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.

 

Intelligent life could be thriving on 40,000 planets

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Found this interesting Article:

Intelligent life could be thriving on 40,000 planets


Science’s quest to discover life on Mars has so far failed to find even one little green man. But not to worry. Aliens could be alive and well on almost 40,000 other planets. Researchers have calculated that up to 37,964 worlds in our galaxy are hospitable enough to be home to creatures at least as intelligent as ourselves. This planet, located near the centre of the Milky Way about 20,000 light years from us, is just one of the 40,000 which could be harbouring intelligent life This planet, located near the centre of the Milky Way about 20,000 light years from us, is just one of the 40,000 which could be harbouring intelligent life Astrophysicist Duncan Forgan created a computer programme that collated all the data on the 330 or so planets known to man and worked out what proportion would have conditions suitable for life. The estimate, which took into account factors such as temperature and availability of water and minerals, was then extrapolated across the Milky Way. Three scenarios of how life could develop were also taken into account. The first - that it is difficult for life to form but easy for it to evolve - concluded there are at least 361 planets harbouring intelligent life. The second, which assumed that life is easily formed but struggles to develop further, came up with a total of 31,513. The third scenario, which assumes that life can be passed from planet to planet with the help of asteroids, saw the total rocket to almost 38,000, the Journal of Astrobiology reports. What is more, these lifeforms would not be mere amoeba wriggling on the end of a microscope but fully-fledged aliens, because the scientists' definition of intelligent life is a species at least as advanced as humans.


Are they trying to prepare or condition our mind that we may find life on other planet very sooooon?
I was sick and tired of hearing scientist saying that they have discovered a new planet but may not support life because the planet is too big, too hot, has no water, etc etc etc……now why this sudden shift to come and say well there may be about 40,000 planet harboring life….




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I wouldn't say we are being conditioned. Stories like this one are not new...people have been talking seriously about the potential large number of intelligent-life sustaining planets in our galaxy for over 50 years now. The famous "Drake Equation", which was the first attempt to quantify how many planets in our galaxy could have intelligent life, was developed way back in 1960.

Granted, this new number of "40,000 planets" is a new calculation based on recent data, but the idea that the galaxy could harbor many intelligent aliens is not something that is just recently being talked about. This is simply a "new take" on an old idea.

You could have asked the same question in 1960: "are we being prepared or conditioned".


[edit on 2/5/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

The third scenario, which assumes that life can be passed from planet to planet with the help of asteroids, saw the total rocket to almost 38,000

I have to wonder if that "assumption" includes asteroids passing life between systems. That's what it sounds like, and to me, that's an absurd assumption. What proportion of asteroids will break orbit from its parent star? What proportion of those will contain any life at the beginning of the journey? What proportion of those will happen to be captured by another solar system containing a habitable planet? What proportion of those will still contain any trace of viable material after millions of years in transit? What proportion of those will happen to land on the planet habitable to that kind of life without annihilating it? I don't see how you could get 38,000 out of that.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Wow as much as I would like to say how amazing this is and yes we are being prepared for that faithful day when we are told about how we are being contacted by aliens in reality that study isn’t really accurate at all is it


Astrophysicist Duncan Forgan created a computer programme that collated all the data on the 330 or so planets known to man and worked out what proportion would have conditions suitable for life.


that line proofs it because it says that this information came out of a computer programme and not real life so they are just estimating that there could be lots of life out there or that there should be anyway but sadly it doesn’t prove it in anyway whatsoever

also no I don’t think we are being conditioned in anyway from this information now if it made it into the newspapers or headline news then ye maybe we would be because they would really be letting everyone know it then but this way no sorry I don’t buy it just yet would be nice but no concrete of a UFO today

[edit on 5/2/2009 by Anti - Government]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Alien life could be thriving on 40,000 planets. . .

Then again, alien life may not be thriving on 40,000 planets!
It's all "maybe's", "could be's", probably". . . Unfortunately using such terminology doesn't take us any closer to discovering if intelligent life is out there somewhere in the cosmos. Anyway, before we worry about alien intelligent life perhaps we should search for some earth-bound intelligent life first?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
I have to wonder if that "assumption" includes asteroids passing life between systems. That's what it sounds like, and to me, that's an absurd assumption. What proportion of asteroids will break orbit from its parent star?


I don't think it's that absurd when you consider the scale of larger collisions that occur from time to time, for instance the collision that is supposed to have created the asteroid belt. Some rocks must be ejected at more than adequate escape velocities. The frequency of such events is obviously quite low in our experience based on this solar system, but perhaps there are many more solar systems that are 'over populated' with objects and collisions are more common.



Originally posted by ngchunter
What proportion of those will contain any life at the beginning of the journey? What proportion of those will happen to be captured by another solar system containing a habitable planet? What proportion of those will still contain any trace of viable material after millions of years in transit? What proportion of those will happen to land on the planet habitable to that kind of life without annihilating it? I don't see how you could get 38,000 out of that.


It would certainly be interesting to know some of the values they used and why they decided to go with particular values.

What I do know, is that life is constantly surprising us with how tough it is, and how it is able to not only live, but thrive in even the most inhospitable surroundings!

If we know it's tough, and that it can be dispersed easily (albeit fairly infrequently) on a large scale, then you'd expect there to be quite a bit out there... what's 38,000 stars as a percentage of the total?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
I don't think it's that absurd when you consider the scale of larger collisions that occur from time to time, for instance the collision that is supposed to have created the asteroid belt. Some rocks must be ejected at more than adequate escape velocities.

That's true, but the rocks that were ejected were most likely a small percentage of all rocks generated by the event. Also, it's not generally believed that there was any life present on the bodies involved before the impact. My main point about the proportion of rocks that will break orbit is that they should be far fewer in number than the amount that will remain gravitationally bound, not that the former won't happen at all.


The frequency of such events is obviously quite low in our experience based on this solar system, but perhaps there are many more solar systems that are 'over populated' with objects and collisions are more common.

That's true, but it seems like it might be harder for life to originate out of a system where collisions are very common. There's probably some way to describe it with a formula where the probability of life goes down as collisions increase, but the probability of a rock being ejected goes up at the same time. There must be some "equlibrium state" where the two factors balance for the greatest possible chance of a life-filled rock being ejected. There's no known reason why nature would drive itself to that equilibrium though, so it would just be an academic exercise to understand what kind of systems would produce the most "life-filled ejection events."


What I do know, is that life is constantly surprising us with how tough it is, and how it is able to not only live, but thrive in even the most inhospitable surroundings!

It's true that life is tough, but I would speculate that cosmic radiation absorbed over millions or billions of years spent in transit is too much even for a spore (space is really big, the chance for interstellar collisions is incredibly low so it'll need lots of time to find its way to a chance collision).
www.springerlink.com...
I could be wrong about that, but no known biological material can survive cosmic radiation exposure forever.


what's 38,000 stars as a percentage of the total?

95% They started from the assumption that only 40000 planets can harbor intelligent life and based on their values 38000 would get it with asteroid seeding. 95% seems waaay too high to me given that mechanism.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
It is obvious the establishment knows many answers and presents them as rhetorical questions to the general public.

As for the notion it will take 300-400 years for first communication, I believe it is a fallacy. 100 is more a reasonable estimation, if the aliens are as advanced as humans.

One cannot notice, however, all this wonderful and positive news about UFOs and Aliens coming to the public knowledge after NASA vowed to build a permanent moon base. Hmm.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
So what's to stop some alien radio enthusiast from building his own transmitter or laser and sending out his own message? The government or establishment can't control all the signals that we recieve anymore than they can control what I see through my own telescopes



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 


Precisely nothing can stop you from doing just that. If you succeed though, I for one will welcome our new starship trooper bug overlords and vote that we offer you as the first sacrifice to appease them... /sarc

All kidding aside, nothing could stop or forestall contact if contact were going to happen, but nothing we know of could speed it up either. To most of our own galaxy we're completely "silent" at the moment. Think about that, imagine you live in another arm of the galaxy and you have more technology than we could dream of for this century. No matter how big your telescope or how big your dish, the earth looks primitive, no industrial revolution, and depending on how far away you are, no developed civilizations either. If there were another civilization at our stage of development living near the orion nebula, they could listen to our solar system all they wanted and not hear the first radio transmissions for another 1,200 years (the converse would also be true). If you took a super powerful laser and aimed it a habital-looking planet in our galaxy a close 500 ly away, even if there are killer bugs who are hungry for a fresh human meal, it's going to take them another 500 years just to see your dinner bell. That's why even the most optimistic scenarios for intelligent life's prevalence in our galaxy do not necessarily correlate to first contact being made any time soon.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
LOL..my overlords might go easy on you if you send me that big goto scope. But you have to do it in the next 24hrs to stay in my good graces!

Also what I meant to say was that what if an alien amateur on another world sent us a message?

[edit on 6-2-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

Quite true.

The only civilizations that would be able to hear our radio transmissions would be within a 100 LY radius of Earth -- and a 100 LY radius barely gets us out of our local neighborhood.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
This is the sort of thing we should be talking about a lot more!

The next question is, how are we going to get there?

S+F Regards S_G



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
That's true, but the rocks that were ejected were most likely a small percentage of all rocks generated by the event. Also, it's not generally believed that there was any life present on the bodies involved before the impact. My main point about the proportion of rocks that will break orbit is that they should be far fewer in number than the amount that will remain gravitationally bound, not that the former won't happen at all.


A small percentage of a very large body its still probably going to be 100s of thousands of potentially 'seed bearing packages'... if not more.

If the same kind of collision happened with the Earth now, well, we know bacteria have been found up to 2 miles deep in Earth's crust. I suspect that we will find them even deeper as we explore more.

Agreed, that the collision in the example I gave probably (as far as we know anyway) did not qualify, but that was just an example to paint a picture of the kind of scale of collision that could disperse life far and wide.



Originally posted by ngchunter
That's true, but it seems like it might be harder for life to originate out of a system where collisions are very common. There's probably some way to describe it with a formula where the probability of life goes down as collisions increase, but the probability of a rock being ejected goes up at the same time. There must be some "equlibrium state" where the two factors balance for the greatest possible chance of a life-filled rock being ejected. There's no known reason why nature would drive itself to that equilibrium though, so it would just be an academic exercise to understand what kind of systems would produce the most "life-filled ejection events."


Good points, and I pretty much agree with them all. There is definitely an optimum balance between chaos and order that would allow life to spread and grow.

Obviously, too chaotic, and life will not be able to gain a foothold, but one school of thought says that life may not have evolved, or at the very least 'exploded' in the way that it did here on Earth without the help of large scale impacts.

So as well as seeding life, impacts are thought to stimulate evolution, by creating 'gaps' (niches) via extinction events, which other species then 'colonize' by evolving in order to exploit the new opportunities awaiting them. This results in 'diversification', ie an increase in the verity of life and number of distinct species.

It seems illogical at first, but by taking one step backwards, life can 'leap' many steps forwards. This has been shown to be true by the fossil record of previous extinctions, as I'm sure you are aware.

The implications of this, are that life becomes better able to withstand extreme conditions, since the more species there are, the better the chance that some will be adapted to survive a particular event.

Nature has an inbuilt mechanism in this way, that says "if you don't kill it, it will come back 10 times stronger". You only have to look at whats going on with super-bugs/antibiotics at the moment to see it in action.

So, this complicates things quite significantly, as I'm sure you can appreciate. It means that most people will significantly underestimate the survival response of life in extreme situations.



Originally posted by ngchunter
It's true that life is tough, but I would speculate that cosmic radiation absorbed over millions or billions of years spent in transit is too much even for a spore (space is really big, the chance for interstellar collisions is incredibly low so it'll need lots of time to find its way to a chance collision).
www.springerlink.com...
I could be wrong about that, but no known biological material can survive cosmic radiation exposure forever.


Agree with you up to a point...

If life is deep inside a large rock, it would be well shielded against all but the highest energy particles. We could be talking about 10's of millions or even billions of bacteria/individual organisms in a few cubic meters of rock. The odds that all would not survive, even perhaps 10's of millions of years in deep space, would be quite low I think, and it does seem as if this optimism is shared by the researchers who plugged in this new data to Drake's equation (in one possible scenario at least).

Perhaps there is even life that has evolved special adaptations to survive just the type of radiation that is most likely to kill other life (ie. high energy cosmic rays). That is a very interesting possibility I think!

We know that after Chernobyl, some of the most radioactive parts still had fungi thriving, despite constant high doses of radiation. Perhaps this is some of the new data that has been fed into the equation now?



Originally posted by ngchunter
95% They started from the assumption that only 40000 planets can harbor intelligent life and based on their values 38000 would get it with asteroid seeding. 95% seems waaay too high to me given that mechanism.


Thanks NG. I understand now. For some reason I was thinking in terms of percentage of stars in the galaxy.

That does seem high at first glance... and perhaps even at second!

But, given the above, and an optimistic scenario...

Also, if you consider that live is basically based on a positive-feedback mechanism. eg. look at exponential growth in bacteria, and I think this also translates well from a small scale to a large scale. The more life there is, the faster it spreads, and the faster it increases it's rate of spread.

However, as you mentioned, the distances involved would hamper the spread, so although we couldn't call it exponential growth, but perhaps something like 'delayed-exponential growth' might be more appropriate instead.

Perhaps in cases like this it's pointless in worrying about the timescale involved, since it's hard to guess how well adapted to interstellar travel life could be, and although the universe is a big place, for something effectively in 'deep-freeze', there is 'all the time in the world' to get to wherever it's going - in most cases ending up as a puff of plasma on the surface of star I would guess.

But it only takes one rock to find it's target and then explode in the atmosphere, and scatter rocks over a wide area...

Canada last November, Alaska, Sweden, and possibly Saudi Arabia so far this year, and that's just the larger ones we know about.

Perhaps I'm a little over optimistic about life's ability to survive, but I'm just going on my experience here, and the fact that life continues to stun and shock us with the discoveries of ways in which it can survive.

I've always been a big fan of sayings, and a couple seem appropriate here:

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Life is often stranger than fiction.




[edit on 6-2-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 



Why not send a microscope with a digital camera attached to SEE life forms, if any, instead of these stupid ,pointless chemical tests which will be subject to a near infinite number of possible interpretations due to the near infinite combinations and permutations of the the multitudious possible chemical reactions possible with a 100 elements therefore making the whole mission exercise pointless and self defeating.

Remember the Viking chemical experiments 30 years ago and the endless SPECULATION of the chemical results sent then?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by xSMOKING_GUNx
 


The practical method is based on a paradox of an advance civilization: if these "aliens" have the technology to a) detect radio signals and b)travel across the universe (UFO phenomena) then we let them come to us.

Which is potentially dangerous because we'd have no knowledge, or the technology, to determined "who" is coming.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
why is it dangerous?

what can they do?

America has 128000 nukes.

we can easily destroy the planet mercury.

We also have lasers now.

we can easily destroy any aliens easily.

we should establish a nuclear base on the moon and mars asap.
and destroy the aliens if they invade our territory.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
we can easily destroy any aliens easily.


To travel across light years would mean the "aliens" would have weaponry technology more advance as us.

We wouldn't stand a chance.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Alien life could be thriving on 40,000 planets. . .

Then again, alien life may not be thriving on 40,000 planets!
It's all "maybe's", "could be's", probably". . . Unfortunately using such terminology doesn't take us any closer to discovering if intelligent life is out there somewhere in the cosmos. Anyway, before we worry about alien intelligent life perhaps we should search for some earth-bound intelligent life first?


Yeah, this.

Don't think we're going to see anything beside humans and animals in a while;D



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
You make good points, I have just one bone though. The larger a rock, the more energy needed to eject it. Very large rocks will be less likely to be ejected completely.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join