ET Likely Doesn't Exist, Finds Math Model

I agree with what a previous poster said. Some not so bright scientists believe that life can only exist under certain conditions found on earth...

This has actually been revised recently when they found live organism (ie bacteria type) in extremly cold conditions or in deep sea. Before they found these they thought "life can not exist there" and then they found it here on earth and they go: "oops guess we were wrong on that"

For all we know there might be species capable of living in space. I am not saying that is likely, I am just saying these so called scientists should base their reports on facts and they do not have the facts on what is required for life to exist. All they have is what conditions are likely for life to exist here on earth.. and I said that has been revised over and over again and I am quite sure they don't have the full picture here on earth either.


These people are just as bright as the scholars a few hundred years ago that claimed the earth was flat beyond doubt.



[edit on 25-4-2008 by Shades1035]

Here's some simple probability math!! (assuming the universe is infinite, which I do)

1/infinity (chance of life evolving in universe)= guarenteed.

whatever could happen, has happened and will happen, and is probably happening right now.

what a ridiculous "paper" to write.

reply to post by littlemoe


So I guess that means any civilisation much like ours has a billion years to inhabit as many planets as it can - Forming new civilisations and probably hybrid lifeforms as it goes along.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that at least one ancient race has spread this way.

The thing about mathematics is that it doesn't account for common sense.

[edit on 25/4/08 by Myrdyn]

So, like, this article by Watson has been cited for new threads roughly six times now. The first, roughly seven days ago. ( Correction, 13 days ago )

Paying attention FTW!!!!! w00t!!!!!

[edit on 25-4-2008 by MrPenny]

I'm sorry, this might have already been said, but in case...

It's said that the universe is ever expanding, correct? If that's so, then the actual math required to seriously say that 'there are no ET's exist' would be beyond our capabilities. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

In my honest opinion, this sounds like nonsense. Maybe some misinformation.

Either way, thanks for the laugh.

The earth is billions of years old...whose to say that there aren't planets trillions, zillions years old?????

And...did we forget about other planets having water?????


Nothing against the OP...but this post should be treated as an anti-government piece more than UFO news...

we all know extraterrestrial life is a much higher probability than the government would like us to believe...

Too many unanswered questions and anonymous objects in the sky to say intelligent life doesnt exist....

Math doesn't always add up corectly

After reading through the replies here...I have a feeling that most of the posters didn't bother to read the article. Most of the posts are a knee-jerk reaction to someone daring to voice what is as much a possibility as the universe teaming with life. Even more humorous are those claiming that this is part of the "conspiracy" without offering one shred of proof of that, outside their own narrow-mindedness.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Well, really, neither does Andrew Watson have any proof. It's a bunch of numbers and theories based on one planet. Earth is not the center of the universe. I see no reason why there wouldn't be other life out there. I mean, I suppose it's possible, but I think it's extremely unlikely. Even if life is somewhat rare, then it's probably still out there somewhere.

I think this is kinda funny. A few months from now, someone will do a study that says the universe is teeming with life. A few months after that, someone else will do another study that says we're probably alone in the universe. I've noticed this trend in many areas of science. It seems that people will find the answers they set out to find, even if it involves leaving out certain factors or just ignoring some parts of the study's outcome.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by GrayFox]

Originally posted by PimpyMcgibbins
The earth is billions of years old...whose to say that there aren't planets trillions, zillions years old?????

The age of the universe is approx 14 billion years.

And...did we forget about other planets having water?????

We have no idea how many planets have water however I believe that a good portion of them which orbit in the habitable zone could have water.

Originally posted by GrayFox
Well, really, neither does Andrew Watson have any proof. It's a bunch of numbers and theories based on one planet. Earth is not the center of the universe. I see no reason why there wouldn't be other life out there. I mean, I suppose it's possible, but I think it's extremely unlikely. Even if life is somewhat rare, then it's probably still out there somewhere.

Apparently, you didn't read the article either.

Watson is not saying there is not life beyond Earth. What he is saying it that it is difficult for intelligent life to arise. And while he does not have proof, he is attempting to use a workable model to solve the question. What has anyone else here put forward to support their case, other than feelings, knee-jerk reactions, and insults in regards to the man's intelligence? Certainly nothing scientific.

And while you are right, Earth is not the "center of the universe" Earth is all we know. Therefore Earth is the only model we can use. And we know the universe is a very hostile place; within our own solar system, there are two other planets that fall just outside the Goldilocks Zone, and as far as we know are devoid of any and all life. Life must contend with all sort of planetary and cosmic disasters; considering that 80% of the time life has existed on Earth, it has been microbial. That is a huge window for life to be completely wiped out before it has an opprotunity to evolve into more complex organisms. And even when intelligent life arises, it faces difficulties. According to a new study, 70,000 years ago our ancestors faced extinction.

Given what we know, and there are far more factors than what I included above, it is not unreasonable (or idiotic or stupid as some posters have suggested) to suggest intelligent life is very rare in our galaxy.

Originally posted by Zeptepi
Using his own equation,
Frank Drake's current estimate is 10,000.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're using this as a "HA! In your face!" in regard to the article in the OP.

But all you've done is prove Watson right, in a way. Even if you only count Sun-like stars in our galaxy, maybe 100 million of them, that means only .0001% of those stars support intelligent life. This supports the idea that intelligent life is rare in the galaxy, and Watsons theory that is is unlikely to arise on any given planet.

Originally posted by littlemoe
From discovery.com:
ET Likely Doesn't Exist, Finds Math Model

April 21, 2008 -- Earth-like planets have relatively short windows of opportunity for life to evolve, making it highly doubtful intelligent beings exist elsewhere in the universe, according to newly published research based on a mathematical probability model.

What utter clap trap! So he thinks we're the masters of the universe, huh? The only living beings in this vast universe where there are more galaxies than all the grains of sand on Earth and then some!

“I think the universe must be teeming with sentient life... sooner or later we will make contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence.”
- Prof Wickramasinghe

Humans will never be able to detect extra terrestrial life forms as long as they cling to present scientific paradigms and beliefs.
- Kaalchakra

Yeah, that's right! Mainstream scientific paradigms! Why do we always base our theories and conjectures on what should and must be, according to our templates? Much of extra terrestrial life could very possibly have evolved and manifested in a totally different set of circumstances and environments way beyond our comprehension.

When will these self styled ‘scientists’ try thinking out of the box for a change?

Originally posted by mikesingh
What utter clap trap! So he thinks we're the masters of the universe, huh? The only living beings in this vast universe where there are more galaxies than all the grains of sand on Earth and then some!

When will these self styled ‘scientists’ try thinking out of the box for a change?

You proclaim it clap-trap; perhaps you could tell us why it is such, outside of your knee-jerk emotional response and a few quotes that don't rise beyond the psuedo-intellectual and cliched. What about the argument is scientifically unsound?

Perhaps you are the one who needs to "think outside the box." You are stuck in a "box" (to continue using your tired cliche) and are attacking Watson and his intelligence based on little else than he is not stuck in that box with you.

Originally posted by mikesingh
Why do we always base our theories and conjectures on what should and must be, according to our templates? Much of extra terrestrial life could very possibly have evolved and manifested in a totally different set of circumstances and environments way beyond our comprehension.

Because Earth is all we know. It is all we have proof for; and there is no evidence, what so ever that life arises in conditions other than what is found on Earth. Plus, if it is "beyond our comprehension" than it is nothing we could ever hope of knowing or imagining; thus, wouldn't you conjure it is a bit unreasonable to attempt to plug those any scientific theories?

[edit on 26-4-2008 by SaviorComplex]

[edit on 26-4-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You proclaim it clap-trap; perhaps you could tell us why it is such, outside of your knee-jerk emotional response and a few quotes that don't rise beyond the psuedo-intellectual and cliched. What about the argument is scientifically unsound?

Perhaps you are the one who needs to "think outside the box." You are stuck in a "box" (to continue using your tired cliche) and are attacking Watson and his intelligence based on little else than he is not stuck in that box with you.

Wow! Your command of the language impresses me, I must admit! A sophistical rhetorician inebriated with exuberance of your own verbosity!

Your riposte was as banal as chalk powder. Too much fluff with no meat inside. I wonder what you were trying to prove? Probably your non existant intellectual superiority?

So just cool your radiator some. Let's discuss the topic at hand in a gentlemanly and friendly manner. That's what I've been taught at home and from the first grade at school. You?

Cheers!

There are approximately 100 billion (100,000,000,000) stars in our galaxy.
There are approximately 400 billtion (400,000,000,000) galaxies in our universe.

That means there are approximately 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe.

If approximately 25% of stars have planetary systems (assuming 3 planets per system), that means 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 have planets and there are approximately 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe.

Thats an awful lot of planets to NOT hold life.

Originally posted by mikesingh
Let's discuss the topic at hand in a gentlemanly and friendly manner. That's what I've been taught at home and from the first grade at school. You?

Then tell us what about Watson's theory is clap-trap and sound sound.

Originally posted by jfj123
Thats an awful lot of planets to NOT hold life.

Kind of like our solar system, right? Out of the hundreds of worlds in our solar system, only one has been shown to have life.

This discussion should be nil, only real way to find out is to just start inventing the technology to leave our planet and explore. We can't just sit here and speculate with numbers, and hypothisize with exo planets we havn't been able to actualy see or detect without the use of the wobble effect. What about stars that we don't detect a wobble. What if, the alien life has evolved beyond radio, and we can't detect it because our recievers won't pick it up. Maybe there is chatter everywhere, we just don't know how to hear it. Or they know we are listening so they have a way to avoid being heard. I can accept that we may be the genisis of the universe, but without the proof, which no one can really provide unless an alien craft lands in a major metropolitan area and says "How you doin?" I know, a lot of "what if's and maybes" but thats where we really stand. I'd love it to know that someone was out there watching us, even as creepy as it seems, still nice to know someone is there.

I think the Drake Equationpost made earlier is at the heart of the matter.

Really anyone of us here fooling around with that can come up with as scientifically valid theory as this was.

Amen to all you said the only way to settle this is to get out there and find the answers

reply to post by SaviorComplex


You said it yourself, our world is their only "evidence", it is all they have to go on. Which is proof that we have no business stating claim of knowledge we don't posess. Thats where thinking outside of the box comes into play. You really are the one in a box. The best evidence of intelligent life we have is....us, we are all the proof we need, the fact that we made it, we are here and we are alive meens that such a thing is in fact possible. And the fact that we know it is possible meens that it is a fact that it is possible elsewhere, maybe rare, but it is a fact that it is possible. If it weren't possible, we wouldn't be here. There is no argument, ofcourse there is life somewhere out there. We are the proof.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by Sheeper]