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: 12
129
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
I knew most people in this thread weren't interested in discussing realities/facts/certainties (that don't fit with the imaginations and speculations they want to talk about that are in line with philosophical naturalism). I was merely adding the one consideration that wasn't even alllowed to be contemplated it seems from the OP (or at least it didn't come up in anyone's mind as a consideration on the first few pages that I read, so whether or not intended that way, it has had that effect; perhaps "allowed to" wasn't the best choice of words but I'm sticking with it). The routine of putting rational reasonable conclusions, thoughts and considerations on the same footing as pure fantasy and wishful thinking (philosophical naturalism, by referring to both as "speculative") is not particularly helpful, rational or reasonable. I've heard it all before. Anything is possible right? Pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, etc. Who knows...

Well, I do. I know at least some things about what's possible and what's not in relation to this topic of life on other planets. I also know the difference between fact and fiction when it comes to those talking about these things and this subject (and I'm not the only one). But I guess I don't count as part of "we" in the slogan of convenience* 'we don't know' (*: in the denial of realities to open the door for pure imagination and to continue clinging to philosophical naturalism as if it's "science"). Your circular argument concerning the topic of fine-tuning is discussed in the 2nd part of that video you were responding to.

The OP only listed options in light of philosophical naturalism. The basis for your thinking is flawed. I think I might be the first one in this thread to suggest that assuming that life will evolve* by natural processes alone on other planets as long as you have enough planets (and enough variety) is an irrational path to go down. It blatantly ignores all facts related to this topic that don't work well for the storyline: 'Nature did it'.

*: the word "evolve" in that sentence is used in the same manner as Haldane and Oparin used it in their explanations of what they referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" as that terminology can be found on the wikipedia page for abiogenesis a.k.a. "chemical evolution" (along with 109 instances of "evol..." and 15 occurances of the word "panspermia" and 4 occurances of "biological evolution").
edit on 27-7-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
TEOTWAWKIAIFF beat me to it. This is a great article
www.abovetopsecret.com...




The existence of life is no mystery or lucky break, he told Quanta in 2014, but rather follows from general physical principles and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”


I think one of the answers to the Fermi Paradox must be technology and detectability - are we equipped to discover other forms of life? Are they right in front of our noses and yet we can't detect them? And it works both ways for us and for alien life. We're looking for self-similar, recognizable forms of life when in fact alien biochemistry may not be detectable at all to us. There's still a lot of debate as to whether the universe is fractal. If it is fractal, then the probability of similar life out there should be high. If it isn't fractal, then all bets are off. Right now all we have are different forms of spectroscopy to investigate other worlds. Maybe there's a limit to how far our technology can take us i.e. an inherent limitation of our life form.

NASA's Exoplanet Archive is very interesting - There's no shortage of detectable planets and more being discovered every month. Where are the aliens? We may be looking right at them and not know it.



exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu...



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Is NASA and SETI the onlY entities in the world actively searching for intelligent life out there? Do we know if China, Russia or any European countries is also doing it?

They might have a different Intel on the subject matter.



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: IQPREREQUISITE

I think most developed nations have some projects that explore the possibilities of life in the observable universe. There are also citizen astronomer groups like Planet Hunters which search for exoplanets in habitable zones. Universities have invested in observatories across the world and help to make the searches into international efforts.

Next year's launch of the James Webb Space Telescope is a multi-national affair that promises culture-changing imagery like the early Hubble. It's an exciting prospect.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: eriktheawful

This is a really good thread. I tend to lean towards the rare earth scenario modified by the thought that intelligent life is not necessarily an evolutionary goal


That is an interesting thought..

That plenty of otherworldly life exists, but that "intelligent" "advanced" technologically capable civilizations are an anomaly.

Wouldn't that be a painful discovery? That creation prioritizes simple life..and us humans are an anomaly and our sophistication is akin to a rare disease, rather than an evolutionary intent? We aren't exactly living in a symbiotic relationship with the rest of simple life forms on this rock
Hell...lots of people encourage space exploration so that we have options once we ruin this planet...sounds like a spreading disease? Is it possible that creation simply doesn't value technological advancement?

...or it could be that we are a park reserve....Aliens could very well be observing us from a distance the way biologists study wolves..stay out of site, but once in a while fly up, dart one and take blood samples etc.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Wouldn't that be a painful discovery? That creation prioritizes simple life..and us humans are an anomaly and our sophistication is akin to a rare disease, rather than an evolutionary intent?


That's pretty much what I believe, that we'll find life is fairly ubiquitous and tenacious but evolved intelligence is an anomaly. All the more reason to not blow ourselves up.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Love the post. Really well thought out and presented!



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Wouldn't that be a painful discovery? That creation prioritizes simple life..and us humans are an anomaly and our sophistication is akin to a rare disease, rather than an evolutionary intent?


That's pretty much what I believe, that we'll find life is fairly ubiquitous and tenacious but evolved intelligence is an anomaly. All the more reason to not blow ourselves up.

I agree, but I'll add this:

Even if evolved intelligence is an anomaly, the size of the universe virtually guarantees that there is other intelligent life out there existing at this moment. However, for the same reason (the size of the universe) the distances between any two examples of intelligent life might be so great that they may never meet nor have contact with each other.


edit on 6/8/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I love this topic - I've done some idle speculation on this which has led me to my personal belief on the Paradox.

I think it is AI, though not necessarily in the way that many people thing. AI is all but necessary in order to supply a huge and growing population. The down side is that it gives "people" too much time on their hands. Idle hands are the devil's playthings, so the popular phrase goes, and I don't mean this in the strictly theological term.

People have enough time to get take offense to everything everyone else says, and with time to nurture that grudge (along with the counter grudges), things escalate horribly and people wipe themselves out.

That is the extent of my hobby of futurism.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
New from the always veritable space.com





NEWS
TECH
SPACEFLIGHT
SCIENCE & ASTRONOMY
SEARCH FOR LIFE
SKYWATCHING
VIDEO
ECLIPSE 2017

Space.comScience & Astronomy
Some Alien Planets May Bypass Habitability
By Charles Q. Choi, Space.com Contributor | August 7, 2017 05:00pm ET
34 8 MORE
Partner Series
Some Alien Planets May Bypass Habitability
An artist's illustration of an ice- and snow-covered exoplanet.
Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab
Earth's orbit within the sun's habitable zone means its temperatures are just right for life. But icy worlds located within their star's habitable zone may abruptly skip from too cold to too hot without going through a habitable stage, a new study finds.

The finding suggests that there may be fewer potentially habitable worlds than scientists previously thought, the researchers said.

Advertisement

Whereas Venus seems too hot for life and Mars seems too cold, Earth lies between Venus and Mars, where temperatures have the potential to be just right for its surface to possess liquid water. This "Goldilocks" zone is also known as the habitable zone, because on Earth, there is life virtually wherever there is liquid water.

Advertisement

A Message from Hallmark
Laugh it up.
Make the birthday boy or girl laugh out loud with a little help from Shoebox. Learn more.
Stars like the sun brighten over time. This raises the possibility that a planet or moon that starts out cold and icy around a young dim star, such as early Earth, may eventually warm to a stable habitable state as the star grows more luminous. [How Habitable Zones for Alien Planets and Stars Work (Infographic)]

However, the new study finds that some planets may go directly from a Mars-like icehouse stage to a Venus-like hothouse phase, bypassing Earth-like habitable conditions.

Advertisement
A Message from Hallmark


Laugh it up.

Make the birthday boy or girl laugh out loud with a little help from Shoebox. Learn more.
LEARN MORE
"Previously, studies suggested that icy planets and moons, such as [Jupiter's moon] Europa, will become habitable for life after their surface ice or snow melts," said study lead author Jun Yang, of Peking University in Beijing. "Our work shows that this will not happen."

The climate of a water-rich planet depends on at least two factors. One is how much ice covers its surface. Ice has a high albedo, meaning it reflects much of the light that falls onto it back to space before the light can warm the planet's surface. In this way, the ice cools the planet, which leads to the formation of more ice and makes the planet even colder. The second factor is the amount of water vapor in the planet's atmosphere; water vapor is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, warming a planet, which leads more water to evaporate and makes the planet even warmer.

The albedo of ice plays a dominant role in the climate of icy planets. A 2004 study suggested that Earth escaped a possible "snowball phase" because the sun brightened over time and because volcanic activity on Earth released carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that helped the planet retain heat.

In contrast, many icy bodies, such as Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's moon Enceladus, do not release large amounts of greenhouse gases via volcanoes. As such, researchers wanted to see how these worlds evolved if they had only the light of their stars to help warm them.

In the new study, the scientists developed a global climate model that simulated the evolution of the climate of an icy planet lacking greenhouse gases other than water vapor. This 3D computer model included multiple layers of the atmosphere, as well as winds and their effects on temperatures, clouds, water vapor, snow and ice, according to the study.

The researchers found that, without the presence of greenhouse gases besides water vapor, icy bodies needed a lot of energy from their stars before they started melting — about 10 to 40 percent more than Earth gets from the sun. When the ice finally did melt in simulations, the resulting drop in albedo made these worlds much warmer very quickly. This rapid warming often led to greenhouse stages in which most or all of the water oceans vaporized, rendering these worlds uninhabitable for water-based life as it is known on Earth.

"The finding suggests the number of potentially habitable planets and moons may be less than previously estimated, especially for small icy planets and icy moons," Yang told Space.com.

The paper detailing the new findings was published online July 31 in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Follow Charles Q. Choi on Twitter @cqchoi. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+.Original article on Space.com.

Advertisement
A Message from Hallmark


Laugh it up.

Make the birthday boy or girl laugh out loud with a little help from Shoebox. Learn more.
LEARN MORE
EDITOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS

See the 'Star Wars' Worlds Exoplanet Scientists Can't Help But Love
How Many Planets Can Fit Inside a Star's Habitable Zone?
NASA's Kepler Space Telescope Finds Hundreds of New Exoplanets, Boosts Total to 4,034
Ads by Revcontent
FROM THE WEB
15 Female Celebs Who Got Better Looking With Age
pophitz
20 Genius Actors Who Played Dumb Characters
POP Hitz
If You Own a Illinois Home You May Be Entitled to $4,264
Financial Patrol
Why Doctors in the Know No Longer Prescribe Blood Pressure Meds
Vibrant Health Network
This Ends Toenail Fungus in 3 Days (never Use Any Creams Again)
NutraPure USA
AUTHOR BIO
Charles Q. Choi
Charles Q. Choi, Space.com Contributor
Charles Q. Choi is a contributing writer for Space.com and Live Science. He covers all things human origins and astronomy as well as physics, animals and general science topics. Charles has a Master of Arts degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Journalism and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of South Florida. Charles has visited every continent on Earth, drinking rancid yak butter tea in Lhasa, snorkeling with sea lions in the Galapagos and even climbing an iceberg in Antarctica.

Charles Q. Choi, Space.com Contributor on
SUBSCRIBE TO SPACE.COM

enter email here
SUBMIT
FOLLOW US

MOST POPULAR


Where to See the 2017 Total Solar Eclipse, State by State

Prelude to the 2017 Total Solar Eclipse: A Partial Lunar Eclipse Occurs Monday

Total Solar Eclipse 2017: When, Where and How to See It (Safely)

After 5 Years on Mars, NASA's Curiosity Rover Is Still Making Big Discoveries

Perseid Meteor Shower 2017: When, Where & How to See It
HomeAbout Us
FOLLOW US

SUBSCRIBE TO SPACE

enter email here ...
SUBMIT
Purch
Copyright © 2017 All Rights Reserved.





NEWS
TECH
SPACEFLIGHT
SCIENCE & ASTRONOMY
SEARCH FOR LIFE
SKYWATCHING
VIDEO
ECLIPSE 2017

Space.comScience & Astronomy
Some Alien Planets May Bypass Habitability
By Charles Q. Choi, Space.com Contributor | August 7, 2017 05:00pm ET
34 8 MORE
Partner Series
Some Alien Planets May Bypass Habitability
An artist's illustration of an ice- and snow-covered exoplanet.
Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab
Earth's orbit within the sun's habitable zone means its temperatures are just right for life. But icy worlds located within their star's habitable zone may abruptly skip from too cold to too hot without going through a habitable stage, a new study finds.

The finding suggests that there may be fewer potentially habitable worlds than scientists previously thought, the researchers s



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:41 AM
link   
The Dyson Sphere thing has me thinking: what if the reason we don't see aliens is because as their technology advances, they truly transcend beyond the need or desire for physical existence?

Suppose computer technology progressed so far along that your entire brain could be converted to data? Then instead of playing an online MMORPG from your computer, your consciousness would actually be in the game/VR world. Maybe these VR worlds are really good.

They might have the technology to grow themselves a new body in a cloning vat anytime they want, and be able to go back into the physical world. But hardly any of them ever take the opportunity. (Just like how many people nowadays play video games instead of going for a walk in the park. )

So for all intents and purposes, their ecological footprint is limited to just the needs of the massive computer servers that are hosting their consciousnesses.

And come to think of it: those servers are probably not located in places that are hospitable to life. But rather places that are very energy rich, like very large stars. Or other big sources of energy. Places that suit the needs of a massive computing machine.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Going a bit further on the Dyson Sphere question:

Why would you build a Dyson Sphere around the star in your home system?

Why not go deeper into space, and find a bigger star that puts off more energy, and build your solar arrays there? Then set up some anitmatter factories, and send the antimatter back to your home world?


Maybe those are the kinds of resources aliens fight over. The "oil fields" of the intergalactic community.

That would explain why nobody has contacted Earth. There's nothing here for them to be fighting over. No reason to trouble us. Just like how on Earth, those aboriginal tribes who live on land that has nothing of value are the safest from the Colonial powers.


Earth has no "unobtainium".
edit on 8-8-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: Felt the need to add that last part.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
S&F. This is a great thread. I would have to go with the idea that they are here but observing us as we would a tribe in Africa or in South America that hadn't seen an advanced civilization before. It's good to keep a distance to avoid disrupting their progression.

a reply to: eriktheawful



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
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?



This is only half true. Any metal or semi-metal is going to have limited possibilities for interaction compared with the non-metals. And carbon is considered the most "free loving" of them all.

Also, with 118 known elements it should be seen as no coincidence that the ones that gave rise to life fit very near the bottom of the list. Carbon being "6". Oxygen being "8". Hydrogen being "1".

Undiscovered elements have to have an atomic number greater than 118 at this point. All the gaps have been filled below that number. (And no unexpected gaps are possible. The number of protons is the ONLY trait that defines an element. All other attributes, such as electrons or neutrons are just to describe the "average" example of that element.)



However, there's no saying for sure that carbon would still be the most "free loving" at a higher pressure. Like say down near the core of Jupiter, where hydrogen gets compressed to the point of becoming metallic.

Maybe some other element is better for life in an environment like that. It's hard to test for that possibility in a laboratory because such extreme pressures are too hard to create and sustain.

However, an alien life form that originated in that kind of an environment would have a very hard time traveling around in space. Their space ships would have to simulate the pressure of their home world.
edit on 16-8-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: shorten.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The smart people have been talking about this for years and it's becoming a clearer possibility as our technology advances.

The way I look at it is we'll see a form of AI in the next few decades. I don't mean what we currently call AI, but an obviously free-thinking AI capable of coherent, original thought - sentient. It'll need a container, a power source and some means of perceiving the world.

By the time we're communicating with conscious AIs mapped onto hardware, I believe we'll be thereabouts to doing the same with ours. What will separate us then? If we're approaching such a circumstance, it's a proof of concept that others could too


Perhaps a Dyson-capable civilisation will have left behind the biological sphere millennia earlier and would thus never need one. Blahdy blah etc. I enjoyed your ideas in this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
129
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join