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.
originally posted by: smithjustinb
We're unique on this planet. Who's to say we're not unique among others?
habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges.
originally posted by: roadgravel
habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges.
Gotta love human thinking. Does science assume all intelligent life must be like human and other Earth life?
originally posted by: smithjustinb
Intelligent life may not be prevalent. There is only one species on Earth capable of doing anything like this. There are millions of species on Earth that aren't and have no desire to do this. We're unique on this planet. Who's to say we're not unique among others?
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-
originally posted by: JadeStar
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.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
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.
If this is so, wouldn't it be just as correct to say that our current limited knowledge about the rest of our galaxy could conceivably confer, on some, a bias against other civilizations in our galaxy; a bias that could be equally erroneous?
Finding a single case of life arising independently
of our lineage (on Earth, elsewhere in the Solar System, or
on an extrasolar planet) would provide much stronger evidence that
abiogenesis is not extremely rare in the Universe.
for me equations dont mean much to me. dont really understand them. common sense says it is full of life,simple.i dont need a PHD to use logic.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: ben555
for me equations dont mean much to me. dont really understand them. common sense says it is full of life,simple.i dont need a PHD to use logic.
I think what you really mean is that you believe. For me, when I look up at the clear sky at night, that is all it takes. Its not logic. Logic IS an equation BTW.