ET Likely Doesn't Exist, Finds Math Model

If mankind is the best that God can do in this infinite universe, then we need to find a better God.

Starred and flagged just because I found the discussion good and the subject interesting.

I believe ET exists. It may very well be nothing more than a slug on some distant planet a billion light years from here, but that would still be an ET.

reply to post by Xtrozero


It seems the the conflict is the fact they have to "travel" to one another, in a 2D/3D world that maybe the fact but not if one more advanced then us could use a 4D as a gateway to travel (such as wormholes). We're only looking at the world within our own views and not some other advanced form. I just have a difficulty accepting that we're the only intelligent life in this enormous universe, specially with the fact that there is a possibility of 12+ dimensions! This world is much more then meets the eyes, so possibilities are endless!

reply to post by SaviorComplex


To be completely honest with you, even if an EBE walked up to you and tried to communicate with you, most likely you would refuse that reality.

Remember this, proof is what you make of it. I am going to be far more likely to pay heed to the vast numbers of personal accounts of contact, the bits and pieces of not so random evidence practically inundating humanity, the countless mythological tales, astrological technologies from Earth's past civilizations, and the unexplainable sites across this planet that speak of something more intelligent than just humans, rather than a scientist (or even hundreds) with an algorithm or even something more concrete.

Ever hear of what happened to the first scientist who tried to explain the theory of continental drift to his peers? Rather than trying to figure out how the plates of the Earth could shift, they were far more concerned with his broken English and lack of the source of the drift, completely ignored his hard work and solidly documented facts, then proceeded to laugh him out of the room. Now he is widely respected post-mortem, and no one disputes that plate tectonics are real and that continents separated by vast expanses were indeed connected prior.

This is just an example of the very closed minded and resistant attitudes that are prevalent throughout the scientific community. Why would a scientist be harassed, ridiculed and opposed for trying to see if Bigfoot really exists? Because many in the scientific community feel threatened by such attempts. If it is such a waste of time as they say, then why oppose it? Really, Earth science can't truly understand existence until scientists stop accepting what they were told in college and in their society, and take a bold step forward, and those who are too blatant are persecuted for going against the main stream.

My biggest problem with your perspective, is that you are effectively saying that every confessed contactee, every shred of possible evidence, every human on Earth who even remotely believes in intelligent life, and every past recorded event from humans to the dawn of humanity, are foolish, liars, or delusional, and you are basically giving no credit to humanity's capacity to believe as being something more than unenlightened dribble.

Not that I can fully blame you, even Stephen Hawking agrees with you. However, I think that he is not nearly as aware as he would like to pretend to be, and until an extraterrestrial craft crashes into your house or you are abducted and dissected before your very eyes, you will not entertain even a semi-realistic possibility of non-Earth intelligence. I guarantee it.

ET does exist.

I talk to them on a monthly basis.

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

Well, I neither have the time nor inclination to rebut friend Watson. That's HIS theory. Where I'm concerned, it doesn't hold much water. For you, Watson may have provided the final proof that there is no intelligent life in this vast universe!

Carl Sagan estimated that there are a million technological civilizations in our galaxy alone. His more conservative colleague Frank Drake offers the number 10,000. John Oro, a prominent comet researcher, calculates that the Milky Way is sprinkled with hundreds of civilizations. But then comes some Mr Watson who throws a couple of mathematical equations into the mix to try and prove the impossibility of intelligence in this vast almost infinite universe!

But I suggest you have a peek at these two threads of mine, linked below, which are based on scientific facts and not just mathematical mumbo jumbo. I would hasten to add that what’s included there does not provide incontrovertible evidence/proof of ET life forms, but is a step forward to understanding the complexities and structure of alien life, much of which is beyond our present day understanding.

Now if these experiments/discoveries are evidence of the existence of basic life forms in the universe eons ago, it then comes about that natural evolution over billions of years would have resulted in the manifestation of intelligence some probably millions of years more advanced than us. I tend to rely more on logic and common sense than some hare brained mathematical models. But then, that’s just me!

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers!

So blind sided that they deny their very own existance outside Earth, that is something that has yet to be categorized on a world wide level. Mainstream Science has blinded man with a vision that glory persuades truth. They have stopped with the questions that make humans free.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

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

As per Watson…

Earth-like planets have relatively short windows of opportunity for life to evolve. Earth's days are numbered. In another billion years or so, the sun will grow hotter and brighter, toasting our blue world beyond recognition.
dsc.discovery.com...

Well, I have a completely different take on this. When our own Sun begins turning into a red giant, it would start to blow off mass to conserve angular momentum. The result? The Earth will retreat to a more distant, safer orbit. There would be profound effects of the sun’s gravitation which would result in pushing the Earth farther out which would probably continue to remain in a ‘habitable zone’ for possibly hundreds of millions of years more.

I remember reading somewhere that it was extremely difficult to arrive at predictable models in the orbital mechanics that would result during the sun’s expansion phase even using super computers. But it was generally believed that the Earth would not be even ‘singed’, forget about it being destroyed!

As an example, you may be aware that an international team of astronomers from 15 different countries announced the discovery of a planet, published in Nature, called V 391 Pegasi b. Before its parent star transformed into a red giant, it orbited at roughly the same distance as the Earth. As the star expanded, its centre of gravity changed, and the planet's orbit spiraled outward, keeping pace with the changing star.

So, if this is what generally happens to planets if their parent stars become red giants, then what about Watson’s so called mathematical models and his belief that Earth-like planets have relatively short windows of opportunity for life to evolve before they are "toasted beyond recognition"?

Instead, it’s most likely that there is plenty of time for basic life forms on Earth-like planets in the universe to evolve into intelligent life – some billions of years ahead of us in technology! Some may have evolved even before the birth of our Solar System, considering that our universe is approx 14 billion years old! And if we take into account the possibility of life not as we know it , the odds of intelligent life in the universe is mind boggling.

I suggest you do some research before shooting from the hip.

Cheers!


[edit on 27-4-2008 by mikesingh]

The whole purpose of the creations of matter is to allow spirits to remain conscious, express their desires and exhaust their imperfections. With that in mind, why would any part of the creation with an infusion of energy (like the sun) be without life forms? It would serve no purpose. Even the sun (cooler than the earth) is inhabited.

Originally posted by IchiNiSan
Whenever I see these kinds of "report or evidence" then I simply need to shake my head. Scientists, scholars, so-called bright people.

Based on the model, Watson said each stage of evolution had at most a 10 percent chance of occurring, and each development could manifest only after each proceeding step. Further, the evolutionary stepping-stones are spaced evenly throughout Earth's history, Watson added.

It's amazing how closed minded scientists could really believe in a mathematic model with so many unknown variables and factors. We are now talking about only taking some (still incomplete) empirical data of one lousy tiny planet in the whole universe for drafting up these models.

Mankind has not even really explored our own solar system for one (or at least not publicly known). IF only one of the many planets, asteroiids or moons of our solar system has one once-cell organism then all these models can be thrown in the trashcan. Besides, emphasize again, the empirical data of planet Earth is still incomplete and point of discussions.

I could not agree more with these comments!
Mathematical models cannot even accurately predict the weather in 5 days time. To use figures like these is also in complete denial of the Green Bank formula designed by Frank Drake etc.
Further, it is a repeated version of the old arrogance that said we were the physical centre of the universe.

The old "The scientific consensus says....." argument is at best spurious. After all, at one point it was the consensus that the world was flat. It didn't make it any truer then and it certainly isn't now.

Before I bring forward my thoughts on this issue, I'd like to repeat a quote. Unfortunately I forgot who said this but it goes like this.

"There are only two possibilities. Either we are alone in the Universe, or we aren't. In both cases, the implications are profound."

Drake's equations say that there should be lots of ET civilizations around but our Galaxy is a BIG place so even if there were lots of them, the nearest one could still be a mind-boggling distance from us. In the book, The Millenial Project by Marshall T. Savage, which has the subtitle 'Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps', he talks about how Humanity could expand into our solar system with transparent orbiting habitats that contain lots of water and green algae. Eventually, there would be so many of these habitats that the light from our sun would take on a green tinge when it arrives at another star system. He goes on to say that if we look at other stars and galaxies to see if we can see a greenish tinge to the light, then that would be an indication of ET civilizations.

I don't know if anyone has done a systematic survey of our galaxy looking for green light but Savage is of the opinion that there aren't any and that we're alone, at least in this galaxy.

So Drake's equations say there are lots and Savage's theory is that there aren't any. What could explain the lack of empirical data in terms of there being no visible sign of ET civilizations?

Drake's equations are based on radio astronomy. It could be that a technological civilization has only a short window when it uses 'radio' to communicate and therefore the chances of detecting a civilization during that 'window' is very small. Maybe ET civilizations never develop technology in the first place. Dolphins are arguably more intelligent than dogs and as least as intelligent as chimpanzees, maybe more and they haven't developed technology.

Maybe Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End notion is the correct model and civilizations 'vanish' when they evolve into a higher state of consciousness.

If you set aside the UFO phenomenon for the moment, there really isn't any evidence whatsoever that there are ET civilizations out there. What if we really are alone? If that's the case, then aren't we obliged to survive and spread out into the galaxy, thereby transforming nonliving matter into living matter?

Here is a radical theory. In the book, Who Built The Moon, the authors put forward a VERY convincing argument that our moon is an artificial construct with the conclusion that WE ourselves eventually go back in time to build it so that human life could evolve under the right conditions. Wow, what a concept that we are our own Intelligent Designers so to speak. They talk about time loops and other ways of getting around the obvious time travel paradox.

Now let's take the UFO thing into account. What if UFO's are piloted by 'humans' from our future? That neatly takes care of the argument that they can't exist as visitors from another star system because of the distance and speed of light limit.

I guess I'm getting a little off topic here. Above I said that there doesn't seem to be any visible evidence of ET civilizations out there. Maybe there is and we just don't recognize it. Pulsars are a very odd beast. Paul LaViolette's book, Decoding the Message of the Pulsars, says that pulsars are artificial in nature. The evidence could be staring us right in the face and maybe we can't see it. Would a primitive culture recognize the contrails of a high altitude jet as artificial?

I don't think that we can come to any conclusion regarding whether or not there are ET's out there. Let's keep an open mind and try to think outside the box. The obvious answer is probably not the right one.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
I'd like to repeat a quote. Unfortunately I forgot who said this but it goes like this.
"There are only two possibilities. Either we are alone in the Universe, or we aren't. In both cases, the implications are profound."

Arthur C Clarke: Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory

Drake's equations say that there should be lots of ET civilizations around [snip]

So Drake's equations say there are lots and Savage's theory is that there aren't any. What could explain the lack of empirical data in terms of there being no visible sign of ET civilizations?

To be clear Drake's Equations are simply a way to line up the variables in conceptualizing how many Intelligent communicating civilizations might be at large in the Milky Way 4/27/08. The Equation doesn't make any predictions per se. It is a mathematical model that has stood pretty rigorous discourse and it very relevant to the discussion of a wild new mathematical model that does (apparently) make a prediction (of 0).

True, Drake himself used the equation to come up with a 10,000 number but anyone's educated guess is pretty much as valid & should not be seen as the answer the Equation itself necessarily dictates. To demonstrate I used the on-line Equation to come up with 480 civilizations but I don't claim that is anything other than me taking my WAGs with the Equations variables.

Interesting point on the green light Optical SETI is doing something similar today

[edit on 27-4-2008 by Landru]

Originally posted by mikesingh
Well, I have a completely different take on this. When our own Sun begins turning into a red giant, it would start to blow off mass to conserve angular momentum. The result? The Earth will retreat to a more distant, safer orbit. There would be profound effects of the sun’s gravitation which would result in pushing the Earth farther out which would probably continue to remain in a ‘habitable zone’ for possibly hundreds of millions of years more.

But it was generally believed that the Earth would not be even ‘singed’, forget about it being destroyed!

You are right. To an extent.

An Earth-like planet (and in this we mean both composition and distance from its star) could survive its star becoming a red giant. However, the chances for life on the planet are quite different. According to Jonathan Fortney of NASA's Ames Research Center:

"If it were [an Earth-like] planet at that distance, the temperature would be hot enough to destroy life on the surface."

SOURCE

Some of the other unpleasant affects a star becoming a red giant on an Earth-like planet would be:

One way or another, Earth's biosphere will have long been destroyed by the Sun's steady increase in brightness as its hydrogen supply dwindles and its core contracts. Within the next billion years this extra solar energy will cause Earth's oceans to evaporate. Hydrogen from that water will be lost into space and Earth's atmosphere will become like that on Venus, over another billion years.[15] Before the peak of the Sun's Red Giant phase, 7.6 billion years from now, the Earth's surface would have melt, and its atmosphere would have been driven off.

SOURCE

Even if a planet did move into the new habitable zone "hundreds of millions of years" may not be long enough for intelligent life to evolve. For the 3.5 billion years life has existed on Earth, for 80% of the time, it has been microbial. And that is even if the planet is left habitable; that isn't to say that a planet cannot become habitable later on...

en.wikipedia.org...
As an example, you may be aware that an international team of astronomers from 15 different countries announced the discovery of a planet, published in Nature, called V 391 Pegasi b...


Yes I am. And I am sure you are aware that researchers who studied V 392 Pegasi b also said:

The fate of the Earth is less clear because its position is really at the limit: it appears more likely that the Earth will not survive the red giant expansion of the sun either, but it is not for sure."

And

"We shouldn't take too much heart in this -- this planet is larger than Jupiter, so a smaller planet like the Earth could still be vulnerable."

SOURCE

And a new study says the chances of Earth's survival are very low.

Originally posted by GideonHM
To be completely honest with you, even if an EBE walked up to you and tried to communicate with you, most likely you would refuse that reality.

Why do you say this? Because I am skeptical and not convinced by the "evidence'? Isn't that rather narrow-minded of you? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for you to believe that since I am coming to a forum like ATS, that I have an interest and am open to these possibilities?

Originally posted by GideonHM
...the countless mythological tales, astrological technologies from Earth's past civilizations, and the unexplainable sites across this planet that speak of something more intelligent than just humans...you are basically giving no credit to humanity's capacity to believe as being something more than unenlightened dribble.

Actually, I think you're the one who isn't giving any credit to humanity...you are saying humans cannot create stories, create technologies, etc, without the inspiration or assistance of aliens. I have far more faith in humans.

Originally posted by GideonHM
My biggest problem with your perspective, is that you are effectively saying that every confessed contactee, every shred of possible evidence, every human on Earth who even remotely believes in intelligent life, and every past recorded event from humans to the dawn of humanity, are foolish, liars, or delusional...

Actually, I never said anything like that at all. You are putting words in my mouth, and assuming the worst about me simply because I am skeptical.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Why do you say this? Because I am skeptical and not convinced by the "evidence'? Isn't that rather narrow-minded of you? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for you to believe that since I am coming to a forum like ATS, that I have an interest and am open to these possibilities?

What I am saying is that your not being convinced by evidence and how you have been presenting your point of view is evidence towards the viewpoint that any evidence will not convince you. You are using the term skeptic as a cover all term to not open your mind to the possibility that perhaps that algorithm is being presented by a closed minded individual who most likely never considered alternatives to this 10% evolutionary scale perspective. You could easily change my mind in regards to your ability to perceive other alternatives, but I doubt you will and I also doubt that merely because you are on ATS it grants you a willingness to accept an alternate perspective to intelligence outside of Earth. I make it a point to not make assumptions, as I refuse something to be true until I can prove it myself on both sides of an argument. Prove me wrong, and I will gladly concede it to you. Please.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Actually, I think you're the one who isn't giving any credit to humanity...you are saying humans cannot create stories, create technologies, etc, without the inspiration or assistance of aliens. I have far more faith in humans.

That is exactly the opposite of what I said. By no means is every tale or confessed contactee true or real. Many of those cases of abduction are revealed through hypnotism and can be quite dubious in my opinion. There is far too much empirical evidence pointing to intelligent life to just say it is rare because a few scientists believe it so. Humans make up crap all the time, I could sit here and make up hours upon countless hours of mythological tales that have no bearing on the truth.

Also you edited out the part of my post that directly shows that I believe humanity is capable of gaining understanding and using technology without EBE help. I directly referenced plate tectonic theory and gave full credit to the man who was laughed out of the forum where he tried to explain HIS discovery. I made no reference to his being helped by EBEs in any way shape or form. Your saying you have faith in humans because they make up intelligent life is completely contradictory to the point you are trying to make. I value the power of the imagination, but merely by the law of probability (yes I give humanity the credit for discovering it) the odds of every encounter and evidence being not worthy of being believed or at least having a fragment of truth in them is far less logical than even some of the very bizarre creation tales.

Originally posted by GideonHM
My biggest problem with your perspective, is that you are effectively saying that every confessed contactee, every shred of possible evidence, every human on Earth who even remotely believes in intelligent life, and every past recorded event from humans to the dawn of humanity, are foolish, liars, or delusional...and you are basically giving no credit to humanity's capacity to believe as being something more than unenlightened dribble.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Actually, I never said anything like that at all. You are putting words in my mouth, and assuming the worst about me simply because I am skeptical.

[I had to edit out my posts and respond to the posts to conserve space, but this last one is far easier to understand by leaving my post in]

I am not putting words in your mouth, I am identifying the deeper meaning of which you speak. By agreeing with that scientist, thus the wealth of empirical evidence that speaks to the contrary is being disregarded in your mind to support your viewpoint. Tell me, what is the difference in your mind between a skeptic and a naysayer?

I am skeptical of many different views, and no I am not persecuting you (which is what you are saying) because you are skeptical. I find it much easier to intelligently discuss topics with people who do not instantly believe everything they read and hear. Far more than those who discount everything on a given topic in the name of skepticism.
You will believe whatever you want to believe, and that is all you will believe. Period.

I also wish to add that you purposefully edited my last quote which actually changed the meaning of it. Whether or not you did it to just conserve space is irrelevant. That is dishonest, unprofessional, and really unbecoming of any intellectual discussion. Note, I only removed the posts you were quoting and did not change yours at all, I would appreciate the same courtesy.




[edit on 28-4-2008 by GideonHM]

Originally posted by GideonHM
You are using the term skeptic as a cover all term to not open your mind to the possibility that perhaps that algorithm is being presented by a closed minded individual who most likely never considered alternatives to this 10% evolutionary scale perspective...

I would much rather discuss the science, instead of attacking the man based on what is in his heart. Neither of us can know that, and it is ridiculous to call him closed-minded, because we don't know if he is or not. Debate the science, not speculation on whether he is closed-minded or not.

Originally posted by GideonHM
You could easily change my mind in regards to your ability to perceive other alternatives, but I doubt you will and I also doubt that merely because you are on ATS it grants you a willingness to accept an alternate perspective to intelligence outside of Earth. I make it a point to not make assumptions, as I refuse something to be true until I can prove it myself on both sides of an argument. Prove me wrong, and I will gladly concede it to you. Please.

Really now? You don't make assumptions? Just like you don't assume that Watson is closed-minded because he doesn't agree with you. Just like you don't assume I'm closed-minded, unable to percieve other alternatives. Just like you assume I'm a "naysayer." Just like you're not assuming I believe that contactees, abductees, etc are delusional or liars. Just like you don't assume I would deny it even if I met an alien. You're assuming a lot, despite your protests that you don't.

Why do I have to defend my skepticism or prove anything to you? The topic isn't me or my attitudes.

Originally posted by GideonHM
There is far too much empirical evidence pointing to intelligent life to just say it is rare because a few scientists believe it so...

And what empirical evidence would that be?

Originally posted by GideonHM
Also you edited out the part of my post that directly shows that I believe humanity is capable of gaining understanding and using technology without EBE help. I directly referenced plate tectonic theory and gave full credit to the man who was laughed out of the forum where he tried to explain HIS discovery. I made no reference to his being helped by EBEs in any way shape or form...

Actually, you didn't say anything like that at all. You did mention him, but not in reference as how humans can grow or change without alien intervention. You used him in a completely seperate thought, about how dogmatic and ignorant scientists are. And it was used in something completely irrelevant to the topic, yet at the same time, ironic. You are attacking Watson in much the same manner this scientist was attacked. It is not based on his science but rather a personal attack.

Originally posted by GideonHM
I am not putting words in your mouth, I am identifying the deeper meaning of which you speak...

Why not talk about what I said, instead of trying to interpret it or finding "deeper meaning?" Once again, you are making assumptions.

And I am not even going to answer the last question, because I do not have to defend my skepticism. The topic, once again, is not about me.

Originally posted by GideonHM
I also wish to add that you purposefully edited my last quote which actually changed the meaning of it. Whether or not you did it to just conserve space is irrelevant. That is dishonest, unprofessional, and really unbecoming of any intellectual discussion.

I edited two posts together I felt were relevant to one another. You assume I was trying to decieve people. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever run across in my time on ATS. I was not trying to decieve anyone, especially when anyone and everyone can easily scroll up and see your exact quote. Despite your claims that you don't make assumptions, you are once again making an assumption. Stop assuming the worst of people you do not agree with.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


As I already said, you will believe whatever you want to believe, and that is all you will believe. Period.

the article is simply a mainstream science attempt to pre-empt future questions about "intelligent" life... such questions remind them how little the word "intelligent" applies to them... considering there are ten million billion planets, and they have only seen six... the math doesn't support their evaluation...its the same math they used to explain that the planet is flat...the universe circles Earth... and, that politicians are honest and earnest citizens of the community...

Originally posted by MrChipps
I really find it hard to believe that an educated person would believe we are alone in the UNIVERSE. The entire UNIVERSE!!!

Agreed m8.

Originally posted by freighttrain
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

It seems the the conflict is the fact they have to "travel" to one another, in a 2D/3D world that maybe the fact but not if one more advanced then us could use a 4D as a gateway to travel (such as wormholes). We're only looking at the world within our own views and not some other advanced form. I just have a difficulty accepting that we're the only intelligent life in this enormous universe, specially with the fact that there is a possibility of 12+ dimensions! This world is much more then meets the eyes, so possibilities are endless!

Im with you till the dimensions part im a little fussy with talks on those, just for reasons. But like in what you say. so much morre than meets the eye, possibilities are endless.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

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.

Well there aren't that many planets in the solar system and since we haven't explored all of them, we don't know which may or may not hold life.

Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
Ceres
Pluto
Eris

Plus the moons




[edit on 30-4-2008 by jfj123]