliber of scientists he was. but even a legendary scientist can err.

He assumes they would want to. perhaps an advanced civilization has solved problems of scarcity of resources and has a low birth rate. perhaps such civilizations has a philosophy that regulates their spread. perhaps their technology allows them to satisfy their curiosity without actually travelling to a location. perhaps they have an ansible and thus do not even communicate via media we could recognize. perhaps colonizing the whole galaxy is wasteful and unintelligent as a strategy for any civilization that could do so technology-wise. for that matter so is a dyson sphere around a star or around a galaxy. perhaps they can surviel distant star systems well enough to read the tattoo on a sun bather's backside from 35 thousand light years away. we are getting there ourselves as new telescope generations come on line. perhaps they are incorporeal. perhaps they teleport from location to location and don't even use ships.

Further thoughts:

perhaps they are immortal. perhaps they have achieved the mythical singularity and uploaded themselves to a super computer. maybe even the information substrate of the universe postulated to be the final form of the GUT theory of everything.



originally posted by: Ross 54
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Dr. Enrico Fermi was a very able scientist. He considered a number of variables in posing his quite valid question about the lack of the obvious presence at Earth of a highly advanced galactic civilization.
Any of these variables might act against the chances of a number of prospective colonizing civilizations carrying out this aim. He held that it was very unlikely that these variables would prevent all galactic colonizers. He noted that even one or a few such civilizations could fill the galaxy in a astronomically trivial length of time.


edit on 2-6-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: added thoughts



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
delete.
edit on 2-6-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: accidental quote of self



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join