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.

 

Mathematicians say it is likely alien probes have reached earth.

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JadeStar
We know (fp) the fraction of stars of stars with planets = around 100% - for just about every star you see (especially stars like our Sun has planets circling it. Planets are a byproduct of star formation. - Finding this was one of the main reasons the Keck telescopes in Hawaii were built.


How is this 100% when binary systems (or higher number systems) account for 30-40% of all systems and approximately half of those do not have planets?


Actually most binaries do have planets.

Planets have been found around both stars in widely separated binary systems as well as planets which orbit both stars in tight binary systems.

In fact a bunch of citizen scientists, people like you found a planet which orbits two stars in a quadrupal star system:

NASA Press Release
ArXiv - paper



Planets are the stuff left over from star formation so just about every star has some.
edit on 30-7-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: JadeStar
Good points about the Drake Equation.




At the time the Drake Equation was written, it was all guesses.

But not anymore.

And perhaps someday we actually will have real statistics. Anyone claiming we never will is just as bad as those claiming we already do.


I agree.

The fact that we've got real numbers for the first three variables after only 55 years since astronomer Frank Drake penned it is remarkable.

We are probably less than 30 years away from having a figure for fl due to three telescopes being constructed as we speak The Thirty Meter telescope in Hawaii, The European Extremely Large Telescope in Chile and the James Webb Space Telescope at NASA.

All three of these and their successors will be capable of examining the atmospheres of planets similar to the Earth around the our local neighborhood (out to around 200 light years - a space that contains around 400,000 systems, roughly 20-30% with a planet in the "Goldilocks Zone")

Kepler began the journey to finding fl by finding ne


edit on 30-7-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Ross 54
Sorry, but I don't get the logical connection between us being stupid and therefore there's aliens.

Harte



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Ross 54
Sorry, but I don't get the logical connection between us being stupid and therefore there's aliens.

Harte

It's in the hair.

edit on 30-7-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JadeStar
We know (fp) the fraction of stars of stars with planets = around 100% - for just about every star you see (especially stars like our Sun has planets circling it. Planets are a byproduct of star formation. - Finding this was one of the main reasons the Keck telescopes in Hawaii were built.


How is this 100% when binary systems (or higher number systems) account for 30-40% of all systems and approximately half of those do not have planets?



I know I already answered this but I wanted to point you to a story that was in the news today about a wacky binary system currently forming planets.

Universe Today: ALMA Observes Binary Star System With Wacky Disks

Infrared/Optical image of them:




When it comes to exoplanets, we’ve discovered an array of extremes — alien worlds that seem more like science fiction than reality. But there are few environments more extreme than a binary star system in which planet formation can occur. Powerful gravitational perturbations from the two stars can easily grind a planet to dust, let alone prevent it from forming in the first place.

A new study has uncovered a striking pair of wildly misaligned planet-forming disks in the young binary star system HK Tau. It’s the clearest picture ever of protoplanetary disks around a double star, shedding light on the birth and eventual orbit of the planets in a multiple star system.

The “Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) has given us an unprecedented view of a main star and its binary companion sporting mutually misaligned protoplanetary disks,” said Eric Jensen from Swarthmore College in a press release. “In fact, we may be seeing the formation of a solar system that may never settle down.”
The two stars in the system — located roughly 450 light-years away in the constellation Taurus — are less than four million years old and are separated by about 58 billion kilometers, or 13 times the distance of Neptune from the Sun.
ALMA’s high sensitivity and unprecedented resolution allowed Jensen and colleagues to fully resolve the rotation of HK Tau’s two protoplanetary disks.

“It’s easier to observe spread-out gas and dust because it has more surface area – just in the same way that it might be hard to see a small piece of chalk from a distance, but if you ground up the chalk and dispersed the cloud of chalk dust, you could see it from farther away,” Jensen told Universe Today.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Ross 54
Sorry, but I don't get the logical connection between us being stupid and therefore there's aliens.

Harte

As I said in my previous post, what I wrote does not prove the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials. It suggests that a repeating pattern of intellectual error based on an attitude of human exceptionalism has existed.
A current form of this attitude appears to be the contention that intelligent life in the universe is very rare, or that we are the sole instance of it. This only appears reasonable from inside this frame of reference.
If we are willing to learn from our past errors, and dispense with this assumption that we are exceptional, perhaps we can catch sight of the reasonableness of the idea that intelligent life is very probably abundant in the galaxy.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ross 54

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Ross 54
Sorry, but I don't get the logical connection between us being stupid and therefore there's aliens.

Harte

As I said in my previous post, what I wrote does not prove the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials. It suggests that a repeating pattern of intellectual error based on an attitude of human exceptionalism has existed.
A current form of this attitude appears to be the contention that intelligent life in the universe is very rare, or that we are the sole instance of it. This only appears reasonable from inside this frame of reference.
If we are willing to learn from our past errors, and dispense with this assumption that we are exceptional, perhaps we can catch sight of the reasonableness of the idea that intelligent life is very probably abundant in the galaxy.

And what of all the times we made assumptions that were correct? Why dismiss those?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Interesting theory. Based on that, there's a chance there could even be some alien probe or remnant artifact in our solar system at this moment. Problem is, those things don't have to come right to Earth to do their job, just close enough to gather adequate data at a useful resolution. Good luck finding something which is likely the size of a mini-fridge amongst all the material in the asteroid belt or ort cloud.

We wont really know one way or the other unless some alien openly says hello, or until asteroid mining becomes a real industry and somebody is lucky enough to find something and is willing to announce it publicly.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Ross 54

A current form of this attitude appears to be the contention that intelligent life in the universe is very rare, or that we are the sole instance of it.


Based on our current knowledge, life could be rare in the universe. it could be abundant in the universe or we could be the sole instance of it. All of these are equally reasonable possibilities based on what we know. We have yet to find life outside our planet. The universe is huge so there is a lot of looking to do.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Ross 54

A current form of this attitude appears to be the contention that intelligent life in the universe is very rare, or that we are the sole instance of it.


Based on our current knowledge, life could be rare in the universe. it could be abundant in the universe or we could be the sole instance of it. All of these are equally reasonable possibilities based on what we know. We have yet to find life outside our planet. The universe is huge so there is a lot of looking to do.



Well said.

We simply don't know what we don't know about how common intelligent life is.

Most astrobiologists suspect life may be common in the universe because as soon as the Earth cooled life appeared and we know the building blocks of life are common in areas around stars forming planets.

However... ask the same astrobiologists about intelligent life and it really is something of a guess. There is so much we still do not know about the planets such life would exist on.

Which is why we should be doing all we can to learn more about them and any potential inhabitants.

The more we learn will make one or the other side of the argument more likely.

edit on 31-7-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

How did life appear? Without knowing that the rest is pointless.

Then take life does appear .. and does become sentient. How many species on Earth would be able to reach the stars if they had the intelligence? It requires a body shape that can make and use advanced tools. Could a whale reach the stars?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 04:11 AM
link   
When people (for some bizarre reason) believe that "intelligent" life like here on Earth is "very rare", I always want to bring in one simple example:

Let's assume that one single, tiny grain of sand somewhere on a beach is inhabited by life. During time, this life evolves. They develop technology etc. and at some point slowly are becoming aware that THEIR single, tiny grain is only one grain on a giant beach ranging miles and miles....not only that, they also find out there is not only one beach, but thousands.

Now these micro lifeforms on this tiny grain assume (FOR SOME ENTIRELY ABSURD reason which goes against any common sense), that THEIR grain is unique. Its size, form, color etc. must be "unique" and there cannot be any other, similar grain of sand. They also assume that the fact that life evolved on THIS grain is very unique, a "one time event" which only happened on THIS grain since this grain, for some reason, is assumed to be blessed.....

>>
Based on our current knowledge, life could be rare in the universe. it could be abundant in the universe or we could be the sole instance of it. All of these are equally reasonable possibilities
>>

No, those scenarios are NOT equally reasonable. Believing in the absolute uniqueness of this planet, of this grain, is bare of ANY logic and common sense. ("Holy books" do not count I am afraid!). Nothing is reasonable about believing that what had happened here is a unique process limited to ONE single planet amongst billions.

I would not know ONE SINGLE theory/logic which would speak for the uniqueness of THIS planet, which says that processes happened here which are unlikely in any other place of the universe.

Given the vastness of the universe (which is absolutely mind-boggling just looking at numbers etc.) our puny trips to Mars and the couple of probes we managed to send out the solar system don't count. This may all sound great (and certainly is!) but doesn't even scratch the surface of "exploring the universe" to take those findings to make assumptions about the likelihood of life in the universe. It's really just the next grain over, nothing more.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Your entire post is one giant logical fallacy. If it's not, express through mathematical equations how prevalent life is.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Your entire post is one giant logical fallacy. If it's not, express through mathematical equations how prevalent life is.


What? MY post is a logical fallacy? Please explain to me the logic behind the assumption that what happened on earth is unique?
What "math" are you using to come to the conclusion that the processes here on Earth are unique?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Your entire post is one giant logical fallacy. If it's not, express through mathematical equations how prevalent life is.


What? MY post is a logical fallacy? Please explain to me the logic behind the assumption that what happened on earth is unique?
What "math" are you using to come to the conclusion that the processes here on Earth are unique?

That's your logical fallacy. If I can't show it's not unique then it can't be despite no evidence it isn't. Logical fallacy.

You explain to me why it's NOT unique. For a long time people could not tell why a stone drops, but they knew it did. What you suggest is that the stone doesn't drop unless I can explain why it does. Logical fallacy.

Here is the math ...

Number of known planets that contain life = 1
edit on 31-7-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

nobody allowed to speculate unless they have equations to satisfy you. dear me.

nobody can prove anything either way and it is always the same offender saying "prove it" on a conspiracy site,in the UFO and aliens forum.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar
jadestar,
if a planet was 100% efficient would it still be detectable?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

nobody allowed to speculate unless they have equations to satisfy you. dear me.

nobody can prove anything either way and it is always the same offender saying "prove it" on a conspiracy site,in the UFO and aliens forum.

You can speculate all you like, who has a problem with that? When you say the only logical solution is an abundance of life, you have left speculation.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar
Actually most binaries do have planets.


I gave the statistics. 50% of binaries do not have planets and binaries account for 30-40% of all systems. The number cannot be 100%.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

"You can speculate all you like, who has a problem with that? When you say the only logical solution is an abundance of life, you have left speculation."
since page 2 you have been banging on about "someone show me the equation" to prove life exisits,you know there is no equation to prove life exists out there but there are 4 pages asking for it,why? the person is not on the news saying this is fact,its a forum.
you seem so determent to show it is not "proven" well done it is not. it is a bunch of smart people working on equations,speculating. without speculating we would achieve nothing!
maybe add to the topic instead of using 4 pages to ask for proof of something you know does not exist.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join