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: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

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.

physicsworld.com...
www.livescience.com...
www.technologyreview.com...
arxiv.org...
arxiv.org...




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Why do people assume alien probes would contact us?

They might just fly through our solar system, take some measurements and move on. They could have zero interest in communicating with us.

As far as us being able to detect them, I guess it depends on the size of the probe. We didn't detect the 20 m (65 foot) Chelyabinsk meteor until it blew up in our atmosphere.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Occamsrazor et. al "skeptics":

"Number of planets where we know there is life = 1" === entirely irrelevant.

The universe doesn't care about our ability or inability to explore the universe. How many planets with intelligent life we discovered is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT and it certainly doesn't change it into "the odds are more towards 0 as opposed to 'potentially many life-forms'" - ESPECIALLY realizing that what we discovered about life in the universe to-date is ridiculously, hideously little.

You're making an assumption that "the odds are more like 0" just because we managed to visit the Moon and Mars and maybe a couple of other planets? That's it? This is all it takes for you to form an opinion? Weak.

The further below links with the articles about "life in the universe might be extremely rare" is better, now we're at least talking! I am not denying that life in the universe MIGHT be "extremely rare". It might well be.

It might well also be that circumstances for life to arise have to be VERY specific (there is actually no doubt about this), but if those very specific factors exist HERE (such as: age/life-spans of a stars, distance of planet to star, temps, duration for int. life to evolve and many more) there is no reason to assume that the same cannot happen elsewhere. In fact it would be foolish to assume, what would the reasoning be? What would make this planet unique?

We are only ONE planet amongst many. Maybe only 1 in 1000 planets fulfills all the requirements. Maybe 1 in 100,000. Even then, due to the vastness of numbers it would still amount to a good amount of planets with a chance of intelligent life.


edit on 7/31/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed


I am not denying that life in the universe MIGHT be "extremely rare". It might well be.



No, those scenarios are NOT equally reasonable


What we know due to our current knowledge is that life is unique to this planet. There is no math or logic that dictates that it isn't. The more knowledge we gain, the better we can gauge this. My original point was that life might be rare or it might be abundant or we might be alone. You seem conflicted.

your sand analogy is interesting but it doesn't do much to show how you can extrapolate to life being abundant. In fact you just recreated the same mistake.

take a billion playing cards. You know absolutely nothing about the face value of the cards except for one ace. After flipping over 10 cards, you find that they are blank. You want to know how many aces are in the rest of deck. With the info you have, there is no way to extrapolate that into even one card being an ace. Its not about being skeptical.
edit on 31-7-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Totemic

They are making a huge assumption there...

Advanced alien life is out there... We know this how?

The odds that there is life out there seems fairly good... Life is tough, and will crop up most anywhere given the chance. Advanced life is a whole 'nother cup of tea.


The more advanced, the more likely is the chance of self-immolation of one sort or another.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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?

In every instance where humans have made assumptions about the uniqueness of their situation, within a larger universe of which they were essentially ignorant, they have eventually been proven to be substantially wrong. The Copernican principle, which states that Earth is not uniquely situated in the universe, can be generalized to make our world's situation include the life, and intelligent life on it. In this case, experience indicates that it is more likely that we live in a galaxy of civilizations, than that we are along, or nearly so. See link, below for article on Copernican Principle.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Ross 54
That is an interesting point but no one is saying we are alone, only that it is what we know so far. The only way to rule that out is by finding life out there.
The earth being at the center was a possibility until it was shown otherwise.

There is an inherent "bias" when trying to determine the real occurrence of life out there simply because of our vantage point. This is evident with the remarks being made.
www.technologyreview.com...

When you strip out that bias, it turns out that the actual probability of life emerging is consistent with life being arbitrarily rare. In other words, the fact that life emerged at least once on Earth is entirely consistent with it only having happened here.

So we could be alone, after all.

That’s a sobering argument. It’s easy to be fooled by the evidence of our own existence. What Speigel and Turner have shown is the true mathematical value of this evidence.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we are alone; only that the evidence can’t tell us otherwise.

And if the evidence changes then so to will the probabilities that we can infer from it.

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



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: amazing
Therefore X=G X P That number is 4 sextillion. That's a 4 with 21 zero's after it. If I multiply that by 1% that leaves me with 40 quadrillion possible planets in our Universe that could hold life. I think 1% is a low estimate and we’re not even talking about moons. We guess that there are several moons in our own solar system that could harbor life.

No one is debating there are lots of planets that could hold life. The point is we have zero evidence they DO hold life. Saying there are 100 trillion sentient species and saying there are 0 outside Earth are both possibilities, with the 0 being the stronger of the two, as it is the only supposition with evidence to support it.


It jut seems to me that you are discounting an entire theory, only because you disagree with it. It seems to me that your theory is that life did not evolve on trillions of other planets. I think it's highly possible that it did. I don't think earth is unique.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
What we know due to our current knowledge is that life is unique to this planet. There is no math or logic that dictates that it isn't.


The fallacy here is that you and the other guy constantly bring in "our current knowledge". We can not, and with almost certainty NEVER EVER acquire this knowledge since the universe is (more or less) infinitely large with numbers of stars & planets where it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to acquire this knowledge.

We can explore our own solar system, good. We may even at some point in a very far future have explored our entire GALAXY. (Ok unlikely, but just as an example). Even then, we would still have billions of other galaxies where we don't know anything about.

Because of this inability to even grasp on the surface about the possibility of life in the universe I cannot and don't want to bring in OUR "not knowing" and make this a criterion in speculating about the possibility of life in the universe.

Of course we "know" that life is unique to our planet but not because we have entirely exhausted the research of the rest of the galaxy/universe and came to this conclusion....but because we are limited in actually getting this information.

I am as "right" in saying there might be "infinitely" more sentient beings...as you are right in saying there MIGHT possibly be none. But I am simply listing mathematical odds and observation (ie: Life HERE on this planet) and make my case...and you, to make your case say we don't know about life on other planets...ERGO it may not exist. In my opinion, my thinking is more reasonable than yours.

And..I can NOT think about a math or logic which would speak for the uniqueness here, I simply can't! Again..if you bring in math..for god's sake do some real math and not "yes, we looked at 5 planets in our vicinity and we didn't find anything...so I guess there may not be life anywhere else". (The irony even that we could actually show WHY, say, on Mars or Venus etc. is no life as we know it since those planets are not exactly habitable. However, there are billions of planets which are which may be pretty much clones of Earth without the conditions like on Venus or Mars etc.)

Now..for the sake of debate..imagine several thousands of Earth clones which are PERFECTLY suited, and now make an argument why you think it's not so likely that life evolved on THOSE hypothetical planets. What makes OUR planet unique? Why should the same processes not happen on those Earth clones?
edit on 7/31/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: JadeStar
jadestar,
if a planet was 100% efficient would it still be detectable?



Excellent question.

The answer is yes.

The planet itself would be detectable through the various ways we detect them now.

1. Radial Velocity or "Wobble" caused by its orbit around the star.

2. Transiting the star or causing a dip in the star's brightness as it passes between it and us.

3. Direct Imaging of the planet with a very large telescope or group of telescopes (called an interferometer) - even a 100 percent efficient planet would reflect some light from its parent star.

If you mean a civilization on such a planet that is 100 percent efficient, then the answer varies depending on what type of technology they might be using.
edit on 31-7-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
No one is debating there are lots of planets that could hold life. The point is we have zero evidence they DO hold life. Saying there are 100 trillion sentient species and saying there are 0 outside Earth are both possibilities, with the 0 being the stronger of the two, as it is the only supposition with evidence to support it.



originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: amazing
Therefore X=G X P That number is 4 sextillion. That's a 4 with 21 zero's after it. If I multiply that by 1% that leaves me with 40 quadrillion possible planets in our Universe that could hold life. I think 1% is a low estimate and we’re not even talking about moons. We guess that there are several moons in our own solar system that could harbor life.

No one is debating there are lots of planets that could hold life. The point is we have zero evidence they DO hold life. Saying there are 100 trillion sentient species and saying there are 0 outside Earth are both possibilities, with the 0 being the stronger of the two, as it is the only supposition with evidence to support it.


It jut seems to me that you are discounting an entire theory, only because you disagree with it. It seems to me that your theory is that life did not evolve on trillions of other planets. I think it's highly possible that it did. I don't think earth is unique.


Occam's is exactly right in the part I bolded but wrong when he says 0 is the stronger of the two possibilities.

The fact is we don't know which of the two possibilities is stronger in this case -AT THIS POINT IN TIME-

And there is nothing wrong with saying we don't know. Saying that drives us to find answers.

However as others have pointed out the arc of history has been that things we thought were exclusive to us, our world and our solar system, etc have been discovered to be fairly common in the universe.

In astronomy there is a saying: "If you find one of something chances are there are at least a billion more." The field of astrobiology is based on the mounting evidence that life itself may be included in that.

The last two great unknowns in that respect are life outside of the Earth and intelligent, technological life outside the solar system.

There's a good chance that if you are under the age of 50 then one or even both of these questions will be resolved in your lifetime.
edit on 31-7-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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%.



Where did you get your statistics? Because they sound well out of date. And i did not say 100%

I said ~100% or around 100%

Again, planet formation is the byproduct of star formation. Even in binaries.
edit on 31-7-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar
Where did you get your statistics? Because they sound well out of date. And i did not say 100%
I said ~100% or around 100%
Again, planet formation is the byproduct of star formation. Even in binaries.



It is estimated that approximately 1/3 of the star systems in the Milky Way are binary or multiple, with the remaining 2/3 consisting of single stars. Most Milky Way Stars Are Single, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JadeStar
Where did you get your statistics? Because they sound well out of date. And i did not say 100%
I said ~100% or around 100%
Again, planet formation is the byproduct of star formation. Even in binaries.



It is estimated that approximately 1/3 of the star systems in the Milky Way are binary or multiple, with the remaining 2/3 consisting of single stars. Most Milky Way Stars Are Single, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics



Right. That is well established. Most of the stars in our galaxy are small red dwarf (M) stars and these usually don't have stellar mass companions.

What I meant is where is the part about 50% of binaries and multiples not having planets?

The reason I ask is it sounds very well out of date, like something taught at the latest, in the 1990s before we discovered tons of planets around binaries and multiples.

It should be said, most conventional models of planet formation were based what was then our one lone example: our Solar System.

We have had to re-evaluate those models based on discoveries since 1995.

BTW when you quote a source for something like that, please add the link to it so I can see how old it is.
edit on 31-7-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
duplicate reply
edit on 31-7-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar
Right. That is well established.
What I meant is where is the part about 50% of binaries and multiples not having planets?



It is estimated that 50–60% of binary stars are capable of supporting habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges. Elisa V. Quintana, Jack J. Lissauer "Terrestrial Planet Formation in Binary Star Systems". arXiv:0705.3444 [astro-ph].



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
The fallacy here is that you and the other guy constantly bring in "our current knowledge". We can not, and with almost certainty NEVER EVER acquire this knowledge since the universe is (more or less) infinitely large with numbers of stars & planets where it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to acquire this knowledge.
I don't think so. There seems to be many promising leads. I remain optimistic that we find evidence of life on mars. Once life is discovered to have evolved somewhere else, we will have a much better understanding.



We can explore our own solar system, good. We may even at some point in a very far future have explored our entire GALAXY. (Ok unlikely, but just as an example). Even then, we would still have billions of other galaxies where we don't know anything about.

we are learning more all the time. See JadeStars posts. The more we learn, the more we can extrapolate.



Because of this inability to even grasp on the surface about the possibility of life in the universe I cannot and don't want to bring in OUR "not knowing" and make this a criterion in speculating about the possibility of life in the universe.

speculating is exactly what you do when you don't know about something.



Of course we "know" that life is unique to our planet but not because we have entirely exhausted the research of the rest of the galaxy/universe and came to this conclusion....but because we are limited in actually getting this information.

its not really a conclusion. Just a possibility.



I am as "right" in saying there might be "infinitely" more sentient beings...as you are right in saying there MIGHT possibly be none. But I am simply listing mathematical odds and observation (ie: Life HERE on this planet) and make my case...and you, to make your case say we don't know about life on other planets...ERGO it may not exist. In my opinion, my thinking is more reasonable than yours.

in my opinion you don't really understand mathematical odds. I laid out a math problem earlier. Please solve.



And..I can NOT think about a math or logic which would speak for the uniqueness here, I simply can't! Again..if you bring in math..for god's sake do some real math and not "yes, we looked at 5 planets in our vicinity and we didn't find anything...so I guess there may not be life anywhere else". (The irony even that we could actually show WHY, say, on Mars or Venus etc. is no life as we know it since those planets are not exactly habitable. However, there are billions of planets which are which may be pretty much clones of Earth without the conditions like on Venus or Mars etc.)

I provided a math problem and several links and a paper that demonstrates statistically what I am talking about. Did you read? The point I am making is that there is no probability for alien life that can be determined. I am NOT stating that there is any math that says we are alone. When I say we don't know, thats what I mean.



Now..for the sake of debate..imagine several thousands of Earth clones which are PERFECTLY suited, and now make an argument why you think it's not so likely that life evolved on THOSE hypothetical planets. What makes OUR planet unique? Why should the same processes not happen on those Earth clones?


Thats a false analogy nor does it have anything to do with my points. You are declaring several thousand hypothetical cloned earths and asking why earth would be unique? You then assume I would say life is still unique to earth. Hypothetically, there was a problem with the cloning process which only allowed the original earth to harbor life.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JadeStar
Right. That is well established.
What I meant is where is the part about 50% of binaries and multiples not having planets?



It is estimated that 50–60% of binary stars are capable of supporting habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges. Elisa V. Quintana, Jack J. Lissauer "Terrestrial Planet Formation in Binary Star Systems". arXiv:0705.3444 [astro-ph].


Again, that is correct but there is a key difference you missed.

Notice it says habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges.

That is quite different than planets in general.

Again, planets are the byproduct of star formation. If you see a star, there is likely at least a couple planets orbiting it. Binaries included.

They might not be in habitable zone orbits but most planets aren't.

William Welsh (San Diego State University), who presented the findings at the January 2012 AAS meeting:


“It was once believed that the environment around a pair of stars would be too chaotic for a circumbinary planet to form, but now that we have confirmed three such planets, we know that it is possible, if not probable, that there are at least millions in the Galaxy.”


arxiv.org...

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



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar
Notice it says habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges.


I misread your initial post, I thought you were referencing planets in the habitable zone.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JadeStar
Notice it says habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges.


I misread your initial post, I thought you were referencing planets in the habitable zone.


No problem.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join