We are alone in the galaxy

I see SETI is brought up a lot and this statement is recycled: "SETI hasn't found anything for 50 years, so there's probably nothing."

Here's a good thread on SETI, below. I don't put this here because I necessarily think intelligent life is common. In fact, I make no judgemental. I think Brian Cox could be right. I'm just not confident about anything:
(Denying Ignorance About SETI: It's Not Just About Radio Anymore)
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1063819/pg1

Fundamentally SETI is the search for ET outside our solar system, whether it be by traditional methods or newer ones. If we were to find something, I think the odds are good it would be someone linked to SETI. Now, Fermi's Paradox offers us an interesting problem: If another intelligent species has colonized our galaxy, we should be able to detect them. Given SETI is our primary means to detect ET's outside our solar system, SETI is the one which should be telling us ET exists. Since SETI isn't telling us ET exists, many have concluded there're no other intelligent civilzations. But one has to ask whether SETI has performed an extensive search of our galaxy? I think the previous link is an emphatic NO. So given that's the case, Fermi's Paradox might not be a paradox YET. However, since a galactic civilization is expected to exist everywhere in our galaxy, inability to detect them nearby will eventually mean they're not there. (*)

Also want to say Brian Cox didn't say life is restricted to Earth, he said there's no other advanced civilization, past or present. So he's not excluding the possibility of finding simple life elsewhere in our galaxy.

(*) - en.wikipedia.org - Fermi paradox...

originally posted by: Batousai
Lol yeah abiogenesis never happens.

It most certainly happened once in the history of the universe.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Batousai
Lol yeah abiogenesis never happens.

It most certainly happened once in the history of the universe.

That's not what the evidence suggests. Life only comes from preexisting life therefore that evidence actually suggests primarily one of these two things. 1. The universe and all it consists of (life space matter and time) is eternal and had no beginning and therefore the number of past events are also infinite. life would have then always produced more life in an infinite chain of cause and effect. This would agree with the principle that suggests that matter cannot be created nor destroyed perhaps life is resilient enough that it cannot be completely extinguished. Since we cannot and should not test this hypothesis that life cannot completely be extinguished therfore it remains a possibility.
2. If the universe did have a beginning and the number of past events are finite then an eternal intelligent and powerful life source outside of time space and matter is not only the preexisting life from which all life came but also the source of power from which the universe sprung unto existence.

Either way something eternal must exist. Any alternative is incomprehensible. Either time space matter and life are eternal or these things had a beginning and something eternal caused it to come into existence. Either way the evidence still remains the same life can only come from other life, and until we observe otherwise that's what the evidence we have suggests. Despite our disagreement it remains a very fascinating subject to ponder.

a reply to: Batousai

I appreciate that you've come to these beliefs through some thinking, but you've overlooked several centuries of research and critical thinking.

The universe can't be 'eternal' because our skies aren't completely lit by stars. It can be 'infinite' for all we know, it just can't have existed eternally. Have a look at Olber's Paradox.

To counter this, your brain will probably assert that the Universe was created 'as so' and with a fixed number of stars all pinned to their places in space. You might think it solves Olber's Paradox in one fell swoop. Unfortunately for that solution, guys like Edwin Hubble have shown that our Space is expanding and the stars are moving away. There's also the issue of 'star factories' like the sexily-named galaxy HDF850.

So we seem to have an expanding universe that's still active in terms of star production. That takes us back to Olber and how our skies aren't all light and no darkness. A fixed eternal universe would be brightly lit by the starlight that has travelled forever and an expanding, eternal universe, would also be lit up.

The straightforward answer is that our Universe had a start point and the stars are travelling outward from there.

*********

The concept of an expanding Universe lends itself to some of your earlier comments on abiogenesis. Just as the Universe is expanding outward, we could say that life on Earth has been expanding in complexity and continues to do so. The earliest signs of life we have found are those ofarchaea (single-celled life). These little critters were around a couple of billion years ago and, whilst it doesn't *prove* there weren't highly evolved life-forms then, there's no evidence of any.

What this indicates is that life started off on very basic terms and then became increasingly complex. We don't yet know whether it began near deep sea vents or crashed in on the backs of comets. The origins and starting point/s aren't known due to lack of evidence right now - it'll change.

None of which precludes the existence of God, or gods, creating everything with a whispered word. However, it does offer a less complicated way of explaining (to a point/singularity) how our Universe hasn't been around forever and neither has life on Earth.

a reply to: Batousai


Please prsent your evidence that either the universe is infinite in age or had no beggining,

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Batousai

I appreciate that you've come to these beliefs through some thinking, but you've overlooked several centuries of research and critical thinking.

The universe can't be 'eternal' because our skies aren't completely lit by stars. It can be 'infinite' for all we know, it just can't have existed eternally. Have a look at Olber's Paradox.

To counter this, your brain will probably assert that the Universe was created 'as so' and with a fixed number of stars all pinned to their places in space. You might think it solves Olber's Paradox in one fell swoop. Unfortunately for that solution, guys like Edwin Hubble have shown that our Space is expanding and the stars are moving away. There's also the issue of 'star factories' like the sexily-named galaxy HDF850.

So we seem to have an expanding universe that's still active in terms of star production. That takes us back to Olber and how our skies aren't all light and no darkness. A fixed eternal universe would be brightly lit by the starlight that has travelled forever and an expanding, eternal universe, would also be lit up.

The straightforward answer is that our Universe had a start point and the stars are travelling outward from there.

*********

The concept of an expanding Universe lends itself to some of your earlier comments on abiogenesis. Just as the Universe is expanding outward, we could say that life on Earth has been expanding in complexity and continues to do so. The earliest signs of life we have found are those ofarchaea (single-celled life). These little critters were around a couple of billion years ago and, whilst it doesn't *prove* there weren't highly evolved life-forms then, there's no evidence of any.

What this indicates is that life started off on very basic terms and then became increasingly complex. We don't yet know whether it began near deep sea vents or crashed in on the backs of comets. The origins and starting point/s aren't known due to lack of evidence right now - it'll change.

None of which precludes the existence of God, or gods, creating everything with a whispered word. However, it does offer a less complicated way of explaining (to a point/singularity) how our Universe hasn't been around forever and neither has life on Earth.

Good talk, good points. However life only every comes from preexisting life. Also something eternal must exist down the line somewhere. Either the number of past events are infinite or something outside the universe is. Also a quick note, some people that believe the universe is constantly expanding then collapsing and has been doing so forever would disagree with you about the universe. I don't believe this but I know many that do. That would also explain your star lightt conundrum, another explanation might be that a star once it is at certain distance no longer becomes visible from Earth. An experiment that you could possibly conduct to demonstrate this is if you place a light in a basket or bucket and let it slowly down a deep well or hole eventually that light will look as if it shrunk in size and eventually will be so small from your perspective it would seemingly disappear, I'm not saying this is the cut and dry case ofeverything because I haven't thought about it too much but those are some things that instantly come to mind. Good chat, I definitely lean more towards a metaphysical living intelligent eternal designer if you will, call it what you wish.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Batousai


Please prsent your evidence that either the universe is infinite in age or had no beggining,

The fact is I don't believe it's infinite in age. I believe it had a beginning. I identify with point 2.

originally posted by: Batousai
The fact is I don't believe it's infinite in age. I believe it had a beginning. I identify with point 2.

How did living organisisms exist during the singularity and its subsequent expansion?

a reply to: Kandinsky

That Paradox is interesting, my answer to it is that the stars themselves are moving and dying, for example whereas our sun is fixed within our solar system, it is moving within the Milky Way. The other stars are likely doing the same. This will change where there light comes from, so if light is just reaching us now that left a star 3 billion years ago, it is has either died or moved from when it first left. But it is a logical paradox, if the light from every star in the universe hit our planet all at the same time from every location in the universe that's what we would see, but that isn't happening. New stars light formed 3 billion years ago that have to travel 4 billion light years to get here, hasn't even been seen yet. And think of all the blocked light if 30 stars line up exactly from the furthest point and the one closest to earth is a red super giant, we would only see the light from that one star, all the other light is blocked out.

a reply to: Bedlam

ehhh ever heard of the Pleiades?

In astronomy, the Pleiades (/ˈplaɪ.ədiːz/ or /ˈpliː.ədiːz/), or Seven Sisters (Messier 45 or M45), is an open star cluster

from wiki.


BAM. schooled

originally posted by: alienDNA


BAM. schooled

Sure I have. You probably weren't a gleam in your daddy's eye the first time I saw it in a telescope.

And it's not a star system. BAM, schooled.

In order to be a star system, it would be a star, perhaps two, possibly with a collection of planets. Like Sol System, where you might live. The key point is that in order to be a "system", the components have to be in orbit around each other.

An "open star cluster" like the Pleiades is light years across. You can't "travel to the Pleiades system" because there isn't one, the mistake is sort of like saying something came from the Orion system, which you also hear on ATS.

Worse, there are a lot more than "seven sisters" in the Pleiades, and most of them are B type stars that couldn't support life. So if you like hard radiation with lots of UV and you live on a brown dwarf, the "Pleiades StarSystem" is for you, I suppose.

However, Alcyone is only 50 million years old. It is a new-born as far as stars go. Any planets in orbit around it, even if you ignore the radiation, aren't yet going to have crusts. The Earth's been here for about 4.5 billion years, and intelligent life just popped up in the last little blink.

Hell, Pangaea broke up over 150 million years ago. We had continents and complex life here when Alcyone was a dust cloud.

originally posted by: alienDNA
a reply to: Bedlam

ehhh ever heard of the Pleiades?

In astronomy, the Pleiades (/ˈplaɪ.ədiːz/ or /ˈpliː.ədiːz/), or Seven Sisters (Messier 45 or M45), is an open star cluster

from wiki.


BAM. schooled

You should probably learn the difference between a star cluster and a star system before you try schooling anyone

Two types of star clusters can be distinguished: globular clusters are tight groups of hundreds or thousands of very old stars which are gravitationally bound, while open clusters, more loosely clustered groups of stars, generally contain fewer than a few hundred members, and are often very young.

a reply to: gortex

compounded ignorance. that is the problem.

we just don't have a clue what we are not aware of.

The worst part is scale. we don't even know how big potential life would be. Or how its mind is geared to work. Other sentient beings could have completely different problem solving skills, and therefore completely alien solutions that are shrouded behind our compound ignorance.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
To counter this, your brain will probably assert that the Universe was created 'as so' and with a fixed number of stars all pinned to their places in space. You might think it solves Olber's Paradox in one fell swoop. Unfortunately for that solution, guys like Edwin Hubble have shown that our Space is expanding and the stars are moving away. There's also the issue of 'star factories' like the sexily-named galaxy HDF850.

To play Devil's Advocate, that does not preclude the Universe having been created 'as so' as if it was billions of years old and expanding from there.

It can be created while still having a beginning and an end.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah, I know. There are a bunch of possible scenarios if our beliefs include Creators.

why are we limiting an alien civilization to the speed of light?

forget radio. could a civilization 1000 years more advanced than us learn how to beat the speed of light? i don't think there's enough data to make an accurate answer considering all the goddamn variables to take in.

then again maybe we got a bit lucky for a while and this is the show. either way you're only here for about 100 years.

originally posted by: Batousai


That's not what the evidence suggests. Life only comes from preexisting life therefore that evidence actually suggests primarily one of these two things.

1. The universe and all it consists of (life space matter and time) is eternal and had no beginning and therefore the number of past events are also infinite. life would have then always produced more life in an infinite chain of cause and effect. This would agree with the principle that suggests that matter cannot be created nor destroyed perhaps life is resilient enough that it cannot be completely extinguished. Since we cannot and should not test this hypothesis that life cannot completely be extinguished therfore it remains a possibility.

2. If the universe did have a beginning and the number of past events are finite then an eternal intelligent and powerful life source outside of time space and matter is not only the preexisting life from which all life came but also the source of power from which the universe sprung unto existence.

One problem with all this...

LIFE is a human concept, so in universe terms we are chemical reactions, some simple, some complex. It is WE that has established the boundaries to what life is, or is not. A sun is born when conditions are right, life happens when conditions are right, plan and simple. The magical aspects we apply to "life" is just something we made up. There is no life, as we know it, on Venus. The reason is it is too hot. Life is at best very limited on Mars because the conditions only allow for extremely simple life forms. If we do find "life" on Mars it tells us that life, in general, happens when conditions are right for that life to happen.

Either way something eternal must exist. Any alternative is incomprehensible. Either time space matter and life are eternal or these things had a beginning and something eternal caused it to come into existence. Either way the evidence still remains the same life can only come from other life, and until we observe otherwise that's what the evidence we have suggests. Despite our disagreement it remains a very fascinating subject to ponder.

Space/time is a product of our universe, this does not suggest that space/time is also outside of our universe too. We can not comprehend no beginning and no end, we can not comprehend no time.We have high certainly that elements 3 to 92 are created within supernovas. We are manly element 6, carbon, so why do you suggest that only life can create life when humans are who established, not the universe, of what is or is not life?

BTW what evidence do you suggest is there? The smartest people on this planet will say that what happened prior to our universe is not comprehensible since it is outside of our universe. Our universe is infinite, so how do you have evidence what is outside of infinite?

originally posted by: vjr1113
why are we limiting an alien civilization to the speed of light?

forget radio. could a civilization 1000 years more advanced than us learn how to beat the speed of light? i don't think there's enough data to make an accurate answer considering all the goddamn variables to take in.

then again maybe we got a bit lucky for a while and this is the show. either way you're only here for about 100 years.

Maybe, maybe not, so far maybe not...

We can blame this all on Star Trek... hehe They had to have the means to get around the universe so they made the "warp" drive. They also had to figure out the means to get to a planet quickly between commercials so they invented the transporter.

I think I read that all the energy in the sun is not enough to turn even one human into pure energy and back into matter... Also, to travel outside of time it's self (faster than light) works well in a TV show, but within a universe with rules it might not work that well...hehe

Our loneliness is most likely just the huge distances between advance life. I feel our only connection will be machines that can defy time with quick replication and a few billion years to travel.

It wouldn't really be all that surprising since humans are pretty much alone on this planet out of all the species known to us. We seem to be the lone mutants here.

When you think about it, the laws of nature kind of work against intelligent life. Or at least our kind of intelligent life. All we have ever done since we became intelligent is try to defeat nature at every juncture where we have encountered it. We simply don't seem to be content to live the way other life forms do. The first thing we do when we encounter a natural limit is look for a way to beat it. That isn't just intelligent life. That's destructive life. And it may be that it's self-limiting life.

Imagine what humans would do with the power of interstellar travel. We like to think it would be nice and flowery and some kind of great moment of evolution. No. I think we'd just abuse it. Somehow. Some way it would all go wrong. You know it's true. Look at what humans have done on this planet. I'm not even talking about environmentalism so much as just the dumb things that people do with power and technology.