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: 9
128
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Agnost

I completely agree. To base everything off of a statistic of one known is preposterous. That being said, it DID happen, so we know that it CAN. That is the crux of the Drake equation, in my mind. There are so many galaxies full of so many stars in just the observable universe that there is bound to be life 'as we know it' out there somewhere. I'm not a chemist, and I don't know the periodic table off the top of my head; perhaps someone here does, so I'll ask...

Is there another 'free loving' element which under separate conditions might begin the genesis of life? Is it conducive to forming complex amino acids, etc? Prohibitive?

Aside from that my only beef with the concept of panspermia (which I absolutely believe could be the legitimate answer to how life came to be on our planet) is this: Well where did that life come from and how?

I'm loving this discussion.


edit on 22-7-2017 by WHWIV because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Whats "normal matter"?


The stuff the average person and physicists currently call the everyday matter the we can interact with. I suppose "ordinary" matter (rather than "normal") is more of the term used by physicists.

I should have said "ordinary matter" to be more precise and to use physics lingo.

The matter around us is ordinary baryonic matter. Baryons are the neutrons and electrons the make atoms. It seems there is also dark baryonic matter, which as far as we know cannot be seen with our visible light eyes, and is only noticeable through gravitational effects.



originally posted by: intrptr

"Matter" is energy. Plenty of invisible to our eye 'energies' are known to exist because we invented instruments to detect them. Before we invented (discovered) radio we had no idea that energy 'bandwidth' even existed, despite it was all around and thru us.

Before we detected X-rays, Ultraviolet, Microwave, Infrared, these energies were also 'undiscovered'. That process of discovery is ongoing, can we presume no other energies exist outside our 'science' because we haven't detected them yet?

Yes and no.

Yes, we can now see flowers and such reflecting the ultraviolet or infrared spectrum that we could not see before, because we now have equipment that detecta parts of the EM spectrum our eyes cannot...

HOWEVER, that flower STLL also interacts with the visible spectrum. If there was a flower out there that only reflected ultraviolet light, then we would still be able to see that flow using our visible light eyes, because it would be absorbing that visible light, making the flower look black.

It wouldn't be invisible, but black.

So there is no ordinary matter out there that would be invisible to us, even if it is only reflecting , say for example, the X-ray or microwave portion of the sun's light falling upon it.



And, yeah -- E = mc2 tells us of that energy and matter have an equivalency, but that's what I meant when I said

"Of course, if these aliens are made of something other than normal [correction: "ordinary"] matter, then that's different."

If they are made of something other than ordinary matter (say, dark matter instead) then we may not be able to see them with our eyes. If they are made of energy (say photons), then depending on the wavelength of those photons, we might not be able to see them with our eyes.

But if they were made of ordinary matter, then they would interact with ALL of the EM energy coming from the Sun -- which includes visible light -- and interact with that EM energy in such a way to make the interaction of the visible light part that sun energy apparent to our eyes.



edit on 22/7/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Ok, I'll concede that; however at the outset in the OP we were told not to assume multiple or alternate dimensions. Personally I think it's quite probable, but for the sake of this discussion I set it aside. I totally get where you're coming from by the way, and in some ways agree.

Thanks for the excellent discourse



edit on 22-7-2017 by WHWIV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Double post, see below.
edit on 22-7-2017 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


The stuff the average person and physicists currently call the everyday matter the we can interact with. I suppose "ordinary" matter (rather than "normal") is more of the term used by physicists.


So that we can 'relate' from our perspective. But consider , how do 2D "Flatlanders" discuss anything in 3D? They have no words for it, no realm of experience , anymore than we have any realm of experience for everywhere and everywhen (note that everywhen is flagged by spellcheck). Everywhere and everywhen at once, the realm of the next dimension, represented from our perspective by the hypercube.

When a 'normal' 3D cube enters the next dimension, from our perspective it simply disappears. Just like a 2D Flatlander would disappear if he were lifted "up" into the third dimension.

2D flatlanders exist in 3D already but can't perceive it, just like we exist in the next dimension but also can't perceive it. Like radio signals it is all around and thru us. We are already there, just unable to see, feel or touch 'that place' with our limited senses.

Ever see Carl Sagan's perspective on Inter-dimensional beings? "How come we can't see them?"



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yah, Rare Earth has two major sub categories:

1) Planets that can have life.

2) Planets that can have life, and it evolves into tool using intelligence.

I'll cover both in different threads.

I remember the look on a friend's face when we were talking about this one day. He stated:

"But every star has a goldilocks zone, it's just in a different place depending on the star."

My response was: "Yah....but not every star always has a planet that formed there in that zone."

The look on his face was priceless, as though it never occurred to him that a star might only have planets too close or too far.

There are SO many different things that can be talked about. Over the years I've been surprised at the lack of discussion on this in any depth here on ATS.



The galaxy itself has a goldilocks zone as well. Life would have a very hard time forming in the crowded area. The radiation in the center of a galaxy would kill off any life. There us a reason we are in the outskirts of our galaxy. We don't get hit with a lot with radiation or gravity from other stars. And we are not in the spiral arms which again would be disruptive.

This means we need a solar system not in the downtown area and not in the spiral arms but between them. This means easily 90 percent of our galaxy is hostile to life. Throw in other conditions and we very well could be the only sentient beings in our galaxy.



Ummm...If you look at the teeming life in Chernobyl where life is absolutely thriving and adapting to heightened radiation...or the life that flourishes around undersea volcanic vents in heavy metal laden and extreme temperature's...then it begs the question...

All we can ascribe to any of these scenario's is our very limited understanding...therefore any comments we make on this subject can only be supposition...

In that vein...there...may...be forms of life that thrive in high radiation environments...even life that uses radiation as an energy source...much like the photosynthesis found in plant species who use radiation for existence...

We tend to anthropomorphize traits and characteristics as well as environments when it comes to discussions such as this...It's human nature...



YouSir



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That's all fine, but again, I was talking about ordinary matter in our "3 dimensions of space" universe. My point was that even if ordinary matter reflects EM energy in wavelengths that we cannot see, that does not mean that matter would be invisible to our visible light eyes.

If we start getting into other dimensions, or beings from a 2 dimensional universe (Abbott's Flatlanders), or dark matter and such, than that's different.

Can a being from a universe of 2 spatial dimensional universe even exist in our 3 dimensional universe? What would it be made of, and would the stuff that it is made of be allowed to exist in our universe, given the laws of physics of our universe?




By the way, I should clarify what I (and you) said about "energy and matter being the same thing". As I mention, while it is true that e=mc2 shows us that energy and matter have an equivalency, that id not really the same as saying that they are "the same thing".

One can be turned into the other, but they are not the same thing, nor even two forms of the same thing. They are not made of the same stuff.

Here's a good article explaining this:
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy




edit on 22/7/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


That's all fine, but again, I was talking about ordinary matter in our universe.


Thats like saying I only want to focus on ice, not water or air.

We have to include all forms of matter in the discussion. "Ordinary" matter has to be put into quotes because matter is mostly empty space made of tiny invisible particles whizzing about so fast that the floor beneath our feet gives us the illusion of solidity., When in fact , the floor beneath our feet is not solid, at rest, or ordinary. At all.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


That's all fine, but again, I was talking about ordinary matter in our universe.


Thats like saying I only want to focus on ice, not water or air.

We have to include all forms of matter in the discussion. "Ordinary" matter has to be put into quotes because matter is mostly empty space made of tiny invisible particles whizzing about so fast that the floor beneath our feet gives us the illusion of solidity., When in fact , the floor beneath our feet is not solid, at rest, or ordinary. At all.




I don't mind focusing on a lot of different things, but I was specifically responding to your earlier assertion that there are things (such as flowers) that can be seen reflecting ultraviolet light that our eyes cannot see. My point was that even if there was a thing that only reflected ultra violet light, then it would still be interacting with visible light in such a way (i.e., absorbing it) that would make the thing apparent to our eyes.

It would not be invisible.

So in my response to your specific assertion, I kept that response specific.



However, going beyond that specific response to your specific assertion and focusing on a lot of different things:

Do I think there could be 2D universes? Sure...but as I said above, I don't believe the physical properties of our universe with three spatial dimensions allows for 2 dimensional things. Maybe they can, but someone would need to show me how.

Do I think there could be dark matter aliens, in fact an entire dark matter realm to the universe? Sure.

Could there be energy beings (which would be made of photons)? I dunno...maybe?



edit on 22/7/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


Can a being from a universe of 2 spatial dimensional universe even exist in our 3 dimensional universe? What would it be made of, and would the stuff that it is made of be allowed to exist in our universe, given the laws of physics of our universe?

Exactly. Neither can we (in this form) 'exist' in the next dimension, either.

2D flatland doesn't exist anyway, except in math. A point, line and plane do not exist in the 'real world'.

The use of 2 dimensional 'space' is for symbolic purposes only, you make the distinction between here and 'there' in the next dimension.

Again, 'there' doesn't exist, 'over there'. Over there, 'there' is 'everywhere'.

Falls off 3D chair... understanding that is what is represented by the hypercube, understanding the hypercube is about understanding not what the hypercube IS but what the hyper cube is Becoming...



its best to consider not a cube (because a perfect cube doesn't exist either, right?). Best to try and imagine a hypersphere. I can't draw that for you, but imagine a hypersphere , the next progression of these images.

A 2D circle, a 3D sphere and then a 4 sphere "hypersphere"...




posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Im not an american but i #ing love ronald reagans speach.. if he where my president (im from austria) and i where old enough to understand it (im 34 -.- way too young) i would be soooooo proud..

youtu.be...

For the future we need to stand as ONE planet.. not one country, state or continent..
Then and only then we are ready for something out there...
edit on 22-7-2017 by Vratyas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Yeah, that's all interesting "thought experiment" stuff, but that doesn't really explain how thing made of...

"stuff that can exist given the physical properties of a universe with only 2 spatial dimensions (or four or more spatial dimensions -- or even on spatial dimension)

...could possibly occupy our universe that seems to be made of

"stuff that can exist given the physical properties of a universe with 3 spatial dimensions"

in Flatland, Edwin Abbott was simply giving ideas of what such a being would see if our 3D universe interacted with his 2D universe, but he didn't get into how that might even work, or how the matter from our universe -- with the physical properties of our universe -- could possibly even physically coexist.

Would a 2D universe even be able to accommodate the existence a 3D universe's proton, neutron, electron, quark, etc? Would whatever weird stuff a 2D being is made from (2D protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, etc.???) be able to be accommodated by the physical properties of our 3D universe?

What are the physical properties of our universe that would allow for "stuff" to exist that has only 2 spatial dimensions? What are the subatomic particles out there that allow for this?


I'm not saying it isn't possible, I'm just trying to move the hypothetical idea along to the next phase past "what if?" and get to "then how?"


edit on 22/7/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: dragonridr
The biggest problem is if only one or two lifeforms in a galaxy the possibility of meeting another goes to near zero.

Because of the size of the universe, statistically speaking, we don't exist.


Schrodinger and his Cat in the box might disagree.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Love this thread and the ensuing discussion! I am looking forward to your future threads!



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

We don't need to discuss the Fermi paradox to determine if ET life exists or not. The arrogance of anyone to assume we are the only life that exists show how ignorant they are with the basics of biology, chemistry, and physics. I've said it a million times before and will continue to say it.

We (Earth life) are nothing more than a mathematical probability.

The real question is HOW MANY other life forms exists outside of Earth? That's a better question.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Schrödingers cat could fill its own thread


edit on 22-7-2017 by Vratyas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Personally, I think that somewhere in every time, all those answers are correct. The Fermi paradox, instead of being a multiplicative equation coupled to the Drake equation, should be division function instead perhaps.
.
The answers in the OP Fermi paradox are maybe a summation of all the reasons we have not yet encountered an alien civilization 'above the table'.

Some civilizations extinguish themselves, overall intelligent life is probably rare, there are many dangers in the cosmos that can kill off life forms, and some probably want to remain hidden, and yet others may be in contact with TPTB ... but hidden from us serfs.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Why does one always forget time?

Where would you meet on the timeline?

If the universe is 14 Billion years old, and a trip to earth was established within a period of 1 million years, We have only existed in the "interesting form of intelligent homosapiens" for 10,000 years. 1% of the time it would take to reach us.
Yet we've existed for 0.000000714% of that time of the universe.

Had an intelligent civilization passed by earth at points millions of years apart they would possibly see a molten earth, a frozen earth, a water covered earth. dinosaur covered earth. Why stop, scan it and move on.

If you wanna say well hominids have been here 100,000 yrs, then move the decimal one place, its still a low probability even for someone intent on visiting this galaxy/planet.

Still yet we're only seconds old on the cosmic scale as humans, if a civilization lived a billion years before dying out, they may have only existed in the First Billion of the Universe. Just missed us by 13 Billion 999 million 990 hundred thousand years.

The flip side is that with billions upon billions of galaxies, there are also many chances that millions of inhabited planets could exist on our same timeline as Earth. Again though we are separated by time. Time of Flight, Time of Travel whatever you want to call it. If our trip elsewhere took 1 million years, would we not be wasting away, become unhuman, more grey like, lose a reason for our mission elsewhere lose our terran nature, become something else?

For any of this to matter you have to control TIME itself.



posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: icewater
a reply to: eriktheawful
Allow me to play devils advocate. My theory is that the laws of probability stack up against life existing elsewhere in the universe. To understand this it would be helpful to understand how probability works. How the math works. Here is a minor example: What is the probability that I will catch a fish tomorrow when I go fishing? I usually do so let's say the probability is 70% or .7 . But it is not as simple as that. There are other factors. What if I oversleep and miss the best feeding time so assume there is a 80% chance I wake on time. Weather, availability of bait, will my boat start in the morning? How long can I stay? Etc. So, lets say there is a 70% (.7) chance the weather will be good. Let's say there is a 20% chance the bait shop will be out of the minnows I favor for bait (so that means there is a 80% (.8) chance I will have the appropriate bait. And there is a 10% chance my boat will not start in the morning (again that means a 90% chance it will so .9 is calculated in. And then the pure chance the fish are biting....50% (or .5). Now given these are the only factors involved with fish catching (they aren't, there are many many more but for simplicity sake assume these are the only factors. The calculation looks like this: .8 x .7 x .8 x .9 x.5 = .2016 probability at this moment I will be successful fishing tomorrow. Of course the calculation changes as each event happens or doesn't. If the bait availability drops to 0 then the end probability drops to 0 as well. If I get to the bait shop and the minnows are there the calculation changes to .8 x .7 x 1.0 x .9 x.5 =.252 .


IMO the problem with this analogy is that in this scenario you are the only one going fishing. If there were trillions and trillions of you (stars) going fishing (life) with all of those different possibilities it would be more accurate. Hard to do that math





top topics



 
128
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join