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.

 

They should be here

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
By "They" I mean EBE or (Extraterrestrial Biological Entities). Considering many factors has lead me to believe that odds are very high that at least one type of EBE should have explored and even colonized most of the Milky Way Galaxy by now. Though I personally think its much more likely its been done by many and not a single EBE type.

First we should try to get a understanding of just how many technological civilizations there might be in our galaxy. Now that's really impossible but we can make some educated guesses.
Drake Equation

N = R* x Fp x Ne x Fl x Fi x Fc x L

Now this is far from perfect since number for N~ (the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might expect to be able to communicate at any given time) varies a great deal depending on what numbers you input.

N can equal a rather pessimistic 10 civilizations among the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, or a optimistic number like millions of civilizations depending on what numbers are used. That's far from perfect but the drake equations is also getting better all the time.

For example

Fp - the number of stars that has planets. Now that we are starting to find real planets we are going to get a better understanding of what Fp should be.

Ne- the average number of planets which can potentially support life per star that has planets. Now that we know Mars had liquid water and Europa has a liquid ocean the number for Ne has went way up.

Even picking from the pessimistic end of the spectrum odds are still They should be here by now. According to calculations by People like Carl Sagan and others even a single EBE civilization using sub-light speed (LS) technology could have explored and colonized the entire 100,000 Light year across Milky Way Galaxy in 50 million years. This of course isn't factoring any radical propulsion systems or travel methods like Warp-drives, Worm holes and the like that may work in theory and in real life.

Either using sub-LS Massive rotating colony ships spreading out and then taking time to build infrastructure, increase population and new ships to spread out to the next systems. Or they could have simply explored the Milky Way using something like Von Neumann probes ( self-replicating machines) exhaustively explored the Galaxy in as little as a few million years with little investment of materials or energy compared to colony ships.

Millions of years let alone 50 million years may sound like a insane amount of time and for humans it is. But in Geological time scale its not a long time at all. When you think of it from a Cosmic timescale billions and billions of years it really a blink of a eye.

So if single EBE civilization survived long enough to begin spreading out into the Galaxy in all the billions of years of the Galaxy its likely they would have continued to spread to most of the galaxy. Once a civilization gets a decent sized chunk of it population off its planet and to another system it odds of getting destroyed by either a natural disaster (comet impact,super Nova etc..) or destroyed in a War (Nuclear,Biological, etc.. ) start to go way down.

So why don't we have any concrete evidence they have been here when odds are they should have at least been by to explore here already? In my opinion there could be a few different reasons

1. They are here - One many on ATS may agree with. Simply they have been here already and are hidden from us. Either because of some ethical policy akin to the "Prime Directive" ala Star Trek where they don't intervene with developing civilizations. Or a Government cover up to hide the fact from a public not yet ready for this truth in their eyes.

2. We are the first - There has to be a first technological species in the galaxy, perhaps humans are the first.(That's a little scary ) Though personally I doubt this when you consider how old the Galaxy is and how young mankind is but who knows.

3. They get wiped out - Technological races pop up get to a certain point and then promptly get wiped out either with wars. Perhaps comet impacts and the like wipe them out before they spread. This could be true in many cases. Chances are most intelligent species descend from Predators since Predators are very often smarter then the prey they hunt. Nuclear weapons and other horrible weapons really arent that hard to develop either.

4. Their Xenophobic killers - Perhaps intelligent EBE fear and destroy other intelligent species as they come across them. Maybe using a Variation of the Von Neumann probe the "Berserker". Self replicating machines which are programmed to seek out and exterminate life forms and life-bearing exoplanets whenever they are encountered. But then the questioned is raised why haven't we been wiped out yet?

5. Their isolationist- Humans may be unique in or nature of exploration. Most EBEs may be content to stay in their little section of the universe and never expand or explore even if they have the technology.


I think these may be true in many cases excluding "we are the first" but find it very unlikely to be true in all cases. If even a single race devloped to the point of spreading during most of the history of the galaxy they should be here.

There may be many more reasons as to why they aren't here I would love to hear if anyone else could think of others I missed. I would also love to hear peoples views on the subject. Do you agree with my point of view? Disagree?




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Ive got to admit i didnt read all of the above but i did read the main points.. i think you have a point. It kinda links into what i posted a few weeks ago about life on earth. I cant find my post on that though
It may have been deleted?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Yeah I ran on with the length a bit
I didnt mean to make it that long but before I knew it I was at that length.

Its just I always hear people brush off the fact that earth may have be visited before because of the vast size of space. Space is undeniably huge but when we are talking millions of years even billions of years the size isn't that huge even at sublight speeds.

Another factor I left out because of size
was Time dilation. A proven fact of high speed travel could have great effect on the massive colony ships I mentioned. Instead of having the trip that would take say 100 years sublight speed if you were going 80% LS Time dilation could make that trip take only weeks for the crew even though for everone eles 100 years would have passed.

So instead of having the crews descendants arrive at new system the crew that set off could arrive in their lifetime.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Option Z:

there is an evolutionary path which leads beyond life as we know it, therefore taking mature civilisations out of the picture (space and time as we know it). if you consider evolution an infinite process and not a dead-end, this option is inevitable, isn't it?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
6.They are here and monitoring us to see to it that we dont develop into something that could pose a danger to them or the universe.We arent exactly a peacefull race considering all the wars we have been through.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Interesting thought onbekend59. Like we are under (unknown to us) a type of quarantine to make sure we dont develop into something that would pose a threat to other intelligent life in the Galaxy?


Long Lance raised another interesting point though Im not sure if I follow it correctly. I think your suggesting advanced intelligent races might eventually evolve (Acsend?) into a higher state of being which takes them out of our dimension all together?

I dont know how likely that would be through natural evolution since during billions of years of earth evolution we have never witnessed any such thing. I would think it would be more likley a process of technology rather then natural selection if possible. For example genetic manipulation if advanced enough could do the work of millions of years of evolution what would seem like a blink of a eye in theory and could also be taken down routes natural selection would never go down.

Interesting thoughts


[edit on 18-5-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Apparently the Drake Equation is completely subjective, according to that Wikipedia entry. In one part, it estimates 5000 intelligent civilizations, and at another part 0.0000008.

The thing about life is that it's both incredibly fragile, and at the same time ridiculously tough. Apparently you need very specific conditions for it to exist, but once it comes into existance, there is no getting rid of it. Take our planet for example: You can hit it with a meteor, lots of giant tsunamis and other natural disasters, but life will hide in the cracks somewhere and keep on evolving.

The fact that there is only one truely intelligent species on Earth may be a hint at it's rarity as well. Although we'll have to keep an eye on those monkies and dolphins.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
"Fp - the number of stars that has planets. Now that we are starting to find real planets we are going to get a better understanding of what Fp should be.

Ne- the average number of planets which can potentially support life per star that has planets. Now that we know Mars had liquid water and Europa has a liquid ocean the number for Ne has went way up."

The pressence of water is not necissarily evidence of life. It is just life as we know it for all we know ET may not need oxygen or water to thrive. As for Europa it has a theoretical ocean they aren't 100% sure of that.

Now the equation above is false since we can't tell which planets support life to which ones don't. Also since we give life a false Earthly definition it is more likely you will find life that is absolutly different both mentally and physically from human beings or otherwise. The planets we find aren't really planets at all it is actually the stars movements that we use to detect planets. We never actually see planets but the wobble of a distant star is indication of gas giants.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Long Lance raised another interesting point though Im not sure if I follow it correctly. I think your suggesting advanced intelligent races might eventually evolve (Acsend?) into a higher state of being which takes them out of our dimension all together?

I dont know how likely that would be through natural evolution since during billions of years of earth evolution we have never witnessed any such thing. I would think it would be more likley a process of technology rather then natural selection if possible....




Timeframe is an issue, but our technological development happened during the last few centuries, so it's imho, not a given that whatever we're talking about would take billions of years.

besides, why would you take technological means out of the picture? perhaps, just perhaps, evolution includes advances in language / thoughts, then practical applications (technology) and finally, when you gathered enough information about your surroundings, a deeper understanding of the universe, which in turn allows you to actively seek your fate instead of just blindly grabbing straws. pure conjecture, though.


PS: our languages don't seem to evolve, not a good sign.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
OPTION X

The ebe's are actually evolved humans from the future and are on earth to guide us in a certain way as to not make the mistakes they made in the past (when they were like us ) . Hence --years from now we are the ones buzzing around the universe not looking like the ebe's that we know of today,but are more human looking.

Maybe they lost their souls by some kind of terrible mistake ---WHO KNOWS---



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Doctor


The pressence of water is not necissarily evidence of life. It is just life as we know it for all we know ET may not need oxygen or water to thrive. As for Europa it has a theoretical ocean they aren't 100% sure of that.

Now the equation above is false since we can't tell which planets support life to which ones don't. Also since we give life a false Earthly definition it is more likely you will find life that is absolutly different both mentally and physically from human beings or otherwise. The planets we find aren't really planets at all it is actually the stars movements that we use to detect planets. We never actually see planets but the wobble of a distant star is indication of gas giants.


Ne- is only the average number of planets which can potentially support life. Not the number of planets that infact support life.

Liquid water we now know is by far the biggest prerequisite for life. The fact that 3 bodies in our single system have or had liquid water dramatically ups the potential for life.

FL- is the fraction of the above which actually go on to develop life. So there we dont really have a good understanding of that number until we explore Mars and Europa indepth.

We have also moved beyond just being able to detect massive gas giants thanks to a stars wobble. We have already discovered rocky planets about 5.5 times as massive as Earth around common stars. As detailed in the Jan. 26 issue of the journal Nature.


[edit on 18-5-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
Option Z:

there is an evolutionary path which leads beyond life as we know it, therefore taking mature civilisations out of the picture (space and time as we know it). if you consider evolution an infinite process and not a dead-end, this option is inevitable, isn't it?

Evolution, by definition, require offspring. So I dont think you could ever go "beyond life".

Plus I dont think there will ever be a demand for it. I mean what is there to adapt too if its unreachable in our existence?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarcofin
Apparently the Drake Equation is completely subjective, according to that Wikipedia entry. In one part, it estimates 5000 intelligent civilizations, and at another part 0.0000008.



Its indeed subjective but we can get some intelligent estimates. Optimistic estimates also range much higher then 5,000 for many scientist some range into the millions.

The N= .0000008 equation is clearly wrong because N should never be less then 1. We have rock solid evidence of atleast 1 civilization in the Milkyway able to communicate.


I Havent looked over all the numbers in the the N= .0000008 equation but it clearly has some extremly pessimistic numbers. L for example (the expected lifetime of such a civilization) is estimated to only be 420 years
There is no basis for a entire intelligent civilization getting wiped out that fast.

The person that put in the numbers used a group of single earth historical civilizations life spans. The fall of empires like the Aztecs is not what L is about. Empires fall all the time but they are succeeded by later civilizations which carried on technology. Thats not the same as all humans going extinct.

So thats one major flaw in that drake equation estimate

[edit on 18-5-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
"Ne- is only the average number of planets which can potentially support life. Not the number of planets that infact support life.

Liquid water we now know is by far the biggest prerequisite for life. The fact that 3 bodies in our single system have or had liquid water dramatically ups the potential for life.

FL- is the fraction of the above which actually go on to develop life. So there we dont really have a good understanding of that number until we explore Mars and Europa indepth.

We have also moved beyond just being able to detect massive gas giants thanks to a stars wobble. We have already discovered rocky planets about 5.5 times as massive as Earth around common stars. As detailed in the Jan. 26 issue of the journal Nature."

But which planets could potentially support life again our veiw of life is narrow since the only life we can observe is that which evolves here on Earth. Liquid water is a potential prerequisite for life for all we know an alien species on another world might drink sulpheric acid and chew on rocks etc. Again our view of life is narrow and we are limiting our search to what we have learned about Earth in an attempt to find more rocky Earth like climates. As for the rocky planets we have found 1 and a possible other out of 233 or so planets found. Just because it is rocky does not indicate life. So far our odds keep stacking up again'st us finding life elsware outside our own solar system. When the planet hunter deal goes online we will be able to detect Earth like planets.

Water is a prerequisite on Earth for life to develope it might not be on another world.

The equation is flawed because we still have yet to determine what other types of life forms could exist outside our current perceptions using stubborn scientific equations which amount to crap because scientists will not think outside the box and start theorizing what other elements could potentially support life.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
If your suggesting something like Silicon based life some scientist have indeed proposed the possibility along with even more exotic forms like energy based life forms. So I would never say all scientist have stubborn scientific views on life since they gave us the theory of some pretty exotic life forms.

These of course would just drive the odds of other intelligent life way up in the drake equation because the odds of planets which can potentially support life rises.

There are some major problems with silicon base life forms. For example it would need another common solvent with the unusual properties of water. Since we have a pretty good understanding of the common elements of the universe it would be it would be difficult (if not impossible) to work that way.

Chances are good that Carbon based life is going to be the dominant for of life in the universe. The common elements just happen to work that way. That not to say other forms aren't possible I bet there are bunch of different types. But I highly doubt carbon based life is in the minority.

My point was simply that even if only a handful of intelligent civilizations developed in some 400 billions of stars in the Milky Way during the 13 billion years of its history, and survived technological adolescence to start spreading into the galaxy they could have colonized the entire Milk Way in relatively short period of time on a cosmic timescale even going a fraction of LS.

So unless you think earth is some way a miracle and produced the only civilization with the ability to colonize space odds are very good they should be here.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Let's say there are 400 billion stars in our galaxy now according to science only a small fraction of those have life and even then an even smaller fraction with advanced civilizations. the odds of us existing at the same time as another advanced species is probably a billion to one as opposed to the 100k to 1 shot of finding micro organisms and other primative lifeforms.

Think of a civilization a a flash of light when compared to the age of the universe. now these blinks of light occur randomly and not that often. So what our our chances of living in a galaxy full of advanced civilizations. Not very high at all.

I figure there can be no more then just a few advanced species in the galaxy and that our chances of finding them within my lifetime are pretty slim.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Doctor
Let's say there are 400 billion stars in our galaxy now according to science only a small fraction of those have life and even then an even smaller fraction with advanced civilizations. the odds of us existing at the same time as another advanced species is probably a billion to one as opposed to the 100k to 1 shot of finding micro organisms and other primative lifeforms.

I figure there can be no more then just a few advanced species in the galaxy and that our chances of finding them within my lifetime are pretty slim.


Billion to one odds of a advanced civilization? I would love to see your numbers in the drake equation to come up with such a number. Or was that just your estimate off the top of your .?

Even with that pessimistic estimate that would leave atleast 400 advanced civilizations if each star had only 1 planet in the Milkway. Any single one could have colonized the large sections of the galaxy in millions of years.




Think of a civilization a a flash of light when compared to the age of the universe. now these blinks of light occur randomly and not that often. So what our our chances of living in a galaxy full of advanced civilizations. Not very high at all.


Thats not really true. Once a civilizations spreads outside its core systems its odds of survival go way up along with its longevity. No longer will they be subject to the whims and resources of a single planet or star. No single comet impact or dying star could wipe them out. Even chances of war wiping out a civiliazation that spreads many star systems becomes remote. Once they spread out enough they would become for all practical purposes eternal.




I figure there can be no more then just a few advanced species in the galaxy and that our chances of finding them within my lifetime are pretty slim.


Im sorry you have such a ego-centric view of a galaxy of some 400 billion stars.

A post ago you mentioned "stubborn scientific equations which amount to crap because scientists will not think outside the box "
and then you make statement about the galaxy like that.

I wouldnt be shocked one bit if humans turned out to be the most egocentric animals in the entire galaxy. All this "earth is so special" and the "center of the universe" bunk. When infact earth is a spec of dust orbiting a mundane star in outskirts of a average Galaxy. There is no evidence to suggest earth is remotely close to being a billion in 1 shot

[edit on 18-5-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka
Evolution, by definition, require offspring. So I dont think you could ever go "beyond life".

Plus I dont think there will ever be a demand for it. I mean what is there to adapt too if its unreachable in our existence?



..based on the paradigm that existing lifeforms don't evolve except through procreation.

What is more reasonable? to assume that evolution takes place during the microsecond gametes fuse or that it is more or less continual, only being expressed during the microsecond of gamete fusion. i know what i said is at odds with genetic science, just food for thought.


Besides, just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's an undesireable state of existance, does it? still, all of what we said doesn't rule out 'offspring' in that hypothetic other world, does it?



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
or, perhaps, we are an offshoot colony of said precursor race. we may have been lost, off radar, and simply found the nearest suitable planet. as to where that leave the alien technology we possessed...

or, possibly, we could be an experiment. life on our planet could simply be an experiment done up by these EBE's, and they're simply observing us to see what the natural progression of life might be.

orrrrr....maybe some unknown law of physics disallows intarstellar travel. perhaps there are undetectable 'whirlpools' in the space between stars. perhaps there is no material that exists that can safely reach any speed that would allow it's occupants to survive travel for that length of time. there may be no way to support lif for the length of such a journey...seeing as how we have not attempted it, there's always the possibility.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

A post ago you mentioned "stubborn scientific equations which amount to crap because scientists will not think outside the box "
and then you make statement about the galaxy like that.

I wouldnt be shocked one bit if humans turned out to be the most egocentric animals in the entire galaxy. All this "earth is so special" and the "center of the universe" bunk. When infact earth is a spec of dust orbiting a mundane star in outskirts of a average Galaxy. There is no evidence to suggest earth is remotely close to being a billion in 1 shot

[edit on 18-5-2006 by ShadowXIX]


Some excellent points which reflect my own stance on this subject. As a bit of an "armchair scientist" myself i am frequently mystified by the skepticism-by-numbers type answers many well known scientists use as arguments against UFOs/alien visitation etc.

Richard Dawkins, for example, is a scientist whom i have tremendous respect for yet he believes that humans are probably the sole technologically advanced creature in the milky way. Rather a pessimistic position IMO.

Another point about the distances between stars. Sure it seems impossible to us, but then undoubtedly the moon seemed an impossible destination to the Elizabethans. The Terrestrial Planet finder will be launched sooner or later, then we will know for sure how common earth like planets are. I'm pretty sure that civlisations older and more advanced than homo sapiens would have devised their own TPFs a long time ago; therefore it should come as no surprise that they have been observing us for centuries.




top topics



 
0

log in

join