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.

 

The Fermi Paradox - What It Is and Categories

page: 11
129
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, since if they had FTL they only needed a few years to build more, and a few hours to get here, they would of had the exact coordinates & reports from the last mission. But i digress.




posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: intrptr

I talk about aliens using thought to communicate in my other thread:

Fermi Paradox - Communications Problem



Sorry i jumped the gun on the comms part yesterday, theres a YT link about that, i will post it in the appropriate thread, if i don't forget.
Seems i have some catching up to do, back to page 1.....oops....

edit on 24-7-2017 by playswithmachines because: clarity



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agnost
a reply to: eriktheawful

Eric, many thanks for a breath of fresh air!!!

What is life and what is intelligence? I think we have to differentiate between an anthropocentric definition of both terms and a possible broader interpretation.

The anthropocentric definition of life is how we see ourselves and our sister organisms here on earth: we are physically contained in a kind of shield that separates us from our environment, we have an internal organisation that is active and in equilibrium, we are dependent on resources (nutrients, energy) in order to grow and procreate, we can interact with each other and our environment and we can adapt to new environments and challenges in order for our species (or clade) to survive. We carry and pass on information to do all this. And we die.

And, as we also have observed, in order to have gotten to this point we needed a kind of liquid medium (water), and some atoms with special properties (CHON) to make this biochemistry possible under our local conditions (Goldilocks / Earth).

The anthropocentric definitions of intelligence are manifold, but cover such terms as (and/or) perception, cognition, consciousness and abstract thinking, depending on how evolved we consider the intelligence. And the main reason for the coming into existence of intelligence is to ensure our survival.

But would a more universal definition of life and intelligence necessarily need all these characteristics and pre-existing conditions? Would the environment outside our Goldilocks zone favour some other kind of life/intelligence? Does life/intelligence necessarily need a physically independent body? Does it need a metabolism; an environment? Does it need to procreate and die? Does intelligence stop at the step of abstract thinking? Or could completely different kinds of intelligence exist?

Just a few of many questions, but my main question here is what Fermi and Drake were looking for. Depending on one or the other definition, life and/or intelligence may be much more abundant, maybe closer than we think, and we may have to find other techniques to detect it.

Cheers!



The Fermi Paradox would still be an issue, however, even if we limit our search to "life as we know it". And instances of "life a we don't know it yet" would just be a bonus.


originally posted by: Agnost
a reply to: WHWIV



On Earth all organisms today share exactly the same biochemistry: same DNA, same amino acids, which would indicate that the coming into existence of successful life on Earth was a one-time event.

So successful life has come into existence on Earth only once, 3.7 x 10^9 years ago (although recently found fossils might indicate it might have been 4.2 x 10^9 years ago), because in all those years we have no evidence of organisms with an alternative biochemistry.




It's easy to be tricked into thinking that, because we don't see any life forms with different structure, none have ever come into existence.

However, this ignores the problem of "evolutionary momentum".

Imagine if you are a rookie basketball player with lots of potential. That doesn't mean that, from day one, you can play better, or even as well as, ordinary players who have been playing for years.

In darwinism, the "rookie life form" will probably get completely eradicated by the other organisms before it manages to get its first few replications. Because the others have been evolving for a long time, in constant competition with each other.

But if the same life form were to appear on a completely lifeless world, the "rookie mistakes" in its genome wouldn't leave it as vulnerable to predators.


So original life forms may have emerged billions of times in Earth's history, but never made enough copies of itself for anybody to be aware it had been there.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, since if they had FTL they only needed a few years to build more, and a few hours to get here, they would of had the exact coordinates & reports from the last mission. But i digress.

I see the washington flap (buzzing the nations capital) as the final straw, because though they knew their craft was captured right away and sought peacefully right away to retrieve it, our gubment and military remained stubborn until they buzzed washington, showed up on radar, and scared the bejeezuz out of thousands of eyewitnesses, several years later. Iow threatening the paradigm by revealing themselves to everyone, unless Washington responded. How far that could or would have gone is very interesting.

That means instant commo, instant response and eventual capitulation by our worlds leaders.

How I see that event anyway.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


And what chemical reaction would that be? Water, in some form or another, is fairly ubiquitous.


Do you want me to name a specific reaction with an element/molecule or do you just ask ignorantly because your mind is already made up? I´m just asking if this is a honest question because I dislike spending time on translations and stuff, when in reality you´re quiet able to google this for yourself.

But on the top of my head, here it comes:

-any alkalic metal (there are many variations)
-acids

those two terms cover thousand different molecules and are quiet volatile. Don´t get me started on alkalic metals. Try to balance one on your tongue (don´t do it)

edit: and those are not the only ones but I´m to lazy to type them all down / look them up. Amonium and water is one of the more public examples. So his point stands.
edit on 25-7-2017 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
-any alkalic metal (there are many variations)
-acids


And are you speculating that there is acid-based or alkali metal-based life forms? Other then say in Alien.

Water, in some form or another, is fairly ubiquitous, a hypothetical life form like what you appear to be suggesting would encounter them in some capacity.



edit on 25-7-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
1) No, I´m not speculating that like we, the hypothetical alien, would be made out of 90% acid or alkalic metals, but it very well could be they use compounts in their system. You are not made out of water 100%, don´t be so close minded.

2) These are not the only examples, there are other non acidic and alkalic compounts that also will react extremly volatile when It even comes into contact with water vapor in the air. There are other reactions going on too. For example dissolving something in water is also a chemical reaction.

3) I was not suggesting it, UpIsNowDown brought it up.

4) We are sitting here on earth and we don´t know # about most of what´s really going on out there.

5) Mind you, habitable zones are defined along our own specifications, what we encounter here on earth as life.

However, one could argue now that the definition of life is aligned with our experience of what life is, then of course the whole point is moot.

You can´t disproof it and he/I can´t bring evidence as of now, so all that´s left is the point where you think water is so harmless. I disproofed you on that for sure.

Those hypothetical life forms do not even need to have any reactants in it, it would be enough if the molecular structur is broken down meaning dissolving. That happens everytime you mix something with water.

Anything else?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

The Original Post is not about outlandishly conceived possibilities for alien life like acid/alkali-based creatures adversely affected by water which is a very common compound. Instead it is about recognizable life, otherwise I would put forward aliens made of Velveeta because, you know, speculation.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

... otherwise I would put forward aliens made of Velveeta because, you know, speculation.


"Trillian -- Set the Infinite Improbability Drive to 'processed cheese product' "


edit on 26/7/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Mmmmmmm.....Kraft singles.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Collagen

Just putting that out there.

Without it, animal life on Earth wouldn't exist.....it's what holds our cells together.

Guess what you need to make collagen?

Oxygen.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But you were responding to him. Now that your original point was explained to you and why it was wrong you move the goal posts. Like he said, you can't admit his post went way over your head.




posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
But you were responding to him.


So?


Now that your original point was explained to you and why it was wrong you move the goal posts.


The 'original point' was explained in the Original Post (and reiterated several times since then) we were all well aware of it of it since then.


Like he said, you can't admit his post went way over your head.


Who said that? It made non sense in the context of the Original Post.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Nature didn't do it (nature didn't find a way as some like to use that phrase). Neither was it 'by chance or necessity' (same storyline rephrased). Philosophical naturalism is wrong. Doesn't matter how many planets and suns there are in the universe (or how many universes one invokes), there's no life on them (the planets) other than the one planet were physical lifeforms were created wih a special care for their conditional requirements, the one we call earth.
Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? 1 of 2

Dr. Stephen Meyer: Chemistry/RNA World/crystal formation can't explain genetic information

Question 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
edit on 27-7-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
Nature didn't do it (nature didn't find a way as some like to use that phrase). Neither was it 'by chance or necessity' (same storyline rephrased). Philosophical naturalism is wrong. Doesn't matter how many planets and suns there are in the universe (or how many universes one invokes), there's no life on them (the planets) other than the one planet were physical lifeforms were created wih a special care for their conditional requirements, the one we call earth.


First of all, science really doesn't know how rare abiogenesis is. Granted, any video explaining how abiogenesis could possibly have occurred are purely hypothetical and speculative...

...But similarly, the videos you posted explaining how abiogenesis possibly could not occur are equally hypothetical and speculative.

The bottom line is that we don't know. Science doesn't know how it happens, and Creationists don't know if it can or can't possibly happen.

By the way, your first video just tells us that the type of life that can develop in our universe with our universe's physical properties are fine-tuned to exist with those properties. But of course they are; the only type of life that would naturally spring up and thrive in our universe would be the type that can...

..It's a self-evident question.

That would be like saying that it's astounding that the ocean has JUST the right properties for fish to exist. And if oceans had different properties (say they were made of the air that is on land) then fish would have not exist. Hpwever, air breathing creatures (such as land mammals) would exist in that "strange air-ocean" instead of fish.

That's just a rough analogy, but the point is that if the physical properties of the universe were different, our type life may not be able to exist -- but that doesn't mean some other weird (weird to us) form of life would not be able to exist instead.



Secondly:

Let's say there was a creator of life and the universe. My question would be "why just create life on one planet in a universe full of countless planets?"

or

"Why create a universe that is so vast that the one place on which life was created was such an infinitesimally tiny part of that universe (tiny to the point of being virtually non-existent when compared to the rest of the known universe)?"

Earth and humans are so miniscule and meaningless compared to the universe that they could disappear tomorrow and the universe would for all intents and purposes not even notice they were gone (as if the existence of Earth and Humans even mattered to the Universe in the first place -- which it didn't).


edit on 27/7/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Try to keep track with whom you are exchanging arguments, with I feel this might help understanding our whole conversation.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
Try to keep track with whom you are exchanging arguments, with I feel this might help understanding our whole conversation.


One. You interjected yourself.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The discovery of multiple megastructures has become and will continue be an ongoing point of possible evidence of discovery. en.wikipedia.org...
In addition, there is the distinct possibility that Dyson Sphere type technologies could account for variations on theories of mass, dark energy, dark matter, and would also account for the location of several alien civilizations.

Next, considering we have only had radio and television for about 1 century, the possibility that an Alien civilization would be alerted to our existence would be limited to a radius of about 100 light years, our signal numbers and cities, like Las Vegas and Tokyo, growing brighter as we get closer to 50, 20, 10 lightyears etc. So a civilization just 200 light years away would require extremely advanced telescopes and sensors to know we were here, and would presume we were a pre-industrial or primitive civilization even if they could perceive us.

The counter to Fermi's Paradox is that the longer we continue to exist, light up our cities, and fire laser beams and signals into space, the more likely we are to alert some nearby Alien civilization.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
and alien abduction stories aside, they do not constitute as actual proof of anything.


Yes they do.

It's not just "stories", it's people all over the world, during decades, describing the same beings, operations, scenarios, behavior.

Besides you have physical aspects related to the phenomena, people physically disappear during the abductions and cannot be found by relatives/friends, people come back with simetrical marks on their bodies and even sometimes fully formed scars, abductees children will start telling their parents about the "visitors" coming at night, people have been abducted at the same moment and later will describe similar experiences, and on and on.

You're just wrong.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Two articles have popped up in the past day that are very interesting.


The biophysicist Jeremy England made waves in 2013 with a new theory that cast the origin of life as an inevitable outcome of thermodynamics. His equations suggested that under certain conditions, groups of atoms will naturally restructure themselves so as to burn more and more energy, facilitating the incessant dispersal of energy and the rise of “entropy” or disorder in the universe. England said this restructuring effect, which he calls dissipation-driven adaptation, fosters the growth of complex structures, including living things.

Quanta Magazine - First Support for a Physics Theory of Life.

- and -


In the study, published in Astrophysical Journal Letters, scientists identified negatively charged molecules called 'carbon chain anions' in the atmosphere of Titan, Saturn's largest moon. These linear molecules are understood to be building blocks towards more complex molecules, and may have acted as the basis for the earliest forms of life on Earth.

The team say the discovery of the negatively charged carbon chain anions is surprising because they are highly reactive and should not last long in Titan's atmosphere before combining with other materials.

phys.org - Has Cassini found a universal driver for prebiotic chemistry at Titan?

The first article talks about entropy and if a process keeps being fed energy the system will be taken off its equilibrium state and be forced to adapt. It is radical idea and I like the "outside-the-box" nature of this thought. As stated, it is not complete and does not address all questions but it is only a theory after all.

The second article is more interesting. The article is a summary of a paper on the arXiv detailing Cassini's fly by of Titan and what it found happening in the atmosphere. Essentially, atoms are being energized by solar radiation causing simple chemical reactions including the "carbon chain anions." The molecules react with other chemicals in the atmosphere and precipitate out down to the surface. The big deal is they have found the same elements in interstellar clouds and other solar bodies including comets.

Take the two together and that is a pretty good indication the universe seems to be "rigged" to create the conditions for life and not just on this planet.

Neither answer the question who "rigged" universe this way but they do add to the Fermi Paradox as life seems like it should be everywhere.




top topics



 
129
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join