What Star System do you think that ET could originate from?

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


Earthlike worlds is nearly a certainty, but life is questionable at best. and seemingly impossible for intelligent life to develop in a multiple star system.

reply to post by Palasheea


You're right, perhaps that's a topic for another thread. But you asked me to explain what I meant, so I thought that I should.

Honestly, I have no idea where life could emerge in terms of our Universe, which is why I started this thread, to see what other ATS members think about it, and why I figured out (what seemed logical to me) a system for determining the criteria for where it might be found.

Believe it or not, I actually welcome Sage's comments. I'm just figuring the universe out also

Anyway, I've run out of time, the girlfriend is home from work and I must return to life

I'll see you all tomorrow, can't wait to hear peoples thoughts!

-WFA

Originally posted by SageOfWisdom
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

 

Earthlike worlds is nearly a certainty, but life is questionable at best. and seemingly impossible for intelligent life to develop in a multiple star system.

Thanks SageOfWisdom I agree with you that life in the physical biological dimension is questionable there.


[edit on 29-3-2008 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

 

considering the impossibilities of anything traveling from another star system why do people assume aliens would be from somewhere far far away ?

isnt it possible that "they" could be from our own solar system ? if they are operating in another dimension they could be from anywhere you could think of imho.

how about venus ? for example...

I agree with you easynow. "They" could just be terrestrials from our planet too. So in this sense, they wouldn't be considered extraterrestrials and we would call them Ultra-terrestrials instead ... or something like that.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Palasheea]

WFA, you said...

The science is actually on the side of the Proponents for the most part, that EBE/ET/Aliens are out there.

That's true but not that "Extraterrestrial Biological Entities" are visiting our planet.

But just want to thank you for starting up this thread! It's a very interesting topic!

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Palasheea]

From what I know or been told; these star system in our galaxy have life.

Sirius ( RA... ) human

Zeta Reticulia 1 and 2; near Rigel. the Greys (Zeta)

By the way, most of the Orion (ZETA) Empire controls almost
a whole galaxy in the Abyss (antiuniverse).

DALS (Lord Loki is the supreme leader - they are nordics) are
in the DAL universe (Dal is actually the same as DAAT in hebrew,
which is the Abyss universe).
The Dals and Pleaidians also call our physical universe the
DERN Universe; hebrews call it malkuth (kingdom).


Altair (Aquila Constelation); Green reptoids/dinoids

Merek (Usra Major); 4' auburn red reptoids

Pollux ; red ants

Pleaides (Taurus Const); maia ; humans)
they are called the Pleaidian Stars
Aldebaran (Taurus Const); odin..etc

Lyrans (VEGA); Lyran Common (humans) is what they are called.

Auriga (Capella); Blue Aurigans humans

Alpha Centauri (Zeus..)
Promina Centauri (Ningishidia.. yellow reptoids)

I know where some Elohim constellations and star systems; but I think I'm forbidden to say anything about this.

All I can say, is I was told they came (elohim) to this Milky Way Galaxy around 14.5 Billion years ago; and most of the major constellations were seeded/colonized by humans. But humanity has had a problems lately with hostile reptoids and insectoids.

Some of you may not believe all this, but just thought to pass this info; who knows one day we may reach these stars.

All I can say is you better believe there is alot of life out there in the
stars.

In Orion we call Planet Earth = SahSoh

I say I'm a SahSohTao human; since I believe quite strongly I'm an
old blue orion incarnate (6 billion blue orion queen of saiph).



[edit on 28-3-2008 by alextron]

Originally posted by easynow

considering the impossibilities of anything traveling from another star system why do people assume aliens would be from somewhere far far away ?

Why are you assuming it's an 'impossibility'?

According to our modern space technology? According to our current theories of astrophysics, and other related fields? Or is that according to some other limitation

isnt it possible that "they" could be from our own solar system ?

Definetly! We have barely scratched the surface! *pun is fun*

Dude it's possible they come from our very own oceans!.. So much is completely unexplored in our oceans, which makes up close to seventy percent of Earth's surface..

if they are operating in another dimension they could be from anywhere you could think of imho.

Wait, in one breath you are flat out stating the impossibility of galactic space travel, but seemingly, casually accepting the idea of interdimensional space travel? I don't have a problem with that, it just seems oddly funny to me

[edit on 043131p://29u42 by Lucid Lunacy]

Alextron,

I would like to hear you expand on how you came to know that information. But you said 'that's all you can say'. Why? Are you in danger if you do, or do you not know how you came to know that?

I had an experience with the Greys, and I shared it with ATS. I shared it more then a year ago..

I was interested since you said Greys came from Zeti in such a matter -o-fact way..

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
The Math now firmly predicts the eventual discovery of non terrestrial (by this I mean Earth based) life. The Math also firmly supports the possibility that some of that life will be ‘intelligent’ as judged by our human standards.

At the outset, I would like to congratulate you on a very well thought out thread. A star and a flag for you, WFA!

Interesting questions and posers. But to begin, let’s get to some very interesting speculation on the vastness of the universe and the probabilities of civilizations notwithstanding Drake’s equation! You’re gonna love this as it’s somewhat mind-blowing. So here goes…..

The Universe

The Universe is so huge in fact that we’ll have to play around with scales so one can get a better idea.

Let's imagine that the entire universe that we have seen in all the worlds telescopes, all the galaxies, all trillion of them, extending out 13 billion light years in every direction is shrunk down to the size of a golf ball.

If we do a volume calculation, the actual universe contains 10 to the power 60 of those golf balls! Wow, I guess we didn't shrink things down far enough, but this will have to do. So how big a volume would 10 to the power 60 golf balls fill up? Try a sphere 850 light years across! So imagine a mass of golf balls that big, and each one of those golf balls contains all the stars and galaxies that we can see through our telescopes!!

Now let’s try it with speed. Ready? Imagine traveling so fast that you can go from on end of the galaxy to the other in just one second. At this speed the entire galaxy would be in reach before you can say the word "go", and wham, you're there. At this speed, you could travel to the nearest galaxy Andromeda in 22 seconds flat. And you could cross from end of the visible universe to the other in 72 hours.

So, lets speed up our warp vehicles again, so that we can travel a quintillion light years every second. At such a speed we could cross the known universe 100 million times in one second.

How long would it take to cross from one side of the universe to the other?

_________________3.7 billion years!!!_________________

Intelligent Life in the Universe

Now in all this lets see if there’s any intelligent life in this huge universe…

For arguments sake, let’s imagine that primitive life happens once in the lifetime of a trillion galaxies, and out of those only one in a trillion ever evolves out of its womb planet into a space-faring civilization. In this example then we are still left with an astounding 10 to the par 75 advanced societies - more alien cultures than the number of atoms composing planet Earth!

Again, for some perspective on such a gargantuan number, there are more advanced civilizations partying it up around the galaxies than there are atoms in every single grain of sand on all the beaches and deserts in the world, and then some.

So now we have a universe that could be teeming with millions of technologically advanced civilizations.

So are we alone? Doesn’t look like it!!

There are many star systems out there, and it’s a bit hard to narrow down what we should be looking for. In my research into this topic, I’ve discovered a few criteria by which our search can be narrowed down:

1) Habitable Zones

Habitable zones as per our yardstick! That may not be so. What may be uninhabitable to our way of thinking may be habitable for other life forms!

2) Age of the Star –
A star must have been around long enough for planets to form, and must in turn have been around long enough for these planets to develop (after a potential early bombardment phase) into stable environments suitable for life.

Not necessarily. If there are Type III and higher civilizations (Dr Michio Kaku), and there may be thousands of them, then they are probably so far advanced that they can terraform planets by also moving them into a viable orbit around their parent suns. Not impossible considering that we are not even a fraction of a Type I civilization, but are yet talking of the possibility of terraforming Mars! (Not changing its orbit, of course, but accelerating environmental conditions for harboring life!

3) Composition of the Star –
In order for planets to form around the initial star according to the theory of coalescence, the Star needs to contain heavy metals in large quantities, otherwise a system containing only gas planets should be expected, according to current predictions.

OK, so why can’t intelligent life originate on gas giants? They could very well inhabit the denser layers of the atmosphere. You could call them ‘floaters’.

I would like to know your ideas (based on these and other scientific criteria)

Why do we always base things on OUR ‘scientific’ criteria? As per our scientific criteria, it was thought that no life form could exist in the deep vents of the Pacific Ocean. But then….

Jason II, a remotely-controlled robotic vehicle the scientists are using to probe the vent field, logged water temperatures of 330 degrees Celsius (626 degrees Fahrenheit) at the mouth of one of the vents. Jason II subsequently found a second vent about 100 yards away.

Von Damm said that heat-tolerant tubeworms found living on Medusa's chimneys, a type known as alvinellids, are commonplace in the equatorial Pacific and thrive on high-iron fluids.

So what are your thoughts? Any personal favorite Stars you’d like to put to the test?

As I have brought out above, there are more galaxies in the universe than all the sands of Earth!! So, to even start talking of ‘habitable’ star systems in this huge, huge infinite universe is enough to fry my brains!!

Cheers!

www.futurehi.net...

(P.S. Unfortunately, the web page I've linked to has now been taken down temporarily. But what's in its place is pretty interesting too - Dr Michio Kaku's Civilization Types).

I think the origins of aliens and where they come from might be alot closer to us than we think, perhaps we are looking to far out and not within.......www.abovetopsecret.com... just a speculative view supported by a little science, but then again so is doing some maths and finding a distant star and pointing tothat as a possibility.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by atlasastro]

mikesingh, the type I,II,III is known as the Kardashev scale , it was first proposed by russian astronomer Nikolia Kardashev in the 1960s. Sorry but it annoys me when poeple refer to that kaku guy.

so poeple like to play the numbers game well i think its pretty mute that theres so many other galaxies, too far away in space & time to be realistically reached.

so lets take a realistic/pessemistic look at our galaxy of 400 billion stars, well only 20% of those reside in the galactic habitable zone = 80 billion

of those 80 billion only 10% are like sol = 8 billion

of those 8 billion at least 10% have hot jupiters not good if the migration theory is correct = 7.2 billion

then were onto real unknowns like

how many are old enough to develop life?
how many have earth size planets in the hz?
how many of those start life?
how many of those develop complex life?
how many of those deos intelligence life arise?
how long does an intelligent civilization last?

Pessemistic yes but it shows you can theorise the opposite way from "loads of civs in our galaxy", The good thing is nobody can be proved wrong at this point

Also on the point of intelligence it took only 3 million years for our brains to develop into what they are today. Yet the dinosaurs were on earth for 250 million years many times longer but no species out of millions developed technological intelligence. It points to intelligent life being rare im afraid to say and likely we will find more planets with just animals than intelligent civilizations.

To answer the ops question & finish on a positive note im going for star HD154345 just 60 lightyears away

[edit on 29-3-2008 by yeti101]

In my opinion, life outside of earth could be nearly anywhere.

Our current understanding of what life requires is limited to belief that all life must exist as we do. This is a constraint we ourselves have developed, and I will show you why I think it is silly.

Let us step back and isolate ourselves first. Let us say that we haven't explored our planet. We catch rainwater to drink, so we have no lakes. To us, life would only exist if it could move across land and was large enough for us to see, and would need temperatures to be similar to our current habitat, say, a rainforest like area.

Next, we explore out and find a plain that is drier and more hot than our habitat. Now we realize that things can exist without dense foilage and humidity. Without constant rain, and a wider temperature range between night and day as a desert would be.

Next, we explore a mountain. We find life in frozen areas we thought things could not survive. So we now pose a theory that any place that has land, from a frozen area to a sweltering desert, can support life as we know it. Since we have not found a lake, river, or ocean yet, but, people have died drowning in a large temporary puddle from a heavy rain, we also think that life could not exist underwater, for how could it possibly breath, move, or survive in such a place.

Then we find lakes streams, rivers, and the ocean and all the life in it. We are amazed, and now we understand that somehow, life managed to exist in such a place.

How many more discoveries must it take before we realize that life can exist nearly everywhere? We find life exists on an exponentially small scale (amoeba, bacteria, etc.). We find life exists in the harshest enviroments like the vents on the ocean floor. In complete darkness. In toxic areas. Just about anywhere on earth we thought was impossible, we still manage to find life.

So, why is it life must be carbon based, just because it is on Earth? We are on but a speck of dust compared to the universe. We haven't even left our hut in our jungle.

What would you consider a lifeform that was composed of metallic sources? Would it be a machine to you, even if it lived, died, and gave birth the same as what we call organic material based life? Even our own bodies require metals and rocks to sustain itself, although we call them vitamins and minerals when we ingest them.



So, even if we haven't found evidence of life on our sibling planets and moons, to me, it doesn't negate the possibility that planetoids, regardless of their environment, couldn't sustain life in a completely different way. Therefore, searching for life to me wouldn't mean just looking for earth-like planets. Gravity could be next to nil, or far grander than we experience. Temperature ranges could exceed our ideas of reason. Energy requirements (lack of sun or extra suns or proximity to it/them) are not a factor.

Yes, probability as far as our self-limited thought process, and it is a reasonable limitation for our limited knowledge of the universe, would be searching for other carbon based life forms. What if most life does not follow our requirements?

To me, the sky is the limit, and since the sky is unlimited, so to are the possibilities.



Enough of that, the other possibility I see, other than life that we haven't found in our own solar system (whether or not they hide from us, though not saying they exist), is that visitors could very well be from this planet itself.

This could be in two different ways.

One, a past civilization, seeing impending doom, left this planet with enough technology to sustain itself. It remains hidden because they evolved differently and though this would be their home, they would no longer be considered native by the ones left behind that survived and forgotten them in all but cave paintings and stories. They could have re-visited for resources and other various reasons, which could have added to our myths.

The other one I like, is that we were advanced and left the planet to explore. Trying to find similar places to our own. Over time, earthly civilizations could have rose and fell many times. Our planet recycles itself, changes, and adaptation would also change the way we look over time. If you take the things we find in coal and rock that points to possible advanced life, even millions of years ago, then too would these travelers have adapted and changed. If they searched long enough, they may have even forgotten about their home star system. It could have changed in time, say, a few moons destroyed and turned to rings around planets. A planet destroyed and the pieces dispersed and absorbed by the others, turned into comets, etc. Their home planet changing through building mountains, land masses moving across oceans. Even if the system seemed similar, it could be so different they may not even consider it being their home.



So, for me, 'ET' could be anywhere in any form. If we are visited, it could be life from this very planet.


I keep my mind open to near limitless ideas. I don't know what is out there, so how can I tell you what isn't? There is no evidence or proof that supports or denies any possibility. Since most people can't even fathom the distance of 1 light year, let alone think about things billions of light years away, there is no way I can allow science with such a limited understanding of our own planet dictate what is possible inconceivable distances from us in all directions.


I am not worried what others believe. Most will believe what helps them sleep at night anyway. If someone wishes to believe that science has all the answers, or believe we are the only life bearing planet out there, I shall not argue. I don't have proof otherwise, but I do have a sense of logic that tells me otherwise. As long as the opposing view is discussed and not forced, I have no problems with it. I would argue that we are not that intelligent ourselves, and possibly some other life on this planet may very well be more intelligent than humans. We just make better use of tools, even if it is for the worse.

reply to post by alextron


Little bit of debunking, Pleiades open star cluster is less than 100 million years old, Too young for intelligent life, and before you say life migrated there. most stars in the cluster are B class, most likely too hot for life to be supported.

Sirius is also too hot, and the gravity from Sirius B also makes life seemingly impossible.

Also its zeta reticuli, and its not in anyway related to Orion, or rigel.

however, Pleiades is visible to the naked eye in the constellation taurus, looks like the little little dipper.



Pollux however, is a good candidate for life IMO.

If I had to pick one star though I would say. Gliese 581, specifically the planet gliese 581 c, because gliese 581 is a main sequence star, with a terrestrial planet inside the habitable zone, meaning water is a possiblity.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also. here is the the list of the top 100 stars for the TPF to examine. notice that zeta reticuli is on that list.

en.wikipedia.org...

And finally a diagram of how Habitable zones work


[edit on 29-3-2008 by SageOfWisdom]

[edit on 29-3-2008 by SageOfWisdom]

SageofWisdom, sorry but Gliese 581 is an M class star the more we learn about these stars and the planets in the HZ the less likely they are to develop complex life.

to say they are problematic would be an understatement. Any planet in the HZ will be tidally locked like the moon is to earth. One side in eternal sunlight the other in darkness. Recent calculations on the tidal forces exterted on these planets by the parent star are MASSIVE. Were talking collosal disruption to the interior and surface.

Theyre more likely to have a global magma ocean than a water one like ours. Sucks considering they make up 90% of the stars in our galaxy.

the more we learn it really looks like G type stars like sol are the only hope. Thats where the kepler telescope comes in

[edit on 29-3-2008 by yeti101]

reply to post by yeti101


M class stars are still on the main sequence.

Although you are correct about the tidally locked fact, Didnt know this previously.

Thanks for the info.


1 out of ever 13 stars is g class, so that still leaves good odds.

On a side note, good to see other astronomy heads on the site. do you have an astronomy degree, or are you studying in college?

I'm a Freshman studying physics, eventually seeking an astrophysics or astronomy PhD. Sadly, my knowledge on extrasolar planets is lacking. I plan on doing some research.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by SageOfWisdom]

[edit on 29-3-2008 by SageOfWisdom]

reply to post by mikesingh


That was an excellent reply MikeSingh. Putting the scale of the distances and speeds involved in these questions into context is a wonderful thing. It really makes you wonder how anyone could be so convinced that we're alone, or that somehow the odds favor us being alone.

I'm honored that you've stopped by this thread. Thanks for illustrating for us all just how much we don't know. It puts things into perspective.


-WFA

Yeti101, I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove in this post. Even by your Math we're bound to not be alone...

Originally posted by yeti101
Sorry but it annoys me when poeple refer to that kaku guy.

I'm sorry, 'that kaku guy'? Let's be fair to Michio, and actually link to his work, so that people can come to their own determinations about his ideas.

Originally posted by yeti101
so poeple like to play the numbers game well i think its pretty mute that theres so many other galaxies, too far away in space & time to be realistically reached.

You see there is a fundemental flaw in your thinking on this point. That being that travel between these points can only be one way, 'us to them'.

There is simply no way for you to declare with any certainty that a potentially highly evolved species could not have developed the technology to get themselves here from there. Yes, I'm talking about on the scale of travel from one galaxy to another, not just systems within a galaxy, in addition to travel from system to system.

Originally posted by yeti101
so lets take a realistic/pessemistic look at our galaxy of 400 billion stars, well only 20% of those reside in the galactic habitable zone = 80 billion

Okay, lets look at those stars, but to be clear, you're talking about taking the argument back almost a century, to the days of Hubble, where the Univerese was only known to be as large as the Milky Way. As long as we keep the tinyness of the part we're examining in your argument into perspective, relative to the size of the known Universe, then yes lets look at those 80 billion Stars...

Originally posted by yeti101
of those 80 billion only 10% are like sol = 8 billion

This is another mistake, in my view, to assume that life (and intelligent life) can only come from stars like Sol. Each star type will have a different 'habitable zone' depending on energy output, as I tried to describe earlier. And as other members have pointed out eloquently, intelligent life does not have to resemble Earth life at all (doesn't even have to be carbon based). This criteria, like many of the criteria I myself was using at the start of this thread, are not EXCLUSIVE factors, because as start doesn't have this factor, doesn't mean it can't support life. These criteria are only used in narrowing down a search for likely Earthlike life. It's important to keep that also in perspective. These criteria are just search parameters, they don't make any sort of definitive judgements on a Stars actual potential, until we've been there and/or have examined the evidence.

Originally posted by yeti101
of those 8 billion at least 10% have hot jupiters not good if the migration theory is correct = 7.2 billion

There are many competing theories on this point. Ask a different scientist, get a different answer.

Originally posted by yeti101
then were onto real unknowns like

how many are old enough to develop life?
how many have earth size planets in the hz?
how many of those start life?
how many of those develop complex life?
how many of those deos intelligence life arise?
how long does an intelligent civilization last?

Right, these factors are completely unknown. So they cannot be used as descriminating criteria.

Originally posted by yeti101
Pessemistic yes but it shows you can theorise the opposite way from "loads of civs in our galaxy", The good thing is nobody can be proved wrong at this point

hmmm, I'm sorry, but you can't really use any of this as descriminating criteria. We just don't know these things for certain. We just don't know that there isn't a highly evolved civilization on a gas giant orbiting around 3 stars. We can make guesses about the best places to look, and use the Earth as a model for where we might find Earthlike life, but we can't use these same criteria as determining factors to declare that something cannot exist. I find it very strange for anyone to want to bridge that gap.

Originally posted by yeti101
Also on the point of intelligence it took only 3 million years for our brains to develop into what they are today. Yet the dinosaurs were on earth for 250 million years many times longer but no species out of millions developed technological intelligence. It points to intelligent life being rare im afraid to say and likely we will find more planets with just animals than intelligent civilizations.

This again is just something that we don't know Yeti101. We can make educated guesses, but there are huge gaps in our fossil record of life on this planet, and as another member mentions we have not even explored the depths of our own oceans.

You're not really giving a lot of credit here to a lot of species today that use tools. Octopus, All Great Apes, Some species of Birds. We just don't have any idea what the dinosaurs were actually capable of, or of what they could have evolved into had the K-T Impact not occured in Mexico.

We must not forget that all life on Earth now is based upon previous forms of life. In effect, Humans didn't just start up as humans, nor did mammals independently spring out a magic egg as mammals. All land life is interconnected, and if you want to calculate how long it took Humans to develop 'intelligence' you really need to include the length of time from the actually beginning = the origin of life on Earth, to the actual 'end point' = arriving at 'intelligence' in humans. It took that long for something like humans to even exist here on this planet, and that's a part of the journey towards intelligence.

Originally posted by yeti101
To answer the ops question & finish on a positive note im going for star HD154345 just 60 lightyears away

[edit on 29-3-2008 by yeti101]

Um thanks for that!

-WFA

reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist


FreeThinkerIdealist, thank you sincerely for stopping by this thread.
This post is one of the most well thought out, and realistic I've heard in a very long time. You not only made me think, you persuaded me on several counts. It's posts like this that keep my attention firmly affixed on ATS I think have some adding to do on my friends list.

I was absolutely restricting my own criteria in order to keep this thread relatable to both those with 'mainstream' views, and those with less popular theories. But that doesn't mean that I don't fully agree with your points about the validity of imposing 'mindsets' and 'beliefs' on science. When we only look at things from the human perspective, we're missing 80% of the spectrum

Very well said. I really enjoyed reading your post, and I think I'm going to go read it again.

-WFA

reply to post by yeti101


I would expand that to include star types K, G and F. There really isn't THAT much of a difference, and each type in my view could potentially have planets in the habitable zone with the 'right stuff' for life.

I'm certainly open to hearing reasons on why this cannot be so.

Here's an image to demonstrate the star types, their relative sizes, and spectral appearance to the human eye (what they look like):




-WFA

WFA! S&F

You have to tell me when you create these great threads!

Anyways, where would they come from?
Well if we are going to use our own system (Sol) as reference we have limited our own thinking by what our means of understanding is.

Who knows, we might have space dwelling beings that do not inhabit any planet, and that they are intelligent.

The Universe is Huge to say the least, the possibilities are just that, big for life to evolve on other planets.

Some time ago, our researchers and scientists did not believe that in our oceans in deep threnches, there would be any life at all, microorganisms, but nothing more.
But as it seems, they are full of life in different kinds.

It's only our own limitation that puts borders to what we can learn, it is by the possibilities that we do learn.

Anyways, great thread!

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Balez]