We are alone in the galaxy

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
Personally, I think using any resources (be it materials, tech, thought or time better spent) to try and determine whether or not "we are alone" is a waste.

Let's just go see.

Ironically enough, to look for ET life would be to look for used-up natural resources. The most general definition of life (as far as I'm aware) is that it's a system that is able to decrease its internal entropy (the natural progression towards chaos and decay) by using external resources and then discarding them in a degraded from. To look for life, is to look for these imbalances in entropy. en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps, using resources in our push for more knowledge and exploration is the true sign that were are alive.

Considering Aliens have visited us in the past...

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
Let's just go see.

The problem is pretty much always going to be the sheer size of the universe. We're fairly clever at manipulating electromagnetic waves for our own amusement, and we can organize ourselves enough to mount some piddling explorations of our closest celestial neighbors. But we're nowhere near capable of harnessing the power and resources necessary to reach even the nearest star, and we would be foolish to go there if we weren't absolutely sure there was something there for us besides the "quest for knowledge."

Long before we're ready to head out into space, humanity will be overtaken by our super-intelligent, self-replicating machines. Whether they decide to head out into the universe in search of more resources is unknown. They might find a way to pull everything they will ever need directly out of virtuality, so there would be no need for them to go anywhere.

And maybe that's what has already happened in a billion other places where life crawled up and started building things. It just packed up and moved out of our reality back when we were nothing more than bacteria floating in a warm tide pool.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: SpookyM
a reply to: chr0naut

Sounds very narcissistic to think we are the only intelligence in the entire universe. Perhaps they remain silent because we are too primitive to handle the information. Perhaps (gasp) the government's of the world have chosen to keep mankind in the dark. It's plausible when you consider all the major religions would suddenly be proved inaccurate. Perhaps to save everyone the heartache.

He said Galaxy, not universe.

There is no evidence of life elsewhere. That evidence is subject to change. It's less likely to change for the galaxy though.

As if the galaxy isn't that big. We have yet to leave our solar system, the planetary system of one star, our star. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy. It's not like, 'oh we've been to the moon and Mars, there's probably no life in the galaxy.' Hundreds. Of. Billions. We've barely scratched the surface of one.

a reply to: gortex

The only way we are alone is if civilizations are all naturally self destructive.

Meaning we kill ourselves before we save ourselves.

Or..

Only a few make it out by using the rest the world as a mining operation. Ex: trillions in black projects only being made possible by the billions of people working to maintain a doomed economy.
Those few that make it out possibly join the rest of the psychopaths that used the lives of billions for their own benefit. There would be no need for them to interfere with different planets' evolution because it would all be the same to them. So where are they now? Idk, that's why option 1 seems more realistic

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Batousai
Truth is, people just want there to be life out there. That's why they believe there is, because they choose to.

Nope. We believe there is life out there because there are hundreds of billions of stars, our sun being just one, in our galaxy. And there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. The idea of life developing on only one is absurd. Not at all the same as your religious belief.

You believe this despite the fact that life has never been observed to come from non life, not once, EVER but you believe it despite the facts. Life only comes from preexisting life therefore life is eternal and has to be the ultimate cause of the universe. So when you said "The idea of life developing on only one is absurd" it is actually absurd for you to believe that life came from a non living thing despite the law of biogenesis. Life is rare my friend and it doesn't develope from non living matter it only comes from preexisting life. The sun only sustains life it doesn't create it. So there can be infinite suns out there and it will never cause life. Life can only come from other life. Why? Because that's what we observe 1000% of the time it's based on observation. To believe life came from non life is a religious belief based on 0 evidence. The reason I say religious is because it takes faith to go contrary to the evidence.

originally posted by: Batousai

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Batousai
Truth is, people just want there to be life out there. That's why they believe there is, because they choose to.

Nope. We believe there is life out there because there are hundreds of billions of stars, our sun being just one, in our galaxy. And there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. The idea of life developing on only one is absurd. Not at all the same as your religious belief.

You believe this despite the fact that life has never been observed to come from non life, not once, EVER but you believe it despite the facts. Life only comes from preexisting life therefore life is eternal and has to be the ultimate cause of the universe. So when you said "The idea of life developing on only one is absurd" it is actually absurd for you to believe that life came from a non living thing despite the law of biogenesis. Life is rare my friend and it doesn't develope from non living matter it only comes from preexisting life. The sun only sustains life it doesn't create it. So there can be infinite suns out there and it will never cause life. Life can only come from other life. Why? Because that's what we observe 1000% of the time it's based on observation. To believe life came from non life is a religious belief based on 0 evidence. The reason I say religious is because it takes faith to go contrary to the evidence.

True, since the one star system we have ever directly observed has only 1 planet with life, the logical assumption is that the other 9,000,000,000,000,000,000 star systems all have 0 planets with life. That's just downright logical.

a reply to: TheJourney

That doesn't negate the fact that you believe in something that doesn't ever happen. The law of biogenesis is the biggest mental hurdle you have to ignore. And again you assume that stars somehow create life I don't understand your logic. My theory is that we take life for granted because we see it every second of every day and don't understand how unique it actually is. I admire your impressive amount of faith.

a reply to: gortex

I like watching Brian Cox but I completely and utterly disagree with him.

I've said time and time again, the fact there is life on Earth means the chance is better than zero. We are one planet that orbits one star, in a galaxy of more than a hundred billion stars. And the milky way is one of thousands of galaxies. To suggest that our pale blue dot is the only planet in the universe that is a host to intelligent life smells like unfathomable pessimism.

a reply to: Batousai

The law of biogenesis is the biggest mental hurdle you have to ignore. And again you assume that stars somehow create life.

That's not an assumption. That is fact.

Stars create heavy elements and when they go nova they expel them, then said elements coalesce and form planets and made life on this planet possible.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Stars don't create life. The presence of a star doesn't imply life is nearby. The origin of life is the determining factor, and since we have the law of biogenesis to factor into our hypotheses it stands to reason that the only places in the universe that will have Life are the areas of the universe that have come into contact with pre-existing life I know this reality is not something people like it makes them unhappy for some reason but the fact is that life only comes from pre-existing life that is what we observe 100% of the time we have never once observed life originate from nonliving matter so based on our observations I predict the above hypothesis that the only places that will contain life in the universe are places that have come into contact with pre-existing life we may be able to go out into space and cultivate life but we have to bring it there it won't just happen on its own sorry for the lack of punctuation in my post I am using talk to text while driving to work

originally posted by: Batousai
The origin of life is the determining factor, and since we have the law of biogenesis...

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and the law of biogenesis is an outdated model.

a reply to: Batousai

Stars don't create life.

Maybe I should rephrase...Stars make life possible.

But Without stars, we would not be here to have this discussion. Seven Billion tonnes of Biogenesis cannot deny that fact.

a reply to: gortex

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Batousai

Stars don't create life.

Maybe I should rephrase...Stars make life possible.

But Without stars, we would not be here to have this discussion. Seven Billion tonnes of Biogenesis cannot deny that fact.

If you would actually read my previous statements you will see that I never said that the Sun does not sustain life I did make that remark as a matter of fact if you go back and read you would see that I agree with your statement the Sun sustains life it doesn't create life. But like I said before it stands to reason based on what we observe 100% of the time that life in the universe can only come from pre-existing life therefore anyplace that has life in the universe must have came from pre existing life meaning that a living thing put it there life doesn't just happen on its own it doesn't just come into being from nonliving matter to suggest that it does is to ignore science actual observable science that is 100% consistent with itself

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Batousai
The origin of life is the determining factor, and since we have the law of biogenesis...

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and the law of biogenesis is an outdated model.

Lol yeah abiogenesis never happens. Biogenesis is a law not a hypothesis. We observe biogenesis 100% of the time. Your hope and dream of abiogenesis is a faith not a science. Sorry bud it's just the facts. I know you want biogenesis to be wrong and I'm happy to burst your bubble.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ladies and gentlemen tonight's matchup is the main event. In the red corner we have something observed 100% of the time the undefeated undisputed champ the one who made spontaneous generation throw in the towel, he's as consistent as the law of gravity and as obvious as the nose on your face. The one and only biogenesis!!!!! And over in the blue corner we have something that doesn't even exist and has never been observed ever no matter how much money we throw at it the figment of your imagination the blunder from Down Under the myth, Fairy Tail, abiogenesis. And the winner by default since you cannot fight something that doesn't exist is biogenesis

a reply to: Batousai

And again you assume that stars somehow create life I don't understand your logic.

In a way they do , the elements used to make us , carbon and others were made inside stars , when the star dies all of those elements are cast out into space where eventually some of the dust will will land on planets , it's estimated 40,000 tons of space dust and rocks fall on Earth each year .... we are stardust.


a reply to: Thecakeisalie

To suggest that our pale blue dot is the only planet in the universe that is a host to intelligent life smells like unfathomable pessimism.

I agree but as it stands we have no evidence to the contrary so it must be considered as a possibility , I also agree the statement by Brian Cox is silly as he has no evidence to back up such a definite claim.

I hope sometime in the not to distant future we will hear a faint call from some part of the Galaxy and we can notch up our first official contact but until then perhaps pessimism is the right side of the fence to be on , although I do still believe others are out there.

a reply to: gortex

We are "probably" not alone in the Universe, out of the billions upon billions of planets and other galaxies out there. My theory is that Space and time are just as much of a challenge to every other thing out there as it is to us with all of our advanced technology.

So i just think it is not easy to move around and leave your homeworld in the Universe...

Oh and there are probably lots of radio waves out in space coming from other species on other worlds, but we just can't understand them. Just like you couldn't understand a dolphin or an elephant...

If you research these subjects:

1)The Fermi Paradox
2)The Great Filter
3)The Goldilocks Principle In Astrobiology
4)The Rare Earth Hypothesis

You might well conclude we alone in our physical universe.

That doesn't mean there isn't a powerful intelligence outside of our physical dimension.
I have thread on ATS right now that asks where did that first burst of energy come from for E=mc2 to start that big bang many billions of years ago, if our physical universe did not exist, then it came from another dimension.
As stated the only biological entities in the universe exist on this planet, yet we are not alone.
The supreme commander of a race of non-physical beings existing in a different dimension that can't die, accept by the hand of the supreme commander and have infinite power would be considered as what......God and his angels.