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.

 

Why I Believe We Are Not Alone In The Universe – Intelligent Discussion

page: 10
55
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   
i love the Hubble piccies


i'll just say this:
Yes. I believe that we are not alone.

and

i believe that we must accept our existence as far as ever it is possible; everything, even the unheard of, must be possible there.
i think that the nature of the existence of every single thing, every single form is entirely and inexplicably unfathomable in all its glory




to put it.. briefly




posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Dave Rabbit
 


Scientifically speaking, since life as we know it did develop in this planet, what scientific ground can then be put forth to judge the possibility of the same thing occuring on other parts of the incredibly vast universe as something impossible?

Having said that, I also wonder why we tend to think,apriori-ly, that other life forms in the universe must be more advanced than us? As well as why we tend to think that they must be somewhat 'hominid' in appearance (2 arms,2 legs, bipedal etc etc)?Is there any scientific proof that they cannot be shaped completely different?

And those are truly humbling pictures you've post! Stared!



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
We all know that life is all around the universe, but without going faster than light we may never find it.

The closest star is 40 light years away. If i send a hello message i`ll get the response in 80 years and by the time i get to something like how do you look? or Are you carbon based ? we (or they) might no longer be there.

The biggest problem is than mankind is a fluke. We were pray, we were pet food. Only prey like organisms evolved high brainpower. Dolphins are smart, but they didn`t need to be smarter the same rule applies to rats and bees.

In order to become an intelligent species there are a few rules.
1 warm blooded
2 have a small number of descendants (max 15 in a lifetime)
3 have an individual intelligence (bees are smart as a hive, yet useless on their own)
4 weak natural defense or offensive traits (otherwise what is the use to evolve intelligence)

Life surely exists, otherwise God exists and we go to hell.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
See, again, this is where your logic breaks down. Just because there are probably a billion or more Earth-like planets out there, what makes you think that life just "automatically" has to form on them? Where are your statistics for that?


Who said anything about "automatically"?
Arguing probability is just plain ridiculous. You either believe in the Law of Averages or you don't.

Another life form could be anything from bio-carbon based to pure energy.

Why don't you post something constructive that you researched instead of trying to de-bunk someones theory or belief?
Let's see some of your research discounting anything I've posted.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakman
Why don't you post something constructive that you researched instead of trying to de-bunk someones theory or belief?
Let's see some of your research discounting anything I've posted.


What kind of research would you like me to present? Here's a statistic:

Number of planets or moons with life known to exist on them: 1
Number of other forms of life found anywhere else but here on Earth: 0

You can count all the stars in the sky, but that doesn't alter the fact that other than Earth, we don't know of life on any of them or their associated planets. Am I wrong? Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so, I'd love to see it.

Also at the moment, we have no clue as to how life forms or was formed. Point me to a site or study that figured that out. That if you mix such and such a combination of chemicals together and shake it and run electricity through it, it forms itself into a living thing. Amino acids, sure. But amino acids are not alive, by any means.

Yes, because we know life exists here, we know life is at the very least possible. As to its probability, we don't know anything. How long does it take a pond of chemical goo to form into a living thing, on average? Don't know. Will it eventually happen every time? Don't know. How can we make any kind of assumption about what might or might not happen on another planet when we don't even know what happened or how it happened on our planet?

I'm not being negative here, just because I disagree with the way you try to justify your belief in life elsewhere in the universe. All I'm doing is pointing out what we know and what we don't know. You can believe anything you want. Belief is something you accept as true when you don't have the facts. You're free to believe in God or the Tooth Fairy for all I care. But I'm just as free to point out where those things upon which you base that belief don't add up. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

As far as I know, there certainly might be life elsewhere. But at this point, based on the available evidence and given what we currently know, it's equally possible that there is absolutely none.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by KembaraLangit
Scientifically speaking, since life as we know it did develop in this planet, what scientific ground can then be put forth to judge the possibility of the same thing occuring on other parts of the incredibly vast universe as something impossible?


"Impossibility" can't be proven, because it's a negative. The only way to say that there is absolutely no life anywhere else in the universe is to look in every nook and cranny in the entire universe, and determine that there's no life there. Which is if not impossible, at least impractical.

Yes, life developed on this planet. That's something we can definitely prove.

But unless we know how it happened, there's simply no way to estimate the probability of it happening somewhere else.

The best you might be able to do is to calculate all of the possible random interactions of all atoms, molecules, and chemical compounds in the universe from the beginning of time until now that would result in those things forming into the functional shape of a living thing, such as a bacterium (or amoeba, or elephant, for that matter). And not just the shape of a bacterium, either. One that is alive. Talk about "astronomical!"

And then what are the odds of that happening twice?


[edit on 10-10-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Nohup, you make valid pints(edit...I meant to write 'points'...but I stet because it's funnier!) in the 'argument' about the abiility of life to exist beyond what we already know, here on the Earth.

I think you touched upon the 'electricity' aspect, when you mentioned lightning. This likely harkens back to an experiment in the 1960s, when various normally-occuring chemicals were shown, in a Lab experiment, to produce amino acid chains when electricity was introduced.

I'd refer everyone interested in this subject to the concept of 'abiogenisis'....which is one of the best-produced concepts of how life develops, based on simple chemical reactions, that are well-known.

What we must strive to remember is the incredible SIZE of the Universe. And, the age of the Universe. These two concepts require an intelligent person to realize that much is possible, even if our imaginations tend to preclude the 'possibilities'.

BUT, I will pull back from the Universe, per se, and focus on just our Galaxy. We know, from Astronomers, that our Sun is a Main Sequence star of either third, or possibly fourth generation. The fusion of the First Generation stars produced all of the elements we know of today, after billions of years....and each generation of subsequent stars produced more and more complex, and 'heavier' elements.

We have a Periodic Table of what? About 108 naturally occuring elements? Carbon, number 8 (?) is the basis for all of life on Earth. Do you really think that carbon wasn't formed in other parts of the Galaxy?

No, I don't think you believe that. I think that sometimes, it's fun to debate, and take an opposite view, just for the excercise.



[edit on 10/10/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Who's to say carbon is the only element which can be used as a basis? Silicon, it's my admittedly limited understanding, can also be a base. Under certain circumstances who knows what else?

Truthfully, I'd be shocked if there wasn't life of some sort out there...




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


I agree, 'Seagull'.....silicon is similar to carbon, in its base element.

Of course, we know of the 'Horta', a silicon-based imaginary life-from from Star Trek...

Of course, 'Star Trek' has also proposed a 'copper-based' life form (the Vulcans) who have 'greenish' blood.....when exposed to oxygen....(funny that OUR blood is actually BLUISH unitl exposed to Oxygen...)

Back to Star Trek....another 'invented' species, the 'Andorians'....with 'blue' blood. Hmmmmmm.....

Haven't we heard of so-called 'Blue-Bloods' before????

Star Trek has a lot of texture in it, and it needs to be seen as a truly in-depth science fiction aspect of the current huamn condiition.

EDIT....first of all, I forgot that 'seagull' was a "mod".....I did NOT respond in that way, just just because it was a Mod!!! I figured it out, during this 'edit'....but, reason I EDITED was, I had a typo....and I left it there, rather than fixing it....I mispelled 'human'. I think it's quite obvious.

[edit on 10/11/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Good point Seagull, there are other elements that are suitable to form the kinds of chains and rings that seem to be necessary to form compound that can carry complex information.

Could you have creatures who were made of simple Elements? Could you have 'hydrogen' creatures? Maybe, but they'd be very different than what we know as sentient life. Under different amounts of temperature and pressure, gases like hydrogen and helium can be classed as metallic.

en.wikipedia.org...

One could go on to speculate and even give scientific support for sentient life in an almost unlimited array of possibilities. There could be intelligent trees or intelligent mountains. I don't mean Earth mountain, but an analogous form.

However, if the life is too different than we, then we might not be able to detect it, might not be able to communicate and we might not be able to relate on any level.

So I think that narrows it down some and invokes an additional criteria. IOW, what good is it to detect an intelligent life form which is analogus to a geological entity and whose life is based on a completely different time scale, perhaps measured in millions of years. We'd have to wait for generations for them to send us one thought, I'd think. Just like the Scalosians memory-alpha.org... who live in a blink of an eye, we have to share a similar time-scale.

My point is that in order for any "life" form we meet to be meaningful, it has to have a fairly narrow range of characteristics and make up, because without some common ground, we'd be unable to relate.

So add another item to the list, after 'they'd have to be alive during the time we are alive'. They'd have to be fairly similar to us.

This doesn't mean they have to look like us or think like we do. For purposes of comparison, Dolphins are within this narrow range.

When I say 'narrow' I mean in relation to the whole list of possibilities, which are probably nearly endless, from gas bags, to space-faring whales, to sentient mountains to metallic hydrogen creatures.

In addition our living conditions would have to be fairly similar, though they could have 'encounter suits' like the Vorlons.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, I say narrow, but as I type this it seems there could be ways found to make things work so we never know.

We're able to imagine a lot of different possibilities. Witness the range of creatures you see in science fiction. And, we know as they say possibilities are going to be stranger than we -can- imagine.

Alas, it's fun to speculate, but I fear that we are in too deep a quarantine, with the distances, time, vacuum, cold, radiation and other problems, to ever meet any other sentients. And as some have said, it doesn't seem that in general evolution has any specific pressure to select for intelligence. It's probably more slanted towards claws and teeth and stuff like that. We are a fluke.

Sorry to ramble.


2 cents.





As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 12/10/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Like many have expressed already I believe we aren't alone in the universe because the odds against it truly are staggering. The idea that we are the ONLY sentient/intelligent beings in the HUGE expanse of space is ridiculous and as many have stated, arrogant and naive.

That's the main reason, though there are others both scientific and not so scientific


Those are beautiful nebula pictures as well





posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Another consideration (there are lots of them if you think about it) would include temperament.

Though Trek had 'emotionless Vulcans', actually they were full of emotion. They were more 'stoic' than devoid of emotion.

If we met a truly emotionless sentient species I don't think we'd like them.

Wouldn't that be a hoot? We meet the first sentient species and though they aren't warlike or repulsive or dangerous, we were so different in some emotional or cultural way that we couldn't stand each other just on temperament or some intangible that we'd agree to go our separate ways and never meet again.


That could make an interesting sci-fi story, ya know.

So in summary, though there could be a wide range of variability if they were too different from us it could be a deal-breaker. Too big, too small, too fast, too slow, too bizarre, too hot, too cold.

Another irony: what if it turned out that dolphins and whales were the closest to us in the whole galaxy. And here we are eating them and catching them in nets. I get a feeling that if we survive our distant ancestors will look back at us and just shake their heads.

In fact, it may be that the -real- dominant species that develops space faring ability is an cataclysm away. Just as an intelligent dinosaur might have mused back before the last extinction, praying to his dinosaur god, thinking that he'd be the one, we might not be the 'one'.

In another 50 million years, a new species of intelligent dolphin, with a perfect temperament and radiation resistance to go into space, might construct a ship and fly off to meet another race of like-minded creatures in the Andromeda galaxy and all our ideas and moray and dogmas will be lost.





As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by justgeneric
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I don't think you can apply 'odds' or probability to something like this. If you look at the probability that we exist they are probably so big as to make it impossible.

You have to look at different things.

For instance, for the sake of argument, what if for every 1000 galaxies there is only one sentient race? That means that sentience is rare - extremely rare, right?

But if there are 500 billion galaxies in the universe and 1 in 1000 are inhabited by one race, then there are 500 million races. So looking at it that way the Universe seems to be teeming with life.

So now we have a paradox. We're dealing with such big numbers but it's almost like bacteria. There might be 10e3 bacteria per centimeter left on an instrument which we consider sterile.

500 million sentient races hidden in among 500 billion Galaxies (one per Galaxy for our scenario) would be impossible to find. Remember they're on one planet in that Galaxy and there are billions of planets per Galaxy.

Another way 'odds' don't relate is the idea of synchronicity and distance. If there is one sentient race on a planet in a Galaxy 100 million light years from here, the truth is we're never going to meet. (for all practical purposes). And if we did try to meet it would take a billion years to travel there at 90% the speed of light. So they'd be dead and gone by the time we got there.

So to say 'we are not alone' meaning sentient life that we could communicate with and relate to, there has to be a certain density.

This means unless there are millions of sentient races per galaxy and each and every galaxy is inhabited (that is of a certain age - not a stellar nursery - or isn't an example of a supernova remnant or something like that) then for all practical purposes we -are- alone. Alone as in 'on a desert island'. There are people out there but on an island you're 'alone'. To say we're not 'alone' there has to be some certainty that we have a good chance of meeting. I just don't see this as likely.

Anyway sorry to ramble...hope this makes sense.





As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 12/10/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Badge....that is exactly the point!

Think about it....what happens when you 'suppress' your emotions?

OK, Gene Roddenberry wished to explore, in his early developmental concepts of Star Trek, the inherent juxtapositons between a character, such as Spock, raised in an environment that, when he was exposed to other cultures, flew in the face of what he was taught to believe in.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Amazing pictures.

And all we got was a swiss cheese moon....

Of all the "impossibly beautiful" things this universe beholds why couldn't we get a better view in our night skies?? I mean at least another moon or something...

Sheesh what luck.

The Sombrero Galaxy is by far my favorite. Have it as my wallpaper...800 billion suns!?
Unfathomable!

There is no chance, zippo, that we are the only ones. To even think that suggests insanity.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The thing is....we SAW how Vulcans evolved, ...not in the Kirk era....but BEFORE Kirk.....that was the entirety of the 'ENTERPRISE' saga.....part of the entire fulcrum of the Star Trek canon....yes, some of the original 'canons' were broken, but only under special circumstances....



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by justgeneric
 






[edit on 12/10/2008 by Badge01]



"odds" = figure of speech.

Thanks!



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Right, but I'm talking about a story where the lack of emotion is a lot starker and the difference more dramatic than anything the GWBOTG had in mind.

A machine would be one example. If a machine had no emotions and didn't have any of Asimov's rules of robotics built in then they'd be too dangerous to be around. Like the plot of STTM-1 and V'ger, they'd see us as biological infestations and they'd likely try to reduce us to hydrocarbons and use us as fuel.

But I'm talking about a truly repellent (to us) and non-emotional race but one (for the sake of the story) wouldn't be dangerous outright.

It would be impossible to relate and we'd find each other so repulsive, I think that we wouldn't be able to be in the same room, let alone the same Galaxy.

Though GWBOTG wanted that juxtaposition, he also knew that there had to be emotion and lots of it. So he just went with stoic and called it no emotion.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 12/10/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by justgeneric
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Well by 'figure of speech' what do you mean? ISTM that saying that removes the meaning.

I don't mean to put down your thought or back you into a corner. I'm just saying that we need to use other terms.

To say 'the odds are' you seem to be saying that there's some inherent likelihood and I'm saying 'what is that?' and my thought was there isn't any 'odds'. The Universe/Galaxy seems not to favor intelligence and it seems not to favor us meeting. But I do think it is probably full of 'life'. The life is probably mostly microscopic, one-celled organisms and simple forms

The likelihood of a sentient race existing that we could relate to is probably very, very low. Couple this with 'finding them' and the chances are reduced to near-impossible.

If there is indeed one race per 10 Galaxies - a conservative estimate using Drake's equation, then they're going to be far rarer than any needle in a haystack.

And, they are going to be so far apart that we couldn't meet if we wanted to - there's not enough time.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 12/10/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


I think you whole point comes down to the old concept of, if you can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, ect., then it must not exist, and this line of logic has bee proven wrong over and over again. When some one says odds are, they are talking about mathematica probability, which has been very effective in guiding science. You seem to want to discuss this in terms of absolute certainty, and that doesn't exist. When you start demanding absolute proof, you might want to consider that there is no absolute proof that you even exist. You could be a figment of some other beings imagination, or a program in a computer. Science measures things in terms of uncertainty. How uncertain can you be that there is not intelligent life out there in space on other planets. When you look at the evidence, there is far more evidence to support the idea that life exists on other planets than that it does not.

As far as the evidence of other intelligent beings in the universe, there is considerable evidence.

First of all, we have found other planets, and most recently an Earth sized planet that looks like it might be in a position to evolve like like Earth evolved life. The only reason we haven't discovered more planets is because we have always lacked the instrumentation capable of detecting other planets in other star systems. With our limited instrumentation, the fact that we have discovered other planets greatly increases the odds that there are numerous other planets. In addition, there are Earth sized satelites evolving around other planets in our very own solar system, so these heavenly sized bodies do exist.

Everywhere we have looked we have found life, from the hottest to the coldest environments, the highest and the lowest, and even in space. Considering that we have found living organisms even in the harshest of environments, it is logical to conclude that this is fairly consistent throughout a large part of our galaxy, and the universe. From what we are able to detect, most of our galaxy is very similar to our solar system. It is very reasonable to think that there are other systems in which planets have existed as long as the Earth has existed, it not longer, whic are hospitable for life, as our own planet is, on which life forms were able to thrive and evolve as they have on our own planet. By most scientific reasoning, if it can be done once, it can be repeated.

The next thing is to look at the historical record of stories of encounters with advanced life forms. There are numerous historical records which tell of beings coming from the sky, many around the globe that describe similar looking beings. In courts of law, eye witness testimony is considered to be evidence. Why shouldn't some of these numerous accounts of encounters with the third kind be considered as evidence; especially when the people telling the tales are normal sane people, and only their tales of these encounters make them seem to be suffering from some kind of delusions.

I think the real question is, how uncertain can you be that their is not other intelligent life in our universe? How uncertain can you be that our planet has not been visited by intelligent beings from other planets?



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join